1
12
439
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/581a1d35c04f04bdc88bf9de342836eb.pdf
95576758bd06d6aac06ca2b286e4504a
PDF Text
Text
WATSON ·TOtVNSIIIP .
MASTER PLAN .
June 1990
Reaffirmed Master Plan
August 2000
WW Engineering & Science"')..Yf
�WATSON TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COlVIMISSION
A RESOLUTION TO REAFFIRM THE MASTER PLAN OF THE
•
TOWNSHIP OF WATSON
WHEREAS, the Watson Township Master Plan was originally adopted in June, 1990; and
WHEREAS, such a plan is necessary to provide for the orderly development of the Township; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for such a plan to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission to
insure that the basis for zoning and the established long-range public policy for the location, allocation
and management of land uses remain appropriate and up to date; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has completed a community wide survey relative to such long
range land use policies; and
WHEREAS, in light of the survey results the .Planning Commission has completed a review of the
Watson Township Master Plan and found that the plan is not in need of major revision at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Master Plan for the Township of Watson as
originally adopted in June 1990 is reaffirmed as the officialtext and maps depicting future land use and
policies for the development of Watson Township .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be attached to all subsequently printed
copies of the Watson Township Master Plan.
ON ROLL CALL, the vote this 23,J day of August, 2000 was as follows:
YEAS: Members -==-:..-=-~~~~~~-'--r)r=-'-'-'-~!J-=t---l-~~~~~=~~~~,
. ,_,, ,... 1 .
·Resolution "Declared Adopted
'
~" B•'<o . . v ,-J
\-h,\&ol'\ \"Yb.
NAYS:
Members
Cq_nd~ O,()\R\q_(}$;oo J q,t>Sqn-t)
O...v...5
2 -~-l<{/
LOOO
:.r;;Jnu_k
t&cac1/J
Pamela Brown, Secretary
Certification
I, hereby c-ertify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
Township of Watson at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission on august 23, 2000, at which a
quorum was present and which was conducted in full compliance with the Township Planning Act, being
Public Act No. 168 of 1959, and the Open meetings Act, being Public Act No. 267 of 1976, as amended,
and that the minutes of the meeting were kept and will be made available as required by said Act.
,r;;;Junu£0
1
8A/lu~
Pamela Drown, Secretary
�TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
PAGE
Chapter I - Description
1
Chapter II - Community Profile
8
Chapter ill - Community Facilities
15
Chapter IV - Planning Analysis
17
Chapter V - Goals and Policies
20
Chapter VI - Land Use Recommendations
25
Chapter VII - Implementation
42
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 - Watson Township Location
iii
Map 2 - Surface Drainage Network
3
Map 3 - Generalized Soils Map
5
Map 4 - Environmental Limitations
7
Map 5 - Important Farmland Soils
9
Map 6 - PA 116 Enrolled Farmland
10
Map 7 - Fire Service Providers
16
Map 8 - Future Land Use Map
35
LIST OFTABLES
Table 1 - Population Change
12
Table 2 - Age of Residents
13
Table 3 - Population Projections
14
�Prepared by the:
WATSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
Haldon Mauchmer
Teresa DeWeerd
Pam Brown
Albert P. Germain
Curt Fontaine
Ron Esterline Beverly Henrickson
in cooperation with the:
WATSON TOWNSHIP BOARD
Marvin Henrickson, Supervisor
Cathy Pardee, Clerk
Shirley Roberts, Treasurer
Ron Zeinstra
Albert P. Germain
with the assistance of:
WW ENGINEERING & SCIENC~
�INTRODUCTION
WATSON TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN
•The fundamental purpose of the Master Plan is to allow the Township to set down in a
comprehensive manner the goals and objectives for its physical development. The Township
Planning Act, Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended, specifically gives Township Planning
Commissions the authority to prepare and officially adopt a Master Plan. Once prepared,
officially adopted and maintained, this Plan will serve as an advisory guide for the physical
conservation of certain areas and for the development of other areas into the best possible living
environment for present and future township residents.
