445 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2050f79d3486889ee884dc965f0ebd80.mp4 495ed39a6042b6690b1f9c420ca0095d https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/846f380ffdf9894315f810beca434d8d.pdf 0c4bcc87a6c9e0ac9b03eceefbb599ec PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project Interview World War II Mae Johnson Total Time – (29:18) Background · She was born in Waterbury, Connecticut on July 14, 1919 (00:18) · She graduated from Leavenworth High School (00:24) · Some of the men from her high school were being sent into the Army and the girls wanted to keep them happy so they would join a club to write to them and send them goodies · She graduated in 1937 (01:01) · After she graduated she stayed at home and earned some money so she could go to nursing school · She attended nursing school in Greenwich, Connecticut (01:39) o She became sick and could not finish school · After she could not finish nursing school, she did a lot of babysitting jobs and worked at a company that made parts for gyroscopes (02:07) · When the attacks on Pearl Harbor happened, she was at home with her dad (02:48) · She then travels out to California with a friend and is forced to find work there o She worked for a steel company o She did some kind of work for the military · In California she had a job working with a bastard file (03:34) · She remained in California until she could make enough money to return home to Connecticut · When she returned to Connecticut, she decided to join the service in the Woman’s Army Corps (WAC) (05:41) Enlistment/Training – (05:54) · She enlisted in New Haven, Connecticut (06:02) · She was then sent to Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia for basic training (06:12) · In basic training there was a lot of marching, schoolwork, etc. o She always feared that she would fall out of step when marching (07:05) �Active Duty – (07:38) · After basic training in Georgia, she was sent to Hot Springs, Arkansas (07:40) · She was stationed at a hospital in Arkansas · In Hot Springs, her job was to do everything except for charting (08:57) o The nurses would do charting and the dispensing of medication o She was assigned to the Surgical and Medical Wards · It was a large adjustment of living with so many women and in such small quarters (10:11) · She believes that the veterans coming in bolstered the officers working at the hospital · She was then sent to Fort Sheridan, Illinois at the base hospital (11:22) o She did the same kind of work at Fort Sheridan as before · She was in Illinois in the earlier part of 1945 (12:45) · Fort Sheridan had barracks for the officers · Her parents were happy that she enlisted · Fort Sheridan had a lot of potential for activities because it was so close to Chicago, Illinois (16:18) · In Chicago, she enjoyed going to the museums o One time she was given tickets to the Northwestern football game · There was a hotel on Michigan Avenue in Chicago that allowed servicemen and women to lodge for free (18:43) o She stayed there several times · She had met her future husband while at Fort Sheridan · When he proposed she said, “No way. I am not marrying any man that’s going to smoke a cigarette.” (19:32) o He picked her over the cigarettes · They got married at the Fort Sheridan Chapel (20:14) o Both of their parents came to the wedding and met the night before the wedding · She was still in the WAC when she got married (21:51) · Their first son was born in 1949 and their second in 1951 · At the wedding, their wedding cake was made by a German POW who was one of the cooks (24:31) · She saw a lot of the German POW’s and SS guards at Fort Sheridan (25:12) · The German prisoners were treated very well · One time she became very close to a patient that had her face shattered (26:58) o She was constantly with the injured patient § She would try to emotionally sooth her · It was heartbreaking to see the men at the Army and Navy General Hospitals (27:54) · She was very happy that she went into the Army · She found the previous nursing training as very helpful for her (28:41) �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonM1348V Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Mae (Interview outline and video), 2012 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Johnson, Mae Description An account of the resource Mae Johnson was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 1919. She graduated from Leavenworth High School in 1937 and eventually went to nursing school. Because she could not finish nursing school, Mae traveled to California with a friend. After visiting California, she decided she would enlist in Woman's Army Corps (WAC) in New Haven, Connecticut. She was then sent to Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia for basic training. After basic training, Mae was sent to Hot Springs, Arkansas where she worked in a hospital as she was assigned to the Surgical and Medical Wards. Once she was finished in Arkansas in early 1945, she was sent to Fort Sheridan, Illinois where she maintained a similar position as before. While at Fort Sheridan she met her future husband and met many German POWs. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Michigan--History, Military Veterans Video recordings World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American United States. Army. Women's Army Corps Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-02-08 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27)</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf video/mp4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/af604db20cfe3806af1b93256d640371.mp4 f7e20e34b9399fb8ccbe322543ce50e5 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/de441a6fc56fbdccf26c3c236fa707b6.pdf b23205130676ab6baafa8b4a935946e4 PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project Interview World War II - WAC Mae Johnson Interviewed by James Smither Length of Interview: 29:14 (00:02) JS: We’re talking with Mae Johnson of Greenville, Michigan and the interviewer is James Smither, of the Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project. Mrs. Johnson, can you start with some background on yourself. Where and when were you born? MJ: I was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, July 14th, 1919. I grew up there, went to school. Graduated from Leavenworth. Not the prison, the college…the high school. And then, at that time, some of the guys from school were being sent into the Army or the Navy and the girls wanted to keep them happy, so we would join a club and write to them as often as we could. And send them goodies and stuff. (00:56) JS: Now do you remember that year you graduated from high school? MJ: ’37. JS: So after you graduated, did you go to work, or stay at home, or what did you do? MJ: I stayed home and earned some money, because I wanted to learn to be a nurse. So when I got enough money, I went to nursing school. And I was almost through the complete course, a three year course, and I got sick and I was out so long that I couldn’t possibly make up the time, so that was the end of that. JS: Now, where did you attend nursing school? MJ: It was in Greenwich, Connecticut. JS: Okay. And then, once you got sick and you couldn’t catch up, what did you do after that? MJ: Let’s see. I did a lot of baby-sitting jobs. And then I went to work, at that time it was called the Waterbury Clock Company. We held hands and made faces. (laughs) And we made parts for gyroscopes. So we knew what we were getting into at that time. I worked there for quite a while. (02:20) MJ: And then one of my best girlfriends had a sister who lived in California. She was a nurse. And we had enough money saved up so the two of us took the train and went out to California �and stayed out there until we ran out of money. We had to go to work out there, so we got a job at the Bethlehem Steel Company. JS: Now, where were you when Pearl Harbor happened? MJ: I think I was at home, in ’41. I must have been at home, cause I was with my dad. I remember that. JS: Home in Connecticut, at that point. All right. And when did you go out to California, then? (03:00) MJ: I can’t remember. There’s that time element…I can’t keep it straighten out. JS: But the war’s going on at the time that you go out there. MJ: Right. JS: So you go and you work for the steel company. And what were you doing for them? MJ: Oh, I don’t remember. It was something for the military, but I can’t exactly remember. I know…should I say that, Ed? Is it a bad word? (speaks to someone on her right) No, it isn’t really a bad word…really. I had a job working with a bastard file. And I had never heard of that before. And I was real close with my dad, and I knew all of his tools, but I never recalled that he had one of those things. Oh…that was fun. And we both stayed there until we could make enough money to get back to Waterbury again. (laughs). But, I remember what fun it was on the train. I mean, it was a real train, not like Amtrak. But it was fun, mostly it was a mixture of military people, going back and forth. (04:07) MJ: I remember one time, too, that we almost missed the train because we went out to get some goodies, and we pretty near didn’t make it… but… While we were out in California, that was great. Because there was so much to see back then, that was free. And I think I should tell you the story about my girl-friend…she was really naughty. We went to Chinatown one night… JS: So, San Francisco? MJ: Yeah. With the little bit of money that we had, and we went to the restroom. And when we came out, everybody in the place was laughing their heads off. And come to find out, I had a piece of toilet tissue that was trailing on my shoe. And I never did forgive her for that, for not telling me that. But we had a really good, a really good time. We had a chance, one time while we were out there, to go to Alcatraz, cause her sister knew somebody that was working on the boat or something. But we just missed it by a day. (05:17) MJ: But, you know, you see things on tv and it brings back memories, which are great. So… �JS: Okay. So, you had your adventure in California. You come back home to Connecticut. And then what do you do at that point? MJ: And then at that point, after having seen all the military, and having worked in the Bethlehem Steel, I guess I became over-patriotic. I said, oh gee, I guess I’ll join the service. So I did. (05:45) JS: Now how did that wind up working? Was there a recruiting office nearby that you go to? Or what happened? MJ: I didn’t hear you… JS: What’s the process? How do you end up enlisting in the WACs? MJ: Well, I had to go and enlist. And I think that was in New Haven, Connecticut, if I remember correctly. And, of course, I was accepted. And they give you all of your gear, all that stuff. And I was sent to Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. For the basic training. I was not there all that long. Just enough to learn all the… I do remember that while I was there, I didn’t like the soil that they had there. It was that red clay. And it was a heck of a job, trying to keep your shoes clean. And of course, you had that spot inspection. Get points off if you had a grain of that little red clay on your shoe. (06:40) JS: So what did they have you do, in basic training? MJ: Oh, my. We had a lot of PE. And marching. Marching, marching. Lots of school work. You know, the same learning as the guys do, basic things. I remember that one of my fears was that while we were marching, I would become out of step. And we had to put on a rear view parade performance for a big general, one time. And I thought, of my goodness, is it going to be me that’s going to make a misstep? I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was General Marshall. JS: That’s quite possible. MJ: And, of course, I didn’t know him from Adam, at the time. Yeah, I was there at Fort Oglethorpe for just a short time. And then they sent me to Hot Springs, Arkansas. To a huge Army/Navy General Hospital, that had been previously been a luxurious hotel. JS: Right. Cause you had the health spa there with the hot springs. (07:53) MJ: Right. And those were…I have to tell the truth, I never, cause I never did get into one of the spas. But we called it “Million Dollar Row” back then, and we would walk by. The hospital was at the top of the hill. You could overlook the city. Um, I remember one time that they were giving us some kind of a drill, and they were using a hose to put out a fire, a pretend fire. Of �course, they turn the water on. I can remember one girl, she was trying to hold the hose down. It jumped up in the air and she almost went flying. (laughs) It was comical, but… JS: Was this like one of those big, kind of canvas fire hose? Very big, a lot of pressure, just bounce around… MJ: Everybody was just laughing their heads off, it was just really fun. (08:48) JS: Now what was your job at Hot Springs? MJ: Actually, it was doing everything except the charting. For the…the nurses did all the charting. And the nurses dispensed all the medication. But the technicians actually gave them out to the patients. So, you know, it was just routine. Temperature, pulse and respiration. JS: Did you have a particular ward or part of the hospital that you were assigned to? MJ: It was called the surgical…actually, on my record, it says “Surgical and Medical Technician,” so there was a combination of both of them there. But, um, we did just about everything. You’d never catch a nurse emptying a bedpan, I’ll tell you that. You know how that goes, don’t you? (09:46) JS: Now were the nurses officers at this point? MJ: Yeah. All officers. JS: So you’re the enlisted people. You do the dirty work. MJ: Yeah. We did the dirty work. Which is par for the course, isn’t it? JS: Okay. And, I don’t know…what was daily life like there? MJ: Well, it was quite an adjustment getting used to living with so many girls. And sharing small quarters, really. Coming back to Fort Oglethorpe, though, I can remember how naïve I was. When they asked for volunteers to do something, and I volunteered for kitchen patrol. And part of it was cleaning out a grease pit. The other part was peeling potatoes. And that was before the, you know, automatic peelers. JS: Right. (10:38) MJ: Yeah. Oh, golly. It was fun at the Army/Navy General, but you know, when I first got there and looked at all those guys, and thought, I don’t know if I can really stand it, cause it was just overwhelming. You know, when you see the devastation to their bodies. But, truthfully, it �was the vets themselves that bolstered us. Which is surprising. So we both learned along the way. (11:16) MJ: So then after Hot Springs, then they sent me to Fort Sheridan, to the base hospital there. And that wasn’t exciting, quite so exciting until you know when… (smiles). I walked in one day and they had just brought back a bunch of guys that came back from overseas. And I saw this one person in particular, and I said to my girlfriend…I have to chuckle every time I think of this…well, I said, I’m going to take that guy home with me. I said, you can have the rest of them. I’ll take him home. (11:54) JS: Now in his account of things, he had kind of a foul temper at that point. MJ: He did. But he was a charmer. He didn’t really have to say anything, to be honest. I really and truly meant that, that I wanted it to, you know, get to be a lasting friendship. So…what else can I tell you about that… JS: Well, MJ: He finally warmed up, how about that? JS: He must have. Now, what did your duties consist of? Were you doing the same kind of work at Fort Sheridan as you had in the other place? (12:27) MJ: Yeah. Of course, it was a smaller…a much smaller base. JS: Now did you get there before the war in Europe ended? MJ: Right, um hmm. JS: Okay. So you got there early ’45, maybe? MJ: The war ended in ’45. JS: Right. And before they started to bring these guys back from Europe, this was just people on the base who got sick, that you dealt with? Cause it was the base hospital, or did they already have patients? MJ: No, we always took care of the ones that they brought back. (13:03) JS: Now, what kind of accommodations did you have at Fort Sheridan? MJ: We had barracks. Bunk beds. �JS: How many women would they put together in a room, in these places? MJ: You know, I’ve been trying to think of that. You mean, like for sleeping quarters? JS: Yeah. MJ: I really don’t remember. But I’d say maybe thirty or forty. JS: Now, when you decided to join the WACs, what did your parents think of that? (13:34) MJ: Well, maybe they were happy to get me out of the house, to tell you the truth. (laughs) Because I was about twenty, twenty four. JS: Twenty-five, yeah. MJ: So I think they were…they were happy. My dad had been in the Navy, so…I should tell you that actually I wanted to join the Marines, because I thought the Marines had a more exciting life. And their uniforms were nicer looking, and you know, once a Marine, always a Marine. (laughs) And I couldn’t make it. And I ate carrots, until carrots came out of my… JS: But you couldn’t pass their physical? MJ: I couldn’t pass just the eyes. Just the eyes. JS: The eye test. MJ: So, I settled for the Army. But, Fort Sheridan was an interesting place, because Lake Michigan was right there. We had a few little walks on the beach, there. And we were close enough to Chicago so that we could go there for all the cultural activities. And I really learned a lot. I mean, I came from a small town, what I thought back then, was 100,000 people. Waterbury. But then when you get close to Chicago and see the mass of people… (14:59) JS: So you didn’t, like from Waterbury, you didn’t get on a train and go into New York City, particularly? MJ: Oh, New York City was our…we spent a lot of money in New York City. JS: Okay. So you had that kind of experience before. MJ: One of the…one thing about going to New York City was… of course, we had to keep scrounging for our money so we had enough to get there. But anyhow, there were five girls in that one particular group that I hung around with, and we went one day, and we were going to do so much, and one of the girls said, let’s go to the opera. So, I had no idea what the opera was �like at that point. So I said, okay, let’s go. So just before we went to the opera, there were some vendors on the street, selling orchids. No…yeah, orchids. Twenty-five cents. So well, we thought, we can spend twenty-five cents to have a corsage. So we did that and we thought we were really bigwigs, you know. That was fun. (16:16) MJ: And, at Fort Sheridan, all kinds of things to go to. I really liked it there. One of the nice things about Chicago was, or an unusual thing, was riding on the North Shore Line. They had a pot-bellied stove, I can remember, on that train. So when I went to visit Ed, when he was at the Veterans Hospital, that was in Waukesha, Wisconsin, so I’d get on the train at Fort Sheridan and ride to Milwaukee. And pick up and go to the Veterans Hospital. JS: So they had sent him from Fort Sheridan up to Waukesha, for the recuperation period? MJ: Yeah. JS: Okay, yeah. MJ: Yeah. There were so many things to go to. But everything was free back then. (17:06) JS: Now what did you like to do in Chicago? MJ: I liked to go to the museums. Because in Waterbury we didn’t have any. We had smaller ones, but nothing like there. JS: Yeah, cause Chicago at that point already had the Field museum, they had the aquarium. The Art Institute was down there, and so forth, yeah. MJ: I remember one time they gave us tickets to the football game at Northwestern. JS: Okay. MJ: That was fun. I don’t think I watched the game. I watched all the people around me. But, oh my golly, I can’t think. The food in Chicago was so good. Chinese. You acquainted with the Palmer House in Chicago? That was one of our…when we thought we were such big shots back then, too. Going to the Palmer House. (shakes head) That was fun. Um, I can’t remember what else. All the things that people pay to go see, nowadays. The Aquariums…oh, golly. I can still picture walking the street. (18:27) MJ: There was one place there, I can’t remember the name of the hotel, it was right on the main drag, I don’t even remember the name of that main drag anymore. JS: Michigan Avenue? �MJ: Michigan Avenue. And there was one big hotel there, and any service person that came in there had free room and board. So that really paid off. There were several of us stayed there several nights, you know, over the course of our time there. So… (19:05) JS: So now eventually, you meet this fellow, and you decide to get married. Um, you tell your parents at the last minute… MJ: Did we have to go back a little bit? How did that go? Oh, I know now what I’m thinking. He proposed and at the time, he smoked all these cigarettes. So, I said, no way. I’m not marrying any man that’s going to smoke a cigarette and put… JS: That’s the other part of the quitting smoking story, then? (laughter) Cause in his version, he just had a bet with a priest. (laughter) So he didn’t switch right away. MJ: I don’t know which came first. JS: Well, the priest was on the ship coming back from Europe. MJ: Oh, oh oh! JS: All right. Now this is why you talk to two people. (19:56) MJ: I had not heard that story, truthfully. But, I guess he picked me over the cigarettes. It paid off, didn’t it? JS: Yep. Yep. Still here. MJ: Oh, dear. So, we decided then, we’d get married at the [unclear] Chapel. And we had to let our parents know. And my folks came from Waterbury and his folks came from Greenville. And everybody met the night before the wedding. Which was, you know, when I look back on it now, it’s really comical. Wondering if, gee, I wonder if she’ll like me. But, at 23 or 24 years old, who cares. I mean, you’re your own guys then. So we had a military wedding right there at the chapel. Not a big one, but everybody came. (20:56) MJ: One funny part of that was my dad and I, like I said, we were always so close, and we were standing back in the entrance way of the church, and the music kept playing “Here Comes the Bride.” And my dad and I kept talking and talking. I don’t know how many times they played it. And Ed tells me, he thought he was being jilted, at the time. (laughter) But finally, I realized, gosh, I guess we better get a-going, so we walked down. And I can remember afterwards, Ed telling me he asked the minister, “what am I supposed to do?” (laughter) And the minister said, just stand there. Just say “I do” when you have to. JS: Okay. Now were you still in the WACs at that point? �(21:46) MJ: Yeah. JS: And then, did they make you leave once you got married? MJ: No. No, I stayed until, let’s see, what was it? We were married in October. I don’t know. It must have been November or December. I think we were home for Christmas, weren’t we? Here? For Christmas? JS: So basically, you were able to stay in until it was time for you and him to go? MJ: Right. (22:25) JS: Now were there other pieces of your family story that he left out that you want to get in? Cause how many kids did you have? MJ: When we came back, after we were married and came back here, our first son was born in 1949. And we lived here at the time. And then Ed started college, and while at college, our son Bruce was born, 1951. But over the years, we kept track of all their sports, you know, like all good parents do, and go to PTAs and all that sort of thing. And, I’m losing track of all my thoughts. They’re getting all confused. (23:14) JS: But there was a story about Bruce you wanted to… MJ: Yeah. Bruce, his son graduated from high school last year. And one of the big joys of his life was going to Alaska with his son, to fish. But previous to that, Bruce and Justin went three or four times to Canada, to get together, just the three of them. Which was three generations, which I thought was just super. And they did all their fishing up there. They have stories to tell. So both boys were really active. We’re really happy. And we have three grandchildren. And expecting another one, hopefully. Other than that, I don’t know… (24:23) MJ: Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. When we were married at Fort Sheridan, of course, they had a reception for us. And they came out with this big beautiful wedding cake. And, come to find out, it was made by a German prisoner of war. Who was one of the cooks, one of the p.o.w’s. And, Ed didn’t know about that until several months later. He probably would have thrown up at the thought of it. But that was interesting. JS: Yeah. Cause a lot of the guys talk about coming back and they’ll go to a meal around one of the big camps in New York, and the meals were all being served by German p.o.w.’s. Did you yourself see much of the Germans on Fort Sheridan? Were you aware of them on the base, or did you not…? �(25:11) MJ: The p.o.w.’s? JS: Yeah. MJ: We had a lot of them there. We had the…what did they call them? The S.S. troops. We had the bigwigs there. And, I don’t know. I didn’t seem to be frightened of them, but just the thought of them being there… Of course, they had to toe the mark. They were watched constantly. I often wondered what happened to them. Because it would be the same as P.o.w.’s over there. But…but quite a difference, because the German prisoners were really treated well. When they weren’t overseas. (25:57) JS: Well, some of them just stayed. They all had the chance to go home, and some of them found a way to stay in this country and are still here. MJ: I’m sure there are quite a few… JS: But they’re less likely to be the S.S. guys, though, than the regulars. But that was…and we were using them for farm work here in Michigan. They were all over the place. MJ: Yes. I think they probably went to farms. But am interesting, an interesting… JS: All right. Now think back to the time that you spent with the WACs, whether in Arkansas or at Fort Sheridan. Are there any other kind of particular things that kind of stick in your head, about that? Either individual people or things that happened to you? (26:47) MJ: I can remember one particular time that I got really close to a patient who had been in some kind of a wreck. And her face was just about shattered. And I was assigned to just take care of her. And I was with her just constantly, you know, for the whole shift. And I had to keep putting compresses on her face. Soothing her and trying to help her emotionally, and I remember her name. She was a lieutenant. Lieutenant Edith Rittenberg. And she was a wonderful wonderful lady. And she made it, she finally recovered. She didn’t recover there, but she went, I think she went to some big hospital out west. That was one where I felt like I was really doing good. (27:56) MJ: But at the Army/Navy General Hosptial, I can still picture those guys. That was heartbreaking. And that was just one small segment of the war. You think of the nurses that were overseas and had to do all that hard work. Tirelessly. They were on their feet constantly. JS: But in those days, it took a very long time to recover from wounds. And men would be in bed for months and months and months at a time, and somebody had to look after them and take care of them, so that went on for a long time. �MJ: Right. I was really happy that I went into the service. It’s just that the best part of it for me was meeting Ed. (28:38) JS: Did you find that having had that nursing training was helpful to you when you became a technician? MJ: Absolutely. Absolutely. Especially for the classwork. So. There’s so many terms that you better be familiar with, that you better be on your toes or out you go, you know. But I was really disappointed that I couldn’t finish nurse’s training. But it just wasn’t to be, so… JS: Okay. Well, in the end, you came out pretty well. MJ: Very well. Very well. JS: I’d just like to thank you for taking your time to add your story to the collection. (29:14) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27_JohnsonM1348V Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Mae (Interview transcript and video), 2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-02-08 Description An account of the resource Mae Johnson was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 1919. She graduated from Leavenworth High School in 1937 and eventually went to nursing school. Because she could not finish nursing school, Mae traveled to California with a friend. After visiting California, she decided she would enlist in Woman's Army Corps (WAC) in New Haven, Connecticut. She was then sent to Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia for basic training. After basic training, Mae was sent to Hot Springs, Arkansas where she worked in a hospital as she was assigned to the Surgical and Medical Wards. Once she was finished in Arkansas in early 1945, she was sent to Fort Sheridan, Illinois where she maintained a similar position as before. While at Fort Sheridan she met her future husband and met many German POWs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Johnson, Mae Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American United States. Army. Women's Army Corps Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Veterans Video recordings Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource video/mp4 Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Veterans History Project collection, RHC-27 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections & University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401. Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Language A language of the resource eng Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant World War II https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9deccb243a5b74aa34aa783239aec500.jpg 4c42fea2bf65f766525ebda0aeffea39 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonPaul_Photo01 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Paul Description An account of the resource Paul Johnson, Board of Control Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History College administrators Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/78d1cd8f5249bee025ae15ee30b9bd07.jpg b2c2dce5d9ed1b95cecce9e89e8507ff Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonPaul_Photo02 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Paul Description An account of the resource Paul Johnson, Board of Control Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History College administrators Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4413d92a4c099a9667136d519c29b7ca.jpg 6af0c0f93471b2446d7bbb4cb08d4a3d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonPaul_Photo03 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Paul Description An account of the resource Paul Johnson, Board of Control Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History College administrators Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/bb68308bcef85da3eaca912660ef29b0.m4v f08b147bd6d2833a7b1e7899a5f54992 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7b458e21fb624306ba8a1fe3aed51a20.pdf e4dc53e55c581131532b2627cebad78e PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veterans’ History Project Richard Johnson Vietnam War; Cold War 20 minutes 45 seconds *Note: Times in the outline correspond with the timecode (02:27:42) Early Life & Enlisted Service -Born in Lincoln, Kansas, in January 1932 -Drafted into the Army in October 1953 -Served in the Army for two years -Got an early discharge so he could go to seminary -Didn’t want to go back into the Army after his time as an enlisted man (02:28:30) Becoming a Chaplain -After completing seminary, he worked as a pastor -National Guard needed a chaplain -He took the job for the extra money -Enjoyed working as a chaplain in the National Guard -Served with them for three years (02:29:03) Active Duty & Stationed at Fort Riley -Decided to go on active duty -Assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, in October 1965 -Originally assigned to the 1st Infantry Division, but it was being prepared to go to Vietnam -Transferred to the 2nd Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division (02:29:40) Tour in Vietnam -In January 1967, he was deployed to Vietnam -With the 9th Infantry Division for his entire tour in Vietnam -Transferred to the 1st Brigade -Operated in the southernmost part of Vietnam in the Mekong River Delta -Had mechanized infantry -Went to Bearcat Base -Part of a ready reaction force in the area -He tended to three battalions and worked with the Catholic chaplain -Did that for his entire tour -Left Vietnam on January 2, 1968, barely missing the Tet Offensive in late-January -Watched tracked vehicles from his unit getting destroyed on live TV in Saigon -Knew the exact vehicles and the men in those vehicles -He wanted to go back to Vietnam to be with them -Felt like he couldn’t do anything to help them -Held services in the field and at Bearcat Base during stand downs -Usually held six services on Sunday �-Flew out to companies in the field using the battalion commander’s helicopter -If he couldn’t use that helicopter on Sunday, he went during the week -Whenever the chaplain showed up, it was “Sunday” -Flew out of brigade headquarters -On one Sunday, he was at Bearcat Base after doing four services in the area -In the mess hall eating lunch with the helicopter pilot -Planned on going to the hacienda base at the rubber plantation -Note: Most likely the Michelin rubber plantation near Saigon -Heard the alarm go off at the airfield -There was a firefight north of Bearcat and his pilot had to leave -Meant that Richard would have to drive to the plantation in a jeep -There had been an ambush on the road to the plantation -Decided to go with the chaplain’s assistant and Catholic chaplain -Made it to the plantation without incident -Saw where the ambush had happened -Reminded that he was in a combat zone when he had to deal with soldiers killed-in-action -Mostly lost soldiers to ambushes -Held 30 memorial services during his time in Vietnam -Fewer services than the average because his unit had tracked vehicles -Armored and heavily-armed; kept the enemy away (02:40:52) Coming Home & Stationed at Fort Ord -Good to come home after Vietnam -Assigned to Fort Ord, California, to work with basic trainees -A lot of them were from Los Angeles and opposed the Vietnam War -One man was gay and wanted to get out of the Army -Counselled him, and he eventually reconciled being gay in the Army -Reconnected with his family -Read Dr. Seuss books to his children every night (02:45:29) Stationed at New Cumberland Defense Depot -Stationed at New Cumberland Defense Depot near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -Made the post chaplain at that depot -Worked with the military and civilian personnel -Held Bible studies -Felt like having a civilian church -Being at New Cumberland was one of the best assignments he had (02:46:34) Reflections on Service -Feels that the biggest contribution of the chaplaincy is helping soldiers with moral dilemmas -Helping the men understand the nature of good and evil in the world -Understanding the complexities of the world and the necessity of fighting evil -Felt more prepared for the chaplaincy than for the ministry after seminary -Had seven years of experience as a pastor, and two years of military service � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27_JohnsonR2062V Title A name given to the resource Johnson, Richard H (Interview outline and video), 2016 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016-10-26 Description An account of the resource Richard Johnson was born in Lincoln, Kansas, in January 1932. He first served in the Army as a draftee and was inducted in October 1953. He served for two years before getting an early discharge to go to seminary. Upon completion of seminary he joined the National Guard and served as a chaplain for three years before deciding to go on active duty. He was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, in October 1965 and originally worked with the 1st Infantry Division then was transferred to the 2nd Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division. In January 1967 he was deployed to Vietnam and served with the 9th Infantry Division. He mostly tended to troops in the Mekong River Delta, conducting services in the field and at Bearcat Base. He left Vietnam on January 2, 1968, and was stationed at Fort Ord, California. He was also stationed at the New Cumberland Defense Depot, Pennsylvania, and served as the post chaplain. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Johnson, Richard H Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Keizer, Herman Jr. (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American United States. Army Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries. Allendale, Michigan Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource video/x-m4v application/pdf https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/68cfec5319c4250a12ca1c2dc0e38264.mp4 9daf9d3e382a35085146b24a192f4617 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e75648f805dd75ad826109db8961659a.pdf 144f2c4b9e96bb4c9978dd4e739ba6db PDF Text Text William Johnson (1:17:06) (00:03) Background Information • • • • William was born November 21, 1923 in Grand Rapids, MI William graduated high school and then Enlisted in the Air Corps weather school In 1943 he was released to the draft He was drafted on September 2, 1943 (2:49) Training • • • • • • • William was sent to Fort Custer for basic training He was then sent to Camp Gruber, OK and was assigned to the infantry First he was in the 42nd infantry and then he transferred into the 79th infantry division William was assigned to communications in the regiment HQ message center He was part of C company They sent him to Camp Phillips, KA for 2 months William was then sent to Camp Miles Standish, MA and boarded a ship to go to Europe (8:24) Deployment • • • • • • • • • • • They met the convoy east of Greenland He was on a converted cruise ship and it took him about a week to get there It was the middle of winter and sometimes the waves were about 20 feet They unloaded in Liverpool and were trucked to Manchester William was in England until June 6 He was picked to go ahead of the division in a small group and left for Normandy on a Victory ship There were a lot of casualties on the beach and there was still fighting going on in the area They had to wait for another division to clear out a village behind the beach before they could move in William was shot at when he would deliver messages in a jeep from HQ to battalion The messages were sent by sealed envelopes and telephone They delivered the Stars and Stripes newspaper (18:20) Paris and Germany • • Their division moved just north of Paris and while they were there Paris was liberated William didn’t go into Paris �• • • • • • • • • • They went to Lorraine and then Alsace His division was some of the first troops in Germany There wasn’t much resistance because the Germans were worn out He was able to go in a concentration camp when they liberated it When the war was over he was part of the Army of Occupation in Czechoslovakia William was in Germany on VE day They were scheduled to go to Japan His unit went to the border of East and West Germany He lost some hearing from the bombings beginning at Normandy William was also hit in the shin with shrapnel at Normandy, but didn’t want to get taken to the hospital for it (38:50) Heading Back to the US • • • • • • • • • • He went into combat duty for 2 weeks and did guard duty William had enough points to go home and he was just waiting for the orders He took some weekend passes and went to the Riviera William got on a boat at Marseilles around Thanksgiving of 1945 It was a liberty ship and it took them 29 days to get back across William and a lot of others got sea sick because they were on a smaller boat They got off in Virginia and took a train to Atterbury, IN William was discharged and went back to Grand Rapids He owned a gas station and a plating company William is the only one left out of the 8 in his message center unit � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonW Title A name given to the resource Johnson, William (Interview outline and video), 2005 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Johnson, William Description An account of the resource William Johnson served in a regimental communications center in the 79th Division in Europe during World War II. He landed on Utah Beach with an advance party shortly after D-Day, and participated in the campaigns in Normandy, France and Germany. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Dilly, Keaton (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Michigan--History, Military Veterans Video recordings United States. Army World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Video recordings Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005-02 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27)</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf video/mp4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/59c690c567d3212017a84c97c897dc9d.mp4 cea5fad8c006e5b5347931e22d7f3b78 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/cc79b17246b3657b57dd4594299b2206.pdf babd53aa782af21e5a538e8478a82b0d PDF Text Text 1 Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project Oral History Interview Veteran: William Johnson Interviewed by James Smither Transcribed by Grace Balog Interviewer: We are talking today with William Johnson of Holland, Michigan, and the interviewer is James Smither of the Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project. Okay, so Mr. Johnson, start out with some background on yourself. And to begin with, where and when were you born? Veteran: Well, I was born in Union, Mississippi, September 14th, 1936. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: I’ve lived there until probably 9…Between 9 and 11 years. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: It’s been such a long time I can’t remember exactly how old I was. Interviewer: Okay. So, what was your family doing for a living in Mississippi? Veteran: We had a—first, when my mom and dad got married, they stayed on my grandparents’ farm and farmed there for a couple years. And my dad worked during the winter at a sawmill to save money because his stepdad was—gave him 20—each child got 20 acres of land to farm. And he, being the stepchild, got the worst part of the land to farm. So, he worked during the winter to get fertilizer to use on the farm when he started planting. And so, it ended up he was �2 the best farmer out of the group because he was smart enough to use fertilizer. And he did that for a couple years. And then his real father helped them to buy his own farm. Started out with 30-40 acres and then each year—each 4 or 5 years—added 10, 20, 30, 40…Up to—ended up with 200 acres of land. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: We raised corn, cotton, lots of vegetables. Truck farming, primarily. By that time, he had bought a little truck. So… Interviewer: So, as I was saying—200 acres is—it would sound to me like a lot for an African American family to have. (00:02:41) Veteran: Yes. Definitely. Interviewer: Do you think 20-40 acres— Veteran: Most black people in that time—and I say black now—but during that time, they were known as negroes, but the white folks would call them niggras. And it finally got around to instead of niggras, it was nigger. So anyway, yeah it was a large farm for a family like that. You know? Most of them are sharecroppers. And come to think of it, I think we were the only one in the immediate area that had—that owned the farm land. Interviewer: Okay. And what were relations like between your father and the white farmers or the suppliers or people he dealt with? Veteran: It was very difficult. There was no financial assistance if they needed to buy a piece of equipment. Couldn’t get a loan. So, most farmers—and my dad was included—used horse and mules to plow and had a wooden wagon to haul stuff. And if you had a piece of equipment that �3 broke, you’d go down, go to the nearest town, to pick it up. And he was waited on at the last person to get waited on. I remember as a kid about probably 9 or 10, I went to town with him and he was standing at the counter waiting to get ordered his—what he wanted, get what he wanted—and a white person walks in and the clerk says, “Nigger, stand over there. Wait until I take care of him.” You know, I don’t remember how long he waited, but it could have been—he could have been there all day waiting if someone else kept coming in, a new customer kept coming in. But that was the way things were back in…you know? Interviewer: Yep. (00:04:46) Veteran: Late 40s. Interviewer: Right. Okay. And so, eventually your family leaves Mississippi. So, how does that come about and what happens? Veteran: Well…I am not sure exactly what the thought process was for my dad, but you know, later on I kind of figured out that he probably thought that he wasn’t going to be very successful doing what he was doing because of the, you know, animosity. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: And the difficulty they had to—that he had getting support. So, he decided to sell the farm and move to Michigan. We moved to Detroit in phases. I guess my mom and 2 daughters and 2 little brothers caught the train. And myself and my dad and 2 other brothers and came up by pickup truck. It was probably mid to late September. And by the time we got to Kentucky area it started getting cold. You know, you’d hit the top of the truck and get the attention and say, “Let’s switch. Cold—it’s too cold back here.” So, we got to Michigan and by that time my dad had came up, you know, 6 months or 4-5 months earlier and bought a house. So, we were �4 immediately housed. And my brothers and I and sisters went and started school. And because of the school situation in Mississippi, we were all far behind. So, by the time I turned 18, I was still trying to get out of high school. I mean, get out of 9th grade. (00:06:40) Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: And so, I decided heck with this. I will never graduate. So, I joined the military. Interviewer: Okay. Let’s fill in a little bit here of the family story. Why did your father pick Michigan? Veteran: He had a couple—3 brothers—already in Michigan. And of course, they had come back down to visit and he liked what they were saying, you know? About life in Michigan. Interviewer: Okay. And what kind of work did your father find when he got there? Veteran: When he got here, he started working for one of them auto manufacturers. He and my two older brothers—they all worked at the…I forget the name of the company but they no longer exist out in southeast Michigan. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Detroit. South of Detroit. Interviewer: Alright. Okay so when do you actually enter the military then? What year? Veteran: 1955. March 28th, 1955. In Detroit there is a little Army base: Fort Wayne in Fort Wayne, Michigan. And I caught the bus from my house and went to Fort Wayne and spent the first night there. And they process you in and send you off to another processing station, which was Fort Knox, Kentucky. Two days later we were in Fort Knox. That’s where you get all of �5 your equipment issued, clothing. Get your hair cut. No hair on your head pretty much. From there, I took my first plane ride to Fort Carson, Colorado. Took basic training. Interviewer: Okay. Now, why did you choose the Army? (00:08:31) Veteran: Well, I had 2 brothers that had been in the Korean War. They were home. And my older brother was in World War 2. He was on a ship going to Japan and he was part of the occupation force. And he spent a couple years over there and then he got out. So, you know, Army was…I didn’t know anybody that had been in the Navy or the Air Force. Interviewer: Okay, so that was what you knew. Veteran: So, that’s what I knew about the service. Interviewer: Alright. And did your brothers have basically a positive view of the service? Or…? Veteran: Yeah, they did. They did. One was a tanker and one was a truck driver. Pickup—I mean, a two and a half ton. Interviewer: Deuce and a half. Veteran: Yeah, deuce and a half. And yeah, they had a good experience in the Army. They both were drafted so they spent two years and they both went to Korea. Interviewer: Alright. Then, so you go now—okay, Fort Carson, Colorado is where you do your basic training. Okay, describe that experience. What was that like? Veteran: That was exciting to me. Because before I went in, I had—you know, I figured that whatever I faced, I was going to do exactly in my best. You know? And so, it was exciting. And everything that we were taught, you know, I was pretty well successful doing. And following �6 instructions and…I didn’t make honor graduate at the end of the training, but I was up there. And pleased with my accomplishments, really. Interviewer: Alright. Now, how did— (00:10:21) Veteran: Because you do things—you do stuff that you didn’t think you would ever be able to do. Interviewer: Okay. Were you in pretty good physical shape when you went in? Veteran: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah, before I went in? Eh, I wasn’t in very good shape. I was weighing 136 pounds. And I don’t know. But I did all that physical training that they required and I was well trained. Interviewer: Okay. And in general, how did the drill sergeants treat you? Veteran: Well, at Fort Carson, the drill sergeants were very good. And they treated us all equal and no real problems with anyone. And you got to know a lot of guys and where they were from. And the one thing that got me was a lot of them would talk about their father had been in the World War 2 or in the military. And of course, my father never was in the military. And I kind of felt lost, you know? Wasn’t part of that. But then I knew I had brothers that was in Korea, so you know. It was good. Interviewer: Alright. Now, how much emphasis was there on discipline, following orders? Veteran: Oh, very much so. Very much so. And you know, the drill sergeant would tell you something and he’d say, “Everybody understand that?” and everybody would yell, “Yes, sergeant.” So, it was—he was requiring you to understand what he was saying and express that to him. �7 Interviewer: Right. Veteran: That you understood. Interviewer: Okay. And did you have—get into trouble yourself? Veteran: In basic? Not really. I had one—another soldier, as we would say, picking on me. And one evening, I caught him in the latrine—that’s the restroom, you know. And he and I was the only one in there. And I attacked him and knocked him down. And I had no more trouble with that guy. So, he didn’t bother me anymore after that. (00:12:47) Interviewer: Alright. But you didn’t get in trouble with the sergeants or anything like that? Veteran: No. No, he didn’t tell and I didn’t tell. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: That was the first case of don’t tell. Interviewer: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Veteran: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Interviewer: There you go. Yeah. Okay, so how long was basic training? Veteran: 8 weeks. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: At Fort Carson. Then I went to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for another 8 weeks of training—advanced training. Interviewer: Okay. And what kind of training were you getting there? �8 Veteran: At Fort Leonard Wood, we was getting trained on how to lay mines, how to build bridges. It was the engineer outfit. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And the word got out that we were getting to—close to the end of the 8 weeks training and the word was passed that the whole outfit was going to be staying at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, joining the 18th Engineer Brigade. And nobody wanted to stay at Fort Leonard Wood because they had one little town with one stop sign. So, most of us volunteered to go to airborne training. There was a recruiter up there; came in and we were all sitting in the theater listening to his spiel and watching some films. And by the time he finished the film session and talking, half of the class signed up to go to airborne training. Interviewer: Okay. (00:14:12) Veteran: So, we went to Fort Campbell, Kentucky and joined the 11th Airborne Division and went to jump school right there at Fort Campbell. Interviewer: Okay. And now I want to back up again just a little bit. They—the Army sorts out where they want to send people. And usually if they are sending you to the engineers, they are assuming you have a certain level of aptitude or something for that. Do you have any idea why they sent you to the engineers rather than just infantry? Veteran: No, I don’t because I didn’t know anything. No, no, nothing about engineering. I guess they send you where they need you. Interviewer: Yeah. Well, you had…You—I guess like even the farm equipment you worked with— �9 Veteran: Well yeah. Interviewer: --would have been something. So, you have— Veteran: Some basic knowledge of tools and stuff so… Interviewer: Okay. But they must have thought something good about you if they are sending you there because they don’t send stupid people there. Veteran: Right. Interviewer: Yeah. Okay. So, you go—okay, but then you decide that life at Fort Leonard Wood is not for you so off to airborne. So, how did the jump school work? Veteran: You had three weeks of jump school. First week was basically physical training and training about the parachute ad how you put it on, how you jump out the door. And but most of it was physical training because you need to be in good physical condition. The parachute was pretty heavy. You had two on: one on your back and one in the front, a reserve. So, the first week was—like I say—physical training mostly and introduction to the techniques that they were going to use to train you. Second week, you started jumping out of a tower with a parachute on, hooked to a cable that ran down 100 yards, 200 yards, to a mound. It gives you an idea of coming down through the air with the parachute on. And so, you did that for two weeks—I mean, one week. And the next week you are jumping out of an airplane. (00:16:32) Veteran: You know, by that time, they have taught you all the techniques to use, how to jump out, how to—what you do when you do jump out. You look up at your canopy as it opens after you count to 4000: 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, then you look up and if your parachute is open, you reach up and grab the lines and help guide it to where you want to go. And so, that went well. �10 The first—we always say the first jump, you don’t know what the heck you’re doing. You are just there. And you jump out and hope that everything goes well. By the time the fifth jump, you know, you think you’re expert at it. But my fifth jump—and the fifth jump mostly is—most of the time—is at night. I jumped and my parachute opened partially. I look up and it’s what we call a Mae West. The line is over in the middle of the parachute so it is divided in two bubbles. So, I pulled my—I started looking around and I think I said something vulgar: “Oh shit.” And so, I pulled the parachute, the reserve. By the time the reserve opened up well, it slowed me down. I hit the ground. You know? But after that, that was the only incident I ever had making a parachute jump. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And I made a total of probably 260 total. Interviewer: Wow. Veteran: Through my career. Interviewer: Alright. So, you finished jump school. And then what happens to you? (00:18:14) Veteran: This was—I finished in late September/October. And December, the entire 11th Airborne Division went to Germany on different increments. Got on a plane—a train rather—and went to New York, got on a boat. It took nine days to cross the ocean. And went to Germany. On the ship, a lot of troops got sick—seasick. So, when I went on, I knew that people would get seasick. I asked one of the crew members, I said, “What can you do to keep from getting seasick?” he says, “When the ship’s store opens, go down and get you a box of saltine crackers.” He said, “When your stomach starts feeling a little lousy, eat a few crackers.” So, that’s what I �11 did. I didn’t get sick. Most people did. You go to a dining hall and you got long tables and everybody would sit down with their tray. And if you don’t hold onto your tray when the ship rocks, your tray is going to go down and when it comes back you don’t know what’s going to be on it. You know? Could be some of your food or all of your food or all of your food and somebody else’s food and where he got sick. Interviewer: Yep. Veteran: So, after we got to Germany—landed at Bremerhaven, Germany and went to Munich, Germany. Part of the division was in Augsburg, part in Munich and a couple other small towns around that area. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: We were in—the 11th airborne division was training, always training and having a good time. At some point, too much of a good time. So, the division got deactivated and we became part of the 24th infantry division. Interviewer: Okay. Can you explain the good—too much of a good time part? (00:20:17) Veteran: Oh…Well, we liked the good German beer too much and the good German fräuleins. And some got—well, a lot of fights between different groups. Different groups—I mean, regular airborne unit and non-airborne unit. The non-airbornes were called legs. Airborne unit didn’t like legs because during the basic—during jump school, they told you an air—a trooper—a paratrooper could beat any legs anywhere in the world. You could take on 5 and come out ahead. And a lot of the guys believed that. So, we got people that would go to training, live fire training. In one case, a kid brought a hand grenade back and threw it in a bar. So, after that we—the division was deactivated. �12 Interviewer: Okay, so you were just a little too—their training worked too well. Veteran: Yes. The training was too good. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: In some instances. Interviewer: Okay. What was the racial climate like at that point in the Army units? Veteran: Well…In the Army—in the unit, it was okay. You know, no real problems. But when you left the base, going downtown anywhere, it was segregated, you know? Where even the bars in town you got to know where you could go. And if you went to the wrong place, you might get beat up. You know? So, because we all come from back here in the States and we had different ideas about things. Interviewer: So, you brought that with you. Did the Germans seem to care or did they treat you all pretty much the same? (00:22:20) Veteran: Oh, they treated us pretty much the same. But they had names for us, you know. And they would call—they said I was like an Oreo. You know, black on the outside but white on the inside. You know? I don’t know why they called me that, you know? I am sure it was more than just me. Interviewer: Yeah, in the more recent American sense, there’s different views of that. But part of it was I get the impression you could probably work with or get along with pretty much anybody. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, I— Interviewer: You might not have fit the stereotype so well. �13 Veteran: Right. That’s probably it. Interviewer: That confused them a little bit. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so they didn’t know where I was, you know. Interviewer: Alright. Now, how long did you stay in Germany? Veteran: I stayed in Germany from…We left the Campbell—Fort Campbell—end of December. Got to Germany mid/late January. The entire division, we stayed there until December ’58. Interviewer: Yeah. And then the latter part of it now, your unit has become part of the 24th Division. Veteran: Right. Interviewer: 8th division, 24th regiment—yeah—instead. Okay. Veteran: Then I go to Fort Bragg from there. Interviewer: Now, once you switch to the other unit, did you lose your airborne designation? Veteran: Yes. Interviewer: Yes. Veteran: Yes. They would say when you are an airborne unit, you are paid $55 a month and you had to jump every 3 months. But after the 11th was deactivated, the airborne status discontinued. Interviewer: Yep. Veteran: Until you join another airborne unit. �14 Interviewer: Right. So, for the time being, you were a leg. (00:24:12) Veteran: Yeah, I was a leg. Interviewer: Right after all of that. Now, while you were in Germany, did you get to travel around at all or see much of Europe? Veteran: Well, I went to Paris a couple of times. After I was there for a year and a half, maybe two, I bought a car. I was the only lower enlisted person with a car. And it was a 1953 Mercedes. Nice car. Nice car. And we—I drove to Paris twice with another friend of mine—a guy. He and I was pretty good friends so…And we went there once with a tour group of guys and their wives. And while there, well, he and I kind of split away from the group and went down to Rue Pigalle, you know? And enjoyed that scenery. Anyway, the day we were leaving, we all got on the bus. Well, we came home—we came to the hotel late. He and I were sitting out on the sidewalk having a last beer. And we all got on the bus and the driver was going to leave and the manager of the hotel came out and said, “Okay, I need to know who was in room blah blah?” Sims and I raised our hand. He said, “Can we see your luggage?” He goes out, opened the luggage. He opens his, no problem. I open mine: there are all the towels from the hotel in my luggage. Yep. So, they took the towels and… Interviewer: Now, did you put the towels in your luggage? Veteran: No, I didn’t put the towels in my luggage. Interviewer: Okay, your roommate did. Veteran: My roommate did. But you know, we didn’t get too upset about that. They took the towels and we were on our way. �15 Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: The next time we went to Paris, we drove my car. And we were having a good time and I lost my wallet somewhere. My legal driver’s license, my leave papers. And so, we went to the embassy and they said, “Well, maybe you better stop at the local police department and let them know what happened.” And so, they said—the police said, “Well, the thing you have to do now is go back to Germany.” So, we left a little sooner than we wanted to, but everything worked out. (00:26:49) Interviewer: Alright. Well yeah, Paris is known to have pickpockets then and now. Veteran: Oh yeah. During that time, there was a war going on between the French and the Algerians. And a lot of Algerian nationals would be out on the street and they wanted to buy anything you had. They could buy your dirty clothes, whatever, because they were supplying their people back home. But yeah. Interviewer: Alright. So, now are there other things from that tour in Germany that stand out for you? Or things that happened with you? Veteran: Yeah. We were—since we were an airborne unit, near the barracks we were living in was a large open field. So, we had about 500—maybe 600—troops out spread out across the beginning of this open area double arm length apart. And we walked for about a mile looking for big rocks; anything dangerous that a trooper might make a jump and land on, fall. One of the guys found an old German—part of an old German rifle. Just the metal—the barrel—and some of the mechanisms. Anyway, we took it back to the barracks. And he was down—we had a work room downstairs in the basement and he was down there. And I walk in and he says, “Bill Johnson,” he was from Memphis, Tennessee, “Bill Johnson, would you take this cleaning rod? �16 You see that cleaning rod I stuck in the rifle?” He had it in a vise, right? He says, “I am going to put my hand here and see if when you hit it, I am going to see if whatever is stuck in there was going to come out.” I hit it one time and bam! There was a round. He lost his middle finger. (00:28:51) Interviewer: Oh… Veteran: So, Walter Jones—from that point on we called him Four Fingers, you know. But yeah, that was a—it was a good tour. A lot of good training. A lot of good training. Sometimes we had to go 80 miles away for a training facility. There was a placed called Hohenfels and it was a real muddy place, you know. But had a lot of good training. Interviewer: Okay. Alright. Now, how long was your original enlistment for? Veteran: Original enlistment was for four years. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Because when I took the exam, I scored lower than average. So, in order to be—to enter the service, they tack on an extra year. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? Interviewer: So, there were— Veteran: To give you the time to train you. Interviewer: Or something like that. Veteran: You know? �17 Interviewer: But you seemed to have trained pretty well pretty quickly so that worked well. Veteran: Yeah, that worked out okay. Interviewer: Now, at what—now when you first enlisted, were you thinking of making a career in the Army or just doing one hitch and then going on to something else? Veteran: After basic training, you know, I was so indoctrinated into the discipline and the surrounding of the—you know—camaraderie. I thought about staying more than just one tour, even that early. Interviewer: Alright. And now, at what point then did you decide to re-enlist? Was that while you were still in Germany or…? (00:30:31) Veteran: No, after I got back to Fort Bragg in ’59, I re-enlisted. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Alright. So, at Fort Bragg what unit were you with? Veteran: I was with the 504 [504th Regiment], 82nd Airborne Division. And once again, training was the word, you know? Always training. And…And then I—okay yeah, in—at one point, the Cuban Missile Crisis was going on, happening. By that time, I was married, I had one child and I was living on base in quarters. So, President Kennedy was making a speech about the missile crisis. The Cuban—the Russians had missiles in Cuba and we were going to quarantine the island, right? So, I told my wife, I said, “I am going upstairs to put my clothes on because the—I will be going to the unit any minute.” And before the president got off the TV, the phone rang and says report to the unit, you know? So, we—the next day, we organized and got on planes and �18 went to Eglin Air Force base in Florida. And we were ready. You know, they issued us ammunition, gave us shots, and we sat under the wing of the aircraft in the shade for a couple of days. You know? Until they—the Cubans—I mean, the Russians—decided to take the missiles out. Before that or after that, the 82nd was involved in a domestic problem in Mississippi. (00:32:33) Veteran: So, we went to Mississippi to check—there was an individual from the Air Force, a retired veteran, wanted to go to University of Mississippi: Old Miss. And then people didn’t want him there and the governor—Ralph Barnett, the governor, said he couldn’t attend the university. So, the 82nd and the 101st plus a couple of military units in the 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Benning—a part of it went to Mississippi. And there, the federal government got involved and decided that if the—we were—I was on the Columbus Air Force base reservation. And they were going to send troops into town into the university. And at one point they said, you know, commanded the captain. Our captain says, “Okay, Sergeant Johnson, Sergeant such and such, I want you to tell all your black troops that they are not going to be involved in this operation.” And you talk about a bunch of pissed off people. I said, “Wait a minute…” You know, in a lot of units, most of the leadership is two leaders. Platoon sergeants, squad leaders were black soldiers, you know. So, they were going off with half of their leadership. And there is a book I have that a guy wrote later on about that and I didn’t know—nobody knew why. Who gave the word? Well, it was the division commander there on the ground in Columbus—I mean, Mississippi or from the Pentagon. But later on, found out that it was the president and the chief of staff decided that they didn’t want to have black guys out there with long guns facing the white guys. (00:34:43) �19 Veteran: So, anyway but really that was a sad case, you know? For most of the—well, for most of the people in the division because they didn’t want to be split up like that, you know. But so, it only lasted about 5-6 days and we started withdrawing back to Fort Bragg. Interviewer: Right. Yeah, because it was James Meredith who had— Veteran: James Meredith was the individual’s name, yeah. Interviewer: Yep. Okay, so you were a distant witness to that event. Veteran: Oh yeah. Interviewer: They didn’t let you go. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, we went. I was in Mississippi, but once we were there, you know, we couldn’t participate. Except at the end, you know, they finally reneged up in Washington and said okay, disregard that. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? But by that time, things were quieting down you know. A lot of folks were arrested and so we left there and came back to Fort Bragg. Interviewer: Alright. And so now how long then do you stay at Fort Bragg? Veteran: I left Fort Bragg sometime in December, I think it was, of ’59. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: No, ’63. Interviewer: Yeah. �20 Veteran: Yeah, ’63. Interviewer: Yeah, because you are still at Fort Bragg at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in ’62. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah. Interviewer: You’d be there for that. Alright. Okay. And then, what unit do you go to next? (00:36:13) Veteran: I go to—I get an assignment to go to Germany. The 8th infantry division, 509th airborne infantry brigade. And so, I go there and I stay until ’66. Part way—partly—part of my assignment was to go from the 509th—I went to the division headquarters as part of the inspector general team, where a group of individuals that are trained in certain fields go out to inspect all of the other units within the division. My job was to—for physical security and classified documents. Physical security would mean that I checked on the security of all the weapons, ammunition, storage units. And at that time, there was a new directive out that we had to check on this particular type of weapon that they called a COFRAM, which was—meant that—a COFRAM was Controlled Fragmentation Ammunition. And we saw the results of that during the Iraqi war, where the planes dropped little cluster bombs and they burst out, you know. One bomb, it contains many, many mini bombs. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: You know? So, that was the beginning of that exercise, you know. And I didn’t know what it was totally, what it was about, until the Iraq war. And I said, “Oh crap, that’s what that is.” Anyway, so I did that until 1966 and then I got ordered to go to Fort Benning, Georgia. �21 Interviewer: Okay. So, in this tour in Germany, where were you based? Veteran: I was in Mainz, Germany, and then I went to Bad Kreuznach, which was about 25 miles away. That was the division headquarters. Interviewer: Okay. Did you have your family with you? Veteran: I did. I had 3 kids by then. (00:38:18) Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Two girls—no, a girl and a boy and a girl. A set of twins. Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Okay, so how did your family like being in Germany? Veteran: They liked it. I am sure, you know, they missed their—the kids missed their friends, the wife missed the relatives. And—but she had—she got a job over there and worked for the base that I was working on for a non-profit organization that ran clubs and stuff like that. But it was interesting. Interviewer: And did they have American schools on the base? Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: That kind of thing. Veteran: Right, right. Interviewer: So, there were American kids at least to hang out with. Veteran: Right. Oh yeah, yeah. �22 Interviewer: And that kind of thing. Alright, now by this time now we are getting into the mid- ‘60s. Veteran: Right. Interviewer: The Vietnam War is— Veteran: ’66. Interviewer: --is heating up and all of this. Were men starting to switch out and go to Vietnam? Veteran: Oh yeah. Yeah, a lot of the guys left Germany and went directly to Vietnam. You know, I had three friends I know of, three—two guys that worked for me over there. Two of them got killed after being there less than a month. You know? And so, when I left Germany, I went to Fort Benning, Georgia, knowing that I was going to be going to Vietnam. I am starting taking some Vietnamese language training. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? And I got to be pretty good, to understand and to speak. You know, ask the questions that I needed to ask. You know? Except when I got to Vietnam, I was interviewing a prisoner and I come up against the word that I wanted to use and I couldn’t think of it Vietnamese-wise. I started speaking German. He looked at me like totally puzzled. I thought— later I thought I should have been speaking French, you know? Because the French had been there and he may have understood French better than Germany. Interviewer: Right, but you can have that instinct where you are speaking in a foreign language just—and so, you just shift into the foreign language you know best. (00:40:30) �23 Veteran: Right. Interviewer: Yep. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: That kind of thing can happen to you. Alright. Now, what did your wife and family think about your going to Vietnam? Veteran: Well, they were a little…Well, expected it, you know? Because I—everyone around me was coming and going in and coming back from Vietnam. Some coming, some not coming back. So, we were in Georgia. My wife was going to school, a business school. And before we left— before I left Fort Bragg—Fort Benning—she was going downtown to this business school. And more than once, she would call me and say, “I got a flat tire.” So, come to find out, there were some young white boys, I guess, going to that school and didn’t like the idea that she was going to the school also. They would prop nails behind the tire and in front of the tire. You know? Just jam it in there where it wouldn’t fall. Didn’t matter which was she went, she was going to get a flat tire. You know, so that happened a couple times. And finally—I had to go down and change the tire. Either get it repaired or…So, finally I went in and talked to the school people and told them what was going on. And but they found out who was doing it and eventually, you know kicked them out of school. But she wanted to stay there. So, I made arrangement—well, first of all, after I got orders, family could stay on the base in the quarters they were in. Because two doors down there was a family with three kids. I got to know them and her—the wife and the kids—but I never did see the husband. I asked her one day, I said, “So, where is your husband? You know, where does he work? You know, what outfit is he in?” (00:42:32) �24 Veteran: She said, “Oh, he—two years ago he went to Ohio to see his kids and while he was up there, he killed his ex-wife and he’s in prison.” You know? And I am thinking I should be able to keep my family on the base if they have been here for two years and he’s in prison. I requested through the base to allow my family to remain there while I was in Vietnam for a year. And of course, they came back and said, “No.” And I said, “Wait a minute, this is what’s happening: this family is here, been here for two years. I know because I have been here almost two years.” And they said, “Well, no, that can’t happen. That can’t happen.” I said, “It’s happening.” So, they called back. The colonel called me and says, “Would you come up and let me—I need to talk to you.” He said, “Yeah, I guess that’s going on. Somebody messed up.” They didn’t catch it. Because he wasn’t in the military anymore. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: You know? But they still can’t keep your wife, keep your family there. So, we—I found an apartment off base. And she wanted to stay on base for 30 days. I said, “Okay.” And then she was going to move to the apartment later after I left. I get to Vietnam; three or four weeks later, maybe a month, six weeks, I get a letter and she’s—instead of going to the apartment, she goes to a dealer and buys a mobile home, puts it in this park. And everything was going okay until three or four more weeks, two months or so, get a letter that said the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross in our yard. You know? And I am thinking…By this time, I am the platoon sergeant of a recon platoon with 42-44 people. And I am thinking: why the hell am I over here with this going on with my family? You know. (00:44:34) Veteran: And so, I called her and talked to her and she said, “You know, we are okay but the— you know, that’s what happened. And nothing since then.” Anyway, during this next 2-3 weeks, I started getting terrible headaches. And what reason—from what, I don’t know. The doctor says, �25 “Well, maybe it’s something out in the jungle that makes your sinuses swell and you can’t get any relief.” You know? So, one day I just about passed out and they evacuated me to the hospital and ran a bunch of tests. And they said, “Yeah, your sinuses are totally swollen and lots of pressure.” You know? And I am in the hospital one morning—about 4 o’clock in the morning, the nurse wakes me up. You know, says, “Sergeant Johnson, wake up! Wake up!” I said, “Well, what?” She said, “I got to give you a sleeping pill.” I said, “Damn! I am already asleep. Why are you waking me? I don’t need a sleeping pill. I am asleep. The best sleep I have had in 4 months.” You know, so she was just—she was upset because I was yelling at her, you know. But that’s the way I felt. You know? Interviewer: Alright. Now, we are a little bit ahead of ourselves here in the story. When you were—you had come back from Germany, you go to Fort Benning. Were you getting additional training or preparation to go to Vietnam? Or what was happening there? (00:46:10) Veteran: Yeah, I was—well, at that point, I was the operation sergeant at the airborne training school. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And our job was to process and care for the students that were coming in to go to the school. And so, I was the operation sergeant. I did training, scheduled the write-ins, scheduling units where to go where and when. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: You know? �26 Interviewer: And what rank did you have at that point? Veteran: At that time, I got promoted there to an E-7. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Sergeant first class, E-7. And there was a lot of guys that had been at that school for 67, 8 years. And when I got promoted, they were upset because here I am a newcomer and I get promoted ahead of them. But I had been in assignments that, you know, I performed well in. And by this time, the promotion system was such that you as a commander submit people to the Pentagon to be promoted. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: And where you have to write the reason why you think that this person needs to be promoted immediately, as soon as possible, you know. So, that’s the way the system was working. And you know, and they gave you the history of your service, the background: where you have been, what you have done. And these guys had been in the school doing the same thing… Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. Veteran: You know? Not doing anything different. Interviewer: And you had had some pretty important assignments. You had been overseas for two tours and all of that kind of stuff so there was a lot that went into that at that point. But now, did you have the option to stay at the school? Or did you know that that was just temporary? Veteran: I knew it was temporary. I didn’t particularly want to stay there. No. �27 Interviewer: Okay. Alright. Veteran: So, I went to Vietnam and the colonel talked to us and says—there was two of us E7s—he said, “Well, you are going to the recon platoon, and so are you, you are going.” We had two separate platoons, right. One with 42 men, 44 men, you know. Interviewer: That’s over in Vietnam once you— Veteran: In Vietnam. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Yeah. (00:48:27) Interviewer: But let’s back up a little bit now. When do you get orders to go to Vietnam? Veteran: Well…In…Let me see, early—mid March/April, I think. Probably April/May. Interviewer: Okay. Of ’67? Veteran: ’67, yes. Interviewer: Okay. Alright. And then, what’s the process to get you to Vietnam? Veteran: Well, you—you know, you take care of your family, you sign the necessary paperwork so she can act in your absence in any way, shape or form. And then, you clear the post and away you go. Catch a plane and go to—in my case, I went to my—I had two brothers—3 brothers living in the San Francisco area. So, I go to San Francisco for two days and see my brothers and then go to Seattle, Washington. And that’s where I catch a plane and go to Vietnam. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: We land in Clark Air Force base in the Philippines and from there to Vietnam. �28 Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Cam Ranh Bay. Interviewer: Okay, you land at Cam Ranh Bay. Alright. And do you come in during the day or at night? Veteran: During the day. Early morning. Well, mid-morning. Interviewer: Okay. And what’s your first impression of Vietnam? Veteran: Hot, hot, hot. Hot, hot. Interviewer: And you are from Mississippi… Veteran: Yeah, and I am from Mississippi. But it was hot. Hot and humid, you know. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: And you see troops, soldiers, walking, doing their job. You know? And I am thinking well, they can do it, I can. You know? Interviewer: Alright. So, you land. And do they give you any kind of orientation for Vietnam once you arrive? Veteran: No, they send us to wherever you were going. I went to Cam Ranh—Phan Rang— which was north of Saigon, about a couple hundred miles, or maybe; I don’t know for sure. But anyway, I went to Phan Rang and that’s where the headquarters for the 101st was. (00:50:22) Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? And they give you a week and a half of training. You even go out on patrol so they teach you about the surrounding areas: how the jungle is and how you can walk and not �29 be able to see 5 yards off the trail. You know? And so, you had a week of that. And using— firing a weapon. They train you on a weapon because that was around the time where the M-16 was introduced to Vietnam and a lot of folks were having a problem. Even before I went, they were reporting problems with the M-16 jamming during the—inappropriate times. Interviewer: Yes. Veteran: You know, when you are firing at someone. So, after that you catch—you now where you are going, what unit. And they send you out by helicopter in the jungle to the unit. I get off the helicopter and the rest of the platoon is about 100 yards away. And somebody had come over to the helicopter and gets me and they escort me over to the company, or the commander. And on the way over there, some sniper up in the hills is firing at me. I said, “Damn, these guys are trying to kill me already.” I just got off the helicopter. Anyway, I joined the unit and the captain of the company was running the platoon that I was in. Interviewer: And which battalion were you joining? (00:52:02) Veteran: It was 2nd battalion, 502nd. Interviewer: Okay. Alright. And so, now you are coming into this, you have had a lot of experience in the Army, but none in Vietnam. And none with jungle warfare or anything else like this. Veteran: Well, I went to jungle warfare training school in Panama. Interviewer: Okay, so you did do those. Veteran: For two weeks. Interviewer: Okay. �30 Veteran: You know? And… Interviewer: So, what were— Veteran: You learn how to survive in the jungle. You know, things that you can find to eat if you get separated from yourself, you know, people. Interviewer: But you hadn’t been in Vietnam. Veteran: No. I hadn’t been to Vietnam. Hadn’t had anybody shooting real bullets at me. Interviewer: Okay. Now you are a platoon sergeant for the recon platoon… Veteran: Right. Interviewer: And a reconnaissance platoon—so, basically, that’s for the whole battalion, essentially. Veteran: Right, right. Interviewer: And they operate pretty much independently. Veteran: Independent of the companies. Any of the other companies. Interviewer: Yeah. And they work in small groups? Veteran: Well, we…Under normal circumstances, we’d be small groups. But in this case, because you are operating out away independent of the company, they kept us together for the most part. Interviewer: Okay. Alright. Veteran: 30-40, 35 people. �31 Interviewer: Alright. And you are going in here, you don’t have any experience. How did you approach your job, or how did you—did you try to learn from the other guys? Veteran: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, the sergeants that were squad leaders, you know, I talked to them when opportunity came in the evening when we stopped to set up a defensive position, you know. And find out how things have been going and what techniques—special techniques—that you use to stay safe. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: It—during the darkness. And one of the things that we would do is in the evening, just before dark, we’d stop if we got a resupply of supplies, rations. That particular time, we’d stop, break down all the rations issued out to the individuals. And stack the boxes up and burn them or sometimes leave them there and leave that position just before—right at dark—and go down 200 yards away and set up position. (00:54:34) Veteran: Because eventually, I mean, you have spent enough time there that anybody around, they know you are there. So, when it gets a little dark when he can’t see very good, you know, in the distance, you can move. That prevents you being ambushed at night in that position. And a lot of times you leave a squad where you got resupplied and if the VC comes scrambling or running through your leftovers, you know, you take care of them. You know? Interviewer: Right. Veteran: So, stuff like that— Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: --you’d learn from the individuals that had already been there. �32 Interviewer: Okay. Now, did you have a platoon—an officer as platoon leader? Veteran: Off and on. Yeah. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Most of the time, I was the guy. Interviewer: You were in charge. Veteran: One time, I mean, we got a call—I got a call that says you’re having an O-6—not an O6, but…I forget what they called them—going to be landing, taking over. I said, “Okay.” So anyway, we got the lieutenant in and he—I introduced myself. And I says, “Did they give you a map, lieutenant, when you left CP?” “No, sergeant.” I says, “Okay, I have the map. When I give you the map—when I give you the map, you’re in charge. Otherwise, you just stick with me.” Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? Because you don’t want to introduce him to the action right away; let him get his feet on the ground. Interviewer: Okay. Now, what kind of terrain were you operating in? Was it mountains, jungles…? (00:56:12) Veteran: Mountain. Interviewer: Swampy? Okay, yeah. Veteran: Mountains. Mountainous. Nothing real mountainous but hills and anywhere you went was pretty much jungle because—I mean, but on the other hand, you had trails. No roads to �33 speak of, but trails where the local VC or the local population used as a way to get around. They’d go from point to point through a trail. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: There was no roads. Interviewer: Now, would you use the trails yourself or stay off them? Veteran: Yeah, we tried—we used the trails. Yeah. And the most of the time, the VC would make a signal and use the little rocks or sticks, tie them up together, have one pointing in a particular direction. You know, that’s where it tells the guy when you get to this point, go that way. You know? And so, we’d pick up on that and, you know, you find information on the trails. So, that’s why we used the trail. But sometimes you have to go right straight through the jungle. And in order to do that, you got to have a couple people up front with machetes whacking your way through. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: And that’s so noisy. Interviewer: I guess sometimes though, in some areas, trails would be booby trapped. Veteran: Oh yeah. Interviewer: Or you could be ambushed there. Veteran: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah, yeah, so you have a point man. Every time you move, you have a point man and a slack man—that means a guy that is covering the point man. But the point man is quite a ways out and he’d see anything. And the saying was: point man better be alive or he is dead. You know? So, we had this one kid that was a point man. We called him �34 Tennessee. He—every time we moved, he wanted to be the point. We get to a location and we had to go to where the battalion…Yeah, battalion headquarters was. So, when we got there, the colonel is wanting me to send three people with the radio relay station up on the mountain up there to increase the radio communication. So, I thought Tennessee been out on the point so long, he needs the break. You know? So, I told him that he and two other guys were going on the radio relay station. So, they get up there and a big storm—a couple days later there is a big storm that comes through. And they were I guess apparently too close to the antenna. Lighting strike kills Tennessee. (00:58:52) Interviewer: Oh wow. Veteran: So…You blame yourself in a way. But on the other hand, you are thinking you are giving the guy a break, getting a relief from doing what he normally does. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: You know? Interviewer: Yeah. There are just some things you simply can’t control. Veteran: Yeah. Right, right, right. Interviewer: And it would have been somebody. Veteran: Oh yeah, it didn’t matter—it wouldn’t have made any difference who it was. Somebody was going to be there, you know. And that was the same time these news people came by and wanted to talk to me and interview me. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And what we were doing. And I just basically ignored them, you know. �35 Interviewer: Okay, now had they come because of the lighting strike or did— Veteran: I don’t know. That’s why I didn’t want to talk to them about it, you know. Interviewer: Alright. Now, you did not spend—how long do you think you spent actually in the field with your unit? Veteran: With the unit, probably two months. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: At the most. Interviewer: And then at that point, you had the other problems with the— Veteran: Yeah, the problem with the home—back home. And headaches. My medic was feeding me Darvons, which was a painkiller— Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: --that we used over there. And at one point it just got to the point where I couldn’t function. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: You know? (01:00:27) Interviewer: Okay, so once you get through that, where were you—when you were in the hospital, where were you? Veteran: I was in Quy… Interviewer: Quy Nhon? �36 Veteran: I was in Tam Ky. Interviewer: Tam Ky, okay. Veteran: Yeah, Tam Ky. And either Tam Ky or Chu Lai. Interviewer: It might have been Chu Lai because Chu Lai was a bigger base. Veteran: Right. Right. Well, I was in Tam Ky first and then went to Chu Lai after that because at Tam—at Chu Lai is where the colonel decided I wouldn’t go back out to the recon platoon. I would stay at the battalion as the S-2 sergeant because the S-2 sergeant was getting ready to leave to rotate. He was a friend of mine. We had known each other for many years, you know. So, he was going to go back home and I was going to take his place. Interviewer: Okay. Explain what an S-2 does. Veteran: An S-2 is the—he gathers the intelligence information from the units out in the field and try to evaluate and determine exactly what’s—what the enemy is doing. And posts that and briefs the colonel, the commander. And whether he takes actions… Interviewer: Right. Okay, so you are— Veteran: Giving the information. Interviewer: You are the intelligence officer. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Right. Okay. Or sergeant, in this case. Veteran: Right. Interviewer: Alright. Now—and was that at Chu Lai or was that somewhere else? �37 Veteran: That was Chu Lai. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Now, and this is now the fall of ’67 when you had gotten into— Veteran: Yeah, in probably…No, early April/March. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: No—yeah, fall. Fall—November, yeah, because we left Chu Lai and went back to Phan Rang. Interviewer: Okay. (01:02:17) Veteran: And for Thanksgiving. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And from Phan Rang we spent 4 or 5 days there. And at that time, the S-2 officer— Captain Anderson was his name. We had the officers—well, we had Quonset huts, you know. Wooden buildings where the troops would have to sleep and, you know, live. Anyway, Captain Anderson was cleaning his weapon. In a room next to him was two communications officers. So, he takes his 45 out, right? Pulls the slide to the rear, let it go forward, and takes the clip out, pulls the trigger, goes through the wall, hits the intel—I mean, communications officer in the chest and kills him. Interviewer: Wow. �38 Veteran: You know? No problem. He was the S-2 officer. And after that standdown, you know, we had an investigation and determined it was just a freaking accident. And so, they took Captain Anderson out of the S-2 and made him the company commander of Charlie Company. So, we went from Phan Rang to Song Be, which was south, just north of Saigon. This is just before the Tet Offensive. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: You know, so while we were still in Song Be and Captain Anderson was approaching his DEROS—date of rotation back to the States—he was walking around the perimeter saying goodbye to his troops. And there was—he walked across the trail. Down the trail was a VC. Saw him, shot him, killed him right there. You know, I thought man how crazy is that? (01:04:17) Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: You know, he accidentally kills a guy and the last day he is in the field, he gets killed. Interviewer: Okay. Now, during this time when you with the 101st and before the Tet Offensive, how common was contact with the enemy? Veteran: Quite frequently. Small, small contact. You know, a squad maybe now and then. Interviewer: Okay. And were those Viet Cong at this point or were you seeing North Vietnamese regulars? Veteran: VC. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Mostly VC. �39 Interviewer: Alright. Now, as the Tet Offensive approached, were you getting any indications that there was more enemy activity or something might be happening? Veteran: No. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: No, nothing. Interviewer: Not where you were. Veteran: No. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: Because at that time, things were pretty quiet. I think the NVA was back over by Laos and Cambodia. You know? Because they used the Ho Chi Minh Trail. That’s the way they came down. Interviewer: Yep. Veteran: And but—and made their way inland without being discovered. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: So, when the Tet Offensive started, we left Song Be and went to Saigon, got on the LST—something…a transported boat. Interviewer: Yep. Landing Ship Tank. Veteran: Yeah, right. Interviewer: A big, big flat-bottomed transport. �40 Veteran: Right. Interviewer: Old World War 2 things. Veteran: So, we go to Da Nang. All the way up the coast to Da Nang, which was quite a trip. Anyway, while we were waiting to load the LST, we were sitting—guys were sitting on the— with their rucksacks on against a bunch of Conex containers—you know, big metal containers that they used to send supplies overseas. Interviewer: Right. (01:06:03) Veteran: And one of the guys got up when he was getting ready to leave and when he got up, the pressure off the Conex container opened—the door flew open. And it was filled with Johnnie Walker whiskey. Interviewer: Oops! Veteran: And I didn’t know it until later, you know? So, half the guys was half way drunk by the time we got midway between Saigon—I mean, the Saigon and Da Nang. Interviewer: Da Nang. Veteran: And so, the word was out: anybody that had alcohol better throw it overboard. You know? Interviewer: Okay. Now, when the Tet Offensive first began, did your unit or base get attacked or was it quiet where you were? Veteran: It was attacked. We went from Song Be to Bien Hoa, which was the original home base for the 101st. And that’s not too far from Saigon. �41 Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: So, we got word that there was action west of Saigon. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: So, we went down and got on the LST and went north. They already had enough troops in Saigon. Interviewer: Right. Okay. But at Song Be, you didn’t get attacked? Veteran: No, we didn’t. Interviewer: Okay. Alright. Veteran: No. Interviewer: Alright. So, you have been— Veteran: So, we go to Da Nang and stay at Da Nang a couple or three days. My wife’s boyfriend at that time was stationed in Da Nang. She keeps asking me did I see such and such? I said, “No. If I did, I wouldn’t have known him in the first place.” Anyway, we stayed there and we started sending out patrols. There was a Marble Mountain? Yeah, I guess there was. Interviewer: Marble Mountain was there, yep. Veteran: Yeah, and there was the Hai Van Pass and every time the Marine tried to send a convoy to Phu Bai or Hue, they’d get attacked. So, we were operating out of there for a while. A couple—3-4 weeks. And then we moved from there to just south of Hue. Interviewer: Okay. (01:08:14) �42 Veteran: And from there, we went out west towards A Shau Valley. We started moving that way. And the Marine Corps was—the Marines were pretty much taken Hue on the—you know— under control. And finding so many dead bodies in a huge mass grave just west of Hue. You know? So… Interviewer: And that was the place where the local Viet Cong had rounded up various people they did not like. Veteran: Right, right. Everybody they didn’t like— Interviewer: And killed them. Yep. Veteran: --and didn’t know, you know, that knew that—where they were and what they did. Anyway, so, we were out about 15 miles west of Hue at a Marine—we relieved a Marine unit that was operating in that area. But they left and we went and took up the same position. And every position—it was just left as the old Vietnamese say, beaucoup. So much ammunition, grenades and small arms ammunition. You know? And mud. And we cleaned that up. So, I was with the colonel one day and we went down to the helipad to meet a helicopter coming in; the division commander was coming in. So, we go down and meet the division commander and the sergeant major. And the sergeant major was talking to me, he says, “Sergeant Johnson,” he says, “can’t you get starched fatigues out here?” I said, “Sergeant Major, I am glad to get clean fatigues.” You know, I mean this was a guy that’s been in a garrison forever. Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. Veteran: You know? Thought I had starched fatigues. But anyway, about a week later a fire base about 5 miles away gets bombed. Aircraft—some of the aircraft had come in from the north. They had certain places that they would drop their ammunition. They didn’t want to land with it, �43 right? And nobody told them there was a fire base there. So, they lost the…a handful of people killed. And some wounded. More wounded. So, the colonel and I go get in a helicopter and go down there and see if we could do help in any way, shape or form. So, we sent some communications equipment to reestablish, you know, communications there. (01:10:40) Interviewer: So, this was the North Vietnamese resupplying their units in the field? Veteran: No. Interviewer: Or you were—your own people were dropping resupply? Veteran: Right, right. They were—had been bombing up north and on their way back they would take—pick a place to drop their whatever was left. Interviewer: Right. Okay. So, it’s the leftover bombs. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Yeah, okay. Veteran: Yeah. And so, somebody forgot to inform them that there was an Army unit there, you know. So… Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: Things happen. Interviewer: That would be— Veteran: Shit happens, as they say. Excuse me. Interviewer: It certainly does. Okay. �44 Veteran: So, from there we go from the rock pile I think they called it. We go from there west toward A Shau Valley and set up Firebase Bastogne. You have probably heard of Bastogne. Interviewer: I have heard of it, yes. Veteran: Yeah. So, Bastogne—we were there and then we went to Veghel, which was even further west into the A Shau, near the A Shau. And we stayed there a couple—4 weeks or so. By this time, we were in April. Maybe May. And from there we went up back northeast to another firebase. And I didn’t particularly like being on the firebase because the VC knew where we were. When you are out in the recon platoon, they don’t know where you are because you don’t know where they are and they don’t know where you are. But that’s where they get the opportunity to lob those 132 [122 mm] rockets. Interviewer: Right. (01:12:25) Veteran: You know? And so, every place we went, you know, we got rocketed pretty much. Interviewer: Would you get mortar fire too or mostly— Veteran: Mortar—oh yeah, mortar fire. Yeah. Yep. Interviewer: I think the closer you were to the DMZ, the more likely you were to be in trouble too. Veteran: Yeah. Right. Yeah, you didn’t have too far to carry those rockets. Interviewer: Okay. Now, was there less combat on the ground as you got farther into the year or was…Or were things still pretty hot? Veteran: Oh yeah, it was hot. It was hot. �45 Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, because you see after Tet, these—a lot of the VC and the NVA units pulled back, but they didn’t disappear. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: You know? One of the—we had a battalion from the 82nd attached to us. Maybe a company. Anyway, they were out in our area of operation. And I was on the radio talking to the guy, one of the radio operators. And he said, “We are receiving small arms fire.” And all of a sudden, he started yelling, “They are coming out of a tunnel!” And that was the last time I heard from him. You know? So, they lost a bunch of folks during that time. So, the—you know, the NVA didn’t disappear, they just moved away and hid. Interviewer: Yeah, because it was a lot of fighting in that year following the start of Tet. Veteran: Right. Oh yeah, absolutely. Yep. Interviewer: That all kept on going. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Now, did you have any close calls yourself? (01:14:14) Veteran: Some dumb close calls. I—when I was still with the recon platoon, I—we were giving instructions to go to a certain point up on the hill. There was a hospital, a VC hospital, up there. So, we were making our way up the hill. Every now and then, we would come up against a wooden—looked like an outhouse, but no entry. Totally enclosed all the way around. You know? Because we were so close, I didn’t want to blow it up. But that still puzzles me today what it was. It was probably a storage place for weapons. But anyway, so we were making our way up �46 the mountain, up to the side of this hill, to check out this hospital. We got there. On the way up, I am walking behind 3 or 4 troops and I see a M-26 grenade, and it’s our grenade. I pick it up, put it on my belt. Yep. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. Put it on my belt and I keep it, you know? But it could have been a booby trap. Interviewer: Sure. Veteran: Very easily. And I would have been gone. And along with my radio operator, you know. But anyway, we get to the hospital. Most of the patients were gone. The doctors, a couple of nurses there and—with the kids. Probably some people that lived in the local area and that was forced to work up there. Interviewer: Right. (01:16:02) Veteran: So, that’s about the only thing we found. And we destroyed the hut and the equipment that they had. And so, our guys carried 3 or 4 kids on their shoulder back down the mountain and brought the women down and hauled them in a helicopter and had them evacuated, you know. Because what are you going to do with them? You know. But you know, that’s—those are the kind of close calls you—dumb. Dumb calls. One—at one point we were at a fire base and the recon platoon that came up was going to be resting a couple of days. The helicopter pad was down below. And it was dug out along the side of a hill where there would be flat for the helicopter landing. But so up here, you know, it gets higher. And but the recon platoon people were down there, sitting. And I said to make sure you sit down, do not get up. You know? Because when helicopters take off, sometimes they tilt one way or the other. So, the—one of the best recon platoon sergeants we—platoon squad leader we had was sitting there. The helicopter take off and it tilt; took his head right across the top. I called the helicopter back and the medic �47 got on the helicopter with the kid, with the sergeant, and took him back. Before we got to the hospital, he was dead of course. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: You know? A lot of crazy accidents killed people. Well, you know there’s 500… Interviewer: Talking about sort of different experiences in Vietnam. Now, I know at one point you got wounded. Can you talk about that? Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, we were at a—I was on a firebase at that time and the VC broke into the perimeter. And you know, on the firebase we have the artillery batteries; it is located there. And the mortar platoon. Mortar platoon is located there. And we gave a medical staff there. So, all of a sudden, I am sleeping. And we build our own little hooch or a bunker. Interviewer: You’re in a bunker. Yeah. (01:18:31) Veteran: Yeah. And I am sleeping with the company commander of the headquarters company; he’s in the same hooch. And explosion starts going off. And I mean different locations. I jump up and I—you sleep with your shoes on, your weapon is right next to you. I jump up and I look out and I see the cap—the colonel—standing, staggering around. And his—where he was sleeping was covered—I mean, a pile of rocks to keep from small arms fire hitting him. But the VC had broken into the perimeter and apparently knew where he was. They threw grenades right on the tent. You know, which was just a little pup tent. And he got wounded. He was standing around, staggering. I ran over and grabbed him and escorted him to the medical tent. And from there I go—they took care of him. From there I go check the perimeter, make sure all the troops are okay. And I was leaving one position, talking to the guy. He was okay, no problem, hadn’t seen anything. And go to the next place down: there’s a guy laying on his back. The medic was �48 already there. Laying on—yeah, on his stomach. He was already back there. And he got a bunch of shrapnel in his butt. And you know, and this…Why did it—I think the other guy was—came up walking up to the location and looked down. He said—I think he was a medic, and I think he said—I know he said, “Oh my god!” I said, “Get the hell away from here!” I said, “You’re going to cause the guy to go into shock.” I mean, blood was just oozing out of him, you know. (01:20:27) Veteran: And so, the medics were there taking care of him. And the mortars were firing off around the perimeter outside of, you know, our perimeter. By this time, the VC had pulled back. And so, I was making my way around to check on each position. And some small arms fire was coming up the hill, and also a grenade. And that’s when I got injured in the cheek. And I thought well, man if it was a bullet, I am glad I had my mouth open. You know? Because it came from on an angle like that. And anyway, so I—everything by this time, the Spooky was up dropping flares so we could see. You know, turning the night into daylight. Interviewer: Right. Veteran: And the colonel was in the tent by the morning. And what do you call that? Mini guns were circling, firing all around. We sent out patrols the next day and found quite a few bodies. You know, the mini guns must have got them. But the colonel didn’t come back to the battalion because he was wounded. The next time I saw the colonel was in 1990-something. And he was introducing his wife to me. He says, “And I think this is the guy that probably saved my life.” You know? I said, “No, you were okay.” I said, “I just got you to the—made sure I got you to the medics.” You know? But he was just—the same guy that just got awarded the Medal of Honor for a Korean War action. �49 Interviewer: Wow. (01:22:16) Veteran: Korean War action back in the Korean War. That was just the war he was upgraded from, you know. Interviewer: Right. Yeah, they are doing some of that now. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, so he is 95 now. Interviewer: Okay. And what’s his name? Veteran: Puckett—Colonel Puckett. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: Ralph Puckett. I think his first name is Ralph. I didn’t even call him Ralph. You know? Interviewer: No. You would not at that point. Okay. And then I think you also at some point received a Bronze Star. What was that for? Veteran: Yeah, that was after I even got back from Vietnam. I was at Fort Bragg by this time, you know. And they had an awards ceremony; presented a Bronze Star to me. And I guess the sergeant major from that action put me in, you know, I guess. Interviewer: Okay, yeah. That would make sense. Alright. Now…As we move on in ’68, you are getting close to a year in Vietnam. Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: So, under what circumstances do you leave or how does that process work? Veteran: Well, I was—during the whole time, I kept telling the colonel—asking the colonel: when can I go on R and R? I was thinking about having my wife meet me in Hawaii. �50 Interviewer: Right. Veteran: A lot of married guys were doing that. And he said, “Well, wait until the next—the end of the next operation to get started.” You know? And that next operation gets started. So, finally I says, “Colonel, I am going to take 3 or 4 days off and go down to Saigon—Da Nang, rather.” They had a China Beach down there. You could spend—get a little hooch on the beach and spend time down there. But at the same time, my wife’s brother was in the Marine Corps, stationed in Da Nang. And I located him and I met him and talked to him. And he says—he says, “Oh, by the way, my mother is down in Georgia taking care of your kids.” He says, “Carol is in the hospital.” You know? So, I said, “Well, cripes. I guess I better get back up to the unit. They’ve been probably trying to contact me.” By the time I get back up there, the officer in the rear, in charge of the rear area, said, “When are you supposed to rotate? DEROS?” I said, “Around the 1st week of July.” He said, “Well, get your stuff together. We are going to send you out now because—” it was—must’ve been around the 20th of June. (01:24:52) Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: Or at least something like that. So, I packed up. I had a couple—I had an SKS weapon that I wanted to bring back with me. In order to do that, you have to go to Saigon to get it approved to bring it back. So, I said, “Forget about that.” You know? So, 3 days later I was on the plane coming back to the good old U.S. of A. Interviewer: Alright. Veteran: Went back down to Fort Benning, Georgia. My wife was…She was out of the hospital by then. So, I sent my mother-in-law away. And then I got—I knew where I was going: to Fort Bragg. So, we packed up and went to Fort Bragg. Before we left Fort Benning, I had this—she �51 bought this trailer where you could fold it up to a single wide, right? So, I had to get equipment to do that and I did that, contacted an outfit to move it to North Carolina. And we drove to North Carolina and I got an assignment to the S-2 sergeant of the 505 infantry brigade. Interviewer: Regiment. (01:26:16) Veteran: Regiment. Yeah, at that point, yeah. Anyway, so I stayed there and I went to Puerto Rico once or twice for training. And that’s—about a year later I got orders to go to England. Interviewer: Okay. And what was that assignment? Veteran: Well, that assignment was a—I was assigned to the SILK PURSE Control Group, which was controlled by the USEUCOM—U.S. European Command. And—which was in Stuttgart at the time, the headquarters was. But we were in England. And the purpose of that mission or that outfit was to provide a survivable command post for the U.S. military in Europe in case of a nuclear war. So, we had 6 KC-135 aircraft, which was an old model of the Boeing 707. It had all the equipment that you’d need to communicate with anybody in the world pretty much. And we had equipment onboard where in case of a war, you needed to get down—not the aircraft itself, but it had cable that dropped down to a couple hundred feet off the ground where you could communicate through that cable to the military in the command JCS—Joint Service Command. And so, we did practice that once or twice. And each time, you had to cut it before it could get back into the aircraft. And we also had guys—an Air Force guy onboard our aircraft, and I think each one of the aircraft because you’d fly 8 hours flight after you’d get level—flying level—you’d go x number of feet high. (01:28:24) Veteran: And you’d contact the aircraft that’s already on station, and relieve them, and you’d take charge of the operation from that point until 8 hours later, and then another one would �52 come. Sometimes, because we were in Germany—England—sometimes we couldn’t land back in England because a lot of fog during that particular time of year. So, we’d land in…At first, we could land in... Well, Qaddafi—where is Qaddafi from? Interviewer: Libya. Veteran: Libya, yep. We had a base in Libya that we could land. We had a base in France we could land, but France kicked us out, so did Qaddafi. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: So, Scotland—we had a base in Scotland we could land. We had a base in Madrid, Spain, so we would land in Madrid, Spain most of the time and spend the night and then take up a position the next day, whatever, the hour we started a new mission—started the next mission. That lasted…Let me see, I got there in ’69 and we left in ’72. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And very enjoyable assignment. Interviewer: Okay. I mean, did the—did you again have—did you have base schools there? Did your kids go— Veteran: Yeah. Interviewer: Yep. Veteran: Kids had the school that they could attend. Just walked right down the street to the school. And… �53 Interviewer: Now, would you travel at all with your family or do any tourism? Or just in England or…? Veteran: In England, let me see…No, we didn’t because my wife’s—it all started, her illness— she had a diagnosis: paranoid schizophrenic. You know? So, she was in the hospital at Fort Bragg a couple of times. And we got to England and she was in the hospital quite often. So, at the point where it got—had to get a…someone to come in and watch the kids when I am off flying. Interviewer: Right. (01:30:26) Veteran: On duty. And so, that was pretty hectic at times. And sometimes, you know, she’d stay at the hospital 3-4 weeks and then come home and be fine. And before you knew it, things turned sour again. So, yeah, the kids went to school and did very well. Met a lot of friends—I mean, acquaintances that they got to know and enjoyed the stay. We didn’t do much traveling. We did a lot of local travel. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: And go to local towns and that, you know. Interviewer: Okay. Yeah. Veteran: Went to London and I saw Hair, and that was the first time I saw a crew onstage butt naked. Interviewer: Yep. Probably true for many people in Europe. Veteran: Yeah, yeah. I thought what the heck? Interviewer: Okay. �54 Veteran: So, we came back from England. I wanted to stay longer in England, but they said— this was in ’72 so the war was still going on in Vietnam. They said, “Well no, you can’t stay because you will probably be going back to Vietnam.” You know, so I got an assignment to— before I got the assignment, they contacted me and said I wouldn’t be going to Vietnam but I was going to Michigan to work with the Michigan National Guard Advisory group. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And I spent 4 years doing that: from ’72 to ’76. That meant going from Wisconsin to Indiana to Grayling, Michigan…Anywhere where the National Guard was training. You know, particularly during the summer. You know, two weeks in Minnesota, Wisconsin—sometimes spend six weeks in Wisconsin because one unit would come for two weeks and the next unit would come. You know, so the same thing with Grayling, but it was close enough where I could come home. You know? I was still living in the Selfridge Air Force Base in Mount Clemens area at the time. (01:32:39) Interviewer: Alright. And that’s the whole period—I mean, now Vietnam is really winding down. Vietnam actually ends. Veteran: Yeah. Yeah, Vietnam was winding down. I didn’t have to think about having to go back there. Because when I was there, when I left Vietnam, I had made up my mind that I wasn’t going back. I had been in service 12 years when I went to Vietnam. And I decided, if necessary, I’d give them my 12 years and get out because it seemed to me that the Americans were doing most of the fighting and the VC—I had to—interpreters with every company on the ground. And one time, the—all of the interpreters all of a sudden showed up at the firebase. And I see them getting off the helicopter. I go out, I said, “What’s going on? You can’t be leaving your �55 company.” “Well, it’s a holiday. We go home for the holiday.” I said, “You get your butts back on that helicopter and get back out there with that unit.” I said, “All those guys out there? They would like to go home for the holiday too.” You know? So, they all reluctantly got back on the helicopter, you know. Interviewer: Did you have much contact with the Vietnamese civilians? Veteran: No. Not at all, pretty much. I visited a—what do you call it? A massage parlor one time. And I said, “I don’t need to go back there.” You know, they wanted—they would give you a massage and they wanted to go more than a massage. Interviewer: Right. (01:34:18) Veteran: And I said, “No thank you.” And that was the only contact I had with—and I could— you know, I saw civilians walking down the street. Interviewer: Right. And there were the ones who were in the hospital that you had to remove and that kind of thing. Veteran: Right, right. Interviewer: Now, did you have civilians who would work on any of the bases? Veteran: Yeah. Oh yeah. A lot of civilians that worked on the base: laundry, barber shop, BX. You know? And when the Tet Offensive happened and tour—why, on that tour, Phan Rang and a couple of the other bases—you know, when the Tet Offensive happened, they found most of them killed on the perimeter. Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. �56 Veteran: Because they were working but they were VC also. You know, you never—you can’t tell. Interviewer: Yeah. Veteran: You know, no background investigation takes place. Interviewer: Yeah. Okay. So, you—now you have this assignment in Michigan. I mean, and what—and that’s your last assignment. At what point— Veteran: That wasn’t my last assignment. Interviewer: How did you—did you decide to leave the service or were you told it was time to go? Veteran: Well, I was going to try to go back to Europe someplace. I said, “I’d like to get a—” I called the Pentagon, talked to my guy up there—I said, “I’d like to go back to Germany or England, you know.” He said, “No problem, no problem.” He promised me that I would be—this was in the early 70— Interviewer: ’76 now? Veteran: ’76, yeah. early ’76. He said, “No problem. We will have you there back by September.” I said, “Good, because I have kids still in school and they need to get back in school in September if we are going to be moving.” And about a month or two later, I get orders to go to Korea. Interviewer: Oh… (01:36:11) Veteran: And I called the guy back. I said, “What’s going on with this?” I said, “You said you were going to be able to get me back to Europe someplace.” He said, “Well, we see you have �57 never been to Korea and you got to go to Korea before you go back to Europe.” I says, “You’re right, you are absolutely right. I have never been to Korea, and guess what? I am not going. I am going to retire.” And that was the day that I made up my mind to retire. Now, I should have thought a little bit more about this because I had 21 years and 5 months and a few days. If you go 21 years and 6 months and 1 day, you get additional money. Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: You know? So, I cut myself short by a week or two. You know? So… Interviewer: Alright. So, once you left the service, then what did you do? Veteran: Well, I was going to take 6 months off and do nothing. You know? That lasted about 4 weeks. And I moved to Holland, Michigan. My folks left Detroit in ’62 or ‘3, something like that, and moved to Holland. They had bought—my dad bought about 26 acres of land and was out in the country, farming and selling vegetables. Anyway, I decided that we’d go over there to visit. And I decided that’s where I would like to raise my kids because I could have had a job just out of Mount Clemens, working for Ford Motor Company and making good money. But that was too close to Detroit, as far as I was concerned. Because my kids had been kind of isolated their whole life, you know, living on military bases and not exposed to a lot of nonsense. So, that’s why I moved to Holland. (01:38:12) Interviewer: Okay. Veteran: And that’s where all of the kids have graduated from high school. Interviewer: Now, did you find a job there? �58 Veteran: I did. I worked…Well, I went—I decided I was going to do just about anything to keep busy. So, I went to this outfit that take rows of aluminum and make different stuff, you know. So, I went over there and I knew—my wife knew the family that was—the lady was the secretary in that office. So, I stopped by one day and I says, “I’d like to see about getting a job.” I forget her name; she says, “Sure! No problem. Fill this—just put your name and phone number and address and the sales officer will call you.” He called me and I go in and for the interview. And he asked me what I’d been doing for all these years, you know. And I started talking about my military career and my service and my experience and what I did. And when I got to the point of the airborne command post in Germany—I mean, England—he was very interested in that. And the next day he called me, says, “Go see this doctor and get a physical and you can start Monday.” You know? And he says—when I come back Monday, he wanted to see me—he says, “And what do you have in mind for the future?” I said, “well, I’d like to take your job.” But I worked there about 6 months and maybe a little longer. And a prison opened about—opened up about 12 miles south of Saugatuck area, you know. So, I went down there and I put in an application. I worked there for a couple—well, ’78 we got inmates in. ’79, I moved from there, went to Muskegon because I could get a promotion. Well, it was set as a temporary promotion. I thought, well you know, temporary? When I get there, I am going to make it a permanent promotion. They are going to have to hire me on a permanent basis once I work for a while. And they did. You know, and the next thing I knew, I make lieutenant and the shift commander. And I worked there for about 9 years. (01:40:41) Veteran: And I was outside during a snowstorm, and there’s a guy running what we call the port where trucks come through. We had to inspect them and go down underneath where you’re looking, going to do an oil change, to check for drugs. And I was down there. I started going �59 down and I hit a piece of ice I guess and slipped down and hurt my back, and end up in back surgery. It never got much better so they medically retired me. So, I did Mr. Mom for 3 or 4 years until all the kids got out of high school. And that’s my story. Interviewer: Alright. Now, to look back at the time that you spent in the Army, are there other particular memories or things that stand out for you that you haven’t talked about yet? Veteran: I am sure there is some things that I didn’t talk about that…But I can’t think of anything now. Interviewer: Yeah, you’ll remember them after we stop, because that is how that works. Veteran: I am sure! Interviewer: Okay. But then to think back on your time in the service, in what ways do you think that affected you, or what did you take out of it? (01:42:06) Veteran: Well, I took out of it the fact that I think I can do just about anything I put my mind to. And I learned a lot about myself, about people’s behaviors, people…You know? When I was in—when I was still working at the prison, I went to school at night at Grand—well, I started at Muskegon Community College. Got an associate degree at the community college and then went to—from there to Grand Valley. In the meantime, I had been divorced and so I was living up in Muskegon area and driving to Grand—after associate degree at Muskegon, I went to Grand Valley. And a year or so later, I got married—remarried. And my wife lived in Holland and I moved to Holland. And so, I still was working in Muskegon. I’d go to school—work 6 o’clock in the morning, get off at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and go to Grand Valley and go to the library and study for 2-3 hours, every now and then maybe get a couple hours sleep, and go to class and �60 get home at 10 o’clock at night. Then get up the next morning and do it all over again. So, I ended up with getting my bachelor’s degree in criminal justice. And all the inmates wanted to know, “Sergeant—Lieutenant Johnson—why are you going to school?” I said, “So I can figure out what makes you freaking idiots tick so that you don’t come back here.” You know? But the recidivism rate was very high. You know, you send people out and 3-4 weeks, sometimes months later, there they are, right back. So, I used to tell guys that were going to get out, I says, “Don’t go back and hang out with the same crowd.” I says, “Find a new place to live, if possible. But don’t hang out with—if you got to go back to the same town, don’t hang out with the same people. Those are the people that got you here in the first place.” But you know, didn’t help much. Interviewer: Yeah. Well, you can’t fix everything. Veteran: No. You can’t fix it. You know, they have to fix it themselves. Interviewer: Alright. Well, you’ve got a remarkable story, so I would just like to thank you for coming in and sharing it with us today. Veteran: Thank you very much. (01:44:43) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JohnsonW2358V Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Johnson, William Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06 Title A name given to the resource Johnson, William (Interview transcript and video), 2021 Description An account of the resource William Johnson was born in Union, Mississippi, on September 14th, 1936. He enlisted in the Army in 1955. He was processed in Fort Wayne, Michigan, issued his equipment in Fort Knox, Kentucky, and attended basic training in Fort Carson, Colorado. He then went to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for advanced training. Johnson was originally to join the 18th Engineer Brigade, but later decided to go to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for airborne training and joined the 11th Airborne Division. After that, his unit was deployed to Munich, Germany. Due to fights between units, the 11th Airborne Division was deactivated and Johnson joined the 24th Regiment, 8th Infantry Division. He stayed in Germany until December 1958 before going to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he reenlisted and was assigned to the 504th Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. While at Fort Bragg, his unit went to Mississippi to respond to the conflict that occurred when James Meredith was not allowed to enroll in the University of Mississippi in 1962. Later that year, his unit was flown to Eglin Airforce Base in Florida to respond to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Johnson left Fort Bragg in 1963, after which he was assigned to go to Mainz and Bad Kreuznach, Germany as a part of the 8th Infantry Division, 509th Airborne Infantry Brigade. He stayed in Germany until 1966, then went to Fort Benning, Georgia, where he was the operation sergeant at the airborne training school. In 1967, he was flown to Clark Air Force base in the Philippines before arriving in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam. He then went to Phan Rang where he joined the 101st Airborne Division, 2nd Batallion, 502nd Infantry Regiment. Later, he went to Tam Ky, then Chu Lai where he was assigned to be an S-2 sergeant. After that, he went back to Phan Rang and then to Song Be. When the Tet Offensive began, his unit left for Da Nang. From there, they went towards A Shau Valley and set up Firebase Bastogne. Then, they went to Veghel and another firebase, where they were fired at, and Johnson got injured in the cheek. In 1968, Johnson flew back home where he was assigned to the 505th Infantry Regiment. In 1969, he was assigned to the SILK PURSE Control Group in England and returned home in 1972 to work with the Michigan National Guard Advisory group until he retired in 1976. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James (Interviewer) WKTV (Wyoming, Mich.) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States—History, Military Veterans Video recordings World War, 1939-1945—Personal narratives, American Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections & University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401. Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource video/mp4 application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c33c06f696090eed6ebbcee2059583f4.pdf c7482566baaaf5243c721cd3ab840c50 PDF Text Text If it hasn't already, breast cancer will touch you or someone you know. According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, "Early detection is the key to survival. With regular screening, breast cancer is more likely to be detected at an earlier stage, when it is most treatable." While great strides have been made against breast cancer, we still need your support to see to it that our mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, and neighbors will never have to know this disease. , center and Colleges Against Cane ~omens ers~d fight Against Breast C ento,.fJan;~ . anc er at,o,, ,n \h0 . \"eG"s\l lo'"' • SUPPORT - OCTOBER 26, ALL DAY GVSU Casual Wednesday: Please support the Susan G Kamen Foundation and the fight against breast cancer. Every student, faculty or staff member who donates $5 to the fight against breast cancer can wear something casual to class/work on October 26th! Your donation will also help support breast cancer research and education through the foundation! You may purchase a pin at one of the following locations:**Checks may be made payable to: Susan G Komen Foundation Allendale Campus: Women's Center, 1201 Kirkhof Center Cheryl Fischer, 1126 Service Bldg Connie Ingham, 212 Henry Hall Cindy Laug, B-4-232 Mackinaw Hall Hollie Rago, 201 Lake Michigan Hall DeVos Center Sherry Moyer, 288C DeVos Cook De Vos Center Health Sciences: Cheryl Borgman, 300 CHS Holland Meijer Campus: Anita Benes, 515 Holland Annis Water Resources Institute Roxana Taylor, 100 Lake Michigan Center PARTICIPATE- OCTOBER 22, 9AM-12PM Bras Across the Grand:The second ann·ual Bras Across the Grand event is taking place on Saturday October 22nd from 9am-12pm on the Pedestrian Bridge at Ah-Nab-Awen Park. Bring a bra and decorate it in honor of or memory of a loved one who has had breast cancer. Five dollars will be collected for each decorated bra to help raise money to fight breast cancer.This event is hosted by the Grand Rapids' American Cancer Society. WALK -APRIL 13 Save The Date: Friday, April 13, 2012 For more information on joining Colleges Against Cancer Student Organization "Relay For Life"walk check out their website at www.relayforlifegvsu.edu. Teams can be made up of friends, family members, and work departments. @ GRANDVALLEY Co-sponsored by: Women's Center, Colleges Against Cancer, and Work Life Connections STATE UNNERSITY WOMEN'S CENI'ER � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09_SGF_2012_Fight-Against-Breast-Cancer.pdf Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Women's Center Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-10-26/2012-04-13 Title A name given to the resource Join the GVSU Women's Center and Colleges Against Cancer Student Organization in the Fight Against Breast Cancer Description An account of the resource Flyer detailing several different events for breast cancer awareness including donation drives, information about breast cancer, and a Relay For Life walk. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Colleges Against Cancer, Work Life Connections Subject The topic of the resource Community centers Cancer Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Women's Center Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/fcdc81ff2bee8239041a4855c9f4d9f9.pdf 69fecd5faee0230d3ffbe17b68391bf4 PDF Text Text If it hasn't already, breast cancer will touch you or someone you know. According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, "Early detection is the key to survival. With regular screening, breast cancer is more likely to be detected at an earlier stage, when it is most treatable." While great strides have been made against breast cancer, we still need your support to see to it that our mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, and neighbors will never have to know this disease. , center and Colleges Against Cane women s • er Studen . weG\IS~e tor9ar,;~ . fight Against Breast C lO't\ an c e,. 'Uta,, \ (\ \.\ ' SUPPORT~ OCTOBER 20, ALL DAY GVSU Casual Wednesday: Please support the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the fight against breast cancer. Every student, faculty or staff member who donates $5 to the fight against breast cancer can wear something casual to work on October 20th! Your donation will also help support breast cancer research and education through the foundation! You may purchase a pin at one of the following locations: **Checks may be made payable to: Susan G Komen Foundation Allendale Campus: Women's Center, 1201 Kirkhof Center Cheryl Fischer, 1126 Service Bldg Connie Ingham, 212 Henry Hall Cindy Laug, B-4-232 Mackinaw Hall Hollie Rago, 201 Lake Michigan Hall DeVos Center Sherry Moyer, 288C De Vos Cook DeVos Center Health Sciences: Cheryl Borgman, 300 CHS Holland Meijer Campus: Anita Benes, 515 Holland Annis Water Resources Institute Roxana Taylor, 100 Lake Michigan Center LEARN ~ OCTOBER 15, 12-1 :00 PM, RM 2215/2216 KIRKHOF CENTER What would you do if you found out you carried the gene that would most likely result in developing breast and ovarian cancer? Kristina Wieghmink, an employee in the GVSU Anthropology Lab and mother to 5 children, will share how she made the decision to undergo a double mastectomy and hysterectomy to prevent developing cancer due to a gene that substantially increased her risk. Sara Svendsen, genetic counselor at Spectrum Genetic Center will also share the current research that supports Kristina's decision on this life changing decision. For individuals requiring special accommodations please call the Women's Center@ 616-331-2748 or email: womenctr@gvsu.edu. WALK ~ APRIL 8 SAVE THE DATE: Friday, April 8, 2011 For more information on joining the Colleges Against Cancer Student Organization "Relay For Life" walk check out their website at www.relayforlifegvsu.com. Teams can be made up of friends, family members, and work departments. @ GRAND"\l4J..LEv Co-sponsored by: Women's Center, Colleges Against Cancer, and Work Life Connections SuJE lJNivERSITY WO:MEN'S CENTER � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09_SGF_2010-2011_Fight-Against-Breast-Cancer.pdf Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Women's Center Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-10-15/2011-04-08 Title A name given to the resource Join the GVSU Women's Center and Colleges Against Cancer Student Organization in the Fight Against Breat Cancer Description An account of the resource Flyer detailing several different events for breast cancer awareness including donation drives, information about breast cancer, and a Relay For Life walk. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Women's Center, Colleges Against Cancer, Work Life Connections Subject The topic of the resource Community centers Cancer Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Women's Center Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/039b6d0ed960a1b64271679d1f00a853.pdf f94740f2f26aafc3396ba0ffb293fbd3 PDF Text Text ATTENTION WGS STUDENTS: JOIN TRIOTA FOR 8/JRRITO !VIG/IT/ TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5TH 6-8 PM LOH 225 0/,11£ ANO APPLY TO TR/OTA.I Find out more about Triota at gvsu.edu/wgs/about-triota-19.htm � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09_SGF_WGS_2018_BurritoNightw-Triota.pdf Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018-12-05 Title A name given to the resource Join Triota for Burrito Night Description An account of the resource The Iota Iota Iota (Triota) academic honor society invites WGS students to go eat and apply with them. Subject The topic of the resource Women's studies Universities and colleges -- Societies, etc. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/26aede41999fa21ed73d4210e8ac5066.pdf 1d42bd507117cfdbc1914dac3ed7eb8f PDF Text Text - ~ FROM TH Plann;n E ~IBRARY OF TRI-COMMUNITY Prepared By The Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee g&zon;ngC, nter,/, �' JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CI1Y OF SAUGATUCK, SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, AND VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS Prepared by the Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee in cooperation with: ,/ Coastal Zone Management Program Land and Water Management Division Department of Natural Resources and with the assistance of: Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S. Waverly Road Lansing, MI 4891 7 (51 7) 886-0555 November 1989 This document was prepared in part throughfmancial assistance provided by the Olftce of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. �The following individuals participated in the preparation of this plan: • JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE Debra Quade, Linda Kinnamon, Mike Esposito, Margaret Sanford, Teny Burns, 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 Serne SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP Planning Commission Andy Jager. Frank Pluta. Gene Olsen, Herb Klemm•, Teny Locatls, Rex Felker, Robert Miller, and Jean Vanderberg. Township Board Teny Burns, Carole Schreckengust, Patricia Birkholz. Frank Pluta, Mary Lou Novak, and Tom Murdoch*. [• no longer serving] PLANNING & ZONING CENTER, INC. Sta.ff of Planning & .ZOning Center, Inc. wlw assisted with the preparation of this plan are: Mark A Wyckoff (President). Kristine M. Williams (Community Planner). Timothy J. McCauley (Community Planner/Geographic Information System Specialist), William Bogle (Graphic Artist), Carolyn Freebury (Office Manager). and John Warbach (Environmental Planner). " ; �Table of Contents .1. LIS4' OF FIGURES LIST OF MAPS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. i Chapter 1 GOALS. OBJECTIVES & POLICIES: IBE AREAWIDE POLICY PIAN ..................................................................... 1-l Chapter2 DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 IBE ECONOMY............................................................................................ 3-1 Chapter 4 NA'TIJRAL RESOURCES AND IBE ENVIRONMENr. ......... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... ..... 4-1 Chapter tJ EXISTING IAND COVER AND USE............................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILIDES AND SERVICES ............................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8 WA1'ERFRONr.............................................................................................. 8-1 Chapter9 GROWIH AND DEVELOPMENr TRENDS..................................................... 9-1 Chapter 10 Fllfl.JRE IAND USE.................................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 11 INTERGOVERNMENrAL COOPERATION ..................................................... 11-1 Chapter 12 STRA1'EGIES FOR IMPLEMENrATION ......................................................... 12-1 APPENDIX A References APPENDIXB Demographic, Economic and Housing Data APPENDIXC Public Opinion Survey Responses APPENDIXD Soil Types - Tri-Community Area �Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIST OF FIGURES TITLE Nill'.aBER 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2 .15 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.15 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) - Area Age Cohorts (1980) - Village of Douglas Age Cohorts (1980) -Allegan County Age Cohorts (1980) - City of Saugatuck Age Cohorts (1980) - Saugatuck Township Educational Background in 1980 - Persons 25 and Over, Tri-Community Area Saugatuck Public School Enrollments Grades K-12 Saugatuck Public School Enrollments Elementary and High Schools Employment By Sector in 1980 -Tri-Community Area and Allegan County Average Annual Employment - Tri-Community Area Monthly Employment - Tri-Commnity Area, 1988 Tourism Related Employment. 1988 -Allegan County Real Property SEV. 1988 - City of Saugatuck Real Property SEV. 1988 - Saugatuck Township and Village of Douglas Annual Real Property SEV - Tri-Community Area (1980-1987) Percent In Poverty By Age - Tri-Community Area (1980) Kalamazoo River Basin Linkage Plan Subdivision Trends - Changes From 1954-1984 Retiree Migration Trends Population Trend - Saugatuck Township - - - - -- --- ------ - PAGE 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 3-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-5 3-6 3-7 4-2 8-7 9-2 9-2 9-3 ~ �Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIST OF MAPS NUMBER 2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.!S 4.6 4.7 4. 7a 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.l!S 5.1 !S.2 IS.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.IS 6.6 7 .1 7 .2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.5a 10.1 10.2 TITLE PAGE School District (note: all maps are found at the end of each Chapter) Topography Watercourses Floodplains Wetlands Basement Limitations Septic Limitations Septic Limitations On-Site Wastewater Limitations Most Suitable Soils Hydric Soils Prime Farmlands Groundwater Vulnerability Water Wells High Risk Erosion Areas Critical Dune Areas Woodlands Land Use/Cover Existing Land Use By Parcel PA 116 and Unique Farmlands Water System Sewer System Gas Mains Street Classifications Act 51 Roads Public Facilities Outdoor Recreation Sites Bike Paths Watersheds No-Wake Areas Saugatuck Harbor Marinas Street Ends/Parks Street Ends/Parks Future Land Use Entry Points �Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIST OF TABLES NUMBER 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 9.3 TITLE Population (1950-1980) Educational Status - Persons 25 and Over School Enrollments - Saugatuck School District Impact of Travel On Allegan County, 1986 Major Employers Employment By Industry - 1980 Employment By Occupation - 1980 Average Annual Unemployment Rate Per Capita Income, Allegan County Income and Poverty Characteristics Tri-Community Area Summary of Relevant Climate Conditions Land Cover Codes for Protected Wetlands Existing Land Use State Historic Sites Non-Park Public Facilities and Public Property Inventory Projected Saugatuck Township Wastewater Flows County Drains Existing Traffic Counts Tons Generated per Day By Land Use Solid Waste Composition Per Capita Waste Generated Summer Recreation Programs Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Parkland Inventory Proposed Recreation Projects - Tri-Community Area Planned Acquisitions/Improvements to Parks and Open Spaces Recreation Needs In The Tri-Community Area 1988 Public Opinion Survey Kalamazoo River Exceedance Flows (1929-1985) Kalamazoo River Water Quality NPDES Permits Issured In The Tri-Commun1ty Area Lake Michigan Lake Levels Rate of Population Change Projected Population - 1970-1980 Trend Projected Number of Households PAGE 2-1 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-6 3-7 3-7 4-1 4-3 5-1 5-2 6-2 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-8 6-9 6-9 7-1 7-2 7-4 7-6 ~ 7-7 7-7 8-2 8-3 8-5 8-5 9-1 9-3 9-3 ~ �9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 12.1 Percentage of Population By Density Type New Households By Density Type Future Residential Land Needs Available Acreage By Land Use Type Population 2010 - Build-Out Scenario Under Zoning In Effect Recreation Facilities - Minimum Size ~ 9-4 9-4 9-4 9-4 9-4 12-4 �l INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW The purpose of this Plan is to provide a policy and decision making guide regarding all future land and infrastructure development within the trt-community area. Within the Plan. key planning issues are identified: a clear set of goals and policies are outlined: future land uses are described and mapped: and specific implementation measures are recommended. All future land uses and policies presented in this Plan were developed based on a blending of the natural capability of the land to sustain certain types of development: the important natural functions played by unique land and water resources in the area: the relative future need for residential, commercial, and industrial uses: the existing land use distribution: and the desires of local residents and public officials as expressed through direct interviews a public opinion survey. town meetings, and public hearings. This Plan was prepared by the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc.. under the direction of a Joint Planning Committee with three representatives each from the City of Saugatuck, the Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township. Financial support was provided by the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. Coastal Zone Management Program. This Plan represents a compilation of the most significant aspects of the individual comprehensive plans for the participating communities, with the addition of special emphasis on interjurisdictional issues (especially see Chapters 8 and 11). There are three critical components to using this plan as a decision making guide. First, are the goals, objectives and policies in Chapter 1. Second, is the future land use map and associated descriptive information presented in Chapter 10. Third, is the supporting documentation found in Chapters 2-9. Although this Plan states specific land use development policy and proposes specific land use arrangements. it has no regulatory power. It is prepared as a foundation for and depends primarily on the individual zoning ordinances (and other local tools) of the tri-communities for its implementation. This Plan is intended as support for the achievement of the following public objectives, among others: • to conserve and protect property values by preventing incompatible uses from locating adjacent to each other: • to protect and preserve the natural resources, unique character, and environmental quality of the area: • to maintain and enhance the employment and tax base of the area; • to promote an orderly development process by which public officials and citizens are given an opportunity to monitor change and review proposed development: and • to provide information from which to gain a better understanding of the area, its interdependencies and Interrelationships and upon which to base future land use and public investment decisions. This Plan is unique in that it was conceived of and prepared with the full and equal participation of representatives of Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township. More importantly, each of the individual community comprehensive plans were prepared In light of the issues. problems and opportunities that the three communities face together, rather than being done in isolation as is more frequently the norm. While a Joint Planning Committee oversaw the production of this plan, the individual planning commissions and legislative bodies of the three communities were directly involved in the preparation of those plans. Chapter 11 proposes that the Joint Planning Committee be continued and that this Plan be updated at a minimum of every five to ten years. The contents of this Plan and the three individual plans draw directly from planning documents previously adopted by the individual jurisdictions. There has been no effort made to explicitly footnote when material has been used. Instead it is intended that the contents of those documents continue to carry forward where they were found to be helpful in addressing the current and projected issues facing the tri-community area. In particular. the Village of Douglas Land Use Plan of 1986 and the Phase I 1979 planning report of the (then) Village of Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan --- - - -- --- --- - �u Saugatuck were frequently relied upon in drafting portions of all three plans. A number of engineering and technical documents prepared by outside consultants over the past decade have also been relied upon. They are referenced in Appendix A SPATIAL LOCATION The maps on the following page show the location of Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township on the shores of Lake Michigan. This location along I-196 makes them easily accessible to travelers from across North America. The shoreline along the Kalamazoo River, Lake Kalamazoo. and Lake Michigan and the beautiful sand dunes and wide beaches make this a tourist mecca and an attractive place for retirement. The trade area for commercial businesses in the three communities is quite small. Local residents tend to only do daily and weekly shopping locally as Holland. Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo are nearby for wider selections of consumer goods. Three school districts seive the area but the largest number of students within the planning area attend the Saugatuck School District. KEY FACTORS GUIDING TIDS PLAN Three considerations played prominent roles in fashioning the contents of this plan. These are based on widely held public opinions. past and present investment by public and private entities and a growing recognition among citizens of the interdependence of the three communities. First, the three communities function as a single economic. and social unit. Many people live in one of the three communities and work in another of the three. Most people live in one and shop with some frequency in another. School children, by in large, attend the same schools. Local cultural, conservancy and retiree activities are Jointly supported by residents of all three communities. Several public seIVices are Jointly proVided including the Interurban bus seIVice. sewer and water (at least between Douglas and Saugatuck) and fire protection. The Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo connect all three communities, as do the local road network. Sometimes it seems, only the three units of government are separate. Yet despite these interrelationships, each community maintains a strong separate identity among many citizens of the three entities. Even many neighborhoods have strong separate identities (e.g. the hill, the lakeshore, Silver Lake, etc.). This provides an important richness and depth to the area, but it can also be politically diVisive . Second, tourism is the primary engine driving the local economy. Despite several industrial employers that proVide important diversity to the area's economy. it is the dollars brought in by tourists and seasonal residents that fuel most of the local wages and local purchasing. The environmental splendor and wide range of actMties open to tourists are the primary attraction. But no less significant is the small town character of the area. This character, often described as "cute" or "quaint" by tourists. is highly favored by tourists and deeply cherished by local citizens. As a result, any intensive or poorly planned alterations to the natural enVironment, or homogenization of the character of the indiVidual communities is likely to have a potentially negative effect on both tourists and residents. This Plan proposes keeping the scale and intensity of such future changes low and proposes a variety of mitigation techniques to prevent adverse impacts on the environment or on the character of the area from these kinds of changes. Third, a balance of future land uses is necessary to enhance the stability of the community during poor economic times and to broaden the population base. Presently there is a significant lack of housing in the area that is affordable for families with children. That. in concert with a decline in children generally (and an increase in the elderly) has severely impacted the Saugatuck School District. If all future land use decisions were made based exclusively on m1n.imal alteration of the natural environment or maintenance of the existing community character. then over time, the community would become more vulnerable to economic downturn. which usually hits tourist communities very hard. Thus, a balance must be sought between what otherwise become competing goals (economic development and environmental protection/ community character). This will present a serious challenge in the future. The pressure will be great to "sell the farm" for developments which promise new Jobs/tax base. And while these are important, the long term impact of such proposals (in a particular location) could be very negative and not worth the tradeoff. All such decisions need to be made primarily based on long term considerations, rather than short term ones. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �w Kent County Ottawa County GRaplds Allegan County Van Buren County Barry County Gmazoo Kalamazoo County TRI-COMMUNITY Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �... iv MAPS Except as otherwise noted, all the full page ma ps presented in this Plan were produced using C-Map software. This is a PC based comp uter program initiated by William Enslin, Manager of the Center for Remote Sensing at Mi.chigru;i State University. All the data on the maps was digitized either by Tim McCauley of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. or was downloaded from the Michigan Resource Inventory Program (MRIP) database maintained on the State's mainframe computer system by the Department of Natural Resources. Several advantages are realized bycomputertzing this data. Typically, geographic information is only available on paper maps at widely varying scales. which makes it difficult to compare data sets for planning purposes. With CMap·, all of the maps can be viewed and printed at any scale via a variety of different media (color plotter, laser or ink jet printer, or dot matrix printer). Information can also be combined (or overlaid) so that composite maps can be created and compared in a fraction of the time and expense normally required to obtain the same results. Another major advantage of computer mapping is the ability to update maps continuously, 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 Survey (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 topography 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 levels at the time the inventory or sutvey was conducted. We have "corrected" the DNR/USGS base map to include Silver Lake, which is merely shown as a wetland (not an open water body) on USGS maps. A transparency can easily be made by photocopying any of these maps in order to overlay several levels of information. Using CMap on a color monitor, up to ten levels of information can be overlaid on the screen at once, including "zooming" in on any area first (e.g. as would be desirable when examining a specific parcel). While the accuracy of all of this data is very satisfactory for land use planning purposes (especially when contrasted with traditional techniques). none of it is sufficiently detailed to be absolutely reliable at the parcel level. As a result, detailed site analyses of soils. topography. drainage, etc. are still necessary anytime specific site designs are being prepared. All computerized data is on file locally and accessible via C-Map for local use and updating. Contact the zoning administrator or clerk for further information. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �V ~~~~ s-, :1..\~ 4,..,,,, ""'· ...__,, "' . ,,..., ·- ) I I r INTHAVL --,~<., 0 '- " 27 28 _,, -- ta7'nf -~ l, •vs' 26 - 25 ':.. Iii i \ ) , <:, ~ > " ~ -----~ ~ ~ \ " Ii 33 ""':, 34 •" ' t 0 35 36 i T3N,R 16W ~ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan "-- �I vi Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �1-1 Chapter 1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES: • THE AREAWIDE POLICY PLAN G oals, objectives, and policies are the foundation of a comprehensive plan. They address the key problems and opportunities of a community and help establish a direction and strategies for future community development and growth. Goals establish general direction, objectives represent tasks to be pursued, and policies are decision guides. The goals, objectives. and policies embodied in this plan were prepared through an extensive process of leadership surveys, public opinion surveys, meetings with local officials, and areawide town meetings. The first step in this process was a survey of area leaders- including members of each planning commission, elected ofllcials, prominent members of the private sector, and other citizens identified in the individual surveys. Leaders were asked their views on the major problems and opportunities facing their jurisdiction and the trt-community area. and the results were tabulated and presented to each local government. These results served as the basis for initiating a public opinion survey. Citizen views on areawide planning issues were obtained through public opinion surveys mailed to every property owner in the tri-community area and distributed in each rental complex. Survey questions were prepared for each jurisdiction through consultations with the joint planning committee and each individual planning commission. Dr. Brent Steel, Oakland University, conducted and tabulated the survey. The response rate of 51 % in Saugatuck, 47% in Douglas, and 38% in Saugatuck Township was very high considering the length (about 1 hour completion time) and type of survey and thus responses represent the majority view in each community. Most respondents were homeowners in their mid-fifties, registered to vote, who are long-term residents and plan to live in the area for ten or more years. Survey results are shown in Appendix A. Results of the citizen opinion survey and leadership survey were used to identify issues for discussion at the first town meeting. This meeting was a "futurtng.. session where partici- pants were asked to imagine how they would like their community to be in the year 2000. Participants were separated into groups and asked to prepare of list of "prouds.. and "sorries" in their community, and things from the past which they would like to preserve. The lists were compared and then all engaged in an imaging exercise where groups were established according to topic area and were asked to imagine that element of their community in the year 2000. This futurtng process identified key issues and community elements which were pulled together to form a vision and direction for the tri-community area in the year 2000. A draft policy plan. with defined goals and objectives, was then prepared based on this futurtng process and the survey results. The draft was refined through a series of meetings with area officials and then presented to area citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen comments were reviewed by ofllcials from each community and incorporated into the policy plan. Following completion of the draft policy plan, data and trends in the trt-community area were analyzed. This analysis supported the direction of the policy plan and was first evaluated by the joint planning committee and individual planning commissions. and then by area citizens at the third town meeting. Next. key elements of the plan and proposed strategies to carry it out were first reviewed by the Joint planning committee, and then by area citizens at the fourth and final town meeting. Thus, the broad based input of area ofllcials, leaders. and citizens, plus detailed analysis of local trends and land use characteristics have formed the goals, objectives, and policies that comprise the policy portion of this comprehensive plan. These Joint goals and policies will serve as a guide for land use and infrastructure decisions in Saugatuck Township, the City of Saugatuck, and the Village of Douglas. With time. some elements may need to be changed, others added, and still others removed from the list. Before amendatory action is taken, however, the impact of the proposed changes should Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �I 1-2 be considered comprehensively in relation to the entire plan. These Joint goals and policies are premised on a pledge by Saugatuck Township, the City of Saugatuck and the Village of Douglas to mutually cooperate in guiding future development to advance a common vision. It is intended that they be consulted when considering future land use decisions that affect the interests of more than one J urtsdictlon. COMMUNITY' CHARACTER Goal: Presexve the established character of neighborhoods within each jurisdiction. Policy: Encourage architectural and site design that complements, rather than detracts from existing development on neighboring parcels. growth patterns and for consistency with the goals. objectives, and policies of this plan. Policy: Consider the impact of land use planning and wning changes on the other Jurisdiction(s), and discuss proposed changes with the affectedjurisdictlon(s) prior to making such changes. A common procedure for such communication shall be established and followed . LAND USE & COMMUNl'IY FACILITIES Goal: Promote the balanced, efficient, and economical use of land in a manner which minimJzes land use conflicts within and across municipal borders, and provides for a wide range of land uses in appropriate locations to meet the diverse needs of area residents. Policy: Encourage the presexvatlon and restoration of historically significant structures. Policy: Insure compatible land use planning and wning across municipal borders and minimize land use conflicts by separating incompatible uses and requiring buffers where necessary. Polley: Presexve the character of the area by encouraging land uses and densities/intensities of development which are consistent with and complement the character, economic base, and image of the area. Policy: Discourage sprawl and scattered development through planned expansion of roads and public utilities and through wning regulations which limit intensive development to areas where adequate public services are available. Policy: Manage the trees lining streets in the City and Village to provide a continuous green canopy and plant trees along Blue Star Highway and maintain them along other roads in the Township. Policy: Provide for necessary community facilities (e.g. schools, garages, fire halls, etc.) consistent with adopted land use plans and capital improvement programs. GROWl'H MANAGEMENT Goal: Guide development in a manner which is orderly, consistent with the planned expansion of public services and facilities, and strives to presexve the scenic beauty, foster the wise use of natural resources, protect enVironmentally sensitive areas. and enhance the special character of each community. Policy: Encourage development in locations which are consistent with the capacity of existing and planned public services and facilities, and are cost effective in relation to service extensions. Policy: Review all plans by other public entitles for expansion and improvement of existing road and street networks for impacts on Policy: Encourage approaches to site design which take natural features of the property. such as soils, topography, hydrology, and natural vegetation. into account and which use the land most effectively and efficiently by maximizing open space, preserving scenic vistas, conserving energy, and pursuing any other public policies identified in this plan. Policy: Advise developers during site plan review to contact the State Archaeologist, Bureau of History (517-373-6358) to determine if the project may affect a known archaeological site. .AGRICULTURE Goal: Maintain a variety of agricultural operations and promote the presexvatlon of existing farms and farmland through coordinated Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �1-3 planning and development regulations public incentives, and educational strategies. Policy: Discourage the conversion of prime agricultural land ,t o other uses. Policy: Discourage spot development of non-agricultural activities in agricultural areas to preseive the economic viability offarming and maintain the rural character of the area. In particular, residential development lining county roads in agricultural areas, that is unrelated to agricultural activities, shall not be permitted. Objective: Encourage farmers on lands well suited to agriculture to enroll their property in the Michigan Farmland Preseivation Act, Act 116 PA of 1974, as amended. Objective: Encourage the expansion of specialty farms and related activities which enhance the tourism and recreation potential of the area (e.g "you pick". farmers markets, farm tours, etc.). Objective: Promote agriculture through a variety of activities (such as farm tours. lectures, farm week. etc.) which educate residents about the importance of agriculture to the area. Policy: Discourage the establishment of high density livestock and poultry operations as inconsistent with the agricultural and resort character of the tri-community area. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal: Strengthen and expand upon the area's economic base through strategies which attract new businesses, strengthen existing businesses. and enhance the tourism potential of the area. Policy: Promote better communication and cooperation between the public and private sector. COMMERCIAL Goal: Encourage the development of commercial land uses in appropriate locations which seive the current and future needs of residents and tourists, are of a character consistent with community design guidelines, and which promote public safety through prevention of traffic hazards and other threats to public health, safety. and general welfare. Policy: Encourage new commercial development to locate adjacent to existing commercial areas. Policy: Encourage the design and location of neighborhood commercial centers in a manner which complements and does not conflict with adjoining residential areas. Policy: Discourage unsafe and unsightly strip commercial development through design and landscaping requirements such as berms, planting, and shared access when possible. Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each business where feasible and encourage centrally placed lots which seive several businesses. Policy: Encourage continued concentration of tourist oriented businesses in Saugatuck, general commercial businesses in Douglas, and highway service activities at the highway interchanges. Relocation of existing general business activities along Blue Star Highway should be discouraged. · INDUSTRIAL Policy: Identify potential sites for industrial development and alternative means of financing necessary public improvements and marketing of the sites (i.e. tax increment financing, special assessments, state grants and loans, etc.) Goal: Increase the amount of non-polluting light industry in the area without damaging the environment, spoiling the scenic beauty of the area, or overburdening local roads, utilities, or other public services. Policy: Support efforts to foster tourism by preseIVing the scenic beauty of the environment, expanding recreation opportunities. improving tourist attractions, and preparing promotional materials which highlight the attractions of each community. Policy: Encourage new industries to locate contiguous to existing industrial areas and in locations with existing or planned sewer, water, electric, and solid waste disposal services to minimJze service costs and negative impacts on other land uses. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �I 1-4 Policy: Identify appropriate locations for small industrial parks which conform to the design guidelines contained in this plan. individual community plans. and local zoning regulations. Policy: Implement site plan requirements for light industries which are designed to incor- · porate generous amounts of open space. attractive landscaping, and buffering from adjacent non-industrial uses. Policy: Require the separation of industrial sites from residential areas through buffers made up of any combination of parking, commercial or office uses, parks. parkways. open space, or farmland. HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL Goal: Encourage a variety of residential types in a wide range of prices which are consistent with the needs of a changing population and compatible with the character of existing residences in the vicinity. Policy: Explore alternative measures to reduce housing costs and make home ownership more affordable, such as zoning regulations and other programs which are designed to reduce the cost of constructing new housing. Policy: Allow only quiet. low traffic, low intensity home occupations in residential areas to preserve the stability of existing neighborhoods. Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks in residential areas where there is a demon- strated need and according to the ability of residents to finance such improvements. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTS & OPEN SPACE Goal: Protect special environments and open spaces. including but not limited to sand dunes, wetlands, and critical wildlife habitat. from the harmful effects of incompatible development activity by limiting the type and intensity of land development in those areas. Policy: Identify development limitations on special environments through a tiered classification system which classifies these environments based on their value to the ecosystem, unique attributes, the presence of endangered plant and wildlife species. and other characteristics deemed significant. Policy: Devise regulations for land development in special environments which permit development in a manner consistent with identified protection objectives and which complement state and federal regulations for special environments. Policy: Require development projects deemed appropriate in and adjacent to special environments to mitigate any negative impacts on such environments. Policy: Encourage acquisition of special environments of significant public value by public agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations for the purposes of preservation. WATERFRONI' Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aesthetic values and recreation potential of all waterfront areas for the enjoyment of area citizens. Policy: Promote the preservation of open space and natural areas, as well as limited, carefully planned development along the Kalamazoo River. Kalamazoo Lake. Silver Lake. Goshorn Lake. and Lake Michigan and connecting streams. creeks, and drainageways to protect and enhance the scenic beauty of these waterfront areas. Policy: Some waterfront lands may be developed to meet residential and commercial needs, enhance local tax base, and contribute to paying for local public selVice costs associated with their use and development. consistent with environmental protection policies in this plan, where such development would contribute to local quality of life. Policy: Maximize public access. both physically and visually. by acquiring prime waterfront open space whenever feasible. Policy: Acquire scenic easements wherever public values dictate the maintenance of visual access to the waterfront and the property is not available for purchase. Policy: Limit the height and intensity of new development along waterfront areas to preserve Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �1-5 visual access and the natural beauty of the waterfront for the broader public. Policy: Explore the conversion of street ends which abut waterbodies for use as safe public access to the water for fishing, viewing, and launching of small water crafts. Policy: Maintain a natural greenbelt along the Kalamazoo River and its tributaries. Policy: Retain, maintain, and improve all existing publicly owned parks so that they continue to meet the diverse recreation needs of area citizens and tourists. TRANSPORTATION Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient road and street network and improve roads and streets to promote growth in a way that is consistent with land use goals, objectives and policies. RECREATION Goal: Enhance the well-being of area residents by providing a variety of opportunities for relaxation. rest, activity, and education through a well balanced system of private and public park and recreational facilities and activities located to serve identified needs of the area. Objective: Identify and explore opportunities to cooperate with other Jurisdictions and agencies, including Allegan County and the Department of Natural Resources Recreation Division, on recreation projects which would benefit area residents and strengthen the tourism industry. Objective: Examine the feasibility of, and establish if feasible. a Jointly owned and operated community center to serve residents of all ages in all three communities. Objective: Examine the feasibility of expanding low cost opportunities for public beach and campground facilities for area citizens with boat launching sites, bike paths, cross-country ski trails, and docks for shore fishing. Objective: Develop a system of cross-country ski trails together with the Village of Douglas, the City of Saugatuck, and other Jurisdictions/ agencies if possible, through the use of local funds, grants and loans. and capital improvement programming. Policy: Implement traffic controls and design features that will increase the efficiency and safety of major arterials, including but not limited to: traffic signals, deceleration lanes, limiting driveways. mintmum standards for driveway spacing. uniform sign regulations. shared or alternate access, left and right tum lanes. and speed limit adjustments. Goal: Encourage a wide variety of transportation means, such as walking. biking, and public transportation, to meet the diverse needs of area residents. Policy: Promote pedestrian and bike travel through a coordinated network of bikepaths, trails, and sidewalks. Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath through local funds, grants and loans. and capital improvement programming. Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, affordable, and dependable public transportation to increase the mobility and quality of life of those who depend on public transportation. Objective: Encourage expansion of the interurban system consistent with municipal means to finance the increased service and an identified public need. Objective: Investigate developing a Joint public marina and launch facility where federal and state funding is available to assist with financing such a venture. WATER AND SEWER Policy: Encourage local government participation in activities designed to enhance the area's seasonal festivals. Policy: Provide a reliable supply of safe, clean. and good-tasting drinking water. Goal: Insure a safe and adequate water supply for the area which is efficiently provided and cost effective. Policy: Minimize the potential for groundwater contamination through planning and zon- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �1 1-6 ing which is consistent with the capacity and limitations of the land and available seIVices. Objective: Prepare and implement a plan for the carefully timed provision of sewer and water seIVice in the area consistent with the development goals and objectives of this plan. Policy: Devise alternative mechanisms for financing sewer and water expansions which are financially sound and equitable. Objective: Investigate refashioning the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority into an independent authority. in order to insure that the needs of area citizen's for quality utility seIVices are met. Policy: Promote a joint agreement between the City of Saugatuck, Village of Douglas, and Saugatuck Township to include full participation by each in the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority. Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer and water seIVice into an area is consistent with the planned intensity of land use for that area, scheduled when affordable, and implemented when necessary to meet an identified need in the area rather than on a speculative basis. POLICE, FIRE, &: EMERGENCY SERVICES Goal: Provide police, fire, and emergency seIVices consistent with a public need and the ability to finance improvements for each of the three jurisdictions. Policy: Consolidate police. fire, and emergency seIVices across the three communities where possible to eliminate overlap in seIVice and expenditures and improve seIVice delivery. Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24 hour medical seIVice which serves all three jurisdictions to be provided by a public or private entity. SOCIAL SERVICES Goal: Those social seIVices which are efficient to provide at the local level should be provided to meet the needs of area residents. Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing support programs for older adults through the use of volunteers for assistance with household chores, personal care, and home repair to help them remain independent, shorten hospital stays. and lower health care costs. Policy: Support efforts to establish community day care center(s) to provide quality and affordable day care to working parents. WASTE MANAGEMENT Goal: Insure the safe, effective. and efficient disposal of solid waste and other toxic substances. Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid waste through recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy projects. Policy: Manage disposal of solid waste and location of solid waste facilities in accordance with the Allegan County Solid Waste Management Plan prepared under PA 641 of 1978. Objective: Adopt regulations for on-site storage and transportation of hazardous waste which require: • Secondary containment for on-site storage of hazardous waste: • No transfer of hazardous waste over open ground or water: • Arrangements for inspection of, and monitoring underground storage tanks; • Existing underground storage tanks must provide spill protection around the fill pipe by 1988 in accordance with 1988 EPA standards; • All existing underground storage tanks must install leak detection systems within 5 years in accordance with 1988 EPA standards. Objective: Encourage the development and use of biodegradable containers. ENERGY Goal: Promote site design and building which is energy efficient and encourage energy conseivatlon through good land use planning and wise public building management. Objective: Prepare energy guidelines or standards which address landscaping, solar access. 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 subdMsion regulations. Policy: Requb"e developers to provide sidewalks in appropriate locations through subdivision regulations. Policy: Encourage higher density residential development near areas with shopping and services to limit the number and length of trips generated from that development. Objective: Establish an educational program (i.e. "Energy Awareness Week") in cooperation with the local school system. Objective: Encourage the use of plumbing facilities and appliances which conseIVe water. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �2-1 Chapter2 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION SIZE The population of the trt-community area has nearly doubled since 1950, reaching an estimated 3,900 people in 1986 according to U.S. Census population estimates. This represents an 83% increase over the 1950 population, and a 26% increase since 1970 (see Table 2.1). SEASONAL POPULATION The population of the each community in the trt-community area swells during the summer when seasonal residents and tourists return. In 1980, census estimates show that 21 % (442) of the trt-community area's total housing units were vacant, seasonal, and migratory. Eighty-one percent of these seasonal/vacant units were detached single family homes or cottages. The vacant, seasonal, and migratory 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. An engineering study prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson. Carr & Huber for the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority (KLSWA) estimates that the total tri-community area population is comprised of one-third seasonal residents and two-thirds permanent residents and that the weekend daytime population during the summer is about 2,500 persons. Although sewer and water demand typically grows with population, the study found that demand for sewer and water in the tri-community area increased about 30% between 19801986, whereas population increased by an average of 20016. This reflects the impact of the seasonal and tourist population on local services. FIGURE 2.1 AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980) AREA§ ...,960 p 17 E R C E N T ts -,- t3 11 i 7 3.J..__~~~----.------r---,---.-----, 0-14 r.-t4 15-:!4 2r.-34 35-..i '45-64 ~ 6S. AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLDS AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE Until recently, the average household size in the United States has continued to shrink, due to an aging population, higher divorce rates, postponed marriages. and lower birth rates. In keeping with state and national trends, the average household size in the tri-community area declined, going from 2.98 in 1960 to 2.39 in 1980. Smaller household size means a greater number of households. If the average household size in 1960 held true today, there would be about 300 fewer individual households in the area. TABLE 2.1 POPULATION ( 1950-1980) COMMUNITY Saugatuck Saugatuck Township Douglas AREAWIDE 1950 770 845 447 2,062 1960 927 1,133 602 2,662 1970 1980 CHANGE 1,022 1,254 813 3,089 1,079 1,753 948 3,780 40% 107% 112% 83% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �I 2-2 FIGURE 2.2 FIGURE 2.3 AGE COHORTS (1980) AGE COHORTS (1980) VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS ALLEGAN COUNTY :I!) 17 1a p E R C E N T 1a ,. 12 10 8 6 0-4 s-1• 1s-.2• 25-ll 3S-4<i ~ 4s-54 AGE GROUP p E R 15 C E N T 11 13 ; - 0-4 s-1• 25-ll 3S-4<i ~ 4s-5l gs. AGE GROUP FIGURE 2.5 FIGURE 2.4 AGE COHORTS (1980) AGE COHORTS (1980) CITY OF SAUGATUCK SAUGATUCK TWP. 18 :I!) 18 p E R p 14 16 12 E R C 12 14 c 10 E E N T 1s-.2• N T a 6 S-14 15-,24 25-ll 3S-4<i •s-5' ~ 6s. 10 a a 4-+--~-~-~~-~--~ 0-4 S-14 AGE GROUP 15-,24 :!S-34 ~ 4s-54 SS-64 6s. AGE GROUP The number of households is an excellent gauge of the demand for land and services. As household size decreases, the additional households create further demand for land, housing, transportation, and public utllitles. Although household size has declined substantially over the past few decades, national trends suggest that it w111 soon cease its decline. Nationwide the average household size has reached a plateau and state demographers predict that Michigan will follow suit. Variations in average household size by Jurisdiction for 1980 are as follows: Saugatuck Township, 2.69; Village of Douglas, 2.44; and City of Saugatuck, 2.0. The City of Saugatuck's smaller household size is indicative of a higher proportion of "empty nesters" and retirees. AGE DISTRIBUTION A comparison of age cohorts in the trt-community area between 1960 and 1980 reveals a large drop in the proportion of young children, with a corresponding increase in the childbearing cohort (20 to 30 year olds) and 45-54 year olds. The proportion of retirees to the total pop- ulation, however, has remained constant (see Figure 2.1). This is out of keeping with statewide trends and suggests that the area has experienced high in-migration of retirees through time. Retirees are attracted by the area's special resort quality, small town character, and scenic beauty. Figures 2.2 through 2.5 provide a more detailed picture of the age cohort distribution of each community. A cohort graph for Allegan County is included for comparison. In accordance with countywide trends, each community has a small cohort of infants and toddlers. The cohort distribution of the V1llage of Douglas most closely resembles that of the County, although the Village has a much lower proportion of children aged 5-14. The most striking characteristic of the Township is its large cohort of 45-54 year olds. The cohort of senior citizens is high in each community, but this is most striking in the City, where seniors comprise 20% of the population, while children 5-14 comprise only goA,, The City's second highest cohort is 25 to 34 year olds. In regional terms, Saugatuck Township comprises 39% of the area's senior population; the City of Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �2-3 FIGURE 2.6 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980 PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 40 [ill TOWNSHIP 35 • 30 p E 25 R C 20 N 15 E CITY ~ VILLAGE T 10 5 0 ELEMENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S. 4 YRS H.S. 1-3 YRS COLL. 4 YRS COLL. Saugatuck comprtses 37% (despite Its small size): and the Village of Douglas, 24%. reveals the educational status of persons 25 years old and over by jurisdiction in 1980. EDUCATION SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS The tri-community area has a well educated citizenry. An analysis of those aged 25 and older in 1980 reveals that 36.2% have completed 1 or more years of college (see Figure 2.6). When comparing jurisdictions, the number of college educated residents is even higher in the City at 43.6%. The corresponding number in the Village is 35.9% and in the Township, 31.3%. Table 2.2 Three public school districts-Fennville Public School District, the Saugatuck Public School District, and the Hamilton Public School District- serve the tri-community area (see Map 2.1). The Hamilton School District includes only a small area of the northeast comer of the Township. The Fennville School District covers the southern half of the Township, and the Saugatuck Public School District covers the TABLE 2.2 EDUCATION.AL STATUS PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER Elementary 1-3 years HS 4years HS 1-3 years College 4+ years College SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP 185 199 373 157 188 SAUGATUCK CITY 57 97 276 137 196 DOUGLAS 73 84 213 123 84 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan AREA 315 380 862 417 468 �L , 2-4 central portion of the Township, plus Douglas and Saugatuck. Thus, the Saugatuck Public School District serves the majority of the area's households. School enrollment data for Saugatuck High School and Douglas Elementary, the two schools which comprise the Saugatuck Public School system, illustrate the impact of areawide demographic trends on the local school system. Between 1973 and 1989, enrollments in the Saugatuck Public School system, grades K-12, have declined by 34% (see Figure 2. 7). When divided into elementary and high school enrollments, however, the data reveal a 17% increase in elementary school enrollments since the 1983-84 school year, and a 28% decrease in high school enrollments over the same period (see Figure 2.8) . School enrollment data appears in Table 2.3. Future elementary and high school enrollments were projected by the Saugatuck Public School system. These projections, illustrated tn Figure 2.8, show an upturn in high school enrollments in 1991 with a continued climb tn elementary school enrollments. Total projected 1994 enrollments, however, are still 23% less than 1973-74 levels. FIGURE 2.7 TABLE 2.3 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS GRADESK-12 YEAR K-6 7- 12 TOTAL 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 326 307 306 252 232 259 250 275 299 296 329 322 299 290 303 296 277 265 246 215 655 629 605 542 535 555 527 540 545 511 E 750 N R 0 L L M E N T 700 650 550 500 -t---r--T""""r-r--,r--,~---r--r--.--Y---r-~.,......., 7~74 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 8S-a6 87-88 YEAR FIGURE 2.8 SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS 360 340 E N R 0 L L M E N T 320 300 280 PROJECTIONS 260 240 220 '·•,,•,,,,,,,,,.,,,,, / ''·············•···' 200 180 79-80 I 81-82 83-84 85-86 87-88 89-90 91-92 93-94 YEAR Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �2-5 FtmJRE TRENDS If local demographic trends follow those projected for the county as they have in the past. then the overall p:r;oportion of retirees in the area will expand much faster than that of school age children. The Michigan Department of Management and Budget projects that Allegan County's school age population will grow only 3% by the year 2000, while senior citizens will increase by 30%. The area's small cohort of infants and children, large cohort of middle aged to elderly, and high rate ofretiree in-migration suggest this will be equally true in the trt-cornmunity 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 will probably expand 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 children into the area. 1\vo key factors will be the availability of affordable housing and nearby employment opportunities. In the meantime, schools must use space and resources efflciently 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 A H OL MAP2.1 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS II Saugatuck ~ Fennville D Hamilton DATA SOURCE: Respective School Districts Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml August 1989 SA I , DOU .-- �3-1 Chapter3 THE ECONOMY Oval Beach: downtown Saugatuck: sand dunes: large wetlands abounding with wildlife; orchards and specialty farms; and a scenic location on Lake Michigan encompassing Silver, Goshorn, Kalamazoo and Oxbow lakes, and the Kalamawo River. The area also has a reputation as a cultural center which serves as an artists' retreat. The Ox Bow Art Workshop and the Red Barn theater add to the area's cultural ambience. Although it is located in Laketown Township, the Saugatuck Dunes State Park serves as another tourist attraction to the trt-community area. The Park offers no camping and thus many visitors stay in the trt-community area. Visitor counts from the Michigan Department of Resources, Parks Division, reveal that the park has increased in popularity since the 70's. Visitor counts performed by the Parks Division show that 47,463 people visited Saugatuck Dunes State Park in FY 1988- a 300% increase in park ECONOMIC BASE Tourism Tourism fuels the economy of the trt-community area, with associated boating, restaurant, lodging, and strong retail sectors. Of the three jurisdictions, the City of Saugatuck relies most heavily on tourism. Although the City of Saugatuck is seen as the resort center of the area, the entire area benefits from and contributes to the tourist trade. The Village of Douglas has boating and lodging facilities which capitalize on tourism, but its commercial sector is primarily oriented towards local clientele. The Township has a small commercial sector which compliments that of the Village, but it is primarily seasonal residential and rural, with a large agricultural area to the south. The area's resort flair is defined by: historic buildings- including quaint bed and breakfast inns; the many festivals; outstanding boating; TABLE 3.1 IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986 TOT.TRAVEL TRAVEL EXPENDinJRES GENER. PAYROLL $42,413,000 $/Jobs % of State Total .56% % change 29.52% 1983-86 TRAVEL GENER. EMPLOYMENT STA1ETAX RECEIPTS LOCALTAX RECEIPTS 869jobs .62% 18.39% $2,191,000 .71% 27.98% $363,000 .49% 32.48% $7,689,000 .49% 37.87% Source: U.S. Travel Data Center, "The Economic Impact of Tnvel on Michigan Counde ■ . • TABLE 3.2 MAJOR EMPLOYERS PRODUCT/SERVICE Hansen Machine Haworth Harbors Health Facility Enterprise Hinge Douglas Marine Tafts Supermarket Paramount Tool Co .• Inc. Rich Products EMPLOYEES Metal Stampings Office Furniture Nursing Home Manufacturing Marina Supermarket Machinery Pies Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 43 238 78 12 21 32 24 85 �L_ I 3-2 FIGURE 3.1 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980 TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY PUBLIC fil] CITY ■ VILLAGE ~ TOWNSHIF @ COUNTY SERVICES FIN/INS/REAL EST RETAIL WHOLESALE TRANS/COMM/UTIL MANUFACTURING CONSTRUCTION AGRICULTURE 10 5 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 PERCENT attendance since 1979, when it attracted only 11, 714 visitors. How much money does travel and tourism generate in the trt-cornmunity area? Although current travel and tourism statistics are not available for the trt-cornmunity area, studies conducted for Allegan County reveal the tremendous impact of travel and tourism on local economies in the County. This is especially true for Saugatuck-Douglas-the major resort center in the County. A study prepared for the Michigan 'Travel Bureau by the U.S. 'Travel Data Center in 1986 found that travellers spent $42.4 million in Allegan County in 1986, generating $7.7 million for payroll, 869 Jobs, $2.1 million in state tax receipts, and $363,000 in local tax receipts. This ranks Allegan County 33rd out of Michigan's 83 counties in travel and tourism revenues. Selected data from this study is reproduced in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.3 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY - 1980 TOI'AL Agriculture Construction Manufacturing TCU* Wholesale 'Ira.de Retail Trade FIRE•• Services Public Admin. CfIY VILI.AGE 547 9 30 156 25 13 146 21 125 22 433 16 27 169 10 7 67 15 96 26 TOWNSHIP 689 37 75 274 17 20 106 39 107 14 • Transportation, Communicatiion, Utillitles •• Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Source:1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan AREA 1,669 62 132 599 52 40 319 75 328 62 COUNIY 34,025 2,041 2,009 13,033 1,407 1,398 5,017 1,126 7,105 889 �3-3 TABLE 3.4 EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION - 1980 TITTAL Manag. &Admin Prof. Technical Sales Clerical Service Farm. Fishing Crafts & Repair Machine Operators Laborers, Mat. Moving CTIY VILLAGE TOWNSHIP AREA COUN1Y 547 77 87 63 70 72 13 433 34 62 24 45 73 13 70 90 685 43 74 83 74 73 43 144 120 31 1,665 154 223 170 189 231 126 34,025 2,315 3,319 2,696 4,189 4,300 1,885 5,447 6,129 3,745 66 60 39 22 210 270 92 Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Mam.ifacturing Manufacturing is central to the year-round stability of the area's economy. Although there are few manufacturing firms, they provide a high percentage of area jobs. Major area employers are listed in Table 3.2. Agriculture Agriculture is another strong component of the area's economic base. No data exists on farm earnings at the Township level, but Michigan Department of Agriculture statistics on Allegan County reveal the importance of fanning to the county's economic base. Between 1980 and 1986, agricultural net income nearly doubled, going from 12. 8 million, to over 24 million. Farm investments went from 92 thousand per farm 1n 1974 to 236 thousand in 1982. The market value of products sold by Allegan County farmers in 1987 totaled over $120 million and Allegan County farmers supported local business and industry by purchasing over $103 million of supplies and services. Fruit fanning is a rapidly growing agricultural enterprise in the County. Allegan County ranks within the top five producers of blueberries, peaches. grapes. pears. nectarines, potatoes, cauliflower, milk cows, and hogs and pigs. Between 1982 and 1986, the number of fruit farms increased 86%. Based on increases in overall acreage, growth in the fruit sector appears to be strongest for peaches, dwarf apples. and blueberries. The Township contains a large amount of prime farmland (see Map 4.10). There are a number of fruit farms growing peaches, apples. cherries. and some blueberries. Corn. wheat. and soybeans are other major cash crops. Some farms also have livestock- primarily hogs and dairy cattle. Nurseries are a strong agrt-business in the area. Rich Products, a major employer in the area, is another category of agrt-business, which was attracted to the region because of its many fruit farms. The future of agrt-industry is bright in light of Michigan Department of Commerce efforts to promote and expand food processing industries in the state. EMPLOYMENT Table 3.3 breaks down employment by economic sector for the trt-communtty area and the County in 1980. This information is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Manufacturing employs the most people in each of the three communities. Yet employment in other sectors varies. Employment by occupation in 1980 appears in Table 3.4. Information from these tables ts summarized by jurisdiction below. City of Saugatuck Twenty-nine percent are employed in manufacturing, but retail employment is also very high in the City of Saugatuck (27%). revealing the dominant nature ofretail actMty in the City, as compared to the region (15%) and County (15%). The service sector employs the third largest number of Saugatuck's labor force (23%), followed by transportation/communication/utilities (5%). and construction (5%). The highest proportion of workers in Saugatuck are professional/technical workers. followed by managerial and administrative, service, and clerical workers. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �3-4 FIGURE 3.3 FIGURE 3.2 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT TRI-COMMUNITY AREA, 1988 AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT 2700 TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 2.8 T H 0 u s A N 2650 2.6 E M 2600 p 2.4 2.2 L 2.0 1.8 2500 M 2450 D 1.4 s E N 1.2 T 1982 1984 1986 1988 2400 2350 1.0..------....---"T""""---r----, 1980 2550 0 y 1990 2300 YEAR J F M A M J J A s 0 N D MONTH Village of Douglas Thirty-nine percent of the Village of Douglas' labor force is employed in manufacturing. Yet unlike the City, the service sector dominates the retail sector. Services employ 22% of Village workers, with only 15% in the retail sector. Construction (6%) and the public sector (6%) are the fourth largest employers of village residents, and agriculture (4%) is fifth. The highest proportion of workers in Douglas are machine operators, followed by service workers, crafts and repair workers, and professional/technical workers. Saugatuck Township Forty percent of Township residents are employed in the manufacturing sector. with the next largest proportion employed in the retail (15%) and service sectors (16%). Construction is fourth, employing 11 % of Township workers- a much larger proportion than in the region and County. Financial/insurance/real estate services is fifth at 6%. Although nearly all of the 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 1.0 MT 0.8 Lo 0.6 p H ou y ! 0.4 MN 0.2 E D s N 0.0 T Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �3-5 FIGURE 3.5 FIGURE 3.6 REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988) REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988) SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP & VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS .CITY OF SAUGATUCK RESIDENTIAL 65% RESIDENTIAL 76% INDUSTRIAL 2% DEVELOPMENTAL 1% ,_.._.._. AGRICULTURAL 5% INDUSTRIAL 2% of the labor force employed in agriculture (5%) is low compared to the amount of agricultural activity, and only slightly higher than the Village of Douglas. Many farmers have alternative sources of income outside of farming, causing the census to count them in another employment sector. The Township has the highest proportion of crafts and repair personnel in the region, representing employment generated by Broward Marine, Inc.- a major builder of luxury boats. Machine operators are second. and sales workers are third. The proportion of professional/technical and service workers is also high. Average Annual Employment and Unemployment Unemployment has declined dramatically with Michigan's economic growth of the late 80's. Table 3.5 reveals average annual unemployment rates in the area since the last statewide recession. The tri-community area has a slightly higher rate of unemployment than Allegan County, although since 1986 the unemployment rate has dipped below that of the state revealing local or regional economic growth. Average annual employment in the tri-community area bottomed out in 1986. This reflected the loss of American Twisting, which employed about 20 people, and the burning of Broward Marine (about 100 employees) and Brighton Metal (about 10 employees). Yet in 1987, areawide employment jumped dramatically. During that year Broward Marine reopened its doors: Rich Products, Harbor Health Facilities, Paramount Tools and other area busi- nesses increased employment: a number of small businesses and two restaurants opened; and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corporation expanded adding two new <;J.epartments. Contributing to this was the state and regional economic boom, and corresponding increases in construction and spending. Figure 3.2 illustrates this trend. Seasonal Employment Local employment increases each summer as tourists flood into the tri-community area. Figure 3.3 reveals the impact of tourism on employment in the tri-community area during the summer months. The high number ofjobs created during the summer months are primarily unskilled jobs in the service/retail sector, especially eating and drinking establishments and various other recreation-oriented uses. Figure 3. 4 reveals the explosion in summer employment for tourismrelated industries in Allegan County. This increase creates a high demand for teenage employees. Tri-community area businesses note the difficulty of filling these Jobs, and the need to import seasonal labor. This is yet another impact of the demographic make-up of the area (i.e. the low number of teenage children). New industry and affordable housing in the area could attract families with children who, in tum, could staff area businesses during peak summer months. TAX BASE Residential uses make up the bulk of the area's tax base. Commercial uses provide 33% . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �3-6 of the City's real property SEV, while it provides a much smaller proportion of the (real) property tax base for the Township and Village of Douglas. Agriculture is the next highest SEV category, providing a 1988 SEV of $2,661 ,790 (see Figures 3 .5 & 3.6). Figure 3 .7 illustrates changes in annual real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for the tri-community area. The sharp drop in SEV for the Township between 1984 and 1985 was caused by the incorporation of Saugatuck as a City and its subsequent removal from the Township's tax base. SEVs are also shown for the Township minus the Village(s) . The figure shows that each jurisdiction has experienced tax base growt h since 1980. The City of Saugatuck has shown strong tax base growth and a Jump in its tax base between 1983-84 after it incorporated. More complete information on annual Sev's and 1988 breakdowns can be found in Appendix B. INCOME Between 1979 and 1985, census estimates show a dramatic rise in per capita income in the Village of Douglas- an increase of 4 7 .4%- mak- TABLE 3.5 AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE County lli-Community 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 15.2 14.7 10.8 11.3 6.5 5.8 5.2 14.8 14.3 10.5 10.9 7 .3 5 .6 5.1 TRI -COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87) 60 M 40 = - ELI 0 N 7.6 per capita income in Allegan County. Saugatuck Township rose from 7th to 6th place with a 40.4% increase in per capita income. The City of Saugatuck occupies a strong second place with a 39.9% increase, although it has given up first place to Laketown Township. Table 3.6 shows this comparison. (Per capita income in 1979 was $7,688 for the state and $6,744 for the county; in 1985 it was $10,902 for the state and $9,346 for the county.) 70 v 9 .9 8 .8 8 .2 ing it one of the top ten communities in terms of ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY SEV 50 15.5 14.2 11.2 Source: MESC, Bun:au of Rcscan:h & Statistics, Field Analysts Unit FIGURE 3.7 S~ State s 30 Saugatuck Douglas r:zz:z:z:z:>I Township* - Township** 20 10._f:;~~::::::::--,----.----. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 YEAR * not including Village(s) ** including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �3-7 Table 3. 7 reveals selected income and poverty characteristics by jurisdiction in the trtcommunity area. Although the per capita income in the area has been consistently higher than that of the c;ounty. the median household income is lower. The median household income is the point at which 50% of the households earn more and 5()(% earn less. This figure is more representative of local trends as it is less easily distorted by a few high income wage earners. Poverty data correspond with median household income. As median income goes up, the proportion of those in poverty goes down. Despite its rapid growth in per capita income, the Village of Douglas has the lowest median household income and the highest percentage of poor in the region. Figure 3.8 reveals the proportion of those in 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 $3,689 for those 65 and over. It reveals that a high proportion of the poor are elderly. especially in the Township. FIGURE 3.8 . . PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980) mi TOWNSHIP 70 p E A C E N T ,. ■ CITY ~ VILLAGE •• ,. " LESS TtWII 5S ... §6.51 AGE TABLE 3.6 PER CAPITA INCOME ($), ALLEGAN COUNTY (TOP TEN) 1985 1979 Saugatuck Laketown Township Holland Gunplain Township Otsego Township Plainwell Saugatuck Township Allegan Township Leighton Township Fillmore Township Laketown Township Saugatuck Holland Gunplain Township Otsego Township Saugatuck Township Douglas Fillmore Township Plainwell Leighton Township 9031 8332 8125 8074 7437 7396 7286 7170 7051 7015 13,013 12,631 11,608 10,947 10,239 10,228 10,150 10,120 9,886 9,539 Source: 1985 Per Capital Income Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau TABLE 3.7 INCOME &: POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS TRI-COMMUNITY AREA ( 1980) Median HH income % in poverty Income 200% of poverty TOWNSHIP CITY VILIAGE COUN'IY 16,412 7 . 1% 74% 15,182 8.6% 75% 14,963 11.3% 73% 17,906 level & above Source: 1980 Census of Population Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8 .00.IO 71% �4-1 Chapter4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT CLIMA1E Weather conditions affect the community's economic base. Variations in average conditions, especially during the summer months, can cause fluctuations in tourism and outdoor recreation activities, upon which the local economy is dependent. Prevailing winds determine lakeshore and sand dune erosion patterns. which impose limitations on development along the Lake Michigan shore. Below. in Table 4. 1, is relevant climatic information for the area. These conditions generally do not pose limitations on the area's growth except along the Lake Michigan shore, where natural forces can cause rapid and extensive erosion of beaches and sand dunes. The climate is also considered favorable for growing certain fruits, such as apples and blueberries. GEOLOGY The tri-community area is located on the southwestern flank of the Michigan Basin, which is a bedrock feature centered in the middle of the Lower Peninsula. The sandstone and shale bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits from 50 to 400 feet thick. There are no outcroppings of the bedrock and the proximity of the bedrock to the surface of the ground does not impose limitations for normal excavating or construction. Glacial deposits consist primarily of sandy lakebed deposits located between two major physiographic formations: the Lake Bor- der Moraine, which is adjacent to Lake Michigan, and the Valparaiso Moraine, which extends through the center of the county, from north to south. Oil and gas drilling in the area occurred mostly during the period from late l 930's to the early l 950's. At present. there are no producing wells in the tri-community area. TOPOGRAPHY Most of the tri-cornmunity area is relatively flat, but local variations in elevation of up to 150 feet exist in some places between uplands and the floodplain of the Kalamazoo River. There are also considerable local differences in elevation in the extreme northwest portions of the Township in the sand dunes between the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. The highest point in this area is Mt. Baldhead, which rises 310 feet above Lake Michigan. Areas of abrupt local variations in elevation appear as dark areas on the topographic map (Map 4.1). Steep slopes present impressive scenery and pose increased maintenance and construction costs as well as safety risks. This is especially true with unstable landforms such as sand dunes. Generally, slopes exceeding 7% should not be developed intensively. while slopes of more than 12% should not be developed at all because of erosion and storm water runoff problems. TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CLIMATE CONDITIONS CLIMATE VARIABLES AVERAGE CONDITION Coldest Months (January-February) Hotest Month (July) Annual Average Temperature Average Rainfall Average Growing Season Average Annual Snowfall Elevation Above Sealevel Prevailing Winds 23.3° F - 25.1° F 71.5° F 48.3° F 35.7 inches 153 days 79.7 inches 590 feet Westerly Source: USDA Soll Survey, Allegan County Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan EXTREME CONDITION -11° F - -35° F 96° F - 106° F �4-2 nGURE4.l FLOODPLAINS Areas adjacent to creeks, streams and rivers are susceptible to periodic flooding that can cause extensive damage to buildings and can pose a substantial threat to public health and safety. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers has mapped the boundaries of the 100 year floodplain in the tri-community area. Those boundaries are denoted by the shaded areas on Map 4.3 and is the area that would be inundated during an Intermediate Regional Flood. The Federal Flood Insurance Program has established guidelines for use and development of floodplain areas. Those regulations indicate that development in floodplains should be restricted to open space, recreational or agricultural uses. Installation of public utilities and permanent construction for residential. commercial or industrial uses should not occur in floodplain areas. KALAMAZOO RIVER BASIN Cl) ~ Ill ..J WE11ANDS Lake Erie DRAINAGE Most of the trt-community area lies within the Kalamazoo River Basin. which begins near Jackson and extends westward into the trt-community area (see Figure 4 .1). The extreme southwestern portion of the Township drains directly into Lake Michigan. All of the watercourses within the area drain into the Kalamazoo River. which flows westward through the middle of the Township and into Lake Michigan. Tannery Creek, Peach Orchard Creek, Silver Creek and Goshorn Creek are all short-run streams that flow into the Kalamazoo River. A network of County drains facilitates the removal of runoff from flat areas with poorly drained soils in the southern half of the Township. The sand and clay bluffs along Lake Michigan in Section 20 are being eroded by groundwater which flows through the sandy topsoil and onto the less permeable clay layer. The water flows out the side of the bluff, undennining the sandy upper layer. A County drain has been proposed which would be placed parallel to the bluff and collect runoff for discharge at one point into Lake Michigan. Most other areas of the Township drain fairly well. espec1ally Saugatuck and Douglas. All watercourses, including county drains, are found on Map 4.2. There are many wetlands in the trt-community area. Most are contiguous to or hydrologically connected to Lake Michigan, rivers, streams. or creeks. Wetlands arc valuable in storing floodwaters. recharging groundwater. and removing sediment and other pollutants. They are also habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. including a large rookery of Great Blue Herons along the Kalamazoo River. Because wetlands are a valuable natural resource, they are protected by Public Act 203 of 1979. PA 203 requires that permits be acquired from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (D NR) prior to altering or filling a regulated wetland. The Wetland Protection Act defines wetlands as "land characterized. by the presence of water at a .frequency and duration sufficient to support and that w1d.er normal ctrcumstances does support wetland vegetation or aquatic life and ts commonly referred to as a bog. swamp. or marsh and ts contiguous to the Great Lakes, an tnland lake or pond. or a river or stream." Regulated wetlands include all wetland areas greater than 5 acres or those contiguous to waterways. Wetlands which are hydrologically connected (Le. via groundwater) to waterways are also regulated. ActMtles exempted from the provisions of the Act include farming, grazing of animals, farm or stock ponds. lumbering, maintenance of existing nonconforming structures, maintenance or improvement of ex- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �4-3 TABLE 4.2 LAND COVER CODES FOR PROTECTED WETLANDS IN TRI-COMMUNITY AREA CODE DESCRIPTION 31 32 412 414 421 429 611 612 621 622 Herbaceous Rangeland• Shrub Rangeland* Upland Hardwoods Lowland Hardwoods Upland Conifers Lowland Conifers Wooded Swanps Shrub Swamps Marshland Meadow Mud Flats Source: Michigan DNR Land Cover/Use Classlftcation System • Wetlands are sometimes, but not always associated with these land cover types. !sting roads and streets within existing rightsof-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines less than six inches in diameter, and maintenance or operation of electrtc transmission and distribution power lines. Permits will not be issued if a feasible or prudent alternative to developing a wetland exists in such areas. An inventory of wetlands based on the DNR's land use\cover inventory are illustrated on Map 4.4 . Table 4.2 shows the land use \cover codes pertaining to regulated wetlands in the area. Herbaceous and shrub rangelands may not actually meet the statutory definition of wetland. so on site inspections will be necessary to establish whether a wetland indeed exists in such areas. Areas of hydric soils in the south-central part of the Township would be classified as wetlands if they were not in agricultural use and served by county drains. SOILS A modern soil survey was completed for Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in March. 1987. The soil types present in the tri-community area shown on the map and table in Appendix D. Each soil type has unique characteristics which pose opportunities for some uses and limitations for others. The most important characteristics making the soil suitable or unsuitable for development are 11mitations on dwellings with basements. l1mitations on septic tank absorption fields. and suitability for farming. Soil limitations have been classified into three categories. which are described below. • Slight: Relatively free of limitations or limitations are easily overcome. • Moderate: Limitations need to be considered. but can be overcome with good management and careful design. • Severe: Limitations are severe enough to make use questionable. Large areas of soils in the Township have severe limitations on residential and urban development. The degree of soil l1mitations reflects the hardship and expense of developing the land. Fortunately, most of the soils which are not suited for residential development are also considered prime farmland soils by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Basement Umitations Limitations for dwellings with basements are shown on Map 4.5. Some soils impose severe l1mitations on basements because of excessive wetness. low strength. excessive slope. or shrink-swell potential. These areas are found primarily in the northeast corner and in the southern half of the Township. Septic Limitations Soils in most of the tri-community area impose severe l1mitations on septic tank absorption fields for a wide variety of reasons. The permeability of soils in the area ranges from very poorly drained to excessively drained. There are only a few small areas which are neither poorly nor excessively drained, do not have a high water table, and are therefore well suited for septic tank absorption fields. These areas are located in the southeast corner of the Township and in the southwestern portion of Douglas. Most of the tri-community area that is likely to experience future growth has moderate to severe l1mitations for on-site septic systems. Map 4.6 shows the septic l1mitations for the area. This map suggests the need for municipal sewers to accommodate new development in many areas. The degree of soil l1mitations reflects the hardship and expense of developing that land for a particular use. Those soils classified as "severe" have varying degrees of development potential based on the nature of the limitation. Map 4.7 provides this more detailed analysis of severe 11mitations on septic tank absorption fields. The "severe" soils have been categorized as follows: Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �4-4 A Sandy, moderate to rapid permeability B. Rapid permeability, wetness and high water table C. Wet, ponding, heavier (clay) soils, slow permeability D. Very wet soils, organics, wetlands, floodplains, unable to support septic fields. Soils in categories B and D are not able to support septic fields because of extreme wetness. Soils in category A are classified as "severe" by the Soil Consetvation Service, however the Allegan County Health Department considers them to have only moderate limitations for septic systems. They can be made suitable for development by increasing the distance between the septic system and the water table. Soils with moderate and slight limitations also appear on Map 4. 7. Soils that are most suitable for development. with respect to basement and septic limitations, are shown in Map 4.8. Some areas of the tri-community area have been designated by the Allegan County Health Department as unsuitable for new development without sewers. Among these areas are the Felkers Subdivision in Douglas, Blue Star Highway from Douglas south to the freeway exit, 129th Street south of Douglas, and along Old Allegan Road in Section 10 east of Saugatuck. Permits for commercial and single family uses have been denied in all of these areas due to on-site soil conditions. The Health Department has also outlined areas with particularly severe limitations for septic fields. These are in Sections 3 and 4 of the Township and the Goshorn Lake area, which have a highly permeable soils and a high water table, and large portions of the southern half of the Township, which have heavy clay soils. Health Department officials do not recommend further development of these areas without sewers. Standards for Septic Systems The Allegan County Health Department has established certain standards for septic systems. These standards apply somewhat different site characteristics when determining the degree of limitations for septic systems, compared to the Soil Conservation Service approach, which focuses on soil types and slope. Below is a review of these standards by development type. Single Family Residential Before a permit is considered, there must be four feet of dry soils between the bottom of the septic system and the water table. In addition, there must be one foot between the existing ground surface and the seasonal water table, and two feet between the existing ground surface and the clay. Special permits will be considered only if the site size is at least two acres and the septic system is put on top of four feet of sand. Residential sites that fail to meet those requirements, such as the small lots in Felkers Subdivision, will not be issued septic system permits. All Other Residential, Plus Commercial These fall under State guidelines of two feet between the existing ground surface and the water table and four feet of dry soil between the bottom of the septic system and the water table. No special permits are issued for these uses. Most of the land along the entire length of Blue Star Highway does not meet these State standards and has been denied commercial permits (refer to Map 4. 7a). Public sewers will be necessary. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are another limitation on development. They are very poorly drained, saturate easily and retain large quantities of water. If artificially drained, they are often suitable for farmland use. Map 4.9 shows where these soils are. In the tri-community area, most of the hydric soils are found near watercourses and correspond to present or former wetlands. There is a large area of hydrtc soils in the southwest portion of the Township which is currently being farmed. Residential, commercial and industrial development in areas containing hydric soils should be discouraged. Prime Farmland Prime farmland soil types have been identified by the Soil Consetvation Service as those best suited for food production: they require minimal soil enhancement measures such as irrigation and fertilizer. There is a very large area of prime farmland soils in the south central portion of the Township. These areas contribute significantly to the area's economic base. The loss of prime farmland to other uses results in farming on marginal lands, which are more erodible and less productive. Soils in prime farmland categories that have frequent flooding or seasonal high water table, such as those in the southern half of Saugatuck Township, qual- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �4-5 1fy as prime farmland because those limitations have been overcome by drainage. Unique farmlands are based on certain soil types as well as other factors, such as landscape position (proxiinity to water supply, orientation to sunlight, slope. etc.). moisture supply and present management practices. Prime farmland soils and unique farmlands are shown on Map 4.10. Unique farmland and lands enrolled in the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program (PA 116 of 1974) are depicted on Map 5.3. GROUNDWATER Groundwater is an unseen resource and is therefore particularly vulnerable to mismanagement and contamination. Prior to the 1980's, little was known about groundwater contamination in Michigan, and some startling facts have recently been revealed. The leading causes of groundwater contamination in Michigan are from small businesses and agriculture. More than 50% of all contamination comes from small businesses that use organic solvents, such as benzene, toluene and xylene, and heavy metals, such as lead, chromium. and zinc. The origin of the problem stems from careless storage and handling of hazardous substances. On paved surfaces where hazardous materials are stored, substances can seep through or flow off the edge of the pavement. Materials can get into floor drains which discharge to soils, wetlands or watercourses. At present, groundwater is the only tapped source of potable water for the City of Saugatuck, the Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township. The glacial drift aquifers in the area are especially vulnerable to contamination because of rapid permeability and high water table. In a local example, Douglas' municipal water supply has been contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOC's). supposedly by an industrial site within the Village. Some areas without municipal sewer and water service are in danger of groundwater contamination due to septic systems, intensive development and a high water table. In the Goshorn Lake area, household wells are susceptible to contamination from septic systems due to intensive development and a high water table. The Allegan County Health Department recommends provision of public water and sewer to households in that area. Protection of groundwater resources is problematic because of difficulties in locating aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative location of groundwater at particular points. According to well logs from Michigan Groundwater Survey (MGS) data, well depths range from 29 ft. in the north central area to 360 ft. in the extreme southwest comer of the Township. Soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination are found on Map 4.11. Well locations are indicated by small triangles on Map 4.12. SPECIAL FEATURES Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches The entire shoreline, from M-89 to the sand dunes, is flanked by single family homes overlooking sand and clay bluffs. The Lake Michigan shoreline in Saugatuck Township is very susceptible to wind and water erosion during storms and high lake levels due to resultant wave action. The current closing of Lakeshore Drive due to bluff erosion is a graphic example of the power of wave action. These natural processes pose hazards to public health and safety. The Shorelands Protection Act of 1970 was enacted to identify areas where hazards exist by designating them and by passage of measures to minimize losses resulting from natural forces of erosion. High risk erosion areas are defined as areas of the shore along which bluffiine recession has proceeded at a long term average of 1 foot or more per year. The entire Lake Michigan shoreline in the trt-community area has been designated as a high risk erosion area, with some portions eroding at a rate of 1. 7 feet per year. Within the designated area, shown on Map 4.13, alteration of the soil, natural drainage, vegetation. fish or wildlife habitat. and any placement of permanent structures, requires a DNR review and permit, unless the local unit of government has an approved high risk erosion area ordinance. Saugatuck Township has such an ordinance. while Douglas and Saugatuck do not. Sand Dunes The sand dunes along Lake Michigan 1n the northwest corner of the Township represent a unique and fragile phystographic formation and ecosystem that is very susceptible to wind and water erosion, and destruction due to careless use or development. The dune area which is in Saugatuck Township and the City of Saugatuck has been identified by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a critical dune area, subject to protection under the Michigan Sand Dune Protection and Management Act, PA 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 commercial 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 archaeological or historical significance must be approved by the State. Single family residential development is to be regulated at the local level. The law prohibits surface drilling operations that explore 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 fragile environment. Areas needing special attention in such standards are vegetation, drainage and erosion protection. WOODLANDS The wooded areas of the trt-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 oflowland conifers exists in the southeastern portion of the Township east ofl-196. Other smaller patches of upland and lowland hardwoods and conifers are scattered throughout the area, as shown on Map 4.15. Mature trees represent a valuable resource in maintaining the aesthetic character of the area, not to mention their overall importance to wildlife and the natural environment. In particular, the wooded sand dunes along the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan, and those buffering adjacent uses from I-196, are especially important. They should be managed to insure their long term existence. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �N A 0 4,000 Scale 1" ~- 8,000 ~ ! .) ;<~~:J::fJ~/~ tl .:.:;·:·.· = 9060 ft !. J 1• ~ -::::____..,, ~- ··___:. ,, ·,, :.r::~-~~?Sv :~:-,·-:;\~:-.: ~;;:::::·:::/~·'(:\[; ... 11 MAP 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY Tri-Community Contour interval is ten feet Darker lines are 50 foot contours August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Maps Planning & Zoning Cenler Inc, Lansing, Ml �+ ... N A 0 4,000 Scale 1" 8,000 = 9060 ft ~ ! - 25 i 28 : L.~. - r : 33 MAP4.2 WATERCOURSES [2] Lakes, rivers and streams □ Drains and intermittent streams August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNA Tri-Community Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �+ N A _J_ I 0 4,000 8,000 .. I 12,000 ft 13nto AVE , Scale 1" = 9060 ft ; ..... • 12. TM •vC. 25 • 27 33 35 T3N,R16W 11- 89 MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS ■ 100 Year Flood Area ~ 500 Year Flood Area August 1989 DATA SOURCE:MDNR Tri-Community Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP 4.4 WETLANDS Jill II II Lowland Hardwood Lowland Conifer Wooded Swamp August 1989 II • ■ DATA SOURCE: MDNR Tri-Community Shrub Swamp m Marshland Meadow & Mud Flats Herbaceous Rangeland Shrub Rangeland Planning & Zoning Cenll8r Inc, Lanling, Ml �N A 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS ■ II Severe llIIIl] Moderate Wetland Soils cm ~ Slight ~ Sand Dunes . August 1989 Tri-Community Excavated ' DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A ,..____ 0 4,000 Scale 1" 8,000 = 9060 ft MAP4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS ■ II Severe mm Moderate ~ Wetland Soils Lill. Slight ~ Sand Dunes August 1989 Tri-Comm unity Excavated DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County : "' ,, Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A 0 4,000 Scale 1" 8,000 12,000 ft = 9060 ft MAP4.7 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS e ~ Sandy, moderate to rapid permeability f6lj ~ Rapid permeability, wetness j11~1~jSlight Limitations II.II Wet, ponding, heavier ■ Excavated =: of highwater table 118& clay soils,slow permeability August 1989 fmm Moderate Limitations DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Alleg. Cnty Hitt, Dept Tri-Community Sand Dunes Wetland Soils Very wet soils, organics, wetlands, floodplains Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �''I I I I I I I b i r-~ i' ' ./ 1 If I I I I I I I : == I -I ! -------- I - ---. -✓ - ----- / l 20 • .25 .. , 3' ~ - r-nL.i&Clllll ~---- ..:m~lllUA MAP 4.7 A Tri-Community ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS l"lG. NO. 2 KAI ............. -..... -·-·- �N _, A 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft - .- -- - ,. ---::;,-- ... :_../ ,l - ~- MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS 1111 Soils Most Suitable For Development ■ Excavated Areas August 1989 DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Tri-Community Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS ffll Hydric Soils ~ Wetland Soils August 1989 DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Tri-Community Planning & Zoning Cenlel' Inc, Lan1lng, Ml �N A ,-.-0 4,000 Scale 1" 8,000 = 9060 ft MAP 4.10 PRIME FARMLANDS 1111 Tri-Community Prime Farmlands August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A r----• 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP 4.11 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY Tri-Community II Areas most susceptible to contamination ■ Excavated Areas ~ Wetland Soils August 1989 DATA SOURCE : USDA Soils Surwy & Alleg. Hlth Dept. Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft 0 A ! .. ... ! t :zeT t-t AVE. MAP4.12 WATERWELLS Tri-Community Well Location August 1989 DATA SOURCE :MI Groundwater Survey Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A .,: • ,..____ . •·: 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft 0 ..: iN • " ' ' MAP 4.13 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS Accretion Area . Tri-Community Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in feet per year Recession Area August 1989 DATA SOURCE : MONA Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A % . 0 . ,..___ 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft iN • '•'.> ·-- ··-..... t2aTt-t A.VIL t1 0 ...... ... 0 .,: • i • .......... N C, MAP 4.14 CRITICAL DUNE AREAS Tri-Community Critical Dune Areas August 198Q DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A 0 4,000 Scale 1" 8,000 = 9060 ft Tri-Community MAP4.15 WOODLANDS II II f;Tiill a Lowland Hardwood Upland Conifer Upland Hardwood Wooded Swamp Lowland Conifer Shrub Swamp August 1989 DATA SOURCE : MONA Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �!S-1 Chapters EXISTING LAND COVER AND USE LAND USE/COVER DATA SOURCES Land cover and use refers to an inventory of existing vegetation, natural features, and land use over the entire trt-community area. This data was obtained in computertzed form from the Michigan Resource Inventory System (MIRIS) database. which is maintained by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) . The data came from photo interpretations of aerial infrared photos by trained interpreters at the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission. The DNR will update this data every 5 years. Land cover and use categories included in the data are explained on the legend to Map 5.1. The wetlands and woodlands maps in Chapter 4 were also derived from this data. MIRIS data was supplemented by a thorough 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 Saugatuck and Douglas, and through a "windshield survey" of outlying areas. The extsting use of every parcel was recorded and evaluated in combination with low-level aerial imagery available from the Allegan County Equalization Department and the MIRIS land cover/use map to prepare the existing (parcel-based) land use map (see Map 5.2). The following description is based on these maps and data sources and the USDA Soil Survey of Allegan County. Land use by category for the entire trt-community area is shown in Table 5.1. This information was derived from the aforementioned data sources and areas were calculated using CMAP computer mapping software. The predominant land use in the tri-community area ls agricultural, followed by single family residential. Vacant land comprises forty four percent of the total land area (street ROW's excluded). AGRICULTIJRAL The size of farms in Saugatuck Township ranges from over 300 acres to under 10 acres, with the average size being from 120-140 acres. Agricultural land in the Township is used pri- marily for crops and orchards, with some livestock. Prime Farmlands Prime farmland is generally concentrated in the south central part of the Township. Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting the nation's short and long term needs for food. Prime farmlands have been identified by the U.S.DA. Soil Conservation Service so that local governments can encourage and facilitate the wise use of valuable farmlands. Prime farmland ls that which ls best suited to food, feed , forage and oilseed crops. The soil qualities, growing season and moisture supply are those needed to economically produce a sustained high yield of crops. Prime farmlands are shown on Map 4. 10. TABLE '5.1 EXISTING LAND USE 1AND USE ACRES % 1LAMSROW- Residential single-family multi-family mobile home Commercial Industrial Institutional Agricultural Parks Golf Courses Boat Storage & Service Kalamazoo River Wetland Streets & Roads Vacant Commerctal/Residentlal TOTAL 1708 61 43 196 92 317 3938 311 240 70 9 .91% 0 .35 0 .25 1.14 0.53 1.84 22.84 1.80 1.39 0.41 1017 5.90 1602 7637 6.6 9.29 44.30 QJM 17239 100% • % of total land area minus street ROWs Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �5-2 Unique Farmlands Lakeshore Area Unique fannland is land other than prime fannland for the production of specific highvalue food crops. such as vegetables, and tree, vine and beny fruits. Although these areas are not prime fannland, their unique quality and value to the local economy merit special consideration in land use decisions. They are shown on Map 5.3 with PA 116 lands described in the next section. The Lake Michigan shore is fronted by many large single family homes along Lakeshore Drive for five miles from M-89 to the City of Saugatuck. This area is characterized by scenic vistas of the lake and the bluffs. Large trees line the road and many homes are on wooded lots. Lot sizes average from 5-8 acres and many of the lots are very long and narrow. Kalamazoo River Michigan Farmland Preservation Act The Michigan Fannland Preservation Act of 1974 (PA 116) allows landowners to enter into a voluntary agreement with the State whereby the land will remain in agricultural use for at least ten years. In return. the landowner is entitled to certain tax benefits. The program has been effective in helping to ensure that suitable lands are retained for farming. There are over 1100 acres of PA 116 lands in the Township, most of them in the southern half. Most of the prime farmlands in the Township are not suitable for development because of soil limitations. However, there are some fannlands that are suitable for development. Alternatives to conversion of agricultural land should be considered when land use decisions are made. RESIDENTIAL Residential areas in the tri-community area vary widely in character between the rural areas of the Township and the urbanized areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. The majority of residential development in the Township is scattered along county roads and along the Lake Michigan Shore. Most resort-residential development in all three communities is located along the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. Single family structures are the predominant residential type. The "hill" in Saugatuck and the neighborhood surrounding the Village Center in Douglas are other distinct residential areas. Most multiple family structures are concentrated in Saugatuck and Douglas. with only one such development in the Township (Section 3). There are four mobile home parks in the tri-community area: two in the Village of Douglas and two in the southern half of the Township. Some distinct residential areas existing within the three communities are described further below. Much of the area surrounding the Kalamazoo River east of Douglas is a wetland, unsuitable for residential use. The area is also wooded and is habitat to many birds and other wildlife. In some places. homes overlook the Kalamazoo River and Silver Lake (a shallow bayou connected to the Kalamazoo River). The character of the Kalamazoo River area is widely different from other residential areas of the township in that there are no farms or commercial/industrial development- aside from a marina in Section 23. Lot sizes in this area vary widely. Lots on the north side of Silver Lake tend to be very long and narrow and could pose land development problems if permitted to be subdivided any further. Rural Areas The rural areas of the Township are the southern agricultural, northeast, and riverfront - dunes areas. The southern agricultural area consists offarms. orchards. and a growing number of single family homes on large lots (10+ acres). Typically. these homes are located along the county roads at the perimeter of the sections. In addition to scattered development on large lots. there are several subdivisions. These are developments with 30 or less lots averaging approximately one acre each in size. The northeast area is a mix of woodlands and farms. with some steep slopes. Residences are mostly on large lots (40+ acres). with some on small lots within the large lots. Residences in the riverfront - dunes area north of Saugatuck are mostly on small lots fronting the Kalamazoo River. Most of that area is unspoiled wetland, dunes and beaches. Douglas Approximately 25 blocks of long-established neighborhoods surround the center of the 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 �lage. residential development is concentrated along Lakeshore Drive and along Campbell Road, 130th. Avenue, and Water Street. Saugatuck A majority of the homes in the downtown area are old and large, with some over 100 years old. These houses are increasingly expensive to maintain and to heat in the winter and are being adapted for profitable commercial use or for bed and breakfast establishments. Condominiums line the shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Lake St. and block a scenic view of the lake. Most of the City's year-round residents live above the steep ridge ("the hill") which separates the waterfront area from the rest of the City. Small cottages on very small lots line the west shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Park St. COMMERCIAL The major commercial areas in the trt-community area are in the northern part of the Township along Blue Star Highway. downtown Saugatuck, the Douglas village center, and in Douglas along Blue Star Highway. Blue Star Highway The commercial areas along Blue Star Highway represent an early form of scattered commercial strip development. Commercial strips are a haphazard form of development and often have inconsistent setbacks, an excessive number of driveways, excessive signs, poorly controlled ingress and egress, and are poorly designed with respect to the natural environment. These characteristics make the strip unattractive, environmentally incompatible, and potentially dangerous. The negative effects of commercial strip development can be mitigated by consolidation of driveways and parking facilities, grouping of stores into "mini malls", and site design standards which require that natural features be positively incorporated into new developments. as well as m1nim1zing "asphalt landscaping". Siting new development back from the highway would be a major improvement. Sixty five percent of the people responding to the 1988 Public Opinion Survey indicated that they did not want to see future strip commercial development in the future. Commercial uses along Blue Star Highway include restaurants, gas stations. boat service, motels, junkyards, a campground, small offices and a mixture of small retail establishments. Blue Star Highway from 130th. Avenue south to M-89 has a rural character with a combination of wooded areas. open land, scattered residential development, and a "you pick" bluebeny farm. Some highway oriented commercial uses are clustered around the interchanges with I196. Downtown Saugatuck Commercial uses in downtown Saugatuck are primarily oriented to tourists and seasonal residents. Many of the businesses occupy large. older residential structures. Others occupy the old and historic buildings lining Butler Street. This business district has few parking spaces due to the compact arrangement of the area's original design and heavy pedestrian traffic. Parking is a seasonal problem and a permanent solution has not yet been formulated. Businesses include bed and breakfasts, small and large restaurants. clothing, art galleries and numerous specialty shops, with boat service and marina facilities located along the waterfront. This commercial district ~as a unique historic character worth preseIVing and further enhancing and represents a great asset to the tri-community area as well as to the region and the state. Douglas Village Center This small retail area consists of restaurants, public and private offices and specialty shops and is used mostly by local residents. Uses include the Post Office, Village Hall, party stores, restaurants, beauty salon, police department. insurance, real estate and legal services, antique shops and the public library. Parking is located along both sides of Center St. and is adequate to meet current needs. There are several vacant lots and buildings in this area which could be used for new retail development. INDUSTRIAL Industrial development is limited in the tri-community area. Less than 1% of the total land area is devoted to industrial uses. Office furniture manufacturing and food processing are the two major industrial types in the area. There are also several small machine shops, and a luxury boat building establishment located near the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. A major deterrent to new industries locating in the area is lack of adequately sited land served with good public facilities (sewer and water). The trt-community area is located 150 miles from Detroit. 180 miles from Chicago and 36 miles from Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �5-4 Grand Rapids along a major interstate highway. There is also a railroad within five miles. This is an advantageous location for small scale, light industrial development. IDSTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEA1URES The tri-community area is rich in history and many historic and archaeologi.cal sites can be found throughout the area. Singapore. Michigan's most famous ·ghost town" and once a thriving lumber town, lies buried at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. A plaque commemorating its existence stands in front of the Saugatuck City Hall. Historic and archaeological sites are designated by the Michigan Bureau of History. Historic Buildings and Sites The Michigan State Register of Historic Sites was established in 1955 to provide official recognition for historic resources in Michigan. Designated historic sites have unique historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance. There are numerous State historic sites throughout the trt-community area. which are listed on Table 5.2. Old Allegan Road in Saugatuck Township is currently pending official designation as a State Historic Site. State historic site designation does not include any financial or tax benefits, nor does it impose any restrictions upon the owner of the property. Historic Districts The City of Saugatuck has also taken local steps to preserve its historic character. PA 169 of 1970 permits the legislative body of a local government to regulate the construction. demolition and modification of all structures within a designated historic district. The City of Saugatuck has established an historic district within the oldest part of the city. Within this district, construction. demolition and modification of structures must comply with requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Historic districts provide a means for the community to protect its historic resources from development pressures. Archaeological Sites Archaeological sites are of particular scientific value to the fields of anthropology, ecology and biology, and may have historic or ethnic significance as well. There are 120 archaeological sites scattered throughout the trt-community area, mostly related to Ottawa and Potawatomi cultures. Their exact locations have not been disclosed by the Bureau of History to protect them from exploitation. One of these sites, the Hacklander Site, located in Section 23, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and has components representing Middle and Late Woodland periods. Recipients of Federal assistance must ensure that their projects avoid damage or destruction of significant historical and archaeological resources. The Mich- TABLE 5.3 STATE HISTORIC SITES DESCRIPTION SaUJ1atuck: All Saints Episcopal Church Singapore (Village Hall) LOCATION 252 Grand St. Marker on Village Hall on Butler St. Clipson Brewery Ice House - 900 Lake St. Twin Gables Hotel (Singapore Counby Inn is commonname) Horace D. Moore House 888 Holland St. Warner P. Sutton House 736 Pleasant fBeachwood Manor) St. Fred Thompson-Willliam 633 Pleasant Sorinl!er House St. Doutlas Dutcher Loda:e #193 Hall Asa Goodrich House Sarah Kirby House Sawratuck Townshl1> Shiver's Inn (historic name). Oxbow Inn (COIIllllon name) Hacklander Site (National Historic Site) 86 Center St. 112 Center St. 294 W. Center St. Built in 1860's, originally used as a resort during lurnbertng era. In 1910 Art Institute ci Chicago used it for summer art school Section 23 Source: Michigan Bureau of History Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan r �5-5 tgan 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 Archaeologist to determlne if the project may affect a known archaeological site. This is particularly critical given the existence 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. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �Tri-Community MAP .5.1 LAND USE/COVER WATER URBAN . Lill ...... .,. .... """" ....... ...... ■ ••• ••• ... ~ 113 Slngle Family 115 Mobile Home 124 Neighborhood Business 126 Other Institutional 193 Outdoor Recreation FARMLAND □ ~ ~ ~ illlili RANGELAND II II WETLAND 611 Wooded Swamps 612 Shrub Swamps 621 Marshland Meadow 622 Mud Flats BEACH 21 Cropland 22 Orchards 52 Lakes ~ ~ 72 Beach At Riverbank 73 Dunes 31 Herbaceous Rangeland 32 Shrub Rangeland WOODLAND ~ 412} 414}Broadleaf II 421} 429}Conifers August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �Tri-Community LAND USE/COVER N A 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft �Tri-Community MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE ■ Single Family Residential - Agricultural - Orchard - mm Mulltiple Family Residential m~,, fiJ B Residential/Commercial ,,.,.,. Recreational Junkyard ■ Commercial ji!!! i!f' J!n;111 IT] Industrial ffillill Institutional II Vacant Boat Storage/Marina : : ] Wetland = D Water Agricultural August 1989 SOURCE : PZC Land Use Survey Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing , Ml �N A Tri-Community EXISTING LAND USE ... ~ 0 ~ 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft Pl -. "" 1' ~I -J ~: I ..._ -J -- -,, ,ljlti t b I _II • I' t... �N A .,.._...,. 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1" = 9060 ft PA 116LANDS& 5 3 MAP · UNIQUE FARMLANDS ■ PA 116 Lands Tri-Community m Unique Farmlands August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MONR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �6-1 Chapter6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES NON-PARK PUBUC FACil.JTIES A listing of all non-park public facilities in the tri-community area is found on Table 6. 1. This includes police and fire stations, municipal government offices, vacant lands and other public facilities. All are shown on Map 6. 6. UTILITIES Sewer and Water The Saugatuck-Douglas area sewer and water systems are managed by the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority, which is responsible for operation and maintenance and provides water production and wastewater treatment. Each community is responsible for providing and financing their own infrastructure. The KLSWA performs the construction work or contracts it out. The service areas for the sewer and water systems, shown on maps 6.1 and 6.2, extend only for very short distances into Saugatuck Township. The Township did not participate in initial construction of the water or sewer systems because of the disproportionate financial impacts on the few property owners who would have been served. In effect, the Township is not served by public sewer and water. This severely limits the growth potential for areas outside of Saugatuck and Douglas. due to the fact that the soils are not suitable for multi-family or commercial septic systems, and in many areas even residential development ts not appropriate except at very low density. If this continues, development in the tri-community area may be brought to a standstill because of a lack of developable land. Numerous engineering studies have been conducted which discuss various alternatives for improvement of utilities. These include using Lake Michigan for the municipal water supply and extending public utilities into the Township. Proposals must take into consideration the permanent population, seasonal population, number of daily visitors, and future industrial flow. Peak periods for public utilities in the tri-community area are more pronounced than in typical communities due to the relatively high seasonal and daily visitor populations. The costs of developing an independent utility system for Saugatuck Township are not considered feasible. The absence in all three jurisdictions of capital improvements plans for financing the needed improvements further complicates the matter. The recent decision by the Township to join the KLSWA is a step towards the obvious regional solution of the Township connecting to the existing Douglas and Saugatuck system. Water System The reliability of the water system depends on water supply sufficient to meet peak demands, storage capacity to provide fire flows for sufficient duration, adequate water pressure and distribution system loops. The existing system is deficient with respect to meeting peak demands. The water is not treated, except for chlorination and iron sequestering. Parts of the current water system date back to 1907 in Saugatuck, and to 1914 in Douglas. In addition, the water mains are old, small and substandard, leaks are a problem on older service lines, and there may be some unmetered taps. Growth is restricted in areas not serviced by the system and is limited overall at present because of insufficient pumping capacity. The existing water system also has many dead end lines. which are susceptible to water discoloration and development of tastes and odors due to stagnation. The best arrangement for water mainS is the gridiron system, where all primary and secondary feeders are looped and interconnected, and the small distribution mainS tie to each loop to form a complete grid. If an adequate number of valves are inserted, only a small 1 block area will be affected in the event of a break. A primary feeder from the Saugatuck wells to the system's primary 12" feeder loop has been installed, and all of the primary 12" feeder loop has been completed, including two river crossings. In 1984 and 1985. a one million gallon above ground storage tank was constructed, which allowed Saugatuck and Douglas to meet normal and fire protection demands. If Saugatuck Township is included in the system, the storage tank is adequate for fire protection Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-2 TABLE6.l (NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES INVENTORY NAME LOCATION SAUG. TWP. 36Center Township St., Douglas Hall Saugatuck Riverside Cemete Douglas Cemetery Douglas North annex cemete SAUGA1t!CK City Hall Maintenance bldg. Sand & salt storage Pump House #1 Pump House #2 Mt. Baldhead Park Butler St. comfort statoin Park St. comfort statlon Water St. comfort statlon Beach storage bldg. DOUGIAS Vacant lot 135th & Blue Star USE SIZE• 56'xl20' Twp offices, interurban of- (45'x64') flees. Douglas police. 2 rental apartments 1350'x730' Burial CONDITION VALUE Below average $175,000$200,000 Average 130th southside 130th northside Burial 690'x440' Average Burial 330'x530' Average 102 Butler City offices. council chambers Public works $475,000 Built 1882, remodeled 1989 Built 1985 $275,000 Built 1985 $25,000 3338WashingtonRd. 3338WashingtonRd. Maple St. Water Maple St. Water Built 1973 $80,000 Park St. Residence $94,000 Butler & Main Restrooms Remodeled 1978 Built 1988 Mt. Baldhead Restrooms Fair $6,400 Wicks Park Restrooms Fair $13,000 Oval Beach Storage, restrooms, concessison Poor $4,000 Dry $35,000 Corner Gravel storFeny&Cen- age ter $65,000 28,CXX> sq. ft. (1/2 acre+) Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan $97,000 �6-3 TABLE 6.1 (continued) (NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY&: PUBLIC FACil.ITIES INVENTORY LOCATION NAME USE Mixer & Cen- Library Library (Saugatuck- ter Sts. Douglas) Office, fire Spring & Fire barn Center Sts. barn SIZE• CONDITION Good 4327 sq.ft. (1 lot-8400 sq.ft.) Good 2560 sq.ft. (1/4 acre10,000 sq.ft.) 2432 sq.ft. Poor (1 3/4 acres80,000 sq.ft.) DPWbarn Water& Center Sts. Barn (launch ramp curently closed) Two DPWbarn Well housing combined Good bldgS=360 sq.ft. (land includes DPWbarn) None 66 sq.ft. wide Varied pumphouses &pumps 1/2 vacant street ends on K. River &Lake • Land Gerber. South, Fermont, Randolph, S encer =acres or square feet (Building VALUE $96,000 $100,000 Land is valuable, river frontage & walk be converted to park and/or marina $26,000 =square feet) for the near future, but additional capacity is needed if seIVice were extended to the southern portions of the Township. Recent chemical contamination of the Douglas municipal water supply has led to an overburdening of the City of Saugatuck water system, which is presently serving the entire network and is working at full capacity; 24 hours per day during peak months. This has led to restrictions on non-essential uses such as lawn sprinkling, car and boat washing, and has reduced the minimum resetve needed for fire protection (600,000 gallons) down to 2/3 of the needed amount. A moratorium has been inlposed on new development other than one or two family dwellings. The pumping capacity of both wells has dropped due to depletion (drawdown) of groundwater. Communications from the Michigan Department of Public Health have demanded that substantlal progress be made towards a solution to the water supply problem in the near future. The Health Department has also questioned the usefulness and reliability of both Douglas wells because well # 1, which is out of use, is contaminated, and well #2, which is used for emergency purposes only, may become contaminated through further use. As a result, alternatives for addiUonal water sources are currently under review, with Lake Michigan and the City of Holland water system being considered the most viable options. Engineering studies have indicated a cost of nearly $4. 5 million for construction of a Lake Michigan water treatment facility which would provide a clean and abundant source of water. A large seIVice area, formed by including large portions of Saugatuck Township, would reduce the per capita cost burden on users. This facility would be capable of pumping 3 million gallons per day, which could setve the needs of all three communities well into the future. This, combined with a desire to retain local control over the water system. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-4 makes using Lake Michigan water the favored alternative. Sewer System Wastewater treatment is provided at a treatment plant located in Saugatuck Township north of the Kalamazoo River. The facility was constructed by the City of Saugatuck and the Village of Douglas in 1980. The treatment system provides biological and clarification processes for the reduction of BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and suspended solids, including chemical precipitation for the reduction of phosphorus from fertilizers and detergents. The plant has two aerated lagoons and was designed for incremental addition of lagoons to accommodate increased wastewater flow. The facility was designed for heavier BOD loading than other facilities its size, in order to accommodate a pie factory and thus may not need more capacity of that type for many years. The discharge is to the Kalamazoo River on the north side of Saugatuck. In 1957, many of the storm sewers in the City of Saugatuck were converted to sanitary sewers. This system was expanded in 1979 with PVC pipe, and some improvements were made to the old system. The sewer system in Douglas was built entirely since 1978. The two jurisdictions merged their facilities in the late 1970's to form the KLSWA. There has been some infiltration into the system from groundwater due to bad manholes, pipe, and roof drains. The impacts of this infiltration were most pronounced when Lake Michigan water levels were high. The capacity of the sewer system is sufficient to meet the needs of Saugatuck and Douglas until approximately 2008. The capacity of the wastewater treatment facility would have to rerated to 1.2 MGD for the Township to use the system until 2008. Thirty year projections for TABLE6.2 PROJECTED SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER FLOWS AVERAGE DAY - MGD PERIOD Immediate 10-year 20-year 30-year NORlli 0.07 0.28 0.43 0.65 sot.rm 0.05 0.19 0.31 0.53 TOTAL 0.13 0.47 0.74 1.18 wastewater treatment for Saugatuck Township include extending service to the south lakeshore residential area and the area of the Township northeast ofl-196. They are shown in Table 6.2. The treatment facility was designed for a twenty year planning period through 1998, based on a population tributary of 7,695 and a wastewater flow of 0. 75 million gallons per day (MGD) . The treatment facility is rated at 0 .8 million gallons per day by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The facility was designed for a peak flow of 2 MGD. The present average flow is 0.4 MGD. A larger flow can be accommodated by increasing hours of operation, provided that the lagoons can treat the sewage well enough. An engineering study in 1987 determined that August (maximum day was Aug. 14) ts the month of peak flow for wastewater, with 0.598 MGD. Based on the study, the treatment facility operated at 75% of flow capacity, 55% of BOD capacity, and 300A> of suspended solids capacity. Existing effiuent quality and treatment efficiency was found to be excellent. Increasing the rated capacity of the facility to 1.2 MGD with two aerated lagoons would accommodate all three jurisdictions through 2008 and possibly beyond. Pursuing this option would require detailed preparation of data accompanied by a formal request to the DNR from the KLSWA. Further capacity could be obtained by adding another aerated lagoon, estimated to cost $900,(X)() in 1987. The two basic alternatives for expanding the wastewater collection system in the Township are pressure sewers and gravity sewers. Pressure sewers are generally used where topography or spacing between services prohibit the use of gravity sewers or where high water table and difficult soil conditions prevail, such as in the tri-community area. These systems have lower construction costs and higher maintenance and operation costs than gravity sewers. Gravity sewers are the most common in use due to their minimal operation and maintenance expense. However, the cost of initial construction can be substantial for small communities, especially if construction costs are further aggravated by difficult topography and soil conditions. In addition, it is rare that an entire community can be served by gravity sewers. The existing system 1n Saugatuck and Douglas is a gravity system, with local areas of pressure. Source: Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, Maren 1988. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-15 Storm Sewers There are very few mapped stonnwater drains in the tri-community area. Drainage has not been a significant problem in most developed areas bec~use of sandy, high permeability soils and lack of large paved areas. There are suspected to be some stormwater drains, individual residential and business gutters flowing Into the sanitary sewer system which need to be removed. Efforts are currently underway to improve stormwater drainage. County Drains County Drains are found throughout the tri-community area, but mostly in the southern portion of the Township. A network of drains in Sections 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 facilitates the removal of water from an area of poorly drained soils which is used as farmland. Toe Allegan County Drain Commission recently added four new drains along the Lake Michigan shore in Sections 20 and 29. These drains are needed to stabilize sand and clay bluffs along Lake MichTABLE 6.3 COUNTY DRAINS DRAIN NAME Silver Creek Drain Ash Drain Mead Drain Golf Drain Falconer Drain Barr Drain Terrill Drain Rose Drain Rose Marsh Drain Wadsworth Drain Ruplow Drain Nuckelbine Drain Hudson Drain Kerr Drain Herring Drain Jager Crane Drain Warnock Drain Lakeshore # 1 Lakeshore #2 Lakeshore #3 Section 20 interceptor LOCATION Sections 2. 11 Section 12 Section 12 Section 3, Saugatuck Section 10 Section 10 Section 35 Section36 Section36 Section 27 Section 27 Section 27 Section 33, 34 Section 29 Section 20, 21 Section 20, Douglas Section 20. Douglas Section 20, 29 Section 29 Section 20, Douglas Section 20 igan, which are being eroded by groundwater. Other County drains in the area are located in the northeast corner of the Township, east of Saugatuck and south of Douglas. County drain names and locations are shown on Table 6.3. Gas, Electric and Telephone There are no major gas or oil pipelines in the tri-community area. Gas service is provided by Michigan Gas Utilities Company and approximate locations of gas mains are shown on Map 6.3. There is one major 760 kilovolt electric transmission line which crosses the extreme southeast corner of the Township. Electricity in the tri-community area is provided by Consumers Power Company. Telephone service is provided by General Telephone and Electric Co. (GTE). TRANSPORTATION Transportation facilities within the trt-communtty area include streets and roads and a public transportation system (Interurban). Toe trt-community area is served by a major Interstate highway (I-196) and by a State highway (M-89). Blue Star Highway, part of the Great Lakes Circle Tour, is the other major highway serving the area. Toe nearest railroad is the Chesapeake and Ohio RR, which runs north and south one mile east of the Township boundary. Kent County International Airport is within 50 miles and is served by 3 major airlines. with 126 flights per day. Toe area is also served by Greyhound Bus Lines. Transportation facilities are important in stimulating growth for the tricornrnunity area and its location is an asset for attracting further economic and industrial development. Streets and Roads Streets and roads are classified according to the amount of traffic they carry and the nature of the traffic. Four common categories are local streets. collectors, local arterials, and regional arterials. Local streets typically provide access to residences, with speeds from 20 to 25 mph (Mason St.). Collectors connect local streets to arterials and speeds average 25-35 mph. (Center St.). Local arterials facilitate larger volumes of traffic which originates and terminates within the trt-communtty area, with a trip length of ten miles or less and an average speed of 35-45 mph. (Blue Star Hwy.). Regional arterials are typically used for high speed through traffic, and access to the roadway is usually Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-6 TABLE 6.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS VOWME DATE LOCATION 4L3L78 Blue Star & 64th 130th E &Wof Blue Star Blue Star& 129th 1959 & 1968 (same count) July 1987 (2 c:Ufferent days) 1969 5,319 368 10,575 8,256 336 Old Allegan, east of Blue Star 130th & 70th, east 285 1982 of I.akeshore Dr. 7,018 North 135th at July 1987 Blue Star (northbound) 129th at Blue 6,192 July 1987 Star (northbound) 10,861 October 1985 Center at Blue Star limited (1-196). Locations of collectors, local arterials and regional arterials are shown in Map 6.4. Each class of street has an important function in maintaining the efficient flow of traffic and it is essential that adequate transportation facilities exist or can be efficiently provided. Some up-to-date traffic counts for Blue Star Highway are available. A recent count for Blue Star Highway at two intersections in the Township only considers northbound traffic, missing traffic entering Saugatuck from exit 41 onl-196. Other existing traffic counts for area roads are inadequate for planning purposes. Accurate and up-to-date traffic counts are needed in order to make some decisions pertaining to priorities for road improvements, monitoring of flows, evaluating impacts of proposed new development, and projecting future traffic conditions. Table 6.4 shows what very limited information is presently available from the County Road Commission. PA 51 of 1951 provides for the classification of all public roads, streets and highways for the purpose of managing the motor vehicle highway fund. The classifications which pertain to the tri-community area are "County-Wide Primary Road" and "County-Wide Local Road" in Saugatuck Township, and "Major Streets" and "Local Streets" in Saugatuck and Douglas. These roadways are shown in Map 6. 5. Funding is provided to cities and villages for street maintenance and construction based on the number of miles of streets by class, within each commu- nity. Roads in the Township are managed by the Allegan County Road Commission, which also receives PA 51 funds based on the mileage of roads in each class under its Jurisdiction. Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive provides a scenic link between areas along the Lake Michigan coast. High water levels on the Great Lakes, combined with storms, resulted in powerful wave action which undermined sand and clay bluffs along the shore, causing them to collapse. Because of its close proximity to these bluffs, the road has washed out in two places, one in section 20 which is impassable, and one south of Douglas which has only one lane passable. School buses are not allowed to travel on some segments of the road because of poor and unsafe conditions. The Allegan County Road Commission allocated $260,000 to test the effects of concrete for accretion technology along the shoreline. The erosion barrier was installed in two locations and is having a minimal effect on the shoreline. Cost estimates for rebuilding Lakeshore Drive are at approximately $3.8 million (1988). This would involve relocation of portions of the road and implementation of erosion control measures. Blue Star Highway Blue Star Highway serves as a local arterial. Numerous problems inhibit it from performing that function effectively. Access to commercial and industrial establishments along arterial roads should be controlled by curbing. At present, there is virtually no controlled access in these areas on Blue Star Highway, and wide driveways and open shoulders lead to an elevated risk of accidents. There are no designated pedestrian traffic areas or bike paths. causing pedestrians to use the shoulder, unsafely. Widely varying speed limits between the Kalamazoo River bridge and the exit from 1-196 at the northern boundary of the Township make it difficult for motorists to travel the road without violating the speed limit. The roadway needs to have more than two lanes, especially if future development is to occur. The Township has paved the shoulders, and these are often mistaken for actual lanes, which poses a safety hazard. The possibility of creating a boulevard along Blue Star Highway was discussed at town meetings. Variations of this concept could improve appearance, safety and traffic control. There is no cooperative maintenance arrangement among the three jurisdic- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-7 tions for Blue Star Highway and the County Road Commission, yet the roadway needs repairs and resurfacing. Very little useable traffic count information is available, making it difllcult to assess where needs are greateM so that improvements can be prioritized. Traffic may be higher in some segments than in others, indicating which speed limits and whether other traffic control measures are necessary. The intersection with Lake Street in Saugatuck is hazardous in poor weather conditions and visibility or signaling should be improved. The entrances into the tri-community area from Blue Star Highway do not present visitors with positive first impressions. This is especially true if entering the area from the north, through section 3 of the Township. Over 6()0A, of people responding to the public opinion survey noted that the appearance of the highway needed improvement. Interurban The Interurban is the area's public transportation system and is funded in part by a 1 mill assessment. The service was started in May 1980 as a two year experimental project and was initially funded at lOOo/o by the State. Following the experimental period. some of the cost burden was borne by the tri-communities through a the 1 mill assessment. The system has four buses and in 1988 there were approximately 37,000 riders. A new maintenance facility in Douglas, to be completed in the spring of 1990, is being constructed at a cost of $211,000 entirely with state and federal funds. It is possible that the Interurban could be used to shuttle people to Saugatuck from remote parking facilitates and ease the parking burden there. The Interurban is governed by a board consisting of members from all three communtties. POUCE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Police Police protection for the tri-communtty area is provided by the Allegan County Sheriff Department and the Michigan State Police, and by local departments in Saugatuck and Douglas. The State Police maintains the Saugatuck Team post north of the Township on 138th. Avenue in Laketown Township. The facility has one lieutenant, one sergeant, seven troopers and eight patrol cars. The Allegan County Sheriff Department operates a satell1te post in Fennville which serves the area. The State Police and the Sheriff respond upon request to calls in all three Jurisdictions. The Township also has a constable who performs bar checks and serves zoning violations. The Village of Douglas maintains its own police department, which is housed adjacent to the Saugatuck Township hall on Spring Street. The department has one patrol car and three full time police officers. There are also three officers on reserve. The police department plans to have two patrol cars by the summer of 1990. The City of Saugatuck maintains its own police department, which is housed in the City Hall at 102 Butler Street. The department has two patrol cars and two full time police officers. including the Police Chief. There are also five part-time police officers. Extra demand for services occurs during the summer. particularly during festivals and holidays. Fire Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township are included in the Saugatuck Fire District. This district is managed by a five member Fire Authority. Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township each appoint one person to the board. These three then appoint two other people from the area at large, subject to approval by the three communities involved. The Saugatuck Fire District has 35 volunteer personnel, including the fire chief. There are two fl.re stations, one located in downtown Douglas (47 W. Center) and another in Saugatuck Township near the intersection of Blue Star Highway and 134th Avenue. The latter is a new building designed to house six vehicles, offices and a meeting room with 9,600 square feet. It is located adjacent to the existing Maple Street facility. The Fire District maintains eight vehicles and one vessel: • 1975 Chevy Pumper • 1981 International Pumper • 1968 International Pumper • 1959 Ford Pumper • 1949 Seagrave Aerial • 1977 GMC Step Van • 1985 FWD Tanker • 1985 Karavan Trailer • Boston Whaler boat with pump Emergency Services Ambulance services are provided by the Fennville Fire District and by Mercy Hospital in Grand Rapids, dispatched from Holland. The Saugatuck Fire District maintains a first re- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-8 sponder unit with 11 volunteers because of the distance from ambulance services. The first responder unit appears to average about 10 calls per month. SCHOOLS Three school districts serve the tri-community area; Saugatuck. Fennville, and Hamilton school districts. (See Map 2.1). Approximately half of Saugatuck Township, and all of Douglas and Saugatuck, are served by the Saugatuck district, with the southern portion of the Township being served mostly by the Fennville district and the extreme northeast portion of the Township served by the Hamilton district. The Saugatuck school system operates two facilities. Douglas Elementary School accommodates grades K through 6, and Saugatuck High School accommodates grades 7 through 12. Enrollment is approximately 550 students and has declined by 34% since 1973. The Fennville system has an elementary school (K-6) and a high school (7 12), with an enrollment of approximately 1600 students. Enrollments in the Fennville system are stable and range from 1550 to 1650 students per year, with less than 25% of the students coming from Saugatuck Township. The Hamilton district operates four elementary schools (K-6) and one high school (7-12). Enrollment is near capacity, with 1900 students. The district has been experiencing a 4-5% annual increase in enrollments in recent years. The school districts serving the area, especially the Saugatuck district, appear to have some capacity for accommodating increases in the school age population. Furthermore, the part of the trt-community area served by the Saugatuck school district is that which is most suitable for new growth. TABLE6.5 TONS GENERATED PER DAY BYLAND USE SOURCE QUAN111Y (PER DAY) Residential Commercial Industrial Other Not Collected -0.5 NETTOTAL 11.3 6.5 2.8 1.8 0.7 Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan SOLID WMm DISPOSAL PA 641 of 1978 requires that every county 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 Committee, the County Board of Commissioners and by at least 2/3 of the municipalities in the county. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan dates from 1983 and covers a twenty year planning period. It is presently being updated. The County generates about 220 tons per day of solid waste and has to rely on landfills outside of Allegan County. Solid waste removal in the tri-community area is handled entirely by private haulers. The waste stream from the County, and thus from the area, is expected to increase due to population and tourist increases brought about by the area's shoreline, natural attractions, and proximity to Grand Rapids. The Saugatuck area is defined in the Solid Waste Plan and encompasses Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas, as well as small portions of the adjoining communities. The Saugatuck area currently generates 11.3 tons of solid waste per day. In some outlying rural areas, 5-100/4 of the residential waste generated is disposed of or recycled on site. In urban areas, approximately 5% of residential waste is being recycled or scattered by indMdual efforts. The contributors to the solid waste stream by land use are shown in Table 6.5. Table 6.6 shows the results of a study conducted by the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG) in the early 1980's. The study involved counties with both urban and rural characteristics, much like the tri-community area. Solid waste generated has been broken down into specific categories. The numbers probably do not match the actual breakdown of solid waste components in the trt-community area, but give a rough estimate of the components. Per capita waste generated from various land uses is shown in Table 6. 7. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan projects that solid waste output for the Saugatuck area will increase by 32% by 2000 to 14.95 tons per day due to projected population increase. The goals and objectives of the plan focus on reducing the waste stream through separation and recycling, using private haulers for waste collection, recovering energy from the solid waste stream and providing the public with opportunities to develop solutions for solid waste disposal problems. A recycling center is Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �6-9 TABLE 6.6 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION 1YPE POTSW • Percentage(%) 44.8 9.2 3.5 4.1 4.2 11.5 2.2 3.0 82.5 Combustible Wastes ' Paper Plastics Wood Yard Wastes Textiles Food Wastes Rubber Misc. Organics TOTALS Noncombustible Wastes Glass Ferrous Aluminum Other nonFerrous Misc. Inorganics TOTALS 5.3 6.6 0.8 0.5 4.3 17.5 • Proportion of Total Solid Waste Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan munity area are concerned, State regulations prohibit operation of a new landfill on: • Land considered by the DNR to be a State recognized unique wildlife habitat. •Landin the 100 year floodplain. • Prime agricultural lands. • A DNR designated and officially mapped wetland. • So close to an historic or archaeological site that it can be reasonably expected to produce unduly disturbing or blighting influence with permanent negative effect. • In a developed area where the density of adjacent houses or water wells could be reasonably expected to produce undue potential for groundwater contamination. Due to the presence of many wetlands in the area (Map 4.4), many prime agricultural lands (Map 4.10). numerous archaeological sites. land in the 100 year floodplain (Map 4 .3). critical dune areas (Map 4.13). and areas susceptible to groundwater contamination (Map 4 .11). not much is left for potential landfill sites. Furthermore, most of those sites which may be environmentally suitable for landfills have already been developed. Thus it is not likely that a landfill will be located in the area. TABLE 6.7 PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATED USE Residential Commercial Industrial Average Overall QPE • (LBS. PER DAY) 2.9 5.75 10.6 4.7 • Quantity Per Employee Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan currently in operation on Blue Star Highway adjacent to I-196 and exit 41. The center is partially funded by Saugatuck. Douglas and Saugatuck Township and ls 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 �N A ,..____ 0 ,4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1" • 9060 ft MAP6.1 WATERSVSTEM I# IWater Mains ■ ~ Tri-Community Reservoir Proposed Water Intake & Treatment area Io;e Q'0 I Existing Well Locations August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works , Inc. Grand Rapids Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �--------------- - N ---------- -........04...0 Ct--•/ A I ----- ---) I I I MAP 6.2 SEWER SYSTEM Tri-Community I~ISewer Lines 1,1 Discharge Line August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works , Inc. Grand Rapids Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP 6.3 GAS MAINS Tri-Community I/ IGas Mains August 1989 SOURCE:Michigan Gas Utilities Company Planning & Zoning Center Inc., Lansing.Ml �N A MAP 6.4 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS 1,1 ~ [;:J Regional Arterials Tri-Community I/ I Local Streets Local Arterials Collectors August 1989 DATA SOURCE : PZC Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A ,. ____ 0 4,000 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft Tri-Community MAP6.5 ACT 51 ROADS [Z] County Local Road ~ County Primary Road [Z] State Trunkline August 1989 I.• 1Major Streets I/I Local Roads DATA SOURCE: Michigan Department Of Transportation Planning & Zoning Centor Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A 0 4,000 8 ,000 12.000 ft ..· Scale 1" = 9060 ft ····-, t 20 '~\ \ .a 29 21S : : ~ ' 27 25 ' l : : .......... . . ···: 34\ ,. .. ..-·····....•,., ,. T1N.•11W t. , ,i r.. ·· ) MAP 6.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES ' 35 35 ' .... :'' -····· SAUGATUCK TWP. 1,1-89 Tri-Community 1)2 Pumphouses 2)Vacant block 3)1/2 Vacant Street 4 & S)Vacant Lot 6)Library 7)Fire Dist. 1 & Fire Barn 8)DPW Barn 9)Saugatuck Township Hall 10)Saug. Riverside Cemetry 11)Douglas Cemetry 12)Douglas North Cemetry 13)Saug. Town. Fire District No.2 14)Saugatuck City Hall 1S)Public Restrooms 16)Saugatuck High School 17)Waterwell August 1989 Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �7-1 Chapter7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE P arks, recreation, and open space are essential to the quality of life of area residents, and are an important component of the local tourist economy. They enhance property values, as well as physical and psychological well-being. Parks and open space define the character of each area community, create the scenic abnosphere which stimulates tourism, and provide the basis for popular local leisure activities. Recreation needs are regional in nature and plans must view local recreational offerings as part of a regional recreational system. Local governments, schools, private entrepreneurs, the County, and the State each have a central role in serving local and regional recreational needs. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE The City of Saugatuck's parks are maintained by the City through its Department of Public Works. Park planning is done by a committee of three City Council members, who are overseen by the City Manager and the full Council. Douglas parks are maintained by the Village's Department of Public Works under the Village Council's Parks and Buildings Committee, which reports to the Village Council. The Township formed a Township Park and Recreation Commission in November 1970, which is an independent governmental entity charged with provision of parks and recreational programs to area citizens. The Commission has six elected members, and is staffed by a parttime maintenance person. Representatives from both Douglas and the Township may be elected to sit on the Commission. The Connnission completed the Saugatuck - Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan in February of 1985 and updates the plan periodically. Revision of the plan is currently underway. Allegan County prepares and periodically updates a countywide parks and recreation plan. County parks are administered by a tenmember County Parks and Recreation Commission whose members include the Chairs of the County Road Connnission, the County Planning Commission, the County Drain connnissioner, two County Commissioners, and five members appointed by the County Board of Commissioners. The Connnission meets on the first Monday of each month. It sometimes provides financial assistance for local recreational efforts which advance the County Recreation Plan. AREAWIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Recreation can be separated into four main categories: physical, social, cognitive, and environmentally related recreation. The former category focuses on sports and various physical actMties. Social recreation looks at social interaction. Cognitive recreation deals with cultural, educational, creative, and aesthetic activities. Environmentally related recreation requires the natural environment as the setting or focus for actMty. Each of these categories in some way relates to the others. Physical Recreation Intramural athletics are popular for children and young adults in the area and are offered through the summer recreation program. Activities include softball, baseball, rocket football, volleyball, bowling and others (see Table 7.1). The elementary school has a newly expanded playground and Kid's Stuff Park. Playgrounds are also found at River Bluff, TABLE 7.1 SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS ACTIVTIY T-ball for kids Little League Pony League Slow-pitch softball Fast pitch softball (girls) Semi-competitive softball (boys) Rocket football Swimming:beginner,advanced beginner, tntennediate. swimmer, basic rescue & advanced lifesaving Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1989 PARTICIPANTS 40 46 19 10-18 27 15-20 57 66 �7-2 TABLE 7.2 INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION . .!: ' ..... ., . :., .... ........ i ~. .., ..... ..,., ...... - ...."" -., ~ i ..,._ ~i~Q !] .......... . ,':; ;;: ...!; ] ....... ' i ~~ 3 !.: Il 8~ _,__.;: C: u Location Size (acrea) .. ., ,:i.-. - u.1>~ ! C -"., ~ I. River Bluff 27 X X 2,Sundovn .4 X X 3.Amalanchicr 0 ...: X 4 • ~ 1.4 5.H. Beerv Field 1.2 X X 20 X X X X X X - X X IJ.Coolt Park 14.Soear St. Launch 2.5 X X X X X X X X X X 16. Oval Beach 36 X X X X X l 7. Tallmage \foods 60* X )(. X X X X X. X 20. High School X . X X X X 2l. St. Peter's 23. West Wind KOA X X X X 22. 63rd St. Launch .,C X X 51 154 X • x· 15.Ht. Baldhead 8.6 X ft X X - 19. Elementarv Sch. X X .s 18. Old "Airoor't" X :=l X .5 - t. X X X - 12. Ioli llow Park ~ ~ ~ ~ X X X 7. Union St. Launch I I .Wicks Park ~ X X !I.center St. Laund IQ.Village Souare t 00 C X 4.Douglaa Beach 6.Schultz Park 0 ~ X ~ 12 X X X 24. Blue Star lliway Roadside Park X X X X X X X 25. Riverside Park Sundown, Schultz, and Beery Parks and the Douglas Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes are offered at the High school. Walking, hiking, biking, boating, golfing, swimm1I1g, and cross country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by a wide range of age groups. Social Recreation A variety oflocal clubs and actMties provide social recreation for people of all ages. Festivals, community education programs, and intramural sports provide an opportunity to socialize. Senior citizens actMties are organized through the New Day Senior Citizens Club of Douglas, the High School, the Masonic Hall, and various area clubs. Cognitive Recreation The trt-community area is rich In cognitive recreational pursuits. Festivals, art workshops. local theater, historic districts. an archaeological site, summer day camp. and community education programs provide cultural, educational, and aesthetic enjoyment. The Saugatuck Women's Club, Rubenstein Music Club, the Oxbow, Douglas Garden Club, and the Douglas Art Club are among the local clubs which organize cultural activities. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �7-3 Environmentally Related Recreation Area lakes. the Kalamazoo River, and state and local parks provide area citizens with unique outdoor recreation opportunities. They provide a location for a variety of outdoor activities including b6ating. fishing, swimming, nature study. camping, hiking, cross country skiing, and nature walks . These areas also serve the cognitive needs of area citizens and tourists by their scenic beauty and relaxing affect. In fact, the most valued attribute of area water bodies and open space to area citizens, as identified in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. is not physical recreation. but the scenic view they provide. RECREATION INVENTORY area. Those recommended for Saugatuck are shown below in order of priority: • Park Streets from Campbell to Perryman. • Oval Beach road. Those recommended for Douglas are shown below in order of priority: • Center Street from Tara to Lake Shore Drive. • Ferry Street from Center to Campbell Road. • Lake Shore Drive from Campbell Road to the Village limits. A path on Blue Star Highway from the bridge to Center Street, which was the Village's first priority, has already been completed. Those bike paths recommended in order of priority for Saugatuck Township are: • Lake Shore Drive from 130th Avenue to M-89. Map 7 .1 identifies parks and recreational facilities in the tri-community area. Table 7.2 contains an inventory of outdoor recreation facilities in the tri-community area. There are also two eighteen hole and one nine hole golf courses in the area. This is much higher than typical for such a small population (the standard is 1 golf course per 50,000 people). and reflects the impact of tourism on local recreational facilities. A discussion of the size. condition. and planned improvements for selected area parks is shown in Table 7.3. Table 7.4 includes a schedule of planned park and open space acquisitions and improvements. Proposed recreation projects contained in the Saugatuck - Douglas Recreation Plan are listed in Table 7.5. RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USAGE The 1988 Public Opinion Survey highlighted those recreational facilities which residents feel are inadequate in the trt-community area. Table 7.6 lists these by Jurisdiction. Non-Motorized Trails and Bike Paths Residents placed highest priority on additional bike paths, cross country skiing routes. and hildng trails. These needs are currently served by non-motorized trails in the Oval Beach/Mt. Baldhead area. The 1985 Saugatuck - Douglas Parks and Recreation Plan, identified bicycle trails as a high priority and prepared a schedule of capital improvements to achieve this objective. These improvements have not been implemented to date. In 1984, the Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission developed a list of recommended bike paths in the trt-community • Holland Streets from Saugatuck to the Y. • Old Allegan Road from Blue Star Highway to 60th St. • Blue Star Highway from 129th Ave. to M89. The regional bike path system would connect with Saugatuck's chain link ferry to afford bicyclists east/west access. This connection runs down Holland Street and across Francis Street to the waterfront and will be seIVed by inner city streets. without the need for additional right of way. At this juncture, bicyclists may ride the chain link ferry to Saugatuck's eastern border. Once on Saugatuck's eastern side, bicyclists could follow Saugatuck's proposed bike path system down through Douglas and south out of the Township. Bike path right of way would also extend north to Goshorn Lake along Washington Road. thereby connecting with Laketown Township. Another future extension could extend the system east along Old Allegan Road into Manlius Township. This is a scenic route. although somewhat hilly. Bicyclists wishing to pass through Saugatuck and on south through Douglas would need additional right of way from Lake Street to the bridge, thereby connecting with the Douglas bike path network. Douglas in tum would extend its bike path south on Blue Star Highway to connect with the Township system. Map 7 .2 shows this proposed regional bike path network. Waterfront Open Space A suIVey of waterfront usage revealed that the most popular waterfront activity is viewing. The second most popular use varied by waterbody. Swimming was the prtmruy use of Lake Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �7-4 TABLE 7.3 PARKLAND INVENTORY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 1YPE/YEAR LOCATION USES SIZE CONDITION Center & Main Sts. baseball, playground, picnic pressbox & wash- None room poor. otherwise good Douglas Beach Lakeshore Dr. public beach & picnic Schultz softball, picnic, 130th & Kalamazoo River playground. launch rame Union St. at Kal. launch ramp, River eicnic area pressbox-220 sq.ft., dugouts350 sq.ft., land52,000 sq.ft. l acre beach-36,400 sq.ft. nearly l acre, bathhouse280 .ft. pavtllion-1326 sq.ft., land- 20 NAME OF PARK Dou las Beery Field Union St. Launch RamE Fair None Good Acquisition/'89 Good None newly installed entxy road & pienic area. New dock & picn1c shelter Very poor pad for dumpster/'00, new~; needs new bollards & fence re- fence work/ 1989, bollards/ 1989-90 3 acres Poor additional docking. public restrooms, gazebo 2.5 acres Good 1/2 acre approx. Good acres 66'xl20' Saug_. Twl!_. River Bluff Ka1 River above hiking, picnic, 27 acres boaters stop, nature study, swing1ng & sandbox I-196 brtdge; access from Old AlleganRd. picnics, watch66'xl50' ing lakes & sunsets, scenic turnout 30'x200' picnics, resting for travelers Sundown Lake MI Bluff at 126th Ave. Blue Star Blue Star Hwy. south of Skyline Restaurant Center St. Park Eastern end of canoe launching, Center at picnics, scenic Kalamazoo River viewing Saugatuck Village Square Butler & Main Streets tenni.9 courts, more flowers/'89, toilet Improvements/ 1990-92 new fence; needs landscaping/ 1989-199'2 drinking foontatn. playground. benches, restrooms Wicks Park Willow Park Cook Park Boat Ramp Waterfront between Main & Mary Streets Waterfront at Butler & Lucy Waterfront on Water Street Spear Street streetend bandstand, boardwalk, benches, fishtng, restrooms viewing area, benches picnic tables 132 ft Good 132 ft. Good boat launch 66 ft. Good ~ .../ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �7-5 TABLE 7 .3 (continued) PARKLAND INVENTORY PLANNED NAME OF PARK Mt. Baldhead Park Oval Beach Park Tallmadge Woods •LOCATION Park Street Lake Michigan IMPROVEMEN1S USES SIZE picnic shelter, ta- 51 acres bles, restrooms, hiking trails, parking, stairway to observation deck on top of dune, two observation decks on river beach house, con- 36 acres cession stand, parking, picnic area. BBQ grills, viewing deck. stairs to beach, observation deck. nature trails current use re100 acres stricted Michigan. powerboating for Lake Kalamazoo and Silver Lake (which also is popular for fishing). and nature study was the most popular for Kalamazoo River due to its large connecting wetlands and wide array of wildlife- including a large population of Great Blue Herons which have established a rookery in the area. In accordance with usage, the overwhelming majority of residents in each Jurisdiction cited preservation of existing waterfront open space and increased access to the waterfront as their highest waterfront need. Acquisition of land and provision of access to Lake Michigan was given highest priority for the waterfront. Open space along Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo Riverwere also given high priority by the majority of respondents. although the response was higher in the Village (64-6goAJ) and Township (62%) than in the City of Saugatuck (48-50%). A large number of respondents also called for additional boat launching facilities. Parks Respondents were asked how frequently they used various local parks and the overwhelming majority responded "never". Oval Beach 1s used most frequently of the area parks by residents of each jurisdiction, and is used most heavily by City residents. Douglas Beach is also frequently used. Wicks, Schultz, and CONDITION 1YPE/YEAR Good Good new concession stand & restrooms/ 1990 Good Beery park are more frequently used by City and Village residents. than those in the Township. It is important to note that survey responses reflect the usage characteristics of older adults. The average age of survey respondents was 54 to 56 years old. As the age of respondents increases, park usage tends to decrease- especially for parks which specialize in active sports. This reveals the need to orient recreation plans to the recreational needs of older adults. Thus, bike paths, waterfront open space/access. hiking trails, and cross country ski trails should probably receive precedence in future recreation enhancement projects, over more active park facilities like ball diamonds. Senior Citizens Center Senior citizens in the area have been lobbying for a senior citizens center to serve the social and recreational needs of the area's elderly population. The survey results reflect some support for a senior center. Fifty-three percent of Township respondents and 45% of Village respondents felt that a senior center deserved high priority. However. only 25% of City residents called for a senior center-surprising, given the high proportion of seniors in the City's resident population. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �7-6 TABLE 7.4 PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS TRI-COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSED PROJECT VERY HIGH PRIORITY WCATION Willow Park preseivation and improvement Acquire extensive land areas New dug outs - football field Renovation of playground equipment Convert weight room to storage & coach's offices Remodel Wicks Park restrooms Acquire land to access to Oxbow Lagoon Downtown Saugatuck on the river Lake Michigan Shoreline Saugatuck High School Douglas Elementary School Saugatuck High School On river in Saugatuck North of Oval Beach Park HIGH PRIORITY Acquire and improve land for marina and park Boat launching facility Develop bicycle trails Purchase park parcel on hill Acquire additional land for River Bluff Park Construct additional public restrooms Clear and develop Moore's Creek Rehabilitate tennis courts Update Village Square Park Expand and improve Howard Schultz Park Riverside Park equipment & improvements Douglas riverfront near bridge City of Saugatuck Entire area In Saugatuck Adjacent to River Bluff in Township Downtown Saugatuck Near Amalanchier Park in Saugatuck Township Village Square Park - Saugatuck Village Square Park - Saugatuck Village of Douglas Village of Douglas MEDIUM Expand underground sprinkling system Acquire land and develop tot lots Develop archery range Beach House rehabilitation Acquire land for neighborhood park Construct concession stand Village Square Park - Saugatuck All areas River Bluff Park - Township Saugatuck Oval Beach Campbell Road area- Saugatuck & Douglas Saugatuck High School Athletic Field LOW Teen Recreation Center Install lighting for tennis courts Develop non-motorized trail Lighting for tennis courts Construct additional locker rooms Downtown Saugatuck Schultz Park Schultz Park Village Square Park - Saugatuck Saugatuck High School Source: Saugatuck - Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan, Feb. 1985. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �7-7 RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING In terms of priorities for spending current tax dollars, 42-48% of respondents in the tricommunity area felt that parks and recreation are a high priority. Waterfront improvement was rated high by Clty and Village respondents. Senior programs were given low local spending priority in all three communities. despite the high average age of respondents. Although they would like to have them, most respondents would not support a community recreation center, a senior center. or a community pool if it meant an increase in general property taxes . TABLE 7.!S PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES NAME Esther McSlc property USE LOCATION Public open East side space Union st. Kal. Lake. North of Blue Star (Douglas) Ruth McNa- Land locked 132,000 Park Old Saugatuck Airport ACQUISmON COST($) 185,000 IMPROVEMEIVI' FINANCING DNR Land Trust Dty NA NA Dty 65,000 NA sq.ft. (vacant) mara property end of Schultz Vacant Lot SIZE CONDITION 124,000 sq.ft. Marshy (portion under water) vacant Parle (Douglas) Blue Star & land 18,000 Future park Main St. sq.ft.; nearly (Douglas) 1/2 acres SE 1/4 SecCurrently for154 acres tlon 2 estiy manage(Saugatuck) ment. possible future recreation TABLE7.6 RECREATION NEEDS IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 1988 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY Cl1Y VILLAGE TOWNSHIP Bike paths (68%) Hiking trails (62%) Cross-country ski trails (62%) Lake MI open space (61 %) Lake Kal. open space (500/4) Kai. River open space (49%) Boat launching ramps (45%) Lake MI open space (70%) Lake Kal. open space (69%) Lake MI open space (67%) Bike paths (64%) Lake Kal. open space (62%) Kai. River open space (62%) Cross-country ski trails (60%) Boat launching ramps (59%) Senior Center (53%) Bike paths (67%) Kai. River open space (64%) Parks (50%) Boat launching ramps (46%) Senior Center (45%) Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �+ N A 0 4.000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1" = 9060 ft 0 28 - I" • 27 I i !••........ r· . .·' ! ..."········- _ ta•TM AVC , ~ "' " ...:~-. . ~ - . ·li:i····· !I > a r 33 •• , ◄ .• ..-·•4 .... % ··· ... ~... l,.~•" J 35 ~ ..... . 36 '' , .. :' M-89 SAUGATUCK TWP. MAP7.1 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) Center Street August 1989 DATA SOURCE :Saug. - Doug. Parks & Rec. Plan, 1985 Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A ,....,.._. 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" = 9060 ft MAP7.2 PROPOSED BIKE PATHS Tri-Community I• •j Bike Paths [!] Chain Link Ferry August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml �8-1 Chapters WATERFRONT augatuck was the first settlement in Allegan S County. Its natural protected harbor along the Kalamazoo River and proximity to Lake Michigan gave it a ready means of water transport- essential to the commerce of the day. Throughout its history, land use activities along the Lake Michigan shoreline and the riverfront have continued to dominate the economic life of the tri-community area. Lumbeiing, boat building, basket making, fruit transport. and even large Great Lakes passenger boats have, at different times, relied upon the River connection. Tourists have always been attracted to the area, but tourism is now the number one economic activity. Today's waterfront activities are dominated by tourist and pleasure craft needs, especially sailboats, powerboats, charter fishing boats and other tourist boats. Consequently, how the waterfront is used will be of crucial importance to the future of the tri-community area. The primary issues concerning proper future use of the waterfront involve competition between economic development and environmental protection. Waterfront lands represent the highest value lands in the tri-community area, and local officials are therefore concerned about the potential tax base associated with use of waterfront lands. In order to finance the service needs of local residents, the tri-communities must balance taxable and nontaxable land uses. This presents a dilemma. Although waterfront lands have high revenue generating potential, a major attraction of both the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts is their scenic, natural shorelines composed of forested sand dunes and large wetland areas. Should these natural areas be greatly damaged or destroyed through inappropriate development. then the "goose that laid the golden egg" will be dead. It is essential that the natural beauty of the waterfront be maintained along the Lake Michigan shoreline, the Kalamazoo River from the channel to Saugatuck, and from the Blue Star Highway bridge inland. Limited additional development along the waterfront on Lake Kalamazoo and the Douglas side of the bayou east of Blue Star Highway may be both desirable and necessary. However, such development must be undertaken carefully to maintain the delicate balance between economic development and environmental protection. It is both necessary and possible to manage the waterfront for a variety of purposes. Yet it is always dlfficult to manage for multiple uses. Some individuals value land management to retain the necessary habitat for birds, fish and wildlife. Others feel it should be managed to maximize surface water use, or for intensive waterfront dependent actMties like ship building or power generation. Based on some of the technical data presented below, existing use information, citizen opinions. and the goals and objectives presented at the beginning of this Plan, the waterfront in the tri-community area can, and should, be managed to accommodate a wide range of land uses and activities. This Plan seeks to define a balance between competing uses. It places protection of the natural environment as first and foremost in making future land use decisions along the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts. The ultimate goal is to minimize disruption of the natural environment so that new development is in harmony with the environment, rather than in conflict with it. Some destruction of the limited remaining wetland areas along Lake Kalamazoo is only justified where the public benefits of particular projects are very great (e.g. a public marina or additional public access to the waterfront). watersheds of the Kalamazoo River Basin The Kalamazoo River extends from south of Homer in Hillsdale and Jackson Counties to its outlet at Lake Michigan in Saugatuck Township (see Figure 4 .1). With the exception of lands adjoining Lake Michigan (which drain directly into the Lake) and a small area in the southeast comer of Saugatuck Township, all land in the tri-community area is part of the Kalamazoo River Basin. Eight small watershed areas lie within the tri-community area and discharge into Lake Michigan via the Kalamazoo River (see Map 8.1). These include Goshorn, Peach Orchard, Tan- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �I 8-2 nery. Silver and "Cemetery" Creeks, as well as the Morrison Bayou at the eastern end of the Kalamazoo River as it enters the Township. Most of Douglas and Saugatuck also drain separately into the Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo. Slopes in the area are generally less than 10 percent though locally they may be in excess of 20 percent. Runoff erosion is taking place in the highlands, contributing sediment to backswamp areas and Lake Michigan. Monthly (exceedance) flows for the Kalamazoo River, based on a 1649 square mile drainage area near Fennville (#0410B500, T2n, Rl4W, NE 1/4 Sec 5), were averaged from measurements taken between 1929 to 1985 by the Hydrologic Engineering Section. Land and Water Management Division. MDNR Estimates based on these measurements were then prepared for the larger drainage area of 2060 square miles at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River (T3N, Rl6W. Sec 4, Saugatuck Township). Ninety-five percent and fifty percent exceedance flows are shown in Table 8. 1. These are flows exceeded 95% or 500.A> of the time. The lowest 95% exceedance flow in Fennville (nearly drought level) was measured during August at 410 cfs, and is estimated to be 520 cfs at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. The 50% exceedance flow in Fennville ranged from a low of 860 cfs during the summer months to 2010 cfs TABLES.I KALAMAZOO RIVER EXCEEDANCE FLOWS (1929-85) MONTHLY AVERAGE CUBIC FT /SECOND FENNVIILE January February March April May June July August September October November December RIVERMOllm 50% 95% 50% 95% 1350 1400 1950 2010 1600 1250 970 860 860 980 1210 1300 710 790 1010 1040 830 630 480 410 480 520 650 750 1690 1750 2430 2510 2000 1560 1210 1070 1070 1220 1510 1620 890 990 1260 1300 1040 790 600 520 600 650 810 940 Source: Hyclrolo~c En~cerlntSection, Land and Water Resources DMs on, Mic gan Department of Natural Resources. during April. Corresponding estimates for the mouth of the Kalamazoo River ranged from 1070 cfs during the summer months to 2510 cfs during April. The 100 year discharge is estimated at 15,400 cfs at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. and 12,500 cfs at the Fennville gage. PRIMARY ECOSYSTEMS The tri-community area has three basic ecosystems, two of which parallel the waterfront. The first ecosystem is comprised of hardwoods holding the sand dunes in place along the Lake Michigan shoreline. These woodlots are inhabited by small game such as fox squirrels, rabbits. raccoons, deer, wild turkey, and opossums. This ecosystem is comprised of fauna common to most of Michigan, but its balance is easily upset by the disruption of its shallow organic soils. Any ground cover that is damaged or removed should be quickly replaced with cover that will hold and prevent sand from blowing or rapid wind erosion may occur. Michigan's most famous ghost town, Singapore, once a thriving lumber town, lies beneath these shifting sands near the mouth of the channel. The second ecosystem is the marsh-wetland ecosystem that covers the area along the Kalamazoo River, Silver Lake and Goshorn Lake, and the connecting tributaries. This area is covered with marsh grasses, low shrubs, poplar trees, spruces. some white pine, and other softwoods. The cover is inhabited by common Michigan marsh dwellers such as frogs. turtles, ducks, blackbirds, and snakes. The marsh ecosystem is also populated by muskrat, mink, mallard duck, black duck. teal, wood duck, blue heron, Canadian geese, and mute swans. Golden eagle and osprey used to frequent the area. The marsh ecosystem is very sensitive to changes in water quality and disruption of vegetation. Great care must be taken to limit siltation and disruption to vegetation when working in this ecosystem. The third ecosystem covers the rest of the Township and is predominantly agricultural/forest with birds and wildlife common to this dominant ecosystem in Michigan. The entire Saugatuck/Douglas area is designated as an area of particular concern by the DNR Areas of particular concern are those having scarce resources, unusual scenic beauty, unusual economic value, recreational attractions, 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" could have a significant impact on the quality of coastal and Great Lakes waters. WA'IER QUAUTY The Kalamazoo River watershed includes many types of land uses and the River flows through several large developed urban areas including Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. When it reaches the trl-community area, the quality of this water is not good. Despite the water quality problem, the River from about one-half mile downstream from the Hacklander Public Access Site (in Section 23). has been designated as a "wild-scenic river" under Michigan's Natural River Act, Public Act 231 of 1970. Land use restrictions have been imposed to retain its natural character within 300 feet of the River's edge. The basic water management goal is the elimination of the pollution threat to surface and groundwater resources. The Kalamazoo River is designated by the DNR to be protected for recreation (partial body contact), intolerant fish (warm water species), industrial water supply, agricultural and commercial uses. Downstream from the Kalamazoo Lake, the river is protected for cold water anadromus fish species (trout and salmon) . Kalamazoo Lake and Goshorn Lake are designated to be protected for recreation (total body contact), and intolerant fish (warm water species). These water management objectives are nearly ten years old, but there have been no concerted efforts to update them and cany them out. A push to revise the objectives is underway statewide, but it could be years before any action plans are carried out for the Kalamazoo River. 1988 Public Opinion Survey results reveal that citizens in the trt-community area feel that the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and Lake is poor tovexy poor (580/4-700/4), Lake Michigan is rated fair to good (31-50%), and most respondents familiar with the water quality of Silver Lake felt that it was fair. The majority of respondents who are familiar with these water bodies, feel that the water quality of Lake Michigan and Silver Lake has deteriorated slightly in recent years, and Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo Lake has deteriorated slightly to greatly. Most respondents who reside in Saugatuck, however, felt that the ,water quality has stayed about the same. Basic water quality data on the River appears in Table 8.2 for selected months in 1978, TABLE 8.2 KALAMAZOO RIVER WATER QUALITY FECAL COUFORM PER lOOML PHOSPHOROUS TOTAL ORIHO MG/L MG/L Nl1ROGEN SEDIMENIS N02 N03 MG/L MG/L TONS/DAY HEAVY METALS LEAD MERCURY MG/L MG/L Fennville 1/27/88 5/18/88 7/28/88 9/21/88 Saugatuck 3/19/86 6/25/86 9/11/86 Saugatuck. 1/10/78 5/1/78 7/20/78 9/11/78 28 96 .05 .04 .08 .07 .01 <.01 <.01 .02 1.4 0 .5 0 .67 0 .64 5 26 17 39 29 102 30 202 200 200 .08 .11 .14 .02 .02 .01 1.6 0.88 0 .39 21 13 21 161 102 103 .07 . 12 . 12 . 15 NR 1.7 0.34 0 .54 0.00 9 20 15 28 27 123 26 72 120 69 NR NR NR <5 <.l <5 <. 1 <5 <.l <5 <.l 20 10 <.5 <.5 .5 NR = Not Reported Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Resources Dtvision, U.S. Geologic Survey. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �8-4 1986. and 1988. The sampling point was moved from Saugatuck to Fennville in 1987. This data reveals an increase in sedimentation and a decline in heavy metals. It also shows an increase in fecal coliform (intestinal bacteria) levels to 200/ 100 ml at the former testing site in Saugatuck- the maximum level permitted under rule 62 of the MDNR Water Resources Commission General Rules of 1986. Phosphorous and certain nitrogen levels have not changed appreciably in the past ten years. The Kalamazoo River between Calkins Dam and Lake Michigan has been designated an Area of Concern in the 1988 Michigan Nonpoint Source Management Plan (MNSMP). due to contamination of fish from PCB's. The primary source of contamination was identified as PCB contaminated sediments upstream in the Kalamazoo River and Portage Creek. These sediments continue to erode. resuspend, and dissolve PCB's into the water column where they are transported downstream. Due to the presence of PCB's, advisories are in effect for consumption of fish caught in the Kalamazoo River or Lake Michigan. The advisory warns against any consumption of carp, suckers, catfish, and largemouth bass taken from the Kalamazoo River downstream from the Morrow Pond Dam to Lake Michigan and Portage Creek downstream from Monarch Millpond. Limited consumption of other species (no more than one meal per week) is considered safe for all except nursing mothers. pregnant women, women who intend to have children. and children age 15 and under. In Lake Michigan limited consumption of Lake Trout 20-23", Coho Salmon over 26", Chinook Salmon 21-32", and Brown Trout up to 23" is considered safe for all except nursing mothers. pregnant women, women who intend to have children. and children age 15 and under. Individuals should not consume carp, catfish, or Lake Trout, Brown Trout. or Chinook which fall outside of the acceptable size for limited consumption. To address the PCB problem, the MNSMP has devised a Remedial Action Plan with the goal of reducing human exposure to acceptable levels (1: 100,000) and thus reducing fish tissue concentration to a maximum .05 mg/kg and reducing water column levels to .02 ng/1. Actions taken to address the problem include: strict controls on direct discharges of PCB's; a feasibility study of remedial alternatives: funding through State Act 307 to take remedial action at three sites: and legal action and negotiations with private parties at two other sites (see MNSMP, November 7, 1988, p. 328). Efforts initiated in the '70's to identify and require extensive treatment of pollutants prior to their dumping into the River will continue to slowly improve the quality of the water. As the nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen are removed from wastewater entering the River. less new plant life will be stimulated and more oxygen will be available for fish. One of these efforts is the Michigan Water Resources Commission Act, which requires all discharges into the water to have discharge permits. In addition. the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under these laws, any public or private facility which will emit any point-source discharge into the water must first receive a NPDES discharge permit. The permit program sets forth limitations and monitoring requirements to protect water quality and meet treatment standards, and establishes strong enforcement actions for violations. The Surface Water Quality Division, MDNR, administers NPDES permits. NPDES permits issued in the tri-community area are shown on Table 8.3. However, sedimentation and nonpoint sources of pollution will remain a problem. In contrast to pipes that discharge directly into a waterbody, nonpoint sources of pollution include those pollutants that do not originate from a single point- such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff from farmers fields and petroleum based pollutants that wash off parking lots and roadways. The most obvious pollutants are the physical litter and debris that are carelessly dumped into the River or Lake and which typically wash up along the shore. Michigan's 1988 Nonpoint Pollution Assessment Report concluded that 99% of Michigan's watersheds have at least one waterbodywith a non-point source pollution problem. In-place contamination and atmospheric deposition were listed as the primary non-point sources of pollution for the Kalamazoo River. Stronger efforts to improve water quality will have a positive affect on tourism. recreation, and future growth and development of the tricommunity area. All sources of pollution affect water quality, and hence the utility of the water resource. While the tri-community area must rely on outside agencies to enforce pollution control laws upstream, some efforts can be undertaken by Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township to improve water quality Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10 �8-5 TABLE 8.3 NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS Culllgan • Kal. Lake Water & Sewer Authorttv Kalarnaroo Lake Groundwater Purge 201 Culver St.. Saugatuck 340 Culver St., Saugatuck 6449 Old Allegan Rd .. Saugatuck 1\vp. DISCHARGE LOCATION processed wastewater treated municipal waste 900.CXX> gal/day purged groundwater. purgable halo- Ka1amazoo Lake EXPIRATION DA'IE 1991 via storm sewers Ka1amazoo River 1990 outfall 001 Kalamazoo River 1993 outfall 001 carbons Rich Products 350 Culver St.. Saugatuck 12,CXX> gal/day Kalamazoo River non-contact cool- via storm sewer ing water & cooling tower blowdown 1990 Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division TABLE 8.4 LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS YEAR LOWEST EL FEETAS.L. MONTI-I HIGHEST EL FEETA.S.L. MONTI-I 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 578.00 578.12 578.31 578.92 578.51 578.17 578.85 579.02 579.57 580.36 578.96 578.10 February March February December February March February February February February December December 578.57 579.01 580.02 579.77 579.43 579.02 580.08 580.23 580.84 581.62 580.65 579.04 July October April July July April July July June October January May DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE ' IN FEET IN INCHES .57 .89 1.75 .85 .92 .85 1.25 1.21 1.27 1.26 1.69 .94 6.84 10.68 20.52 10.20 11.04 10.20 15.00 14.52 15.24 15.12 20.28 11.28 Source: The Mlchlfan Riparian, May 1989 and prevent further pollution within the tricommunity area. These w1ll be discussed further later in this Chapter. LAKE LEVELS The natural level of the Great Lakes goes through periodic changes that are based predominantly on rainfall and evaporation within the entire Great Lakes Basin. Since a century peak in 1986, Lake Michigan has steadily fallen to its current level of around 578 feet (see Table 8.4). The Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake and Lake Michigan are interconnected. Thus. water levels on the River and Lake Kalamazoo are largely dependent on Lake Michigan water levels. Consequently, land uses adjoining the waterfront should be based on the vagaries of fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels. This has not always been done as was evident by extensive shore erosion and flooding during the last high water period. When water levels are high •no-wake· zones. which are always in effect from the channel to Mason Street in Saugatuck. are extended Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �8-6 to cover all of the Kalamazoo Lake shoreline and parts of the River east of Blue Star Highway (see Map 8.2). When a "no-wake" speed is in effect. then all motor boats and vessels must limit speed to a slow no-wake speed when within 100 feet of: • rafts, except for ski Jumps and ski landing floats: • docks: • launching ramps: • swimmers: • anchored, moored or drifting boats; and • designated no-wake zones. This means a speed slow enough that the wake or wash of the boat creates a minimum disturbance. Owners and operators are responsible for damage caused by wakes. HARBOR Map 8.3 is the existing harbor map (June 1987) distributed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It depicts water depth for the shoreline along Lake Michigan, and the River through Kalamazoo Lake. Channel depth is maintained by periodic dredging to a depth of 13 feet to Main Street in Saugatuck. (Dredging at the mouth of the channel is to begin in July 1990 and be completed in the Fall of 1990.) The depth then drops to 20-2 7 feet for the next 500 feet. Between that point and Tower Marine, the water depth is about 7 feet. Most of the rest of Lake Kalamazoo varies between 1 and 4 feet in depth with not more than 2 feet being the most common. The Douglas shoreline, east of Blue Star Highway is only 1-2 feet in depth except for a small area running NW-SE from the center of the bridge and connecting to the Point Pleasant Yacht Club. This natural harbor is the principal attraction for nautical tourists which flock to the area during summer months when the marinas are used to capacity. Hundreds rent dockage by the season. Many live on their boats for weeks on end. The demand for dockage appears to be greater than the supply, despite the huge number of slips available (see Map 8.4). In 1976there were 8 marinas with approximately 800 slips. In 1989, there are 26 legally operating marinas with 966 slips. There are about half dozen marinas without current permits and these contain over 30 more slips. There are also a number of slips maintained by private residences for their own personal use. Marina permits are required for any commercial activity, so as few as two slips could require a marina permit if they are rented. Permits are issued for a three year period by the DNR On peak summer weekends the number of boats on the lake could be twice to thrice the normal level. This presents one of the most serious problems Jointly facing the tri-community area-how to deal with surface water use conflicts. The Lake has a total surface water area of 184 acres. Acreage available for recreational boating is dramatically reduced by the dockage which extends into the Lake hundreds of feet and by the shallow water at the edge to about 133 acres. Yet. on summer weekends the River is a constant highway of boats moving in and out of the Lake. Recreational sailing, fishing, swimming, sailboarding and water skiing are limited by all of the motorboat traffic. However, during the week, other water surface actMties can go on without much interference. MARINE SAFETY The Allegan County Sheriffs Department, Marine Safety DMsion, maintains strict control of the waterways. The Department has 8 marine officers. Normally, two officers patrol by boat, but three to four officers patrol during holidays and special events. Officers patrol in a 27 foot Boston Whaler with two 150 horsepower outboard motors. This boat is equipped for Lake Michigan rescue, and has a noise meter which monitors the 86 decibel noise limit. From Memorial Day to Labor Day officers put in 635 hours of patrol duty on Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo Lake. One hundred and ten hours were spent patrolling Lake Michigan. Most patrols occur between Friday and Sunday, and about half of the Department's budget goes to patrolling the Saugatuck area. In the summer of 1989, 189 tickets were issued on Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo Lake, 11 were issued on Lake Michigan, 276 warnings were issued, 10 complaints were received, and 6 boating accidents occurred. The Department also conducted 378 safety inspections. The most common violations are inadequate life preservers on board and lack of current registration. The Department notes that slow /no wake. and hazardous violations were down in the summer of 1989. The most common surface water use conflicts identified by the Sheriffs Department include sailboat and motorboat conflicts and complaints over the noise and attitude ofJet Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �8-7 skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motorboats are most common on Saturday. waterfront. but there are few public access sites and, except for Shultz Park. these provide little space for transient parking. EXISTING LAND USE Existing land use 1s described in detail in Chapter 5. All lanli uses along the waterfront are oriented to the water. The bulk of the waterfront in the Township from the channel to the City is developed as single family residential. The City and Village waterfronts are predominantly residential and marina. The balance of the waterfront. which lies in the Township, is in a natural state with some areas ofresidential development (such as along Silver Lake). Many commercial establishments (mostly motels and restaurants) are also located here. Except for the Broward Boat Company near the channel, there are no industrial activities along the waterfront. A number of small parks are located along the CONFLICTS/PROBLEMS At an inteijur1sdictional meeting on water front issues on November 1986, five key issues were identified: • high water and its impacts • development and acquisition of public lands along the waterfront: • l1miting the intensity of shoreline development: • preserving the scenlc character of the shoreline environment retaining visual access to. of the • surface water use conflicts. Each of these remain important issues as shown in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. FIGURE 8.1 LINKAGE PLAN pt R-2 R-1 A·2 ~(commercial) ~wetland AG. ,.' Source: Conaerve Oakland County'• Natural Resource•: A Manual for Planninc & Implementation, Department of Public Works, Oakland County, MI, September 1980. Trt-Communtty Comprehensive Plan �8-8 High Water When Great Lakes water levels are high. erosion along the Lake Michigan shoreline increases. The impacts of erosion are clear along Lakeshore Drive, where part of the road has been washed away. Many h igh value homes will be threatened by additional erosion in this area. Erosion along the River and Lake Kalamazoo also increases with higher Lake Michigan water levels. Many bulkheads and stmilar shore protection devices were installed to minimize the effects of the most recent high water level. Raising some of the land and struct ures would be necessary if lake levels remained high for lengthy periods. On the positive side. the south shore of Lake Kalamazoo becomes more attractive to marina development when water levels are high since it is very shallow in this area. Likewise, when water levels are below average. some existing dockage Is unusable. Fluctuating lake levels are part of a natural system. The costs and impllcatlons of trying to artificially manage the entire Great Lakes Basin to maintain even Lake levels Is not known. but waterfront land use decisions in the tri-community area should be made based on the assumption that Lake Michigan water levels cannot be artificially maintained. Acquisition and Development of Public Lands Along the Waterfront Two types of public lands are needed along the waterfront. One is parkland/ open space and the other is a public marina. Existing open space along the waterfront should be preserved (see Map 8.5). Several street ends provide needed relief from structures along the shoreline. These public open spaces are generally well managed. and efforts should be initiated to ensure that they are not lost. Existing parks along the shoreline should also be linked together. and wtth other inland parks, by pedestrian and bicycle paths whenever the opportunity arises (see Figure 8.1). The lack of parkland along the Lake Michigan shoreline is most acute for Township residents. and somewhat less severe for Village residents. Outside of purchasing and developing new land for parks, the tri-communities should consider establishing a separate park and recreation authority responsible for maintaining all parks presently owned by the three communities. The benefit would be providing access to Oval Beach by Village and Township residents and spreading the fiscal responsibility for main- tenance across more taxpayers. This would also make it more feasible to acquire addltlonal park space as needed. Because residents of three Jurisdictions would benefit. grant requests would probably be more favorably reviewed. Public marina space Is also needed as there are only three public access sites along Lake Kalamazoo and the River presently. and two are too far inland for most daily boaters. The third Is a s treet end in Saugatuck and has no adjacent parking. Private marinas provide transient berthing opportunities, but there Is considerable demand for more. By having a facility to attract more transient boaters, the three communities would be gaining additional tourist income. The three most logical places for such a facility are: 1) immediately adjacent to the Blue Star Highway bridge in Douglas and extending to the existing launch facility adjacent to the Kewatln; 2) converting the Center Street maintenance facility in Douglas to a public marina; 3) at some distant time (or if the opportunity arose) by replacing the Rich Products office building in Saugatuck with a public marina and accompanying parking. Alternatively. if adjacent parking could be secured, the street end next to Gleason's in Saugatuck could be a good public access point. While the public opinion survey did not reflect overwhelming support for a public marina. there appears to be demand for such a facility from persons outside the tri-community area. Its long term economic benefits may well justify its cost. especially if state or federal funds could be secured to help pay for it. Limiting the Intensity of Development The primary future development of waterfront lands in the City will be redevelopment of existing parcels. In the Village it will focus on further development along the South Shore of Lake Kalamazoo. In both areas tt will be critical that new development Is neither so dense. nor so high as to block existing public views of the waterfront or further "wall" the Lake with structures. Recommendations to prevent this are included in Chapter 10. It will be critical that all three communities agree to a common approach to waterfront development, embody that in land use plans. and then implement those plans. To some extent. uniform densities, setbacks, and height regulations will be valuable. especially around Lake Kalamazoo. Additional development around Silver Lake needs to remain at a very low density in keeping Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �8-9 with the septic limitations of the land and the llmited recreational value of this shallow waterbody. The eastern end of the Kalamazoo River should likewise recetve little new development in keeping with lts Natural River designation. Retaining Visual Access, Aesthetics and the Character of the Area As has been emphasized throughout this Plan, the natural beauty of the waterfront has much to do wtth the attraction of the tri-community area . Local development regulations should be reviewed and revised 1f necessary. to insure that new development complements. rather than detracts from this natural beauty. Old vessels should not be pennitted to lie beached along the shoreline, because this also detracts from the beauty and character of the waterfront. Several Vistas have public values that deserve protection. These include the entry into and exit from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo River, the View from Mount Baldhead. the view of Kalamazoo Lake from both ends, and approaches to the Kalamazoo River Bridge. The public opinion survey strongly supports the provision of adcUtional open space along Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and demonstrates that the primary use of the area's water bocUes is viewing. Yet, recent development pressures have led to overbullcUng of condominiums along the waterfront. shutting off all public Viewing of the lake from existing rights-of-way. Any future development along the channel should be set back sufficiently to maintain the broad open views that are presented to boat travelers entering or leaving the Kalamazoo River. The View from the top of Mount Baldhead should be improved by careful selecttve pruning of dead or dying trees blocking good views of Saugatuck and Lake Kalamazoo. The curve going northbound on Blue Star Highway in Douglas Just before crossing the bridge ls the only good panorama of Kalamazoo Lake. A public turnoff, the acqulsttlon of a scenic easement. or the concentration of new development on the western portion of those undeveloped lands should be initiated to protect that important view. In adcUtion, the land adjacent to the west side of the bridge in Douglas should be selectively pruned to improve the View to travelers crossing the bridge (northbound) until a public marina could be established there. Surface Water Use CorifUcts Resolution of surface water use conflicts will require more planning and a unlform approach to regulation. Most important is establishing the carrying capacity of Lake Kalamazoo and the River to the channel mouth . Carrying capacity refers to the physical capacity and intrinsic suitability of lands (and water) to absorb and support various types of development (or use). Such an analysis ls typically performed by an inventory of existing surface water use during weekdays and peak weekends. Data is then examined in terms of the size of the waterbody and its capacity to assimilate various mixes of use. Such an analysis would probably reveal some, but not much excess capacity for new boat slips, because any number of boaters can access Kalamazoo Lake from Lake Michigan. Without an analysis of carrying capacity, the amount of new boat slip development and related surface water use conflicts are difficult to evaluate. Some time or suiface zoning could be established in conjunction with the DNR if desired. For example. water skiing, Jet skiing, fishing, sailing, etc, could be limited to particular parts of Lake Kalamazoo or Silver Lake or to particular times of the day. Another option could be a harbor patrol paid for by all three governmental units. More information is necessary to establish the need for regulation. If surface water use is regulated, each unit of government would need to agree to a common regulatory approach. Surface water use conflicts will grow more acute on Lake Kalamazoo 1f existing dockage is extended much further into the Lake. Such extensions should not be permitted as the surface area available for various recreational uses will be too drastically reduced. Existing no-wake zones should also be more rigorously enforced. RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE nmJRE USE In seeking to balance economic development with environmental protection. the concept of carrying capacity should be a major consideration. If the carrying capacity ofland or water ls exceeded, then activities cannot be undertaken without unacceptable impacts on users, the environment. or both. Impacts can include increased trip times, decreased safety, pollution, loss of open space, and many other considerations. The key is prevention of overuse by limiting intensity of use on adjoining lands and regulating suiface water use. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �8-10 Environmental protection must be a leading principle in making future land use decisions along the waterfront. Environmentally sensitive areas such as sand dunes, wetlands, high rtsk erosion areas, floodplains, and key woodlands should be protected from unnecessary desbuction. Development should complement rather than destroy these areas and their values. By doing so the environmental quality of the air and water will be improved, wildlife habitat will be preserved, scenic values will be protected, and the character of the area will be maintained. Some new intensive shoreline development 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 ltnked with other publlc places. Additional access to the waterfront should be acquired when available, and existing access via street ends and parks should not be lost through neglect or inaction. A new publlc martna 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 brtng 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 Drtve along the Lake Michigan shoreline should also be initiated. A comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetlands protection plan should be instituted as part of a broad water quallty protection program that is based on the small watersheds that feed the Kalamazoo River Basin. The Soil Conseivatlon Service should be asked to assist in preparing nonpoint pollution guidelines to help guide fa.nners in land management practices that help keep the River clean. spectjur1Sdiction boundaries. Their future quality and desirability depends on all governmental units through which they flow playing an active and supportive role in protecting and improving water quallty. To advance this goal, the Jointly appointed waterfront committee should be reinstituted or its responsibilities shifted to the Joint Planning Committee which helped fashion this Plan. NEED FOR JNTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Each of these recommendations requires a strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation. Watercourses, like the environment, do not re- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �N A MAP8.1 WATERSHEDS Kalamazoo River Basin Boundary Tri-Community [2] Creeks & Drains Small Watershed Areas : 1) Douglas 2) Tannery Creek 3) Peach Orchard Creek 4) Kalamazoo/Morrison Bayou 5) Ash Drain 6) Silver Lake Creek 7) Goshorn Creek 8) "Cemetery" Creek 9) River Bluff-Indian Creek 10)Saugatuck August 1989 DATA SOUACE :Allegan County Drain Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A ~ MAP8.2 NO-WAKE ■ Tri-Community No-Wake Area Additional No-wake Area During Periods Of High Water August 1989 DATA SOURCE : Tri-Community Waterfront Committee Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �06 l )0 J2 J7 Jo JJ 29 J4 J7 JO 21 J7 JO " Jl 21 ,. 2' Q 2• 27 ~ 21 2J JO 26 0 20 22 22 20 MICHIGAN Scale hlSJJOI ·- IOUNOINOI IN rcrr 1£ .... MAP 8.3 SAUGATUCK HARBOR �MAP 8.4 MARINAS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Tri-Community Ship & Shore Motel/Boatel (0) East Shore Harbor Club (64) Pointe Pleasant Yacht Club (14) Sergeant Marina (63) Tower Marina (322) Skippers Cove (12) Water Side Condo (12) Naughtins Marina (37) Saugatuck Yacht Club (16) Deep Harbor Deve , Inc. (46) South Side Marina (24) Casa Loma (11) Gleasons Marina (9) Saugatuck Yacht Co. (81) Walkers Landing (22) Windjammer Condo Association (12) Schippas Marina (10) Singapore Yacht Club (50) West Shore Marine Inc. (57) Bridges Of Saugatuck (8) Coral Gables (50)) V & L Properties ( 10) Back Bay Marina (12) Southside Marina (24) Total Number Of Permitted Marina Boat Slips In Area ......... 966 August 1989 DATA SOURCE:DNR Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml ��N A MAP 8.5 STREET ENDS/ PARKS G Street/Road Ends 0 Tri-Community Parks ~ Public Access 1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Baldhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �N A See Preceding Map For Information Regarding This Area Tri-Community MAP 8.5 A STREET ENDS/ PARKS ~ Street/Road Ends [ill Public Access August 1989 DATA SOURCE : 0 Parks 1) Shultz Park 2) River Bluff Park 3) Sundown Park Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �9-1 Chapter9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Growth and development trends reflect past settlement patterns in a community and provide a basis for estimating future development patterns. Growth rates are one aspect of change. These show which areas are growing at a faster rate. Residential construction permits show where most of this residential development is taking place and provide insight into residential preferences. Land subdivision trends show the rate at which small lots are created. Rapid land subdivision caives up agricultural land and other open spaces for residential use and thus permanently transforms the rural character of an area. Inefficient land subdivision takes large amounts of potentially developable land out of use as long "bowling alley" lots or "flag" lots are created. Population trends may be used to project future population, which 1s used to estimate future land use needs and settlement patterns in a community. And finally, a "build out" scenario may be created based upon the vacant or buildable sites in an area to get an idea what the area might look like if it were developed according to current zoning and use requirements. A more complete discussion of these issues 1s included below. GROWTH RATES During the past decade, the Township's population growth rate hit 40%, up from only 11 % between 1960 and 1970. The growth rate in the Village declined from 35% to 17% over the same period, and the City went from a 19% growth rate in the 60's to only 6% in the 70's (see Table 9.1). TABLE9.l RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE COMMUNITY Saugatuck Saugatuck Twp. Douglas AREAWIDE 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 20% 10% 6% 34% 35% 29% 11% 35% 16% 40% 17% 22% The City's slower growth rate is due in part to a shrinking supply of vacant or developable land and in part to a higher proportion of seasonal residents and elderly in small households. The Township's large supply of land has translated into high growth rates. The Village continues to have a high rate of growth, and while this has declined from the higher growth rates experienced during the past two decades, it 1s increasing again in this decade. In terms of actual numbers, the areawide population nearly doubled between 1950 and 1980, when it reached a total of 3,780 people. The Township gained over half of these new residents. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCflON Building permit data reveal 'development trends in each community since 1980. Most of Saugatuck's growth has taken place along the lakeshore in the form of multiple family condominiums. The City has seen the development of eight condominium projects containing 127 indMdual units since 1980. Single family residential building permits show that only 65 single family units were built in the City between 1970 and 1984 (after 1984 the census quit recording local construction data for Saugatuck). Development in the Township has followed an opposite path. Since 1970 about 280 single family homes have been constructed in the Township and only 8 multiple family units. This residential development has been focused in three areas: along Lakeshore Drive: in the area west of 1-96, north of 134th Street, and east of 64th Street: and around Silver Lake. The Village has also attracted multiple family housing development. ApprOXimately 46 single family homes and 73 units of multiple family housing have been constructed in the Village since 1980. with most construction occurring south of Center Street along Lakeshore Drive: in the northwest comer of the Township: and north of Westshore St. and east of Ferry St. Aside from new construction, the number of additions. extensions, and other improvements was high in each community. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �9-2 created an ·overflow" effect. If the rapid subdivision of rural land continues unchecked. it will threaten the viability of the Township's agricultural base and increases demand for public seIVices, especially sewer and water. Unfortunately, the areas involved and the lots created are so large that it will not be cost effective to provide any new public services in these areas for many years. FIGURE 9.1 SUBDIVISION TRENDS CHANGES FROM 195<4 TO 196,$ p E T R H C o E u N s A T N A D MIGRATION Migration Is a strong component of population growth throughout the County. Allegan County experienced net in-migration of 3.03% between 1983 and 1987-the eighteenth highest rate of in-migration in the state. Many of these 1mm1grants are retirees. Figure 9.2 reveals migration patterns of senior citizens in the region over the past three decades. It reveals an explosion of retiree migration into Allegan County since 1970. Between 1980 and 1985, the rate of retiree migration into the County continued to cllmb, reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as a whole. G s E 70+ ~ 1&-311 10-15 s-; 2_. 1 OR LESS LOT SIZE (ACRES) LAND SUBDIVISION TRENDS Land subdMsion trends in the area are startling. Between 1954 and 1984. the number of lots in Saugatuck Township increased by nearly 60%, as large rural or agricultural parcels were caived into smaller lots. In 1954 the maJorityoflotswere 20 acres or more, while in 1984 most lots fell into the 1-4 acre category (see 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 OTTAWA' 54 501 • 1412 RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN 0 -767 -1148 . -713 -247 -457 I 150 AUEGAN. l■ A·RRY EATON -173 · -5 • -158 12 121 - _142 1040 · 132 · 804 I I I I l I Net Migration of The Population 65+ 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 I · - · - - ..l_ - - . ...l_. ---- VAN BUREN i'ICALAMAZOO ,• +· $ ~~ -r I -13 234 1039 ~ . -447 ' -1651 1 t -1729 ,sr:- 36 -~--, CAis" • . 390 I 578 I -44s I 130 ss 109 I I I • 1 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan • I .LQ.UPH.. -33 580 I CALHOU_N -1196 -1131 -592 --,.- IR~-~~H -149 -12s -181 �9-3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Future population for the tri-community area was projected based on the 1970 to 1980 population trend, rather than long term trends, due to the recent changes in the rate of population growth described above. A composite straight-line trend can be projected by applying logarithms to determine the ratio of change based on the 1970 to 1980 trend. Table 9.2 below illustrates these results: Thus if current trends continue, the area can expect about 1800 more people in 2010 than in 1980. Sixty-four percent of this growth is expected to occur in the Township, with 21 % in the Village, and 15% in the City. Due to the greater availability of land in the Village, it will eventually overtake the City in terms of overall population growth, as seen in Figure 9.3. PROJECTED LAND USE NEEDS: 2010 To determine the impact of this population growth on residential land use, future population is translated into new households. This is done by applying the average household size for each community to the projected population in 2010 and then subtracting 1980 households. The result is an estimated 739 new households in the tri-community area by 2010. These results are shown in Table 9.3. FIGURE 9.3 POPULATION TREND SAUGAlUCK TWP. p 0 p 3.0 2.5 Uo L u 2.0 A! 1.5 TN 1.0 I o 0 lWP.ONLY SAUGATUCK = T H C!Z!m3 DOUGlAS s 0.5 N 0.0 1G50 11180 11170 11180 111110 2000 2010 YEAR Future demand for land by these new households may be estimated by looking at land subdivision trends and current settlement patterns or zoned densities. While most residential development in the Township will fall into the low density category (2 units per acre), residential land in the Village is zoned predominantly for medium density residential development (4 to 5 units per acre). The City's development patterns are dense due to land scarcity, although zoned densities are roughly equivalent to those of the Village. If present trends continue, over half of the 739 new households will settle in low density TABLE 9.2 PROJECTED POPULATION 1970-1980 TREND COMMUNTIY Saugatuck Saugatuck Township Doul!]as AREAWIDE 1970 1,022 1,254 813 3,089 1980 1,079 1,753 948 3,780 1990 1,163 2,074 1.061 4,298 2000 1.254 2,454 1,187 4,895 2010 1,352 2,904 1.328 5,584 TABLE9.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS COMMUNTIY Saugatuck Saugatuck Township Doumas AREAWIDE POP. 2010 1,352 2,904 1,328 5,584 HH SIZE 2.00 2.69 2.44 #HHs 676 1,080 544 2,300 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1980 HHs 537 633 391 1,561 NEWHHs 139 447 153 739 �9-4 TABLE9.5 NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE TABLE9.4 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION BY DENSITY TYPE COMMUNITY LOW Saugatuck Twp. 800/4 Saugatuck 400/4 Douglas 5% MEDIUM 100/4 400/4 700/4 HOUSEHOLDS MED. HIGH TOTAL HIGH 100/4 200/4 25% LOW COMMUNITY Saugatuck Douglas SaUS!atuck 1\vp. AREAWIDE 56 8 358 421 28 38 45 111 56 107 45 207 139 153 447 739 Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE9.6 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS COMMUNITY Saugatuck Douglas Saugatuck AREAWIDE LOW 24 4 205 234 TABLE 9.7 AVAILABLE ACREAGE BY LAND USE TYPE ACREAGE* MED. HIGH TOTAL 14 26 13 3 4 10 17 53 41 34 228 303 ACREAGE COMMUNITY COMM. Saugatuck Douglas Sat.1$tuck1\vp. TOTAL ACRES 3 33 155 191 IND. RES. 0 49 22 135 197 5,950 6,282 71 *times 1.25 (20% allowance for rights-of-way) Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE9.8 POPULATION 2010: BUILD OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT COMMUNITY ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLDS Saugatuck Douglas Saugatock1wp. AREAWIDE 330 1,139 16.413 17,882 AVERAGE HH SIZE 2.00 2.44 2.69 residential areas. translating into the conversion of 234 acres ofland. Fifty-three acres would be transformed into medium density residential use, and about 17 acres would be developed at higher densities as apartments of clustered units. Tables 9.4 to 9.6 show this projection of current trends. BUILD our SCENARIO The projections shown above are only estimates based on current trends. Yet any number of events could alter these trends. For example, provision of sewer and water service in to the Township could intensify the type. density, and rate of growth that occurs there. The location of a new industry in the Village could attract new families into the area. And Saugatuck's attraction as a center for tourism could continue to ADDITIONAL POPULATION 660 2,779 44.151 47,590 PRESENT POPULATION 1,079 948 1.753 3.780 TOTAL POPULATION 1,739 3,727 45.904 51,370 grow, fostering greater in-migration of retirees and others searching for an alternative lifestyle. If the area were developed to its full capacity, what would it look like?This exercise, called a "build out" scenario, provides an estimate of the buildable capacity of the City and Village under currently zoned densities, with a rough estimate for the Township. Acres were estimated based on vacant or developable land (not including existing agricultural areas) in each community by zoned use and density /minimum lot size. These results are shown in Table 9. 7. This information can be translated into a population estimate by first dividing the developable acres by the minimum lot size in that zoning district to determine the number of households which could occupy the parcel(s). This reveals the area capacity for about 17,882 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 17'" �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 residents. 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. POUCY IMPLICATIONS If development were to proceed under existing zoning, as reflected in the build out scenario, then the tri-communtty 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 Smvey which revealed 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 development of dunes and wetlands. These results suggest the need to reevaluate current zoning and regulatory policy. Policies to achieve the public's development objectives are included in Chapter l, 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 comprehensive plan of each jurisdiction. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �10-1 Chapter 10 FUTURE LAND USE G ood land use planning is essential to the future quality of life of the tri-community area. Future land use arrangements are diflkult to predict and guide to achieve desired results. A future land use map and plan embodies local land use goals, objectives, and policies and provides one land use scenario which a community may use as a physical guide. Goals and policies, in tum, provide the policy guide for land use and development decisions. The future land use map accompanying this chapter is the composite offuture land use maps in the Saugatuck, Douglas, and Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plans (see Map 10.1). It seeks to anticipate community land use needs for 20-30 years. These future land use arrangements are based on information in this plan and the individual community plans, with an emphasis on border issues. Proposed future land use is based on analysis of existing land use, impacts of area trends, projected future land uses needs if current trends continue, and the relationship of land use activities to the natural resource base. All proposals are intended to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies presented in Chapter 1 (which were created with substantial public input). Many factors could intervene that would require reevaluation of certain arrangements or the entire plan. For example, if a large mixed use development (e.g. 1000 single family units plus some commercial) were built or if a large single employer would enter the scene (e.g. an auto manufacturing facility) then land use arrangements in this plan must be reexamined. A few key planning and design principles were used to evaluate alternative land use arrangements. With slightly different trends and projections, application of the same principles could lead to different conclusions and different land use arrangements. However, these differences would be related to the amount of particular land uses more than their location or relative relationships to adjoining uses. Likewise. there are many areas in which alternative land use arrangements would be satisfactory providing they remained in keeping with these basic planning principles. Consequently, it iS crucial that this plan be regularly reviewed and updated at least once each five years to insure its continued relevance in planning for future land use needs. PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES Future land use arrangements were determined based on compatibility with surrounding land uses, natural capacity of the land for particular uses, and necessary infrastructure improvements. These land use arrangements can and should be refined into timed and sequenced development areas, once some key deciSions concerning the proviSion of sewer and water services are made. The following planning and design principles are the technical foundation ' (or rationale) in support of the proposed land use arrangements graphically depicted on Map 10.1. Map 10.1 depicts generalized land use. which iS carrted out through mapping of zoning distrtcts. The planning principles listed above are implemented prtmarily through zoning regulations and applied during the site plan review process. These principles are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in Chapter 1 and should remain the basiS for reviewing any subsequent changes to the proposed Future Land Use Map. These planning principles are: • Protection of Public Health and Safety • Conservation of Natural Resources • Environmental Protection • Minimizing Public Service Costs • Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting Land Use Needs • Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses (Nuisance Prevention) Often a land use decision based on one principle also advances another. For example, prevention of filling or construction on floodplains protects public health and safety, conserves natural resources, protects the environment, and minimizes public service costs (especially for relief efforts). It may also create a valuable buffer or open space between uses and hence help insure compatibility. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �10-2 Protection of Public Health and Sqfety Key situations in which this principle is applied include: • avoiding construction in areas which present natural hazards. In the trt-community area these include areas too close to the Lake Michigan shoreline at high risk from erosion from coastal wave action; floodplains; saturated soils and wetlands; soils not well suited for support of foundations or safe disposal of septic wastes; and steep slopes. • avoiding construction where an intensive land use activity is not adequately serviced by all weather public access; • avoiding construction in areas with soils contaminated by hazardous and/ or toxic waste. Conservation of Natural Resources Failure to consciously protect nonrenewable natural resources exposes a community to unbridled destruction of those resources which are the foundation for an area's character and quality of life. Conservation of natural resources usually focuses on: land, water, minerals, certain soils (such as prime farmland), wetlands, sand dunes, areas supporting an abundance and diversity of wildlife, and unique forested lands. Areas where the land and the water meet are the most important. Indiscriminate land subdivision frequently reduces the size or alters the shape of land, thereby compromising the resource value and production potential of those lands. This occurs frequently in prime agricultural areas and once lost, these lands may never be reclaimed for food production purposes. If widespread, such losses can dramatically alter the character of an area. These changes reflect lost opportunities- usually higher public service costs and gradual degradation of an area's tourism potential. Environmental Protection This principle aims at preventing pollution. impairment. or destruction of the environment. While there is considerable overlap with natural resource conservation issues, environmental protection measures focus primarily on air and water quality, and the impact of activities where the water meets the land. Environmental quality is best preserved by planning for appropriate land use activities in and near sensitive environmental areas, and managing development accordingly. Minimizing Public Service Costs Public service costs may be minimized by encouraging new land uses where existing infrastructure is not used to capacity and where expansion can be most economically supplied. This also results in compact settlement patterns, prevents sprawl, and if favored by taxpayers because it results in the lowest publlc service costs both for construction and maintenance. E.[fi.dency and Convenience in Meeting Land Use Needs To be efficient in meeting future land use needs communities must make better use of existing infrastructure and plan for infrastructure expansion in a manner which keeps the costs low and does not create huge areas where infrastructure will not be fully used for many years. It also means locating future land uses so that travel between actMty centers is minimized. For example: building schools, neighborhood commercial activities, day care facilities, fire and police protection, etc. near the residential areas they serve. This saves municipal costs on initial road construction and future maintenance. reduces everyone's gasoline expenditures, and conserves fossil fuel supplies for future use. Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses A central objective of land use planning is to locate future land uses so that they are compatible with one another. This prevents future nuisance situations between adjacent land uses, such as loud sound, ground vibrations. dust. bright lights. restricted air flow, shadows, odors, traffic, and s1milar impacts. A few obvious examples of incompatible land uses include factories, drive-in establishments. or auto repair facilities adjacent to single family homes. With proper planning, land uses can be tiered to buffer impacts and orderly development can occur. Examples include: commercial service establishments on highway frontage with backlot wholesale, storage, or office uses abutting a residential area; or single family residential uses adjacent to park and recreation areas. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION AREAS The future land use map for the tri-community area was prepared by first identifying conservation areas and then examining the suitability of remaining lands for various development purposes. Conservation areas fall into Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �10-3 two basic types: agricultural resources and other natural resources. Nonrenewable agricultural resources are limited to prime agricultural soils which are uniquely suited for crop production and require the least expenditure of energy and chemicals per acre of crop produced. Prime farmland may not be artificially created and is a rapidly diminishing natural resource. While Michigan has an abundance of farmland, prime farmland is in much shorter supply. Therefore, this plan recommends preservation of prime agricultural lands for agricultural production purposes. Other natural resource areas were used as the basis for establishing conservation areas. These include sand dunes, wetlands, floodplains, streams, creeks and drains. the Kalamazoo River, Lake Kalamazoo, and areas at high risk of erosion along Lake Michigan. These areas are proposed for very limited future development in keeping with their fragility and importance in buffering Lake Michigan storms, filtering and storing water during periods of flooding, draining stormwater from land, providing habitat for a wide range of plants and animals, and for their wide ranging open space values. Destroying these resources would destroy the essential qualities which continue to attract residents and tourists to the area. If conserved and wisely used, waterways and farms will become a natural greenbelt system that continues to enhance the area for years to come. Local zoning ordinances should be amended to include conservation practices. ENTRY POINTS There are four major entry points into the three communities. Each of these go through Saugatuck Township. They are: • from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo River • from I-196 at Blue Star Highway (north) near 136th Ave. • from I-196 at M-89 (south end) • from Fennville on M-89 In addition there are two entry points specific to Saugatuck and two to Douglas. These are: • from Blue Star Highway onto Washington Road/Holland St. • from Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo River bridge onto Lake Street (north end) • from Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo River bridge (south end) • from I-196 at Blue Star Highway (south end of Douglas Just south of 129th St.) At the present time, only the entry points flanking the Kalamazoo River Bridge on Blue Star Highway and the entry from Lake Michigan provide an aesthetic and inviting entry into the trt-community area. The entry along North Blue Star Highway is especially bad. Incompatible land uses, poorly maintained properties. buildings too close to the road. poorly marked ingress and egress to commercial establishments, poor road conditions. a proliferation of off-premises advertising signs, and an unattractive Saugatuck entry sign and intersection greet the newcomer or tourist. Less severe characteristics surround the southern entry to Douglas from 1-196. The remaining entry points don't leave a bad impression. they simply leave no impression at all. The public opinion surveys also reflected citizen concern about the appearance of properties along Blue Star Highway. The situation is further harmed by signs along I-196 which fail to inform southbound travelers at exit # 41 that they can access Douglas (only Saugatuck is mentioned) or along northbound 1-196 at exit# 36 which tell travelers that they can access Ganges. but not Saugatuck and Douglas. If left unresolved could have severe consequences for the area's competitiveness with other resort communities. First impressions are very important in the tourism industry. Attractive entryways help entice tourists into the community and leave a positive impression to encourage future visits. The entry points represent the community and should reflect those qualities which make the area special. Fortunately, these design problems are easily overcome, and with only minimum public investment. A special effort to develop alternatives for improving the entry points should be initiated. In addition, new land developments in these areas (or changes to existing ones) need to be carefully reviewed to insure that changes enhance (and do not further detract from) the positive image and character that should exist in these areas. RESIDENTIAL Residential use will continue to be the predominant developed land use 1n the tri-community area. The existing residential areas in Saugatuck and Douglas provide a rich and interesting mix of housing sizes, styles and ages. The challenge in the next twenty years will be maintaining the older housing stock and ensur- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �.. I 10-4 ing that the growing ranks of part-time residents and absentee owners does not result in housing deterioration. Equally important will be efforts to blend new development with the older character of existing land uses. Douglas has considerable potential for new housing development and has the greatest opportunity of the three jurisdictions to encourage the construction of affordable housing, due to available land that is suited for basement construction and the potential to extend sewer and water efficiently. If the Saugatuck School District is to survive with the same breadth of programming and quality it has today, then affordable housing oriented to families must be available . In terms of new construction, affordable housing typically means homes of about 1,000-1,200 square feet, on smaller than average lots, and priced at not more than $70,000. Some public incentives or "write-downs" are typically necessary to alter one of these basic elements. Some housing meeting this definition is being built on large lots in the rural parts of the Township, but not in any significant quantities. A unique opportunity exists for the area communities to take the initiative in providing affordable housing. If plans proceed to acquire the property commonly known as the Jager property, for a new water intake plant. part of the parcel could also be used for affordable housing. A design competition or specially hired site plan could be arranged to provide for affordable housing in this area. The site plan would be required to tier houses by size and type to blend with existing homes along Lake Shore Drive. The treatment plant could be buffered from the residential area and the land costs paid back through development. New residential construction in the Township should be encouraged on soils suitable for basements and with soils capable of safe septic disposal. The best locations for concentrations of such housing are north of Saugatuck and southwest of Douglas. No new residential subdivisions should be developed in the agricultural areas of the Township during the planning period. Within Saugatuck, there will be pressure to remove existing homes along the waterfront and replace with higher density condominiums. Condominium development that greatly diminishes the public view of the waterfront should not be permitted, especially along Lake St. Additionally, the height of new construction should not exceed 25 feet along the waterfront. It would be better to place the taller, higher density de- velopment back onto "the hill" and leave the shoreline open. COMMERCIAL There will be three primary commercial cen- ters within the tri-community area. Downtown Saugatuck will continue to serve as the major center for commercial tourist actMtles. This should be encouraged. The downtown area should not be permitted to expand outside the area presently zoned for downtown commercial use. Appropriate measures should be adopted to mitigate impacts of the city center on adjoining residential areas. The shopping area in Douglas along Blue Star and extending down to the freeway interchange should be encouraged to continue to (re)develop with a primary focus on local commercial services and a secondary focus on highway related uses near the interchange. This area needs curbs and gutters and right tum lanes. The buildings and parking on many properties are poorly designed, so any opportunity to improve design, safety, and function should be seized. Additional tourist-oriented businesses should be discouraged in this area, and instead redirected to downtown Saugatuck and the original Douglas Village Center. The present commercial zoning of Blue Star south of the Douglas interchange should be eliminated except for small areas representing existing commercial establishments at the freeway and M-89 interchanges. Land use analysiS reveals that this commercial land is far in excess of projected need within the planning period. It cannot be cost-effectively serviced with sewer and water, nor can it be adequately controlled with the existing zoning in place. It will, over time, only detract from more appropriate commercial areas in Saugatuck, Douglas and along north Blue Star Highway. and create an extended commercial strip. The area between Saugatuck. the North Blue Star Highway, and 1-196 freeway interchange, which is presently developed for a variety of land uses, should be encouraged to develop for highway service uses through more refined zoning regulations than are presently in place. No further warehousing, boat storage or repair, mini-storage, or similar land uses should be permitted along the frontage. Instead, motels, auto service centers, restaurants, and similar highway service establishments should be allowed. General business uses like shoe stores banks, hardware stores. etc., should encour~ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �10-5 aged in the general business area in Douglas and not in interchange areas. Allowing general business establishments to spread results increase the number and length of trips for local residents, causes a corresponding waste of fossil fuels, and increases the potential for individual businesses to fail, since the "critical mass" of general business opportunities in a single location is not present. INDUSTRIAL Neither the Haworth facility in Douglas nor the Rich Products fruit processing facilities in Saugatuck represent the best use of those properties in the long run (which is commercial). However, they are well-maintained local companies which are major employers, and without a public effort to relocate those firms in comparable facilities elsewhere, the local comprehensive plans will continue to recogntze them. At the same time, the small industrial area along Blue Star in Douglas should continue to be developed for light industrial actMUes. If a large light industrial concern, or industrial office facility were to be interested in a location in the area, the land between 1-196 and 63rd St. at the northern freeway interchange should be considered. While there are some limitations to development of that land, it could probably be served with sewer and water efficiently. However, road improvements would be necessary to bring roads up to all weather standards. If a waterfront location were desired for use by a new industrial concern, it should be considered only if it can be efficiently provided with public services, there is no public loss of access to the waterfront, and the activity is waterfront dependent. Other scattered site locations should not be considered for new industrial actMty. Industrial parks are an excellent way to manage future industrial growth. Although they have broad, long-term public benefits (including lower service costs, fewer nuisance impacts, better design, and less environmental impact), industrial parks require a large short-term investment in land and public services. Therefore, it is crucial that studies be conducted to insure that the park could be competitive with others in the area. The Michigan Department of Commerce maintains an inventory of industrial parks through the Statewide Site Network. Only certified industrial parks will be included on this list, and thereby be able to effectively compete for new industries. To be certified, industrial parks must be at least 40 acres, a site plan for the park must be approved, soil borings must be conducted, infrastructure must be completed, utilities must be installed 300 feet into the park, and protective covenants must be established. AGRICULTURE Agriculture is a major contributor to the economy and rural character of the tri-community area. It provides a contrast with developed areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. The south central portion of the Township contains thousands of acres of prime agricultural soils, is characterized by extensive farming of those soils, and much of this land is enrolled in PA 116, the state Fannland and Open Space Protection program (see Map 4.10). The size of existing farms. the location of these lands away from the immediate path of development. the lack of existing or planned sewer and water services, the lack of need to convert prime farmland to nonagricultural use. and the broader public purpose of preserving prime fannland for present and future food production strongly argues in favor of retaining these lands in agricultural production for the entire planning period and beyond. Land divisions and development for nonagricultural purposes should not be permitted in this area. The adjoining lands on the east and to the north of the prime farmland soils (and south of the river) are also characterized by a large number offarms, although the average lot and farm sizes are smaller. Scattered residential development on large lots is also taking place. The soils are suitable for limited residential development. but agricultural uses should be the primary land use in these areas. No plans are underway to provide sewer and water to this area within the planning period and it would not be cost effective to do so. Consequently, development density should remain low. Another future agricultural use issue goes beyond where agricultural areas should be located and focuses on the character of the agricultural area and its relationship with the regional economy. Agriculture in the trt-community area has prospered primarily through cultivation of fruit, grain crops, hay and alfalfa. and in the case of nurseries, plants. These actMties take advantage of the area's prime soils. Efforts are also underway to attract tourists to the larger fruit farms to watch cider-making, eat freshly baked fruit products, and pick fruit- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �10-6 thus capitalizing on economic opportunities presented by the area's tourism industry. These issues raise concern overthe compatibility of high density livestock and poultry operations with the character of agricultural areas and the impact of the noxious odors on tourism- which is a central component of the region's economy. High density livestock operations also pose substantial health and safety questions. This is a strong consideration due to the nature of the soils in the agricultural areas and their proximity to extensive wetlands and water bodies. It is also relevant that groundwater is the sole source of potable water in the agricultural area. Based on these economic and environmental considerations, this planning area is not an appropriate location for high density livestock operations. WA1ERFRONT Most of the nonwetland shoreline in the City and Village have been developed. The balance is in private ownership. With the exception of the condominium properties and the large Rich Products office building on Lake Street, these parcels are developed at a scale and density that greatly contributes to the ambience and character of the area. Much of the City's downtown waterfront has an excellent system of interconnected public and private walkways providing shoreline access. This magnifies the attraction of Saugatuck as a tourist haven. But public boat 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 developed 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 800/4 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. especially on Lake Kalamazoo, due to congestion during summer weekends. Public waterfront properties in Douglas should be developed to enhance their recreational potential. The Kewatin stands as a symbol of the area's shipping history- a local historical landmark. It should not be allowed to fall into disrepair. If the Kewatin cannot be adequately maintained in the future, however, then it should be removed so it does not become a blight on the shoreline. Mooring of other large vessels along the Lake Kalamazoo shoreline should be prohibited, as this would block the limited public access to the waterfront. Areas along the north shore of the Kalamazoo River between Blue Star and 1-196 should remain in their present natural state. Public parcels along the west end of the south shore should be improved for additional recreational use. A limited number of new boat slips would also be appropriate. Additional marina development should not be allowed east ofl-196. nor should any other intensive shoreline development be allowed in this area within the planning period. New efforts should be initiated to undertake annual river cleanup campaigns. The Kalamazoo River is the principal natural resource and a scenic amenity, but it has been polluted by activities upstream. More efforts are needed upstream to improve water quality downstream. More local efforts should also be initiated to further enhance the recreational potential of Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �MAP 10.1 FUTURE LAND USE ~Agricultural rffiml llili1i Rural Residential Tri-Community ■ Highway Commercial rmm Institutional , ,, . ■ Low Density Residential ,,,,,,,. ,,,,,,,. ■ Medium Density Residential ~ Mixed Residential ■ City Center Commercial August1989 f~:H~: Conservation/Recreation Floodplain/Wetland HH Industrial D Water Planroing & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml �Tri-Community N FUTURE LAND USE A 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1" = 9060 ft . ... ,~.,,,.,.,,~ .;v~w..r.1Vv·• ..., -~, · ~ -,..,..,...,._...,.,AJVVV\A/" �N ~ + . A 0 4,000 2 ~ 1 . 0 C :r 'i • 8,000 Scale 1" = 9060 ft 28 . ? I i ! • 27 L..___ _ 0 . t ' ◄ :r , ,: 35 ,, , ..: t'' , .... - MAP 10.2 MAJOR ENTRY POINTS ~ 11-19 55 . i 4 '' SAUGATUCK TWP. Tri-Community Entry Points August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml �11-1 Chapter 11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION T his plan synthesizes the key information that is found in each of the indMdual plans of Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township. In addition. it makes a special effort to present an analysis and recommendations concerning joint environmental and waterfront issues (see Chapter 8). However, none of the elements of this regional plan can be implemented without the cooperation and action of the individual jurisdictions within which the land affected by specific proposals or policies lay. Obviously, this presents significant potential for failure, especially in light of what could occur if there were only a single j urtsdiction. However, the reality is that three separate jurisdictions control land use in the trt-county area and this situation is not likely to change in the near future. As a result. it is recommended that the Joint Planning Committee (3 representatives from each community) established to guide the development of this plan be maintained as a coordinating and oversight body to insure that the proposals in this plan are implemented and that the actions of single entity contrary to this plan do not go unchallenged. If special committees, such as the Joint Waterfront Committee are also continued, they should be formally included in the arrangement, otheIWise, their functions should be absorbed by the Joint Planning Committee. The Joint Committee should meet at least quarterly or at the call of the chairperson and report its minutes promptly to the governing body of each member jurisdiction. As there is no formal mechanism for adoption of this regional plan (although Act 281 of 1945, the Regional Planning Act could be used for this purpose, but it would first require the formal creation of a regional planning commission) there is also none for its amendment. However, as long as it is formally accepted by the individual planning commissions and legislative bodies as consistent with the individual plans prepared as a part of this process. then at least from the start it will have some credibility. Its future credibility however. will depend on whether the subsequent actions of individual local governments are consistent with it. It could and should be modified as necessary. simply by the concurrence of proposed changes by each Planning Commission and governing body. In the end however, since the individual communities will carry the primary burden of implementation. it is important to review the basic tools they have to undertake the substantial tasks laid out in this plan. In addition to regulatory tools and facilities management tools. there are also a host of funding sources that may be available to assist with particular projects. It is almost always safe to say that joint proposals involving two or more jurisdictions have a greater chance of receMng funding in competitive grant situations than either of the communities alone. As a result, the trt-communities are encouraged to work together in their efforts to secure financial assistance to implement the proposals in this plan. Chapter 12 reviews the options that are known to be available. The completion of this areawide plan should be considered a milestone in the intergovernmental relations between Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township. However, it should also be viewed as only the end of phase one in an ongoing planning process. Constantly changing social and economic trends will require periodic updating or amendments to this plan. The interval at which these revisions should be made will largely be determined by the intensity and quantity of change within the tri-community area. Revisions to the future land use map should be made whenever it no longer serves as a useful guide and support for land use decision making. The same is true of the policies portion of the plan. A generally accepted practice is to undertake a thorough update at least once every 5 years. By itself this plan has no legal regulatory force but rather, serves as a foundation upon which regulatory measures are based. The two primary land use regulatory documents which are also the principal means of implementation of this plan, are the zoning ordinance and subdivision control regulations. These regulatory instruments are described in the next chapter. Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional public services such as police and possibly public 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 aggressively 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 consideration should be given to consolidation of all governmental services into a single unit of government. 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 cooperation and mutual benefit. its Implementation depends upon more of the same- tenfold. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-1 Chapter 12 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION PRIMARY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Relationship to Zoning All three communities have a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to the Michigan zoning enabling acts. The intent of these ordinances is to regulate the use of land to provide for orderly growth and development and allow the integration of land uses without creating nuisances. The zoning ordinance defines land use districts and regulates height. bulk use, area of lot to be covered, and open space to be preserved within each district. Because the zoning ordinance should be based upon the analysis contained in the comprehensive plan, present zoning ordinances should be revised to reflect this plan's new goals, policies, and future land use proposals. In connection with the administration of the zoning ordinance, each community should continue to maintain a formal site plan review process. Through this process applicants, in order to obtain zoning approval, must submit plans which clearly indicate how their development proposals will change and affect both the parcel of land being developed as well as surrounding properties. It is recommended that all commercial and industrial development, as well as all subdivisions, multiple family housing, planned unit developments. and other development requiring more than five (5) parking spaces, undergo site plan review. Relationship To Plans/ZOning In Ac(jacent Jurisdictions The land use proposals in this plan were carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring compatibility with those of the adjoining communities, and in the case of Saugatuck Township, with adjoining townships. Equal care should be taken in the future to seek and receive comment on proposals that are on or near a border from an adjoining jurisdiction. Failure to do so will only insure future conflict over adjacent land uses, or the provision of new public services. Relationship to Subdivision Regulations Saugatuck Township should consider the adoption of subdivision regulations. The enabling legislation that permits the enactment of such regulations is Public Act 288 of 1967, also known as the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. This Act allows a community to set requirements and design standards for streets, blocks, lots, curbs, sidewalks, open spaces, easements, public utilities, and other associated subdivision improvements. With the implementation of a subdivision ordinance there would be added assurance that development would occur in an orderly manner. The Village of Douglas and City of Saugatuck should amend their subdivision and zoning regulations to prohibit the 'e stablishment of lots which would be unbuildable under existing state or local regulations (such as lots which are wholly within a protected wetland). This provision should also be included in Township regulations. Relationship to Capital Improvements In its basic form, a CIP is a complete list of all proposed public improvements planned for a 6 year period (the time span may vary), including costs, sources offunding, location, and priority. The CIP outlines the projects that will replace or improve existing facilities, or that will be necessary to serve current and projected land use development within a community. Advanced planning for public works through the use of a CIP assures more effective and economical capital expenditures, as well as the provision of public works in a timely manner. The use of capital improvements programming can be an effective tool for implementing the comprehensive plan by giving priority to those projects which have been identified in the Plan as being most important to the future development and well being of the community. None of the three communities currently has a formal capital improvement program, and all could benefit from one. Other important implementation measures and funding sources include the following: Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-2 Land Use & Irifrastructure Policies A strong effort will be necessary to coordi- nate future capital improvements decisions and land use policies with adjoining units of government. As a result, proposed policy changes should be circulated for comment early. Likewise, proposed capital improvement programs should be prepared with adequate time for review and comment by the adjoining jurisdictions. Community Participation And Education In order to gain the support, acceptance, and input of area residents for future planning, ongoing efforts should be continued to provide information to them, and involve them in the planning process. The importance of their role in that process should be emphasized. Public acceptance will make the implementation of plans much easier and public input makes plans better and more responsive to local needs. SPECIAL AREA & FINANCING TECHNIQUES Building and Property Maintenance Codes All three communities have adopted the BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.) as the basic building code to regulate construction methods and materials. The adoption and enforcement of a building code is important in maintaining safe. high quality housing and in minimizing deteriorating housing conditions which contribute to blight within neighborhoods. This should be continued. All three communities should consider adopting a basic property maintenance code to regulate blighting influences which result from failure to properly maintain property and structures. A standard code such as the BOCA Basic Housing - Property Maintenance Code or a locally developed code could be adopted. Community Development Block Grant Program The Community Development Block Grant program was authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The Act had the effect of combining several federal categorical grants such as Urban Renewal and Model Cities into one. Grants under the program must principally benefit low and moderate income families. In Michigan there are two categories of eligible applicants: entitlement and non-entitlement. Entitlement communities. by meeting specific eligibility criteria, are given grant funds outright without having to compete for them. Non -entitlement applicants must compete for grant funds by applying through the Michigan Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program. None of the three communities are entitlement communities. Therefore. all would have to apply through the Small Cities Program. Operation of the Michigan CDBG Program is the responsibility of the Michigan Department of Commerce with central program administration by the Department's Office of Federal Grant Management (OFGM) . The Department of Commerce has entered into an agreement with the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) assigning administrative responsibilities for the housing component of the program. In the housing area, samples of grant eligible activities include: • Home Improvement Programs • Rental Rehabilitation Programs • Weathertzation and Energy Conservation • Home Repair for the Elderly • Public Improvement in conjunction with targeted housing activity (lim.ited to 25 percent of grant request) • Housing Related Services • Housing for the Homeless The maximum grant amount is $250,000. By applying and obtaining a Small Cities Block Grant, the trt-communitles could establish a housing rehabilitation program which would help preserve housing throughout the area. The CDBG program also has the following categories of assistance: • Base Industrial Loan program helps financially viable businesses needing financial assistance for growth, modernization, or expansion. Limit $750,000) . • Commercial Retail Loan program is for commercial, services, tourism. and other non-residential projects: and minority owned and retail projects in distressed communities. Limit $400,000. • Public Infrastructure Assistance program funds public improvements for the location and expansion of public infrastructures. Limit $750,000. • Downtown Development program provides financing to assist businesses in the redevelopment of the downtown area. Limit Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-3 $500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure improvement. • Communities in 1ransition program funds community development actMtles, such as public ~wer and water systems. parks, bridges. roads. and comprehensive redevelopment planning. Limit $400,000. • Emergency Community Assistance program funds communities experiencing an imminent and urgent threat to public health, safety, or welfare which occurred within 90 days of application. Limit: $500,000. Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975 Permits a city, village, or township to establish a nonprofit development corporation called a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) with broad powers, including those of taxation and bonding, to focus on revitalization and development within established "downtown" boundaries. The Act gives an authority broad powers with regard to the planning and development of the downtown district. It may engage in downtown planning, promote housing and public facility developments. and economic development projects. Operating revenues may be raised through public and private contributions or through properties the DDA may control. With the approval of the municipal governing body, an ad valorem tax may be levied on real and tangible personal property within the downtown district. Capital financing may be raised in a number of ways: • A ODA may issue revenue bonds. These, with municipality approval, may be secured by "the full faith and credit" of the municipality. • A DOA can request the municipality to borrow money and issue notes in anticipation of collected taxes. • A DDA. with municipality approval, may create a "tax increment financing plan" in which it devotes projected increases in future tax revenues from increased assessed valuation in the project area - "captured assessed value" - for repayment of debts incurred in making selected public improvements. Revenue bonds are issued in anticipation of future revenue. Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) Programs To help preserve Michigan's older existing housing, Public Act 130 was passed in 1977 to allow MSHDA to begin a home improvement loan program that offers reduced interest rates to eligible low and moderate income families. MSHDA has created the Home Improvement, Neighborhood Improvement and Community Home Improvement Programs (HIP/NIP/CHIP). To get a loan, residents should apply to one of the banks, savings and loans, or credit unions that take part in HIP/NIP/CHIP. Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant program was authorized by Public Law 88-578, effective January 1, 1965. The purpose of the program is to provide federal funds for acquisition and development of facilities for outdoor recreation. The LWCF Program is administered jointly by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. All political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, are eligible to participate in the program. Eligible projects include: 1. Acquisition of land for outdoor recreation, including additions to existing parks, forest lands. or wildlife areas. 2. Development including, but not limited to such facilities as: picnic areas. beaches, boating access, fishing and hunting facilities, winter sports areas, playgrounds, ballfields, tennis courts, and trails. For development grants, the applicant must have title to the site in question. The minimum grant allowable is $10,000 and the maximum grant allowable is $250,000. For all grant proposals, the amount of the grant cannot exceed more than 50 percent of the total project cost. Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund The Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund Act of 1976 (Public Act 204) was passed by the Michigan Legislature and signed by the Governor on July 23 1976. This Act created the Michigan Land Trust Fund. The program provided funds for public acquisition of recreational lands through the sale of oil, gas, and mineral leases and royalties from oil, gas, and mineral extractions on state lands. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-4 On November 6, 1984, Michigan residents cast their vote in favor of Proposal B. This constitutional amendment created the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRrF). Public Act 101 of 1985, which officially replaced the Michigan Land Trust Fund on October 1, 1985. MNRrF assists state and local governments (including school districts) in acquiring land or rights to land for recreational uses, protecting land because of its environmental .Importance or scenic beauty, and developing public recreational facilities. Any individual, group, organization, or unit of government may submit a land acquisition proposal. but only units of government may take title to and manage the land. Only units of government may submit development proposals. All proposals for local grants must include a local match of at least 25 percent of the total project cost. There is no minimum or maximum for acquisition projects: for development projects, the minimum funding request is $15,000, the maximum is $375,000. Costal zone Management Fund The Land & Water Management Division of the Department of Natural Resources offers grants for the purpose of planning, designing, and carrying out low-cost projects to improve Great Lakes shorelines and connecting waterways. The Recreation Bond The Recreation bond calls for money to be spent on DNR and local recreation facilities in four categories: Recreation Infrastructure: such as ballfields, tennis courts, beaches and other shoreline areas. boat launches, trails, picnic areas, historic structures, playgrounds, roads, parking, restrooms, etc., which are not less than 15 years old; Waterfront recreation: such as fishing piers, boardwalks, boat launches, marinas, amphitheaters, landscaping, and shoreline stabilization; Community recreation: playgrounds, sportsfields, community centers, senior centers, fishing sites, and trails for the handicapped: Tourism-enhancing recreation: including campgrounds, boating facilities, historical sites, recreational conversion of abandoned rights-ofway. and fishing access. In its statewide inventory of recreational facilities. the DNRhas identified Allegan County as deficient in a number of recreational facilities. Those relevant for the trt-community area include deficiencies in bicycle trails, fishing access, fishing piers, boat launches , campgrounds, nature areas, hildng trails, nature trails, cross country ski trails, picnic areas. and playgrounds. Allegan County communities with proposals for such projects will get funding priority over similar projects proposed in nondeficient counties. Table 12.1 includes the min.lmum number or size of selected recreation facilities to be considered toward bond funding. Grant requests may not exceed $750,000 and may not be less than $15,000. Applicants must match bond funds with 25% of the total project cost. not including other state grants or legislative appropriations. Bond money will only be allocated to projects on sites controlled by public agencies. In the tourism category. priorities are given to projects which: create new and innovative recreation-related tourism attractions: involve partnerships between the public and private sector: and projects for which feasibility studies have been conducted which demonstrate local, regional, and statewide economic benefits. (Applications and further information may be obtained from: DNR, Recreation Services TABLE 12.1 RECREATION FACILITIES &: THEIR MINIMUM NUMBER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM POINTS RECREATION FACILI1Y MINIMUM SIZE Bicycle Trail Playground 1 mile 3 pcs. of play Sw.lmming Beach Boat Launch Campground Non-motorized Trail Cross-country Ski Hiking Nature Horse Fishing Access Fishing Piers Nature Area equipment 50 feet 5 parking spaces 10 campsites 1/2 mile 50 feet 1 10 acres NOTE: Points are not to be awarded separately for cross-country ski trails, nature trails, and hik1ng trails. These trails are to be considered as one facility. Source: DNR, Michigan'• 1987-88 Recreation Al!tlon Pro&ram Guidel>ook. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-5 Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-3043.) Recreation Improvement Fund The Recreation Improvement Fund was created from State fuel tax revenue. About $750,000 per year is being targeted for development of non-motorized trails (hiking. bicycle, cross-country, and nature trails). No application forms or criteria have yet been prepared, but the Recreation Division is encouraging local governments to submit proposals based on local determination of need, location, and financing. Local Facility Development Grants These grants come from a number of funding sources and are available for planning, design, or development of local recreational facilities. The Village of Douglas received $11,000 through this program in FY 1987-88 for improvement of its boat launch site on Kalamazoo Lake. Land Acquisition Grants Land acquisition grants are available for projects ahned at open space preservation: park creation or expansion; acquisition of environmental resources such as sand dunes, woodlots, or wetland areas: waterfront access sites; and many other land acquisition projects intended for (passive or active) recreational purposes. Waterways Fund The Waterways Division of the Department of Natural Resources offers grants for the purpose of developing public boating facilities. The emphasis is on creating boat access sites and supporting facilities. Road Funds In 1987, three acts were passed to provide a new source of revenue for cities, villages.and county road commissions. The Transportation Economic Development Fund (Act 231 of 1987. as amended), the Road Construction and Improvement Act (Act 233 of 1987), and the Local Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act (Act 237 of 1987, as amended). The acts will be ineffectforfiveyears, when theywillbe reviewed for continuation by the legislature. The Local Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act authorizes county road commissions to impose a vehicle registration fee and use these funds for road improvements. This Act has had little utility, however, because the fee must be approved by a public vote. Michigan voters in 3 counties rejected proposed fees in the November 1988 election. Many counties chose not to even put it on the ballot, fearing the same result. The Road Construction and Improvement Act (Act 233) provides funding through the transportation economic development fund only to rural counties (less than 400,000 population) with a national lakeshore, national park, or in which 34% or more of the land is commercial forest land. Then a portion of the remaining funds are available for use for county, city, and village street improvements. The Transportation Economic Development Fund allocates money for the purposes ofbrtnging county roads to all season highway standards. This is important because heavy trucks can only travel regularly on all season roads. The Transportation Economic Development Act also offers counties, cities, and villages the opportunity to compete for additional funding on special projects with economic development objectives. This competitive grant is awarded by the State Highway Commission. Qualified project categories are listed below: (a) Economic development road projects in any of the following targeted industries: agriculture or food processing: tourism: forestry: high technology research: manufacturing: office centers solely occupied by the owner or not less than 50,000 square feet occupying more than 3 acres of land. (b) Projects that result in the addition of county roads or city or village streets to the state trunk line system. (c) Projects for reducing congestion on county primary and city major streets within urban counties. (d) Projects for development within rural counties on county rural primary roads or major streets within incorporated villages and cities with a population of less than 5,000. PUBLIC WORKS FINANCING In addition to using general fund monies, it is often necessary for a community to bond to raise sufficient funds for implementing substantial public improvements. Bonding offers a method of financing for improvements such as water and sewer lines, street construction, side- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-6 walks, and public parking facilities. Common municipal bond types include: 1. General Obligation Bonds - full faith and credit pledges, the principal amount borrowed plus interest must be repaid from general tax revenues. 2. Revenue Bonds - require that the principal amount borrowed plus interest be repaid through revenues produced from the public works project the bonds were used to finance (often a water or sewer system) . 3. Special Assessment Bonds - require that the principal amount borrowed plus interest be repaid through special assessments on the property owners m a special assessment district for whatever public purpose the property owners have agreed (by petition or voting) to be assessed. not in a Michigan Bell service area.) A pro-business exchange creates an atmosphere of cooperation which benefits both the business and the community. The role of a pro-business exchange is to assist existing businesses in finding solutions for their problems (i.e. inadequate parking, expansion or relocation needs. etc.) and help make new businesses feel welcome. The exchange would work with area businesses to determine their needs and appoint an ombudsman to inform new businesses of local services and contacts. Businesses are often not aware of the services available to them or who to contact for more information. A brochure could be prepared which identifies who to contact for information on zoning, construction, planning, utilities, and taxation. The brochure could also identify permit fees, tax and utility rates, and transportation, delivery, freight, health, and financial services available in the area. TAX INCENTIVES The state law permitting communities to provide property tax incentives for industrial development is Act 198, which allows a community to provide tax abatements as an incentive for industrial firms which want to renovate existing or build new facilities. ADDmONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Other Planning & Economic Development Assistance Each jurisdiction should maintain regular communication with the County Planning Commission, the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and the Allegan County Community Growth Alliance. These organizations should be encouraged to contmue their County and region-wide planning and economic development efforts and to share relevant materials with Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the Village of Douglas. Likewise a copy of this Plan should be forwarded to each of these agencies when adopted. Pro-Business Alliance One way to strengthen the tri-community area's economic development potential is to establish a pro-business exchange, either separately by jurisdiction, or Jointly across all three. The exchange could be modelled after the Michigan Bell Business Retention and Expansion Program. (The tri-community area is not eligible for participation in the Michigan Bell Business Retention and Expansion program because it is Revision Of Ordinances Each of the individual community plans prepared concurrently with this Joint plan include recommendations for changes to zoning. subdivision regulation and related local ordinances (and in the case of the Township, the adoption of same). If this is not done. then the legal support for future zoning decisions is undermined. Of course. the plan itself could also be changed so that there is greater consistency between the plan and zoning regulations, but it that is done. the supporting logic and data should also be included. Poverty The changing economy, higher health care costs, higher literacy and skills requirements for employees, and inflation have seriously hurt the nation's poor, including the elderly on fixed incomes. Social security benefits are the only retirement income for about two-thirds of all American retirees. and an estimated one million Michigan residents have no private or public health insurance. The poor are often overlooked in community development efforts, yet they are the group most in need of public assistance. In the tri-community area, 7.1% of Township residents. 8.6% of City residents, and 11.3% of Village residents were living below the poverty level in 1980. That's an annual income of less than $3,778 for those under 65, and $3,479 for those 65 and over. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-7 Each community should contJnue to monitor the number of people in poverty through the census counts and work with local churches and non-profit groups to assist them through food drives, temporary shelters, or other needed services. Establishing Specific Incremental Growth Areas Once a final decision on whether the Township will or will not become a full partner in the Kalamazoo Lake Water & Sewer Authority has been made, then it will be possible to determine if specific incremental sewer and water extensions can be made , and at what cost. That process could result in specific targeting of new growth areas and the modification of local zoning and capital improvements programs to reflect the phasing of growth in those areas. Collection ofTrqffic Count Data A more detailed analysis of street and road needs should be undertaken. However, doing so is limited by the lack of any systematic and recent traffic count information. The three jurisdictions would greatly benefit from Jointly purchasing the necessary equipment and undertaking specific traffic counts on a regular basis. The cost and training associated with this is minimal compared to the benefit. Blue Star Highway Corridor Study Blue Star Highway from the Kalamazoo River bridge north to the freeway exit has the potential to grow dramatically and haphazardly under existing zoning regulations. As a result it deseives a more thorough and careful analysis than has been possible to date. The same is true of Blue Star Highway as it passes through Douglas. A lot by lot analysis with an emphasis on traffic flow, ingress, egress, bicycle use, pedestrian access, parking, shared access, signs, land use, and the potential impact and appropriate timing for the extension of sewer and water should be initiated. The first and most important step will be the collection of data on traffic flow and traffic generation by road segment (see recommendations) . Downtown Saugatuck Downtown Saugatuck has a parking problem during the summer months. Low cost solutions have been difficult to find. However, discretionary tourist visits are likely being lost on peak days due to limited parking. Expert analysis is needed. Solutions should not include the establishment of above ground parking structures that significantly alter the character of the area. Public Open Space Acquisition Programs to acquire public open space should be initiated. One option is to create a local nonprofit land conseivancy. There are several very effective ones operating in Michigan. Priority should be given to building a trust fund for acquisition and mainten ance or tying into existing ones by the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations . Initial acquisitions should be the dune lands adjoining the channel. These lands should either be managed as a part of the City's holdings to the south and the State's to the north of the channel, or in common by all three jurisdictions, or by a conservancy trust. Considerable additional research and effort is needed. Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority The Township should join as'a full member of the authority and then the authority should be modified so that it is a more independent operating authority and not under the control of the legislative bodies of the three jurisdictions. This would distance it from poUtical influences in day to day administration. Efforts are presently underway to evaluate the potential for doing so. One Jurisdiction The benefits of merging the three communities into one jurisdiction far outweigh the detriments if the long term future of the area is considered. However, past efforts to do so have been met with failure and the citizen opinion survey still reflects an evenly divided electorate. Yet, no systematic analysis of the issue considering all aspects (planning, development control, cost, revenues. taxes , economic development, short versus long term, impact on community character. etc.) have ever been performed . Such an analysis should be done to more clearly lay out and analyze the issues. It should be undertaken by the three communities together, but could also be done by an outside group, such as the business community or a taxpayers organization. Periodic Updating and Revisions As these additional studies are undertaken the plan should be updated to reflect the new Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �12-8 information. At a m1nimum 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 insuring 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 trt-community area officials to pick from among the new tools, those that will provide greater choice over local destiny and quality of life. 1i"i-Community Comprehensive Plan �APPENDIX References A �REFERENCES Listed below are some of the key reports, studies, plans, and data sources which were used as references in the preparation of this plan. Other dat.a 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 referenced for economic data). U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980-Surnrnary Tape File 3A (microfiche) for Saugatuck. Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas. and Allegan County. HISTORY Joe Armstrong and John Pahl, River & Lake: A Seaqulcentennlal Hlatory OF Alletan County, Michigan, published by the 1835 Committee. 1985. MASTER 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. Soll Survey of Allegan County, Michigan. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, March 1987. OWNERSHIP Land Atlas and Plat Book, Allegan County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers. Inc .. 19871989. Saugatuck Township Plat Book, Township Treasurer's Office, Saugatuck, Township. RECREATION A Parks and Recreation Plan for Allegan County, Michigan, prepared for Allegan County by Williams & Works. Inc .. 1986. Saugatuck-Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan, prepared by the trt-community area Parks and Recreation Commission. with the assistance of the Saugatuck Public School District, February 1985. jr\ �SOLIDW.ASTE Allegan County Solid Waste Plan. prepared for the Allegan County Board of Comrnfssioners and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Allegan County Planning Comrnfssion. 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 Commission. Bureau of Research & Statistics. Detroit. Michigan. UTILITIES A Feasibtllty Study on the Uttllzatlon of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir, SaugatuckDouglas Water System. prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland Engineering, Inc., January 18, 1983. Factllties Plan for Wastewater. prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976. Saugatuck Township Area Uttllty Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson. Carr & Huber. Inc .. March 1988. Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommendations, Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc .. July 1, 1987. Village of Saugatuck Streets and Public Utlllties Condition Report, May 1984. Waterworks Reliabtllty 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. �APPENDIX B Demographic, Economic, and Housing Data �~ --- A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Age Cohorts (Raw Data) Saugatuck Douglas Area Saug . Twp . County ----------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------13 15 21 3 11 30 47 6 17 18 15 19 13 24 14 50 106 92 101 136 59 under 1 1-2 3-4 5 6 7-9 10-13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-61 62-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 23 11 17 19 6 36 59 14 15 23 18 14 16 22 18 60 84 72 106 82 48 17 30 85 49 4 21 27 138 57 26 61 52 94 46 46 86 212 67 55 73 67 37 80 80 53 188 297 330 349 483 215 46 132 333 210 47 25 26 56 24 29 20 106 47 23 32 34 4 51 34 21 78 107 166 142 265 108 8 75 110 104 17 1496 2560 2544 1289 1332 4274 5989 1522 1642 1758 1666 1392 1403 1402 1230 4267 6706 6503 9306 7820 3927 1172 1882 5151 2555 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 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 49 97 170 198 101 136 107 221 (4.5) (9.0) (15.8) (18.4) (9 . 4) (12.6) (9.9) (20.5) 51 134 186 156 106 82 95 138 (5.4) (14 . 1) (19.6) (16 . 5) (11.2) (8.6) (10 . 0) (14.6) 107 226 277 273 142 265 191 231 (6 . 3) (13.2) (16.2) (15.9) (8.3) (15.5) (11.2) (13.5) 207 457 633 627 349 483 393 590 (5.5) (12.2) (16 . 9) (16.8) (9.3) (12.9) (10.5) (15.8) 6,600 14,406 14,760 13,209 9,306 7,820 6,981 8,473 (8.1) (17.7) (18.1) (16 . 2) (11.4) (9 . 6) (8.6) (10.4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980). ~ �- 3. Change in Age Cohorts from 1960-1980 Age 1960 M/F 1960 - Tri-Community Area 1980 M/F 1980 Change 1960-80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------0-4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 121/140 274/249 133/146 129/139 170/166 142/147 115/163 196/232 261 523 279 268 336 289 278 428 (9.8) (19.6) (10.5) (10.1) (12.6) (10.9) (10.4) (16.1) 113/94 233/224 325/308 337/290 170/179 239/244 192/201 231/359 207 457 633 627 349 483 393 590 (5.5) (12.2) (16.9) (16. 8) (9.3) (12.9) (10.5) (15.8) -20.7% -12.6% 126.9% 134.0% 3.9% 67.1% 41.4% 37.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980). 4. Place of Birth Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp.* Area County ---------------------------------------------------------------------~--------- Michigan Another State Born Abroad Foreign Born 615 (56.9) 422 (39.1) 5 (0.4) 37 (3 .4) 577 (60.9) 320 (33.8) 2 (0.2) 49 (4.4) 990 (57.8) 598 (34.9) 124 (7. 2) 2182 (58.3) 1340 (35.8) 7 (0.2) 210 (5.6) 63,771 (78.2) 15,934 (19.5) 227 (0.3) 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 Same House Same County Another County Another State Abroad 503 187 228 117 (48.6) (18.0) (22.0) (11.3) 423 156 198 103 8 Douglas Saug. Twp. (47.9) (17.6) (22.4) (11.6) (0.9) 984 (59.5) 144 ( 8. 7) 244 (14.7) 280 (16.9) Area County 1910 487 670 500 (53.4) (13.6) (18. 7) (14.0) 8 (0.2) 44,575 (59.3) 15,428 (20.5) 10,923 (14.5) 3,962 (5.2) 241 (0.3) Source: (same as above), item 34. 6. Household Characteristics Total HHs Ave. HH size 2 parent fam. Female HH head Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. 537 2.00 219 41 391 2.44 222 31 633 2.69 411 28 Source: (same as above), items 10 and 20 County Area 1561 2.39 852 100 27,282 2.95 19,520 1,911 �7. Marital Status Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp -------------------------------------------------------Single Married Separated Widowed Divorced 262 (28.1%) 325 (23.9%) 467 (50.1%) 849 (62.5%) 25 (2.7%) 28 (2.1%) 107 (11.5%) 75 (5.5%) 72 (7.7%) 82 (6.0%) 177 (23.2%) 449 (58.8%) 16 (2.1%) 66 (8.7%) 55 (7.2%) Source: (same as above), item 26. B. HOUSING STOCK 1. Structure Type Saugatuck Douglas Area Saug Twp. County -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total units Year Round Units 1 in Structure 2 in Structure 3 and 4 in Struct 5 or more Mobile Homes Vacant, Seasonal, & Migratory 1 in Structure 2 in Structure 3-4 in Structure 5 or more Mobile Home/Trailer 772 569 385 49 68 60 7 529 406 290 20 16 40 40 850 734 636 32 203 150 6 18 29 123 108 116 106 5 66 11 4 5 2,151 1,709 1,311 101 84 100 113 31,864 28,985 23,190 1,001 583 1,199 3,012 442 364 22 22 29 5 2,879 2,250 51 57 153 368 ~ 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 1975-80 1970-74 1960-69 1950-59 1940-49 Pre 1940 36 (6.3) 19 (3.3) 51 (9.0) 73 (12.8) 56 (9.8) 334 ( 58. 7) Douglas 22 (5.5) 46 (11.3) 81 (19.9) 32 (7. 9) 36 (8.9) 189 (46.5) Source: (same as above), item 109. Saug Twp. 72 116 133 99 68 246 (9.8) (15.8) (18.1) (13.5) (9.3) (33.5) 130 181 265 204 160 769 Area County (7. 6) (10.6) (15.5) (11.9) (9.4) (45.0) 3568 (12.3) 4326 (14.9) 4458 (15.4) 3647 (12.6) 2507 (8.6) 10479 (36.2) �3. Occupancy Area Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. County • -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Units 850 2,151 772 529 31,864 Owner occupied 531 (62.4) 1,136 (52.8) 22,271 (69.8) 334 (43.2) 271 (51.2) Renter occupied 117 (13.7) 439 (20.4) 205 (26.5) 117 (22.1) 4,961 (15.5) Source: (same as above), item 97. C. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Type of Employment Saugatuck Private Wage/Salary 402 (73. 5) Federal Gov. 7 ( 1. 3) State Gov. 21 (3.8) Local Gov. 49 (9.0) Self Employed 68 (12.4) Unpaid Family Worke Douglas Saug Twp. Area County 333 (76. 9) 1 (0.2) 25 (5.8) 33 (7.6) 40 (9.2) 1 (0.2) 492 (71. 4) 11 ( 1. 6) 2 (0.3) 56 (8.1) 92 (13.4) 17 (2.5) 1227 (73.5) 19 ( 1.1) 67 (4.0) 138 (12.0) 200 (12.0) 18 (1.0) 26697 (78.5) 308 (0.9) 775 (2.3) 3022 (8.9) 2977 (8.7) 246 (0. 7) Twp/Douglas Area County 43,730,725 9,402,800 1,126,200 2,661,790 430,733 64,898,211 20,080,005 1,905,350 2,661,790 430,733 604,509,215 101,799, 772 50,272,956 153,232,546 3,251,687 ' Source: (same as above), item 67. 2. Real Property SEV - 1988 Saugatuck Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Developmental 21,167,486 10,677,205 779,150 N/C N/C County(%) 66.2 11. l 5.5 16.8 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 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 13,709,600 15,682,000 18,314,033 20,855,000 25,831,436 27,382,650 29,737,980 32,727,560 10,560,200 11,723,580 13,341,647 15,101,800 16,848,894 18,756,700 20,321,283 21,957,626 Saug Twp.* Saug. Twp.** 18,482,350 21,042,164 23,287,428 25,691,300 27,155,345 28,922,650 30,023,509 32,464,745 42,752,150 48,447,744 54,943,108 61,648,100 69,835,675 47,679,350 50,344,792 54,422,371 Area 42,752,150 48,447,744 54,943,108 61,648,100 69,835,675 75,062,000 80,082,772 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 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1 , 491 1,527 1,555 1,613 1,695 1 , 656 1,175 2,461 2,550 2,700 Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Field Analysis Unit. Detroit , Michigan , tel. 313-876-5427. 5. Persons in Poverty by Age Saugatuck Less than 55 55-59 60-64 65+ 67 3 Douglas Saug Twp. Area County 77 83 227 5181 281 206 1127 9 8 6 8 15 24 39 78 Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 93 . Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654. �APPENDIX C Public Opinion Survey Responses �SURVEY RESPONSES Saugatuck Twp., Village of Douglas and City of Saugatuck September 1988 Survey (numbers in italics are all%) RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Reg. voters: Lived here 10+ yrs: Plan to live here 10+ yrs: Live here 12 months: Own homes: Rent: Own/manage business: College grad or prof degree: Average age: Sex-Male: Sex-female: Employed: Employed in city or village: Retired: RESPONSE RATE City: Village: Township: City 85.4 62.6 69.6 60.8 94.0 3.4 11. 7 66.3 54.32 63.3 36.1 67.3 51.5 38.3 Village 87.6 55.7 75.0 73.5 78.4 17.1 21. 3 40.6 55.06 62.5 37.5 61. 4 64.5 38.0 Townshi:g 95.2 54.0 72.0 81. 0 92.0 27.5 16.7 46. 2 56.77 68 32 55.8 16.5 ( 34. 0 in Twp) 38.3 sent 726, received 372 + 11 renters = 51. 2% sent 550, received 257 + 30 renters = 46.7% sent 98 6, received 372 + 22 renters = 37.7% COMMUNITY VALUES Reasons for living in your community: Over 50% res:gonses City Small town atmosphere/ 85.4 Twp Rural Country atmos. Quiet Town 70.3 94.3 Friendly people Attractive beautiful surr. 94.0 Good place to raise kids 57.8 Trad. values 75.9 Freedom to be self Low crime 91. 0 64.0 Good schools Low taxes 78.3 Close to larger cities Avail. of good housing 53.9 Family in area Water based recreation 66.4 Not industrialized Convenient shopping HOW HAS COMMUNITY CHANGED? City Village Better: 32.8 24.6 Same: 43.2 56.6 Worse: 24.0 18.9 Village 84.6 87.9 86.9 85.7 57.3 57.1 79.0 90.3 61. 7 65.4 59.9 62.2 52.2 61. 2 53.6 50.6 Townshi:g 21.5 58.1 20.4 Townshi:g 87.70 90.7 70.0 82.6 69.8 58.8 73.2 82.8 59.4 73.9 50.8 58.9 57.9 �Community as is: City Sm Vlg 67.5 Village Sm Vlg 93.7 Township Rural Twp 72.4 As would lik~ it to be: Sm Vlg 65.3 Sm Vlg 76.8 Rural Twp 63.2 Sm Vlg 37.9 Sub 15.2 bdrm 23.1 City 23.9 Holl Sub 48.4 Rural Twp 19.9 bdrm 26.0 Small City 5.7 As you think it will be: Sm city 39.4 Holl sub 21.8 Sm vlg 19.7 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. rt COMMUNITY PROBLEMS How important do you feel each of these is to future of the 3 communities Over 50% City Village Townshi2 New job opportunities 52.5 Lack of hospital or after hrs 55.2 70.0 56.9 Parking downtown Saugatuck 67.2 65.8 69.5 Erosion along Lakeshore Dr. 74.1 61. 7 81. 0 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 57.4 Destruction of sand dunes 57.8 Inadequate water supply local planning 53.4 Inadequate 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 Village 72.8 46.7 50.8 50.6 50.2 42.1 Yes, sm . shopping ctrs . off major rds. No, strip commercial No large shopping center Not in downtown Saugatuck Not in downtown Douglas Not in scattered commercial areas City 47 . 5 67.6 48.9 53.9 51. 0 45.9 Location along Blue Star Highway City 59.4 North 69.8 South @ freeway interchg 60.6 Village 65.7 70.8 65 . 0 Twp 54.6 64.7 48.2 62.7 38.5 45.7 Township 74.1 65.2 52.1 BLUE STAR HIGHWAY With regard to Blue Star Highway, high priority (>50%) was accorded the following improvements: Township City Village Better lighting 51. 8 Uniform sign controls 52.3 50 . 3 Add a center turn lane 50.8 Improve appearance 76.8 66.8 61. 3 Better lane striping 62.3 51. 2 59.8 Resurfacing 65.3 66.3 73 . 5 Uniform speed limi 45 mph 57.1 56.6 60.0 Bike path 69.9 59.1 54.3 Fast food restaurants 50.7 50.0 50.5 More trees 61.2 Improve traffic flow & safety 59. 7 SAUGATUCK DOWNTOWN PRIORITIES Flowers & landscaping Historic Preservation More Parking Waterfront Park City Residents Only >50% 55.1 64.6 70.5 52.7 Is ther e a parking problem other than between Memorial Day and Labor Day? No - 72 . 2% (Saug . only) Options for providing pking downtown : Agreement to demolish old public works building Disagree buying additional property Disagree leaving problem to merchants Narrow agreement about creating a partnership between city & bus . Agree Disagree Unsure 50 . 6 47.5 25.6 32.6 38 . 4 61.5 16 . 8 14.1 12.9 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. City Village Township 52.3 43.4 49.1 Favor 33.8 44.9 Oppose 27.6 Uncertain 9.9 11.6 23.4 RESIDENTIAL (over 30%) Needed now Apartments Detached SF homes $50-70,000 Low income housing Not needed Waterfront Condos Mobile homes Senior housing Low income housing Country Estates City 37.1 52.6 Village 52.4 60.6 39.8 90.4 81. 4 71. 4 58.8 Ifil2. 37.4 49.2 37.7 89.5 58.3 38.1 48.9 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 - 65.2 Lower than downtown Saugatuck 62.3 �RECREATION Additional facilities Lakefront open space (MI): (#1) Vlg lkfrt open space (Kal Lake): (#3) Vlg rvrfrt open space (Kal River): Bike paths: Cross country skiing: Hiking trails City 60.7 49.7 48.6 68.0 61. 5 Village 69.6 69.1 65.1 66.5 43.8 Twp 67.0 61. 9 61. 8 64.4 59.8 62.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION No new development in: forested sand dunes open sand dunes wetlands & swamps inland wetlands & swamps 81. 0 84.4 73.1 70.6 Village Township 76.7 78.6 72.0 87.4 82.8 72.6 71. 6 62. 3 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 City 61-64% Kazoo River & Lake - poor/very poor: Lake Michigan - good/very good: 50% 40-48% Silver Lake - most "didn't know": Village 66-70% 33.5% ~ 58-64% 31.8% 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. Agree Uncertain Disagree City 40.6 11. 9 47.4 Village 42.4 23.4 34.2 Township 40.0 12.6 47.4 �rt 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. Agree Uncertain Disagree 28.5 Village 49.8 21. 7 67.5 Township 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 Home 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 67.0 66.4 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% City Village Fire protection 71. 0 64.5 First responder 69.7 64.3 Interurban 73.8 75.4 Library 65.2 69.8 Park maintenance 55.7 52.7 Police protection 53.2 69.7 Schools K-6 65.7 63.3 Schools 7-12 59.4 58.0 Schools Comm Ed 60.8 51. 3 62.4 Sewer service 53.5 62.4 Snow removal 61. 3 Vlg. playground equip 57.9 Twp cemeteries State Police (Twp) - -- - - = Township 67.4 66.4 71. 4 51. 3 53.9 62.4 81. 8 �Those rated poor to very poor by more than 50%. City Village 65.6 Land use planning 64.9 Parking downtown (Saug) 74.0 Property assessment 68.2 Street resurfacing 62.1 Animal control High priorities for spending tax dollars Village City 72.7 82.9 Preventing crime 58.9 Enforcing Ord. 86.8 91. 8 Fire protection 74.2 72.9 Ambulance service 86.1 83.4 Water supply Sewer service 83.9 66.8 78.7 71. 3 Street repair 55.4 Improving City appearance Planning for future 79. 7 65.7 Waterfront improvement 56. 2 54.5 Interurban bus. serv. 56.6 Economic Development 56.1 Road resurfacing Township 56.3 55.7 Township 88.1 81. 0 61. 0 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 41. 8 24 hour medical service 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 Village City Townshi2 It would be ,nice to have better services, but not if it means 58.4 43.7 an increase in property taxes 63.0 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: Not Very Respon. Very Res2on. 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 27.2 Uncertain 34.5 20.1 �Those responding Yes above: City 52.2 Sewer 54.0 Water 37.1 Stormwater 50.1 Police 44.4 Streets & Rds 41. 8 Pks & Summer Rec 44.1 Planning 44.9 Zoning Bldg permits 30.5 City Manager 28.5 Munic Vehicle Maint 36.8 Village 53.0 54.7 34.1 47.4 44.6 44.6 38.3 32.8 28.2 24.0 51.2 Township 45.7 44.2 26.9 43.1 35.3 35.5 35.3 29.4 21. 6 27.9 27.4 Should the City of Saugatuck, Village of Douglas and Twp.of Saugatuck consolidate into a single unit of government? City Village Township Yes 52.8 47.5 49.4 No 47.2 52.5 50.6 �APPENDIX D Soil Types - Tri-Community Area Ii �SOIL TYPES · TRI-COMMUNITY AREA SOILTYPE AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER LIMITATIONS FOR SEPI'ICTANK ABSORPTION FIELDS LIMITATIONS FOR DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENTS CATEGORY A- SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, LOW WATER TABLE Chelsea loamy fine sand, 0-6% Chelsea loamy fine sand, 6-12% Chelsea loamy fine sand, 12-18% Chelsea loamy fine sand, 18-30% Oakville fine sand, 0-6% Oakville fine sand, 6-18% Oakville fine sand, 18-45% Oakville fine sand, loamy substratum, 0-6% Urban land- Oakville complex, 0-6% 44B 44C 44D 44E l0B lOC l0E 53B 72B SE4 SE4 SEl, SE4 SEl, SE4 SE4 SE4 SEl, SE4 SE3, SE5, SE4 SL SL MDl SEl SEl SL MDl SEl SL SE4 CATEGORY B - SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, mGH WATER TABLE Brady sandy loam, 0-3% Covert sand, 0-4% Matherton loam, 0-3% Metea loamy fine sand, 1-6% Metea loamy fine sand, 6-12% Morocco fine sand, 0-3% Morocco-Newton complex, 0-3% Pipestone sand, 0-4% Thetford loamy fine sand, 0-4% Tedrow fine sand,0-4% 19A 57A 22A 27B 27C 70A 15B 26A 51A 49A SE3 SE3, SE4 SE3, SE4 SE4, SE5 SE4, SE5 SE3, SE4 SE3, SE4 SE3, SE4 SE3 SE3, SE4 SE3 MD3 SE3 SL MDl SE3 SE3 SE3 SE3 SE3 SE3, SE5 SE3, SE5 SE3, SE5 SE5, SE3 SE5,SE3 SE3 SE5 SEl, SE5 SEl, SE5 SE3, SE5 SE5, SE3 SE3, SE5 SE5, SE3 SE3 SE3 SE3 MD3,MD2 MDl, MD2, MD3 SE3 MDl SEl SEl SL SE3 SE3 SL CATEGORY C - WET, HEAVY, SLOW PERMEABILITY Blount silt loam, 1-4% Capac loam, 0-6% Capac-Wixom complex, 1-4% Glynwood clay loam, 1-6% Glynwood clay loam, 6-12% Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0-3% Marlette loam, 6-12% Marlette loam, 12-18% Marlette loam, 18-35% Marlette-Capac loams, 1-6% Metamora sandy loam, 1-4% Rimer loamy sand, 0-4% Seward loamy fine sand, 1-6% 41B 16B 21B 8B SC 33A 14C 14D 14E 75B 42B 28A 60B Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �~ SOILTYPE AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER LIMITATIONS FOR SEPI'IC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS LIMITATIONS FOR DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENTS CATEGORY D - VERY WET SOILS, ORGANICS, FLOODPLAINS /• Adrian muck Algansee loamy sand, protected, 0-3% Aquents and Histosols, ponded Belleville loamy sand Brookston loam Belleville-Brookston complex Cohoctah silt loam, Cohoctah silt loam, protected Colwood silt loam Corunna sandy loam Dune land and beaches Glendora loamy sand Glendora loamy sand, protected Granby sandy loam Houghton muck Martisco muck Napolean muck Newton mucky fine sand Palms muck Pewamo silt loam Sebewa loam Sloan silt loam 6 73A 50 48 17 64 29 65 30 36 4 2 74 39 5 67 47 69 7 45 23 62 SE6, SE4 SE3, SE4 SE6, SEl0 SES, SE3 SE6, SE5 SE6 SE6, SE5 SE3, SES SE6 SE6 SE6, SE5 SE6 SE6 SE6 SES, SE3 SES, SE6 SE6 SE6 SE6, SE3, SE4 SE6, SE4 SE6, SE4 SE6, SE5 SES, SE6, SES SE6 SE6, SE4 SEll, SE6 SE5, SE6 SE4,SE6 SE8,SE3,SE5 SES, SE3 SES, SE6 SE6 SE6, SEl0 SES, SE6 SE6, SEl0 SE6 SE6, SEl0 SE6 SE6 SES, SE3 CATEGORY E - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 6-12% Ockley loam, 12-18% Ockley loam, 18-30% Riddles loam, 6-12% Tekenink loamy fine sand, 6-12% Tekenink loamy fine sand, 12-18% Tekenink loamy fine sand, 18-35% 12C 12D 12E 63C 31C 31D 31E MDl SEl SEl MDl MDl SEl SEl MD2,MD1 SEl SEl MD1,MD2 MDl SEl SEl CATEGORY F - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 1-6% Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 0-6% Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 6-12% Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 12-18% Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 18-35% Riddles loam, 1-6% Tekenink loamy fine sand, 2-6% 12B llB llC llD llE 63B 31B SL SL MDl SEl SEl SL SL ·1 t Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan MD2 SL MDl SEl SEl MD2 SL �UNCLASSIFIED SOILS Aquents, sandy and loamy Pits Udipsarnments 34 18 66 KEY FOR LIMITATION CODES SEVERE LIMITATIONS: SEl SE2 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 SE7 SEB SE9 SEl0 SEll SLOPE SHRINK-SWELL WETNESS POOR FILTER PERCS SLOWLY PONDING CUTBANKSCAVE FLOODING EXCESSIVE HUMUS LOW STRENGTH SUBSIDES MODERATE LIMITATIONS: MDl MD2 MD3 SLOPE SHRINK-SWELL WETNESS SLIGHT LIMITATIONS: SL SLIGHT LIMITATIONS Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Tri-Community_Comprehensive-Plan_1989 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee, City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and Village of Douglas, Allegan County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1989-11 Title A name given to the resource Joint Comprehensive Plan Description An account of the resource The Joint Comprehensive Plan for the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the Village of Douglas was prepared by the Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee in cooperation with Coastal Zone Management Program and with the assistance of Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. in November 1989. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Saugatuck Township (Mich.) Allegan County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f1032a90b793824c8686b2b87f9ef5ef.pdf 93ee417f10154033b16c83a4a555745b PDF Text Text �. JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF SAUGATUCK, SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP AND CITY OF VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS Prepared by the Tri-Community Planning Committee Saugatuck City Planning Commission City of Village of Douglas Planning Commission Saugatuck Township Planning Commission Saugatuck City Council City of Village of Douglas Council Saugatuck Township Board of Trustees With assistance of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 715 N. Cedar St. Suite 2 Lansing, Ml 48906-5275 517-886-0555 517/886-0564 Fax www.pzcenter.com With financial assistance from the Coastal Zone Management Program of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The views presented herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA, the DEQ or any of its sub-agencies. June 2005 Update of 1989 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan �TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Goals & Policies: The Area Wide Policy Plan Introduction .............. ... .. .. .. ....... ... ..... ... ... .. .... ... ................. ............... ...... .. .............. ...... 1-1 Ovet arching Goal ........ ... .. .. .................... ...... .. .. .. .... ....... ....... ...... ..... ..... ............. .......... 1-2 Community Character ... ...... ..... .......................... .... ............................ ... .. ... ... ...... ........ 1-2 Growth Management. .. ........ .... ... .... ................. .... ....... ... ... ..... ..... ........... ........ .... .... ... ... 1-4 Ten Tenets of Smart Growth ............ ............. ... ...... ... .......... .. ... ........ .... .. .................. ... 1-4 Land Use and Community Facilities ...... .. .. .. ..... .. .... ........ ................ .. .. .. .............. ..... .... 1-5 Agriculture ....... .. ... ...... .... ... .. ........ .... ... .................................... .... .... .... ..... .. .... ... .... .... ... 1-5 Economic Development ... ........ ..... ...... ..... .... ......... .. .... ... ...................... .. ... ........ .......... 1-6 Commercial ... ... ..... ..... ...... .... ..... ..... .... .... ........................ ........ .... ... ............ .. ......... ...... . 1-7 Industrial ..... ........... ..... ............. ... ... ... ... .. .... ....... .... .... ........ .. ............... .... ... ... ..... .... ...... 1-9 Cultural/Historic/Archeological ....... ............. .. .......... ..... ... ... ...... .. ... .... ............. .......... . 1-10 Housing/Residential ..... .... ........ ......... ... .... ..................... .. ..................... ............. ........ 1-10 Special Environments and Open Space ..... ..... ...... .. ..... .. ..... ... ... ........... ... .. ..... .......... . 1-12 Waterfront ... .. ... ....... ....... .. ...... ......... ................ ... .. ........ ......... ........ ... .. .............. ... ... ... 1-13 Recreation .. ... ..... ...... .... ....... .............. .. .. ........ ..... .. .... ..... ....... .... ... ...... .... ..... .... ... .. .. ... 1-14 Transportation ............. .... ...... ........ ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ....... ........... ..... ... ... ........ ........ ......... ...... 1-15 Water and Sewer ..... .......... ........ ... .... .. ................ ..... .......... .... ................ ................... 1-16 Police, Fire and Emergency Services ... ..... ........................................ ... ... ........ ... ... ... . 1-17 Social Services .... .... ...... .... ...... ... .... ... .. ........ ........ .... .... .. ...... ........ .. ............ ..... ... ....... 1-17 Waste Management ........ ...... ... ....... .. ........... ... ...... .. ........ .... .. .............. .. .. .. .. .............. 1-17 Energy ........ .... .. .. ... .... ............. ......... .... .. .. .. .. .... ..... .. ...... ........ ....... ... ........... ..... ........ .. 1-18 Chapter 2: Demographics Introduction ...... ............ .. ............... .. ............ .. ........ ... ............................ ... .. ..... ... .... ...... 2-1 Population Size .................. ... ...... ... ........................ ..... ........... ....... .. .... .. .. .. .... ..... ....... .. 2-1 Projected Population ... ..... .. ........... ...... .... ... ... ...... ....... .. .... .... .. .... .... ......... ... .......... .. ..... 2-1 Seasonal Population .... .. ... ........... .... .... ......... ................. ..... ... ... ..... ......... ....... ... .. .. .... .. 2-2 Households and Average Household Size .................... .................... ..... .. ............. ... ... 2-2 Educational Attainment ..... ... ..... ........ ............ ..... .. ..................... ... ... ... .... ........... ... .... ... 2-6 Chapter 3: Economics ... ...... ..... ..... ... ..... .................... ... .. ................ ... ...... .. ......... .. .... 3-1 Introduction ................ ....... ..... .... .. .. ... ......... ..... ...... .......... ..... ..... ... .. ....... ... ...... ........... .. 3-1 Economic Base .. ..... .. .... .... ........ ... ..... ... ....... .. .. ................ ........ .. ...... .. ......... .. ...... ... ... .. . 3-1 lncome ................. ..... ..... .. .. .. .. .... .... .... .. ... ............... .... ........ ... .... ... .. .... ... .......... .... ..... ... 3-1 House Value .. ........................ ...................... ... ..... ... .. .. ... ......... ... .... .. ............. ........... .. . 3-1 Work Force ... .. ..... ... ......... .. ... .................. .. ......... ................ ....... ... ... ...... .......... ...... .... .. 3-2 Employers ..... ........ ............ ....... ........ .. ..... ... ... ... ... ..... ....... .. .......... .. .. ....... ............. ... ..... 3-3 SEV ......................... ... ... .... ... ... ... ..... ... ............... ... ... .... ......... ......... ............ ...... ........... 3-3 Building Permits .. .................... .. ... ..... ............. ...... ... ........ ... ... ... .. ... ... .... ........ ........... .... 3-5 Chapter 4: Natural Resources and the Environment Introduction .. ..... ..... ...... ... ........... ........... ..... ... ... ..... ..... ....... .. ..... ... ... .... .... ... .. .............. .. 4-1 Climate .. .. ................. ..... ... .. ....... ..... ..... ....... ...... ..... ......... .. ..... ... .. ......... ... ... .... ........... .. . 4-1 Geology ... .... ..... .. ...... .... .. ... ..... .............. ..... ... .......... ..... ... ... ............... ... .... .. ..... .. .......... 4-2 Topography .. ........ ....... ...... .... .. .... ... ........... ..... ............. ... .. .. .... ... ..... ..... ....... ........... .. .. .. 4-2 Drainage ...... ... ..... .. ....... .... .... .. ..... .. ... ....... ..... ... ....... ..... .......... .... ... .. ... ... ....... ... ...... .... .. 4-5 Floodplains ......... ...... .. ...... ..... ..... ........ .. .... ... ... ... .... ... ......... ..... ..... .. .. ... ... ... .. ........ ..... ... 4-5 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 �TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Chapter 4: Natural Resources and the Environment, continued Wetlands .. ........ ....... ........ ................... ..... ........... .. .............. ....... ......... ..... ... .. .... ........... 4-7 Soil~ ............................................................................................................................ 4-8 Basement Limitations .............................................................................................. 4-8 Septic Limitations .................................................................................................... 4-8 Standards for Septic Systems ...... .. ...... ....... ..... .. .... ..... ........ ... .. ... ... .. .............. ..... ... . 4-11 Single Family Residential ........................................................................................ 4-11 All Other Residential, Plus Commercial .. ............................................................... .. 4-12 Hydric Soils ............................................................................................................. 4-12 Prime Farmland ....................................................................................................... 4-13 Groundwater ................. .. ............................................................................................ 4-16 Special Features ................................. .. ......... .......... ........... .............. .... ...... ..... ... .... .. .. 4-18 Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches ................ ................ ................................... 4-18 Sand Dunes ................. ................... .. .............. ...................................... ........ .......... 4-23 Woodlands .................................................................................................................. 4-23 Chapter 5: Existing Land Cover and Use Introduction .. .......... .. .................... .... ... .. ...... ........ ..... ..... .. ............... ......... .... .. .............. 5-1 Land Use/Cover Data Sources .. ...... ......... .. ....... .............. ................. ........................... 5-1 Land Use by Tax Class ... ............ .... ..... .................. ..... ..................... .............. ...... .... 5-3 Agricultural .................................................................................................................. 5-6 Prime Farmlands ................. .. ...... .. ..... .. .......... .......... ......... ...... ... ... ... ......... .............. 5-6 Michigan Farmland Preservation Act.. ..................................................................... 5-6 Residential .................................................................................................................. 5-6 Lakeshore Area ....................................................................................................... 