Because of the constant change in our social and economic structure and activities, the Plan must
be maintained through periodic review and revision so that it reflects contemporary trends while
maintaining long range goals.
·
The Master Land Use Plan provides:
1.
A comprehensive means of integrating proposal_s that look 20 years ahead to meet future
needs regarding general and ·major aspects ofphysical conservation and development
throughout the Township;
2.
An official, advisory policy statement for encouraging orderly and efficient use of the
land for residences, businesses, industry, parks and recreation areas, and agriculture, and
for coordinating these uses of land with each other, with streets and highways, and with
other necessary public facilities and services;
3.
A logical basis for zoning, subdivision design, public improvement plans, and for
facilitating and guiding the work of the Township Planning Commission and the
Township Board as well as other public and private endeavors dealing with the physical
conservation and development of the Township;
4.
A means for private organizations and individuals to determine how they may relate their
building and development projects and policies to official township planning policies;
and
5.
A means of relating the plans of Watson Township to the plans of adjacent townships and
cities and to development of the region as a whole.
The final element of -the plan synthesizes the recommended goals and needs of the Township and
the analysis of existing conditions and trends into a general development strategy. The plan
concludes with an implementation program.
MS\Watsn-MI¾ea\S7834.0I
�The Watson Township Master Plan is intended to be long-r~ge and dynamic, based on the longterm goals and objectives looking 20 years forward. With that in mind, there is an important
caveat to this planning process: the Master Plan is general in scope. It is not necessarily intended
to establish the prec'.ise boundaries of land use areas or the exact locations of individual future
land uses. Its greater function is to serve as a decision making framework. Used correctly the
more detailed future decisions can be related to the broader community-wide perspective
provided in the plan and the decision makers will have confidence that their decisions have a
clear and rational basis.
MS\Watsn-MI¾ea\87834.01
11
�OtSIOO
IU,ltU..1
M0Mlll0IINCl
AltfM•
llltlMle
TOWNSHIP LOCATION
MAP I
WATSON TOWNSHIP
Governmental Services Division
------------------------------.....1
�WATSON TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER I
DESCRIPTION
Any plan for the future must be based on knowledge of existing conditions and the influences
that have shaped the community. This chapter examines the natural influences that have worked
to make the community what it is today. These include its location and natural features such as
topography, soils and water resources.
REGIONAL SETTING
Watson Township is a sparsely populated, agricultural township east of the City of Allegan. US131 serves as the eastern boundary and provides good access to Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo.
In addition, M-222 carries east and west traffic through the southern half of the Township.
Because of its location with respect to the cities of Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Allegan and
the fact that the major arterials provide excellent access to the township, it is felt that the major
influence on future growth will be the M-222 and US-131 interchange. This interchange will
tend to attract commercial and/or industrial uses in the eastern portion of the Township and will
be a factor in the location of new residential developmel)t,..
NATURAL FEATURES
Based on a survey of citizen attitudes, residents of Watson Township consider the Township's
natural features and rural qualities among its greatest assets. In Watson Township the "rural
environment" is comprised of a variety of natural features in a relatively unspoiled setting.
These include rolling hills, forests, winding streams, deep ravines and major expanses of
farmland. These features combined with relative close proximity to two major metropolitan
areas will over time make Watson Township ·increasingly attractive to many individuals and
families seeking a rural living environment.
Natural features provide both opportunities for, and constraints on development. Understanding
the areas natural features and implications that they have in respect to humans activities is
therefore fundamental if the community is to institute appropriate policies of land use. The
following discussions will highlight the signific~t aspects of Watson Township's natural
features as they pertain to future land use planning for the Township.
Topography, Drainage and Water Resources
The topography of Watson Township ranges from flat to hilly. The flattest terrain occurs in the
southwestern portions and the steepest terrain exists in the north and northeastern sections of the
Township.
MS\W atsn-MPlaea\87834.01
1
�There are a two major watersheds in the Township: The northern one-third of the Township
drains to the north and is included in the Miller Creek/Rabbit River watershed. The
southwestern two-thirds of the Township drains to the south within the Miner Creek/S~hnoble
Brook watershed. Both of these watersheds are within the Kalamazoo River basin.
The natural drainage network includes such streams as Miller Creek, Schnoble Brook, Minor
Creek and School Section Brook. This system of streams has been greatly modified by man and
augmented by an extensive system of surface drains, as well as a few underground drains. The
majority of these "county drains" are in the southwest comer of the Township where the
topography is relatively flat and the water table is naturally high. The improved drainage
network has allowed much of the areas most naturally fertile soils to be put into cultivation. The
Allegan County Drain Commission has primary responsibility for maintaining this drainage
system.
There are no major flood plains in the community and with the exception of minor flooding
around several of the local lakes, flooding has not historically been a major problem within the
Township.
In addition to several lakes being located in the Township, there are numerous smaller, water
filled depressions and wetlands. The largest lake is Big Lake. It is located in Section 14 and
encompasses 140 acres of area. Other major bodies ,of water include Miller Lake, Schnoble
Lake, School Section Lake, Hudson Lake, Wetherell Lake, and Hies Lake. With the exception
of Hies Lake and Hudson Lake each has seen some degree of residential development. Only Big
Lake has an established public access site. The fluctuation of water levels on some of these
lakes has caused septic field failures for some homes located in low shoreline settings. The
effects of these failures on surface water quality is not well documented but should be closely
monitored.
Map 2 illustrates the drainage network of the Township.
All residents within Watson Township derive their domestic water supply from groundwater
sources. The depth of the wells range from shallow stab wells to wells over 150 feet in depth.
According to the Allegan County Health Department, water quality within the Township's
aquifers is generally good. There are however, at least two locations within the Township that
have recently experienced problems with groundwater contamination. One of the areas is in the
extreme southeast corner of the Township and the s~cond area of contamination is in the vicinity
of 15th A venue in the northeast comer of the Township. At the present time it is not known
whether contamination in these areas is on an isolated basis or whether the problems are more
wide spread.
Groundwater will continue to be the primary source of domestic water in Watson Township for
the foreseeable future. Because of this, measures to protect the groundwater aquifers are
important if residents are to continue to have safe supplies. From a general planning standpoint,
such measures should involve limiting the densities of development in areas where the aquifers
are shallow and unprotected by impermea):>le substrata.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
2
�HOPl( I NS
. --------- -- -L
- -~,·
___
.._,_
•-~---T~
• . . . . . , . . .y
~
--IC
~-. -0
CO-IIClA&.
•
INOUSTIIIAL
•T
J'U-..C.
-S
.&ff_AMA__.,
-1'.&VUIIOAO
_l_
.i :
·-·r·--ic==r==='=~~~~~
L____r:---11--~
WATSON TWP .
SURFACE DRAINAGE NETWORK
ALLEGAN COUNTY, IIIICHIGAN
NATURAL
a
IMPROVED DRAINAGE COURSES
MAJOR DRAINAGE DIVIDE
MAP 2
�Because there is a general lack of data regarding the depth of the usable aquifers, the degree to
which they are vulnerable to potential contaminates and the .extent to which degradation has
already occurred, it is felt that a program to systematically analyze well logs and water samples
•
is needed. Recent efforts along these lines have been made by several nearby communities
within Allegan County as part of the Michigan Groundwater Survey Program. This relatively
new program allows participating communities to bette~ assess the implications that varying
intensities and types of land use can have on the water supply and may prove to be a useful tool
in establishing land use policies such as zoning.
Soils
The soils in Watson Township range from scattered areas of sand to predominantly heavy loams,
clays and mucks. The location of these soils are an important consideration in the Township's
physical development and in associated construction practices. The General Soils Map ( Map 3)
illustrates the major soil associations within Watson Township. An overview of these soil
associations is useful in identifying the general suitability of soils for certain types of land use
and provide further insight into the topography and drainage of the Township. It is important to
note that in Watson Township, existing land use has been largely determined by the suitability of
the soils. In any rural community having as its goal the preservation of its rural qualities,
attention to the natural suitability and limitations of ~e ~-? il is pru:amount.