5-6 Kalamazoo River ..... ... ..... ... ..... .. ... .......... ........ ........... ..... .............. ...................... ..... 5-7 Rural Areas ............................................................................................................. 5-7 Douglas ................................................................................................................... 5-7 Saugatuck .......................... .......... ............. ... .... .. ....... ..... ... ... ......... ..... .. .. ..... ..... ....... 5-7 Commercial .. ..... ....... .. ....... .. .................. .. ..... .... ........ .. ....................... ..... ... ... .. .. ........... 5-8 Blue Star Highway ................................................................................................... 5-8 Downtown Saugatuck ............................................................................................. 5-8 Douglas Village Center ... ................................ ...... ... ........................ ....... .......... .... .. . 5-8 Industrial .... ........ ........ ..... .......... ............. .............. ...... .. .. ... ........ ...... ....... ............. ..... .. . 5-9 Cultural, Historical, and Archeological Resources .................................................. ..... 5-9 Community Cultural Base .... .. ....... ... ................... ......... ... ... ... ... ..... ...... ..... .......... ...... 5-9 Community Historic Character.................. ... ........ ................. ...... ... ...................... .... 5-9 Historic Buildings and Sites ...................... ....... ................ ... .. .. ............. ..... ......... .. .. .. 5-9 Historic Districts ...................................................................................................... 5-1 O Douglas Historical Preservation Committee ............................................................ 5-10 Archaeological Sites ................................................................................................ 5-11 • Chapter 6: Public Facilities and Services Introduction ..... .......... ....... ................ ....... .... .. ............ ... ......... ....... ..... ... ... ...... ... ... ........ 6-1 Utilities .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ......... ... ..... .. ........................................... .......... ........... ... ..... ... ...... .. ... 6-1 Sewer and Water Authority ..................................................................................... 6-1 Water System ... ..... ...... ..................... ... ....... .......... ... ... ......................... ... ....... .... .. ... 6-1 Sewer System ................ ... ...... ....... .................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... ... ..... ... .. ....... ...... ........ 6-4 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 ii �,... TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Chapter 6: Public Facilities and Services, continued Overview of Sewer Agreement ................................................................................ 6-4 Storm Sewers ......................................................................................................... 6-5 County Drains ......................................................................................................... 6-5 Gas Electric, Telephone and Cable ......................................................................... 6-7 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 6-7 Overview ................................................................................................................. 6-7 Road Classifications and Volumes .......................................................................... 6-7 Traffic Counts ........................................................................................................ 6-10 Speed Limits ......................................................................................................... 6-12 Crash Locations .................................................................................................... 6-12 Blue Star Highway ................................................................................................. 6-13 Lakeshore Drive .................................................................................................... 6-15 Transit ................................................................................................................... 6-15 Non-motorized Transportation ............................................................................... 6-15 Air ......................................................................................................................... 6-16 Police, Fire and Emergency Services ........................................................................ 6-16 Police .................................................................................................................... 6-16 Fire ........................................................................................................................ 6-16 Emergency Services ............................................................................................. 6-16 Hospitals ............................................................................................................... 6-17 Schools ..................................................................................................................... 6-17 Solid Waste Disposal ................................................................................................ 6-20 Brush and Leaf Pickup .......................................................................................... 6-21 Public Facilities ......................................................................................................... 6-21 Chapter 7: Recreation and Open Space Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7-1 Administrative Structure .............................................................................................. 7-2 Areawide Recreational Opportunities .......................................................................... 7-2 Physical Recreation ................................................................................................ 7-3 Social Recreation .................................................................................................... 7-4 Cognitive Recreation ............................................................................................... 7-5 Environmentally Related Recreation ....................................................................... 7-5 Recreation Inventory ................................................................................................... 7-6 Recreational Needs and Use ...................................................................................... 7-11 Non-Motorized Trails and Bike Paths ...................................................................... 7-12 Waterfront Open Space ........................................................................................... 7-15 Senior Citizens Center ............................................................................................ 7-15 Recreation and Local Spending .................................................................................. 7-16 Open Space Protection ............................................................................................... 7-16 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 7-17 Chapter 8: Waterfront Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8-1 Watersheds of the Kalamazoo River Basin ............................................................. 8-2 Primary Ecosystems ................................................................................................... 8-5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 8-6 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 iii �J TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Chapter 8: Waterfront, continued Bacterial Pollution ................................................................................................. 8-13 Lal<e Levels .. ... ..... ...... ................... ..... ........ .................... ..... ... .......... .. ... ............ ........ 8-13 Harbor ....................................................................................................................... 8-14 Marine Safety ............................................................................................................ 8-21 Existing Land Use Along Waterfront. ..... ... .. .............. ..... ............................................ 8-22 High Water/Low Water ...... ... ...... ... ..... ...... .. ..................... .. .............. ........ ... ..... ...... 8-22 Acquisition and Development of Public Lands Along the Waterfront. ..................... 8-24 Limiting the Intensity of Development.. .................................................................. 8-25 Retaining Visual Access, Aesthetics and the Character of the Area ........... ........... 8-26 Surface Water Use Conflicts ........ ........... ... .... .. ............................... ................ ..... .... . 8-27 Recommendations to Guide Future Use ................................................................... 8-27 Need for Intergovernmental Cooperation .................................................................. 8-28 Chapter 9: Growth and Development Trends Introduction .......... .. ... ............. .. .... ....... ................. ... ..... .. ... ........... ... ....... ........ .. .. ...... ... 9-1 Growth Rates .......................................................................................................... 9-1 Residential & Commercial Construction ........................... .. .. ...... .......................... .. . 9-5 Policy Implications ....................................................................................................... 9-6 Chapter 10: Future Land Use lntroduction .............................................................................................................. 10-1 Planning and Design Principles ................................................................................ 10-1 Protection of Public Health and Safety ................................................................. 10-3 Conservation of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 10-3 Environmental Protection ................................................................ ...... ...... ......... 10-3 Minimizing Public Service Costs ........................................................................... 10-3 Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting Land Use Needs ..................................... 10-3 Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses .......................................................... 10-4 Development and Conservation Areas ..................................................................... 10-4 Preservation of Community Character...................................................................... 10-4 Residential ............................................................................................................... 10-5 Commercial .............................................................................................................. 10-5 Industrial .......... ... ... ............................ .. ......................... ........................................... 10-6 Agricultural ............................................................................................................... 10-7 Waterfront Mixed Use .............................................................................................. 10-7 Greens pace and Preserve .... .... ................... ........................................................ ... . 10-7 Highway Buffer ......................................................................................................... 10-8 Chapter 11: Zoning Plan Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11-1 What is a Zoning Plan? ............................................................ ........... ................. .... 11-1 Relationship to Joint Comprehensive Plan ........... .................... .................... .... ........ 11-1 Districts and Dimensional Standards ........................................................................ 11-1 City of Saugatuck ............................................... ............. ............. .... ............... .... 11-2 Commercial Districts ..... .... ........... ..... .............. .... .................... .. ....... ........... .... 11-2 Residential Districts ....................................................................................... 11-2 Cultural/Community District. ........................................................................... 11-3 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 iv �TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Chapter 11: Zoning Plan, continued Conservation and Recreation District ........ ..... .. ... .. .... ... ......... .. ....................... 11-3 • Mixed Use District .... ..... ... .. .... ... ... .. .... .... ..... ........ ... .... .. .... .. ..... ..... ...... ............ 11 -3 Saugatuck Township ...... .......... ...... ... ... ... ....... ............ .... .... .. ...... ..... .... ............. .. 11-4 Rural Districts .... ........ ... .. ....... ..... .. ..... .... ......... .. .... ... ... .... .......... ... .. .... ... .. ... ..... 11-4 Residential Districts ...... ............ ...... ........ ......... ... ................ ... ..... ... ................. 11-5 Commercial Districts .... ....... .. ................ .. ....... .......... .. ........ .. .... ....... ...... .... .... .. 11-5 Industrial District ...... .. .. ... .... ... .. .... .... ..... ..... .... ...... ... ..... ..... ... .. ... .... .......... .. .. .... 11 -6 City of the Village of Douglas .... .... .. ............... ... .... ........... ...... ......... ... .. ........ ....... 11-7 Residential Districts ............ ..... ... ......... ..... .... ..... .............. ..... ..... ...... ...... ... ... ... 11-7 Commercial Districts .. ... ... .... .. ..... ... ... ............... .. ......... .... ... .. ..... .... ........... .. ..... 11-7 Industrial Districts ............... .. .. .... .... .... ...... ....... .......... .. ....... .......... .................. 11-7 Public Lands District .. .... ............ ...... ........................... ........ ... ......... ................ 11-7 Chapter 12: Intergovernmental Cooperation Introduction ......... .... ........ .... ... ..... ........ .... ............ ................ ... ............ ...................... 12-1 Tri-Community Intergovernmental Cooperation Issues .. ........ ............ ... .. .. ..... .. ... .... .. 12-1 Adjoining Jurisdiction Issues ...... .. ... ............ .. ... ........... ... .... ...... ...... ... .... ... ... ..... ........ 12-2 Chapter 13: Strategies for Implementation Introduction ..... ... ... ........ .. ...... ... .......................... ... ..... ... .. .... ........ ...... ... ..... ..... .... ... ... 13-1 Elements of Successful Plan Implementation ...... ...... .. ... ... ...... ...... .. .. ......... ... .. ... ... ... 13-1 Central Ingredients .. .... .. ... .. ............ ....... ..... .... ... .. .. .... ... ... .... ....... ....... .. ....... ..... .. ... 13-1 Focusing on Priorities ...... ...... ............... ..................................... .... ......... ..... ... ...... 13-1 Annual Tasks .. .......... .... ..... .... ... ............. ....... .. ... ..... .... ... ... .... ... ... .. .. .... .. ..... ........ .. 13-1 Priority Recommendations to be Implemented ..... .. .. ...... .... .... .............. .... ......... .. .... . 13-2 All Three Jurisdictions Together ....... .... ...... .. .... .... ... ... ... .......... .... ... ................. ..... 13-2 Governing Body Priorities ............... ...... .................. ....... ............. .... ..... ....... ... .... ... 13-2 Planning Commission Priorities .................. ... ... ..... ......... .. ...... ....... ...... .. ........ ... .... 13-2 Saugatuck City ............. ...... ... ... ...... ... .......... ....... .... .... ... ... ..... ... .... ...... ...... .......... .. 13-3 City of the Village of Douglas .. ..... ..... ... .... ............... ...... ... ... .... ...... ..... .. ..... .. .. ...... . 13-4 Saugatuck Township ............................ ... ... ............. ........................ ........... .. ........ 13-4 Key Strategies to be Implemented ........... .... ..... ...................... ..... .......... .. ................ 13-5 Bibliography Appendix: Results of 2004 Citizen Opinion Survey See separate file on CD Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 V �TABLE OF CONTENTS continued LIST OF MAPS 4-1 ' Tri-Community Topography .... .... .. ....... ............ ... ...... ..... ..... ..... .. ....... .... .. ....... ..... 4-4 4-2 Tri-Community Floodplains ... ...... ..... ........... .. .......... ....... ......... ................. ........... 4-6 4-3 Tri-Community Wetlands and Hydric Soils ......... ... .... ....... .. .. .. ..... ..... .. .... .... ..... ... . 4-9 4-4 Tri-Community Development Limitations .... .. .... .... .. ....... .. .. .. .... .. ... ..... ... .. .... ........ 4-10 4-5 Prime Farmlands with Agricultural Protection ........ .. ......... ... ...... ................. ......... 4-15 4-6 Tri-Community Groundwater Vulnerability and Well Locations ... .... .. .. ...... ....... .... 4-17 4-7 Tri-Community High Risk Erosion Areas ... ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ..... ............ ...................... 4-22 4-8 Tri-Community Critical Dunes Areas ... .. ... .. ... ...... ....... ............... .... ... .. .... .... ...... .. . 4-24 4-9 Tri-Community Woodlands ............. ......... ....... ..... .... ..... .... ... ....... ... ..... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... 4-25 5-1 Tri-Community Land Cover/Land Use, 1996 ... ...... .. ....... .... ................. .. .. .. .... ...... 5-2 5-2 Tri-Community Land Use by Tax Class, 2003 .... .. ..... ... .... .... ....... ...... .... ...... ... ..... 5-5 5-3 Saugatuck Historic District ....... ....... .. ......... ... .............................. ...... ... .. .... ..... .. .. 5-13 6-1 Tri-Community Utilities .......................... .......... .... .. ... .... ........ ... ......... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. . 6-3 6-2 Tri-Communities County Drains in the ..... .. ..... .... .... ..... ........... ............... ........... ... 6-6 6-3 Road Classifications .... .. ... .... .. ...... ... ............ .. ..... .... ... ....... .. ... .... .... ..... .......... ...... . 6-9 6-4 Tri-Community Traffic Count Locations .... ..... ...... .. .. ... .. .. ... .... .... ...... .. ... ... ..... .. .... . 6-14 6-5 Tri-Community Public Facilities and School Districts ..... .... .. .... ...... .. ............. ....... 6-19 7-1 Tri-Community Recreation Facilities .... .. .... .......... ........... .... ... ...... .... ........... ... .. .... 7-8 7-2 Tri-Community Area Proposed Bike Paths .... .... .... .. .. .. ................ .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ........ . 7-14 7-3 Tri-Community Greenspace Elements ... ... ..... ... .... .. .... ...... ...... ... ........ ........ ..... ..... 7-19 8-1 Tri-Community Watersheds ........ ..... ...... ....... .. .... ... .. ...... .. .. ...... .. ... ... .. ... ... .... ....... . 8-4 8-2 Kalamazoo River Wild-Scenic River Segment.. ......... ...... ... ... .. .. .... ... ........ .. .... ... .. 8-7 8-3 Saugatuck Harbor Chart ..... ........ ..... .. ... .... .. ..... .......... ........ .. .... ... ........ ...... .... ...... 8-16 8-4 Marinas in Saugatuck/Douglas ................. .. ..... ............................ ........ ....... .... ..... 8-18 10-1 Future Land Use Map ... .... ...... ... .............. ......... ... .. .... ...... .......... .. ..... ... .......... ... .. 10-2 LIST OF TABLES • 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 Population in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 .. .. .... .. .............. ... ................ ........ 2-1 Population in the Tri-Communities, 2000-2020 ......... ....... ..... ..... .... ... .. ... .. ........... 2-2 Seasonal Housing Units, 2000 .... ....... ......... ......... ............. .............. .... ......... ... ... 2-2 Households in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 .................. .. ..... ..... ... .. .. .... ... ... .. 2-3 Persons per Household in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 ....... ..... .... .. ............ 2-3 Tri-Community Educational Attainment, 2004 ..... ........ ................... ............ ..... .. . 2-7 Tri-Community Median Income, 1990-2000......... .. ... ..... ...... ..... .. .. ........... ...... .... . 3-1 Tri-Community Median Home Value, 1990-2000 ... ... ... ........... ... ..... .... .. .. .. ..... .... . 3-2 Tri-Community Workforce and Unemployment Rate, 2003 ... ... .... .. ...... ... .. .. .... .... 3-2 Tri-Community Major Employers and Number of Employees, 2004 ..... .. ........ ..... 3-3 Tri-Community State Equalized Value, 1995 and 2003 ...... .. .... ... ...... ... ... ..... .. .... 3-4 Tri-Community Number of Building Permits for New Structures, 2000-2003 .. .. ... 3-5 Summary of Relevant Climate Conditions ... ............ ...... .. ..... .... .. ... ... .... ... ..... ... .. .4-2 Revised PA 116 Contract List as of 9-30-2004 ....... ... ........ .... .. ... ..... ... ......... ... .. 4-14 Tri-Community Land Use/Land Cover, 1978 & 1996 .... ......... ....... .. .......... ..... ..... 5-3 Land Use by Tax Class, Saugatuck City, Saugatuck Township and City of the Village of Douglas, in Acres, 2003 ...... .. ........ ... .. ... ... ... ..... .... .. ............. ............ .. . 5-4 5-3 State Historic Sites ...... .............. ... ... ...... ...... ... ... .... .... .. ....... .... ... ........ ...... ...... ... 5-12 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 vi �TABLE OF CONTENTS continued List of Tables, continued 6-1 Tri-Community Traffic Counts ........................................................................... 6-11 6-2 • Enrollment in Schools Serving the Tri-Communities ......................................... 6-17 6-3 Tri-Community Public Facilities ........................................................................ 6-23 7-1 Summer Recreation Programs ...................... .......... ..... ............ ........... ............. 7-4 7-2 Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Facilities ........................................................ 7-7 7-3 Planned Improvements in Tri-Community Parks ............................................... 7-9 7-4 Planned Recreational Projects and Acquisitions ............................................. 7-11 7-5 Community Opinion on Recreation and Facilities, 2004 ................................... 7-12 7-6 Support for Recreation-Related Services if Increased Property Taxes Required ............. .... ... ... ....... ... ..... ............ ................ ... ..... ..................... . 7-16 8-1 Mean Monthly Flow of Kalamazoo River ......... .......... ... .. .................................. 8-5 8-2 Exceedance Flows of the Kalamazoo River ..................................................... 8-5 8-3 Kalamazoo River Area of Concern Impairments ............................................... 8-10 8-4 Saugatuck/Douglas Marinas .. ....... ............. ...... .. ...... .. ..................... ........... .. .... 8-19 8-5 Tri-Community Boating Related Survey Responses ......................................... 8-25 9-1 Buildout Analysis of Saugatuck Township ............ ..................... .... ...... .. ........ ... 9-3 11-1 City of Saugatuck Zoning District Regulations .................................................. 11-4 11-2 Saugatuck Township Zoning District Regulations ............................................. 11-6 11-3 City of the Village of Douglas Zoning District Regulations .......... ................. ..... 11-8 LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 4-1 8-1 8-2 Douglas Village Age and Sex, 2000 ...................... .. ................. ........ ......... .......... 2-4 Saugatuck City Age and Sex, 2000 ..................................................................... 2-4 Saugatuck Township Age and Sex, 2000 ....... .. ....... ........ .... ........ ........ ...... .......... 2-5 Tri-Community Age and Sex, 2000 ..................................................................... 2-5 Allegan County Age and Sex, 2000 ..................................................................... 2-6 Kalamazoo River Basin ....................................................................................... 4-3 Lake Michigan Recent and Projected Water Levels, 2003-2005 ..... .................. 8-14 Potential Low Water in Saugatuck Harbor .............................................. ..... ...... 8-23 LIST OF PHOTOS • 1-1 Small Town, Scenic Character ............................................................................ 1-3 1-2 Preserve Agricultural Land .................. .................... ....... .... .. ......... .. ..... ....... ... ..... 1-6 1-3 Improve Tourist Attractions ............ ................ ............. ... ............. ... .............. .. .. ... 1-7 1-4 Maintain and Improve Commercial Structures ..................................................... 1-8 1-5 Prepare Subarea Plan and Design Concept for Freeway Interchanges .... ... ..... ... 1-9 1-6 Maintain Rural Residential Housing .................................................................. 1-11 1-7 Encourage Preservation of Older Homes .......................................................... 1-12 1-8 Protect Sensitive Environments ......................... .. ......................... .... ........... ...... 1-13 1-9 Protect the Aesthetic Values and Recreational Potential of Waterfront Areas ... 1-14 1-10 Enhance Recreational Opportunities ................................................................. 1-15 1-11 Maintain a Safe and Effective Transportation System ....................................... 1-16 1-12 Ensure a Safe and Adequate Drinking Supply ... ... ....... ........................... ........... 1-17 4-1 Tri-Communities Experience Four Seasons ....... ................... .............................. 4-1 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 vii �TABLE OF CONTENTS continued List of Photos, continued 4-2 Wetlands in Peterson Nature Preserve .. .... .. ....... .. .. ...... .......... .... ........ .... .......... ..4-7 4-3 Lake Michigan Beach ... .... ....... .... ..... ........ .. .. ............ .... .. .... ..... ...... .......... ... ... .... 4-18 4-4 Shallow Lakefront Parcels in Saugatuck Township ... .. ......... .. .. .. .... .... .. ........ ... .. 4-20 4-5 Deep Lakefront Parcels in Saugatuck Township .... ... .. ... .............. .. ...... .. ...... ..... 4-21 6-1 Waste Water Treatment Plant ..... .... .......... ...... ...... .... ...... .... .... .... ....... .... ....... ...... 6-4 6-2 Local Street in the Tri-Communities ....... .... .. ...... .. .. ............. ... ..... .. .. ... ... .... ... .. .. ... 6-8 6-3 Traffic has Grown on Blue Star Highway .. ..... ....... .. .. .. ... ........ ... .... ... ..... ... .. ...... .. 6-12 6-4 Blue Star Highway Needs Better Access Management.. ....... ..... ...... ....... ... .. .... . 6-13 6-5 Interurban Vehicle ...... .... ..................... ..... ... ... .... ...... ........ ..... ... .......... .... .... ... .... 6-15 6-6 Saugatuck Middle/High School ...... .. ...... .. .... .... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ..... .. .. ......... ....... 6-18 6-7 Douglas Elementary Schools ...... .. .... ... ....... ...... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ..... ............. ............. 6-18 6-8 Saugatuck Public Works Department Building ........................ .... .. .... ... .... .. .. .... . 6-21 6-9 Saugatuck Township Hall ...... .... .. ..... .... ..... .. .. ... ....... .. .... ......... ........ ... ........... .. ..... 6-22 7-1 The Tri-Communities are an Active Recreation Destination ... .......... .. ........... ... .. 7-1 7-2 Soccer Recreation Program .. ....... ... ... ....... .. ......... ........ ....... .. ... ..... .. .. .... ............. 7-3 7-3 Summer Swimming Program .... ....... .. ..... ..... .. ... .. .. ..... .... ... ... ...... ... .. ... ............ .... 7-3 7-4 Vintage Baseball League Team-Douglas Duchers ....... ...... ......... ... .... .... .... .. ... . 7-4 7-5 Saugatuck Women's Club ... ... .... .. .... ... ... ... .. ... .. .. ..... ....... .. .......... .. ... ........ ... ... ... .. 7-5 7-6 Ravines Golf Course .. .. ....... .... ............ .. ... .... .. .. .. ........... .. ....... ........ .... ... ........ ..... 7-6 7-7 Interurban Trail. ........... ....... ... ...... .... ......... .... ..... .. ... ............ ....... ...... ........... .. ... . 7-13 7-8 Restaurants are Among Water Viewing Sites .... ....... ...... .... ..... ... ... .. .. ...... .. .... ... 7-15 7-9 Protected Open Space Adds Value to the Community ........ ..... ....... ............. ... . 7-17 8-1 Kayakers About to Enjoy Kalamazoo Lake ................. .... ..... ... .. .. ..... .... .... .... .. .. .. . 8-1 8-2 Blue Star Highway Bridge ..... ..... ... .. ..... ... .. ......... ... ... ..... ..... .. .... .. .. ..... ................. 8-2 8-3 View from Tannery Creek Outlook of Kalamazoo River and Distant Wetland Areas ... .. ..... .... ...... .... .... ..... ........... ... .. ............................. .. .... .. ... .. ... .. .... 8-3 8-4 The Harbor is Home to Many Boaters and Marinas ......... ......... .. .. .... ..... .. ... ....... 8-15 8-5 Cruise Ship Entering Saugatuck Harbor. ....... .... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. .... .. ... ............. ..... 8-17 8-6 Marina in Lake Kalamazoo .. ... ....... ... ... .... .... .... ... .............. ............ .... ..... .... .. ... ... 8-21 8-7 Residential and Recreational Use of the Kalamazoo Lake Shoreline ... .. .......... . 8-22 8-8 Boat Launch Ramp Sites are Difficult to Provide Due to Shoreline Topography and Shallow Depth of Lake Kalamazoo .......... .... ......... ...... ...... .. .. .. 8-24 8-9 Tourism Depends in Part on Retaining Views of the Water .. .. .. ....... .. ... ... .. ........ 8-26 9-1 Saugatuck City Attracts Many People but Parking Space is Scarce ......... ... ... ... .. 9-2 9-2 Maintaining Rural Character in Saugatuck Township is Important to Residents .. 9-4 9-3 Residential Construction Takes All Types: New Cottages at Summer Grove ...... 9-5 12-1 The Spirit of Cooperation is Important to the Tri-Communities ... ....... .. .. ............ 12-2 12-2 Kalamazoo River Water Quality is a Shared Responsibility of the Tri-Communities and Other Adjacent Jurisdictions .. .... .. .... ... .... ... .. ...... .............. 12-4 13-1 Preparation of an Oxbow Peninsula Sub-Area Plan is Important for Long-Term Preservation .... ....... ...... ... ... .. .. ..... .... .. .... ..... .............. ... .... ..... ...... 13-4 13-2 Preservation of Scenic Viewing Areas is Very Important to Improving Quality of Life as with this Opportunity Along Tannery Creek .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .... ...... 13-6 13-3 Maintaining Quality Streets and Preserving their Capacity is Important for Access by Residents and Visitors ... .... ... ..... ..... ...... ....... ..... .. ..... 13-7 john : F: winword\tri-communities\nov 10 04\TABLE OF CONTENTS nov 10 04 .doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\TABLE OF CONTENTS nov 10 04- revised 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 viii �. Chapter 1 GOALS & POLICIES: THE AREAWIDE POLICY PLAN INTRODUCTION Goals and policies are the foundation of a comprehensive plan . They address the key problems and opportunities of a community and help establish a direction and strategies for future community development and growth . Goals establish general direction. The policies embodied in this Plan were prepared through two extensive processes that included leadership surveys, public opinion surveys, meetings with local officials, and area wide town meetings. The first process took place from 1987-1989 when the first Tri-Community Plan was prepared. The second process was undertaken in 2003 and 2004 when this Plan was extensively updated. The first step in both the 1987 and 2003 processes was a survey of area leaders including members of each planning commission, elected officials, prominent members of the private sector. Leaders were asked their views on the major problems and opportunities facing their jurisdiction and the Tri-Communities, and the results were tabulated and presented to each local government. These results served as the basis for initiating a public opinion survey. The second step in both processes was the solicitation of citizen views on area wide planning issues through public opinion surveys mailed to every property owner in the TriCommunity area and distributed in many rental units. Survey questions were prepared for each jurisdiction through consultations with the joint planning committee and each individual planning commission. Dr. Brent Steel, Oakland University, conducted and tabulated the first survey while Dr. David Hartman of Western Michigan University's Kercher Center for Social Research conducted and tabulated the second survey. The response rate to the first survey of 43% and 40% to the second survey was very high considering the length (about 1 hour completion time) and type of survey: thus responses are believed to represent the majority view in each community. Most respondents were homeowners in their mid-fifties, registered to vote, who are long-term residents and plan to live in the area for ten or more years. Survey results are shown in Appendix A. Results of the citizen opinion survey and leadership survey were used to identify issues for discussion at the first town meeting in 1987. This meeting was a "futuring" session where participants were asked to imagine how they would like their community to be in the year 2000. Participants were separated into groups and asked to prepare a list of "prouds" and "sorries" in their community, and things from the past which they would like to preserve. The lists were compared and then groups were established according to topic area and were asked to imagine that element of their community in the year 2000. This futuring process identified key issues and community elements which were pulled together to form a vision and direction for the Tri-Communities in the year 2000. In 2004, the results of the citizen opinion survey were used to identify key issues for Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-1 �discussion at a Town Meeting where participants were polled on their preferred option for addressing each issue. This Plan uses 2025 as the target year. A draft policy-based plan, with defined goals and policies, was then prepared based on this Iown Meeting process and the survey results. The draft was refined through a series of meetings with area officials and then presented to area citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen comments were reviewed by officials from each community and incorporated into the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan. Data and trends in the Tri-Community area were also analyzed . This analysis supported the direction of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the updated Plan. Thus, the broad based input of area officials, leaders, and citizens, plus detailed analysis of local trends and land use characteristics have formed the goals and policies that comprise the policy portion of this Comprehensive Plan . These joint goals and policies will serve as a guide for land use and infrastructure decisions in Saugatuck Township , the City of Saugatuck, and the Village of Douglas. With time, some elements may need to be changed , others added, and still others removed from the list. Before amendatory action is taken, however, the impact of the proposed changes should be considered comprehensively in relation to the entire Plan. These joint goals and policies are premised on a pledge by Saugatuck Township, the City of Saugatuck, and the Village of Douglas to mutually cooperate in guiding future development to advance a common vision . It is intended that these goals and policies be consulted when considering future land use decisions within an individual jurisdiction, as well as those decisions that affect the interests of more than one jurisdiction. OVERARCHING GOAL It is the long term goal of this joint Comprehensive Plan to improve the quality of life for all citizens in the Tri-Communities through implementation of policies and best practices that preserve the existing small town/rural character of the area and that achieve sustainable development - that is, which meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. COMMUNITY CHARACTER Goal: Retain and enhance the quiet, scenic, and small town/rural character of the TriCommunities. Policy: Preserve the character of the Tri-Communities area by encouraging land uses and densities of development that are consistent with maintaining its small town/rural nature. Goal: Preserve the established character of neighborhoods and rural areas within the Tri-Communities. Policy: Encourage architectural and site design that complements, rather than detracts from existing development on neighboring parcels. Policy: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic structures. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-2 �Policy: Preserve the character of the area by encouraging land uses and densities/intensities of development which are consistent with and complement the character, economic base, and image of the area. Policy: Improve the appearance of entrances into the Township and Village of Douglas and maintain the entrances to the City of Saugatuck through landscape designs, signs, and land development which promote the vitality and character of each community, without unnecessary clutter or safety hazards. Photo 1-1 Small Town, Scenic Character Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Policy: Manage the trees lining streets in the City and Village to provide a continuous green canopy. Plant indigenous trees along Blue Star Highway and maintain them along other roads in the Township. Policy: Replace post mature trees through an aggressive planting program that will maintain aesthetically pleasing, tree-lined streets and roads throughout the TriCommunity area. Policy: Discourage the development of "bigfoot" homes that restrict views, block light and the free flow of air for neighbors, detract from the charm of a neighborhood, and serve as a catalyst for sending excess stormwater runoff onto abutting properties and into lakes and streams. Policy: Explore the possibility of establishing uniform sign standards in all three jurisdictions. Policy: Discourage designs which would block significant views and vistas. • Policy: Increase enforcement of existing ordinances and regulations to better preserve the established character of the Tri-Communities and promote the goals and policies of this Plan . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-3 �GROWTH MANAGEMENT Goal: Guide development in a manner which is orderly, consistent with the planned expansion of public facilities , and strives to preserve the scenic beauty, foster the wise use of natural resources, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and enhance the special character of the Tri-Communities. Policy: Encourage development in locations that are consistent with the capacity of existing and planned public services and facilities, and are cost effective in relation to service extensions. Policy: Encourage new development to be in compact increments adjacent to existing development. Policy: Review all plans by other public entities for expansion and improvement of existing road and street networks for impacts on growth patterns and for consistency with the goals and policies of this Plan . Policy: Encourage new development wherever possible to contribute to achieving the ten Tenets of Smart Growth as detailed in the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council Report and reproduced in the sidebar below. Policy: Consider the impact of land use planning and zoning changes on the other jurisdiction(s), and discuss proposed changes with the affected jurisdiction(s) prior to making such changes. A common procedure for such communication shall be established and followed. Policy: Examine the feasibility and benefits of a single planning commission for the TriCommunities. Policy: Examine the feasibility and benefits of a common zoning ordinance (or at least uniform zoning standards) in the Tri-Communities. Ten Tenets of Smart Growth: 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 2. Create walkable neighborhoods. 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration . 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective. 6. Mix land uses. 7. Preserve open space, farmland , natural beauty and critical environmental areas. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. 10. Take advantage of compact development design. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-4 �LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Goal: Promote the balanced, efficient, and economical use of land in a manner which minimizes land use conflicts within and across municipal borders, and provides for a wide range of land uses in appropriate locations to meet the diverse needs of area residents. Policy: Insure compatible land use planning and zoning across municipal borders and minimize land use conflicts by separating incompatible uses and requiring buffers where necessary. Policy: Discourage sprawl and scattered development through planned expansion of roads and public utilities and through zoning regulations which limit intensive development to areas where adequate public services are available. Policy: Provide for necessary community facilities (e.g. schools, garages, fire halls, etc.) consistent with adopted land use plans and long-term capital improvement programs. Policy: Coordinate Capital Improvement Programming with each of the TriCommunities. Policy: Encourage approaches to site design which take into account natural features of the property, such as soils, topography, hydrology, and natural vegetation, and which use the land most effectively and efficiently by maximizing open space, preserving scenic vistas, conserving energy, and pursuing any other public policies identified in this Plan. Policy: Advise developers during site plan review to contact the Office of the State Archaeolog ist, Michigan Historical Center in the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries to determine if the project may affect a known archaeological site. AGRICULTURE Goal: Maintain a variety of agricultural operations and promote the preservation of existing farms and farmland through coordinated planning and development regulations, public incentives, and educational strategies. Policy: Preserve prime agricultural land as long as a landowner has a desire to farm the land. Policy: Encourage cluster zoning in a manner that is compatible with typical agricultural activities and preserves open space. Policy: Encourage farmers on lands well suited to agriculture to enroll and maintain enrollments on their property in the Michigan Farmland Preservation Act program, as originally provided in Public Act 116 of 1974, as amended. Policy: Encourage the expansion of specialty farms and related activities which enhance the tourism and recreation potential of the area (e.g. "you pick", farmers markets, farm tours, corn mazes, etc.). Policy: Discourage the establishment of high density livestock and poultry operations as inconsistent with the agricultural and resort character of the Tri-Communities. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-5 �Photo 1-2 Preserve Agricultural Land Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal: Strengthen and expand upon the area's economic bases through strategies, which attract new businesses, strengthen existing businesses, and enhance the tourism potential of the area. Policy: Identify potential sites for industrial development and alternative means of financing necessary public improvements and marketing of the sites (i.e. tax increment financing, special assessments, state grants and loans, etc.). Policy: Support efforts to foster tourism by preserving the scenic beauty of the environment, expanding recreation opportunities, improving tourist attractions, preserving the historic character of the communities through the preservation of historic structures, expanding cultural and arts opportunities and encouraging development of promotional materials which highlight the attractions of the Tri-Communities. Policy: Utilize the 2002 Saugatuck 10-Year Strategic Development Plan where advisable. Policy: Encourage the development of one non-governmental organization that would promote and coordinate the development of all economic activities in the TriCommunities. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-6, �Photo 1-3 Improve Tourist Attractions Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau COMMERCIAL Goal: Encourage the development of commercial land uses in appropriate locations which serve the current and future needs of residents and tourists, are of a character consistent with community design guidelines, and which promote public safety through prevention of traffic hazards and other threats to public health, safety, and general welfare. Policy: Encourage new commercial development to locate adjacent to existing commercial areas. Policy: Encourage the design and location of neighborhood commercial centers in a manner which complements and does not conflict with adjoining residential areas. Policy: Encourage a compatible and desirable mix of commercial uses. Policy: Encourage design guidelines which promote similarity in the height and design of storefronts and prevent the creation of structures whose mass is too great for the lot and structures on adjoining lots. Policy: Along the Blue Star Highway, promote the development of small, commercial centers off the road, rather than lot by lot commercial strips. Policy: Continue to discourage unsafe and unsightly strip commercial development along the Blue Star Highway through design and landscaping requirements such as berms, planting, shared access and shared parking when possible. Also require large lot frontage and service roads for commercial uses along Blue Star Highway to prevent traffic hazards wherever feasible. Policy: Encourage landowners to maintain and where necessary improve the condition of commercial structures. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-7 �Policy: Develop a comprehensive policy regarding parking (parking requirements for businesses, location of parking lots, shuttle service) which preserves the character of downtown Saugatuck and Douglas while meeting the parking needs of residents, shoppers, visitors and employees, recognizing that maintaining the small town historic ambiance is central to economic viability. Photo 1-4 Maintain and Improve Commercial Structures Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each business where feasible and encourage centrally placed lots which serve several businesses. Policy: Encourage continued concentration of tourist oriented businesses in Saugatuck and Douglas, general commercial businesses in Douglas and Saugatuck Township, and highway service activities that serve regional markets and passenger vehicles at the highway interchanges. Policy: Encourage retention of existing downtown businesses in order to preserve those functions within Saugatuck and Douglas because they are so central to the character and function of those downtowns. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-8 �Photo 1-5 Prepare Subarea Plan and Design Concept for Freeway Interchanges Source: Aaron Sheridan Policy: Prepare and maintain a subarea plan and design concept for the freeway interchange areas and along Blue Star Highway which identifies appropriate land uses and emphasizes the design guidelines contained in this Plan. Policy: Improve the downtowns in Saugatuck and Douglas as funds are available by improving the supply of parking at peak periods, by installing additional public restroom facilities and generally improving the appearance and function of the sidewalks and streets through appropriate benches, flower plantings, lighting, litter pickup and maintenance. Policy: Encourage the Tri-Communities as a potential home for professional/high tech business and light industry. INDUSTRIAL Goal: Encourage the location of non-polluting light industry in the area without damaging the environment, spoiling the scenic beauty of the area, or overburdening local roads, utilities, or other public services. Policy: Encourage new industries to locate contiguously to existing industrial areas and in locations with existing or planned sewer, water, electric, and solid waste disposal services to minimize service costs and negative impacts on other land uses. Policy: Explore the feasibility of and determine the appropriate locations for a small industrial park that will generate jobs and conform to the design guidelines contained in this Plan and to local zoning regulations. Policy: Implement site plan requirements for light industries which are designed to incorporate generous amounts of open space, attractive landscaping, and buffering from adjacent non-industrial uses. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-9 �Policy: Require the separation of industrial sites from residential areas through buffers made up of any combination of parking, commercial or office uses, parks, parkways, open space, or farmland. CUlTURAUHISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL Goal: Encourage planning efforts based on the understanding, knowledge and respect for the Tri-Community's historical and cultural resources. Policy: Conduct and maintain historic and cultural resource inventories and transfer development rights. Policy: Collaborate with and encourage local historic and cultural organizations. Policy: Encourage land use and zoning regulation that complements and encourages historic and cultural growth and use. Policy: Consider historical and cultural concerns when developing zoning and other public policies. Goal: Creating strategies to engage arts and culture as vital resources for the quality of life for all members of the community and as a strategy for economic growth. Policy: Assure that historical and cultural opportunities are promoted for the widest range of participants throughout the Tri-Communities. Goal: Preserve and maintain structures that serve as significant reminders of the community's social and architectural history and that, through their ability to attract visitors and residents, contribute to the economic and cultural development of the community. HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL Goal: Encourage a variety of residential dwelling types in a wide range of prices which are consistent with the needs of a changing population and compatible with the character of existing residences in the vicinity. Policy: Maintain "rural residential" with a large minimum lot size as the primary residential land use in the Township in those areas where sewer and water are not available or planned. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-10 �Photo 1-6 Maintain Rural Residential Housing Policy: Explore alternative measures to reduce housing costs and make home ownership more affordable, such as zoning regulations and other programs which are designed to reduce the cost of constructing new housing, provided the exercise of these measures still preserves the character of the area in which the housing is to be built. Policy: Expansion of existing mobile home parks or construction of new mobile home parks adjacent to existing mobile home parks should be encouraged over the creation of new mobile home parks elsewhere in the Tri-Communities. Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low intensity home occupations in residential areas to preserve the stability of existing neighborhoods. Policy: Provide streetlights and sidewalks in residential areas where there is a demonstrated need and according to the ability of residents to help finance such improvements. Policy: Require absentee homeowners to maintain their properties in a manner that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Absentee homeowners should be discouraged from renting their homes out to an excess number of persons for short periods of time so as to avoid bringing a transient character into the neighborhood. Policy: Adopt and enforce a basic property maintenance code and building code . Policy: Consider the development of landscaping standards to be applied to all new housing, both in town and in rural areas, that require a minimum level of landscaping be installed if the lot either has no natural trees or shrubs on it or if such natural plant material was eliminated during construction , recognizing the importance of landscaping in preserving the character of a neighborhood or community. Policy: Encourage the preservation and retention of older homes to maintain community character and history and utilize zoning regulations to prevent homeowners from splitting older homes into multiple family apartment or condominium units. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-11 �Photo 1-7 Encourage Preservation of Older Homes Source: Aaron Sheridan Policy: Allow accessory uses such as garages and pole barns in residential districts subject to height, setback, and location requirements in the local zoning ordinance. Policy: Discourage the development of high intensity residential uses along the waterfront. • Policy: Explore the eligibility of residents to apply for federal, state or county housing rehabilitation grant funds and encourage eligible landowners to participate in such programs. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTS AND OPEN SPACE Goal: Protect special environments and open spaces, including but not limited to sand dunes, wetlands, and critical wildlife habitat, from the harmful effects of incompatible development activity by limiting the type and intensity of land development in those areas. Policy: Identify development limitations on special environments which classify environments based on their value to the ecosystem, unique attributes, the presence of endangered plant and wildlife species, and other characteristics deemed significant. Policy: Devise regulations for land development in special environments which permit development in a manner consistent with identified protection objectives and which complement state and federal regulations for special environments. Policy: Require development projects deemed appropriate in, compatible with, and adjacent to special environments to mitigate any negative impacts on such environments. Policy: Encourage acquisition of special environments of significant public value by public agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations for the purposes of preservation . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-12 �Policy: Prepare and maintain a subarea plan for the Oxbow Peninsula including the "Denison Property". Photo 1-8 Protect Sensitive Environments Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau WATERFRONT Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aesthetic values and recreation potential of all waterfront areas for the enjoyment of area citizens while recognizing private property rights of waterfront property owners. Policy: Promote the preservation of open space and natural areas, as well as limited, carefully planned development along the Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake, Silver Lake, Goshorn Lake, and Lake Michigan and connecting streams, creeks, and drainage ways to protect and enhance the scenic beauty of these waterfront areas. Policy: Explore the feasibility and benefits of establishing a joint site plan review process among the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the Village of Douglas for regulating development on Kalamazoo Lake and the Kalamazoo River. Policy: Some waterfront lands may be developed to meet residential and commercial needs, enhance local tax base, and contribute to paying for local public service costs associated with their use and development, consistent with environmental protection policies in this Plan, where such development would contribute to local quality of life. Policy: Maximize public access, both physically and visually, by acquiring prime waterfront open space whenever feasible . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-13 �Photo 1-9 Protect the Aesthetic Values and Recreational Potential of Waterfront Areas Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Policy: Encourage private property owners to grant scenic easements wherever public values dictate the maintenance of visual access to the waterfront and the property is not available for fee simple purchase. Policy: Limit the height and mass of new development along waterfront areas and preserve setbacks between buildings to maintain visual access and the natural beauty of the waterfront for the broader public. Policy: Explore the limited conversion of street ends which abut waterbodies for use as safe public access to the water for fishing, viewing, and launching of small water crafts. Policy: Maintain a natural greenbelt along the Kalamazoo River and its tributaries. RECREATION Goal: Enhance the well-being of area residents by providing a variety of opportunities for relaxation, rest, activity, and education through a well-balanced system of private and public park and recreational facilities and activities located to serve identified needs of the area. Policy: Identify and explore opportunities to cooperate with other jurisdictions and agencies, including Allegan County and the Department of Natural Resources Recreation and Camping Division, on recreation projects which would benefit area residents and strengthen the tourism industry. Policy: Examine the feasibility of, and establish if feasible, a jointly owned and operated community center to serve residents of all ages in the Tri-Communities. Policy: Examine the feasibility of expanding low cost opportunities for public beach and campground facilities for area citizens with boat launching sites, bike paths, crosscountry ski trails, and docks for shore fishing . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-14 �Photo 1-10 Enhance Recreational Opportunities Source: Scott Kierzek, Community Recreation Director Policy: Promote a system of non-motorized, biking, hiking and cross-country ski trails throughout the Tri-Communities with other jurisdictions or agencies if possible, through the use of local funds, grants and loans, and coordinated long-term capital improvement programming. Policy: Investigate developing a joint public marina and launch facility where federal and state funding is available to assist with financing such a venture. Policy: Encourage local government participation in activities designed to enhance the area's seasonal festivals. Policy: Retain, maintain, and improve all existing publicly owned parks so that they continue to meet the diverse recreation needs of area citizens and tourists through a single Parks Commission. TRANSPORTATION Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient road and street network and improve roads and streets to promote growth in a way that is consistent with land use goals and policies of this Plan. Policy: Implement traffic controls and design features that will increase the efficiency and safety of major arterials, including but not limited to: traffic signals, deceleration lanes, limiting driveways, minimum standards for driveway spacing, uniform sign regulations, shared or alternate access, left and right turn lanes, and speed limit adjustments. Policy: Prepare a joint governmental capital improvements program to schedule and prioritize transportation improvements and maintenance. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-15 �Policy: Redesign Blue Star Highway as a boulevard between freeway exits #36 and #41 to control access, improve traffic safety and flow, and improve the visual appearance of this highly traveled corridor which provides the principal means of access to each of the three jurisdictions. Photo 1-11 Maintain a Safe and Effective Transportation System Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Goal: Encourage a wide variety of transportation means, such as walking, biking, and public transportation, to meet the diverse needs of area residents. Policy: Promote pedestrian and bike travel through a coordinated network of bikepaths, trails, and sidewalks. Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, affordable, and dependable public transportation to increase the quality of life for those who live in and visit the Tri-Communities thus helping to reduce parking and traffic congestion Policy: Encourage expansion of the interurban system consistent with municipal means to finance the increased service and identified public need. WATER AND SEWER Goal: Ensure a safe and adequate long-term water supply for the area, and environmentally sound sewage treatment, which are efficiently provided and cost effective. Policy: Provide a reliable supply of safe, clean, and good-tasting drinking water. Policy: Minimize the potential for groundwater contamination through planning and zoning which is consistent with the capacity and limitations of the land and available services. Policy: Ensure carefully timed provision of sewer and water service in the area consistent with the development goals and policies of this Plan. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-16 �Policy: Devise alternative mechanisms for financing sewer and water expansions, upgrades and replacements which are financially sound and equitable. Policy: Ensure that the expansion of sewer and water service into an area is consistent with the planned intensity of land use for that area, and implemented when necessary to meet an identified need in the area rather than on a speculative basis. Photo 1-12 Ensure a Safe and Adequate Drinking Supply Source: Aaron Sheridan POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Goal: Provide police, fire, and emergency services consistent with public needs and the ability to finance improvements in the most cost effective manner for the TriCommunities. Policy: Continue to provide police, fire, and emergency services across the three communities where possible to eliminate overlap in service and expenditures and improve service delivery. Policy: Continue to maintain 24-hour emergency medical service which serves the TriCommunities. SOCIAL SERVICES Goal: Encourage the delivery of County and private social services in the TriCommunities to meet the needs of area residents. Policy: Make available to the Tri-Communities facilities for the local delivery of social services. WASTE MANAGEMENT Goal: Ensure the safe, effective, and efficient disposal of solid waste and other toxic substances. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 1-17 �Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid waste through recycling, composting , and waste-to-energy projects. Policy: Manage disposal of solid waste and location of solid waste facilities in acc@rdance with the Allegan County Solid Waste Management Plan prepared under PA641 of 1978. Policy: Adopt local site plan review standards for on-site storage and transportation of hazardous waste which require: • Secondary containment for on-site storage of hazardous waste; • No transfer of hazardous waste over open ground or water; • No floor drain discharge to groundwater or public sewer unless approved by the appropriate public entity. Policy: Mandate sewer hook-up in environmentally sensitive areas where sewer lines are available especially along all waterways. ENERGY Goal: Promote site design and building which is energy efficient and encourage energy conservation through good land use planning and wise public building management. Policy: Encourage developers to provide sidewalks or non-motorized paths in appropriate locations through subdivision and site condominium regulations. Policy: Encourage higher density residential development near areas with shopping and services to limit the number and length of trips generated from that development. John f:\winword\Tri-Communities\final\CHAPTER 1 GOALS & POLICIES final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 1 GOALS & POLICIES final 6 2 OS.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 1-18 �Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPHICS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents information about the size and other characteristics of the population of the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township and the City of the Village of Douglas. It also presents information about how the population in the three communities has changed over time and how it may change in the future. Where possible, information about the Tri-Communities is compared to Allegan County. For some demographic information, the City of the Village of Douglas is grouped with Saugatuck Township because the data was not separated by the US Census. POPULATION SIZE The population of the Tri-Communities was 4,655 persons in 2000, 20% larger than in 1990 and an increase of nearly eight hundred persons. The population of Douglas Village was 1,214 in 2000, an increase of 17% or 174 persons between 1990 and 2000. Saugatuck City increased by 111 persons between 1990 and 2000 to 1,065 persons , a gain of 12% while Saugatuck Township gained 500 persons to 2,376 persons, a rise of 27%. See Table 2-1. The population increase in the Tri-Communities was 5.2% of the total increase in Allegan County from 1990-2000. The County population grew by 15,156 persons or 17% during this period. Table 2-1 Population in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 Community DouQlas City Saugatuck City Sauoatuck Township Tri-Community Total AlleQan County 1990 1,040 954 1,876 3,870 90,509 2000 1,214 1,065 2,376 4,655 105,665 Total Change 1990-2000 174 111 500 785 15,156 % Change 1990-2000 17% 12% 27% 20% 17% Source: US Census PROJECTED POPULATION If the growth rate experienced by the Tri-Communities were to continue into the future, the population of the three communities would reach 6,225 by 2020 (an increase of 1,570 or 34% above 2000 population) and 7,795 by 2040 (a 65% increase, or 3,140 more persons than in 2000). While 2040 is quite distant, 2020 is not that far away (think back to 1984 ). If the current trend continues, that means that roughly 1 in 4 persons in the Tri-Communities would be a new resident in 2020. See Table 2-2. This population increase depends on many factors remaining constant (including market demand, the economy, land availability and others) and the actual rate could be higher or lower than the trend over the past decade. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 2-1 �Table 2-2 Population in the Tri-Communities, 2000-2020 Community Douqlas City Saugatuck City Sauoatuck Township Tri-Community Total Alleqan County Total Change Percent Change 2000 2010 2020 20002020 20002020 1,214 1,065 2,376 4,655 105,665 1,388 1,176 2,876 5,440 120,821 1,562 1,287 3,376 6,225 135,977 348 222 1,000 1,570 30,312 29% 21% 42% 34% 29% Source: US Census and straight /me pro1ectIon based on the rate of change from 1990-2000 by Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. SEASONAL POPULATION Seasonal housing units comprise about 24% of the total housing stock of the TriCommunities. This is a slightly higher proportion than at the time of completion of the previous Comprehensive Plan in 1989, when it was estimated to be about 21 % of the housing stock and the seasonal population to be as much as one-third more during the summer season. There has been an increase in the construction of seasonal units and many existing year-around homes have been purchased for weekend and vacation use by non-residents. The lowest proportion of seasonal homes is in the Township, which has also seen growth in year-around homes for people who commute to jobs within the region. Seasonal homes are 15.9% of homes in the Township, but 25.4% in Douglas and 34.4% in the City of Saugatuck. See Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Seasonal Housing Units, 2000 Community Douqlas City Sauqatuck City Saugatuck Township Tri-Community Total Alleqan County Total Change % Change 1990 2000 19902000 19902000 184 287 180 651 2,730 217 319 197 733 3,154 33 32 17 82 424 18% 11% 9% 13% 16% Total Housing Units Seasonal ¾of Total 2000* 2000 853 928 1236 3,017 43292 25.4% 34.4% 15.9% 24 .3% 7.3% Source: US Census *Total Housing Units includes occupied, seasonal and vacant housing. HOUSEHOLDS AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE In 2000 there were just over 2,100 households in the Tri-Communities, with 587 in Douglas, 549 in the City of Saugatuck and 994 in Saugatuck Township. This was an increase of 394 households, or 23% between 1990 and 2000. See Table 2-4. The increase in Douglas was 111 households, or 23%, Saugatuck City increased by 50 households or 10% and Saugatuck Township increased by 233 households or 31 %. Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 2-2 �Table 2-4 Households in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 Community Douglas City Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township Tri-Community Total Allegan County Total Change % Change 1990 2000 19902000 19902000 476 499 761 1,736 31,709 587 549 994 2,130 38,165 111 50 233 394 6,456 23% 10% 31% 23% 20% Source: US Census While household numbers increased, the size of households generally declined. Persons per household declined 3% in the Tri-Communities from 2.07 to 2.01 between 1990 and 2000. Saugatuck Township persons per household declined by 4% to 2.2, Douglas by 5% to 1.91 persons per household while Saugatuck City rose by 1% to 1.93 persons per household during the same period. See Table 2-5. The change in household size between 1990 and 2000 is relatively small, but indicates a trend experienced elsewhere in Michigan and the nation. Household size is declining due to divorce, a greater number of empty nesters, death of a spouse and a greater number of singles setting up household and waiting longer to marry. In contrast, Allegan County experienced an 11 % increase in the size of households between 1990 and 2000. This could reflect a trend of families with children moving from larger metropolitan areas like Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids to Allegan County. Table 2-5 Persons per Household in the Tri-Communities, 1990-2000 Community Douglas City Saugatuck City SauQatuck Township Tri-Community Average AlleQan County MichiQan Total Change % Change 1990 2000 19902000 19902000 2.01 1.91 2.29 1.91 1.93 2.20 -0.10 0.02 -0.09 -5% 1% -4% 2.07 2.45 2.66 2.01 2.72 2.56 -0 .06 0.27 -0.1 -3% 11% -4% Source: US Census Figures 2-1 through 2-5 indicate the number of males and females in each age cohort. Generally, males and females are about even in the younger age categories, with males having a slight numbers advantage in the 20s through 40s. Females generally outnumber males in the 65 and over age group. Also, the population of each of the TriCommunities tends to be larger in number in both the under 18 group and the 65 and over group. This is not typical of Allegan County, which has a large population under 18 years but a relatively small 65 and over population. Allegan County is also more evenly divided between males and females across all age groups. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 2-3 �,-- Figure 2-1 Douglas City Age and Sex, 2000 65 and over 55-64 45.54 (I) C) 35-44 < ■ 25-34 Female □ Male under 18 150 100 o 50 50 100 150 200 250 Number of People • Douglas Source: US Census Figure 2-2 Saugatuck City Age and Sex, 2000 r I 65 and over 55-64 45-54 (I) C) 35-44 < ■ 25-34 18 ·24 Female □ Male under18 150 -100 50 0 50 100 150 Number of People • Saugatuck City Source: US Census Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 2-4 200 250 �r- Figure 2-3 Saugatuck Township Age and Sex, 2000 65 and over 55-64 45-54 G) 35-44 Cl <( 25-34 18 -24 under18 500 400 300 200 0 100 100 200 300 400 500 Number of People• Saugatuck Township Source: US Census Figure 2-4 Tri-Community Age and Sex, 2000 65 and over 55-64 ■ 45-54 35-44 Female □ Male 25-34 18 -24 under 18 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 Number of People - Tri-Communities Source: US Census Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 2-5 800 1000 �Figure 2-5 Allegan County Age and Sex, 2000 T 5 and over 55-64 ■ Female 45-54 □ Male Cl) 35-44 C) <( 25-34 18 -24 under 18 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 10,000 15,000 20,000 Number of People • Allegan County Source: US Census EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT The population of the Tri-Communities is very well educated. As is shown in Table 2-6, the three communities have a smaller percentage of persons with fewer years of education than the average for Allegan County, but generally higher percentages than the County when comparing college graduates and persons with advanced degrees. The Tri-Communities also compare favorably with the rest of Michigan, with a higher percentage of persons with bachelor's and master's degrees and about the same percentage with professional or doctorate degrees. As a whole, 11.6% of all year-around residents of the Tri-Communities, 25 years or older, have less than a high school diploma, 30.5% have a high school diploma or equivalent, 30% have some college or an associate degree and 30.8% have a bachelors or advanced degree. (Total does not equal 100% due to averaging.) In Allegan County as a whole, 17.7% of residents 25 years or older have less than a high school diploma, 39.1 % have a high school diploma or equivalent, 30.3% have some college or an associates degree and 15.8% have a bachelor's or higher degree. In Michigan as a whole, 16.5% of residents 25 years or older have less than a high school education, 31.3% have a high school diploma or equivalent, while 30.3% have some college or an associates degree and 21.8% have a bachelor's degree or higher. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 2-6 �Table 2-6 Tri-Community Educational Attainment, 2004 • Educational Attainment Douqlas City Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township Tri-Community Average Allegan County Michigan Educational Attainment Douglas City Sauqatuck City Saugatuck Township Tri-Community Average Alleqan County Michigan High school graduate or equivalent 33.2% 22.0% 36 .2% Less than one year of college credit 4.8% 4.7% 5.6% Less than 5th Qrade 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 5th to 8th grade 5.0% 0.6% 3.7% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 9.4% 5.3% 10.2% 0.2% 1.1% 1.1% 3.1% 4.9% 3.5% 8.3% 11.7% 11.9% 30.5% 39.1% 31 .3% 5.0% 7.9% 8.3% 1 or more years of college credit no degree 14.1% 19.1% 16.0% Associate Degree 5.9% 6.6% 4.7% Bachelor's Degree 17.0% 28.2% 15.0% Master's Degree 8.1% 9.5% 6.8% Professional Degree 1.5% 3.0% 1.1% Doctorate Degree 0.8% 1.0% 0.3% 16.4% 13.1% 15.0% 5.7% 6.3% 7.0% 20.1% 10.8% 13.7% 8.1% 3.7% 5.7% 1.9% 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% Source: US Census Note: Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding. john f:\winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPER 2 DEMOGRAPHICS final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 2 DEMOGRAPHICS final 6 2 OS.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 2-7 �Chapter 3 ECONOMICS INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses characteristics of the Tri-Community economy, including median income, housing value, state equalized value of property, the employment, workforce characteristics and recent building permit activity. ECONOMIC BASE The primary reasons people visit or live in the three communities are to enjoy the scenery and recreational opportunities and to live in a picturesque, safe place while they commute to nearby (or distant) urban centers. Beach recreation, boating and other water activities, shopping, art galleries and enjoying the scenery are the primary attractions for both tourists and year-around residents. While agriculture, industry and tourism are important economic sectors represented in the Tri-Communities, tourism is king . The impact of travel on Allegan County was estimated at over $98 million in 1996, the last time an estimate was made (Allegan County Tourism Profile, Tourism Resource Center, Michigan State University). This is based in part on an estimated 1.8 million pleasure trip nights. Due to the high relative importance of the Tri-Communities in the tourism economy of Allegan County, the Tri-Communities share of the County travel dollar should be large. INCOME The median household income in the Tri-Communities was $43, 113 in 2000. This was slightly lower than that of Allegan County, where it was $45,813. Median household income ranged from $41,250 in Douglas to $43,771 in Saugatuck Township to $44,318 in Saugatuck City. Both Douglas and Saugatuck City nearly doubled median household income between 1990 and 2000. (There was no information for Saugatuck Township for 1990.) Table 3-1 Tri-Community Median Income, 1990-2000 Community Douqlas City Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township Tri-Community Average Alleqan County Michigan 1990 $24 ,022 $23,792 $30,023 $25,946 $30,596 $31 ,020 2000 $41,250 $44,318 $43,771 $43,113 $45,813 $44 ,667 Total Change 1990-2000 $17,228 $20,526 $13,748 $17,167 $15,217 $13,647 % Change 1990-2000 72% 86% 46% 66% 50% 44% Source : US Census HOUSE VALUE Housing is either very valuable in the Tri-Communities or very expensive, depending on your perspective. Median house value for the Tri-Communities was $173,700 in 2000. Value was the highest in Saugatuck City, at $184,400, with a median value of $175,000 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 3-1 �in Douglas and $161,700 in Saugatuck Township in 2000. These values were substantially higher than the median for Allegan County, which was $115,500 in 2000. Table 3-2 Tri-Community Median Home Value, 1990-2000 Community Douglas City Sauqatuck City Sauqatuck Township Tri-Community Average Allegan County Michigan 1990 $99,900 $99 ,900 $94,900 2000 $175,000 $184,400 $161,700 Total Change 19902000 $75,100 $84,500 $66,800 $98,233 $59,300 $60,600 $173,700 $115,500 $115,600 $75,467 $56,200 $55,000 % Change 19902000 75% 85% 70% 77% 95% 91% Source: US Census High home value brings attractive returns on investment, but also prevents many from buying homes in the community, including part-time and seasonal workers typically needed in a tourist or recreational area and young adults with moderate incomes. High property values can provide communities with substantial tax revenues, but can also make property owners less willing to support millage increases. High property values in the City and Village can place additional development pressure for lower cost housing on the more rural parts of the Township where land values and taxes are lower, followed by the demand to extend public services. WORKFORCE The workforce numbered 2,000 for Saugatuck Township (including the City of the Village of Douglas) in 2003 and 725 for Saugatuck City. The unemployment rate was 6.8% in Saugatuck Township (including the Village) and 7% in Saugatuck City. See Table 3-3. This rate was about average for Michigan (7%) in 2003 and only slightly higher than Allegan County, at 6.6%. On average, about 175 persons were unemployed per month in Saugatuck City, Saugatuck Township and City of the Village of Douglas during 2003. Table 3-3 Tri-Community Workforce and Unemployment Rate, 2003 Community Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township and Douglas City Allegan County Michiqan Workforce, 2003 Avg. 725 Unemployment Rate, 2003 Avg. 7.0% 2,000 58,000 5,107,000 6.8% 6.6% 7.0% Source: Michigan Department of Career Development, Office of Labor Market Information - LAUS Data Note: Douglas City included in Saugatuck Township. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 3-2 �EMPLOYERS Countywide, manufacturing is the largest employment sector, with over 13,000 employees. Total annual wages for those sectors was approximately $550 million and $73 •million, respectively. Other strong sectors include retail trade with 3,883 employees, accommodation and food service with 2,754 employees and food service and drinking places with 2,436. Annual wages for those sectors were approximately $75 million, $29 million and $25 million, respectively. There are a variety of employers in the Tri-Communities. These inclucie manufacturing, marine services, food service, public employers and others. Table 3-4 lists many of the major employers, but certainly not all employers. Many of the employees are part-time or seasonal, reflecting the high activity of the summer season. Table 3-4 Tri-Community Major Employers and Number of Employees, 2004 City of the Village of Douglas Douqlas Marine Haworth Enterprise Hinqe Tower Marine City of Saugatuck Coral Gables Butler Marros Sauqatuck Schools Mermaid Toulouse Saugatuck Drugs Wilkins Hardware Saugatuck Yacht Service City of Sauqatuck Full TimeNear Around Part Time/ Seasonal Total Employees NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 30 121 12 22 4 50 50 50 50 30 20 4 3 8 8 8 54 54 50 50 34 24 12 12 11 8 0 8 Saugatuck Township Clearbrook Ravines Spectators Paramount Tool Best Western 15 3 30 25 5 40 31 NP NP 10 55 34 30 25 15 Total 140 355 495 4 0 0 4 4 4 Source: City of the Village of Douglas, Saugatuck Township and City of Saugatuck NP = Not Provided Separately SEV State Equalized Value (SEV) is a measure of taxable value of real property in a community according to a set of State rules that seek to reflect 50% of true cash value . Real property in the agriculture, industrial, commercial and residential tax classes is Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 3-3 �reported in Table 3-5 for 1995 and 2003 in the three communities separately and as a total for the Tri-Communities . SEV for the City of the Village of Douglas is included with Saugatuck Township. Agriculture property and industrial property were each very small portions of the SEV of real property in 1995 and 2003, both tax classes dropping below 2% of total real property in the Tri-Communities by 2003. Industrial property disappeared entirely from Saugatuck City by 2003, leaving only commercial and residential property classes in the City. Commercial SEV in the Tri-Communities was 17.4% of total SEV in 1995, but declined to 15.6% in 2003. At the same time, residential SEV in the TriCommunities rose slightly from 78.4% to 81.8% of total SEV, to remain the dominate tax class. Total SEV was $295,232,508 in the Tri-Communities in 2003. Table 3-5 Tri-Community State Equalized Value, 1995 and 2003 A riculture %of Total Residential %of Total $35,672,256 69.3% 1995 Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township & Douqlas TriCommunities $0 $3,408,888 3 .0% $92,466,550 82.6% $3,408,888 2.1% $128,138,806 78.4% $65,960,665 76.9% 2003 Sauqatuck City Saugatuck Township & Douglas TriCommunities $0 $4,080,518 1.9% $175,505,152 83.8% $4,080,518 1.4% $241,465,817 81 .8% Commercial %of Total Industrial % of Total Total Real Pro ert 1995 Saugatuck City Saugatuck Township & Douglas TriCommunities $15,005,710 29.2% $789,750 1.5% $51,467,716 $13,380,300 11.9% $2,742,300 2.4% $111,998,038 $28,386,010 17.4% $3,532 ,050 2.2% $163,465,754 Sauqatuck City Saugatuck Township & Douqlas TriCommunities $19 ,760,433 23.1% $0 0.0% $85,721,098 $26,411,437 12.6% $3,514,303 1.7% $209 ,511,410 $46 ,171 ,870 15.6% $3,514,303 1.2% $295,232,508 2003 Source: Michigan Department of Treasury Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 3-4 �BUILDING PERMITS The number of building permits issued by a community is an indicator of recent commercial, industrial and residential building activity. Table 3-6 shows that the three communities have averaged about 86 new structures per year from 2000 to 2003, with the exception of 2002 when there was a spike to 113 new structure permits. Most of this activity has been in Saugatuck Township. Building activity was primarily residential , with only four commercial building permits issued in the City of the Village of Douglas between 2000 and 2002, the remainder were new building permits for homes. In Saugatuck Township in the period 2000-2003, three duplexes were built and twenty-nine double-wide manufactured homes were permitted, which are included in the totals in Table 3-6. Table 3-6 Tri-Community Number of Building Permits for New Structures, 2000-2003 Community Douglas Citv of Saugatuck Saugatuck Townsh ip Total 2000 2001 2002 2003 4* 12* 32 17 2 10 62 65 71 14 4 51 79 113 69 83 Source: City of the VJ/lage of Douglas, City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township. *During the period May 24 2000 to March 30, 2001 , building permits were issued by the State of Michigan and not the City of the Village of Douglas. The number of permits issued by the State of Michigan during this period was not available. It is likely that between 10 and 20 building permits were issued in Douglas during this period. If 15 were used as the number, then the total in 2000 would be 130 and the total in 2001 would be 132. If the 2000 to 2003 average rate of building were to continue, the number of households could reach about 3,000 by 2010 and about 3,900 by 2020. This rate is higher than that for the period 1990 to 2000, and would lead to a population of about 600 higher than projected for 2010, or about 6,000 persons (See Table 2-2) based on the rate of population increase between 1990 and 2000, or about 1,500 higher for 2020, or about 7,700 persons if household size remained at about 2 persons per household (average for the Tri-Communities). Both Saugatuck Township and the City of the Village of Douglas have enough undeveloped land to accommodate such growth, but building activity in the City of Saugatuck may focus on remodeling, and thus not increase population as rapidly. John f: winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPTER 3 ECONOMICS final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 3 ECONOMICS final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 3-5 �I Chapter 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the environment of the Tri-Communities, such as climate and natural features, including topography, soils, woodlands and wetlands, lakes, rivers and shorelines. It also discusses how these features can affect development in the community and how important natural features can be protected. CLIMATE Weather conditions affect the community's economic base. Variations in average conditions, especially during the summer months, can cause fluctuations in tourism and outdoor recreation activities, upon which the local economy is dependent. Prevailing winds determine lakeshore and sand dune erosion patterns, which impose limitations on development along the Lake Michigan shore. Below, in Table 4-1, is relevant climatic information for the area. These conditions generally do not pose limitations on the area's growth except along the Lake Michigan shore, where natural forces can cause rapid and extensive erosion of beaches and sand dunes. The climate is also considered favorable for growing certain fruits, such as apples and blueberries. Photo 4-1 Tri-Communities Experience Four Seasons Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Visitors and Convention Bureau Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-1 �GEOLOGY The Tri-Community area is located on the southwestern flank of the Michigan Basin, which is a bedrock feature centered in the middle of the Lower Peninsula . The sandstone and shale bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits from 50 to 400 feet thick. The e are no outcroppings of the bedrock and the proximity of the bedrock to the surface of the ground does not impose limitations for normal excavating or construction. Glacial deposits consist primarily of sandy lakebed deposits located between two major physiographic formations: the Lake Border Moraine, which is adjacent to Lake Michigan, and the Valparaiso Moraine, which extends through the center of the county, from north to south, oil and gas drilling in the area occurred mostly during the period from late 1930's to the early 1950's. At present, there are no producing wells in the Tri-Community area. TOPOGRAPHY Most of the Tri-Community area is relatively flat, but local variations in elevation of up to 150 feet exist in some places between uplands and the floodplain of the Kalamazoo River. There are also considerable local differences in elevation in the extreme northwest portions of the Township in the sand dunes between the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. The highest point in this area is Mt. Baldhead, which rises 310 feet above Lake Michigan. Areas of abrupt local variations in elevation appear as dark areas on the topographic map and the highest elevations as light colors, such as yellow and beige. (Map 4-1 ). Steep slopes present impressive scenery and pose increased maintenance and construction costs as well as safety risks. This is especially true with unstable landforms such as sand dunes. Generally, slopes exceeding 7% should not be developed intensively, while slopes of more than 12% should not be developed at all because of erosion and storm water runoff problems. Table 4-1 Summary of Relevant Climate Conditions Climate variables Coldest Months (JanuaryFebruary) Hottest Month (July) Annual Average Temperature Average Rainfall Average Growing Season Average Annual Snowfall Elevation Above Sea level Prevailing: Winds Average condition 16°F/-9°C-31 °F/-1 °C Extreme condition -11 ° F - -35° F 60°F/116°C-84°F/29°C 48.3° F 36 inches/91 cm 151 days 80 in/203 cm 590 feet Westerly 96° F -100° F Source: USDA Soil Survey. Allegan County Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-2 �Figure 4-1 Kalamazoo River Basin Watershed graphic designed by Greg Anderson, WMU GIS Department Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-3 �:i Map 4-1 Tri-Community Topography Saugatuck Tri-Co111munitics ~<., -"1,.,6·0,p~ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP -~ Al 11 (,\t\' ( '(H, I'\ , \11< lll<~A'\ I ,I , i I 1· I I I I C' I -~~ -~ ~ I '"h Mi.mklpal legend c:J ~ 1.~tw,.,!l..,.l/l•k>, ! Sec:llon Lttg•nd :j(I ~ ~ i.,,l\c.c,,wJ.,,-,, Contou,L~1d" ~ t ,'1:1,,, ea..,,.., U•v•tion Range1o·· ~ ■ 1000 10 lt•!.Ok-tl ■ ~!,t'lt-,100IH".-t • i.1 Ill • 11iJ ■ • LI 'lil()l,.,lt~,Of.tt,1 ft~l<-•'JllOf,.41 a-JO~lt".>ll tr r1 ,~ ..,tl0'\ 1, <e>t (00 "-' f!)U .,, ,., , 6'.nh,OOIIH•I f"t'),111:,/~ " ~ ~bt.w lo..,t fka , ., u,.,,,,:iri-,.,~ - ·"""' -~" ... .,,11<1a~ ,.,......." ,1c..-, ;, .,.,,._._. ,""-'",~ .. """ltll')"••~""" w*• Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-4 * ~,.i-_.... ..-, ~ ,.stf..... �DRAINAGE Most of the Tri-Community area lies within the Kalamazoo River Basin, which begins near Jackson and extends westward into the Tri-Community area (see Figure 4-1 ). The extreme southwestern portion of the Township drains directly into Lake Michigan. All of the watercourses within the area drain into the Kalamazoo River, which flows westward through the middle of the Township and into Lake Michigan. Tannery Creek, Peach Orchard Creek, Silver Creek and Goshorn Creek are all short-run streams that flow into the Kalamazoo River. A network of County drains facilitates the removal of runoff from flat areas with poorly drained soils in the southern half of the Township. The sand and clay bluffs along Lake Michigan in Section 20 are being eroded by grcundwater which flows through the sandy topsoil and onto the less permeable clay layer. The water flows out the side of the bluff, undermining the sandy upper layer. Several County drains were built that collects runoff on the landward side of the bluffs for discharge via a pipe drilled through the bluff into Lake Michigan. Most other areas of the Township drain fairly well, especially Saugatuck and Douglas. All watercourses, including county drains, are found on Map 4-2. The Allegan County Drain Commissioner issued updated development standards in October, 2003. These standards outline the review process for development projects within the County and guidelines for management of stormwater and protection of surface water resources, such as wetlands and floodplains. FLOODPLAINS Areas adjacent to creeks, streams and rivers are susceptible to periodic flooding that can cause extensive damage to buildings and can pose a substantial threat to public health and safety. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has mapped the boundaries of the 100 year floodplain in the Tri-Community area. Those boundaries are denoted by the shaded areas on Map 4-2 and would be inundated during an Intermediate Regional Flood. The Federal Flood Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established guidelines for use and development of floodplain areas. Those regulations indicate that development in floodplains should be restricted to open space, recreational or agricultural uses. Installation of public utilities and permanent construction for residential, commercial or industrial uses should not occur in floodplain areas. Floodway filling or alteration (in watersheds with a drainage area of 2 square miles or more) is not allowed without review and approval by the Allegan County Drain Commissioner and in compliance with the Floodplain Regulatory Authority found in Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of PA 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers, in the Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study, found that the Kalamazoo Lake portion of the Kalamazoo River has a greater potential for flooding from high Lake Michigan water levels than thought previously. The study found that both high and low Lake Michigan levels could range more than has been experienced in the lifetime of current residents, and more so than recorded by European settlers. Portions of the downtown of the City of Saugatuck have flooded previously, but additional properties would likely flood if Lake Michigan reached extreme high levels, regardless of the conveyance of floodwaters from inland portions of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-5 �7 Map 4-2 Tri-Community Floodplains Saugatuck Tri-Communities FLOODPLAIN MAP 5 ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN '\. Municipal Legend i C ] Junsdictlon Boundaries Section Legend LJ Section Bounda-ies Floodplai n Legend" c=:J Zone A -~~ -~ i::;;::J Zone A2 - ZoneA3 Zones ·Floodplain boi.nd.wies WMI digitized from ;ooreferen::ed Rood lntu"arg Rate Mapo (FIRMs) ~ by h ~ Fedel-al Emergency MwiagemetK A ~ (FEMA) Tt-~lncllcaielhailJlP!'QlllnlatBextentoflhe100yea floodplain. This map cam::it be UIIOd lo make a Ooodplain since lloodpkiin del!lrmlneliOM .-e based on liile specific: eloVation rahf than hortzorul d~ance ~ ~ .... '29 25 28 33 ~·~ ;1 i ' ~ 34 ~I I liJ J L ~M·~ 36 ,:is ~-GANOEST I I P \, wf I "'::9"~==:-.::..s...=.-=:-...""~:'·" Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-6 �WETLANDS There are many wetlands in the Tri-Community area. Most are contiguous to or hydrologically connected (i.e. via groundwater) to Lake Michigan, rivers, streams, or creeks. Wetlands are valuable in storing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and removing sediment and other pollutants. They are also habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals, including a large rookery of Great Blue Herons along the Kalamazoo River. Because wetlands are a valuable natural resource , they are protected by Part 303 Public Act 451 of 1994. Part 303 requires that permits be acquired from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) prior to altering or filling a regulated wetland. The Wetland Protection Act defines wetlands as characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support wetland , vegetation or aquatic life and is commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh and is contiguous to the Great Lake, an inland lake or pond or a river or stream. Photo 4-2 Wetlands in Peterson Nature Preserve Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Visitors and Convention Bureau Regulated wetlands include all wetland areas greater than 5 acres or those contiguous to waterways. Wetlands which are hydrologically connected to waterways are also regulated. Activities exempted from the provisions of the Act include farming, grazing of animals, farm or stock ponds, lumbering, maintenance of existing nonconforming structures, maintenance or improvement of existing roads and streets within existing rights-of-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines less than six inches in diameter, and maintenance or operation of electric transmission and distribution power lines. The Allegan County Drain Commissioner's Development Standards includes a 25' permanent buffer strip, vegetated with native plant species, to be maintained or restored around the periphery of wetlands in development projects. These buffer strips are defined as zones where construction, paving and lawn care chemical applications are prohibited . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-7 �Permits are not to be issued if a feasible or prudent alternative to developing a wetland exists in such areas. An inventory of wetlands based on the 1996 land use\cover inventory (see Chapter 5) is illustrated on Map 4-3. While wetlands are mapped, on-site inspections will be necessary to establish whether a wetland indeed exists, and the extent to which it exists on any site. Areas of hydric soils in the south-central part of the Township would be classified as wetlands if they were not in agricultural use and served by county drains. SOILS A modern soil survey was completed for Allegan County by the USO.ti Natural Resource Conservation Service in March, 1987. For information about specific soil types, contact the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Allegan Service Center, 1668 Lincoln Rd, Allegan, Ml 49010-9410, (269) 673-6940, (269) 673-9671 fax. Each soil type has unique characteristics which pose opportunities for some uses and limitations for others. The most important characteristics making the soil suitable or unsuitable for development are limitations on dwellings with basements, limitations on septic tank absorption fields, and suitability for farming. Soil limitations have been classified into three categories, which are described below. • Slight: Relatively free of limitations or limitations are easily overcome. • Moderate: Limitations need to be considered, but can be overcome with good management and careful design. • Severe: Limitations are severe enough to make use questionable. Large areas of soils in the Township create severe limitations on residential and urban development. See Map 4-4. The degree of soil limitations reflects the hardship and expense of developing the land . Fortunately, most of the soils which are not suited for residential development are also considered prime farmland soils by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Basement Limitations Limitations for dwellings with basements are shown on Map 4-4. Some soils impose severe limitations on basements because of excessive wetness, low strength, excessive slope, or shrink-swell potential. These areas are found primarily in the northeast comer and in the southern half of the Township. Septic Limitations Soils in most of the Tri-Community area impose severe limitations on septic tank absorption fields for a wide variety of reasons. The permeability of soils in the area ranges from very poorly drained to excessively drained. There are only a few small areas which are neither poorly nor excessively drained, do not have a high water table, and are therefore well suited for septic tank absorption fields. These areas are located in the southeast corner of the Township and in the southwestern portion of Douglas. Most of the Tri-Community area that is likely to experience future growth has moderate to severe limitations for on-site septic systems. Map 4-4 shows the septic limitations for the area. This map suggests the need for municipal sewers to accommodate new development in many areas if the density is anything greater than one dwelling unit per two acres. The degree of soil limitations reflects the hardship and expense of developing that land for a particular use. Those soils classified as "severe" have varying degrees of development potential based on the nature of the limitation. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-8 �~ Map 4-3 Tri-Community Wetlands and Hydric Soils Saugatuck Tri-Communities I I ' ' ' HYDROLOGY MAP 5 ALLEG AN CO UNTY, M IC HJGAN 1 MILE Municipal Legend CJ Jurisdielion Boundaries Section Legend Section Boundaries Water Legend - § -~ Watercourses County Drains Wetlands Legend l'2ZI ~ ~ ' National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands" 96 Land Use Wetlands"' Hydric Soils ~ ~ r::::J c:::J D Non-Hydr!c Soil Possibly Hydr!c Soil"" Hjdr!c Soi - Water • Olgillzed from US Flsh end Wilclhfe Service National WeUand& JrMr'llory maps Wetlands were mapped from high-altllude oolOf lnfr8fBd Mrilll pholcgrllphl In lhe 1970'1 and 1980'1 •· AJt dass!1\ed 600 category wetlands, lowland h.-ct.....oods andloWl.-.:1001'\flerS ... These SOIi •&as maybe h ~ under oertan slla spedl\c eondiUOns wf ~ ~ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-9 .-.P'IOml'l)<~~s----l'Clw,ay 1or---~~11oo11 .... ,_,. _ _ �~ Map 4-4 Tri-Community Development Limitations Sa111,:atucl< Tri-( 'onunnnWcs SOIL SlllTABILTY 1\1/\I' l>cvdo1llnc11C and S(•plic s \I 11 :( , \I\ ( 01 ' IY, \II( 111( , ,\ f\ . :'.•I ~ I ,I H M l•tHCIJH~I I (l{lf'l1d -~ -~ ~ c=-- ,.,,-.,:1t1,,,1·,,.,.,.1n, ~ Section leg•nd ~udlt>1,fio1JJ11:li'n11 Dtvelo,-m.e1t1 Sult;,blht,.. ~ ~ J ~ No-tl<,1t.,1 t ... _,.1t1lh 11.,~,,., I U,,·l,.,f,>l•·l,.,.,.d•··..-. f ',hf,c I m•1.1t,g1~ Sepllt Sull.,billty .. I t.11.o11-i1, .. , C•il •...... • l•·••ltl•l•'"" ..,.... i.....,1 .. 1 ..,.e.,11,. ... r,J,-~,l I 11!,I ,1.,,.,. '(.>,40.~,.,noil'-" ~1,j,,,J,..~ -Ml•h1<,,.,.,.,~ 1....~ .... ,, ..,..1,,.,, ...... ,..... 1-i~w..J•·• ... ... 11~•"·"""'••1tltjlh.lfld1,l'llri,-.,1l><"C"l'r,.;.t>1 h• ..,,J Mb•~,..-.... '"'~-~v..,ry,.'C'I..,,.... ... oLl'l, .. 1<,,>,.,,.fl,r,, ...... , _ . , ..... ~1-1-IO\,......,~. .. ~.*"-••·.lll~lutlll""""-'llnl•hHh l"'"'"O ....... ..,., .... q,tl.oo; t"2n'Wll) "'·"""•J ,_....•..., 6',,..,,..,........ t-'Of •~~ fW'O "'''"'· ,"""'~·~••PflJPC'tb, ~ ...... ,.. 5n:'1f,.-<,·f..·ro--,..,., ,.1r...,•.-Ynol-.. lou,&ait,,r.i, .ai,k ♦ ,o,.;,,cr1tlW\ll'IDftWl•••• ...... -•I S.w•• 1-J~ _!\HJ.._t.,o1i....,,..,,1,1~,~·~......,., Mi\_,.(>..,i•~•.,; ... ,,...,,.,,,.,r,y""'...,.1~-"h-J.• 1-,. .........., *.,....~-· t \•~,-~k«Mf', w*• Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-10 , 't~ o• �Standards for Septic Systems The Allegan County Health Department has established certain standards for septic systems. These standards apply somewhat different site characteristics when determining the degree of limitations for septic systems, compared to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service approach, which focuses on soil types and slope. Below is a review of these standards by development type. Single Family Residential The Allegan County Health Department has developed building site acceptance specifications for onsite septic disposal. Generally, if a residence is planned for a particular part of Saugatuck Township where municipal sewer is not available, the following Allegan County Water and Sewer Regulations apply. "The following specifications shall be used in determining the suitability of the soil to provide satisfactory drainage for a sewage disposal system utilizing one or more septic tanks and an absorption field , trench or bed : • The soil classification and interpretations as provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and the use limitations pertaining to that soil classification may be considered by the Health Officer and used as part of the soil and drainage evaluation. • The borings or excavations shall be made within the area proposed for the sewage disposal system to determine that the seasonal high water table and soil formations comply with this section. The Health Officer may request that excavations or borings to a minimum of six (6) feet be made available for inspection and evaluation of soil types and conditions . • Seasonal high water table or evidence thereof shall be at least four (4) feet below the bottom of the trench or bed. • Impervious hardpan or clay, if present, shall be at least four (4) feet below the bottom of the trench or bed. • Filled ground or "made land" shall be acceptable only under specific written approval of the Health Officer and in any case shall be compacted or allowed to settle for at least one (1) year from the time of filling. • In addition to evaluation of the data required above, the Health Officer may request stabilized percolation rate tests, conducted by a qualified professional, when deemed necessary to determine the absorption capacity of the soil. • Sufficient area shall be set aside or put on reserve for a future replacement system. Such replacement system area shall at least equal the area required for the initial system. In cases where filling is allowed, the size of the replacement area shall equal the area of the initial absorption system and fringe area. The replacement drainbed must be isolated at least 15 feet from an existing bed/field or drywell." Lot size can be affected by the use of private wells and onsite septic systems. There must be an adequate separation distance between the well and any component of the septic system, and in Allegan County this is 75 feet. A separation distance of 100 feet is required between any portion of the septic system and a lake or stream but only 1O feet to a property line. The size of the required septic field and an area designated for a replacement field Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-11 �depends on the percolation rate of the soil and the number of bedrooms in the house. Other factors that could increase the size of the absorption field are: • "For each additional bedroom over six (6) add 250 gallons liquid capacity. • Additional septic tank(s) shall be required by the Health Officer where adverse soil , conditions are determined to exist. • If a garbage grinder or sewage lift with a grinder pump is planned or installed, additional septic tank capacity and absorption area will be required by the Health Officer. • Footing drain water, roof water, or storm drainage, shall not be connected or discharged into or over the surface of a sewage disposal system. • Water softener effluent is discharged into a sewage system rather than a separate system, additional absorption area will be required. • Hot tubs, garden tubs, Jacuzzis, etc. having a liquid capacity exceeding 100 gallons will require additional absorption area." Alternative systems may be permitted by the County Health Department upon the guidance by the County Board of Commissioners. All Other Residential, Plus Commercial Commercial and group residential systems have different standards than single family systems. All sewage disposal systems except one and two family dwellings are under the control of the DEQ. The Allegan County Health Department is authorized by the DEQ to handle septic system disposal for flows in amounts of less than 10,000 gallons per day. Commercial systems generally have flows greater than that of a residential system, depending on use. Size and spacing requirements for onsite septic systems, plus soil percolation rates can make some parcels or areas of the Tri-communities difficult to site a commercial establishment. A "pump and haul" system has been employed in many communities where onsite sewage disposal was not possible and municipal sewers were not available. "Pump and Haul" systems have been used adjacent to lakes or where groundwater is very high. This system is essentially a large holding tank that stores sewage until it is pumped out and hauled to a waste treatment facility. Depending on the type of establishment, pumping could take place at a rate exceeding once a day. In Allegan County, such systems are only permitted where municipal sewers are scheduled to be built within six months of occupancy. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are another limitation on development. Hydric soils generally have been exposed to water saturation conditions for extended periods, such as in a wetland . They are very poorly drained, saturate easily and retain large quantities of water. If artificially drained, they are often suitable for farmland use. Map 4-3 shows where these soils are. In the Tri-Community area, most of the hydric soils are found near watercourses and correspond to present or former wetlands. There is a large area of hydric soils in the southwest portion of the Township which is currently being farmed . Residential, commercial and industrial development in areas containing hydric soils should be discouraged. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-12 �Prime Farmland Prime farmland soil types have been identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as those best suited for food production: they require minimal soil enhancement measures such as irrigation and fertilizer. There is a very large area of prime farmland soils in the south central portion of the Township. These areas contribute significantly to the area's economic base. The loss of prime farmland to other uses results in farming on marginal lands, which are more erodible and less productive. Soils in prime farmland categories that have frequent flooding or seasonal high water table, such as those in the southern half of Saugatuck Township, qualify as prime farmland because those limitations have been overcome by drainage. Unique farmlands are based on certain soil types as well as other factors, such as landscape position (proximity to water supply, orientation to sunlight, slope, etc.), moisture supply and present management practices. Prime farmland soils and unique farmlands are shown on Map 4-5. Unique farmland and lands enrolled in the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program (PA 116 of 1974) are also depicted on Map 4-5. See contract list in Table 4-2. Total 466.58 acres mapped and not mapped. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-13 �Table 4-2 Revised PA 116 Contract List as of 9/30/2004 Agreement# GIS Acreage OwnerName Township LegaIDesc1 Last 6 Numbers of Aareement # refer to the Expiration Date IExamole: -1 23125 = 12/31/2025}. Records end ing in 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02 , and 03 are ex pired but are still o n file. SauQatuck Township Comm in center of Old Allegan Road 85.47 ft SW of NE comer Lot 18, th S 1518.6 ft, th W 577.23 ft to W line Lot 18, th N along W line to center Rd ., th NE'ly along Rd. to beginning being part of Lot 18; Sections 11 & 14, T3N , R16W , Saugatuck Township , Allegan County, Michigan. Comm at the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 27 , T3N , R16W , as the POB. then N 330 ft, then E 132 ft, then S 330 ft, then W 132 ft to the POB. ALSO the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 33, T3N , R16W , EXCEPT the S 200 ft of the E 275 ft of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 33, T3N , R16W , Saugatuck Township, Allegan County, Michigan. SW 1/4 of NE 1/4, Sec 33, T3N, R16W, ALSO W (2) rods (33ft) of W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of NE 1/4, Sec 33, T3N , R16W, Saugatuck Township, Allegan County, Michigan. (41) Saugatuck Township That part of W 20 acres of SE 1/4 & E 1/2 of SW 1/4, Sec 25 lying S'ly of a line descas comm at SW cor of sd sec, th N 89deg 12'57' E along the S line of the SW 1/4 1610.30 ft to POB of sd desc line, th N 54deg23'33' E 1685.06 ft to E line of the W 20 acres of SE 1/4 & POE of said desc line Sec 25; ALSO SE 1/4 of NW 1/4; ALSO that part of E 1/2 of SW 1/4 & W 20 acres of SE 1/4 Sec 25 lying N'ly of a line desc as comm at SW cor of sd sec, th N 89deg12'57' E along the S line of SW 1/4 1324.61 ft to W 1/8 line of sd sec, th N 00deg05'20' W along the sd W 1/8 line 106.71 ft to POB of sd desc line, th N 54deg23'33' E 2036.22 ft to the E line of the W 20 acres SE 1/4 of sd sec & POE sd desc line Section 25; All above in Section 25 , T3N , R16W , Saugatuck Township, Allegan County, Michiaan. 