Descriptions of the various soil associations as illustrated on Map -3 are as follows:
1.
Capac - Rimer - Pipestone. - This soil association covers the southeast one-third of the
Township where topography is nearly level to undulating. The area consists of poorly
drained loams, loamy sands and sands. The major soils in the association are very poorly
suited for building purposes. Wetness and poor filtering capacity make the soils ill-suited
for private septic systems as well. This association is, however, well suited for farming
purposes.
2.
Oshtemo - Chelsea - Ockley. This soil association is situated in the north central area of
the Township. It consists of well drained to excessively well drained loamy and sandy
soils. The topography is rolling to very hilly with many slopes in excess of 18%. Most
of the area is presently wooded. The excessive slopes make this area generally unsuited
for farming, building sites and septic systems.
3.
Chelsea - Ockley - Oshtemo. This association of soils covers over 40% of the
Township's land area. Situated throughout most of the Township's eastern and
northeastern sections as well as in the northwest, these soils are predominantly sandy and
loamy. In the northwest, the topography ranges from nearly level to gently rolling. In
the north and east the topography is rolling. The major soils in this association are
moderately suited to well suited for building and septic systems. Poor filtration capacity
and excessive slopes are limitations that are found in many areas however.
,
MS\W atsn-MP\aea\87834.01
4
�HOP MINS
.
.
WATSON TWP .
- . .NOia,_
,-.,~
____
• IIULTW'AaLY
~
, ==
• COMM.ltCIA&.
• INDUSTIIIA&.
• ,uauc:, - -
-,aVWD_._,.,,._
- f f A T I - A M l t V7
ALUGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ff
F
GENERALIZED SOILS
MAP
I. CAPAC- RIMER- PIPESTONE
2. OSHTEMO - CH ELS EA
3. CHELSEA - OCKLEY- OSHTEMO
4. MARLETTE-CAPAC-METEA
e
,,..-ri\, ••••• - ,,,.. ................ .-..~
---. • -··
II•
.a
Pl>
-
�4.
Marlette - Capac - Metea. This association is situated in the central and extreme
southeast portions of the Township. It covers approximately 4 square miles in total land
area. In both areas the topography is hilly with several low wetland depressions and small
•
lakes. The major soils are moderately well drained to poorly drained sands and loams.
Most of the land is presently wooded or idle farmland. Those soils presently being
farmed are fairly well suited for that purpose. )3ecause of an underlying clay layer most
of this association is poorly suited for building development and on-site septic systems.
5.
Sebawa - Colwood - Brady. This association is found in the southwest corner of the
Township and consists of nearly level, poorly drained sands, loams, and silty material.
Much of the higher ground in this area is well suited to crop land. The lower ground is
excessively wet and is presently wooded. Because of the wetness and poor permeability,
building development and septic systems suitability is very poor.
In a rural area such as Watson Township where public sewer facilities are unavailable and the
prospect for their future provision on a large scale is unlikely, the ability of soils to
accommodate private septic systems is a crucial element in land use planning. Due to poor
percolation and wetness, and in the other extreme, the inability of permeable soils to adequately
filter effluent before it reaches the water supply, many areas of Watson Township must be
considered generally unsuitable for intensive development. As a result, the location and
character of new development must in
be determined by the ability of soils to accommodate
private septic systems.
part
Another important influence that soils have on development is the suitability of soils for building
development. Some areas of the Township contain soils which due to a high water table,
flooding, shrink-swell potential, steep slope and other factors place severe limitations on the
ability to construct buildings. Often time these limitations are so severe that special designs,
special and costly construction methods, and increased maintenance are required.
Map 4 illustrates those areas of the township which have characteristics of soil, topography and
drainage which are considered poorly suited for both building development and septic systems.
The map also shows soils that exhibit light to moderate limitations on building construction but
have severe limitations for on-site septic systems. The areas shown in white are considered to be
areas generally exhibiting slight to moderate limitations on development.
It should be pointed out that soils which have been identified as being generally unsuitable for
building and septic use may still be judged useful based upon a more detailed site analysis or
with on-site modification. However, significant development in these areas would appear to
greatly increase the potential for groundwater degration and public health hazards and in turn,
lead to an increase in the eventual need and demand for public utilities. If such problems and
their associated high cost are to be avoided, the density and intensity of development in such
areas should therefore be held to a minimum.
MS\Watsn-MI"'aea\87834.01
6
�HOPl< I NS
!-- ·-·-·.
IP
.
~
~
• SINGLI l'A- Y M-lfTIA&.
• MUl T1°1'AlaLY IIESIDINTl,U.
WATSON TWP.
Ell~lltOlllll'AM
=
COIIIIIIICIAL
• INDUSTIIIAl
• l'UlllC, Sf~IUC
- • - STATE QAIII AltU IOUNDAIIY
l'AYED IIOAD
UWAYID IIOAD
ALLEGAN COUNTY, IIICHIGAN
r •
T
=
ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONS
- ··
~
SEVERE
lrMJ ....MODERATE
1
URCE : ALLEGAN CO .
SOIL SURVEY
D .. . .SLIGHT
l_.AO
A
�CHAPTER II
COMMUNITY PROFILE
•
At the present time large expanses of Watson Township remain undeveloped or are devoted to
agricultural purposes. This being the case, the Township has the opportunity to direct future
development in a manner that will be both desirable and economical to serve from a public
services standpoint. However, in order to develop a realistic plan for future development,
decision makers must have a clear picture of the community as it is now.
EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Watson Township's total land area consists of 35.4 square miles or 22,650 acres. The existing
land use remains heavily agricultural in nature but also includes large areas of wooded and open
land with scattered rural residential concentrations. A few small commercial businesses exist
along and M-222 and consist of neighborhood convenience stores and local related repair shops.
The few industrial uses in the Township include a sawmill on M-222 near 16th Street and a few
gravel mining operations. Other land uses include scattered institutional uses such as churches,
cemeteries, the Township Hall, and a closed landfill. The only formal recreational uses are a
DNR public access site on the north end of Big Lake and commercial campgrounds on 20th
Street in Section 21 and on the north end of Schnoble Lake in Section 26.
Agricultural Land Use
Actively tilled or idled farmland covers over two-thirds of the Township. The heaviest
concentrations of farming activity are located in the southwestern one-third of the Township
where the topography is generally flat. As can be seen on Map 5, much of the soil in this area is
classified as "prime farm land", as defined U.S. Department of Agriculture.
At the present time there are over 2908 acres of land within the Township that are enrolled in the ·
P.A. 116, Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program. Under this program property owners
agree to relinquish their non-farm development rights for periods in excess of 10 years in
exchange for tax credits. Most of the land presently enrolled in this program is in the area
considered" prime farmland". Of the land presently in P.A. 116, almost 1300 acres are enrolled
for periods that will keep them devoted to farming or open space use for well into the next
century ..
Residential Land Use
Within Watson Township the largest and most intensive area of residential development is found
in Section 24 in the Country Meadows Mobile Home Park. This mobile home park contains
approximately 60 mobile home sites and comprises roughly 40 acres. Other concentrations of
homes are found on the west side of School Section Lake, on the north end of Big Lake, on the
MS\Watsn-Ml¾ea\87834.01
8
�HOPl< I NS
·-·-·. ·----L ·-·
,..,
.
z
I-
. __ ,_y _ _
-----"•
IIU\.TI-#AaLY M-.nM.
a
CO-•IICIAL
~---•
INOU ■TIIIAL
•
l'Ul■UC. -
-■TATW~AMA-
- l ' A f f D 1110AO
-- -
WATSON TWP •
AU.EGAN COUNTY, WCHtGAN
IMPORTANT FARMLAND SOILS
flill ... PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
OURCE : U.S.O.A. ALLEGAN CO.
SOIL SURVEY
MAP 5
�..........
,.. ..
... ..............
............