03-49831 -123107 18.45 Linda J. Charvat SauQatuck Township 03-16300-123104 60.01 August L. Knikelbine Saugatuck Township 03-17868-123199 03-48670-123105 39.8 Bruce R. Gould 127.68 Ronald S. Powers 03-25207-123111 48.62 David M. Skinner SauQatuck Township 03-25505-123116 58.02 Harold R. Krupka Sauaatuck Township The N 34 acres of the E 50 acres of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 28, T3N , R16W , EXCEPT beg at the NE comer of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 Section 28, T3N , R16W, then S 89deg03'30" Won the E W 1/8 line, NE 1/4, 1650 ft, then S 00deg46'07" E, 883.77 ft, then N 89deg12'43" E, parallel with the S line of the section. 623.32 ft, then N 02deg 18'52" W 851 .63 ft, then N 89deg09'30" E, 1049.65 ft to the E line of the section, then N 00deg46'07" W on section line 33 ft to the POB; all in Section 28, T3N, R16W , Sauaatuck Township, Alleaan Countv, Michigan. The S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of SE 1/4, EXCEPT a parcel in the NW corner 18 rods N & S by 27 rods E & W , ALSO the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 , ALSO EXC comm on S In of sd Sec 26 at a pt 758.50 ft, S 89deg31'15" E of the S 1/4 post, th N para with the N-S 1/4 In, 155.57 ft, th S 89deg31'15" E 280 ft, th S 155.57 ft, th N 89deg31'15" W 280 ft to POB; All land desc located in Section 26, T3N R16W , Saugatuck Township, Allegan County, Michigan. The S 3/4 of N 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 28, T3N, R16W , Saugatuck Township, AlleQan County, MichiQan. (60) Sauaatuck Township The W 1/2 of NW 1/4 Section 35, T3N R16W, ALSO at the NE corner of Sec 34 , th Won the N line of sd sec, 831 .16 ft to the POB of this desc, th cont. W 172 ft, th S 204 ft, th E 111 .34 ft, th N 54dg40' E 74.35 ft, th N 161 ft to the POB, ALSO EXC comm 590 ft E of the NW comer of Sec 35, th S 500 ft, th E 450 ft, th N 500 ft, th W 450 ft to POB, Section 34, T3N R16W, ALSO EXC that part of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec 34, desc as beginn at a point on the N line of Sec 34 , being N godegO0'OO" W 817 .18 ft from the NE comer of Sec 34, th proceeding S 26deg00'00" E 61 .295 ft, th S 0OdegOO'0O" W 218.05 ft, th N 90deg00'00" W 240.17 ft, th N 0OdegOO'OO" E 144.645 ft, th S 90deg00'00" E 14.26 ft, th N 0Odeg00'0O" E 128.50 ft to the N line of Sec 34 , th on sd N line S 90deg00'00" E 13.06 ft, th S 0Odeg0O'00" W 204.00 ft, th S 90deg00'00" E 111 .34 ft, th N 54deg40'06" E 74.355 ft (previously desc as N 54deg40' E 75.35 ft) , th N 0OdegOO'OO" E 161 .00 ft to the N line of Sec 34, th S 90deg00'00" E 13.98 ft to the POB, cont 0.671 acres being subject to any part taken , used or deeded for public road purposes and being subject to any easements or other conveyances of record. All land is located in Section 34, T3N R16W , SauQatuck Township, AlleQan County, MichiQan. 03-16301-123104 03-34237-123102 Not MaPPed Auaust L. Knikelbine Not Maooed Paul A. Koeman Sauaatuck Township Tri-Com munity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4- 14 �7 Map 4-5 Prime Farmlands with Agricultural Protection SaugatucJ< Tri-Communities PRIME FARMLAND MAP with Agricultural Protection ALL EG A N C O UNTY , MI C HIG AN Municipal Legend C J Jurisdtction Boundaries Section Legend I ] Section Boundaries Prime Farmland* - § Unconditional [=:I Where drained c:=l Where drained and protected from flooding Ij PA116 Protected Lands rzz2l Labeled with contract expiration date • Areas of lh& map shown as prime farmland based on aoll type•"' rot considered prime farmland If they are U'bal'U.ed or built~. Sou-co: 1983 USDA Soil Slriey of Alegan Courty, Maps georeferenoed and digitized by Western Mlctigan Utiversity. * _ ,. . \. . ~··•rrk•t w' 8 . "':-',.C;::!;::..._~-~-=:-:.:ad=-\' Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-15 �GROUNDWATER Groundwater from wells is an unseen resource and is therefore particularly vulnerable to mismanagement and contamination . Prior to the 1980's, little was known about groundwater contamination in Michigan. Since then some startling facts have been revealed. The leading causes of groundwater contamination in Michigan are from small businesses and agriculture. More than 50% of contamination comes from small businesses that use organic solvents, such as benzene, toluene and xylene, and heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, and zinc. The origin of the problem stems from careless storage and handling of hazardous substances. On paved surfaces where hazardous materials are stored, substances can seep through or flow off the edge of the pavement. Materials can get into floor drains which discharge to soils, wetlands or water courses. At present, groundwater is the only tapped source of potable water for the City of Saugatuck, the City of the Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township. The glacial drift aquifers in the area are especially vulnerable to contamination because of rapid permeability and high water table. In a local example, Douglas' municipal water supply has been contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOC's), supposedly by an industrial site within the Village (The old Case manufacturing plant, now owned by Haworth Company. This site has recently been allocated $2.2 million by the MDEQ for clean-up. The plume of contamination has been spreading toward the site of an old golf course that has been planned for housing development.) Some areas without municipal sewer and water service are in danger of groundwater contamination due to septic systems, intensive development and a high water table. In the Goshorn Lake area, household wells are susceptible to contamination from septic systems due to intensive development and a high water table. The Allegan County Health Department recommends provision of public water and sewer to households in that area. Protection of groundwater resources is problematic because of difficulties in locating aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative location of groundwater at particular points. According to well logs from Michigan Groundwater Survey (MGS) data, well depths range from 29 ft. in the north central area to 360 ft. in the extreme southwest comer of the Township. Soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination are found on Map 4-6 . Well locations are indicated by small triangles on Map 4-6. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-16 �=i ) f Map 4-6 Tri-Community Groundwater Vulnerability and Well Locations Saugatuck 1)i-Commw1ities GROUNDWATER SENSITIVITY MAP l ALLEGAN COUNTY, ~UCIOCAN M unlcipal Legend C'I Jurisdiction Boundaries Section Legend Sect10n Boundaries Groundwater Sensitivity• §f -~ ~ ~ - Very High High lloderate lo High lloderate to Low Low - Very Low •Scuce.l.JJsch,OEtel MicHgan StaCe Unlwrsityc«--.er fa- R&'Td.e Senslrg .?J ~ wf -:""r:::~~.:.:::.~ l Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-17 �SPECIAL FEATURES Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches The entire shoreline, from M-89 to the sand dunes, is flanked by single family homes overlooking sand and clay bluffs. The Lake Michigan shoreline in Saugatuck Township is very susceptible to wind and water erosion during storms and high lake levels due to resultant wave action. According to US Army Corps of Engineers studies (Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study, 2002), some bluff loss can continue during low water periods as well, but this has not been observed in the Tri-Communities area. The closing of a segment of Lakeshore Drive due to bluff erosion is a graphic example of the inevitable landward movement of the bluff line. This process includes wave action; high Lake Michigan level; wind and rain erosion; the effects of groundwater flow; lake currents that transport sediment; long shore and pier structures that interrupt sediment transport along the shore; and gravity. The Saugatuck Pier is an example of a structure that contributes to shoreline erosion in the direction of current flow, according to a Harbor Structure Impact Study. These all work together to create a bluff dynamic that poses potential hazards to public health and safety. The Shorelands Protection Act of 1970 [now Part 323 of PA 451 of 1994] was enacted to identify areas where hazards exist by designating them and by passage of measures to minimize losses resulting from natural forces of erosion. High risk erosion areas are defined by the State of Michigan as areas of the shore along which bluffline recession has proceeded at a long term average of 1 foot or more per year. Almost the entire Lake Michigan shoreline in the TriCommunity area has been designated as a high risk erosion area, with some portions eroding at a rate of 1.7 feet per year. Within the designated area, shown on Map 4-7, alteration of the soil, natural drainage, vegetation, fish or wildlife habitat, and any placement of permanent structures, requires a DEQ review and permit, unless the local unit of government has an approved high risk erosion area ordinance. Similar to most shoreline communities in Michigan, Saugatuck Township, Douglas and Saugatuck do not have such an ordinance. Photo 4-3 Lake Michigan Beach Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Visitors and Convention Bureau Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-18 �Recent studies by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study) have re-examined the potential damages that could be caused by fluctuating Lake Michigan levels. These studies were based on evidence that the range of that fluctuation could be greater than has been experienced in the lifetime of current residents, and more so than recorded since European settlers arrived. The study found that many existing residences could suffer damage, or even be destroyed by collapsing bluffs, within the next 50 years . Only a very well-constructed armament of the shore, with Class One revetments (engineered to survive at least 50 years) extending at least 1,000 feet along the shore is likely to prevent the loss of structures within the potential erosion zon8. However, it is unlikely that such structures will be permitted by the Corps of Engineers because armament of the shore prevents the contribution of sediment to the littoral currents that nourish beaches down the coast. The result of armament of one section of shore has often been found to accelerate erosion of the next, unarmored segment of shore. The Tri-Community Lake Michigan shoreline has parcels of many different depths. Where shoreline parcels are not very deep, there is little room to adjust to the receding bluff. See Photo 4-4. There will likely be considerable pressure to obtain permits to protect those bluffs from further erosion. Where parcel depth permits, residences could be moved or rebuilt farther from the advancing bluff. See Photo 4-5. New homes could be built using a system of built-in rollers that permits it to be moved back when necessary. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4- 19 �Photo 4-4 Shallow Lakefront Parcels in Saugatuck Township Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-20 �Photo 4-5 Deep Lakefront Parcels in Saugatuck Township Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Of particular concern is the safety issue of falling debris from collapsing houses and the public health hazard of damaged or collapsed septic systems. This danger needs to be addressed as the bluffs continue to erode. Fluctuating Lake Michigan levels also affect the beaches. At very high Lake Michigan levels, there can be little or no beach for residents and tourists to walk along . At very low levels, there is plenty of beach to enjoy. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-21 �7 Map 4-7 Tri-Community High Risk Erosion Areas Saugatuck Tri-Communities HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS AL LEGAN COUNTY, l't11 CHJGAN Municipal Legend c::Ji JurlsctecUOn Boundwies Section Legend 1 Secbon Boundaries Parcel Legend § C::J -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Parcel Boundaries High Risk Erosion Areas Cl ErOSion Neas Wilh 30 and 60 Yea- Setbacks• teb 11 ff ~. it 'Nl.fflb&ni In fMI "'f)IOMnl it. p,oJIICted lh:Jrolre rec.N9ion dlt#n::eS for JO ind 60 ~ periods Thole.,.... . . defnid by P.rt 323, S1-ofeli!nd, Proteccion ind Managemert. of h NaU'al R.ho1.1ee & ErwlfOmlert.al PIQtectlonAd. 1994 PA ◄ 51 bef~ Groat ulrN ~ .... doa.monl9d lo recede., average of one fool or ITIOAI ~ yea- Mic:Hg#t [)ep#tmett of Natuw: ~ 0 8 9 - Lend.-dWaterM~Olvtlion - 1995 1 leg.., ~ ~§ H it Ra ~~ 1j !. H ~ll w' . _..________ ... _ ,.. __ M,,p,,Co.nr~.._.........__"" Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 4-22 �j"" Sand Dunes The sand dunes along Lake Michigan in the northwest corner of the Township represent a unique and fragile physiographic formation and ecosystem that is very susceptible to wind and water erosion, and destruction due to careless use or development. The dune arect which is in Saugatuck Township and the City of Saugatuck has been identified by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a critical dune area, subject to protection under the Michigan Sand Dune Protection and Management Act, new Part 353, PA 451 of 1994. The designated critical dune area is shown in the shaded region of Map 4-8. Under this Act, all proposed commercial or industrial uses, multifamily uses of more than 3 acres, and any use which the local planning commission or the DEQ determines would damage or destroy features of archaeological or historical significance must be approved by the State. Single family residential development is to be regulated at the local level. The law prohibits surface drilling operations that explore 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 fragile 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 southwestern portion of the Township east of 1-196. Other smaller patches of upland and lowland hardwoods and conifers are scattered throughout the area, as shown on Map 4-9. Mature trees represent a valuable resource in maintaining the aesthetic character of the area, not to mention their overall importance to wildlife and the natural 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 Update June,2005 4-23 �7 ) ) Map 4-8 Tri-Community Critical Dunes Areas Saugatuck Tri-Communities CRITJCAL DUNES MAP ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN ' ~' Muni cipal legend i c:::J Jurtsdiction Boundartes Section Legend i__, Section Boundaries Critical Dune Legend ~ Designated Barrier Dune Formations l122l Exemplary Associated Plant Commun~ies -~ ~ Sot.n:e AIIH or Proposed Crilk:-al Di.ne• - 02/17(1989 ·S:t ~ Land and Walof Management Olvlfllon - M!cNgan Department of N.lural Resotn:es Olgl~ ftom g&OA1f--»d or paper maps from pi.blahed atlas -=- J ~ 28 I •-- _L 33 .I 2;r 34 I t 16 ,,,..~ I f I I .,.,,J :1 I ~s•-•~ •! -- ' i ----ti - ,--+I =•1: ;' -36 ! i ~17! -I! --I ~ 1-~·r 1-· 1, . - - -·-·~ ) ~ -I r·~ I ~~ <1. -- - - ._ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 · 4-24 wt I 122tdA,4 l N .......,,~....,~a.---""....., ._.._._.__.. ,....d._ ... �7 ) ) Map 4-9 Tri-Community Woodlands , Saugatuck Tri-Communities ; WOODLANDS MAP ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN I ~ Municipal Legend I CIJurisdictlon Boundaries Section Legend [ Section Boundaries Woodland Legend' - ~ Natural Woodland -Tree Plantation -~ ~ • Based on a 1996 Land Use Classification conducted by the GIS Research Center at Western Mchigan UnNel's!ty for a ~ project funded by the Envlronmental Protection Agency ~ ~ wf r ... John : f:\winword\tri -communities\final\CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES final.doc ,,.,,.. .j. "':""_c:-:=.=:-:-8::.":.-=:.-::.,.__. C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 4-25 �Chapter 5 EXISTING LAND COVER AND USE INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the types of land uses and land cover in the Tri-Communities. Land use refers to the types of activities on land, such as residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial and recreational. Land cover refers to the presence and type of vegetation or lack of it, such as dune areas and water bodies. LAND USE/COVER DATA SOURCES Land cover and use refers to an inventory of existing vegetation, natural features, and land use over the entire Tri-Community area. This data was obtained in computerized form from the Allegan County GIS Department based on 1978 aerial photographs and the Michigan Resource Inventory System (MiRIS) database, and an update based on 1996 aerial photographs and interpreted by Western Michigan University GIS Department. Land cover and use categories included in the data are explained on the legend to Map 5-1. The wetlands and woodlands maps in Chapter 4 were also derived from this data. Land use by category for the entire Tri-Community area is shown in Table 5-1. This information was derived from the aforementioned data sources and areas were calculated using the County's Geographic Information System (GIS). The predominant land use in the Tri-Community area is agricultural (3, 11 O acres), followed by single family residential (2,242 acres). There were substantial changes in land use between 1978 and 1996. Agriculture declined by 43% from 5,431 acres and residential increased by 57% from 1,431 acres. Much of the shift in agriculture went to "open land, shrub and herbaceous," the rest to low density residential. The predominant land cover types are upland forest, open land, shrub and herbaceous (3,570 acres) and wetlands (2,645 acres). The data shows that wetland acres increased by nearly 700% between 1978 and 1996, this is due to changes in classification and not to an increase in the acres of wetlands. Often, wetland acres decline due to development, but this data does not reflect any wetland loss. Vacant land, which includes the categories of open land, shrub and herbaceous, upland forest, lowland forest and wetland land cover types, comprises fifty-six percent of the total land area (street ROWs, which comprise about 1.3% are excluded). Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 5-1 �7 ) ) ) Map 5-1 Tri-Community Land Cover/Land Use, 1996 Saugatuck Tri-Communities I i LAND USE 1996 MAP _..J:.:-_ 5 ALLEGAN COUNTY, MIClUGAN Municipal legend C:,Jurisdicl,on BoundaMes Section Legend 7 Section Boundaries Land Use Legend• r=] Resldentia! § c=J Mobile Home Par1( .~ - commercial c:::::I Institutional -Industrial CJ Transportation ~ ~ - Utilities Recreation Cemeteries Cl AgMculture c::::J Herbaceous and Shrubland ~ ~ liil:ITreePlantation Woodland □ Wetlands CJ Water D Dunes, Beaches and Banks - Exposed Rock Aggregate Extraction CJ Landfills and Junkyards • Land use interpreted by the 01S Research Center al Weslem Mchlgan Uolversily fof a project funded by lhe EnWOf'lmenlal Protection Agency wf "'":"'..;::'!::!':.:..-:::.~:-:.-- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-2 �Table 5-1 Tri-Community Land Use/Land Cover, 1978 & 1996 1978 • 1996 LAND COVER/USE Residential: Low Rise Multi-Family Single Family/Duplex Mobile Home Park Commercial: Central Business District* Strip Commercial* Industrial Institutional Transportation Commun ication and Utilities Extractive or Wells Outdoor Recreation Cemeteries Agricultural Open Land, Shrub and Herbaceous Upland Forest Acres %of Total Acres %of Total % Change 19781996 6 1,431 41 0.0% 8.1% 0.2% 45 2,242 38 0.3% 12.6% 0.2% 665.5% 56.7% -8 .5% 0 180 21 37 281 36 0 317 22 5,431 1,032 6,406 0.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.2% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 1.8% 0.1% 30.6% 5.8% 36.1% 96 76 144 152 239 52 50 249 28 3,110 3,570 3,663 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.4% 0.2% 17.5% 20 .1% 20.6% 0.0% -57 .7% 598 .5% 311 .7% -15.1% 46.4% -21 .5% 29 .7% -42.7% 245.8% -42 .8% Lowland Forest Water Wetlands TOT AL AREA (ACRES & %) 991 1,193 334 17,758 5.6% 6.7% 1.9% 100.0% 0 1,349 2,645 17,749 0.0% 7.6% 14.9% 100.0% 100.0% 13.1% 692.9% 0.0% - Note: City and Village data included in the Township. SOURCE: 1978 data: MIRIS, Land and Water Management Division, DNR 1978 SOURCE: 1996 data: GIS Research Center Western Michigan University & Allegan County GIS Department *CBD was included in strip commercial in 1978 Land Use by Tax Class Another measure of land use is to look at land use by tax assessment classes . This approach covers the use of the land but not the different characteristics such as vegetative cover, water, etc. Land use acres by tax class for the Tri-Communities are shown in Table 5-2. See also Map 5-2. It can be useful to compare land use as interpreted from aerial photographs and land use by tax class in order to view the potential for development. Land may be vacant or have shrub or wooded cover, but if classed as residential , commercial or industrial it has potential for development in the near future . While about 2,200 acres are currently in residential land use, according to the 1996 Land Use/Land Cover Map (Map 5-1) and Table 5-1 , there are over 10,500 acres classed as residential in Saugatuck Township (Table 5-2). This suggests a large portion of the Township is primed to be converted from vacant to residential development. However, Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-3 �note on Map 5-2 that there are large areas classed as residential that are unbuildable, especially in the wetland areas in the Kalamazoo River floodplain . Table 5-2 Land Use by Tax Class, Saugatuck City, Saugatuck Township and City of the Village of Douglas, in Acres, 2003 Class Code 000 001 101 102 201 202 301 302 401 402 601 602 701 702 705 Total Class New Parcel Real Reference Real Agricultural Agricultural Vacant Commercial Commercial Vacant Industrial Industrial Vacant Residential Residential Vacant Developmental Developmental Vacant Exempt Exempt Vacant Commercial Forest Acres by Jurisdiction Saugatuck Twp 291 59 3,488 91 2,723 7 169 2 8,644 1,686 262 Saugatuck City 6 1 0 0 68 0 0 0 507 0 0 Douglas City 14 0 0 0 250 14 69 0 1,387 7 71 Total Acres by Class 311 61 3,488 91 3,042 21 238 2 10,539 1,693 333 43 860 0 0 18,326 0 283 0 0 865 0 71 0 0 1,885 43 1,214 0 0 21 ,076 Source: Allegan County GIS Department Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-4 �2 co "O a. >< ....ns>, N.C I L{) Q) 1/) c..:::::, ro 'tJ ~c ns --' :::> C co 0:: Q) .2: ti) CLO 0 .s::::.O Q) Ql N ~ 0:::, (.)' ~ ·c: :::, E E 0 (.) I ·.::: f- LO g J, �AGRICULTURAL The size of agricultural parcels in Saugatuck Township ranges from over 160 acres to under 10 acres, with the average size being about 43 acres. Agricultural land in the Township is used primarily for crops and orchards, with some livestock. See the parcel dist,ibution on Map 5-2. Prime Farmlands Prime farmland is generally concentrated in the south central part of the Township . See Map 4-5. There is a fairly good match between the location of prime farmland soils and the location of agricultural land (see Map 5-1, Land Use/Land Cover). Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting the nation's short and long term needs for food. Prime farmlands have been identified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service so that local governments can encourage and facilitate the wise use of valuable farmlands. Prime farmland is that which is best suited to food, feed, forage and oilseed crops. The soil qualities, growing season and moisture supply are those needed to economically produce a sustained high yield of crops. Michigan Farmland Preservation Act The Michigan Farmland Preservation Act of 1974 (PA 116), now Part 361 of PA 451 of 1994, allows landowners to enter into a voluntary agreement with the State whereby the land will remain in agricultural use for at least ten years. In return, the landowner is entitled to certain tax benefits. The program has been effective in helping to ensure that suitable lands are retained for farming. There are 74 acres of PA 116 lands in the Township , all of them in the southern half, in sections 27, 28 and 33. In 1988, there were 1,100 acres under PA 116 contracts. This is a reduction of nearly all PA 116 lands since the previous Comprehensive Plan was written . Contracts for the remaining PA 116 lands expire in 2004. This means this land is available for residential use and is no longer being managed for long term agricultural production. Most of the prime farmlands in the Township are not suitable for intensive development because of soil limitations. However, there are some farmlands that are suitable for development. RESIDENTIAL Residential areas in the Tri-Community area vary widely in character between the rural areas of the Township and the urbanized areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. The majority of residential development in the Township is scattered along county roads and along the Lake Michigan Shore. Most resort-residential development in all three communities is located along the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. Single family structures are the predominant residential type. The "hill" in Saugatuck and the neighborhood surrounding the Village Center in Douglas are other distinct residential areas. Most multiple family structures are concentrated in Saugatuck and Douglas, with only one such development in the Township (Section 3). There are four mobile home parks in the Tri-Community area: two in the City of the Village of Douglas and two in the southern half of the Township. Some distinct residential areas existing within the three communities are described further below. See the parcel distribution on Map 5-2. Lakeshore Area The Lake Michigan shore is fronted by many large single family homes along Lakeshore Drive for five miles from M-89 to the City of Saugatuck. This area is characterized by scenic vistas of the lake and the bluffs. Large trees line the road and many homes are Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-6 �on wooded lots. Many of the lots are very long and narrow. See the parcel distribution on Map 5-2. Where lots are long, there may be sufficient depth to move homes or rebuild as the bluff retreats landward over time. Where lots are very shallow, there is no room to adjust to bluff retreat and many of the "second tier" homes (those across the street from lake'front lots) may become "first tier'' as homes currently on lakefront property are destroyed. See the discussion and photos in Chapter 4. This is likely to be a protracted process as bluff retreat does not occur at a constant rate and varies in rate along the shoreline. A large portion of the lakeshore both north and south of the mouth of the Kalamazoo River is undeveloped or very sparsely developed. A portion of this segment of shoreline is in public ownership as Oval Beach Park. A fund-raising program is underway to acquire the "Denison Property", which is the large acreage immediately south of the river mouth. This would provide a more substantial public beach and help preserve the dune ecosystem in a natural state. Preservation of the area north of the River mouth is also sought in order to add to the State Park. Kalamazoo River Much of the area surrounding the Kalamazoo River east of Douglas is a wetland, unsuitable for residential use. The area is also wooded and is habitat to many birds and other wildlife. In some places, homes overlook the Kalamazoo River and Silver Lake (a shallow bayou connected to the Kalamazoo River) . The character of the Kalamazoo River area is widely different from other residential areas of the Township in that there are no farms or commercial/industrial development-aside from a marina in Section 23. Lot sizes in this area vary widely. Lots on the north side of Silver Lake tend to be very long and narrow and could pose land development problems if permitted to be subdivided any further. See the parcel distribution on Map 5-2. Rural Areas The rural areas of the Township are the southern agricultural, northeast, and riverfrontdunes areas. The southern agricultural area consists of farms, orchards, and a growing number of single family homes on large lots (1 O+ acres). Typically, these homes are located along the county roads at the perimeter of the sections. In addition to scattered development on large lots, there are several subdivisions. These are developments with 30 or less lots averaging approximately one acre each in size. The northeast area is a mix of woodlands and farms, with some steep slopes. Residences are mostly on large lots (40+ acres), with some on small lots within the large lots. Residences in the riverfront-dunes area north of Saugatuck are mostly on small lots fronting the Kalamazoo River. Most of that area is unspoiled wetland, dunes and beaches. See the parcel distribution on Map 5-2. Douglas Approximately 25 blocks of long-established neighborhoods surround the center of the City of the Village of Douglas. These consist primarily of older homes with some homes less than 30 years old scattered throughout. Elsewhere in the Village, residential development is concentrated along Lakeshore Drive and along Campbell Road, 130th Avenue, and Water Street. Saugatuck Condominiums line the shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Lake St. and block a scenic view of the lake. Most of the City's year-round residents live above the steep ridge ("the hill") Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-7 �which separates the waterfront area from the rest of the City. Small cottages on very small lots line the west shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Park St. Tearing down smaller, older homes to be replaced by larger, newer homes will become a larger challenge in the next few years to retaining a "quaint small town" atmosphere . • COMMERCIAL The major commercial areas in the Tri-Community area are in the northern part of the Township along Blue Star Highway, downtown Saugatuck, the Douglas village center, and in Douglas along Blue Star Highway. Blue Star Highway The negative effects of commercial strip development has been addressed by zoning ordinances such as consolidation of driveways and parking facilities , grouping of stores into "mini malls", and site design standards which require that natural features be positively incorporated into new developments, as well as minimizing "asphalt landscaping". Siting new development back from the highway has been a major improvement. Sixty-five percent of the people responding to the 1988 Public Opinion Survey indicated that they did not want to see strip commercial development in the future. In the 2004 survey, the same question was not asked . However, appearance of the Blue Star Highway was important to survey respondents . Commercial uses along Blue Star Highway in the Township include restaurants, gas stations, boat service, motels, auto repair, small offices, mini-storage buildings, firehouse and a mixture of small retail establishments. Blue Star Highway from 130th. Avenue south to M-89 has a rural character with a combination of wooded areas, open land, scattered residential development, and a "you pick" blueberry farm. Some highway oriented commercial uses are clustered around the interchanges with 1-196. Downtown Saugatuck Commercial uses in downtown Saugatuck are primarily oriented to tourists and seasonal residents. Many of the businesses occupy large, older residential structures. Others occupy the old and historic buildings lining Butler Street. This business district has few parking spaces due to the compact arrangement of the area's original design and heavy pedestrian traffic. Parking is a seasonal problem and a permanent solution has not yet been formulated . There is a shuttle service between the downtown and the High School parking lot during peak use periods to help alleviate the situation. Businesses include bed and breakfasts, small and large restaurants, clothing stores, art galleries and numerous specialty shops, with boat service and marina facil ities located along the waterfront. This commercial district has a unique historic character worth preserving and further enhancing and represents a great asset to the Tri-Community area as well as to the region and the state. Douglas Village Center This growing retail area consists of restaurants , public and private offices and specialty shops increasingly tourist/seasonal oriented. Other uses include the Post Office, Village Hall, restaurants , art galleries, police department, antique shops and the public library. Parking is located along both sides of Center St. and is adequate to meet current needs. There are few vacant lots and buildings in this area which could be used for new retail development. Douglas has an active and expand ing Downtown Development Association . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-8 �INDUSTRIAL Industrial development is limited in the Tri-Community area. Less than 1% of the total land area is devoted to industrial uses. Office furniture manufacturing is the major industrial activity. There are few small manufacturing firms. The Tri-Community area is located 150 miles from Detroit, 180 miles from Chicago and 36 miles from Grand Rapids al~ng a major interstate highway. This is an advantageous location for small scale, light industrial development. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Tri-Community area is rich in cultural, and historical points of interest and many archaeological sites can be found throughout the area. Leading eco omists and forwardthinking governmental leaders have recognized the social and economic value of promoting and preserving cultural and historic assets. The state of Michigan recommends that local strategic planning documents contain an historic preservation element, which becomes or provides the blueprint for preservation efforts. People like to live, work and play where history prospers. History attracts tourists and residents to Michigan towns. The community survey that was conducted as part of this Tri-Communities Planning Process indicated that a high percentage of residents concur that historic preservation should be one of the components of a strategy for shaping our future. The state of Michigan has made community cultural-;- planning a key part of several of its most publicized and marketed economic development strategies: the "smart growth"; "heritage/cultural tourism"; and "cool cities" initiatives. Community Cultural Base The Tri-Communities are rich in cultural opportunities for residents and visitors. They include a long-standing chamber music venue and jazz performance series, an annual film festival, a children's film festival, a professional theater venue, on-going art fairs summer school of painting and the arts, and many excellent art galleries. In addition, a number of civic and religious organizations exist, including Masonic, Lions and Kiwanis clubs, as well as several garden clubs. Since 2003 the Saugatuck Center for the Arts, a non-profit organization, was formed to serve as a venue for performance (music, dance, theater), film, arts education, exhibitions (arts, cultural, historical) and community activities. Community Historic Character The Tri-Communities are rich in history and many historic and archaeological sites can be found in the area. Equally important, the communities have been the home of a number of nationally and internationally important architects, artists and arts-related professionals. The absence of industrial development in the area has left much of these layers of history intact and still much in evidence as part of the visual make-up of the area. In addition, the communities have a number of architecturally or historically significant buildings, some by important American architects, as well as collections (neighborhoods) of historic structures. Historic Buildings and Sites -------- Singapore, Michigan's most famous ghost town and once a thriving lumber town, lies buried at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. A plaque commemorating its existence stands in front of the Saugatuck City Hall. Historic and archaeological sites are Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 5-9 �r designated by the Michigan Bureau of History. The Michigan State Register of Historic Sites was established in 1955 to provide official recognition for historic resources in Michigan . Designated historic sites have unique historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance. There are numerous State historic sites throughout the Tri-Community area, which are listed on Table 5-3. Old Allegan Road in Saugatuck Township is officially designated as a State Historic Site. Preservation is an on-going activity. For example, as early as the 1940's the famous "lost village" of Singapore was placed on the National Register of Historic Places; in the 1980's inappropriate alterations to the Saugatuck Village Hall were blocked and alternate plans were implemented that were more respectful to the building's history; the city's former pump house was converted to a public museum in 1993; the Douglas Village Hall-Dutcher Lodge was recently restored; and the city of Saugatuck has mandated a part of the city as an historic district. In addition, a number of private property owners have engaged in restoration projects. Nearly a dozen properties in the Tri-communities are included on either or both the State and National Register of Historic Places. State historic site or historic district designation does include tax benefits, but does not impose any restrictions upon the owner of the property. Saugatuck and Douglas recently received the federal "Preservation America" Award which opens the door to federal grant money. The Saugatuck-Douglas Historical Society is active in promoting, identifying and preserving many aspects of area history, including historical sites. It has undertaken a survey of area buildings, published nine books on area history and has collected some 12,000 photographic images relating to the community and its history. In the past four years it has given "Heritage Awards" to over 300 local property owners, builders and architects for their accomplishments in the area of new construction and preservation of existing structures. It operates the award-winning Saugatuck-Douglas Historical Museum. Historic Districts The City of Saugatuck has also taken local steps to preserve its historic character. PA 169 of 1970 permits the legislative body of a local government to regulate the construction, demolition and modification of all structures within a designated historic district. The City of Saugatuck has established an historic district within the oldest part of the city. Within this district, construction, addition, moving, excavation and demolition and exterior alteration and repair of structures or resources within the Historic District must comply with requirements set forth in the CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SAUGATUCK, Chapter 152 HISTORIC DISTRICT REGULATIONS, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. See Map 5-3 for the boundaries of the Historic District. Douglas Historical Preservation Committee The Douglas Historical Preservation Committee was formed in May of 1991 . The purpose of this Committee is to discover, procure and preserve whatever may relate to the civil, religious, social, cultural and natural history of the City of the Village of Douglas. Its mission includes: collecting oral histories, establishing a library of books, pamphlets, Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 5-10 �r maps, manuscripts, prints, papers, paintings, photographs, historical, genealogical, archaeological and biographical materials relating to the Douglas area, and at a future time, maintain a museum for the purpose of exhibiting, illustrating and preserving antiquities descriptive of past and present resources of the Douglas area. The Committee also plans to encourage and promote the study and enjoyment of history by lectures and other means; and to publish and distribute information relative to the Douglas area, as well as the physical preservation and when possible, the renovation of historic structures. The focus of the past several years has been to raise funds and encourage the City of the Village of Douglas to renovate the landmark building in the center of town, known as the Dutcher Lodge, for a community center and Village Hall. This phase has been completed. Archaeological Sites Archaeological sites are of particular scientific value to the fields of anthropology, ecology and biology, and may have historic or ethnic significance as well. There are 120 archaeological sites scattered throughout the Tri-Community area, mostly related to Ottawa and Potawatomi cultures. Their exact locations have not been disclosed by the Bureau of History to protect them from exploitation. One of these sites, the Hacklander Site, located in Section 23 is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and has components representing Middle and Late Woodland periods. A second important site is the old Singapore site located at the north edge of the "new" (1906) harbor channel. Recipients of Federal assistance must ensure that their projects avoid damage or destruction of significant historical and archaeological resources. The Michigan Bureau of History reviews these projects to assess their impact on archaeological sites. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 5-11 �r Map 5-3 Saugatuck Historic District 11.E LIi. / ,..;;'··, ·\·' " - . John: f:\winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPTER 5 EXISTING LAND USE final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 5 EXISTING LAND USE final 6 2 OS.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 5-13 ---- �r Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses public facilities and services other than those related to recreation (see Chapter 7: Recreation). These include utilities, public safety, schools, transportation and local government lands and facilities. UTILITIES Sewer and Water Authority The Tri-Communities area sewer and water systems are managed by the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority (KLSWA), which is responsible for operation and maintenance and provides water production and wastewater treatment. Each community is responsible for providing and financing their own infrastructure. The service areas for the sewer and water systems, shown on Map 6-1 include Saugatuck City, Douglas Village and a portion of Saugatuck Township. Water service also extends into Laketown Township. Proposals for modifications or expansions of water and sewer must take into consideration the permanent population, seasonal population, number of daily visitors, and future industrial flow. Peak periods for public utilities in the Tri-Communities area are more pronounced than in typical communities due to the relatively high seasonal and daily visitor populations. Water System The source of the municipal and private water supply is groundwater. Capacity of the municipal system is 3.6 million gallons per day and a firm capacity of 2.8 million gallons per day. Firm capacity is the amount of water which can be pumped with the largest system well out of service. Using Lake Michigan as a water source has been studied in the past, but is not as cost effective as groundwater at the present. Pockets of groundwater contamination in the Tri-Communities affect the ability of individuals and the communities to rely on groundwater. Both Saugatuck and Douglas have policies encouraging their citizens to hook up to city/village water and sewer lines. The reliability of the water system depends on water supply sufficient to meet peak demands, storage capacity to provide fire flows for sufficient duration, adequate water pressure, water quality and distribution system loops. There is no deficiency in meeting peak demands nor is there any deficiency in pumping capacity. The Maximum Day Demand to date has been 1.69 M.G.D. (June 2003) while the firm capacity is 2.8 M.G.D. The water is not treated, except for chlorination and iron sequestering . Parts of the current water system date back to 1907 in Saugatuck, and to 1914 in Douglas. In addition, some water mains are old, small and substandard; leaks are a problem on older service lines. Growth is restricted in areas not serviced by the system. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-1 �r The Kalamazoo Lake Water and Sewer Authority provides water service to Saugatuck City, Douglas Village and portions of Saugatuck Township through a joint water agreement. A new Joint Water Agreement was approved in 2001. The Joint Water Agreement: • 'Provides for the interconnection of the Saugatuck-Douglas system with the Township • Does not require any payment from one party to another • Reserves 50 percent of the total well capacity of the Township customers of the initial service area • Bars the Township from selling capacity beyond the 50 percent level to anyone outside the service area without the written consent of all three ju isdictions • Requires that Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township continue to own their respective water systems • Bases rates on strict cost of service principles, with each government determining the debt service component charged to customers within its boundaries. In addition to supplying water to the Tri-Communities, KLWSA also provides water to a portion of Laketown Township. An agreement was reached in 2003, following several years of negotiation, to provide Laketown Township with 20,000 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd) with no limitation on water. Previously, KLSWA had an agreement to provide Laketown Township with up to 10,000 gpd of wastewater as part of an arrangement that included the provision of water to the State Correctional Facility in Laketown Township, now closed. Saugatuck Township currently supplies water to portions of Laketown Township (Goshorn Lake) under terms of a Water Agreement signed in November, 1998. The existing water system still has many dead end lines, which are susceptible to water discoloration and development of tastes and odors due to stagnation. The best arrangement for water mains is the gridiron system, where all primary and secondary feeders are looped and interconnected, and the small distribution mains tie to each loop to form a complete grid. If an adequate number of valves are inserted, only a small 1 block area will be affected in the event of a break. An 8-in. interconnection between the Township well system and the Saugatuck-Douglas system has been established. Two river crossings exist. One 12-in. connecting Saugatuck with Douglas at the Blue Star Bridge; one 16-in. connecting the Mt. Baldhead Reservoir to the 12-in. main in Water Street within the city of Saugatuck. In 1984 and 1985, a one million gallon above-ground storage tank was constructed, which allowed Saugatuck and Douglas to meet normal and fire protection demands. Now that Saugatuck Township is included in the system, the storage tank has helped raise the fire protection rating for Saugatuck Township from a 9 to a 5, a better rating that reduces insurance costs to businesses and home owners (fire fighting equipment capacity also contributed to improved rating). Additional storage capacity is needed if service were extended to the southern portions of the Township. If water were to be extended to areas of the Township south of the Douglas elevated storage or a booster pumping station might be required to provide adequate system pressure to the area. Recently, the City of Holland proposed to extend a water intake into Lake Michigan from Saugatuck Dunes State Park. Significant opposition has left that proposal in limbo. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-2 �- - - -- --=====:::::=::::::=;;::;:::;:::::=~---~=~=========-~II ) ) Map 6-1 Tri-Community Utilities • -1, <fl l ■ .:I.I Saugatuck • Tri-Communities ., ~ j UTILITIES MAP I I 5 ;iJI ALLEGAN 8 '"'" . ,j "- cou~. MI CHIGAN Municipal Legend ! c::JJurisdiction Boundaries Section Legend [ J Section Boundaries Water Legend -~: tz22 Areas Within 500 Feet of a Water Main· Water Well 0 Waler Tower Sewer Legend ~'\." Areas Within 500 Feet of a Sewer Line• " Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Discharge Point -~ ~ Powerline Legend - - PONerline ~ ~ Pipeline Legend - r 28 33 ., i 34 'ii - Gas Pipeline ·re~ on map Indicates most reoenl L4J(late 36 GA.NOES TWP wf m~~ Source: Allegan County GIS Department Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-3 ---·~11-~1w . .., . . .,.,. AlitgM, C. . . n y ~ _ . . . . . , , , S - - _ , w , ~ lt/ �r About 77 homes in the "Triangle Area" of Saugatuck Township were forced to use bottled water until a water line was extended to them. These homes were in the area bordered by 63 rd Street, Old Allegan and Gleason Roads. Funds for the $1 .6 million project were provided through the Remediation and Redevelopment Fund and the Env1ronmental Protection Bond Fund . Groundwater contamination has also been found in shallow wells in the area of M 89 and Exit 34 in the Township . The City of the Village of Douglas constructed an aerated Iron Removal Plant in 1994 which effectively treats contaminated groundwater prior to distribution. Sewer System Wastewater treatment is provided at a treatment plant located in Saugatuck Township north of the Kalamazoo River. The facility was constructed by the City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas in 1978 with the aeration system upgraded in 2000. The treatment system provides biological and clarification processes for the reduction of BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and suspended solids, including chemical precipitation for the reduction of phosphorus from fertilizers and detergents. The plant has two aerated lagoons and was designed for incremental addition of lagoons to accommodate increased wastewater flow. Capacity is currently 1 million gallons per day. The system currently runs at 45% capacity during the season and 35% capacity during the off-season. The facility was designed for heavier BOD loading than other facilities its size, in order to accommodate a pie factory and thus may not need more capacity of that type for many years. The factory closed in 1998. The discharge is to the Kalamazoo River on the north side of Saugatuck. Photo 6-1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Source: Aaron Sheridan Overview of Sewer Agreement (Approved in 2001) • Provides sewer service to the Township by allowing them to purchase a percentage of Saugatuck's reserve capacity for $262 ,500. Over a six-year period this works out to a total capacity of 100,000 gallons which the Township has purchased and paid for. • Gives the Township access to the force main going to the old state prison. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-4 �r • • Preserves the right of Saugatuck and Douglas to determine the use and accessibility of their infrastructure and under what conditions. The Township provides the infrastructure. In 1957, many of the storm sewers in the City of Saugatuck were converted to sanitary sewers. This system was expanded in 1979 with PVC pipe, and some improvements were made to the old system. The sewer system in Douglas was built entirely since 1978. The two jurisdictions merged their facilities in the late 1970's to form the KLSW A. There has been some infiltration into the system from groundwater due to faulty manholes, pipe, and roof drains. The impacts of this infiltration were most pronounced when Lake Michigan water levels were high. The capacity of the sewer system is sufficient to meet the needs of Saugatuck and Douglas until approximately 2008. The capacity of the wastewater treatment facility would have to re-rated to 1.2 MGD for the Township to use the system until 2008. Thirty-year projections for wastewater treatment for Saugatuck Township include extending service to the south lakeshore residential area and the area of the Township northeast of 1-196. The township has purchased the entire 100,000 gallons of capacity provided for in the Sewer Agreement of 2001 . About 500,000 gallons of reserve capacity is available at the Waste Water Treatment Plant for use by the Authority's member municipalities. As capacity in the plant approaches 900,000 gallons per day, provisions for expanding capacity will be undertaken by the Authority. Sufficient land area is available at the current site to expand the lagoon system and provide capacity to 1.4 million gallons/day. The two basic alternatives for expanding the wastewater collection system in the Township are pressure sewers and gravity sewers. Pressure sewers are generally used where topography or spacing between services prohibit the use of gravity sewers or where high water table and difficult soil conditions prevail, such as in the Tri-Community area. These systems have lower construction costs and higher maintenance and operation costs than gravity sewers. Gravity sewers are the most common in use due to their minimal operation and maintenance expense. However, the cost of initial construction can be substantial for small communities, especially if construction costs are further aggravated by difficult topography and soil conditions. In addition, it is rare that an entire community can be served by gravity sewers. The existing system in Saugatuck and Douglas is a gravity system, with local areas of pressure. Storm Sewers There are very few mapped stormwater drains in the Tri-Community area. Damage has not been a significant problem in most developed areas because of sandy, high permeability soils and lack of large paved areas. It is suspected that some stormwater drains, individual residential and business gutters flowing into the sanitary sewer system which need to be removed. Efforts are underway to improve stormwater drainage. County Drains County Drains are found throughout the Tri-Community area, but mostly in the southern portion of the Township. A network of drains in Sections 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 facilitates the removal of water from an area of poorly drained soils which is used as farmland. The Allegan County Drain Commission placed five drains along the Lake Michigan shore in Sections 20, 29 and 32. These drains help stabilize sand and clay bluffs along Lake Michigan, which are being eroded by groundwater. Other County drains in the area are located in the northeast comer of the Township. See Map 6-2. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-5 �. Map 6-2 Tri-Community County Drains ,- 1;;.· I ~;' '. / ·•r· Saugatuck Tri-Communities .: ,~//,. lI \ / i C HYDROLOGY MAP ALLEGAN COUNTY. MICHIGAN Municipal Legend c::J Jurisdiction Boundaries Section Legend r J Section Boundaries Water Legend Watercourses § - -~ I County Drains Wetlands Legend .'§ rz.zl National Wetlands lnventoiyWetlands" ~ 96 Land Use Wetlands" ~ HydricSolls D ~ c:::J Non-Hydric Soi Possibly Hydric So!'" H)(lricSOil - W,aer ~ ~ ~ ,,. <~ · \ ·,, • OigltiZ!ld ln:lm US fish snd WHdllle Ser...ce Natlonal Wellands lnYenlOfy maps Wed ands were mapped tom high-llllitude colOI infr'•ed Mriel ~ephs In he 1ua, end 1980'• •• Alt clatsi~ 600 utegoryw.ilands, low11Wld hac!Wooda andlow1aodconllt>rs. ••• TheM SQI! ffl!IS may be h~ric unoe, Ge£1aln alle specific condilons . wf Source: Allegan County G/S Department Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-6 ·-•--t. . . ~~t.-...,_, _ _ _ .,._I) _of _ _ �Gas, Electric, Telephone and Cable There are no major gas or oil pipelines in the Tri-Community area. Gas service is provided by Aquila Gas Company and approximate locations of gas mains are shown on Map 6-1 . There is one major 760 kilovolt electric transmission line which crosses the extreme southeast comer of the Township. See Map 6-1 . Electricity in the TriCommunity area is provided by Consumers Energy. Telephone service is provided by Verizon; cable TV service is provided by Comcast of Western Michigan. High speed internet service is provided by satellite, cable, wireless and telephone. TRANSPORTATION Overview Transportation facilities within the Tri-Community area include streets and roads and a public transportation system (Interurban). The Tri-Community area is served by a major Interstate highway (1-196) and by a State highway (M-89). Blue Star Highway, part of the Great Lakes Circle Tour, is the other major highway serving the area. The nearest railroad is the AMTRAK passenger rail system in Holland . Transportation facilities are important in stimulating growth for the Tri-Community area and its location is an asset for attracting further economic and industrial development. Increased non-motorized transportation options, including pedestrian and bicycle trails could further enhance summer recreation opportunities. Providing safe non-motorized transportation paths between downtown Saugatuck, Douglas and the lakeshore beach areas also offers an opportunity to reduce vehicle traffic in core areas. Road Classifications and Volumes Roads are classified according to the amount of traffic they carry and the nature of the traffic. Four common categories are local streets, collectors, local arterials, and primary arterials. Local streets typically provide access to residences with speeds from 20 to 25 mph. Collectors connect local streets to arterials and speeds average 25-35 mph. Primary arterials facilitate larger volumes of traffic which generally originate and terminate within the Tri-Communities area, with a trip length of ten miles or less and an average speed of 35-45 mph. Primary arterials are typically used for high speed-through traffic, and access to the roadway is usually limited . Freeways or expressways are regional arterials and are the highest road classification in the Tri-Community area. I196/US-31 links Saugatuck with nearby Grand Rapids and from the south links with cities such as South Haven and Benton Harbor. See Map 6-3 for road classifications. A paved county primary is a local arterial, while an unpaved county primary is a collector. Each class of road has an important function in maintaining the efficient flow of traffic and it is essential that adequate transportation facilities exist or can be efficiently provided . Driveways should be limited and widely spaced along primary arterials and collectors to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety. Therefore, low intensity land uses with wide lot widths should be built to keep the access points to a minimum. Where commercial use is permitted , shared driveways, connected parking lots and service drives should be used where possible. P A 51 of 1951 provides for the classification of all public roads, streets and highways for the purpose of managing the motor vehicle highway fund . The classifications which pertain to the Tri-Community area are "County-Wide Primary Road" and "County-Wide Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-7 �r Local Road" in Saugatuck Township , and "Major Streets" and " Minor Streets" in Saugatuck and Douglas. Funding is provided to cities and villages for street maintenance and construction based on the number of miles of streets by class within each community. Roads in the Township are managed by the Allegan County Road Commission, which receives Act 51 funds based on the mileage of roads in each class under its jurisdiction . In addition, Township residents passed a millage in 2003 to help pay for road improvements, primarily paving. This is used to cost share with the County Road Commission. Photo 6-2 Local Street in the Tri-Communities Source: Aaron Sheridan Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-8 �r Map 6-3 Road Classifications ~ 5 2 A~ I-' c.u MVN IC uh r 1 V, a cc r2 13 26 25 127THAVE 126TH AVE Source: Allegan County Road Commission, 2004 Map Addenda The end of Park Street in Saugatuck Township as been abandoned and does not extend to the lagoon, as shown. Where the road turns at the top of the hill toward the Oxbow, a line shows an "other road." The road does not exist. Near the entrance to the City water reservoir a line shows an "other road ." Tt does not exist- it is a private easement. . . . Expressway (Limited Access) ~ State Highways c=t:.J]= County Primary (Paved) County Primary (Unpaved) County Local (Paved) = County Local (Unpaved) City Road (Major) City Road (Minor) Other Road © MOOT Car Pool Lot w Expressway Rest Area ~ Expressway Exit Number Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-9 �r Traffic Counts The number of vehicles that travel on a roadway segment on average per day is a useful indicator, over time , that is very helpful in traffic planning . Changes in traffic counts help guide establishment of priorities for road improvements, as well as assisting with the evaltJation of impacts of new development and projecting future traffic conditions. Of course, the highest volume roadway in the Tri-Communities is the freeway. MOOT 24 hour average daily traffic for I-196/US-31 in the Tri-Community area was 21,300 vehicles in 2002. This volume is likely to grow significantly over the next twenty years as the south belt freeway segment is completed and as western Ottawa Cour ty continues to develop. The primary significance of these changes will be steadily rising noise levels along the freeway. It will be very important for the Township and Village to retain and enhance the thick natural tree buffer along the freeway, if nearby homeowners want to be able to enjoy outdoor conversation. While M-89 is a primary arterial which provides access east/west within Allegan County at the southern border of Saugatuck Township, it does not carry much traffic. In 2002, average daily traffic on M-89 was 3,000 vehicles in 24 hours. This is far less than many other primary arterials in the Tri-Communities. The 1989 Plan listed only eight traffic count locations in the Tri-Community area and these counts ranged in age from 1959 to 1987. Three were very low volume counts on streets with little traffic. More recent data was not available from the County Road Commission for this Plan update. As a result, in order to establish a baseline for future traffic changes, on August 6-8, 2004 traffic counts were taken in 19 locations. The results are listed on Table 6-1 and depicted on Map 6-4. Older counts are also listed. The August 2004 traffic counts cannot be characterized as average daily traffic because they were taken during a peak summer weekday and weekend. Thus, they should be viewed as peak summer traffic. They provide an excellent basis for tracking future traffic changes. Because of the dearth of earlier traffic counts, few observations can be made about changes in traffic volume. The most significant observation is the growth in traffic on Blue Star Highway (BSH) north of the Y. The Washington St. traffic and BSH traffic merge northbound (and split southbound). While it is unfair to compare traffic growth here to a 26 year old count (1978, which is about 1/3 of the current level), anyone living in the area knows traffic in this area is increasing . New homes in the Township (rather than an increase in tourists) probably account for most of the growth in traffic on BSH in this area. This is because most new residents commute to jobs, school or expanded shopping opportunities in communities to the north and east of the Tri-Communities. To better understand traffic growth in this area , the Township should ask the County Road Commission to count traffic both east and west on 134th and on Old Allegan Road in the summer of 2005. Counts are likely to be in the range of 2,000 vehicles per day if the counts on Wiley Road are a comparable measure. New development in the Village and Township on west Wiley Road has increased counts there nearly 10 times in 20 years. At the south end of BSH in the Village, traffic counts have remained about the same as in July 1987. This suggests that residents of new development are relying largely on north BSH for local arterial trips (and not driving south to get on the freeway sooner, even though that is a greater distance). The absence of other roads parallel to BSH Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-10 �r leaves no opportunity to spread local north/south trips on other roads, and the Lake (on the west) and extensive wetlands (on the east) makes another bridge crossing of the Kalamazoo River unfeasible. Table 6-1 Tri-Community Traffic Counts Map Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Location Blue Star Highway between th 54 Street and Exit 41 Blue Star Highway south of Holland (Washin!=)ton) Street Blue Star Highway south of Allegan Street Blue Star Highway north of Lake Street Blue Star Highway between Bridge and Lake Street NB Blue Star Highway between Bridge and Lake Street SB Blue Star Highway south of 129th Street Blue Star Highway south of Exit 36 Butler Street north of Hoffman Street Center Street east of Union Street Center Street at Blue Star Highway Center Street east of Ferry Street Wiley Road east of Summer Grove Development 130m Avenue east of 66m Street Park Street north of Campbell Park Street south of Perryman Park Street north of Perryman Lakeshore Drive south of Tranquility Lane Lakeshore Drive south of Wiley Washington west of Blue Star Highway August 2004 24 Hour Combined AM & PM Average for FridaySunday 14,567 Older 24 Hour Traffic Counts 5,319 (1978) 8,840 9,303 10,070 8,187 10,137 8,908 10,575 & 8,256 (two days in July 1987) 5,462 2,983 2,816 Not a 2004 count location 4,580 10,861 (1985) 2,178 285 (1982) 2,183 3,539 3,216 1,316 682 834 6,061 Nevertheless, traffic volumes generally across all three communities are still not very large relative to existing road capacity. However, future residential growth, largely in the Township, will continue to add vehicles to existing county primaries, and especially to Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-11 �BSH . Rising volumes on north BSH will likely also result in increased pressure on the Township for more commercial development. Which commercial uses are allowed , and the degree to which they duplicate existing commercial uses (such as the grocery store, pharmacy and hardware store) will have a lot to do with the continued viability of the local service dimension of the existing business districts in Saugatuck and Douglas. Photo 6-3 Traffic has Grown on Blue Star Highway Source: Aaron Sheridan Speed Limits Vehicular speed limits are very low in the downtown areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. The speed limits are generally 20-25 mph on local streets. The speed limits on Blue Star Highway within the Tri-Community area change four times along the corridor. Blue Star Highway's speed limit is 50 mph on the north side of the City of Saugatuck. Traveling south , Blue Star splits, one arm turns into Washington Road heading into downtown Saugatuck. The other arm continues to bypass the City, but the speed limit decreases to 35 mph. It continues to be 35 mph south past the City of the Village of Douglas, to the intersection of 129th Street and Blue Star Highway, when the speed limit increases to 45 mph . South of the I-196/US-31 intersection the speed limit on Blue Star Highway increases to 55 mph. Speed limits on paved County roads are generally 55 mph . Crash Locations A review of crash data from 2000-2003 for the City of Saugatuck and City of the Village of Douglas indicated that there were 21 crashes with injuries reported and no fatalities . The data included all roads within the City and Village. The road with the highest number of injury related crashes was Blue Star Highway with six crashes with injuries reported for the three year period . Higher crash severity is expected on higher speed roads, particularly with numerous driveways. Low speeds on local roads within the City should keep the crash severities low. Crash data did not specify the type of crash (e.g. if it was multi-vehicle related, pedestrian or bike related or related to alcohol or drug use). The mix of pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles in downtown areas of Saugatuck and Douglas should be period ically reviewed based on more detailed crash reports to ensure safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-12 �r There is currently a lack of crash data available for Saugatuck Township roads. Without documentation, it is difficult to determine if there are any problems. The Township could request a copy of every crash report prepared by the Sheriff's Department or State Police within the Township . • Blue Star Highway Blue Star Highway seNes as a primary arterial. It is important to the Tri-Community area, not only because it is a gateway to visitors entering the community but also for local travel between communities. Several issues are important. First, there is a lack of aesthetic on the corridor. Over 74 % of people responding to the public opinion suNey noted that the appearance of the highway was of high or extremely high importance. Setbacks vary on developments; there are no sidewalks, and no uniform landscaping. Weak regulation of strip commercial development in the past has allowed haphazard placement of signs and driveways. While considerable effort and money has been put into improving the entryways into both Saugatuck and Douglas, the Douglas entryways still fail to fully capture the visitor's attention in a positive, friendly way. Second , access to commercial and industrial establishments along arterial roads should be better controlled on Blue Star Highway. Wide driveways and open shoulders lead to an elevated risk of crashes. There are no designated pedestrian traffic areas or bike paths, causing pedestrians to use the shoulder, unsafely. The Township has paid to pave the shoulders, and these are often mistaken for actual lanes, thus posing a safety hazard. A boulevard could improve appearance, safety and traffic control and should be one of the alternatives examined if capacity improvements are considered . Specifically, right turn arrows should be painted on the pavement in the turn lane at Blue Star and Washington Street in the north Township. There is no cooperative maintenance arrangement between Saugatuck and Douglas for Blue Star Highway and the County Road Commission. Photo 6-4 Blue Star Highway Needs Better Access Management Source : Aaron Sheridan Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-13 �r Map 6-4 Tri-Community Traffic Count Locations ~ 111dJ •h••Jlf l AKt I OWN l WP !!t"•"'"' I 5 1 (f) ~ ( ,/ I 8 • 28 . I 25 27 ! Source: Allegan County G/S, Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. and Traffic Data Specialists, Inc. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-14 / ri' . �Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive provides a scenic link between areas along the Lake Michigan coast. Lakeshore Drive was closed off in some areas in the mid-1980's because of severe bluff eroSJon. The road is currently a dead end in this area, with no plans to reconstruct it, due to the high costs and inevitability of shore erosion. Lakeshore Drive should continue to function as a limited access road for those accessing residential property. A nonmotorized path connecting Lakeshore Drive where it has been washed out would be a welcome addition in this area. However, the private property/easement question must first be resolved. Transit The Interurban is the area's public transportation system and is funded in part by a 1 mill assessment. The service was started in May 1980 as a two-year experimental project and was initially funded at 100% by the State. Following the experimental period, some of the cost burden was borne by the Tri-Communities. The system had seven buses and in 2003 there were approximately 46,000 riders. The Interurban is governed by a board consisting of members from all three communities. The system is demand responsive with no fixed routes or schedule. Intercity bus service, provided by Greyhound, can be accessed in nearby Holland and South Haven. Photo 6-5 Interurban Vehicle Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Non-motorized Transportation The City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas are walkable communities that are suited for pedestrians and bicyclists. This atmosphere should be protected and promoted by expanding dedicated pedestrian and bicycle paths, particularly with the tourist population that utilizes the community in the summer months. However, comprehensive trails between popular destinations have yet to be constructed in the Saugatuck/Douglas area. Minimally a non-motorized path between Saugatuck and Douglas would give visitors access to each downtown area without getting into their automobile. Currently, the closest regional non-motorized trail is the South Haven to Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-15 �r Kalamazoo bike trail. Trails from Douglas to the Oval Beach and from Saugatuck to the Dunes State Park and other points north should also be planned and constructed . Trails should be designed for all-season use so cross country skiing and snow shoeing would also be available. Air The Tri-Communities are served by the Gerald R. Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids, which is within 50 miles of the region and is served by 11 major airlines with 150 flights per day. Gerald R. Ford International Airport has grown dramatically over the last few years, in 2002, the airport serviced just under 2 million passengers. It was the first airport in the nation to implement 100% baggage screening on all flights . The Tri-Communities are also served by the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport, which is located in Portage, about 60 miles from the region as well as the South Bend, IN airport also located some 60 miles away. In 2002 the airport served over one half million passengers with 63 daily arrivals and departures on six major airlines. POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Police Police protection for the Tri-Community area is provided by the Allegan County Sheriff Department and the Michigan State Police, and by local departments in Saugatuck and Douglas. The State Police maintains the Saugatuck Team post at the Saugatuck Township Hall on Blue Star Highway. The facility is staffed with 4-5 officers. The Allegan County Sheriff Department operates a satellite post in Fennville which serves the area. The State Police and the Sheriff respond upon request to calls in all three jurisdictions. The Township also has a constable who performs bar checks and serves zoning violations. The Saugatuck-Douglas Police Department has 8 full-time officers including the Chief of Police. The Department has 6 police cruisers and a motorcycle. Police offices are currently located at 47 Center Street, Douglas. Fire Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township are included in the Saugatuck Fire District. This district is managed by a five member Fire Authority. Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township each appoint one person to the board. These three then appoint two other people from the area at large, subject to approval by the three communities involved. The Saugatuck Fire District has 25 personnel, including 3 fulltime. There is one fire station located in Saugatuck Township near the intersection of Blue Star Highway and 134th Avenue . The Township building houses vehicles, offices and a meeting room with 9,600 square feet. The Fire District maintains 3 pumpers, 1 Rescue Command Center, 3 tankers, a 65 foot aerial water tower and a 40 foot fire boat. The Tri-Communities fire department is on fully automatic coordinated aid with the Graafschap, Ganges and Fennville fire departments. Emergency Services Ambulance services are provided by the American Medical Response (AMR). The West Michigan division of AMR is based in Grand Rapids with operations serving Kent, Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-16 �r Ottawa and Allegan Counties with bases in Grand Rapids, Holland and Fennville. AMR has 27 advanced life support units, 122 full-time and 52 part-time personnel. The Saugatuck Fire District maintains a first responder unit and a medical unit. The first responder unit answers some 500 calls per year . • Hospitals The nearest hospital to the Tri-Communities is Holland Community Hospital, 9.4 miles from Saugatuck. The Tri-Communities are also served by Zeeland Community Hospital, 14 miles from Saugatuck and South Haven Community Hospital which is 18.6 miles away. In addition to the hospitals, residents can obtain emergency services at the Douglas Clinic, Intermediate Urgent Care Clinic, 14 miles from Saugatuck in Zeeland, and at the Allegan Emergency Medical Services in Allegan, which is 19.8 miles from Saugatuck. SCHOOLS Three school districts serve the Tri-Community area; Saugatuck, Fennville, and Hamilton school districts. (See Map 6-3). Approximately half of Saugatuck Township, and all of Douglas and Saugatuck, are served by the Saugatuck district, with the southern portion of the Township being served mostly by the Fennville district and the extreme northeast portion of the Township served by the Hamilton district. The Saugatuck school system operates facilities in two locations. Douglas Elementary School accommodates a 3-yr. old pre-school of 30 children; a 4-yr. old pre-school with 40 children; grades K through 5 with an enrollment of 402, Saugatuck Middle School accommodates grades 6 through 8 with an enrollment of 195, and Saugatuck High School accommodates grades 9 through 12 with an enrollment of 256. Total enrollment is approximately 823 students. High school and middle school growth rate has been 5% in the last 2 years, 5% in the last 5 years and only 1.3% over 1O years. Middle school and high school capacity would be reached with the addition of 100-150 more students. There are no expansion plans. The Fennville system has a lower and upper elementary schools (PK-5), a middle school (grades 6-7) and a high school (8-12), with an enrollment of approximately 1,500 students. Enrollment has declined nearly 10% per year over the past few years, with a loss of over 200 students in the past two years. Voters in the Fennville district narrowly passed a $26 million bond issue in June 2004 for a new elementary school and renovations to the middle school, a levy of 5.81 mills. For an enrollment summary see Table 6-2. The school districts serving the area appear to have some capacity for accommodating increases in the school age population . Furthermore, the part of the Tri-Community area served by the Saugatuck school district is that which is most suitable for new growth. Table 6-2 Enrollment in Schools Serving the Tri-Communities School District Fennville Hamilton Sau atuck Pre-School Elementary High School Total 686 Middle School 249 Incl. in Elem en tar Not listed 70 553 1,488 1,131 402 630 195 928 256 2,689 823 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-17 �r Photo 6-6 Saugatuck Middle/High School Source: Aaron Sheridan Photo 6-7 Douglas Elementary School Source: Aaron Sheridan Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-18 �. Map 6-5 Tri-Community Public Facilities and School Districts 1 Two pumphouses 2 Vacant block 3 ½ Vacant street 4 & 5 Vacant lot 6 Library 7 Fire District & Police Departmem,--,,---~8 DPW Barn " 9 Saugatuck Township Hall 10 Saugatuck Riverside Cemet 11 Douglas Cemetery 12 Douglas North Cemetery 13 Saugatuck Township Fire District 14 Saugatuck City Hall 15 Public Restroom 16 Saugatuck High School 17 Waterwell 18 Township Dog Park 19 S.S. MemoriaJ... Roadside 20 Sunset Parko,, 21 Township @ erw, (located 01:,\ltem property) ~ 22 River Blulf\tark 23 Douglas ~ age 24 Douglas @emen Sa ui.:atu t k ·1·.-i-( '011111111 nilks .,L.~ . ~ool o1strict IAKt H'\'NW_l - --· ···~ -, ~ I I I I Public Facilities and School Districts \1 ,1 l'(;\I\ ( Ot \ f \ , \11( 111(;\I\ I I ' I I -1- ' •• I ' } ,- I PW Mt1t1K.lp~tl l ~gr1td 1::::J ,, ..... 1,,H,;,lk";Jl(l-,<1.... SuchOfl log4'nd h1t,!'-•.t•1',._ .JAr,JW ~L Ro.'ltl t-illty .,.... ,, ....,. ....... , - ,- "'.:J t..u-nd - - , , :, (.,,.•,tyl'MNlt !l'(,.,~fJ 1,o1.,itr1·,.ri,.11v(ll11J-1,....,I - , , •• t.,1,~al(J'ifl,NII ni••, I 1,,.,-,lt•1•~• .. J1 1.,,Ll,1•• ,:,,.,...... l~Alll lh._lffllr,1 '\ 'l•IIII •,o~ .. 1-..t ♦ , ••,,..,_, .. .,~I ,..,,,h,,.,.1 I , \2 I 33 34 ,,~ ---- r '~I I I OANGUlr I I ..!.!i'!:l.h.L I ~ L_T I" -l Source: Allegan County GIS Department and Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-19 --- li"'o-4i1-•1..,._.. """ ... ~ ,.,1_.,,,._.,_•. lt,,w,1,'fll•l l,"-f.111t"' ,,,..,...,..,t,1 .. ~k1- .. ,,,~.,olllll•1 ♦,.-: .... •• , .... ,..,,1.·,>rt,.~1-0,, .. ,,_~ __ ,.,,,, .....,,,.."' * ..... w*r ~-. <tl' .,... ~ ""9'_.l\ofl itr'ltff, �. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PA 641 of 1978 requires that every county prepare a solid waste management plan. The plan must be approved by the County Planning Committee, the County Board of Commissioners and by at least 2/3 of the municipalities in the county. The Allegan Cou'nty Solid Waste Plan dates from 1997 (and was approved by the DEQ in 2000) and covers a ten year planning period . An update process was to begin in 2002 but is on hold upon direction of the state. The current Plan remains in force. Characteristics of the solid waste stream include: • County generates an estimated 241 tons per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste (MSW), a category which includes residential, commercial, and some industrial wastes, but does not include construction and demolition debris or industrial process wastes (such as foundry sand, sewage sludge, or paper sludge). • Based on a 2002 County population estimate of 109,336, this calculates to about 4.4 pounds/person/day. Of the MSW, about 55% is estimated to be residential (133TPD , 2.43Ibs/person/day) • and 45% commercial (108 TPD, 1.97Ibs/person/day). • Adding the C & D and Industrial Process waste brings the estimated generation to 326 TPD, or 5.96 lbs/person/day. • It is estimated that about 32% of this total generation, 105 TPD, is being recycled or composted, leaving a landfill total of 221 TPD. (MDEQ's annual landfill receipt reports consistently indicate much less Allegan County waste, the equivalent of 135 TPD in 2003. Resource Recovery does not believe it is that high as some of the waste might be co-collected with another county's and counted in its totals). • In terms of residential recycling, Saugatuck City collected 48 tons curbside and 334 tons drop-off in 2003. Saugatuck Township collected 111 tons curbside. • Most of Allegan County's waste goes to landfills in Ottawa County and a lesser amount to Kent County. Some even goes to Watervliet in Berrien County and also to St. Joseph County. At present, there is sufficient capacity within the region and Resource Recover does not foresee a need to site any new facilities in the near future. Kent County has been purchasing land in Dorr Township with a long term intention (10-12 years) of expanding the South Kent Landfill, which sits right up against the county line into Allegan. Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan The goals and objectives of the plan focus on reducing the waste stream through separation and recycling, using private haulers for waste collection, recovering energy from the solid waste stream and providing the public with opportunities to develop solutions for solid waste disposal problems. Each governmental unit maintains its own recycling. A recycling center, funded by tax dollars, is currently in operation at the Saugatuck City Department of Public Works Garage on Blue Star Highway and is available to Saugatuck residents only. Douglas and the Township maintain a curbside pickup policy on a regularly scheduled basis. 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. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-20 �r Brush and Leaf Pickup Beginning each spring, curbside brush and leaf pickup is held during the second full week of each month in the City of Saugatuck. Brush, leaves and yard waste may be placed out for collection; any other items will not be picked up. Yard waste on the roadside at any other time is considered littering and is punishable by citation. City residents may, at any time, take brush and leaves to the storage yard behind the Department of Public Works garage on Maple Street. This area is for yard waste drop off only. Photo 6-8 Saugatuck Public Works Department Building Source: Aaron Sheridan Saugatuck and Douglas hold a large item and yard waste pickup in the spring . This service is available the first two full weeks of May of each year. During this time, City crews will pick up the following items only: household items like couches, tables , and carpeting, unbagged leaves, brush and limbs cut into 4 foot sections and piled separately. Items which cannot be placed out for pickup include stoves, refrigerators, air conditioners, etc., household hazardous waste, tires, large amounts of construction materials and garbage. Household hazardous waste can be disposed of at the Allegan County Health Department (Tuesdays and Thursdays) and the Wayland Area Ambulance center (one day a year), by appointment only. The South Kent County Landfill and the Grand Rapids area Goodwill Stores accept household electronics waste (TVs, computers, VCR's, fax machines, radios and computer games). The Saugatuck Township Landfill (public), located in Sections 1O and 11, was closed in 1984. Placing a new landfill in the Tri-Communities is not feasible due to many environmental and practical obstacles PUBLIC FACILITIES The City, Village and Township own a number of buildings and other facilities. Those not related to recreation are listed below in Table 6-3 and are shown on Map 6-5. Recreation facilities are discussed in Chapter 7. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-21 �r Photo 6-9 Saugatuck Township Hall Source: Aaron Sheridan Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 6-22 �Table 6-3 Tri-Community Public Facilities N"me Location Use 3461 Blue Star Memorial Hwy. Twp offices, State Police Saugatuck Township Township Hall Saugatuck Riverside Cemetery Douglas Cemetery Douglas North annex cemetery Fire Station City of Saugatuck City Hall th 135 & Blue Star 130m South side 130th North side Blue Star Hwy. Burial Burial Burial 102 Butler City offices 401 Elizabeth Street Blue Star and Apple St. Blue Star and Apple St. Maple St. Maple St. School Water Water Village Hall 86 W. Center Street Village offices Douglas Elementary School 261 Randolph Street School School District Offices 201 Randolph Street School Administration Vacant lot Library (Saugatuck-Douglas) DPW barn Corner Ferry & Center Gravel storage Mixer & Center Sts . Library, office, fire barns Water & Center Sts. Barn (launch ramp currently closed) DPW barn Well housing Gerber, South, None Fermont, Randolph, Spencer Middle and High School Maintenance bldg. Sand & salt storage Pump House #1 Pump House #2 City of Village of Douglas City Two Pumphouses & pumps 1/2 vacant street ends on Kalamazoo River & Lake Public works Source: Saugatuck Township, City of Saugatuck, and City of Village of Douglas City John : f:\winword\Tri-Communities\final\CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 6-23 �Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses recreation facilities and programs and open space in the TriCommunities. This includes the administration of recreation programs, existing resources and planned-for parks, bike paths and other recreation nee,ds. It also discusses open space as a recreational and amenity asset of the communities. Parks, recreation, and open space are essential to the quality of life of area residents, and are an important component of the local tourist economy. They enhance property values, as well as physical and psychological well-being. Parks and open space define the character of the Tri-Communities, create the scenic atmosphere which stimulates tourism, and provide the basis for popular local leisure activities. Photo 7-1 The Tri-Communities are an Active Recreation Destination Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-1 �r Recreation needs are regional in nature and plans must view local recreational offerings as part of a regional recreational system. Local governments, schools, private entrepreneurs, the County, and the State each have a role in serving local and regional recreational needs. The Tri-Communities have a variety of types of public and private recreation resources, including small parks, nature areas, golf courses, waterfronts, beaches and waters for boating and fishing. There is also a variety of open spaces that includes very small parks, larger parks, cemeteries, undeveloped beach areas, undeveloped farmlands, floodplains and woodlands . Some of these open spaces are publicly owned but many are in private ownership. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE The City of Saugatuck's parks are maintained by the City through its Department of Public Works. Park planning is done by a committee of three City Council members, who are aided by the City Manager and overseen by the full Council. Douglas parks are maintained by the Village's Department of Public Works under the Village Council's Parks and Buildings Committee, which reports to the Village Council. The Township formed a Township Park and Recreation Commission in November 1970, which is an independent governmental entity charged with provision of parks and recreational programs to area-citizens. The Commission has six elected members, and is staffed by a part-time maintenance person. Representatives from both Douglas and the Township may be elected to sit on the Commission. The Saugatuck Public Schools also maintain athletic and recreational facilities and the responsibility for planning for these facilities rests with the Athletic Director, Physical Education teachers, Athletic Booster Club and the school board. The most recent Recreation Plan was adopted in 2002 and was prepared by an ad hoc committee of eight representatives of Saugatuck, Douglas, Saugatuck Township and Saugatuck Public Schools. The 2002 Plan was based in part on a survey conducted for the 1995 Recreation Plan and interpretation of public sentiment since the 1988 survey. Allegan County prepares and periodically updates a countywide parks and recreation plan. County parks are administered by a ten-member County Parks and Recreation Commission whose members include the Chairs of the County Road Commission, the County Planning Commission, the County Drain Commissioner, two County Commissioners, and five members appointed by the County Board of Commissioners. The Commission meets on the first Monday of each month. It sometimes provides financial assistance for local recreational efforts which advance the County Recreation Plan. AREAWIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Recreation can be separated into four main categories: physical, social, cognitive, and environmentally related recreation. The first category focuses on sports and various physical activities. Social recreation looks at social interaction. Cognitive recreation deals with cultural, educational, creative, and aesthetic activities. Environmentally related recreation requires the natural environment as the setting or focus for activity. Each of these categories in some way relates to the others. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-2 �r Physical Recreation Intramural athletics are popular for children and young adults in the area and are offered through the summer recreation program. Activities include softball. Baseball, youth footl!>all, volleyball, soccer, bowling and others (see Table 7-1 ). The elementary school has a newly expanded playground and Kid's Stuff Park. Playgrounds are also found at River Bluff, Schultz, and Beery Parks and the Saugatuck Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes are offered at the Community Church. Walking, hiking, biking, boating, golfing, swimming, and cross country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by a wide range of age groups. Photo 7-2 Soccer Recreation Program Photo 7-3 Summer Swimming Program Source: Scott Kierzek, Community Recreation Director Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-3 �• Table 7-1 Summer Recreation Programs Saugatuck Recreation Programs ,. Soccer • Youth Baseball/Softball • Youth Basketball • Adult Basketball • Youth Football • Punt, Pass, Kick • Volleyball • Sanchin-Ryu (martial arts) • Swimming • Adult Water Aerobics • Fun Fitness • • • • • First Aid CPR Infant/Child CPR Hunter's Safety Babysitting Community Events • Mt. Baldhead Challenge • Las Vegas Night • Beery Field Ice Rink • Ski Club Photo 7-4 Vintage Baseball League Team-Douglas Duchers Source: Saugatuck Douglas Recreation Commission The area hosts a team that participates in the Vintage Base Ball League. The Douglas Dutchers plays home games at Beery Field. The team was established in 2003 and captured the Silas K. Pierce Cup in tournament play in Grand Rapids. The team plays opponents across Michigan and out-of-state. Social Recreation A variety of local clubs and activities provide social recreation for people of all ages. Festivals, community education programs, and intramural sports provide an opportunity to socialize. Senior citizens activities are organized through the New Day Senior Citizens Club of Douglas, St. Peter's Hall, and various area clubs. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-4 �• Cognitive Recreation The Tri-communities are rich in cognitive recreational pursuits. Festivals, art workshops , local theater, historic districts, an archaeological site, summer day camp, and community education programs provide cultural, educational, and aesthetic enjoyment. The Saugatuck Women's Club, the Oxbow, Douglas Garden Club, and the Douglas Art Club are among the local clubs which organize cultural activities. The following facilities provide intellectual /cultural opportunities: Intellectual/Cultural Recreational Facilities Saugatuck Center for the Arts, Saugatuck Saugatuck Women's Club, Saugatuck Saugatuck/Douglas District Library, Douglas Saugatuck - Douglas Historical Society Museum, Saugatuck Photo 7-5 Saugatuck Women's Club Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Environmentally Related Recreation Area lakes, the Kalamazoo River, and state and local parks provide area citizens with unique outdoor recreation opportunities. They provide a location for a variety of outdoor activities including boating, fishing, swimming, nature study, camping, hiking, cross country skiing, and nature walks . These areas also serve the cognitive needs of area citizens and tourists by their scenic beauty and relaxing affect. In fact, the most valued attribute of area water bodies and open space to area citizens, as identified in the 2004 Public Opinion Survey, is not physical recreation, but the scenic view they provide. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-5 �• - RECREATION INVENTORY Map 7-1 identifies parks and recreational facilities in the Tri-Communities . Table 7-2 contains an inventory of outdoor recreation facilities in the Tri-Communities. There are also three privately owned eighteen hole golf courses in the area. • Clearbrook Golf Club & Restaurant, Saugatuck Township • West Shore Golf Club, Douglas • The Ravines, Saugatuck Township Photo 7-6 Ravines Golf Course, Saugatuck Township Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau ,.,.. Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-6 �• Table 7-2 Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Facilities Location Size (acres) "0C Ill 0 ~:::, 0 E 0 i5 cC ftl ;z Ill ~ 11/5 Ill Cl) :aftl I- .!:? Cl) c- ·-u=. Q. (!) "0C :::, e tll ftl >. a: River Bluff 27 X X Sundown 0.4 X X Douolas Beach 1.5 H. Beery Field 1.2 X X Howard C. Schultz Park 20 X X X X Union St. Launch Center St. Launch Saugatuck Village 2.5 X X Souare Frank Wicks Park 0.5 Willow Park 0.2 X Cook Park 1 X Spear St. Launch <1 Mt. Baldhead 100 X Oval Beach 50 X Tallmaoe Woods 100 Old "Airport'' 154 Douglas Elementary 8.6 X X X School Sauoatuck Hioh School 12.7 X X 63'" St. Launch X Blue Star Highway 0.5 X Roadside Park Wade's Bayou Memorial Park• <1 Veterans Walk Park Tannery Creek Outlook <1 Douglas Downtown Park 1.5 <1 Mize Rose Garden 0.5 Coohlin Park Peterson Nature 9 Preserve Interurban Trail 0.35 Tails & Trails Dog Park 5.0 Source: Saugatuck Douglas Area Park and Recreation Plan • Details not available ~ <( tll C '.8ftl u C :::, ..!!! f! Q. I- X X j !m tll C ·e E 'i tn X X E 8 -&! Ill tll ._ C a:: ~:a Cl>= Ill J: :::, tn X X X Ill J: X X X X X X f <( e Ill § . <( C gi - I fl :::, ftl s m z X 0 a:: 1"0 CC 0 .l! Otn tll C i.:it: tn i J: 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-7 X �' t ' Map 7-1 Tri-Community Recreation Facilities 'L .t S au ga111 ck -•~.••'~~ l '·I T ri-('ommu ni li(•s ,...Yi',,.- I • Recreation Facilities "'1"'""''" I -~ t '- ~ -•--· ~'"'"'-'"'-'-'- - - - .... '"""", ! ~ .• \LI l"<,\J\ ( 01 , I\, \11( Ill(, \I\ u "! I I .1s .. I j I 4 13" - ~ ..~ 1 ... 7• ~.. . ,. 10- 3, ._2 2 H § .. ◄ 1 o OliGIA~ 1'91M,"\ .~ ~ .>:-' I' [ ·S:l ~ ~ 20 ~ -, .'7 2 \ _8 I u ·i 't 31 ·;! ' 34 G•NOIST \. LI' r 1 River Bluff 2 Sundown 3 Amelanchler 4 Douglas Beach 5 H. Beery Field 6 Howard Shultz Park 7 Union Street Launch 8 Center Street Launch 9 Village Square 10 Frank Wicks Park 11 Willow Park 12 Cook Park 13 Spear Street Launch 14 Mt. Baldhead 15 Oval Beach 16 Saugatuck High School 17 Tallmage Woods 18 Old Airport 19 Douglas Elementary School 20 63rd Street Launch 21 West Wind Campground 22 Township Dog Park 23 B.S. Memorial Roadside Park 24 Wade's Bayou Memorial Park 25 Veterans Walk Park 26 Tannery Creek Outlook 27 Mize Rose Garden 28 Coghlin Park 29 Peterson Nature Preserve 30 Interurban Trail ' tj "--f Source: Allegan County G/S Department and Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-8 11, l II .~ I ,,j, I M1mlclpnl lr,gt'lld c:::J J, •f'•J.. '""' ' '"·,........... , Suction lrgcnd c.._.,t,,.,.,u... , ...,,,., __,,,... Road t.egc-nd - - ·.1~!- _ ... ,. '"Y'"""•~f r.,.,.,,.~1>i..-... -v11•,..,.,,, fU.I·, f't~-.>i, jtlnf,._t) - - 1,_,. •• ,1,-c.,t(l',11 • .,-lj 1..... ,1,..,,,110,,-....... 1, ,~,~ u .,!f.. (;.1, U -,~" lld,,•..,4,-1 ••'t"•-~"-1~-"""- rK111-,; N-J__.1~•• "'"' ...••h••••... ·••••· •-·i ♦ ,l~.1 f1-,... 1 l••<M1,, l ....... ,c--_.,.,.,.l.,.OIN/i--4,•·:-in.,ft~l,.,A,...,J...,:t, ,J\•• ••-.f•••""'f'~',•1f· ,.C••-r""°1~'1'W'll~,11,.-,,'<,1 . . . f .... ., N w*• ,,,,r * ~,., . . ~ ~•°'.,.,. ,.6\e.\01. .\\H ........I • �• This is much higher than typical for such a small population (the standard is 1 golf course per 10,000 people), and reflects the impact of tourism on local recreational facilities. A discussion of planned improvements for Tri-Community parks and recreation facilities is shown in Table 7-3. Table 7-4 includes a capital improvements schedule of planned park and open space acquisitions and improvements. Table 7-3 Planned Improvements in Tri-Community Parks Community/Entity Tri-Community Area Park/Property lmprovement/Acciuisition Dredging the Kalamazoo River Area Parks Lake Kalamazoo and Lake Michigan access from Marina slips and boat launches Brochure to provide residents and tourists information on park locations and facilities Ice rink, sledding hills, toboaaan area Building repairs, grounds improvements and exhibit development Winter Recreation Historical Museum City of Saugatuck Denison Property Mt. Baldhead Oval Beach Wicks Park Cook Park Coghlin Park Bicycle/Walking Path Peterson Nature Preserve Acquire 161 acres of woodland and dunes (in the City and the Township) is top priority Maintenance of picnic shelter, replacement of restrooms, paving the gravel parkinq lot Develop walking/biking path from Park Street to beach, construct additional shelter/pavilion on the beach and improve existing ticket booth/entrance gate Maintenance to Gazebo Add more picnic tables Family-centered green space in central city Develop walking/bike path from downtown to the Peterson Nature Preserve, through preserve, on lnteruban Trail to North Street, to Maple Street and back to downtown. 10-year Development Plan Saugatuck Township Recreation Proqrams Bike/Hiking Trails Denison-North Expand existing programs Create a network of trails State acquisition of 239 acres Saugatuck Schools Schools Construct outdoor track, outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts, lights for athletic field, cross-country course Table continued on next page . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-9 �• Table 7-3 (Continued) Planned Improvements in Tri-Community Parks Community/Entity City of the Village of Douglas Park/Property Improvement/Acquisition Douglas Beach Schultz Park Recreational Maintenance Building Wade's Bayou Memorial Park Union Street Launch Ramp Harold Beery Field Entire Village Replace stairs and add observation deck Expand boat launch area, add T-ball field Construct Remove existing garage/storage facility, construct picnic shelter and restrooms Improve/rebuild existing launch ramp Replace existing bleachers, pave parking area Bike Paths Source: Saugatuck Douglas Area Park and Recreation Plan Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-10 �• Table 7-4 Planned Recreation Projects and Acquisitions Planned Improvements Fiscal Year City of Saugatuck Denison Property Acquisition 2002-3 Cook Park Improvements 2002-3 Coughlin Park Design Project 2002-3 Coughlin Park Improvements 2003-4 Mt. Baldhead Improvements 2004-5 Oval Beach Park Improvements 2005-6 Wicks Park Improvements 2005-6 Village Square Park 2006-7 Improvements Ongoing Citvwide Bike/Walking Path Saugatuck Schools Outdoor Track 2002-3 Outdoor Basketball Courts 2003-4 Tennis Courts 2004-5 Lights for Athletic Field 2005-6 Cross-Country Course 2006-7 Non-motorized pathways 2006-7 2006-7 Softball Fields/Tennis Courts Saugatuck Township Denison Acquisition 2002-3 {dependent on funding) General 2003-5 improvements/expansion of existing facilities Non-motorized pathways 2005-7 City of the Villa~ e of Douglas Douglas Beach Project 2002-3 Schultz Park Improvements 2003-4 Recreational Maintenance 2004-5 Building Wade's Bayou Memorial Park 2005-6 Union Street Launch Ramp 2007-7 Harold Beery Field 2006-7 Estimated Cost Funding Sources Under negotiation $5,000 $25,000 Dependent on Design $150,000 $150,000 $10,000 $150,000 City/MDNR City City/MDNR City/MDNR City/MDNR City/MDNR City City/MDNR To be determined City/MON R/MDOT $250,000 $100,000 $120,000 $120,000 To be determined To be determined $30,000 School/MDNR School/MDNR School/MDNR School/MDNR School/MDNR School/MDNR School/MDNR To be determined Township/MDNR To be determined Township/MDNR To be determined Township/MDNR $25,000 $45,000 $90,000 Village/MDNR Village/MDNR Village/MDNR $52,000 $12,000 $28,000 Village/MDNR Village/MDNR Village/MDNR Source: Saugatuck Douglas Area Park and Recreation Plan Note: Some costs are estimates and not all costs have been calculated. It should be noted that nearly all projects in Table 7-4 are listed as at least partially dependent on grants from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, (Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund). It may be helpful if other sources for some projects can be found as the Trust Fund is a competitive program and the Tri-Communities may only get a single project funded in a given year or longer period. RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USE The 2004 Public Opinion Survey highlighted those recreational facilities that residents feel are adequate or inadequate in the Tri-community area. Table 7-5 lists these. "' Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-11 �.. Table 7-5 Community Opinion on Recreational Facilities, 2004 Recreation Facility %Response Adequate Boat launching facilities Transient boat docks Boat slips (rental) Boat slips (condo) Marinas Swimming beaches Boat service Pump-out faci lity Fish clean ing stations Campgrounds with public access Parks Public restrooms Designated boat mooring sites Designated no wake zones Other public access • % Response Inadequate % Response Not Sure 50 .3% % Neither Adequate nor Inadequate 5.7% 20.8% 23 .1% 29 .7% 40 .5% 40.2% 50.4% 75.4% 40 .9% 25.9% 18.6% 9.9% 11% 13.4% 9.4% 7.3% 11 .9% 13.2% 15.2% 28.2% 14.7% 7% 13% 10.6% 11.6% 11 .7% 14.9% 32 .2% 33.8% 39.4% 27.1% 6.7% 35.6% 49 .2% 51.2% 20.7% 15.3% 31 .1% 32 .9% 58 .6% 41 .7% 19.2% 12.1 % 16.7% 16.7% 19.8% 32 .9% 22 .2% 9.4% 8.9% 41 .8% 41.4% 12.2% 15.4% 31 .1% 21 .6% 18% 15% 45.5% Non-Motorized Trails and Bike Paths Residents placed highest priority on additional bike paths, cross country skiing routes , and hiking trails. These needs are currently partially served by non-motorized trails in the Oval Beach/Mt. Baldhead area. The 2002 Saugatuck - Douglas Parks and Recreation Plan , identified bicycle trails as a high priority, prepared a map of potential locations and listed them in a schedule of capital improvements to achieve this objective (although a cost was not determined). These improvements have not been implemented to date. The 2004 Tri-Community Opinion Survey also identified expanded bike paths as highly desirable, and about 61 % of respondents supported bike lanes or paths even if it meant paying for it with higher taxes. Those who attended a Town Meeting in May of 2004 were asked to identify important destinations they would like included in bike path plann ing. A wide variety of destinations were identified , especially the Lake Michigan beaches, the downtowns of Saugatuck and Douglas, Laketown Township and the City of Holland . Residents frequently commented that they didn't want bike lanes added to existing roads if it meant the removal of trees. In 2002, the Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission prepared a map of potential and/or desired bike path locations. Those routes are the same as those in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan , and are shown in black dashed lines on Map 7-2. More recent public input suggests potential add itional routes, shown in red on Map 7-2. The regional bike path system wou ld connect with Saugatuck's chain ferry to afford bicyclists east/west access. Th is connection runs down Holland Street and across Francis Street to the waterfront and will be served by city streets, without the need for additional right-of-way. At this juncture, bicyclists may ride the chain ferry to Saugatuck's Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-12 �.. eastern border. Once on Saugatuck's eastern side, bicyclists could follow Saugatuck's proposed bike path system down through Douglas and south out of the Township . Bike path right-of-way would also extend north to Goshorn Lake along Washington Road , thereby connecting with Laketown Township . Another future extension could extend the system east along Old Allegan Road into Manlius Township. This is a scenic route, although somewhat hilly. Bicyclists wishing to pass through Saugatuck and on south through Douglas would need additional right-of-way from Lake Street to the bridge, thereby connecting with the Douglas bike path network. Douglas in turn would extend its bike path south on Blue Star Highway to connect with the Township system. Map 7-2 shows this proposed regional bike path network. The 2004 community opinion survey results indicate that residents would support (60.5% support or strongly support, 19.8% neither support nor oppose and 16.4% oppose or strongly oppose) bike lanes if it meant an increase in general property taxes . A network of trails and bike paths would improve quality of life for existing residents and serve as an attraction to visitors as well. With growing state and national concern over obesity, a network of trails and bike paths would provide more exercise opportunities for citizens close to home. The more variety and opportunity for trails, the greater the likelihood citizens will use them regularly. Photo 7-7 Interurban Trail Source: Aaron Sheridan Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-13 �) } Map 7-2 Proposed Tri-Community Bike Paths Sau ga tuck Tri-Com III uni ties • ~ : M , ' ~ "'" r· ~ ' Proposed Bike Paths Al ,l.l-;GAI\ ('()l !r-il"\', I\ U( 'tllGAf\ I I Municipal Legend c::J Junsd!Chon BOt11ldi-tf1es ' Section Legend Scctt00 OOt.indar~ Roa d Legend - - lxpressway - - Stair High-N3y -~ ~ Counly Primary (PA,ed) Coun1y f'flmary (Unpa"8d) --County Local (Paved) C.ounty l ocal (Unrave<t) C.ty Major C,ty M,nor ~ -~ ~ UnClassd1ed .!".•..!.!:!- ~ ~ t~an~ N,Jlalµhk¥"'if)rn,:-.,,v--,..,,t"'-'l>Nf'I M...n<.1J ...lll0tR1..o/i@SllfOCS';it,llst,t"1trot'l1/0tn ld.• M;ip,.. Tl'\)bt.t'v~oiw...-fc,at....,,""-t', f'11.bc.1,..J•oclWJtl'I l!tt.'VGl,,lll"•·• e:..1et•s..oc'tltdl'(ltolho-n<>sl1tu'(II " I 28 33 25 27 k ' • • Proposed Bike Paths (1989 Comprehensive Plan and 2002 Recreation Plan • • Additional Potential Bike Paths ~- 36 34 • ;,enair,'Y.>tog•arnt ·--, ;. ' (;ANO:[Sl!l,11) ~ - l'UM~ ,s ,,~·•\ • ),•(~.,~-'.; Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-14 . ' w I ,......_c_,.i.