(~:.:=iiiiiiiI
:;;;;t /'.'.;;;;;m:·m::"':;=:;=::=:=.•:=.•
;-,,l; 1---_;_;__;;_;):;~"-':;;;=I
....
::a ·=ij
iiiiiii
ii
~
~iliii~
::
ti
-·-LL--~ -
.
....,_
_____
. -~-, ,,.,.
...--
OTSEGO
_.,.
a
co•••-1.
• INDUITIIIAL
• l'Uauc, s a - , c
--ffATW~AMA_.
-l'AVIDIIOAO
-
- · - ll0AO
WATSON TWP .
All.EGAN COUNTY, IIIIICNtOAN
=-
T
PA 116 ENROLLED FARMLAND
�north end of.Miller Lake and on the west side of Schnoble Lake. Collectively, the settlements
located on these lake represent approximately 45 acres of land.
.
.
Throughout the remainder of the Township residential development has occurred in a scattered
fashion along existing roadways. This has resulted in a rather noticeable lineal pattern of
residential growth, especially along M-222 and 20th Street.
Being that Watson Township is very rural in character, residential land uses comprise a
relatively small percentage of the Township's total land area. It is estimated that the Township's
nearly 700 dwelling units occupy roughly 1,450 acres of land or less than 6% of the Township's
total area. On average approximately 2.1 acres of land is estimated to be devoted to each
residence.
A further analysis of land used for residential purposes reveals the following:
*
Platted subdivisions are found exclusively around the small lakes. There have been no
new plats in over 20 years. Toe platted areas total approximately 100 lots and roughly 45
acres of land. Of the platted lots, roughly one half have been built on. Parcel sizes are in
the 6,000 to 15,000 square foot range. Single family homes on platted lots consist of
approximately 7 percent of the total number .9f homes. Many of these homes are
seasonal, cottage type, dweµings.
*
There are approximately 270 homes situated on parcels of property that are within the
range of 1 to 5 acres. In addition there are nearly 50 homes situated on parcels that are of
a size of 5 to 10 acres. It is estimated that these homes collectively consume nearly 1100
acres of land. Toe vast majority of land consumed by these residences is wooded or
otherwise unimproved. Typically, only a small portion of each parcel is actually devoted
to residential purposes.
These types of home sites represent 48 percent of the residential development in the
Township, with 40 percent occurring on parcels of 1 to 5 acres and 8 percent on parcels
of 5 to 10 acres in size.
*
There are over 260 home sites located on large parcels (ten acres or more) of property.
Most of these are farm residences situated -on large holdings of contiguous farm land.
Farm residences are estimated to account for roughly 38 percent of the land area devoted
to residential use.
* Mobile homes within the Township's one mobile home park, comprises approximately 9
percent of the housing mix.
A comparison of property maps dating back to 1979 with current property maps reveals that very
few splits have occurred resulting in a total fragmentation of a large agricultural parcels of land.
Many of the splits that have occurred have been of type that created 1 to 4 parcels of less than 10
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
11
�,
acres while still preserving a large contiguous area suitable for farming use. An equal number
has involved the splitting pre-existing p~els in the 10 to 20 acre range into smaller parcels of 1
to 5 acres. When coqipared to other rural townships nearer to major metropolitan areas, the rate
of parcel fragmentation in Watson Township has~ up to this point. been relatively low. It is felt
that the principal reasons for this relatively low rate of property splitting is the general lack of
demand for home sites within the Township. Other controlling influences include the large
minimum lot size requirements by the Township and the amount of land enrolled in the P.A. 116
Program.
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Population characteristics, present and future, are very important in the development of a
comprehensive plan. The reason is obvious since as the population grows it tends to bring with
it a directly related quantity of development Consideration must be given to the quantitative
increases as well as the qualitative character of the growth in order to properly assess the future
land use needs. This section analyses the his_toric population ·trends and selective characteristics
of Watson Township residents.
Table 1 illustrates past population growth of Watson Township relative to nearby communities.
TABLEl
Population Change
Watson Twp
Hopkins Twp
MartinTwp
Otsego Twp *
Allegan Twp *
Allegan Co.