-,~~-- ... - - - - · - - . . -t,1 .... - ~ ' �.. Waterfront Open Space Viewing the water has long been among the most popular waterfront activities. Other waterfront activities include boating, swimming, fishing and nature study. Swimming is popular on Lake Michigan, boating on Kalamazoo Lake and River, Lake Michigan and natu•re study primarily on the wetlands areas of Kalamazoo River. In order for viewing to take place, the public needs to have access to the water's edge. Views of the water are available from Blue Star Highway, local streets along Kalamazoo Lake, several parks in downtown Saugatuck, from restaurants along the Kalamazoo River in downtown Saugatuck and from selected other sites. Schultz Park in Douglas and Sundown Park in Saugatuck Township also provide visual access to the water. However, viewing platforms may be a valuable addition along some of the extensive Kalamazoo River wetlands as there are heavily used by migratory waterfowl, are rich with diverse wildlife and are close to Saugatuck and Douglas citizens. Photo 7-8 Restaurants are Among Water Viewing Sites Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Senior Citizens Center Senior citizens in the area have expressed a desire for a senior citizens center to serve the social and recreational needs of the area's elderly population. The 2004 Survey results reflect partial support for a senior center. Thirty-five percent of Tri-Community respondents felt that a senior center deserved high priority and another thirty-six percent Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-15 �.. neither supported nor opposed it. RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING Acco,rding to the 2004 community opinion survey, following was the response to the question of whether the respondent would support the additional recreation-related activities even if it meant an increase in general property taxes. See Table 7-6. Table 7-6 Support for Recreation-Related Services if Increased Property Taxes Required Services Bike lanes/pathways Community Recreation Center Senior Citizen Center Community Pool Parks and Recreation Better Water Quality % Support Additional Property Taxes 60.5% 12.9% % Oppose Additional Property Taxes 10.5% 30 .2% Neither Support nor Oppose % Don't Know or No Opinion 19.8% 32.3% 3.2% 4 .7% 35.1% 22.7% 36.3% 5.9% 29.1% 50.9% 43.8% 17.2% 22.4% 27.8% 4 .8% 4% 62.5% 10.5% 22.1% 4.9% Source: Tn-Commumty Survey, 2004 The greatest support among recreation-related topics was for better water quality with 62.5 %, bike lanes/pathways with 60.5% support and parks and recreation at 50.9%. When citizens express a willingness to pay higher taxes for a service, that is very significant. However, specific proposals would need to be prepared with broad community support for the details before anyone could reasonably count on such support for higher taxes. OPEN SPACE PROTECTION Recreation is important to the Tri-Communities and the visual experience of the community is tied to the recreational experience. Residents like to live in the TriCommunities, in part, because it is a uniquely attractive location. Tourists visit and spend money in the Tri-Communities based in part on the visual experience. Natural features and open spaces are important components of the Tri-Communities, contrasting with the concentrated, developed areas of the City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas. The compact, strong identities of the City and Village are enhanced when natural, open spaces surround the two communities. Water is one of the natural features surrounding the City and Village and helping to give them form and identity. Wetlands, woodlands, farms and parks are other existing natural features that currently contribute to natural open space. The extent to which open space continues to be a part of the Tri-Communities in the future depends on several factors. These include: • The degree to which views of the water remain. If waterfront development effectively walls off views of the water from surrounding streets, a very important open space attribute will be lost and the sense of naturalness diminished. The acquisition and use of a portion of the waterfront for public use and access can help preserve the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-16 �.. • • • waterfront as a community open space. Regulations that require new development and redevelopment to provide some space on waterfront sites can also serve to help maintain the water as a significant natural feature of the community. The conversion of undeveloped land to a developed use. This appears to be happening somewhat rapidly in portions of Saugatuck Township, primarily for residential development. Protection of sensitive lands, such as wetlands, dunes and steep slopes from development. Sensitive lands can be protected by purchase, purchase of easements or development rights, transfer of development rights, donation and regulations . Protection from development of the most visible open spaces. The most visible open spaces tend to be those along roadways and on ridges. These can also be protected by scenic easements and other purchase, transfer or donation programs, design guidelines and regulations. Photo 7-9 Protected Open Space Adds Value to the Community Source: Aaron Sheridan Many communities are organizing open spaces, natural features and recreational facilities into a greenspace or green infrastructure system. Definitions Greenspace - Undeveloped or minimally developed land such as parks, farmlands, wetlands, woodlots, natural areas, plant and wildlife habitat, trails, river or recreational corridors, community gardens, pocket parks, vegetation buffers, tree-lined parkways and similar areas with natural or planted vegetation. Greenway- (1) a linear open space established along either a natural corridor, such as a riverfront, stream valley, or ridge line, or over land along a railroad right-of-way converted to recreational use, a canal, a scenic road or other route; (2) any natural or landscaped course for pedestrian or bicycle passage; (3) an open space connector linking parks, natural reserves, cultural features, or historic sites with each other and with Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-17 �.. populated areas; and (4) locally, certain strip or linear parks designated as a parkway or greenbelt (Charles Little, author of Greenways for America,1990). ~egional greenways connect communities and major habitat areas. Local greenways provide significant connections within a community. Neighborhood greenways provide minor connections and tie people to the larger system. Without trails, greenways are buffer strips serving as visual separators and wildlife corridors. Green Infrastructure - "Our nation's natural life support system, an interconnected network of natural areas, conservation lands, and working landscapes that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and natural resources , and contribute to the health and quality of life for America's communities and people.*** Green infrastructure is an interconnected network of conserved natural areas and features (including wetlands, woodlands, waterways, and wildlife habitat), public and private conservation lands (including nature preserves, landscape linkages, wildlife corridors, and wilderness areas), private working lands of conservation value (including forests and farms) and other protected open spaces (including parks). It is green space that serves multiple purposes and is strategically planned and managed at the local, regional and state levels." (Mark Benedict, The Conservation Fund). [In contrast to gray infrastructure of roads, utility lines, communications and water systems.] Also see "Greenspace". Two advantages of the greenspace or green infrastructure approach are: • It raises the consciousness of the residents regarding natural resources and the place of those resources, recreational facilities and open spaces in their lives and the fabric of the community. The result of that raised consciousness can be a greater commitment to the implementation and management of a greenspace system. • A greenspace system creates valuable connections or links within the community. Some of these connections will serve the recreational (and occasionally the transportation) needs of the community. Linked open spaces can create a visual web of nature that enhances the appearance of the community and improves quality of life. Linked natural areas serve as wildlife corridors to help sustain a diverse population of birds and other animals. Protected open space along waterways helps protect water quality. Map 7-3 shows the location of potential elements of a greenspace system in the TriCommunities. Protection of the elements shown on this map can help create a greenspace system. Identifying gaps in the greenspace system can provide information to local officials and property owners regarding how to help complete green connections. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 7-18 �, t ~ ' Map 7-3 Tri-Community Greenspace Elements Saugatuck Tri-Communities II - GREENSPACE MAP ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHI GAN Municipal Le gend Cl Jurisdiction BouOOaries Section Legend L J Section Boundaries Greenspace Le gend • .ti - Wetlands - Floodplain Woodlands - Preserved Lands Parks Vacant Lands (Pubtlcly Owned) ~ j l - ~ ~ Cemeteries Courses i=J Goff - Water8offer(1001t) -WET1.Af,DS . Combined ,.._1ional Wefands lrn,ento,y w,d1996L.-idl..lse Flo:x>f>LAIN - fedefal EmetoencrMfflagementA.g,ency 100Ye•Roodplaln. WCXD..ANOS - 19911 land Use.. All olt'lef fe.al!IU a,e del1neeted fllOm lall pu:e! boundaries wl -===~ -:""...=:=::..~... John f:\winword\tri-commun ities\final\CHAPTER 7 RECREATION final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 7 RECREATION final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 7-19 �.. Chapter 8 WATERFRONT INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake and Saugatuck Harbor. It covers use of these waterbodies, ecosystems associated with the River and Lake, water quantity and quality and opinions about them. Saugatuck was the first settlement in Allegan County. Its natural protected harbor along the Kalamazoo River and proximity to Lake Michigan gave it a ready means of water transport, essential to the commerce of the day. Throughout its history, land use activities along the Lake Michigan shoreline and the riverfront have continued to dominate the economic life of the Tri-Community area. Lumbering, boat building , basket making, fruit transport, and even large Great Lakes passenger boats have, at different times, relied upon the River connection. Tourists have always been attracted to the area, but tourism is now the number one economic activity. Today's waterfront activities are dominated by tourist and pleasure craft needs, especially sailboats, powerboats, charter fishing boats and other tourist boats. Consequently, how the waterfront is used will be of crucial importance to the future of the Tri-Community area. Photo 8-1 Kayakers About to Enjoy Kalamazoo Lake Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau The primary issues concerning proper future use of the waterfront involve competition between economic development and environmental protection. Waterfront lands represent the highest value lands in the Tri-Community area, and local officials are therefore concerned about the potential tax base associated with use of waterfront lands. In order to finance the service needs of local residents, the Tri-communities must balance taxable and nontaxable land uses. This presents a dilemma. Although waterfront lands have high revenue generating potential, a major attraction of both the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts is their scenic, natural shorelines Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-1 �.. composed of forested sand dunes and large wetland areas. Should these natural areas be greatly damaged or destroyed through inappropriate development, then the "goose that laid the golden egg" will be dead . It is essential that the natural beauty of the waterfront be maintained along the Lake Michigan shoreline, the Kalamazoo River from the channel to Saugatuck, and from the Blue Star Highway bridge inland . Limited add itional development along the waterfront on Lake Kalamazoo and the Douglas side of the bayou east of Blue Star Highway may be both desirable and necessary. However, such development must be undertaken carefully to maintain the delicate balance between economic development and environmental protection. Photo 8-2 Blue Star Highway Bridge Source: Aaron Sheridan It is both necessary and possible to manage the waterfront for a variety of purposes. Yet it is always difficult to manage for multiple uses. Some individuals value land management to retain the necessary habitat for birds, fish and wildlife . Others feel it should be managed to maximize surface water use, or for intensive waterfront dependent activities like ship building or power generation . Based on some of the technical data presented below, existing use information , citizen opinions, and the goals and objectives presented at the beginning of this Plan, the waterfront in the TriCommunity area can, and should, be managed to accommodate a wide range of land uses and activities. This Plan seeks to define a balance between competing uses. It places protection of the natural environment as first and foremost in making future land use decisions along the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts . The ultimate goal is to minimize disruption of the natural environment so that new development and redevelopment is in harmony with the environment, rather than in conflict with it. Alteration of existing natural features should be very limited , and with mitigation to provide the same values and functions nearby. Watersheds of the Kalamazoo River Basin The Kalamazoo River extends from south of Homer in Hillsdale and Jackson Counties to its outlet at Lake Michigan in Saugatuck Township (see Figure 4-1). W ith the exception of lands adjoining Lake Michigan (which drain directly into the Lake) and a small area in the southeast comer of Saugatuck Township, all land in the Tri-Community area is part Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-2 �.. of the Kalamazoo River Basin. Eight small watershed areas lie within the Tri-Community area and discharge into Lake Michigan via the Kalamazoo River (see Map 8-1 ). These include Goshorn , Peach Orctiard, Tannery, Silver and "Cemetery" Creeks, as well as the Morrison Bayou at the eastern end of the Kalamazoo River as it enters the Township . Most of Douglas and Saugatuck also drain separately into the Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo. Slopes in the area are generally less than 10 percent though locally they may be in excess of 20 percent. Runoff erosion is taking place in the highlands, contributing sediment to backswamp areas and Lake Michigan. Photo 8-3 View from Tannery Creek Outlook of Kalamazoo River and Distant Wetland Areas Source: Aaron Sheridan Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-3 �, - Map 8-1 Tri-Community Watersheds Watersheds 5 \I I I(, \'i ( Ol " I \ ', \ll( ' III G.\ , I Mill Municipal Legend C ,h1risd,,..1ton Ao11nd:1nr-s Section Legend s,~:(l r,n ft.ol1r1ctane'o Contour Legend* !• MP!Pr Coolow~ Elevation Ranges .. 1000 lo 1()~,() 1r.s)t ■ W.O lo 1000 f<•et Ir) 900 to 9'..0 kl:l n M ti',() to [JO() foci HOO lo Bf.O 10<'1 ■ to BOO 1t~,1 11,J roo to l!O foot tf f,'.,ll lo '/00 fool ■ r.oo tn /50 f!'<,t I f,! ~1 to fiOO ,.__,ei no • :;;; ··.,(',(, 1.'.•ll'f!o.l $1.'.ff~ C11_1~_ ,i.:toG:.aJ &.-"li"e·, 1u~., .s •· Sr,:•c(1 ~ , talit.ed d9la' t·k>-·"••'.J;,n mo, td g,e·..-•1t1IM 1,.: ~1 •• ,-,,,.·11:, wtl1rdof vo;! '1~ ~~~: .•·;, ~,h ~ • • • • • Kalamazoo River Basin • Small Watershed Areas "~ "2 ~~ ·· -- ~.,. 'II~• Q ."> •◄ c;,....'\il C•" Source: Allegan County GIS, Allegan County Drain Commission and Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-4 ' �... The flow of water in the Kalamazoo River has been recorded for over seventy years. Both flood-level flows and very low flows have occurred at various times. The level of Kalamazoo Lake is tied to the level of Lake Michigan, which also fluctuates. Stream gauges at various places along the Kalamazoo River measure water flow and water quality. Data gathering from the gauge at Saugatuck ended in 1986. The nearest flow gauge that currently collects data is at New Richmond near Lake Allegan. Flow at New Richmond was 3, 180 cubic feet per second in March of 2004. The mean monthly flows, in cubic feet per second, to Lake Michigan, as estimated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources are shown in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Mean Monthly Flow of the Kalamazoo River, 2004 Jan. 1,620 Feb. 1,740 Mar. 2,370 Oct. 1,180 June 1,500 Nov. 1,500 Dec. 1,620 Flow in cubic feet per second. Source: Kalamazoo River Watershed Public Advisory Council in The Kalamazoo River: Beauty and the Beast. Remedial and Preventative Action Plan for the Kalamazoo River Watershed Area of Concern. Exceedance flows based on recent daily flow statistics from USGS. Daily mean flow statistics for April 1, 2004 based on 2 years of record in cu ft/sec. in 2 locations: Table 8-2 Exceedance Flows of the Kalamazoo River, 2004 Location AlleQan Plainwell Current Flow 1,990 cu ft/sec 1,480 cu ft/sec Minimum Flow 1,770 1,370 Mean 1,940 1,445 Maximum Flow 2,110 1,520 50% exceedance 1,940 1,445 Exceedance flows indicate the percentage of the time that water quantity is greater than (exceeds) the volume indicated. In the above table, flow of the Kalamazoo River at Allegan exceeds 1,940 cubic feet per second 50% of the time. PRIMARY ECOSYSTEMS The Tri-Community area has three basic ecosystems, two of which parallel the waterfront. The first ecosystem is comprised of hardwoods holding the sand dunes in place along the Lake Michigan shoreline. These woodlots are inhabited by small game such as fox squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, deer, wild turkey, and opossums. This ecosystem is comprised of fauna common to most of Michigan, but its balance is easily upset by the disruption of its shallow organic soils. Any ground cover that is damaged or removed should be quickly replaced with cover that will hold and prevent sand from blowing or rapid wind erosion may occur. Michigan's most famous ghost town, Singapore, once a thriving lumber town, lies beneath these shifting sands near the mouth of the channel. Iii, The second ecosystem is the marsh-wetland ecosystem that covers the area along the Kalamazoo River, Silver Lake and Goshorn Lake, and the connecting tributaries. This Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-5 �• I,,......,__ area is covered with marsh grasses, low shrubs, poplar trees, spruces, some white pine, and other softwoods. The cover is inhabited by common Michigan marsh dwellers such as frogs, turtles, ducks, blackbirds, and snakes. The marsh ecosystem is also populated by muskrat, mink, mallard duck, black duck, teal, wood duck, blue heron, Canadian geese, and mute swans. Golden eagle and osprey used to frequent the area. The marsh ecosystem is very sensitive to changes in water quality and disruption of vegetation. Great care must be taken to limit siltation and disruption to vegetation when working in this ecosystem. The third ecosystem covers the rest of the Township and is predominantly agricultural/forest with birds and wildlife common to this dominant ecosystem in Michigan. Under the state Wilderness, Wild, and Natural Areas Program (Part 351 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994), the DNR is charged with identifying, dedicating and administering wilderness, wild and natural areas. Within the Saugatuck region, the DNR has dedicated the Saugatuck Dunes Natural Area to protect the unique dune ecosystem of open dunes, blowouts, interdunal wetlands and wooded dunes, Pitcher's Thistle occurs with in the area and is listed as a threatened species by both the state and federal government. The Saugatuck Dunes Natural Area is within Saugatuck Dunes State Park. Sensitive dune ecosystems also occur in the dune areas on either side of the Kalamazoo River mouth at Lake Michigan. This area is planned for protection but details have yet to be finalized. Management would likely be the responsibility of the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township and the State Park. The entire Kalamazoo River, including the Saugatuck/Douglas area is designated as an area of particular concern by the DNR. Areas of particular concern are those having scarce resources, unusual scenic beauty, unusual economic value, recreational attractions, or some combination of the above. They are only located in coastal areas. Altering the environment in an area of "particular concern" could have a significant impact on the quality of coastal and Great Lakes waters. The Kalamazoo River from Calkins Bridge Dam at Lake Allegan to about one-half mile downstream from the Hacklander Public Access Site (in Section 23), has been designated as a "wild-scenic river'' under Michigan's Natural River Act, Public Act 231 of 1970. Land use restrictions have been imposed to retain its natural character within 300 feet of the River's edge. See Map 8-2. WATER QUALITY The Kalamazoo River watershed includes many types of land uses and the River flows through several large developed urban areas including Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. When it reaches the Tri-Community area, the quality of this water is not good, but is improving. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-6 �Map 8-2 Kalamazoo River Wild-Scenic River Segment LOWER KALAMAZOO LEGEII.C N Oes,gnatecf /\atural Rlv&r ,,, w...,.,,..,....,,.,.,,, ___. _ ---------·----· -. , Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources An 80-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River from the City of Kalamazoo to Lake Michigan, along with three miles of Portage Creek in Kalamazoo was placed on the National Priorities List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) in August, 1990. CERCLA is commonly called "Superfund". The official site name is the Allied Paper, lnc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site. The river was placed on the Superfund list because of adverse health impacts from eating fish by humans and wildlife and the tremendous volume of PCB waste in the river environment. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) estimates that there are over 200,000 pounds of PCB's (a persistent toxic chemical) located in some six plus million (6 million) cubic yards of river, floodplain, prior impounded dam areas and Lake Allegan. Over 95 percent oft-he total contaminated sediments are found in Lake Allegan (50 percent) and areas upstream to east of the city of Kalamazoo. The levels of PCB's are lower in the river sediments downstream of Lake Allegan, yet higher in the water column. Levels of PCB's in fish have not declined significantly in the last two decades. These contaminated sediments continue to erode from the riverbank during storm events, primarily at the four former impoundments upstream of Lake Allegan. They are further disturbed by a large number of carp and suckers stirring up the bottom sediments, along with boat traffic in shallow areas of the river and at Lake Allegan. US EPA has identified the potentially responsible parties that caused the contamination as Georgia Pacific Corp. , Weyerhauser Co. and Millinium Holdings, Inc. Under the Superfund law, these companies are responsible for paying the costs of the remedial actions and to complete cleanups of the contamination. MDEQ was the lead agency in charge of the process from 1990 through June of 2001 at which time the "agency lead" was transferred to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). In Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-7 �1998 over 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated PCB waste was removed from Portage Creek in a US EPA successful emergency cleanup without any recontamination of areas downstream. t A Final Record of Decision was made at the Rockwell International Corporation national Superfund site in Allegan by US EPA in 2003 with some remedial cleanup actions currently taking place . The basic water management goal is the elimination of the pollution threat to surface and groundwater resources. The Kalamazoo River is designated by the DNR to be protected for recreation (partial body contact), intolerant fish (warm water species) , industrial water supply, agricultural and commercial uses. Downstream from the Kalamazoo Lake, the river is protected for cold water anadromus fish species (trout and salmon). Kalamazoo Lake and Goshorn Lake are designated to be protected for recreation (total body contact), and intolerant fish (warn water species) . Action to implement water management goals has been slow but attempts to involve the public and take specific action have been made in recent years . The 2004 Public Opinion Survey results reveal that citizens in the Tri-Community area feel that the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and Lake is important, with about 63% responding that they support efforts to improve water quality even if it requ ired an increase in general property taxes . Water quality is measured at various points on the Kalamazoo River and for various water quality measures. However, there has not been a consistent testing program for water quality in the Saugatuck/Douglas area for the past 15 years. Water quality testing stations are located upstream of Lake Allegan, primarily in response to the high input levels of toxic materials, nutrients and sediments in the major urban areas upstream of Lake Allegan . As part of the EPA National Sediment Inventory Program, fish from the Saugatuck portion of the Kalamazoo River are periodically sampled to test for bottom sediment contamination . These fish samples plus those taken by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the state have led to fish advisories for PCB contamination . Fish Advisories: • From Battle Creek to Morrow Pond Dam: • Carp , Channel Catfish, Smallmouth Bass: PCB's, women & children should only eat once a month, smallmouth bass - once a week. • From Morrow Dam to Allegan Dam: • Carp, Catfish, Suckers, Smallmouth & Largemouth Bass: PCB's . .. Cannot Be Eaten. All other species can be eaten once a week by men and cannot be eaten by women . • Below Allegan Dam: • Carp & Catfish should never be eaten due to PCB's. • Smallmouth & Largemouth Bass can be eaten once a week by males aged 14 & up .. .Can never be eaten by women . • Northern Pike should never be eaten . • All other species can be eaten by males (unlimited) and once a month by women. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-8 �• Lake Michigan • Brown Trout: Larger fish no consumption at all, smaller fish OK except for women and children • Carp and catfish: no consumption : Chinook Salmon: Unlimited consumption except for women and children one meal per month and only six meals per year for fish over 26' • Coho Salmon: : Unlimited consumption except for women and children one meal per month and only six meals per year for fish over 30' • Lake Trout: One meal per week for fish 18-22", only one meal per month for women and children of fish 10-22" and no consumption for fish over 22" • Rainbow Trout including Steelhead: women and children only one meal per week of fish 10-18" and only one meal per month of fish over 18" • Smelt: women and children only one meal per week • Sturgeon: no consumption of these fish • Walleye: Only one meal per week of fish over 22" and one meal per month for women and children for fish over 1", one per month for fish 18-26" and only six meals per year for fish over 26" • Whitefish: only one meal per month for fish up to 22" for women and children and no consumption for anyone for fish over 22" • Yellow Perch: unlimited consumption for the general population but only one meal per week for women and children for fish over 8". The Kalamazoo River is listed as one of 43 Areas of Concern by the International Joint Commission under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for the Great Lakes. The river's current impaired uses include the following: Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-9 �Table 8-3 Kalamazoo River Area of Concern Impairments Use Impairment • Restriction on fish and wildlife consumption Degradation of fish and wildlife populations Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems. Degradation of the benthos . Restrictions on dredging activities . Explanation of Impairment Fish consumption advisories since 1977 because of PCB concentrations in fish tissue. River sediments are the current source of PCBs . Warm water fishery impaired because of habitat loss and poor water quality. Reproductive success reduced in some bird and mammal populations due to PCBs in food chain. Introduced species have reduced populations of some native plants and animals . Nesting failure of bald eagles; high PCB concentration in eggs. PCB concentrations in fish, waterfowl, piscivorous mammals and raptors at levels known to cause reproductive impairment or deformities. Bottom dwelling communities and habitats are moderately to severely degraded in many areas because of the accumulation of excess sediments, low oxygen levels and sediment contamination . Sediments contain concentrations of PCBs which exceed USEPA dredge spoil guidelines . Scope of Impairment Action Required From Battle Creek to the mouth of the Kalamazoo River at Lake Michigan. Contaminated sediments remediation Most of watershed experiences some degree of fisheries impairment. From Morrow Dam to mouth of the Kalamazoo River. Watershed-wide. Erosion control ; habitat restoration; Contaminated sediments remediation. Public education on the control of exotic species. Allegan State Game Area . From Morrow Dam to mouth of the Kalamazoo River. Contaminated sediments remediation . Throughout the watershed. Erosion control; reduction in nutrient inputs; contaminated sediments remediation . Kalamazoo River downstream of Morrow Pond . Contaminated sediments remediation. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-10 �Table 8-3 (Continued) Kalamazoo River Area of Concern Impairments Use Impairment • Restrictions on body contact. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Degradation of aesthetics. Occasional spills or runoff events cause odor or visual aesthetics problems. Explanation of Impairment Swimming and other full body contact activities were not advised in 1998, but later reports suggest body contact for most activities is OK, with questions remaining regarding activities that stir up sediments. Wetland losses have eliminated important habitat for wildlife . Channel straightening , damming and alteration of removal of riparian vegetation alters flow, temperature and other important features. Variable Scope of Impairment Action Required Concentration of fecal bacteria exceeding full body contact standards result from storm water runoff from livestock waste and septic systems. At and immediately downstream of Superfund units. Studies underway to determine if full body contact should be limited in other areas . In some tributaries, localized and occasional bacteria problems due to livestock waste and septic systems. Habitat restoration, and efforts to prevent further habitat losses. Throughout the watershed . Continue and improve regulatory and nonregulatory pollution prevention efforts. Source: US EPA Efforts initiated in the '?O's to identify and require extensive treatment of pollutants prior to their dumping into the River have already improved the quality of the water. As the nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen are removed from wastewater entering the River, less new plant life will be stimulated and more oxygen will be available for fish. In addition to the EPA Superfund site program sites, there are sites identified under Parts 201 (contaminated sites) and 213 (leaking underground storage tanks) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451 of 1994. These are sites where runoff from contaminated land-based sites can degrade the quality of soil, groundwater or surface waters . A total of 44 Part 201 sites (currently one in Saugatuck and one in Douglas) and 49 Part 213 leaking underground storage tanks (currently 6 in open status, 4 in closed status in Saugatuck and 2 each in open and closed status in Douglas) were identified in Allegan County. (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Remediation and Redevelopment Division, 2004) Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-11 �The Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under these laws, any public or private facility which will emit any point-source discharge into the water must first receive a NPqEs discharge permit. The permit program sets forth limitations and monitoring requirements to protect water quality and meet treatment standards, and establishes strong enforcement actions for violations . The Surface Water Quality Division, MDEQ administers NPDES permits . However, sedimentation and nonpoint sources of pollution will remain a problem. In contrast to pipes that discharge directly into a waterbody, nonpoint sources of pollution include those pollutants that do not originate from a single point-such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff from farmers fields and petroleum based pollutants that wash off parking lots and roadways . The most obvious pollutants are the physical litter and debris that are carelessly dumped into the River or Lake and which typically wash up along the shore. Stronger efforts to improve water quality will have a positive affect on tourism , recreation, and future growth and development of the Tri-Community area. All sources of pollution affect water quality, and hence the utility of the water resource . While the TriCommunity area must rely on outside agenci:es to enforce pollution control laws upstream, some efforts can be undertaken by Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township to improve water quality and prevent further pollution within the Tri-Community area. These will be discussed further later in this Chapter. While most pollution sources occur far upstream of Saugatuck/Douglas, toxic materials and nutrients make their way downstream to the Tri-Communities and into Lake Michigan . Nutrient pollution, primarily phosphorus, is recognized as a problem in the upper Kalamazoo River watershed . The DEQ, in cooperation with stakeholders in the Kalamazoo River watershed , developed in 2001 a cooperative agreement to reduce the total daily maximum load (TMDL) of phosphorus. This agreement seeks to reduce nonpoint source and point source phosphorus to 8,700 pounds of phosphorus a month from April to June and 6,700 pounds per month from July through September by working with NP DES permit holders and nonpoint sources. The agreement expires in 2010. The DEQ will continue to monitor phosphorus loads. Ongoing discussions are underway by the affected communities , the MDNR, MDEQ, various environmental groups, and Allegan County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Council on ways to restore the river and increase recreation and tourism potentials in Allegan and Kalamazoo Counties. These meetings are focused on removing what's left of the mostly dismantled MDNR Trowbridge, Otsego and Plainwell dams and the city of Otsego dam . The dams cannot be completely removed until several million cubic yards of contaminated PCB paper waste are removed from the former impounded floodplain sediments immediately upstream of the partially dismantled dams. Because the US EPA and the companies that caused the contamination have not yet completed the river cleanup , Allegan County and the MDNR are prevented from implementing the fishery and recreational plans for a free-flowing river from the City of Allegan to Kalamazoo. Successful toxic sediment cleanups have and are taking place at other sites in Michigan and the Great Lakes similar to the Kalamazoo River including the Little Lake Buttes des Mortes on the Fox River in W isconsin and the Pine River in St. Louis, Michigan . These cleanups are being accomplished through wet and dry dredging techniques that do not re-suspend the toxic sed iments back into the river. Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-12 �No actions or discussions are in the works concerning removal of the Cal kin's Dam at Lake Allegan or the City of Allegan Dam. The .Kalamazoo River Watershed Council exists to help coordinate management of the watershed and to educate people in the watershed about management issues. For more information, go to : www.kalamazoo river@hotmail.com. The Watershed Council is organizing a river clean-up program. The program began with a focus on the portion of the River in Calhoun County, but is expanding. The clean-up may extend all the way to the mouth of the River in Saugatuck. Bacterial Pollution The Allegan County Health Department regularly tests Lake Michigan beaches, including some of those in the Saugatuck/Douglas area. The three communities contribute to the cost of water quality testing . Testing in past years has revealed levels of e coli high enough to close some beaches. Testing in 2003 was at six sites on the Kalamazoo River, eight sites upstream from Saugatuck/Douglas on the river, six county drains in Saugatuck Township, four creeks and streams that run into the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan, Oval Beach, Douglas Beach and Mueller Beach near the 126th Avenue Township Park. While one test resulted in levels exceeding 300 colonies per 100 ml on one occasion at Veteran's Park, tests were generally well in the safe zone. Other samples at streams had somewhat high levels following rains, but then the rates dropped quickly to safe levels. Some drains were so clean that testing was stopped at those sites. LAKE LEVELS The natural level of the Great Lakes goes through periodic changes that are based predominantly on precipitation and evaporation within the entire Great Lakes Basin. Since a century peak in 1986, Lake Michigan has fallen and risen and fallen, creating both high water and extremely low water conditions . Low water in the early part of this century created both wide beaches and difficult boating as the level dropped to within half a foot of the record low. Recent water levels are shown in Figure 8-1. The Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake and Lake Michigan are interconnected . Thus, water levels on the River and Lake Kalamazoo are largely dependent on Lake Michigan water levels. Consequently, land uses adjoining the waterfront should be based on the vagaries of fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels . This has not always been done as was evident by extensive shore erosion and flooding during the last high water period . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-13 �Figure 8-1 Lake Michigan Recent and Projected Water Levels, 2003-2005 2004 2003 2005 "" • l l - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - -- ----1 I.I LEGEND - ,...'€-, - - - ......... - - - - · - ------ ----- _.. __ .' Source: US Army Corps of Engineers When water levels are high, "no-wake" zones, which are always in effect from the channel to Mason Street in Saugatuck, are extended to cover all of the Kalamazoo Lake shoreline and parts of the River east of Blue Star Highway. When a "no-wake" speed is In effect, then all motor boats and vessels must limit speed to a slow "no-wake" speed when within 100 feet of: • rafts except for ski jumps and ski landing floats • docks • launching ramps • swimmers • anchored, moored or drifting boats • designated no-wake zones. "No-wake" means a speed slow enough that the wake or wash of the boat creates a minimum disturbance. Owners and operators of boats are responsible for damage caused by wakes . HARBOR Map 8-3 is the existing harbor map (June 1987) distributed by the National Ocean ic and Atmospheric Administration. It depicts water depth for the shoreline along Lake Michigan , and the River through Kalamazoo Lake. Channel depth is maintained by periodic dredging to a depth of 13 feet to Main Street in Saugatuck. (Dredging at the mouth of the channel has occurred every few years for many decades and will again Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-14 �occur in 2004.) The depth then drops to 20-27 feet for the next 500 feet. Between that point and Tower Marine , the water depth is about 7 feet. Most of the rest of Lake Kalamazoo varies between 1 and 4 feet in depth with not more than 2 feet being the most common . The Douglas shoreline, east of Blue Star Highway is only 1-2 feet in depfh except for a small area running NW-SE from the center of the bridge and connecting to the Point Pleasant Yacht Club. Photo 8-4 The Harbor is Home to Many Boaters and Marinas Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau This natural harbor is the principal attraction for nautical tourists which flock to the area during summer months when the marinas are used to capacity. Hundreds rent dockage by the season. Many live on their boats for weeks on end. The demand for dockage appears to be greater than the supply, despite the huge number of slips available (see Map 8-4). In 1976 there were 8 marinas with approximately 800 slips. In 1989, there were 26 legally operating marinas with 966 slips. In 2004 the MDEQ indicated that there were 36 marinas with 1, 127 slips, of which 28 marinas with 930 slips had active or pending permits with the DEQ. Another 249 slips were in 7 marinas for which the permit applications were closed pending additional information. See Table 8-4. There are also a number of slips maintained by private residences for their own personal use. Marina permits are required for any commercial activity, so as few as two slips could require a marina permit if they are rented , or if the property is owned by more than one person. Permits are issued for a three year period by the DEQ. On peak summer weekends the number of boats on the lake could be two to three times the normal level. This presents one of the most serious problems jointly facing the Tri-Community areahow to deal with surface water use conflicts . Kalamazoo Lake has a total surface water area of 184 acres. Acreage available for recreational boating is reduced by the dockage which extends into the Lake hundreds of feet and by the shallow water at the edge, which extends at least to the pier line of marinas on the south side of the lake, resulting in a beatable area of about 133 acres, unless the Lake is low, which reduces the beatable area even further. Yet, on summer weekends the River is a constant highway of boats moving in and out of the Lake. Recreational sailing, fishing, swimming, sailboarding and water skiing on Kalamazoo Lake are limited by fluctuating water levels, silt buildup, shallow water and "No Wake" zones. Those activities can also take place on Lake Michigan when conditions permit. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-15 �Map 8-3 Saugatuck Harbor Chart SAUGATUCK HARBOR MICHIGAN uce<i A•solutlO~'fll fifi!»I• r19h1 MapTet:lr,I BIUl~F!!E'f NOT FOR AA IGA TffiN ,,n f Source: NOAA Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-16 �Photo 8-5 Cruise Ship Entering Saugatuck Harbor Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Cruise ships used to come directly to Saugatuck in 2000 and 2001 (such as the 90passenger Levant), but low Lake Michigan levels with resulting shallow harbor depths made that impossible in since then . The channel from Lake Michigan up the Kalamazoo River is dredged, but with dramatically lowered water levels and deposition of river silt, the cruise ships had to skip Saugatuck. Cruise ships brought many tourists to Saugatuck. A portion of the Great Lakes cruise ship tourist market still makes its way to Saugatuck via coach from the docks in Grand Haven. Shallow-draft cruise ships, those requiring only about 8' of draft (water depth), operate on the Great Lakes, and one stops in Holland. Many Great Lakes cruise ships require twice that draft. Because a large percentage of Great Lakes cruising passengers are seniors, mooring the ship off shore and tendering passengers to port is not a viable option. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-17 �Map 8-4 Marinas in Saugatuck/Douglas 8 Marinas 1 Ship'n Shore 2 Point Pleasant 3 Sergeant Marina Condo 4 Tower Marina 5 Skippers Cove/Miskotten 6 Waterside Condo 7 Deep Harbor Deve 8 Saugatuck Yacht Club 9 Douglas Marina & Boat Club 10 Casa Loma 11 Gleason's Marina 12 Saugatuck Yacht Service 13 Coral Gables Marina 14 Windjammer Marina Condo 15 Landings of Saugatuck Inn 16 Singapore Yacht Club 17 Walker's Landing 18 East Shore Harbor Club 19 Back Bay Marina 20 Bridges of Saugatuck 21 Saugatuck Shores Condo 22 Main Street Docks - City of Saugatuck 23 Heron Bay Condo 24 Dockside Marketplace 25 Riverview Marina 26 Tower Harbor Marina Condo r,I ' . ' I 7 I Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-18 . .r· '·'1 �Table 8-4 Saugatuck/Douglas Marinas Slips Broadside Dockage (Lineal Feet) Mooring Buoys 12/31/ 2004 0 349 .5 0 Closed N/A 148 0 0 Kalamazoo River Issued 12/31/ 2004 15 82 0 Kalamazoo Lake Issued 12/31/ 2004 47 0 0 Pendinq N/A 320 600 0 Issued 12/31 / 2005 12 100 1 Closed N/A 6 0 0 Issued 12/31/ 2004 12 0 0 22 150 0 23 0 0 28 0 0 12 90 0 9 0 0 Status Expiration Date Kalamazoo River Issued Saugatuck Kalamazoo Lake 201 Washington St. Douglas 31 Butler St. Saugatuck Marina' Name Marina Address City of Village Water Body Ship'n Shore Motel & Boatel 528 Water St. Saugatuck Pier Marina 855 Lake St. Point Pleasant Marine Sergeant Marina Condo. Assn. Tower Marina Skippers Cove Bill Enery Inc. Waterside Condo. Assn. Naughtin's Marina Saugatuck Yacht Club Douglas Marina & Boat Club Casa Loma 216 St. Peters Dr. 419 Lake St. 685 Lake St. Saugatuck 515 Lake St. Saugatuck 19 Water St. 833 Park St. 16Wall Street 405 Park St. 650 Water Street Douglas Saugatuck Douglas Saugatuck Douglas Saugatuck Gleason's Marina Saugatuck Yacht Service Coral Gables Marina 868 Holland St. Saugatuck 220 Water St. Saugatuck Jack Hedglin 807 Lake Saugatuck 335 Culver St. Saugatuck 726 Water Street Saugatuck Windjammer Marina Condo. Landings of Saugatuck Inn & Marina Saugatuck Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River Expired Issued Issued Issued Issued 12/31/ 1998 12/31/ 2004 12/31/ 2004 12/31/ 2004 12/31/ 2004 Issued 12/31/ 2005 86 0 0 Issued 12/31/ 2004 3 265 0 Closed N/A 16 0 0 Kalamazoo Lake Issued 12/31/ 2004 12 0 0 Kalamazoo Lake Issued 12/31/ 2004 10 0 0 Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo Lake Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-19 �Table 8-4 (Continued) Saugatuck/Douglas Marinas Marina • Name Singapore Yacht Club West Shore Marine, Inc./ Singapore Harbor LLC Singapore Yacht Club East Shore Harbor Club V&L Properties Back Bay Marina Bridges of Saugatuck Coral Gables Dock Foundry Wharf Saugatuck Shores Condos Ferry Store Main Street Docks Heron Bay Condo Dockside Marketplace Riverview Marina Shore Harbor Marina Tower Harbor Marina Condo Total Slips 841 Park Saugatuck Saugatuck 455 Culver Saugatuck 220 Water St. Saugatuck 483 Park St. Saugatuck 555 Lake St. 116 Riverside Drive 102 Butler Street PO Box 986 PO Box 369 868 Holland St. 0 0 Issued 12/31/2 005 81 0 0 Closed N/A 50 0 0 Expired 12/31/1 999 54 0 0 Closed N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 0 0 8 0 0 Kalamazoo Lake Saugatuck Holland 51 Issued 40 Butler St. Saugatuck 12/31 /2 004 Kalamazoo Lake Water Body Saugatuck Mooring Buoys Status City of Village 40 Butler St. 971 Lake Street 379 E. 26th St. 643 Lake Street Slips Broadside Dockage (Lineal Feet) Expiration Date Marina Address Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo Lake Kalamazoo River Issued Expired 12/31/2 005 12/31 /1 996 Closed N/A 29 0 0 Kalamazoo Lake Extend 12/31/2 000 9 90 0 Saugatuck Kalamazoo River Expired 12/31/1 994 16 0 0 Saugatuck Kalamazoo River Closed N/A 0 145 0 Saugatuck Kalamazoo River Pending N/A 10 0 0 Issued 12/31/2 006 6 0 0 Pending N/A N/A N/A N/A Saugatuck Douglas Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River Saugatuck Kalamazoo River Issued 12/31 /2 005 34 0 0 800 Holland St. Douglas Kalamazoo River Closed N/A N/A N/A N/A 219 Ferry St. Douglas Kalamazoo River Issued 12/31/2 005 38 0 0 1,179 Source: M1ch1gan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004 Notes: Closed- File was closed due to incomplete information or a duplicate file; Extend- MOP expiration was extended indefinitely due to staff shortage; Pending- Permit application review is pending resolution of other violations or submittal of additional information from marina owner/operator; Saugatuck Yacht Club also has a launch ramp. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-20 �Photo 8-6 Marina in Lake Kalamazoo Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau MARINE SAFETY The Allegan County Sheriff's Department, Marine Unit, maintains strict control of the waterways. From Memorial Day to Labor Day officers patrol Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo Lake. One hundred and ten hours were spent patrolling Lake Michigan alone in 2003 . Most patrols occur between Friday and Sunday, and about half of the Department's budget goes to patrolling the Saugatuck area. In the summer of 2004, 8 tickets were issued on Kalamazoo River and Lake, and 8 were issued on Lake Michigan. 22 complaints were received for Kalamazoo Lake and River, and 20 on Lake Michigan. There were no reported accidents on Kalamazoo River and Lake and only 1 on Lake Michigan. The most common violations are inadequate life preservers on board and lack of current registration . Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-21 �EXISTING LAND USE ALONG WATERFRONT Existing land use is described in detail in Chapter 5. All land uses along the waterfront are oriented to the water. The bulk of the waterfront in the Township from the channel to the City is undeveloped as single family residential. The Saugatuck City and Douglas waterfronts are predominantly residential , commercial and marina. The balance of the waterfront, which lies in the Township, is in a natural state with some areas of residential development (such as along Silver Lake). There are no industrial activities along the waterfront. A number of small parks are located along the waterfront, but there are few public access sites and, except for Shultz Park, these provide little space for transient parking . High Water/Low Water When Great Lakes water levels are high, erosion along the Lake Michigan shoreline increases. The impacts of erosion are clear along Lakeshore Drive, where part of the road has been was~ed away. Many high value homes will be threatened by additional erosion in this area. Virtually the entire Saugatuck City and Township and Douglas Village coastline is designated as a high risk erosion area by the DEQ. See Map 4-7 in Chapter 4. There are hundreds of homes within this area. Photo 8-7 Residential and Recreational Use of the Kalamazoo Lake Shoreline Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Erosion along the River and Lake Kalamazoo also increases with higher Lake Michigan water levels. Many bulkheads and similar shore protection devices were installed to minimize the effects of the most recent high water level. Raising some of the land and structures would be necessary if lake levels remained high for lengthy periods. On the positive side, the south shore of Lake Kalamazoo becomes more attractive to marina development when water levels are high since it is very shallow in this area. Likewise, when water levels are below average, some existing dockage is unusable. See Figure 82. The Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002) found that extensive areas of Kalamazoo Lake could be exposed if the level of Lake Michigan dropped to a potential low below that recorded in recent history. This low level may be possible according to physical evidence and hydrologic calculations. This Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-22 �potential low is about two feet below recent low levels that have been a problem for area boaters. Fluctuating lake levels are part of a natural system. The costs and implications of trying to artificially manage the entire Great Lakes Basin to maintain even Lake levels is not known, but waterfront land use decisions in the Tri-Community area should be made based on the assumption that Lake Michigan water levels cannot be artificially maintained. Figure 8-2 Potential Low Water in Saugatuck Harbor Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002 The yellow line represents the potential shoreline at projected lows on Lake Michigan . At that level, hundreds of boat slips would be "high and dry." The yellow line is not a predicted low level, but is believed possible, given evidence of lake levels that occurred prior to settlement by people of European origin. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-23 �Acquisition and Development of Public Lands Along the Waterfront About half of area residents (51 %) support increasing public access to Lake Kalamazoo. (Tri-Community Public Opinion Survey, 2004) While the survey didn't distinguish between public boating access and public pedestrian access to the shoreline, both should be considered. There are only two viable public boat launching ramps , but there are launching opportunities at private marinas for larger boats. Both pedestrian lakefront access and boating contribute to the local economy by boosting the tourism draw of the communities. Pedestrian access to the water is very important in enhancing the nautical ambiance of Saugatuck and Douglas. Due to the topography of the area around Lake Kalamazoo, and the relatively shallow depth of the Lake, providing boat launch ramp access is somewhat difficult. During the recent low water periods, use of the existing ramps was limited . At either extreme of Lake Michigan water level, either high or low, both existing ramps would be unusable. (Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study, 2002) This makes lift-type launching facilities, such as those at some marinas, and frequent channel dredging useful to promoting boating . The 2004 Community Opinion Survey found that 50% of respondents believed that boat launching facilities were adequate, while 21 % thought them inadequate. Photo 8-8 Boat Launch Ramp Sites are Difficult to Provide Due to Shoreline Topography and Shallow Depth of Lake Kalamazoo Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau The City, the Village and the Township each continue to try to acquire park space along the Kalamazoo Lake and River waterfronts. The City of Saugatuck recently acquired and dedicated Coghlin Park in order to help provide more pedestrian access. A committee of local, university and state officials began meeting in 2004 to try to improve and expand boating in Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River. Among the concerns of this committee are the location of a dedicated spoils site for dredging material removed to make boating more feasible on Kalamazoo Lake, and finding a permanent funding source for recurrent dredging that is needed to maintain boating and reduce flooding potential. A spoils site must be carefully located to prevent groundwater contamination from the dredged materials. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be a Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-24 �potential source of funding . The Committee's recommendations will be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update as appropriate. The 2004 Community Opinion Survey found mixed opinions regarding boating related facnities . These results are shown in Table 8-5. Table 8-5 Tri-Community Boating Related Survey Responses 50% 30% Neither Adequate nor Inadequate 6% 10% Somewhat to Very Inadequate 21% 28% 23% 32% 41% 11% 15% 34% 40% 13% 7% 39% 50% 41% 26% 9% 12% 13% 13% 12% 12% 27% 36% 49% 19% 15% 15% 51% 19% 17% 22% 42% 41% 12% 15% 31% Facility Somewhat to Very Adequate Boat Launching Transient Boat Docks Boat Slips (rental) Boat Slips (Condo) Marinas Boat Service Pump-out Facility Fish Cleaning Stations Designated Boat Mooring Sites Designated No Wake Zones Don't Know or No Opinion Source: 2004 Tri-Communities Public Opinion Survey, conducted by Western Michigan University (WMU) . WMU Percentages rounded to the nearest percent. It appears the boating-related facilities most in need of improvement are fish cleaning stations, pump-out facilities and designated boat mooring sites. The shallow nature of Lake Kalamazoo may severely limit expansion of mooring sites. Note that the relatively high number of "No Opinion or Don't Know" responses may come from the non-boating and non-fishing part of the population. Limiting the Intensity of Development The primary future development of waterfront lands in the City will be redevelopment of existing parcels. In the Village it will focus on further development along the South Shore of Lake Kalamazoo. In both areas it will be critical that new development is neither so dense, nor so high as to block existing public views of the waterfront or further "wall the Lake with structures." Both Saugatuck and Douglas have revised their zoning ordinances to limit the height of construction along the waterfront to 28'. It will be critical that all three communities agree to a common approach to waterfront development, embody that in land use plans, and then implement those plans. To some extent, uniform densities, setbacks, and height regulations will be valuable, especially around Lake Kalamazoo. This is especially true with regard to regulations over "bigfoot" homes Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-25 �on existing lots. Additional development around Silver Lake needs to remain at a very low density in keeping with the septic limitations of the land and the limited recreational value of this shailow waterbody. The eastern end of the Kalamazoo River should likewise receive little new development in keeping with its Natural River designation. Retaining Visual Access, Aesthetics and the Character of the Area As has been emphasized throughout this Plan, the natural beauty of the waterfront has much to do with the attraction of the Tri-Community area. Local deveL)pment regulations should be reviewed and revised if necessary, to insure that new development complements, rather than detracts from this natural beauty. Old vessels should not be permitted to lie beached along the shoreline, because this also detracts from the beauty and character of the waterfront. Dredging a proper channel (if permits could be obtained) and re-floating along with restoration of ship rooms for transient lodging, with the old Frankfort ferry now docked adjacent to ( and a part of) a motel in Manistee, would be a big improvement. Photo 8-9 Tourism Depends in Part on Retaining Views of the Water Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau Several vistas have public values that deserve protection. These include the entry into and exit from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo River, the view from Mount Baldhead , the view of Kalamazoo Lake from both ends, and approaches to the Kalamazoo River Bridge. Development pressure continues to foster the building of condominiums along the waterfront, limiting public viewing of the lake from existing rights-of-way. Yet there is strong public opposition to "walling off' the waterfront so zoning ordinances should be reviewed to ensure they adequately prevent unwanted development. Any future development along the channel should be set back sufficiently to maintain the broad open views that are presented to boat travelers entering or leaving the Kalamazoo River. The view from the top of Mount Baldhead should be improved by careful selective pruning of dead or dying trees blocking good views of Saugatuck and Lake Kalamazoo. The curve going northbound on Blue Star Highway in Douglas just before crossing the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 8-26 �bridge is the only good panorama of Kalamazoo Lake. A public turnoff, the acquisition of a scenic easement, or the concentration of new development on the western portion of those undeveloped lands should be initiated to protect that important view. In addition, the land adjacent to the west side of the bridge in Douglas should be selectively pruned to improve the view to travelers crossing the bridge (northbound) until a project that protects views could be established there. SURFACE WATER USE CONFLICTS There is no question that Kalamazoo Lake and River are heavily used in season. Resolution of surface water use conflicts will require joint intergovernmental planning for a uniform approach to regulation. The first step is to establish the carrying capacity of Lake Kalamazoo and the River to the channel mouth . Carrying capacity refers to the physical capacity and intrinsic suitability of water to absorb and support various types of use. Such an analysis is typically performed by an inventory of existing surface water use during weekdays and peak weekends . Data is then examined to match the size of the waterbody and its capacity to assimilate various mixes of use. Such an analysis would probably reveal there is not much excess capacity for new boat slips in Kalamazoo Lake and River. Without an analysis of carrying capacity, it is impossible to determine an appropriate number of new boat slips or resolve related surface water use conflicts. Some time or surface zoning could be established in conjunction with the DNR if desired . For example, water skiing, jet skiing , fishing, sailing , etc. could be limited to particular parts of Lake Kalamazoo or Silver Lake or to particular times of the day. Another option could be a harbor patrol paid for by all three governmental units. More Information is necessary to establish the need for regulation. If surface water use is regulated , each unit of government would need to agree to a common regulatory approach. A Harbor Committee is looking at the issue of surface water capacity in 2004. Surface water use conflicts may grow more acute on Lake Kalamazoo if existing dockage is extended much further into the Lake. Such extensions should not be permitted as the surface area available for various recreational uses will be too drastically reduced . Existing no-wake zones should also be more rigorously enforced . For a more complete analysis of possible harbor regulation , see the McKenna Report starting on page 84. RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE FUTURE USE In seeking to balance economic development with environmental protection , the concept of carrying capacity should be a major consideration . If the carrying capacity of land or water is exceeded, then activities cannot be undertaken without unacceptable impacts on users, the environment, or both. Impacts can include increased trip times, decreased safety, pollution, loss of open space, and many other considerations. The key is prevention of overuse by limiting intensity of use on adjoining lands and regulating surface water use. Environmental protection must be a leading principle in making future land use decisions along the waterfront. Environmentally sensitive areas such as sand dunes, wetlands, high risk erosion areas, floodplains, and key woodlands should be protected from unnecessary destruction . Development should complement rather than destroy these areas and their values . By doing so the environmental quality of the air and water will be Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-27 �improved, wildlife habitat will be preserved, scenic values will be protected, and the character of the area will be maintained . Some new intensive shoreline development 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 three decades . • 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 existing access via street ends and parks should not be lost through neglect or inaction. A new public marina with deeper water access is one possible approach to improve public access, and could 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 shoreline should also be initiated. Maintaining vegetation is critical to both the stability of shoreline areas and to a natural visual character. Street trees along Lakeshore Drive (and along many other streets in the community) are of a very advanced age for their species (primarily Silver Maple) and are dying off. Replanting is long overdue. A comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetlands protection plan should be instituted as part of a broad water quality protection program that is based on the small watersheds that feed the Kalamazoo River Basin. The Natural Resource Conservation Service should be asked to assist in preparing nonpoint pollution guidelines to help guide farmers in land management practices that help keep the River clean . NEED FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Each of these recommendations requires a strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation. Watercourses, like the environment, do not respect jurisdiction boundaries. The future quality and desirability depends on governmental units through which they flow playing an active and supportive role in protecting and improving water quality. To advance this goal, the jointly appointed waterfront committee should be re-instituted or its responsibilities shifted to the Planning Commissions of the three communities or a joint planning entity if one is instituted . As an alternative, the new Harbor Committee may be suitable to take over these responsibilities if it shares the concerns and recommendations of this Chapter. John f:\winword\tri-communities\final \CHAPTER 8 WATERFRONT final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 8 WATERFRONT final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 8-28 �Chapter 9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS INTRODUCTION Growth and development trends reflect past settlement patterns in a community and provide a basis for estimating future development patterns. Growth rates are one aspect of change. These show wh ich areas are growing at a faster rate. Resi-:iential construction permits show where most of this residential development is taking place and provide insight into residential preferences. Land subdivision trends show the rate at which small lots are created. Rapid land subdivision carves up agricultural land and other open spaces for residential use and thus permanently transforms the rural character of an area. Inefficient land subdivision takes large amounts of potentially developable land out of use as long "bowling alley lots" or "flag lots" are created . Population trends may be used to project future population, which is used to estimate future land use needs and settlement patterns in a community. And finally, a "build out" scenario may be created based upon the vacant or buildable sites in an area to get an idea what the area might look like if it were developed according to current zoning and use requirements. A more complete discussion of these issues is included below. Growth Rates The population of the Tri-Communities has grown since 1970. The rate of growth has varied each decade since 1970, and each of the three communities grew at substantially different rates from each other each decade, and the population of Saugatuck City has both increased and declined during that time. Between 1990 and 2000, the Township's population growth rate was 27%, a lower rate of growth compared to 40% for the period of 1970-1980. Still, the 1990-2000 rate was higher than that between 1960 and 1970 (11%) and between 1980 and 1990 (7%). The growth rate in the Village was 17% between 1990 and 2000. This was lower than the 35% growth rate between 1970 and 1980, but higher than the 9% growth rate between 1980 and 1990. The City went from a 19% growth rate in the 60's to only 6% growth in the ?O's, to a decline of 13% in the 80s but an increase of 12% in the 90s. See Chapter 2: Demographics. The Tri-Communities as a whole increased by 20% between 1990 and 2000, or nearly 800 persons. This is a substantial rate of growth for an area the size of the Tri-Communities . It is important to note that while the Township's population increased by 27% from 1990 to 2000, the number of households increased by 30% (394 households). This reflects a national trend of smaller household size (number of persons per household , not smaller dwelling sizes), requiring a greater number of homes for a given number of persons. Continuation of this trend will place additional growth pressure on the Tri-Communities in general and Saugatuck Township in particular. Only Saugatuck City had an increase in household size with a resulting greater increase in population than housing. However, this trend was only very slightly different than that of the Village and Township and may reflect a growing interest in the City as a desirable place for families. It is already a desirable place for seasonal homes, which increased by about 80 units between 1990 and 2000 in the Tri-Communities. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 9-1 �The City's slower growth rate is due in part to a shrinking supply of vacant or developable land and in part to a higher proportion of seasonal residents and elderly in small households. The Township's large supply of land has translated into high growth rates. The Village continues to have a high rate of growth (17% between 1990 and 2000, or 174 persons), and also still has land available to develop. Photo 9-1 Saugatuck City Attracts Many People but Space is Scarce Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau The 2004 Community Opinion Survey found that respondents thought the ideal population of the Tri-Communities was no larger than 1.5 times its present size, even though there is land available for it to grow as much as 2.9 times larger than at present. 52% of the respondents thought that Saugatuck City should remain the same population, 43% thought the City of the Village of Douglas should be no larger and 27% thought the Township had reached its ideal population. Slightly more respondents (28%) thought that the Township had an ideal population about 1.5 times larger, or about 3,600 persons (up from the 2000 Census population of 2,376). Another 16% thought the ideal Township population was twice its present size and 17% didn't know or had no opinion. Fewer than 10% thought the Village or City ideal population was twice its present size, while 22% thought the City should be 1.5 times larger, and 28% of Village respondents felt it should be 1.5 times larger. If the City, Village and Township were all to grow to 1.5 times the present population, then the City would add 533 residents, while the Village would grow by 607 residents and the Township by 1,188. This would bring the total Tri-Community population to 6,341 persons. There is no question that both the Village and the Township could accommodate this projected growth with currently available undeveloped land . However, in order for the City to, the average population per household would have to rise or apartments would Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 9-2 �have to accommodate most of the new persons as there is insufficient undeveloped land to accommodate that many people (except on the Oxbow Peninsula where undeveloped, privately owned land is planned for long term preservation, not residential development). This preference for a limited population poses particular challenges for the Township. A very rough buildout analysis revealed that the Township population could increase by nearly 2.9 times if it were fully developed according to current zoning . See Table 9-1 . A buildout analysis starts with the acreage area of different zoning districts, minus unbuildable lands (such as wetlands). Rough acreage measurements were made of Saugatuck Township's major residential zoning districts. Agricultural lands were included in this calculation as there remains very little agricultural land in protection programs such as PA 116. Excluded is the area for road rights-of-way (roughly calculated here at 15% ). Another roughly 40% is deleted in consideration of land that has severe limitations, such as steep slopes, soils not suited for septics, sizes or shapes that are not easy to maximize development potential, poor or no access, deed restrictions or owners who don't desire to sell such as lifetime farmers, or open space owners. Based on the resulting acreage figures for each zoning district, the calculation then determines the number of potential dwelling units according to permitted density, and multiplies this times the most recent population per household size. In this analysis the buildout factor is only as reliable as the acreage measurements are accurate. Table 9-1 Buildout Analysis of Saugatuck Township Area in Acres Subtract 15% for Road Rights-of-Way Estimate of Buildable Area in Acres•••• Density Potential Dwelling Un its A-1 5 ,010 4 , 259 2 ,555 767 A-2 R-1• R-2 R-3 R-3B .. R-3B Critical Dunes Overlay Total Acres 4 ,086 947 608 314 665 71 3,473 805 517 267 565 60 2 ,084 483 310 160 339 36 1 du/2 .5 A 25% 1 du/2 .5 A 1 d u/0 7 SA 1 du/1 .5 A 2 du/A 1 d u/1 A 1 du/2 A 11,701 9 946 5 968 Residential Zoning District Tota l Population at 2 .2 persons per household ... 834 644 207 320 339 18 3 128 Population 6,882 (about 2 .9 t imes current 2 ,376 4 ,506 2000 Po ou latio n Pote ntia I populat ion Source: Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. *Note: The R-1 district density ranges from 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 sq. ft. to 1 per 40,000 sq. ft. depending on percent of site placed in open space and presence or absence of public sewer and water, so an average of about 1 dwelling unit per 0. 75 acre was used for this calculation. **Note: The R-3B district density ranges from 1 dwelling unit per 30,000 sq. ft. to 1 per 65,000 sq. ft. depending on percent of site placed in open space and presence or absence of public sewer and water, so an average of about 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre was used for this calculation . ..*Note: The potential buildout population was calculated using an average 2.2 persons per household. While the average population per household differs between the three communities, the buildable acres estimate is not exact enough to try to distinguish between community's household size, which can also change over time. The figure of 2.2 persons is closest to that of the Township, which has by far the majority of undeveloped land in the Tri-Communities. •••• Potential buildable acres after 40% reduction of maximum potential due to parcels with septic limitations, access issues, odd parcel shapes, deed restrictions, unwillingness to sell, lifetime farmers, etc. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 9-3 �There is a gap between an "ideal" population (as expressed by respondents to the community opinion survey) for the Township of 3,564 (a 1.5 times growth increase, amqunting to an additional 1,188 persons) and the "buildout" population of 6,882 residents (a 2.9 times growth increase, amounting to an additional 4,506 persons). The difference between the full time resident population and seasonal resident population of our community is an element not considered in this "ideal" versus "buildout" analysis. Seasonal households were included in the buildout calculations of total potential households and therefore total potential buildout population. If seasonal households were taken into consideration, the buildout "full time" population woulc1be reduced to 5,782, (a 2.4 times increase, amounting to an additional 3,406 persons).This reduction is based on data from Table 2-3,"Seasonal Housing Units" showing 16% of the homes in the township are seasonal as of year 2000. Since this trend is on the increase due to the summer resort nature of the Saugatuck area, it is probable the seasonal population percentage will increase as the Township grows and therefore further reduce the total "full time" population below 5,782. Photo 9-2 Maintaining Rural Character in Saugatuck Township is Important to Residents Source: Aaron Sheridan This poses a dilemma for the Township. If the Township continues to allow the existing zoning density it will, over time, greatly overbuild, relative to the desires of 58% of its residents. If it greatly reduces permissible density and large landowners have come to expect that their land value is based on current density (not a much lower density), there will likely be very unhappy landowners and there may be both political and legal ramifications of such a change. This is compounded by the fact that citizens at a Town Meeting in May 2004 were evenly split over whether density should be reduced, in order to better meet a desired, lower expected population, in the area north of the Kalamazoo River or the area south of it. On the other hand, reducing residential development density in areas currently farmed is completely consistent with public desires to preserve farmland and open space, and will reduce or delay the need to provide utilities or other public services to these areas any time soon. Encouraging more clustering of new Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 9-4 �development will preserve more open space, but won't in and of itself reduce overall dwelling units and will put more pressures on farmers to convert land out of agriculture sooner. Absent a determination to greatly lower zoning density and manage existing large acreage parcels for agriculture or forestry, or a major effort to purchase • development rights of existing farmland using the fledgling County PDR program, or protect the land through donations or conservation easements, the rural lands of the Township will eventually yield a population about 2.9 times the present population. A voluntary effort on the part of new rural residents to not maximize density on their land could also aid in reducing the eventual population in the Township, if a significant proportion of rural residents followed such a course. It will be possible! to reduce the visual and environmental impact of new development through PUDs, clustering and vegetative buffering, but a greatly enlarged population will still require increased school, recreation, police, fire, health care, road maintenance and improvement and utilities services. Generally new residential development does not return as much in new tax revenues as it costs in new public services. Thus, the new residents, when accommodated at a low density could create fiscal stress as well as social stress if they "chew up" open space and create more public service costs than they pay for. These public service costs include school expansion, police and fire, recreation programs and roads. While a large portion of road improvements are paid for by the County, the Township supports a millage (renewed in August 2004) in order to increase road maintenance above the level provided by the County, and would likely need to be increased if low-density residential development were to continue according to present zoning. This is a difficult issue facing many rural townships that is easy to ignore as market demand is low enough that future public service costs won't be borne by current tax payers. The Plan acknowledges the issue and the Township Planning Commission will continue to explore the ramifications and the viability of various alternatives over the next few years. A new solution may emerge from further analysis. Photo 9-3 Residential Construction Takes All Types: New Cottages at Summer Grove Source: www.summergrovecottages.com Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 9-5 �Residential & Commercial Construction Building permit data presented in Chapter 3: Economics (See Table 3-7) showed that new residential construction was taking place at a rate that would result in the ideal ' population being reached in the near future. The average rate was about 86 dwelling units per year in the Tri-Communities . Most of these occurred in the Township . If the Township portion of new residential construction only averaged about 62.25 per year (as it has in the past four years: 62 in 2000, 65 in 2001, 71 in 2002 and 51 in 2003), an ideal Township population 1.5 times the present would be reached in about 1O years. Construction activity in the City and Village also includes rebuilding, which would not necessarily increase the population at a rapid rate. However, it is not unreasonable to assume the Village could reach a population 1.5 times the present population within 1015 years if the West Michigan economy continues to hold up. Commercial development largely follows residential development, so the pressure to convert land for new commercial development will largely follow new housing construction . This is especially true in downtown Saugatuck and Douglas (which would also feel pressure for more businesses if tourist growth was rapid) . Out on Blue Star Highway and at the freeway interchanges, there is already pressure for more business development, and as traffic volumes increase, it will go up. However, local zoning can largely control the type, amount and location of new commercial development. But it is hard to control the rate. Premature commercial development is a blight on the community, yet it is often hard to determine when a proposal is premature. For that reason , local business zoning along the Blue Star Highway and at the interchanges should be periodically examined to ensure it represents what the community wants to see happen there. POLICY IMPLICATIONS If development were to proceed under existing zoning, as reflected in the build out scenario, then the Tri-Communities would gradually turn into a suburban enclave, complete with a long commercial strip from the north freeway interstate exchange of Blue Star Highway to the south freeway interchange in Douglas. This is problematic in light of the 1988 and 2004 Public Opinion Surveys which revealed the vast majority of respondents have the following preferences: • maintain the scenic, small town/rural character of the area; • limited, well-planned and attractive strip commercial development; • small commercial shopping centers at the interchanges; • preserve open space along the waterfront and in the Township in general and along roads in particular. These results suggest the need to again reevaluate current zoning and regulatory policy. Evaluation of zoning and regulations following the preparation of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan led to changes in Township zoning that have reduced the potential number of dwelling units from about 17,000 to about 7,300. It may be necessary to shape the residential policy in the Township even further. Policies 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 ultimately need to be amended to implement the policies of this Plan. John f: \winword\Tri-Communities\fi nal\CHAPTER 9 GROWTH AND DEVEL TRENDS final.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 9-6 �Chapter 10 FUTURE LAND USE INTRODUCTION Good land use planning is essential to the future quality of life in the Tri-Communities. Actual future land uses are difficult to predict and guide to achieve desired results. A future land use map and plan expresses local and use goals and policies and provides a land use scenario which a community may use as a physical guide. Goals and policies, in turn, drive land use and development decisions. The Future Land Use Map accompanying this chapter depicts generalized future land use in the City of Saugatuck, the City of the Village of Douglas, and Saugatuck Township and anticipates community land use needs for the next 25 years. These future land use arrangements are based on a variety of sources, including a survey of area leaders, the citizen opinion survey, a series of Town Meetings, joint workshops of members of all three planning commissions and governing bodies, and information in this Plan, with an emphasis on border issues. Proposed future land use is based on analysis of each existing land use, impacts of area trends, projected future land use needs if current trends continue, and the relationship of land use activities to the natural resource base. All proposals are intended to be consistent with the goals and policies presented in Chapter 1, which were originally created in 1989 with substantial public input and then updated as a part of this planning process. A few key planning and design principles were used to evaluate alternative land use arrangements. With slightly different trends and projections, application of the same principles could lead to different conclusions and differences would be related to the amount of particular land uses more than their location or relative relationships to adjoining uses. Likewise, there are many areas in which alternative land use arrangements would be satisfactory providing they remained in keeping with these basic planning principles. Consequently, it is crucial that this plan be regularly reviewed and updated at least once every five years to insure its continued relevance in planning for future land use needs. PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES The Future Land Use Map (see Map 10-1) depicts generalized land use, which is implemented through the mapping of zoning districts and applied during the site plan review process. The following planning and design principles are the technical foundation in support of the proposed land use arrangements graphically depicted on the Future Land Use Map. These principles are consistent with the goals and policies in Chapter 1 and should remain the basis for reviewing any subsequent changes to the proposed Future Land Use Map. These planning principles are: • Protection of public health and safety • Conservation of natural resources • Environmental protection • Minimizing public service costs • Efficiency and convenience in meeting land use needs • Insuring compatibility between land uses. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 10-1 �Map 10-1 Future Land Use Map Legend Rural Low Density Single Family Residential/Agricultural Medium to High Density Single and Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Residential/Commercial Waterfront Mixed Use - Commercial Industrial Greenspace,Preserve Highway Buffer Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 10-2 �Often a land use decision based on one principle also advances another. For example, prevention of filling or construction on floodplains protects public health and safety, conserves natural resources, protects the environment and minimizes public service costs. It may also create a valuable buffer or open space between uses and help insure compatibility. Protection of Public Health and Safety Key situations in which this principle is applied include: • Avoiding construction in areas which present natural hazards. In the TriCommunities, these include areas too close to the Lake Michi:gan shoreline at high risk from erosion from coastal wave action ; floodplains; saturated soils and wetlands; soils not well suited for support of foundations or safe disposal of septic wastes; and steep slopes. Avoiding construction where an intensive land use activity is not adequately • serviced by all weather public roads; and • Avoiding construction in areas with soils contaminated by hazardous and/or toxic waste . Conservation of Natural Resources Failure to consciously protect nonrenewable natural resources exposes a community to unbridled destruction of those resources which are the foundation for an area's character and quality of life. Conservation of natural resources usually focuses on: land , water, minerals, certain soils (such as prime farmland) , wetlands, sand dunes, areas supporting an abundance and diversity of wildlife, and unique forested lands. Areas where the land and the water meet are the most important. Indiscriminate land subdivision frequently reduces the size or alters the shape of land, thereby compromising the resource value and production potential of those lands. This occurs frequently in prime agricultural areas and once lost, these lands may never be reclaimed for food production purposes. If widespread , such losses can dramatically alter the character of an area. These changes reflect lost opportunities - usually higher public service costs and gradual degradation of an area's tourism potential. Environmental Protection This principle aims at preventing pollution, impairment or destruction of the environment. While there is considerable overlap with natural resource conservation issues, environmental protection measures focus primarily on air and water quality, and the impact of activities where the water meets the land . Environmental quality is best preserved by planning for appropriate land use activities in and near sensitive environmental areas, and managing development accordingly. Minimizing Public Service Costs Public service costs may be minimized by encouraging new land uses where existing infrastructure is not used to capacity and where expansion can be most economically supplied . This also results in compact settlement patterns, prevents sprawl, and is favored by taxpayers because it results in the lowest public service costs both for construction and maintenance. Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting Land Use Needs To be efficient in meeting future land use needs, communities must make better use of existing infrastructure and plan for infrastructure expansion in a manner which keeps the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 10-3 �• costs low and does not create huge areas where infrastructure will not be fully used for many years. It also means locating future land uses so that travel between activity centers is minimized. For example: building schools, neighborhood commercial activities, day care facilities, fire and police protection, etc. near the residential areas t they serve. This saves municipal costs on initial road construction and future maintenance, reduces everyone's gasoline expenditures, and conserves fossil fuel supplies for future use. Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses A central objective of land use planning is to locate future land uses so that they are compatible with one another. This prevents future nuisance situations between adjacent land uses, such as loud sound, ground vibrations, dust, bright lights, restricted air flow, shadows, odors, traffic, and similar impacts. A few obvious examples of incompatible land uses include factories, drive-in establishments, or auto repair facilities adjacent to single family homes. With proper planning, land uses can be tiered to buffer impacts and orderly development can occur. Examples include: commercial service establishments on highway frontage with backlot wholesale, storage, or office uses abutting a residential area; or single family residential uses adjacent to park and recreation areas. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION AREAS The Future Land Use Map for the Tri-Communities was prepared by first identifying conservation areas and then examining the suitability of remaining lands for various development purposes. Quality farmland is a diminishing resource, and as long as farmers wish to farm, farmland is desired to be protected from conversion to other uses or from impacts by other uses. Other natural resource areas include sand dunes, wetlands, floodplains, streams, creeks and drains, the Kalamazoo River, Lake Kalamazoo, and areas at high risk of erosion along Lake Michigan. These areas are proposed for very limited future development in keeping with their fragility and importance in buffering Lake Michigan storms, filtering and storing water during periods of flooding, draining stormwater from land, providing habitat for a wide range of plants and animals, and for their wide ranging open space values. Destroying these resources would destroy the essential qualities which continue to attract residents and tourists to the area. If conserved and wisely used, waterways and farms will become a natural greenbelt system that continues to enhance the area for years to come. Local zoning ordinances should be reviewed to ensure they include adequate conservation practices. PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER Community Character: The image of a community or area as defined by such factors as its built environment, natural features and open space elements, type of housing, architectural style, infrastructure, and the type and quality of public facilities and services. Moskowitz and Lindbloom . The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, Rutgers University, 2004, p 83. The character of the Tri-Communities is largely a product of its natural environment, nestled on the shores of Lake Michigan and the Kalamazoo River and defined by steep, rolling dunes to the west and lush orchard country and farmland to the east. The area is best known as a resort community with a strong appeal to artists and artisans. The predominant land use in the Tri-Communities is agricultural (3, 11 O acres), followed by single family residential (2,242 acres). Prime farmland is generally concentrated in the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 10-4 �south central part of the Township . The rural areas of the Township are the southern agricultural , northeast, and riverfront-dunes areas. Residential areas in the TriCommunities vary widely in character between the rural areas of the Township and the urbanized areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. While single family homes are the , predominant residential land use in the area, multiple-family housing can be found in both the City and in the Village. RESIDENTIAL Residential use will continue to be the predominant developed land use in the TriCommunities. The existing residential areas in Saugatuck and Douglas provide a rich and interesting mix of housing sizes, styles and ages. The challenge in the next twenty years will be maintaining the older housing stock and ensuring that the growing ranks of part-time residents and absentee owners does not result in housing deterioration. The preservation of neighborhood character should be done by maintaining scale, context and materials of the community. Residential development in the Township is planned to be low-density single family homes with 1 or more acres per lot. This includes areas of the Township both north and south of the Kalamazoo River and all of the area east of the Interstate except for a large section of land north of Old Allegan Road on the west side of 63 rd Street, which is planned for industrial use. Rural residential is planned at 2.5 acres or more. New residential construction in the Township should be encouraged on soils capable of safe septic disposal. The best locations for concentrations of such housing are northeast of Saugatuck and southwest of Douglas. Downtown Saugatuck features larger, older homes that contribute to the downtown 's charm, many of which have been converted to profitable bed and breakfast establishments. Most of the City's year-round residents live above the steep ridge ("the hill") which separates the waterfront area from the rest of the City. The Kalamazoo Lake shoreline is partially lined with condominiums along Lake Street, which has diminished the scenic view of the Lake over time. The policy is to encourage viewing easements and single family residences. Approximately 25 blocks of long-established neighborhoods surround the center of the City of the Village of Douglas. There are also concentrations of homes along Lakeshore Drive, Campbell Road, 130th Street and Water Street. Many of these established neighborhoods consist of 100-year old homes mixed with homes that are less than 30 years old. Some modern subdivisions on larger lots also exist on the west side adding to the rich variety of home sites in the Village. As depicted on the Future Land Use Map, residential character in the City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas is desired to remain medium to high-density single and multiple-family residential. This is largely characterized by 2-4 dwelling units per acre with a few pockets of lower and higher density. Permitted density is as established in each zoning ordinance. COMMERCIAL There will continue to be four primary commercial areas within the Tri-Communities. Commercial uses in downtown Saugatuck are primarily oriented to tourists and seasonal residents. Downtown Saugatuck will continue to serve as the major center for Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 10-5 �commercial tourist activities. This should be encouraged. However, the downtown area should not be permitted to expand outside the area presently zoned for downtown commercial use. Appropriate measures should be instituted as necessary to mitigate imp~cts of the city center on adjoining residential areas. Downtown Saugatuck and the Douglas Village Center are characterized by compact building arrangements which limit parking spaces. Parking is problematic in downtown Saugatuck and in the Douglas Village Center, especially during peak tourism months. Heavy pedestrian traffic also exacerbates parking and access problems. The buildings and parking on many properties are poorly designed, so any opportunity to improve design, safety, and function should be seized. Another commercial center is located along Blue Star through Douglas. This commercial area along Blue Star from the bridge south to the freeway interchange should be encouraged to continue to redevelop with a primary focus on local commercial services, with some tourist oriented businesses, and a secondary focus on highway related uses near the interchange. The present commercial zoning of Blue Star south of the Douglas interchange should not be expanded , but small areas representing existing commercial establishments at the freeway and M-89 interchanges should continue to be recognized. Expanding commercial in these areas will , over time, only detract from more appropriate commercial areas in Saugatuck, Douglas and along north Blue Star Highway. Lastly, the area along north Blue Star Highway between Clearbrook Drive and the 1-196 freeway interchange (Exit 41 ), which is presently developed for a variety of land uses, should be encouraged to be mixed use residential and commercial. Highway servicerelated commercial should serve the immediate interchange area. General business uses like drug stores, banks, and hardware stores should be encouraged in the general business area in Saugatuck and Douglas and not in interchange areas. Allowing general business establishments to spread will increase the number and length of trips for local residents, will require all trips to be by motor vehicle, which causes a corresponding waste of fossil fuels, and it increases the potential for existing businesses in the City and Village to fail , since the "critical mass" of general business opportunities in a single location is not present. INDUSTRIAL A small number of industrial land uses exist in the Tri-Communities. Less than 1% of the total land area is devoted to industrial uses. Office furniture manufacturing is the major industrial activity. The Haworth facility in Douglas is located along Blue Star north of Wiley Road . A small industrial area exists along Blue Star in Douglas near Exit 36 that should continue to be developed for light industrial uses. If a large light industrial concern , or industrial office facility were to be interested in a location in the area, the land between 1-196 and 63 rd Street at the northern freeway interchange (Exit 41) should be considered . This land is well-suited for light industrial activities as it could be efficiently served with sewer and water. Moreover, its location near the freeway would provide good visibility for the companies that locate there, along with easy access to the north interchange. Due to its proximity to the freeway, trucking could occur with little impact on residential and commercial uses. The Tri-Communities is located 180 miles from Detroit, 150 miles from Chicago and 36 miles from Grand Rapids along a major interstate highway. This is an advantageous location for small scale, light industrial development. Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 10-6 �AGRICULTURAL In the agricultural areas of the Township, farmers are encouraged to farm their land as long as they desire to do so. Should farmers decide to stop farming and develop their lanq , low density single family residential homes in clusters with at least 50% permanently preserved open space should be encouraged to preserve the rural , low density character of the Township. Agriculture is a major contributor to the economy and rural character of the Tri-Communities, providing a contrast with the more intensely developed areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. Agriculture should be continued as long as it is economical to do so. WATERFRONT MIXED USE Most of the non-wetland shoreline in Saugatuck and Douglas has been developed. The balance is in private ownership. The waterfront should continue to be maintained and where necessary, redeveloped with a mix of single and multiple-family residential uses along with waterfront-related commercial developments such as marinas and other ship/shore activities. Condominiums line the shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Lake St. and block a scenic view of the lake. New development along the shore should preserve a view of the lake from the public right-of-way and consist of single family residences . Further, waterfront zoning should be consistent across all three governments. Much of the City's downtown waterfront has an excellent system of interconnected public and private walkways providing shoreline access. This magnifies the attraction of Saugatuck as a tourist haven. Public boat access is more limited, and parking for car and boat trailers is scarce. Private marina space is also limited and expensive. Additional public waterfront properties should be acquired as pocket parks to enhance the recreational potential of the water. The S.S. Kewatin stands as a symbol of the area's shipping history - a local historical landmark. The steamship is moored in Kalamazoo Lake and draws thousands of tourists every year. It should not be allowed to fall into disrepair. If the Kewatin cannot be adequately maintained in the future, then it should be removed so it does not become a blight on the shoreline. Mooring of other large vessels along the Kalamazoo Lake shoreline should be prohibited , as this would block the limited public access to the waterfront. GREENSPACE AND PRESERVE The northwest corner of the Township, along with the most of the land in Saugatuck west of the Kalamazoo Lake should be preserved for public open space and the portion that remains in private ownership should be maintained for low intensity uses (like the art colony and church camp) . The City of Saugatuck has been working with conservation groups since 2003 in an effort to purchase 413 acres of beach and dune land on property formerly owned by shipbuilder Frank and Gertrude Denison. If the Denison property is sold to conservationists, the plan is to add 161 acres on the south side of the Kalamazoo River to the city of Saugatuck's Oval Beach. The 252 acres on the north side of the river would become part of Saugatuck Dunes State Park. The City, Village and Saugatuck Township, where all of the property is located , have stood behind the acquisition. It is in the public's interest for the deal, as it stood during the creation of this Plan, to go through . The Denison property is largely sand dunes with some coastal wetland , and is a haven for at least five populations of rare species. Those species are the pitcher's thistle , a plant listed as threatened both by the state and federal governments, the zigzag , bladderwort and the prairie warbler, Blanchard 's Cricket Frog and the Virginia Meadow Beauty. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 10-7 �The Ox-Bow summer school of art and artist's residency is also located near the City and Township border on a 15-acre campus near sand dunes, marshes, a quiet lagoon, and dense forests. The central hub of the school is a 19th -century inn that houses students and provides space for classes and dining. The campus has been kept largely natural and provides numerous recreational opportunities, such as canoeing, biking, and hiking. As such, the Ox-Bow campus fits nicely with the surrounding greenspace/preserve area denoted on the Future Land Use Map. Similarly, the Presbyterian Church Camp occupies a large dune parcel south of the Oval Beach. While activities at the camp are changing to more year around activities, as long as the overall intensity of use at the site remains low, it is a compatible use. A strong effort should be made to acquire an easement across the camp property for a walking/biking path from Campbell Road in Douglas to the Oval Beach. HIGHWAY BUFFER The Tri-Community area is unique in that it is one of the few areas in Michigan that still has a substantial amount of natural vegetation lining 1-196 and the north section of the Blue Star Highway from the bridge to Exit 41. These forest stands provide noise buffering for abutting land uses and provide for an aesthetically pleasing highway that enhances the character of the community. Retaining and protecting this natural highway buffer even as adjacent properties are developed should be strongly encouraged. John f:\winword\tri-communities\final\Chapter 10 Future Land Use final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\Chapter 10 Future Land Use final.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 10-8 �Chapter 11 ZONING PLAN INTRODUCTION This Chapter opens with a general description of a zoning plan. It is followed by a brief explanation of the relationship between this Joint Comprehensive Pla•1 and the zoning ordinances of the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the City of the Village of Douglas. The intent and key dimensional standards of the zoning districts in each zoning ordinance are briefly described. WHAT IS A ZONING PLAN? A "zoning plan" is another term for a "zone plan" which is used in the Michigan planning and zoning enabling acts. Section 1(a) of the Township Planning Act, PA 168 of 1959, as amended, requires that the comprehensive plan prepared under that act serve as the basis for the zoning plan. Section 7 of the Township Zoning Act, PA 184 of 1943, as amended, requires a zoning plan be prepared as the basis for the zoning ordinance. The zoning plan identifies the zoning districts and their purposes, as well as the basic standards proposed to control 'the height, area, bulk, location, and use of buildings and premises in the Township. It must be based on an inventory of conditions pertinent to zoning in the township and the purposes for which zoning may be adopted (as described in Section 3 of the Township Zoning Act). Section 6 of the Municipal Planning Act, PA 285 of 1931, as amended, calls for a plan that includes a zoning plan for the control of height, area, bulk, location and use of buildings and premises in the City or Village. Section 1 of the City and Village Zoning Act, PA 207 of 1921, as amended, requires that land development regulations and zoning districts created through the act be made in accordance with a plan. This Plan fulfills that purpose for the City, Village and Township. RELATIONSHIP TO JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Joint Comprehensive Plan sets forth the vision, goals and policies for growth and development in the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the City of the Village of Douglas for approximately the next twenty years. It includes a specific strategy for managing growth and change in land uses and infrastructure in the Tri-Communities over this period, and will be periodically reviewed and updated at least once each five years. This chapter presenting the Zoning Plan, along with the rest of the relevant parts of this Comprehensive Plan, is intended to guide the implementation of and future changes to the zoning ordinances of each jurisdiction. Existing permitted uses of land, including density, setbacks and other related standards are as established in each zoning ordinance. DISTRICTS AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Following are the general purposes and characteristics of zoning within the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the City of the Village of Douglas. The specific purposes of each jurisdiction's individual zoning districts and permitted land uses are listed in the specific district provisions of their respective zoning ordinances. The Section references indicate where detailed ordinance language for each district is located within each zoning ordinance. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-1 �CITY OF SAUGATUCK Commercial Districts The. following zoning districts Section 155.023 Section 155.024 Section 155.035 Section 155.036 Section 155.037 Section 155.038 Section 155.039 are considered "commercial districts." Ll-1 Blue Star District C-1 City Center Commercial District C-4 Resort District C-2 Water Street Commercial District C-2 Water Street East District C-2 Water Street North District C-2 Water Street South District The basic purpose of these districts is to provide opportunities for regulated commercial or office activities serving both local and tourist markets. Minimum lot sizes range from one-quarter acre to one acre in size in the Ll-1 Blue Star District, which serves as a transitional zone between residential and commercial districts. The C-1 City Center Commercial District is designed to promote and preserve the Central Business District character of the city and permits intense retail and commercial uses. The C-4 Resort District provides compatible zoning for existing and future hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts. The C-2 Water Street Commercial Districts provide an area for waterfront retail and commercial land use, provide for a less intense commercial use than the City Center District and promote visual access to the Kalamazoo River. Residential Districts The following zoning districts Section 155.025 Section 155.026 Section 155.029 Section 155.030 Section 155.032 Section 155.033 Section 155.034 Section 155.039 are considered "residential districts." C-4 City Center Residential District R-1 Community Residential District R-2 Lake Street District R-1 Maple Street (MS) District R-1 Park Street North District R-1 Park Street South District R-1 Park Street West District R-3 Multi-Family Residential District The principal purpose of these districts is to provide for a range of residential dwelling types at various densities within individual zones tailored for specific uses. Minimum lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 21,780 square feet. The C-4 City Center District is a transitional zone intended to serve as a buffer between the high intensity City Center Commercial District and the low intensity Community Residential zone. It is not intended to be static but rather to adjust with the development needs of the community. The R-1 Community Residential District is designed to protect and promote low density singlefamily residential uses and development in the city. The objective of the R-2 Lake Street District is to enhance low density single-family land use and promote visual access to the Kalamazoo River. The R-1 Maple Street District promotes single-family residential land use in a low density setting and preserves the rural character of the district and its natural resources. The R-1 Park Street North and South Districts are designed to preserve and protect residential water front land uses along Kalamazoo Lake and River, while the R-1 Park Street West District protects the natural environmental features of the area such as dunes and open spaces through the encouragement of larger lots. Density in this District is intended to be less dense than other residential districts in the city to preserve the character of the land in the District. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-2 �Cultural/Community District The following zoning district is considered a "cultural district." Section 155.028 Cultural/Community District • The purpose of this district is to provide for development of cultural and community facilities. The range of uses provided for by this district is intended to further enhance the social, cultural and economic synergy of the City's downtown area. Any development in this district must include Community Center and Cultural/Performing Arts components. Conservation and Recreation District The following zoning district is considered a "conservation and recreation district." Section 155.027 Conservation and Recreation District This District is designed to maximize preservation of existing environments by permitting only low density residential uses. It is a restrictive zone, intended to permit development after in-depth review in order to protect and enhance the natural resources, amenities natural habitats of wildlife, public recreation areas and to protect public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of this District is to provide a natural undeveloped area for the benefit of public recreation and utilization by large numbers of residents and visitors. The minimum lot size for single family residences is 2 acres; however, the maximum lot coverage is 15%. At the time this Plan was being formulated, the City Planning Commission was going to prepare a special subarea plan for the Oxbow Peninsula. Some changes to this Plan and to the City Zoning Ordinance may be necessary at the conclusion of the preparation of that Plan. Mixed Use District The following zoning district is considered a "mixed use district." Section 155.031 Neighborhood Marine District The purpose of the Neighborhood Marine District is to promote utilization of the waterfront property with mixed residential and commercial land uses. The goal of the District is to encourage larger lot development in order to preserve and protect visual access to the waterfront. Land uses in the District that emphasize water access and usage are desired after appropriate review. The minimum lot area within this district is 17,424 square feet. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-3 �Table 11-1 City of Saugatuck Zoning District Regulations R4 City Center Res. R1 Community Residential R2 Lake Street R1 Maple Street R1 Park Street North R1 Park Street South R1 Park Street West R3 MultiFamily Residential Ll-1 Blue Star C1 City Center Commercial C4 Resort C2 Water Street C2 Water Street East C2 Water Street North C2 Water Street South Conservation & Recreation Cultural/ Community Neighborhood Marine s.f. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Maximum Building Height 8,712 s.f. 66 ft. 25% 25 ft. 7 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 8,712 s.f. 66 ft. 25% 25 ft. 7 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 8,712 s.f. 66 ft. 25% 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 28 ft. 15,000 s.f. 80 ft. 25% 50 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 8,712 66 ft. 25% 50 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 15,000 s.f. 100 ft. 25% 50 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 21 ,780 100 ft. 25% 50 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 28 ft. 15,000 s.f. 80 ft. 25% 50 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. 1 acre 150 ft. 25% 50 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. N/A 66 ft. N/A 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 28 ft. 15,000 s.f. 66 ft. 50% 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. N/A 132 ft. N/A 0 ft. 0 ft. 15 ft. 28 ft. N/A 66 ft. N/A 0 ft. 7 ft. 10 ft. 28 ft. N/A 66 ft. N/A 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 28 ft. N/A 132 ft. N/A 0 ft . 10 ft. 15 ft. 28 ft. 2 acres 200 ft. 15% 100 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 28 ft. 50,000 s.f. 198 ft. 60% 25 ft. East-1 Oft. West-0 ft. 0 ft. 28 ft. 17,424 s.f. 132 ft. 35% 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 28 ft. =square feet, ft. =feet SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP Rural Districts The following zoning districts are considered "rural districts." Section 40-136 A-1 Agricultural Zoned District Section 40-181 A-2 Rural Open Space Zoned District The A-1 Agricultural Zoned District is that area of the township where farming, dairying, forestry operations and other similar rural-type land uses exist and should be preserved Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-4 �and/or encouraged. Large vacant areas, fallow land and wooded areas are included. The A-2 Rural Open Space Zoned District is that area of the township where crop farming and forestry operations and other similar rural uses exist and should be preserved and/or encouraged, while providing opportunities for residential development • at overall densities which reflect a more rural living environment than may be provided in other residentially zoned districts in the township. The minimum lot area for parcels in both districts with dwelling units or non-farming units is 2 ½ acres. Residential Districts The following zoning districts Section 40-226 Section 40-271 Section 40-316 Section 40-328 are considered "residential districts." R-1 Residential Zoned District R-2 Riverside Residential Zoned District R-3 Lakeshore Residential Zoned District R-38 Lakeshore Transition Zoned District The R-1 Residential Zoned District is that area of the township where predominantly single- and two-family dwellings, together with a minimum of other residentially related facilities and activities primarily of service to the residents in the area, should be preserved and/or encouraged. The R-2 Riverside Residential Zoned District is that area of the township bordering the Kalamazoo River and its tributaries where controls are placed upon the use and development of areas adjacent to such river and its tributaries within the township and upon construction activity within such river and its tributaries. The R-3 Lakeshore Residential Zoned District is that area of the township where controls are placed upon the use and development of areas adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Michigan so as to preserve the shoreline as a natural resource to prevent and/or control erosion and to maintain the aesthetic qualities of the area. The new R-38 Lakeshore Transition Zoned District accommodates moderate densities of new residential growth and requires development to incorporate significant elements of preserved open space. Minimum lot sizes range from half an acre to one and a half acres within the Township's residential districts. Commercial Districts The following zoning districts Section 40-366 Section 40-416 Section 40-466 are considered "commercial districts." C-1 General Commercial Zoned District C-2 Local Commercial Zoned District C-3 Interchange Commercial Zoned District The C-1 General Commercial Zoned District was established to accommodate businesses desiring to take advantage of the area's seasonal traffic patterns. It provides diverse corridor locations for businesses that cater directly to tourism and peak travel associated with an increased summertime population. The C-2 Local Commercial Zoned District was established to provide areas in which the Principal Uses of the land are devoted to businesses serving the day-to-day needs of the local, nontransient population. This district allows a wide range of service and retail uses, but is not designed to support large commercial operations or those specifically oriented toward the tourist or regional trade. The C-3 Interchange Commercial District is located near the freeway interchanges along major arterials. It was established to provide areas for specialized sales, service and hospitality businesses that cater to highway travelers. The C-3 Districts primarily serve regional markets and are vehicle oriented in terms of their dependence upon high visibility and proximity to automobile traffic. Minimum lot sizes range from 65,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-5 �The Township Planning Commission will review the current area zoned commercial on north Blue Star Highway with an eye to possibly making the following changes: • dropping the uniform 500' width of the commercial district to instead conform with parcel boundaries of properties that front on Blue Star Highway; • possibly adjusting the range of commercial uses permitted so as to not unintentionally promote duplication of businesses and services already adequately being provided in the City or Village. • possibly adjusting provisions that permit mixed commercial and residential use to provide a wider range of mixed uses and encourage more residential and less commercial use than present zoning permits. Industrial District The following zoning district is considered an "industrial district." Section 40-521 1-1 Industrial Zoned District The 1-1 Industrial Zoned District is designed to accommodate those manufacturing, assembling and fabricating businesses and related commercial activities or uses which are not likely to cause adverse effects or nuisance to adjoining properties. The minimum lot size for the 1-1 district is 30,000 square feet. Table 11-2 Saugatuck Township Zoning District Regulations A-1 Agricultural A-2 Rural Open Space R-1 Residential R-2 Riverside Residential R-3 Lakeshore Residential R-3B Lakeshore Transition Residential C-1 General Commercial C-2 Local Commercial C-3 Interchange Commercial 1-1 Industrial s.f. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Maximum Building Height 2 ½ acres 165 ft. 30% 40-50 ft. 10-15 ft . 30-50 ft. 35 ft . 2 ½-5 acres 20 ,00040,000 s.f. 30,00065,000 s.f. 150 ft. 30% 40-50 ft. 10-15 ft. 30-50 ft. 35 ft. 100-125 ft. 25% 40-50 ft. 10-15ft. 30-50 ft. 35 ft. 100-150 ft. 25% 40-50 ft. 10-15 ft. 30 ft/75 ft. from River 35 ft. 20,000 s.f. 100 ft. 25% 40-50 ft. 10-15 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft . 30,000 65,000 s.f. 100-150 ft. 25% 40-50 ft. 10-15 ft. 30-50 ft. 35 ft. 85,000 s.f. 250 ft. 40% 70 ft. 20 ft. 20-50 ft. 35 ft. 65,000 s.f. 200 ft . 40% 70 ft. 20 ft. 20-50 ft. 35 ft. 120,000 s.f. 300 ft. 40% 70 ft. 30 ft. 30-50 ft. 35 ft. 30,000 s.f. 100 ft. 50% 75 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. =square feet, ft. =feet Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 11-6 �CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS Residential Districts The following zoning districts are considered "residential districts." •section 4.01 R-1 Residential District Section 5.01 R-2 Residential District Section 6.01 R-3 Neighborhood Conservation District Section 7.01 R-4 Harbor Residential District Section 8.01 R-5 Multiple Family District Section 9.01 R-6 Mobile Home Park District The principal purpose of these districts is to provide for a range of residential dwelling types at various densities within individual zones tailored for specific uses. Minimum lot sizes range from 7,920 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Generally, where public sewer service is provided, the minimum lot size is 7,920 square feet; otherwise, minimum lot sizes range from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. The general intent of these districts is to provide opportunities for new residential development in a manner consistent with existing residential uses in the area, and which makes efficient use of Village sewer and water service, and that preserves the traditional character of the Village. Commercial Districts The following zoning districts are considered "commercial districts." Section 10.01 C-1 Village Commercial District Section 10.10 C-1A Village Center Commercial District Section 11.01 C-2 General Commercial District Section 11.10 C-2A Special Commercial District The C-1 Village Commercial District is intended to provide for retail and service establishments on Center Street west of Blue Star Highway and is designed to promote automobile-oriented shopping with on-site parking. The C-1A Village Center Commercial District provides for small retail and service establishments designed to promote convenient pedestrian shopping and stability of retail development by encouraging a contiguous frontage and preserving the traditional character of the Village center. The C2 General Commercial District provides for retail and service establishments which meet the general consumer needs of the Village, while the C-2A Special Commercial District provides for commercial uses along with highly restricted light industrial uses. Minimum lot sizes range from 4,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Industrial District The following zoning district is considered an "industrial district." Section 12.01 L-1 Light Industrial District This District provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including manufacturing, processing and assembling establishments. The basic purpose of the L-1 District is to provide suitable locations for high tech and light industrial development with minimum lot sizes of one half acre. Public Lands District The following zoning district is considered a "public lands district." Section 13.01 PL Public Lands District Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 11-7 �The purpose of the Public Lands District is to provide adequate land resources for the purposes of administering and performing necessary public services by the City of the Village of Douglas and other public agencies. Land in this zoning district is intended sol~ly for public buildings and uses. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. Table 11-3 City of the Village of Douglas Zoning District Regulations Minimum Lot Area R-1 Residential R-2 Residential R-3 Neighborhood Conservation R-4 Harbor Residential R-5 Multiple Family R-6 Mobile Home Park C-1 Village Commercial C-1A Village Center Commercial C-2 General Commercial C-2A Special Commercial L-1 Light Industrial PL Public Lands 12,000 s.f wl sewer; otherwise 15.000 s.f 7,920 s.fwl sewer; otherwise 15,000 s.f SF: 7,920 s.f wl sewer; 15,000 s.f wlo sewer TF: 15,000 s.f SF: 7,920 s.f TF: 10,000 s.f MF: 20,000 s.f SF: 7,920 s.f. TF: 15,000 s.f MF:20,000 s.f Minimum Lot Frontage Max. Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max. Building Height 100 ft. 35% 35 ft. 7 ft.I 18 ft. comb 25 ft. 28135 ft.* 75 ft. 35% 35 ft. 7 ft .I 18 ft. comb 25 ft. 28135 ft.* SF: 66 ft. TF: 100 ft . 35% 25 ft. 7 ft./ 15 ft. comb 25 ft. 28135 ft.* 35% 25 ft. 35 ft. 28135 ft.* 35% SF: 35 ft. TF: 35 ft. MF: 25 ft. SF: 66 ft. TF: 80 ft. MF: 100ft. SF: 66 ft. TF: 80 ft. MF: 100 ft SF: 7 ft./15 ft. TF: 7 ft./15 ft. MF: 20 ft./20 ft. SF: 7 ft./18 ft. TF: 7 ft./15 ft. MF: 20 ft./25 ft. SF: 25 ft. TF: 25 ft. MF: 50 ft. 28135 ft.* Min . 10 acres per park NIA 60% NIA NIA NIA 28135 ft.* 6,600 s.f. 50 ft. 80% 25 ft. 5 ft./ 10 ft. comb 5-25 ft. 28135 ft.* 4,000 s.f. 20 ft. 80% 0 ft. 5 ft./ 10 ft. comb 5-25 ft. 28135 ft.* ½acre 100 ft. 50% 10 ft. 5 ft./ 10 ft. comb 5-25 ft. 28135 ft.* 30,000 s.f. 150 ft. 50% 25 ft. 15 ft./ 25 ft. comb 25-35 ft. 28135 ft.* ½acre 100 ft. 50% 25 ft. 15 ft./ 25 ft. comb 15-25 ft. 45 ft. 20,000 s.f. 100 ft. 35% 40 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 28135 ft.* SF = Single Family, TF = Two Family, MF = Multi-Family, s.f. = square feet, comb = combined, Ft.= feet *MAX BUILDING HEIGHT IS 28 FT. MEASURED FROM THE AVG. GRADE OF THE FRONT ELEVATION TO EXCEED 35 FT. WHEN MEASURED FROM THE AVERAGE GRADE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND NOT PLEASE REFER TO VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR DETAILS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF ABOVE STANDARDS . John f:\winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPTER 11 Zoning Plan final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 11 Zoning Plan final.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 11-8 �Chapter 12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION INTRODUCTION This chapter briefly examines several intergovernmental cooperation issues. First are issues related to the Tri-Communities. Second are issues related to land use policies of jurisdictions abutting Saugatuck Township. TRI-COMMUNITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ISSUES This Plan serves to guide the City of Saugatuck, City of the Village of Douglas, and Saugatuck Township in their efforts to manage land , cultural and community resources. All three communities participated in creation of the Plan; all three will benefit by implementing the Plan; and all three communities are responsible for the Plan's implementation. Following are five recommendations to guide implementation. 1. The completion of this second joint Plan recognizes the importance of the milestone in the intergovernmental relations between Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township that began with the creation of the first joint Plan in 1989. However, it should also be viewed as only one stage in an ongoing planning process. Constantly changing social and economic trends will require periodic updating or amendments to this Plan, which should be revisited at least every five years. When updated more frequently, the effort is usually not as extensive. Revisions to the Future Land Use Map in Chapter 10 should be made whenever it no longer serves as a useful guide and support for land use decision making. The same is true of the policies portion of the Plan. 2. While the Tri-Community Planning Committee that was set up to develop this Plan expects to disband upon completion of the Plan, it is recommended that a Joint Planning Committee (3 representatives from each community) be established to serve as a coordinating and oversight body to insure that the proposals in this Plan are implemented and that any actions of a single entity contrary to this Plan do not go unchallenged. If special committees such as the joint Harbor and Waterfront Committee are created, they should be formally included in the arrangement; otherwise, their functions should be absorbed by the Joint Planning Committee. The Joint Committee should meet at least quarterly or at the call of the chairperson and report its minutes promptly to the governing body and Planning Commission of each member jurisdiction. 3. This Plan is intended to serve each jurisdiction singly and the three communities together. The credibility of this Plan will depend on whether the subsequent actions of individual local governments are consistent with it. It could and should be modified as necessary upon approval by the planning commission and the governing body proposing modifications relating to provisions affecting future land use, planning, and zoning located within the geographical area of that governmental entity. All amendments and changes of this Plan should be reviewed by the Joint Planning Committee and the individual Planning Commissions to provide input, until such time as a Joint Planning Commission is formed-if the communities do so. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 12-1 �Photo 12-1 The Spirit of Cooperation is Important to the Tri-Communities Source: Felicia Fairchild, Saugatuck Douglas Visitors and Convention Bureau In the end however, since the individual communities will carry the primary burden of implementation. it is important to review the basic tools they have to undertake the substantial tasks laid out in this Plan. In addition to regulatory tools, capital facilities, and management tools, there are also a host of funding sources that may be available to assist with particular projects. It is almost always safe to say that joint proposals involving two or more jurisdictions have a greater chance of receiving funding in competitive grant situations than any one of the communities alone. As a result, the TriCommunities are encouraged to work together in their efforts to secure financial assistance to implement the proposals in this Plan. 4. Three separate jurisdictions control land use in the Tri-Community area and now that it is legal to create a Joint Planning Commission (PA 226 of 2003, MCL 125.131 et seq.) this Plan recommends seriously exploring the pros and cons of creating a Joint Planning Commission and single Zoning Ordinance for the Tri-Communities. Until this is thoroughly examined, there will only be supposition and conjecture to guide discussion on this important topic. Perhaps there will be cost and time efficiencies to both communities and applicants, perhaps there won 't, perhaps there will be no loss of "local control," perhaps there will. These are important issues that deserve a careful examination as one of the first steps in implementing this Plan . 5. The public opinion survey revealed a slight majority would favor creation of a single consolidated unit of government if there were demonstrable fiscal benefits. This is up considerably from public opinion fifteen years ago. Without a formal study, the issue will always lie just below the surface and may prevent taking advantage of important opportunities that could come along in the future. Similarly, it may reveal a dearth of practical benefits and the idea may be put to bed. But without a formal analysis, the pros and cons will never be known. ADJOINING JURISDICTION ISSUES In addition to cooperation among the Tri-Communities, there will need to be continued cooperation with adjoining jurisdictions. The Tri-Communities are surrounded by Laketown Township to the north, Manlius Township to the east and Ganges Township to the south. Filmore Township is diagonally northeast of Saugatuck Township and Clyde Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 12-2 �Township diagonally to the southeast. Lake Michigan is to the west of the TriCommunities. The above-mentioned communities were each asked to provide master plans and zoning ordinances at the start of the Plan update process and the documents provided were reviewed for content that might affect the Tri-Communities. Future Land Use Plans from the communities that provided them date from the early 1990s. Filmore Township and Ganges Township did not provide copies of their plans or zoning ordinances. A composite Allegan County zoning map prepared by the Allegan County Geographic Information System (GIS) Department was used to evaluate the potential for land development in those communities. ~ All of the surrounding townships are relatively undeveloped and rural, especially in the border areas. All of the plans provided by neighboring jurisdictions cite the preservation of rural character as a primary goal, which is also a goal of the Tri-Communities. The adjacent communities state in their plans that they intend to accomplish this goal through zoning to limit residential density to a range of from about 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per nearly 40 acres, and by strictly limiting the amount of commercial and industrial development permitted. The adjacent community plans generally express the belief that commercial and industrial land uses do not contribute to rural character, do not protect environmental quality, and that existing and planned infrastructure could not accommodate it. Unfortunately, full development at 1 dwelling unit per acre also does not retain the degree of naturalness that residents of surrounding townships describe as rural character, and so dramatic change can occur around Saugatuck Township with the settlement of large areas at a higher-than-envisioned density. This will also place further public service demands on the Tri-Communities as those populations travel to or through Saugatuck/Douglas for shopping and recreation, and will further diminish the natural regional landscape character residents of the Tri-Communities favor. Adjacent communities may want to follow the lead of Saugatuck Township in performing a buildout analysis to examine the relationship between existing zoning and the likely as opposed to desired ultimate population of the community. This may lead to further refinement of zoning and related policy that does result in greater preservation of rural character. Alternatively, they may wish to encourage landowners in their community to participate in Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) programs, or other conservation easement programs. The preservation of agriculture as an economic activity was also a goal of several of the surrounding communities. It is uncertain if, in the years since the plans were prepared, preservation of agricultural activity remains as important. In Saugatuck Township, public sentiment appears to be shifting from the protection of agriculture to the protection of open space, whether or not that includes agricultural activity. It is possible that residents in adjoining jurisdictions may also have shifted their preference in a similar direction, although perhaps to a lesser degree as agriculture appears to remain more active in the adjacent communities. Agricultural activity needs to be examined in the larger regional context, as Allegan County is an important agricultural producer in Michigan. • Portions of the Allegan State Game Area lie about a mile east from Saugatuck Township, and about two miles south, with the remainder of it extending up to a dozen miles beyond to the east and southeast. The Game Area is protected, undeveloped land in public ownership, managed for public recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and hiking. The Kalamazoo River passes through the Game Area before reaching the Tri-Communities. The Game Area is an important regional open space that also serves the Tri-Communities, and could be a valuable part of a regional greenspace Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 12-3 �system and a popular destination for trail connections. As the Tri-Communities plan for greenspaces and bicycle trails they should consider links to the Game Area. While surrounding communities generally discourage industrial and commercial uses, there are a few industrial sites adjacent to Saugatuck Township. One is in Section 12 of Manlius Township and the other is along M-89 in Ganges Township. Immediately across M-89 from Saugatuck Township in Ganges Township, there is significant road frontage zoned industrial and commercial, which could, if fully developed as zoned, impact the land in the southern portion of Saugatuck Township that is zoned very low density residential. Saugatuck Township should encourage Ganges Township to guide development of those properties in a manner that lessens the impact on Saugatuck Township, or to reduce the area zoned industrial and commercial. As zoned, a strip of industrial and commercial uses could develop, which could create traffic safety and congestion problems along M-89. Clustered commercial and industrial development, with managed access could result in development of that area of Ganges Township with fewer negative impacts on both communities. Just to the south of Saugatuck Township is Hutchins Lake, which straddles the border between Ganges and Clyde Townships. While a small lake, it has substantial residential development surrounding it, and there is concern about nutrient pollution entering the lake. A portion of the Hutchins Lake watershed lies in Saugatuck Township and Clyde Township states in its plan that Saugatuck Township should participate in a Hutchins Lake watershed overlay zone to protect water quality. Saugatuck Township is interested in coordinating protection activities with Clyde Township for Hutchins Lake. Photo 12-2 Kalamazoo River Water Quality is a Shared Responsibility of the Tri-Communities and Other Adjacent Jurisdictions Source: Aaron Sheridan The Kalamazoo Lake Water and Sewer Authority has an agreement with Laketown Township to provide public water service in excess of what it currently receives. While water lines extend only a short distance into Laketown Township, the water capacity available to Laketown Township could result in a greater amount or density of development just across the boundary from northern Saugatuck Township than would be possible without this service. The Tri-Communities, all members of the KLWSA need to Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 12-4 �work together with Laketown Township to make sure that the capacity available to Laketown is used in ways that compliment land uses in the northern end of Saugatuck Township . The• Kalamazoo River flows into the Tri-Communities from Manlius Township and many other communities upstream. Activities in the Kalamazoo River watershed influence the quality of river water when it reaches Saugatuck and Douglas. While parts of the Kalamazoo River are designated as Natural River, and sections flow through the Allegan State Game Area, both of which provide some degree of protection for the River, past activities and a lack of clean-up of polluted sediments lowers the water quality of the River in the Tri-Communities . The Tri-Communities should take an active role in continuing to push for proper clean-up of the upper reaches of the Kalamazoo River, as well as working with those communities to implement best management practices that would help prevent sedimentation of the River and other types of pollution. The TriCommunities may also want to seek the reestablishment of a water quality monitoring station in Kalamazoo Lake. Since a lack of funding for such a station is likely why it was removed, the Tri-Communities may want to consider funding their own monitoring station in order to keep track of potential contaminates that come from upstream. John f:\winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPTER 12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPTER 12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 12-5 �Chapter 13 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION The previous twelve chapters have presented background information, analysis, goals, and policies, associated with a generalized Future Land Use Map to guide decisions on land use, capital improvement and intergovernmental issues for the next twenty years. There are many explicit and implied recommendations. There is more to pursue than can be undertaken all at once. Yet, the initiatives proposed in this Plan will not implement themselves. It will take continued support and commitment for many years. The first section of this chapter examines ingredients for successful Plan implementation. The second section focuses on key recommendations that should be given priority for implementation. There are also some policies that are much more important than others to always keep in mind when decisions are being made. The third section presents a brief description of key strategies that must be pursued at every opportunity in order to successfully implement this Plan. ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Central Ingredients The central ingredients to successful Plan implementation will be: • Commitment by the Joint Planning Committee, each Planning Commission, the City Council, the Village Council, the Township Board of Trustees and staff of the each jurisdiction . • A citizenry better educated on the vision in this Plan. Information about desired residential development patterns, the fiscal and land use constraints of extending urban services, property rights, open space preservation, natural resource protection and new tools to improve and then sustain the quality of life in the TriCommunities need to reach citizens or they may not understand why and how local decision-making is directed to implementing this Plan. Focusing on Priorities As the body principally responsible for preparing and maintaining a land use plan for a community, but one which also has substantial responsibilities in review of proposed developments for zoning compliance, it is easy for a Planning Commission to become distracted with ongoing tasks or ad hoc, controversial issues. Still, the Commission needs to prioritize its tasks relative to implementation of this Plan. Time needs to be set aside for high priority items. These include the preparation of an annual report and work program for the next year, drafting updates to the Zoning Ordinance, assisting with the preparation of a capital improvement program, and the five-year Plan update. These are discussed below. • Annual Tasks An annual report on all activities undertaken by each Planning Commission with a special focus on actions taken to implement the Plan should be made to the governing body. A proposed work program that identifies priorities and projected expenses for the next year should also be prepared and submitted in time to be included in the annual Tri-Commun ity Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 13-1 �budget process. The Planning Commission should also assist the governing body with the preparation and annual updating of a capital improvement program. Each of these activities are prescribed by the Municipal Planning Act and/or the Township Planning Act. • PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED Neither a new Joint Planning Committee nor the individual Planning Commissions can be expected to implement all of the measures listed in this Plan alone. Many of these can only be accomplished with support from the respective governing bodies and with help from other agencies or groups. It is essential that discussions bElgin with each of these entities so that they understand the goals, find agreeable common ground where there are differences and obtain a commitment to a common action. All Three Jurisdictions Together • Public acquisition of the Denison property on both sides of the Kalamazoo River is the top priority for the Tri-Communities. • Protection and maintenance of the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan, including protection of water quality and dredging of Kalamazoo Lake (which requires selection of a spoils site and petition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for project approval and funding assistance). Governing Body Priorities The following activities should be the key priorities of the governing bodies of the City of Saugatuck, City of the Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township: • Creation and support of a continuing1Joint Planning Committee per the recommendation in Chapter 12. • Support the efforts of the Joint Planning Committee and each Planning Commission to implement this Plan. • Authorize and give serious consideration to the findings of a special study of the pros and cons of creating a Joint Planning Commission to serve all three jurisdictions and a single joint Zoning Ordinance per the recommendation in Chapter 12. • Consider initiating a study to determine the benefits/feasibility of consolidating the three governments. Planning Commission Priorities The following activities should be the key priorities of the Joint Planning Committee and each Planning Commission for the next five years: • Enlist the support and involvement of residents to achieve community goals and educate the public regarding the benefits of growth management and the vision, goals and policies of the updated Comprehensive Plan. • Inform through newsletters and periodic town meetings. • Post draft documents on the web and ask for review and comment. • Review all current ordinances or regulations to note those sections that are not in conformity with the plan and make public the results of that review, whether in a report or such other manner as the commission deems appropriate, which will form a baseline document against which to measure progress. • Update the respective Zoning Ordinances to be consistent with this Plan. • Update other land development regulations in each jurisdiction (such as land division and subdivision regulations) as necessary to be consistent with this Plan. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 13-2 �• • • • • • • • • • • • • Develop a Tri-Communities Greenspace Plan in conjunction with each Park and Recreation Commission. This Plan would prioritize lands for open space preservation and greenway trails, identify and implement tools for acquisition of title or development rights from willing sellers and set up funding mechanisms for implementation. It would detail how to ensure the establishment of connected open space as abutting properties are developed. Prepare additional sub-area plans to provide greater detail to desired development in each sub-area, such as is being done in Saugatuck for the Oxbow Peninsula, and may be desirable along the waterfront and along Blue Star Highway. Use this Plan in the analysis and review of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments, site plans, and new or amended master plans of adjoining jurisdictions submitted for statutory review and comment. Closely coordinate land use policies with those of neighboring communities. Share key draft documents with adjoining jurisdictions for review and comment. Be sure to comment on draft documents of adjoining jurisdictions when presented for that purpose. Monitor neighboring jurisdiction and County agency decisions and periodically inform other local governments and the County Board of Commissioners on the status of efforts to implement this Plan. Join efforts with others outside the Tri-Communities to modernize planning and zoning enabling legislation and to authorize or use new tools to better manage growth and preserve open space. Develop and promote design guidelines by the Joint Planning Committee and each Planning Commission that illustrate how to protect rural and scenic character and open space values on private residential, commercial, public and institutional properties. Examples include the design guidelines for the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook that illustrates a preferred development approach that protects scenic quality, open space, water quality and sensitive environments. Create residential development standards that set aside open space and employ vegetative buffers along roadsides and where there are sensitive environments, greenways and potential trail and wildlife corridors. These standards should be adopted as part of site plan review, cluster ordinances, conservation subdivision ordinances, site condominium ordinances and planned unit development ordinances. Create an aggressive tree planting and replacement program in all three jurisdictions along all public roads so that a new tree canopy will be in place as the many post-mature trees along public roads die off. Assist with preparation of an annual capital improvements program in each jurisdiction to guide the location of future public facilities consistent with this Plan. At least once each five years, this Plan should be thoroughly reviewed and updated by the Joint Planning Committee and each Planning Commission with support from each governing body. Saugatuck City Specific priority recommendations in the City of Saugatuck include: • Complete preparation of a sub-area plan for the Oxbow Peninsula in cooperation with Saugatuck Township. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 13-3 �• • • • • • Examine zoning along the waterfront with an eye to permitting limited mix use and more public views of the waterfront without increasing building height. Coordinate waterfront zoning changes with those of the City of the Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township. Establish uniform height standards and maintain side yard setbacks. Where the opportunity exists to acquire property for public parks (even if just pocket parks), do so. Promote marina development on Kalamazoo Lake, especially the remaining undeveloped shoreline, as an approach to improving boating access instead of converting waterfront lands to residential, which would restrict access. Add groundwater and wetland protection to site plan review standards. Photo 13-1 Preparation of an Oxbow Peninsula Sub-Area Plan is Important for Long-term Preservation Photo by Aaron Sheridan City of the Village of Douglas Specific priority recommendations in the City of the Village of Douglas include: • Complete a comprehensive reexamination of zoning district boundaries and permitted uses in a manner consistent with this Plan. • Coordinate waterfront zoning changes with those of the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township. • Establish uniform height standards and maintain side yard setbacks. • Where the opportunity exists to acquire property for public parks (even if just pocket parks), do so. • Add groundwater and wetland protection to site plan review standards . Saugatuck Township Specific priority recommendations in the Township of Saugatuck include: • Examination of the zoning boundaries and appropriate range of permitted uses, including mixed uses of property along Blue Star Highway. Pay special attention to not inadvertently undermining the integrity of existing local businesses in the City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 13-4 �• • • • • • • Examination of the permitted density in rural residential and agricultural parts of the Township with an eye to possible changes to reduce permitted density or which result in permanent protection of large amounts of open space so that overall development density in these areas is much lower than would occur at buildout under existing zoning . Coordinate waterfront zoning changes with those of the City of Saugatuck and the City of the Village of Douglas. • Establish uniform height standards and maintain side yard setbacks. • Where the opportunity exists to acquire property for public parks (even if just pocket parks), do so. Add groundwater and wetland protection to site plan review standards. Promote marina development on Kalamazoo Lake , especially the remaining undeveloped shoreline, as an approach to improving boating access instead of converting waterfront lands to residential, which could restrict access. Where there are pristine creeks and no public storm water facilities, consider density below 1 dwelling unit (DU)/2.5 acres unless significant mitigation measures are required (more than storm water detention, such as filter traps , cleaning , rain gardens, etc.) Obtain base line traffic counts from the County Road Commission on County Roads. Prepare sub-area plans for the Interstate Highway interchanges. KEY STRATEGIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED While the above priority initiatives are being implemented, the matters that come before planning commissions and governing bodies month-to-month will permit many opportunities to implement key policies in this Plan (see policies in Chapter 1). Following are key strategies that should be implemented at every opportunity through local zoning , subdivision regulations and capital improvement programs. Many may first require updates to existing Zoning Ordinances. Most of the following strategies focus on preservation of the existing character of the Tri-Communities: • Protect the natural environment of the area. • Protect the visual quality of and visual access to the waterfront. • Preserve farmlands that farmers want to preserve. • Continue to support farmers that enroll land in PA 116 or who choose to participate in a county, state or national PDR program. • Promote use of cluster zoning with at least 50% open space in agricultural areas. • Encourage the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability through the use of appropriate planning and zoning techniques. • Zone land presently used for continued low density/intensity use until utilities are available. • Preserve connected open space with each new development proportionate to the size of the development and the use of adjoining lands. • Do not strip zone or spot zone . • Do not zone land for high intensity use outside existing urban service areas or areas planned for utility expansion within the next few years . • Encourage the majority of new development to locate in areas where public utilities can be most efficiently and cost effective ly provided. • Zone land at densities that promote use of public utilities where they are Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June, 2005 13-5 �• available (usually 4 dwelling units/acre or more). Provide an adequate level of public services and facilities to protect the public health, safety and welfare , and to ensure a high quality of life for residents. • Require connection to public sewer and water wherever feasible. ~ Require the developer to pay for extensions of public sewer and water except the portion of the cost of lines that are oversized for access by other properties. • Use capital improvement programs to provide public services to areas already developed but not presently served, and pay for with special assessments. • Require all new development to have connected streets, sidewalks or trails or planned connections if adjoining land is not developed. Photo 13-2 Preservation of Scenic Viewing Areas is Very Important to Improving Quality of Life as with this Opportunity Along Tannery Creek Photo by Aaron Sheridan • • • Ensure that all new development is of high quality. • Be upfront with developers that nothing less than good design and the use of quality building materials is acceptable. • Provide bonuses for high quality design (increased density, approval for mixed use, fast track approval, etc.) where feasible and not counter to the achievement of other public objectives. Maintain or improve the character and stability of all existing single family neighborhoods and multiple family and manufactured housing communities by: • Adopting and implementing uniform property maintenance codes. • Participating in county low-interest home repair and improvement programs. • Encouraging blocks to create self-help home improvement projects for their neighbors in need. Provide a balanced range of affordable housing types at varying densities. • Ensure more land is zoned for residential use, but presently not used for residential use, in varying densities, where public utilities are present or could be Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 13-6 �• • • • quickly provided. Encourage high quality commercial development to locate adjacent to existing commercial development and only where planned and zoned for it. • Do not prematurely zone land for commercial use. •• Maintain a range of commercial zones and zone into the classification most compatible with adjoining uses. Reserve land well suited for industrial use and resist rezoning to another classification. Identify and protect important historic structures. • Inventory historic structures and pass and thereafter implemem an historic preservation ordinance. Preserve the capacity and function of the existing arterial and collector streets and minimize the conflicts between their functions by regulating land use, building setbacks, and driveway openings, and where appropriate, by requiring the development of front or rear access service drives. In addition: • Expand access management regulations to be consistent with the Michigan Access Management Guidebook prepared by MOOT for local governments. • Encourage the Allegan County Road Commission to adopt access management regulations. • Keep zoning density very low on land adjoining gravel roads until/unless the road is paved (see How Much Development is Too Much, available from the Huron River Watershed Council). • Keep new housing set back at least 300 feet from the interstate highway and require the planting and maintenance of a very thick vegetative buffer between homes and the highway. Photo 13-3 Maintaining Quality Streets and Preserving their Capacity is Important for Access by Residents and Visitors Photo by Aaron Sheridan • Be sure that all future rezonings are consistent with this Plan and if not when proposed, then the Plan needs to be amended first (can be done concurrently). Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 13-7 �• Be sure that future zoning text changes related to specific districts (e.g. permitted uses in commercial zones along Blue Star Highway) and other key standards are consistent with this Plan . • John f:\winword\tri-communities\final\CHAPT 13 key strategies final.doc C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\CHAPT 13 key strategies final 6 2 05.doc Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Update June,2005 13-8 �BIBLIOGRAPHY Listed below are some of the key reports, studies, plans, and data sources which were used as references in the preparation of this plan. 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 referenced for economic data). U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1990-2000, Summary File 3A for Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and Allegan County. ECONOMY Michigan Department of Career Development, Office of Labor Market Information - LAUS Data, 2003 Real and Personal Property SEV, 1995-2003, Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission. • Saugatuck Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau, Saugatuck Michigan, 2004 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# I, Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, 1986. Michigan Employment Security Commission, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Detroit, Michigan. HISTORY . Joe Armstrong and John Pahl, River & Lake: A Sesquicentennial History of Allegan County, Michigan, published by the 1835 Committee, 1985. National Park Service, U.S Department of the Interior. U.S. Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Michigan Bureau of History, State Historic Sites, 2004. MASTER PLANS City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan, prepared by the City of Saugatuck Planning Commission in cooperation with the Saugatuck City Council, with assistance of Planning and Zoning Center, Inc., 1989. Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan, prepared by the Saugatuck Township Planning Commission in cooperation with the Township Board of Trustees, with assistance of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. , 1989. �,,- • Village of Douglas Land Use Plan, prepared by the Village of Douglas Planning Commission in cooperation with the Village Council, Coastal Zone Management Program, Land and Water Management Division, Department of Natural Resources, and with the assistance of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., 1989. Land Use-Village of Saugatuck, prepared by the Saugatuck Planning Commission with the assistance of the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, 1979. NATURAL RESOURCES Allegan County Drain Commission, 2003. Allegan County Land Information Services, 2004. Lake Michigan Potential Damage Study, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. Michigan Groundwater Survey, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004. Michigan Resource Inventory System Database, Department of Natural Resources, 2004. Soil Survey of Allegan County, Michigan, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, March 1987. Western Michigan University Geographic Information Systems Department, 2004. Wetland Protection Act 451 of 1994, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. OWNERSHIP Land Atlas and Plat Book, Allegan County, Michigan, Rockford Map Publishers, Inc., 19871989. Saugatuck Township Plat Book, Township Treasurer's Office, Saugatuck, Township. PUBLIC FACILITIES 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. A Parks and Recreation Plan for Allegan County, Michigan, prepared for Allegan County by Williams & Works, Inc., 1986. 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, 1997. EPA Lakewood Management Plan, EPA National Sediment Inventory Program, 2000. .. Facilities Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976. �- Joint Water Agreement, Kalamazoo Lake Water and Sewer Authority, 2001. 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. Little, Charles, Greenways for America, John Hopkins University Press, 1990. Recreation Plan, prepared by an ad hoc committee of eight representatives of Saugatuck, Douglas, Saugatuck Township and Saugatuck Public Schools, 2002. Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., March 1988. The Kalamazoo River: Beauty and the Beast. Remedial and Preventative Action Plan for the Kalamazoo River Watershed Area of Concern, Kalamazoo River Watershed Public Advisory Council, 2004. Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommendations, 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, in cooperation with the Sauguuck-Douglas Convention and Visitors Bureau. Saugatuck 10-Year Strategic Development Plan, 2002. City of Saugatuck Zoning Ordinance, as amended through November, 2004. Saugatuck Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended through November, 2004. Village of Douglas Zoning Ordinance, as amended through November, 2004. OTHER Hartman, David. Tri-Community Public Opinion Survey, 2004 . Michigan Land Use Leadership Council, "Ten Tenents of Smart Growth," Michigans Land, Michigans Future, 2003. Moskowitz, Harvey and Carl Lindbloom, The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, Rutgers University, 2004, p. 83. Warbach, John and Mark Wyckoff. Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidbook. 3 rd Edition. New Designs for Growth and the Traverse Bay Region Chamber of Commerce, 2002. Wyckoff, Mark, Michele! Manning , Kris Closson and Elizabeth Riggs. How Much Development �• is Too Much? Huron River Watershed Council. 2003 . Wyckoff, Mark and Michele Manning. Michigan Access Management Guidebook, Michigan Department, of Transportation, 2001. C:\Evan\Tri Comm Final 6 2 05\REFERENCES.doc • • � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Tri-Community_Comprehensive-Plan_2005 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tri-Community Planning Committee, Saugatuck City Planning Commission, City of Village of Douglas Planning Commission, Saugatuck Township Planning Commission, Saugatuck City Council, City of Village of Douglas Council, and Saugatuck Township Board of Trustees Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005-06 Title A name given to the resource Joint Comprehensive Plan Description An account of the resource The Joint Comprehensive Plan for the City of Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the Village of Douglas was prepared by the Tri-Community Area Planning Committee, each community's planning commission, the Saugatuck and City of Village of Douglas City Councils, and the Saugatuck Township Board of Trustees, with the assistance of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., in June 2005. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Saugatuck Township (Mich.) Allegan County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f29a6dabf7ffab00479f5fc16c092b77.mp4 1aa6c9f4a8ebd77fda93f9d4dbb78168 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f1ae26b275d2c03816ed5cfb45994e8e.pdf 423ccd662dd077b5e5d44ffd0431d6a7 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Jonathan Miner Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: Apr 13, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto, and today, Apr 13, 2021I have the pleasure of chatting with Jonathan Miner. Jonathan, can you tell me about where you are from and where you currently live? JM: Wow, that’s a long story, I’m old now. DD: [laughs] JM: I’m a Hoosier by birth, but I grew up on the East Coast, in Maryland. I went to the University of Maryland and got a degree in landfill engineering. But my wife is from Missouri, so back in 1991 we decided to split the difference and move to the midwest. DD: [laughs] JM: I took a job with a local company, and I moved from Baltimore, Maryland out to Rockford, Michigan - a suburb, just north of Grand Rapids in 1991. DD: Alright, so, you’ve been in Rockford for - wowJM: 30 years this year. DD: Ah, wow, must not be too bad. JM: No, it's a really great place. It’s a really great place to live. DD: So, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? JM: Yeah, my family, like I said, moved here in 1991, and we’ve- my boss at the time suggested Rockford as a great place to raise your family, because it's like Mayberry, you know, the crime rate here is an overdue book at the library DD: [laughs] JM: And my kids actually walked to kindergarten. 1 �DD: Wow. JM: We had moved here from Baltimore where, you know, you don’t let your kids out of your sight. Kids used to show up on milk cartons. Here [pause] it was just like shaded trees; it was just like Mayberry. We moved here with my two young daughters and they started school here and raised our family. At the time, we lived right in downtown Rockford in an old house and all of our municipal water was drawn from the Rogue River, which runs right through town DD: Mmhmm. JM: - Rockford was founded on a - alongside the river with a sawmill that was powered by the river. And factories were powered by the river, so we’re a river city. Our water sources were pulled from the river and treated at the water treatment plant right alongside the river. And it was downstream, important word, downstream, from the tannery. So, probably more than a hundred years ago, Wolverine Worldwide shoe company was started in Rockford. They’re most famous for making hush puppy shoes. But they also own a lot of other brands: Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, some other shoe brands they make, but they are still headquartered in Rockford, Michigan. They’re our biggest employer. They’ve been really good for the community in terms of prosperity. But they ran a tannery that was right along the river, and back in those days people just [pause] amazingly dumped things in the river, and buried things. So when we moved here our city water was drawn from the river and treated at the plant. We became good friends with the guy who ran the plant. He was a good guy, and he worked diligently to make the water safe to drink. But no one knew about PFAS back then. No one had the means for testing for it, or eliminating it from the water. So he was proudly treating the water. In fact, he used to bottle it and sell it at farmer’s markets and festivals in town. “Hey, here- for a dollar buy a bottle of our great city water.” DD: [slight disagreeing noise] JM: We all drank it, and one of my daughters, my oldest daughter, was sort of a fitness or health - shes a little mature for her age - but she was very conscious of drinking water and not soft drinks or juices with a lot of sugar, so she drank water all the time. DD: Wow. JM: And we thought, wow she's being very healthy, and encouraged her to drink water. So all of us in town were drinking water that probably has, had, PFAS in it. We don’t know. No water samples survived. I’ll talk about it a little later but, our bodies probably don’t have the PFAS in it anymore. So, my personal interest in it was wondering what effect that had on my family’s 2 �health. What long term effects, if any, will PFAS have on my family? Living right downtown, we, you know, we’re near the tannery. We used to live South and a little East of the tannery. About 5 blocks. And on a summer day when the tannery was working, and our windows were open, you could smell the tannery. DD: Yeah. JM: So you kind of just always had this eerie feeling that your environment wasn’t the healthiest. The smell of the tannery and knowing where the water came from, but nevertheless, that's what we had, that’s what my family grew up with. [pause] So, then about 1999-2000, the city changed its water source from drawing from the Rogue River to wells, deep wells, drilled outside of the city limits; south east of the city. I’m not sure why they changed. I don’t know if it was a capacity issue or not but, coincidentally, and some people are suspicious of the coincidence, about that time, Wolverine Worldwide, maker of Hush Puppies, was notified by 3M that Scotchgard, one of the ingredients they used to waterproof shoes, contained PFAS. They were learning that PFAS was potentially dangerous and pervasive. They told Wolverine that they were going to change the formula and encouraged Wolverine to stop using it or whatever, butDD: Mhm. JM: To some people it's curious that that’s about the time our water source changed and some people think that the city was told to do that or suggested that Wolverine - I don’t know if it's a true story. About that time the water source was changed to deep wells instead of the city and I feel better about that. DD:[laughs] JM: [laughs] And then around 2010, the tannery was demolished. You know, they slowly stopped doing any tanning in the U.S. It’s labor intensive and environmentally not easy to do, so they shut down and demolished the tannery in about 2010. Now we have a big green field of grass along the river where the tannery used to be. So, that’s the story on the city water. I’ve never had well water, unlike many members of our CAG, Community Advisory Group, that I’ll talk about a little bit later. So all of my personal exposure would have been from the city water for a decade that my family drank. Now, a few years ago, my wife and I were out gardening in our yard and we stuck a shovel in the ground and found some shoe leatherDD: Ah. JM: - in our yard, so she was concerned that maybe some dumping had occurred in our yard. But we had some people come out and do some test digs and they didn’t find any other shoe 3 �leather. We’re pretty sure it was just stray trash. But, you know, if you find something like that in your yard, it's like, “oh no, are we going to find barrels of PFAS in our yard?” But, no, we didn’t. So, my concern for my family is the ingestion and I’ve talked to people from the Michigan Department of Health, and the Health Department is now just beginning studies of PFAS and health effects. They’re recruiting volunteers to give blood samples. They want people that have a fresh dosage of PFAS - who have currently or are recently drinking contaminated well water. Because, PFAS, apparently even though it's a forever chemical, it does leave the body after a number of years. So if you tested my blood or my daughter’s blood, you probably wouldn’t find PFAS in there. Becauses of that, the Health Department can’t really correlate the PFAS level in my blood to my health outcomes. DD: Mhm. JM: That is the plan for the health study. They’re going to test the blood PFAS levels of a lot of people and see, correlate that with cancer, or liver disease, or other kinds of health issues. That health study is just beginning now. DD: And that’s the MiPEHS study, right? JM: Yeah, there’s two studies and I’m not sure the difference between them right off hand, MiPEHS is one of them. JM: Another part of my personal story with PFAS is that I am on the Rockford Planning Commission. As a planning commissioner I am concerned about - concerned - that’s the wrong word, interested in future land use of primarily the tannery property. Wolverine has a couple other facilities in town like an old shoe sole factory that's actually right in my backyard. I can see it from here. DD: [chuckles] JM: Right, which they’ll probably be vacating eventually, so mainly, that the big tanning tannery property is a big grassy field right downtown along the river. So, I’m interested in what that’s gonna become. Is it gonna be donated to the city for an amphitheater? Will Wolverine put up an office building there? Will it become residential? All of that will affect the city. All of that requires different levels of remediation to get approval. So as a planning commissioner, I’m interested in the land planning aspects of that property, and what the best use is for the city and to make sure the planning gets done properly. So, given those concerns, when the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, formed the CAG [Community Advisory Group] back in 2019, I applied to be on it and luckily I was chosen. There’s about 20 members on the CAG. The purpose of the CAG is to communicate with the parties involved with the clean up of Wolverine 4 �waste. That includes several sites around Rockford. I don’t know how much of this you need to hear, but there’s a dumpDD: As much as you wanna tell me. JM: [laughs]There’s two big spots. There’s a dump on House Street, North West of Rockford that Wolverine, back in the sixties, used to dump sludge- industrial sludge that contained PFAS. They buried barrels, and dumped raw sludge into this dump site. Back then, it was the thing you did. It was an approved site and they were driving trucks out there and dumping it. In fact, sometimes farmers would pay them to dump this stuff on their farm fields, because it was a fertilizer. I don’t know how the crops grew. You know, that was back in the day when you didn’t have filters on cigarettes and seatbelts in cars. You were living dangerously. DD: [chuckles] JM: Uh, [chuckles] so, that’s one site, the House Street dump site, the other big site is the tannery - the other hot spot. So the purpose of the CAG is to meet with the EPA and EGLE, E-GL-E, which stands for Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, Energy, used to be the Michigan department of Environmental Quality, so we meet monthly with EPA and EGLE and stay up to date on what's going on on the clean up. What is Wolverine doing and their hired contractors and what are the requirements, what do the test results show? We get into the nitty gritty of PFAS levels in the river, in the plume, where it's tracking - all of that stuff. And then we turn around and face the community and tell them what we know. JM: So we’re the communication conduit between the community and those involved in the clean up. I think it's been great. We have about 20 members; they’re varied in experience. I’m a retired engineer. We have a professor from your college, in chemistry, who’s an expert in this area. We have a lot of people who have had some serious exposure issues. One of our members, I believe, has the highest PFAS concentration in her blood of anybody in the world that’s been tested so far. She has some tragic personal family health history that you’ll probably talk to her about. We have a young mother whose 5 or 7 year old son has been drinking contaminated well water, highly contaminated, well water since he was born, so my exposure is nothing compared to that of some of the other members. Anyway, the CAG has been very good. I'm thankful for the EPA for forming it. The EPA and EGLE, both, they’re representatives have been wonderful. They’ve been honest with us and very informative, they’ve been great. JM: Unfortunately, Wolverine has not joined the CAG. There are some lawsuits flying around and these days when a company gets accused of something, the first reaction is to lawyer up and huddle and plant down, and they’ve kind of done that, not surprisingly. They do attend the 5 �meetings. We see their little Zoom picture now that they’re there, they’re listening. It would be great if they could contribute and talk to us, but I understand why they won’t - can’t. DD: Yeah. JM: Uh, Let’s see. [pause] Alright, uh yeah that’s my story. My feelings about Wolverine are mixed. They’ve been great for Rockford. They’ve made our town prosper. We have a nice little town here in large part due to their employment of our residents and investment in our town. I don’t know what they knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Some people think, “uh oh they’re liars and cheats. They knew about it and hid the truth.” Others think they were just doing what people did back then. You bury your waste. In their defense, they were buying this product from 3M, this Scotchgard stuff. That turns out, it had an ingredient that’s harmful and lasts forever - or a long time. I don’t blame Wolverine for what’s in Scotchgard. That’s more 3M’s problem. They should never have made a forever chemical. I don’t know what we were thinking. [chuckles ]. DD: Yeah. JM: I don’t want to get on my high horse too much, but you know. Humans are the plague of this planet. We just produce all of this stuff. We’re driven to consume. We’re consuming the planet. Make plastics and forever chemicals and just spew them around. Whoever invented landfills, you know, what were you thinking? “Let’s bury our trash,” oh, what are we going to do next week, bury more? Look at the trajectory. Where does this end? The plague of the planet. DD: Yeah, we’ve definitely done some not so great things. DD: So, you’ve kind of maybe started to touch on my second question a little bit, but what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? JM: Well, you know, Michigan is sort of one of the hotspots of PFAS. That's not that I don’t believe that we have more, we have just been investigating more. I think it's going to be a nationwide and worldwide big problem. We don’t yet - I don't think - know what the true health impacts are - you know, if you drink a cup of PFAS, are you going to get cancer a month later? We don’t really have it tied down that well yet, but I suspect it's not healthy. We’re going to find more and more problems with that. I think we’re going to find more and more places in our country where there’s big contamination issues and drinking water issues. We had - in southern Michigan - a city shut down its municipal water because PFAS exceeded the limits for drinking water. We're going to have more of that in the country. So one of my concerns is just widespread problems with it. 6 �JM: Another concern is, I think 3M - this might need to be verified - but I think 3M’s answer is to make a shorter chain molecule instead of an eight carbon, make it six, or instead of six, make it four. A shorter chain molecule version of Scotchgard. Who says that’s safe? Maybe it's safer. Who- how do we know? So a concern of mine is the companies who are making these chemicals that are in everything we buy and touch and sit on and drink, have made it impossible, it seems, to test the long term effects of those in a short term development cycle. I’m concerned that we just as humans continue to poison ourselves. To foul our own nest. I almost wish we could go back to you know wooden plates and [chuckles] and growing our own food and [chuckles] not driving cars. DD: Then you’d be stuck back in Baltimore. [laughs]. JM: Yeah. [both laugh] JM: I’d probably be dead. I had a hip replacement recently and some other surgery, so from that standpoint, I’m glad to be alive this time. DD: Well, I’m glad you’re here, too. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add that we either haven’t touched on today, or anything you’d like to go back to? JM: I don’t think so. I’m glad I live in Rockford still. I feel like, overall, it was a good choice for my family. We’ve been well here. I wish we hadn’t been drinking that municipal water that probably had PFAS and other things in it. But, that’s the way it was. I’m hopeful that, you know - my personal trait is that I like things to get resolved. I don’t like conflict; I don’t like hard feelings. My downfall sometimes is I try to make everybody like everybody else. I would love for some day Wolverine and the community could heal, and Wolverine could once again be a proud employer and all that stuff, but that may never happen. DD: But wouldn’t it be beautiful if it did, some sort of reconciliation? DD: Well, thank you, Jonathan, for taking the time to share your story today. JM: You’re welcome. I enjoyed it. Thank you. 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Living with PFAS Interviews Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Devasto, Danielle Description An account of the resource Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Living with PFAS (project) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Personal narrative PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals) Groundwater--Pollution Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-11 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource video/mp4 application/pdf audio/mp3 Type The nature or genre of the resource Motion Picture Text Sound Language A language of the resource eng Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context PFAS0004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Miner, Jon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-04-13 Title A name given to the resource Jon Miner, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Jon Miner has lived in the Rockford, Michigan area since 1991, and is on the Rockford Planning Commission. In his interview, he discusses living near the Wolverine Worldwide factory and worrying about contamination of the local environment by tannery chemicals. In his role as a commissioner, Jon has concerns about dumping sites and interest in the future land use of the tannery property. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Personal narrative PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals) Groundwater--Pollution Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Living with PFAS (project) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource video/mp4 application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d960b3a6042b3ed7561b8e68a2d85a53.mp3 00d5de0fd405e9f0894b752b6a9ce115 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Richard A. Rhem Collection Description An account of the resource Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar. Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Religion Interfaith worship Sermons Sound Recordings Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhem, Richard A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kaufman Interfaith Institute Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1981-2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 text/pdf Sound A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Event Eastertide IV Scripture Text No Scripture texts listed Location The location of the interview Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context KII-01_RA-0-19850505 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985-05-05 Title A name given to the resource Jonah - The Runaway Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richard A. Rhem Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Clergy--Michigan Reformed Church in America Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.) Sermons Relation A related resource Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/ Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Description An account of the resource A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on May 5, 1985 entitled "Jonah - The Runaway", on the occasion of Eastertide IV, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: No Scripture texts listed. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b6f4ee34142ba03876daba43f8da1adf.jpg 6d8da51f04929fb78c0717cc8b5d15be Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GVSU Concert & Event Posters Subject The topic of the resource Posters Events Michigan Universities & colleges--Michigan Description An account of the resource Division of Student Services provides programs, services, and environments that enhance the personal, social, and intellectual growth of undergraduate and graduate students at the University. Events including concerts were managed by the office of Student Life. Posters for music, speakers, poetry readings and other campuswide events are included. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Division of Student Services Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/106">Student Services concerts, events, and posters files, (GV028-06)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-07-17 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV028-06 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1963 – 1981 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV028-06_JROUND Title A name given to the resource Jonathon Round, October 1, 1974 Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State College Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities & colleges--Michigan Events Posters Description An account of the resource Jonathon Round, in the Grand Valley State Colleges Commons, October 1, 1974. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/106">Student Services concerts, events, and posters files, (GV028-06)</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c44a420d4bfdde9cebce09bdbbaaa952.mp4 1d20dc209eb722d56bfdef93d436ee38 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/74fc409d131534a9a06c394a3751677f.pdf b6c6f1d106c786c82eb159826c202ede PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veteran’s History Project Name of War: Vietnam War Name of Interviewee: Bert Jones II Length of Interview (00:22:38) Background (00:00:03)  Born on Sept 9, 1949  Served in Vietnam/Cambodia for the United States’ Army  Highest rank achieved, E4  Father was a Veteran of World War II; oldest brother was 30 years in the Navy, retired; Uncles were Veterans, one in particular was a WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam Veteran  Dad was a truck driver, mother was a house wife  Had two brothers and four sisters  Born in Grand Rapids, MI Training (00:01:55)  Went through eight weeks of basic and eight weeks of AIT  Was a part of a “permanent party” at Fort Sill, Oklahoma for four or five months, went to Vietnam from there  Did RVM training for a couple weeks, taught about Vietnam  Was an eighteen year old, did fairly well adapting to the Army life Tan Yen Province, Vietnam (00:03:24)  Was a combat soldier, saw a lot of combat in Vietnam and Cambodia  Fought enemy soldiers who would cross the borders from Cambodia and run back for protection until U.S. soldiers got the okay to go into Cambodia  Appreciates Nixon for allowing the cross into Cambodia  Served in the Tan Yen Province of Vietnam almost exclusively; in Cambodia for only 45 days (00:04:00)  Tan Yen Province, near the Black Virgin Mountain and Cambodian border (00:04:24)  Jones could always see that mountain from anywhere in Tan Yen  Never gained control of the mountain, had control of the top and had fire support bases at the bottom  Had B-52 strikes on it daily, but still couldn’t gain control  Mainly Vietcong and North Vietnamese soldiers in there  There may have been a 6,000 bed hospital in the mountain (00:5:23)  Heard stories that they could send soldiers up there and, from the sides, rock walls would slide open; also had all kinds of artillery  Lots of supply tunnels that went pass the fire support bases  Never saw any of this but confident that this is all true  Communicated with his family via mail, would sometimes take a long time to receive mail (00:06:16)  Was a highlight to Jones’ day when he received mail �   Was in a lot of remote places where choppers couldn’t reach them Mail was delivered by chopper, as well as, food and water Didn’t form many friendships; would not because they usually ended up dying (00:07:00)  Was a “full time soldier”, so he did not do very much besides fighting (00:07:22)  It was tough for soldiers, especially with the heat, bugs, and combat; but the people had it worse (00:07:45)  No food, would sometimes fight over garbage left behind  It bothered Jones to watch them do this, especially children; will never forget the suffering Feels numb to his emotions when in battle (00:08:54)  Doesn’t hit you until afterwards, saw some horrific things After Vietnam (00:9:30)  Was at home, in Freeport, MI, when the Vietnam War ended  Watched the end of it on T.V.  It was disheartening to watch what he fought so hard for be given back so easily  It was a bitter-sweet ending; glad to see everyone come back, but to have fought for nothing was a bitter ending; waste of money and lives (00:10:15)  Not pro-war, but feels that if you start something, you finish it  When coming back home, had some problems, “isolated incidences”, with people (00:11:03)  Was treated by family well though, that’s what counts  Hard to see people so cold to the War because of the negative press; like Iraq (00:11:46)  It was like they’re trying to turn you against your own people  It was tough to readjust, drank a lot, but his wife helped him get through it (00:12:50)  Started going to reunions/conferences for Veterans about four years ago (00:13:30)  Was impressed with it, feels like a huge therapy session with thousands of others Veterans  A lot of “negative numbers”/statistics on Vietnam Veterans, so the conference helps Veterans deal with their struggles  Lots of drinking, partying, and camaraderie  Recommends it for others who are struggling, very uplifting  Have professional speakers and programs  Happens annually  Only contacted one person he served with, a man from Missouri (00:15:10)  A cool experience, was in the “Battle of Pine Ridge” with him  After being in the War, Jones’ appreciates the U.S.A and life a lot more (00:16:54)  Thought it strange that the people trying to kill you in war don’t even know you; hard to rationalize and justify (00:17:45)  Uses his music to get through his struggles after the War; needs to focus on something else (00:18:40)  Gets better over the years, easier to deal with �  Might be ready to go to the monument (00:19:33) Wants people to remember, that when we send troops off to war, they are our people, our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers; no matter what, we must stand by them, for or against the war (00:22:01) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesB Title A name given to the resource Jones, Bert R., II (Interview outline and video), 2008 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jones, Bert R. Description An account of the resource Bert Jones II was a combat soldier in the Vietnam War for the U.S. Army. He mainly fought in the Tan Yen Province, but was in Cambodia for 45 days, as well. He does not discuss in specific detail what he did during the War, but he does describe the emotional impact it caused. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Canada, Kelsey (Interviewer) Caledonia High School (Caledonia, Mich.) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Michigan--History, Military Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American United States. Army Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2008-06-01 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27)</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf video/mp4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/12b0157bf789314b27b5eb285a851aed.jpg 94ecc7e46d5493be96686b069303d2f0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesBetty Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Jones, Betty Description An account of the resource Betty Jones, Librarian Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History Librarians Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8f266747574614ed082bca1e00b42d01.jpg 9d2172fef07ee71ae12098ae1aa025d2 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesBob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Jones, Bob Description An account of the resource Bob Jones Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/68d112d64ca0ae5c40bbf2eaaf6709f0.mp4 21fec26c549578257e0f101af9bd4314 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5766154773b902b65783445294d650fb.pdf a8c900603472652a00586dbb2c776297 PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veterans History Project Interview World War II Bobby Jones Total Time – (40:44) Background             He was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan on July 6, 1925 (00:34) He stayed in one place when he was a kid His dad worked at a local bakery (01:03) o He then went to work at Ramona Park in East Grand Rapids, Michigan He was an only son (01:18) He graduated from Creston High School (01:26) o There were roughly seven or eight black kids in the school o For the most part, they were treated well (01:45) He played in the band in school His father had a job throughout the 1930’s (02:16) He heard about Pearl Harbor through the news (02:46) o He heard on the radio o The Monday after Pearl Harbor was almost a typical day (03:03) Before Pearl Harbor happened, he knew very little of what was going on in the war He graduated from high school in 1943 (03:47) He received a draft notice two months after he graduated He did not have many plans for after high school Enlistment/Training – (04:11)    After he received the draft notice, he went to North Carolina (04:19) o Before he left for North Carolina, they stopped in Detroit, Michigan (04:36) o The racial composition of the men leaving was mixed (04:58) When he left, he was leaving straight for the Marines o He had been asked if he wanted Army or Navy – he responded by telling them that he preferred the Marines (05:31) While he was going through the northern states, the races were separated on the train o He did not sleep on the train (06:16) �          o The train did not go straight into the camp When he was first greeted when he arrived at the camp, the men were treated normally (06:46) He was then sent to Montford Point Camp (06:57) o It was a camp set up specifically for black Marines o He arrived during the day (07:12) The Drill Instructors treated the troops like their inferiors (07:47) o They taught them where they were and what they were there for  They also taught them what they could do and what they should not do (07:54) In Boot Camp training he was taught to obey o The majority of the exercise was marching (08:37) o They did not receive any weapons training o The Marines were strongly encouraged to make their beds properly and keep their uniforms clean (08:55)  They were just told to do it  If they did not do it, they would get hit (09:08) o They were trying to break people down so that they would obey orders o He knew nothing about the Marine Corps when he entered (09:34) Most of the men that he trained with moved out (10:00) o He stayed in North Carolina At Montford Point Camp he helped train some new recruits coming in (10:28) The Drill Instructors at the camp were white (10:43) o He had more contact with the Drill Instructors than the Officers He was eventually shipped to Okinawa (11:10) o He had previously been in Iwo Jima (11:28) o He was there in the early part of 1945 (11:34) At Montford Point, he had to get up at 6 A.M. and would work until 4 P.M. o There were no opportunities to go off base  He was part of the base personnel (12:17) o When he left, some of the black men had become Corporals or Sergeants o When he left he was a Corporal (12:36) o He had been following the news of the war – he would hear and read about it  He was just wondering where he was going to go (13:00) o They trained him on rifles during his year at the camp o He had not shot a gun when he was growing up (13:47) Montford Point Camp celebrated the holidays but he does not remember anything special Active Duty – (14:58)  When he found out that he was leaving Montford Point, he was taken to Virginia where he went aboard a ship headed to the Pacific �                o He got sick on the voyage (15:41) o The ship sailed in a convoy (15:49) o They traveled through the Panama Canal o All of the soldiers being shipped over were black (16:32) o At this point he was not with his unit On the way through the Pacific, the convoy stopped in Guam (17:08) When he arrived at Iwo Jima, there was still some shooting going on (17:27) o He served on guard duty while there (17:59) o He cannot remember hearing any shooting going on o He was stationed near an air strip He is then sent to Okinawa (19:05) o He was assigned to clean (19:53) When on Iwo Jima, he saw some Japanese aircraft and Japanese men o The aircraft were kamikaze planes or bombers (20:56) o He was never very close to any of the fighting or air attacks He always did what he was told to do He was glad that he did not have to be a combat soldier (22:31) He remembers hearing about the atomic bomb When he was on Guam or any of the other islands, he never saw any of the civilian populations (23:33) Before the black troops arrived in the Pacific, the white soldiers had told all of the women that the black men had tails and to stay away from them (24:16) After he came back to the United States he stayed in the military o He asked if he could reenlist and stay (25:15) o He became a Drill Instructor He enjoyed being a Drill Instructor because it was different and he had never been in that position before (25:27) o The men below him would listen to what he said o He did not receive any training o It was new to have black instructors (26:02) As an instructor he has more freedom to leave the base if he would like o Drinking was the only thing to do for soldiers that left the base (26:59) When he was training men, there were a couple of instructors o He was typically responsible for leading marches (27:36) He slept in separate barracks from the men o The white men were segregated from the black men (27:48) After his reenlistment was up, he decided that it was time for him to leave (28:13) o He had no idea what he wanted to do after the military When he was a Drill Instructor he would make men salute him while standing over a barrel of water. Consequently, they would fall into the barrel because they would bring their feet together (28:29) o The same kinds of things were done to him when he was in training �After the Service – (29:14)             When he was discharged in 1948, he returned home to Grand Rapids, Michigan (29:15) He looked for a job when he was back He never considered going to college (29:28) He eventually found a factory job (29:40) o He stayed in the factory for nearly forty-two years (29:51) o He worked on an assembly line o He became the shop steward (30:09) He got married in 1949 o His wife was someone that he had not known from before he went into service (30:33) His cousin would write to him while he was in the service o They grew up together o Some of his aunts would send some letters as well (31:06)  His aunts took him under their wing after his mother died when he was very young He had three children His wife was strict (32:28) o She was the first black telephone operator in Lansing, Michigan o When she got engaged, she asked for a transfer – they had to take a vote in Grand Rapids, Michigan to see if they were willing to accept her (32:47)  She worked for the company for over forty years  She had received her job in Lansing with help from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) (33:17)  They were forcing some of the companies to hire people of color o His wife’s brother was Malcolm X (34:01)  Malcolm X would go to their home (35:12)  There was no honor at the time of being relatives with Malcolm X  It would be private when he would go over He was the only member of his family in the service (36:32) If he had to do it all over again, he would (36:40) o He would also pick the Marines The service helped him learn to obey o He truly enjoyed his time in the Marine Corps (37:26) He received a Congressional Gold Medal for his time at Montford Point Camp (40:04) o He said that they did not need to give him a medal for his time there because he did it to serve his country and that is what he wanted to do � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesB1461V Title A name given to the resource Jones, Bobby (Interview outline and video), 2012 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jones, Bobby Jones, Steven Jones, Deborah Description An account of the resource Bobby Jones was born in July of 1925 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He graduated from Creston High School where he was one of eight African American students. After receiving his draft notice two months after graduation, Bobby left for Montford Point Camp in North Carolina for Basic Training. He stayed and helped train new recruits once Basic Training was completed. Bobby then boarded a ship in Virginia for Okinawa. En route to Okinawa, he passed through the Panama Canal, Guam, and Iwo Jima. When he returned to the United States, Bobby reenlisted for four years and became a Drill Instructor. He remembers the training facilities being segregated between blacks and whites. In 1949 he married the sister of Malcolm X. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James (Interviewer) Kentwood Historic Preservation Commission (Kentwood, Mich.) WKTV Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Michigan--History, Military Veterans Video recordings United States. Marine Corps World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-10-18 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project collection, (RHC-27)</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf video/mp4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5ead7dda87e373b69294da9b01b1e214.jpg 106ae43b4a8f64dfe85ec4d377043138 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesCurtis Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Title A name given to the resource Jones, Curtis Description An account of the resource Curtis Jones, Sociology Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History College teachers Universities and colleges – Faculty Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/237168ac838ec5047c105d95b38cefa7.mp4 700139e0ca8e976193beccf8bc4b54ed https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0b37f300e93d8b0955ad4aa7809962c9.pdf d8765401a2a1728a9b56326aedcb0838 PDF Text Text Grand Valley State University Veterans’ History Project Frank Jones Vietnam War 2 hours 11 minutes 39 seconds (00:00:16) Early Life -Born on February 15, 1950 -Grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan -Mother was a housewife -Father worked at General Motors -He had six younger siblings, he was the oldest -He attended South High School until it closed -After it closed then he attended Central High School -He graduated from high school in June 1970 (00:01:28) Awareness of the Vietnam War & Civil Rights -He was very aware of the Vietnam War -Paid attention to all of the news about it -He knew that there was a draft and was hoping it would be over before he was old enough -He was also very aware of the Civil Rights Movement -South High School had had mostly black students -He was not aware of prejudice until he attended South High School -The younger students were more antagonistic than the older ones (00:04:03) Getting Drafted -During the summer of 1970 he was working for a cousin in construction -His draft number was 68 -All of the men between the ages of 18 and 26 were issued a number 1-300 -If you were given a number between 1 and 100 you were the first to get drafted -He received his draft notice in August 1970 -Told his fiancée that he wasn’t going to get married before he deployed -Didn’t want to leave her a widow if he was killed in Vietnam -His family was upset when he got drafted -Remembers that his grandfather was especially upset -When he boarded the bus for Detroit he could see his grandfather waving and saluting -There was a certain amount of pride in going to fight for his family -He didn’t agree with being sent to fight to protect South Vietnam -He was sent to Detroit to be given a physical examination and to be inducted -Making sure that you were fit for service before being inducted -It was basically pointless because they were accepting everyone -He shouldn’t have been accepted for service and learned this in Jump School (00:10:17) Jump School Pt. 1 -When he was in Jump (paratrooper) School at Fort Benning, Georgia his knee gave out -He went to the infirmary where a doctor told him that he should have never been drafted -He had a hip bone deformity that was liable to cause his knees to give out -If this happened in the field he, and other men, would be in danger �-He was given a “permanent profile” which barred him from combat service -He was placed into a unit that guarded the company commander -If you were in this unit you didn’t have to pull guard duty for the base (00:14:31) Basic Training -He was sent to Fort Knox, Kentucky for basic training -Took the bus from Detroit to Fort Knox -He was resigned to his fate and tried to make the best of it -Saw it as a learning experience -He adjusted pretty well to living in the Army -He didn’t know what to expect going in -The only advice he was given was to never volunteer for anything -You never know what you might be volunteering for -There was a lot of running and physical training -Went out to the gun range to shoot the M14 and M16 rifles and the .45 caliber pistol -Enjoyed those exercises -The drill sergeants had been to Vietnam and most of them were career soldiers -It was a transitional step for them between Vietnam and serving in the United States -They gave the recruits a lot of tongue-in-cheek advice about fighting in Vietnam -Some of it was practical though -Told not to go into bunkers because they would probably collapse -Never go anywhere alone, always bring a friend -There were no “safe zones” so don’t pretend there are (00:20:33) Fort Sill Pt. 1 -When he was sent to Fort Sill, Oklahoma he became a clerk for a captain there -He was allowed to live off base -He didn’t think that he would be deployed to Vietnam -He made plans to get married -He was given thirty days of leave and went to Grand Rapids to get married -Three days before the wedding he was told he was going to be deployed -His “profile” had been reevaluated and he was deemed fit for combat -Decided to go ahead with the wedding and to get married -After the wedding he drove back to Fort Sill with his wife and packed his belongings (00:22:54) Advanced Infantry Training -After six weeks of basic training he was sent to Fort Polk, Louisiana for AIT -AIT was focused on preparing soldiers for fighting in Vietnam -Learning how to set up booby traps and also how to spot them -It didn’t compare to actually being in Vietnam though -Didn’t show soldiers the awful reality of war (00:25:37) Arrival in Vietnam Pt. 1 -When he arrived in Cam Ranh Bay he was placed on kitchen patrol duty -He went out to have a smoke with another soldier -As he was walking back to the kitchen searchlights came on -He was told that Vietnamese soldiers were spotted on the perimeter -He became a clerk for an officer in Headquarters Company -His job was to process promotions and leaves and decided if those things were granted �(00:28:12) Jump School Pt. 2 -After only about a month of AIT he was sent to Jump School at Fort Benning -It consisted of a lot of running -He did all of the training except for the five training jumps out of an airplane -This was because of the trouble that he was having with his hip (00:29:32) Medical Troubles after the War -After getting discharged he was told to go to Detroit to get evaluated for compensation -A month later he was told that he was considered 25% disabled -Allowed him to receive $25 a month -When he went to the Veterans’ Affairs Hospital in Kalamazoo he was denied further assistance -He was told that there was nothing wrong with him -He was also told that Vietnam veterans were always just faking to try and get money -He got in touch with a liaison for Veterans’ Affairs -He was able to apply for more disability assistance -After further evaluation it was decided that he was actually 95% disabled -He doesn’t trust the military or the government for the way veterans are treated (00:35:38) Further Training -His plan was to take as many training courses to delay being deployed to Vietnam -After AIT he had been told that he qualified for leadership training at West Point -Ultimately turned down the offer because of the commitment it meant -He opted to go to Jump School which meant six more weeks of not being in Vietnam -He was going to apply for Green Beret training, but wasn’t able to -He was sent to Fort Sill, Oklahoma -He remembers at Jump School you would do “static line jumps” from a tower -You were told to spread eagle on the way down -One older soldier didn’t and had a heart attack and died on his way down (00:40:00) Relationship with Other Soldiers -He made good friends with the men that he trained with -He knew one recruit from New York City that he would joke around with -Eventually they both got in trouble for messing with a drill sergeant -In basic training the majority of the recruits were draftees -Some men were also from the National Guard or the Army Reserves -They had joined one of those organizations to avoid going to Vietnam -There were some discipline issues in basic training -Some of the punishment was called for -He remembers recruits would make sure that other recruits got into line -One recruit refused to take a shower, so he was beaten with bags of soap (00:45:05) Deployment to Vietnam -He received orders to go to Vietnam in spring 1971 -He flew to Seattle from Grand Rapids and then flew out of Seattle for Vietnam -Stayed in Seattle for three or four days -Got to see Carlos Santana perform for free (00:49:20) Arrival in Vietnam Pt. 2 -When he got to Vietnam he already knew he was going to join the 101st Airborne Division -He was going to be sent up to Phu Bai from Cam Ranh Bay -He remembers when the jet entered Vietnamese airspace three fighter jets escorted them �-From the air the country looked beautiful and green -On the ground it was trashy looking -While he was in Cam Ranh Bay he ran into the captain he worked for at Fort Sill -He was also heading up to Phu Bai and needed a clerk -Offered the job to Frank who took the position (00:53:08) In the Field -Despite being a clerk he went into the field a few times -The first time that he went into the field a volunteer was needed -The job was to either carry the M60 machine gun or a PRC25 radio -The M60 was heavier and with the PRC25 you got to carry a .45 caliber pistol -Frank volunteered to take the radio -Once the radio antenna was unreeled he realized what a mistake he had made -He was now the most obvious target for the North Vietnamese -During his first time in the field he learned to never say “repeat” on the radio -Repeat meant for the artillery to unleash everything on the last given coordinates -He quickly corrected himself before anything serious happened -During another time in the field a soldier tripped a booby trap -He acted quick enough and dropped flat on the ground -He only got hit with some shrapnel in the legs as opposed to losing his legs -Frank escorted the wounded soldier back to the field hospital -He was allowed to watch while the surgeon removed the shrapnel -He never actually saw the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong, they were always in the distance -His unit only took minor casualties -Nothing serious enough to send them back to Saigon, Japan, or the United States (01:01:15) Enemy Contact and Civilians -They would drive through towns in convoys -Children would always approach the vehicles to try and ask for something -They would have to tell them to get away because they might be a suicide bomber -If they didn’t listen they would have to shoot at the child -It was that or risk losing a truck full of soldiers -He had some contact with South Vietnamese soldiers -They were worthless as a fighting force though -There were also the Montagnard people that lived in the Central Highlands -They were a neutral party in the conflict, but aided the United States occasionally -Helicopter gunners would also shoot at water buffalo -The military would then have to pay the villagers to compensate for their loss -Eventually the gunners were told they would have to pay for it (01:07:05) Bad Officers and “Fragging” -There was an incompetent and selfish lieutenant in his unit -He refused to sign the application that would grant soldiers their Combat Infantry Badge -Having a CIB meant higher pay -He did not believe that any of these men deserved to have it -After being in Vietnam for only eight weeks he demanded to get a CIB -Frank said that he would only process his application if he signed the others -Argued that all of Vietnam was a combat zone -The lieutenant caved and signed all of the applications �-He got along well with some of the men that were at the brigade level -Exchanged favors for each other -He had a box on his desk with various grenades in it -Some of the men that he knew from brigade came to him -They said that there was a bad officer and they needed to get rid of him -Frank offered them the box of grenades and they took what was needed -Later on they tossed a fragmentation grenade (not live) into the officer’s room -They followed that with a tear gas grenade -The officer stumbled out of his room and fell down the stairs breaking an arm (01:13:50) Friendship with the Medics -He got to know the medics well -They were allowed to do more and get away with more -He remembers a soldier came in with a syphilitic cyst on his pelvis -The doctor was annoyed that the soldier’s lack of common sense -Lanced the cyst with a huge needle and without anesthesia -Frank’s job was to hold down the soldier while the cyst was drained -He had a good time with the medics -Frequently smoked marijuana with them (01:20:08) Morale and Discipline -Soldiers were sick of the war -Morale wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t good either -There was a lack of discipline in the ranks -Men from the motor pool would take vehicles into the town of Phu Bai to collect prostitutes -They would then take them back to the medics to see if they were safe or not -He had a friend that got seven days of leave and seven days of R&R -Wanted to fly back to Detroit so he could see his family -Frank approved the R&R destination -At the end of the fourteen days Frank got a call from Detroit -The man said he couldn’t leave his wife and children just yet -Frank gave him ten more days of leave -If he was late though, he would not help him -Ten days later, at noon, the soldier showed up on time (01:25:44) Natural Dangers -He was behind the medic’s tent having a smoke when he saw a vibrant green snake -Grabbed a stick and decided to play with it -Before he could do anything a soldier tackled him to the ground -Told him that it was a Bamboo Viper -If he had been bitten by it, it probably would have killed him -An experience like that made him realize that he really wasn’t in the United States -Someone grabbed a shovel, cut off the snake’s head, and put it in a bottle of formaldehyde (01:28:44) Living Conditions -While the officers were down in Cam Ranh Bay the enlisted men would raid their clubhouse -Gave them a chance to get beer and liquor that they usually couldn’t have -Because of being the clerk for a captain he had his own “hooch” -Other enlisted men had to sleep in a barracks with ten other men -The size of his hooch was about ten feet by ten feet �-He had an actual bed -He was able to have larger personal possessions -The first night there he sprayed the room with cockroach repellant -That night in bed cockroaches were crawling onto the ceiling then dropping onto him -Learned that it was better to just not spray repellant -Another night he heard a door opening and then closing -Concerned that it was a possible intruder -Went and investigated and saw that it was a rat the size of a small dog -Paid Vietnamese civilians to come capture the rat, who then ate it -Because of the favors that he did for people he was able to get fancy, rare liquors (01:37:36) Drugs -Aside from marijuana there were hard drugs coming into the country (cocaine and heroin) -Remembers that heroin was the most common, and the worst problem -There was one soldier that refused to go home to his wife and children -His addiction was so bad that he was spending all of his money on heroin -Eventually had to be handcuffed in the plane and was sent home -The heroin was also 95%-98% pure -This meant that it produced a strong high, but it was easier to overdose on -He doesn’t remember medics in Headquarters Company dealing with overdose cases -Soldiers that had that severe of a problem were sent to Saigon to detox -Soldiers would smoke “scag joints”: marijuana cigarette mixed with opium -Commonly used by the helicopter gunners (01:41:42) Racial Tensions -Racial tensions were high and apparent -He tried to act as a liaison between the white and black soldiers -Black soldiers would isolate themselves and refuse to work with white soldiers -In the field racial divisions did not exist -In the rear though, the races did not mix even if the soldiers were friends -He could not understand all of the unnecessary animosity -Believed that they were all in the same situation together -He tried to break down barriers between the two races, but it was no use (01:47:17) Coming Home -He left Vietnam in February 1972 -Through a series of favors and due to the advance of the communists he was sent home early -He went down to Cam Ranh Bay to wait for a chartered flight back to the U.S. -When they flew out of the country three fighter jets escorted them -Once the jets were gone they knew they were out of Vietnamese airspace -They stopped in Okinawa on the way back -Landed in Seattle and was waiting for a flight to Chicago -While in Seattle there was a question about his orders to be sent home early -Contacted the proper authorities in Vietnam and the problem was resolved -He missed the flight to Chicago and got a flight to Kalamazoo, Michigan instead -He was greeted at the airport by his wife and his parents -Afterwards they drove back to Grand Rapids and his time in the service was over (01:54:18) Readjusting to Civilian Life & Life after the War -He was harassed by protestors �-While at Ferris State University the Veterans’ Club was looked down upon -Feels that veterans from the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are treated better now -Directly because of how veterans from Vietnam were treated -Finds it ironic that people that once harassed him now thank him for his service -He had to censor himself in terms of the language he had gotten used to using in Vietnam -He lived with his in-laws for a little bit -He found work at an ice cream parlor -He wanted to have a job like that to readjust to being a working civilian again -He attended Ferris State University for a couple years -Decided that it just wasn’t for him though and left -He worked for his father-in-law for a while -Finally settled on working at General Motors with his father -Stayed with that job for thirty one years -After the war he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder -Believes that he has handled it pretty well though -Hasn’t allowed it to control his life -Appreciates life and his family in spite of the PTSD (02:06:09) Veterans’ Groups -He was involved with the Veterans’ Club at Ferris State University -He was in a veterans’ group at General Motors -He became a salary employee though which caused a conflict of interest -He plans on getting involved with the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion -He also thinks highly of those who volunteer at the Veterans’ Home in Grand Rapids (02:08:36) Reflections on Service -He doesn’t regret the time that he spent in the service -He views all of it as a learning experience -It showed him how the world actually works -Exposed him to the more bizarre, but very real parts of American society and the world � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Veterans History Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. History Department Description An account of the resource The Library of Congress established the Veterans History Project in 2001 to collect memories, accounts, and documents of U.S. war veterans from World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to preserve these stories for future generations. The GVSU History Department interviews are part of this work-in-progress, and may contain videos and audio recordings, transcripts and interview outlines, and related documents and photographs. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1914- Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Afghan War, 2001--Personal narratives, American Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981--Personal narratives, American Korean War, 1950-1953--Personal narratives, American Michigan--History, Military Oral history Persian Gulf War, 1991--Personal narratives, American United States--History, Military United States. Air Force United States. Army United States. Navy Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smither, James Boring, Frank Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-27 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project interviews (RHC-27)</a> Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesF1725V Title A name given to the resource Jones, Frank (Interview outline and video), 2015 Description An account of the resource Frank Jones is a Vietnam War veteran that was born on February 15, 1950 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. After graduating from high school in June 1970 he was drafted into the Army in August 1970. He trained at Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Polk, Louisiana; and Fort Benning, Georgia. He was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was deployed to Vietnam in October 1971. In Vietnam he was assigned to Headquarters Company for the 101st Airborne Division in Phu Bai. He worked as a clerk for a captain, but also went out into the field on a few patrols. In February 1972 he received an early out and his tour in Vietnam ended. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jones, Frank Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jones, Adam (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Veterans Video recordings Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Personal narratives, American United States. Army Oral history Veterans History Project (U.S.) United States--History, Military Michigan--History, Military Veterans Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/455">Veterans History Project Collection, (RHC-27)</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Moving Image Text Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Relation A related resource Veterans History Project (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015-01-29 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf video/mp4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/367c289e73cb7a71088fa4d0a5158a28.jpg 94acee78fdb20c70f5021788570cdff7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesTom_Photo01 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 Title A name given to the resource Jones, Tom Description An account of the resource Tom Jones Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng 1986s https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/dd373cef1f98acfba2c3d250d13a05bf.jpg 6c85bc81a8fa68a36f50ed63ed7b503d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JonesTom_Photo02 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 Title A name given to the resource Jones, Tom Description An account of the resource Tom Jones Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng 1986s