% Change
1960-1970
% Change
1970-1980
1960
1970
1065
1766
1963
2564
2404
1332
2084
2125
3721
2970
1658
2109
2331
4479
3464
24.9
18.0
8.2
45.1
23.5
24.5
1.14
9.7
20.4
14.2
57,729
66,575
81,555
15.3
22.5
1980
Source: U.S. Census Data
* Affected by annexations, 1960-1970
The table shows that during the period 1960 to 1970 Watson township grew faster than Allegan
County as a whole. During that period, a total of 267 persons were added. During the period
1970 to 1980 growth continued at a healthy rate again exceeding the County's overall growth
rate. Since 1970 the rate of population growth in Watson Township has also been more rapid
than in the surrounding townships of Hopkins, Martin and Allegan. Estimates prepared by the
Michigan Department of Management and Budget indicate an estimated 1986 population of
MS\W atsn-Ml¾ea'-87834.01
12
�1690 people. Based on the number of new homes erected between 1980 and 1989, it is
estimated that the current population is at approximately 1,790 persons. Based on this estimate it
is concluded that an average of 15 pe~ons per year were added to the population of Watson
Township during the 1980's.
Table 2 illustrates the 1980 general age composition of township residents. These are compared
to the same categories for all of Allegan County. The table reveals that in general, the
population in Watson Township is sightly younger than that of Allegan County as a whole. This
indicates a relatively high number of young families with school age children. This occurrence
would also indicate a significant rate of in-migration of persons in the family forming years.
TABLE 2
Age of Residents
1980
% Under
18 Years
Watson Twp.
Allegan County
% Between
18 & 64 Years
-59.2
57.7 ":'
32.8
32.0
% 65 Years
& Over
8.1
10.3
Median
Age
27.7
28.5
Source: U.S. Census Data
One important consideration with respect to the population of the Township is the occurrence of
a relatively large number of seasonal residents. In 1980 over 50 homes or 8.5 percent of the total
number of dwelling units within the Township were considered seasonal in nature. The majority
of these seasonal homes are located around the several inland lakes within the Township and
during the summer months the occurrence of these dwellings gives rise to a total summer
population that is likely to exceed 2,000 persons.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Apart from farm employment, there are very few employment opportumttes within the
Township. This is a result of their being no manufacturing enterprises and only a small number
of family operated commercial establishments. The vast majority of the Township residents
must therefore rely on employment centers located outside of the community. These centers
include the relatively near-by cities of Allegan, Otsego and Plainwell in addition to more distant
employment opportunities in Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids and Holland.
In spite of the relative distances that employed persons must travel to their jobs the per-capita
income levels of residents in the Township has increased fairly significantly in the last few years.
In 1980 the U.S. Department of Census reported per-capita income levels of $6,050. In 1987 the
U.S. Census Department estimated that the per-capita income had increased to a level of $8,889
M5\W at.sn-MPlaea\87834.0 l
13
�,
per person. This is an increase of 47% as compared to 38.6% increase for residents of Allegan
County as a whole.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
A determination of a reasonable future population growth is important in a planning program
since projections provide a general basis for determining land needs for future development and
future community facility and improvement needs. It is presently estimated that there are 1,776
persons living in Watson Township. This figure is based upon multiplying the estimated number
of persons per household (3.00) by the number of occupied full-time housing units estimated to
be in the Township in 1989 (592). Based on this estimate and other trends, Table 3 illustrates the
projected population forecast for the Township.
TABLE 3
· Watson Township
Population Projections
1990
1980
Watson
Allegan Co.
1,658
81,555
1,791 :,,,.,.
88,711
* Projections
*
2000
2010
2,116
101,250
2,415
112,362
based on historical trends of the Township's population as compared to the total
population of Allegan County. Allegan County projections were prepared by Michigan
Department of Management and Budget, 1987.
MS\Watsn-MJ"aea\87834.01
14
�CHAPTER ill
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
This section describes the facilities which Watson Township offers to its residents.
TOWNSHIP OFFICES
The Township Offices are located on 118th Avenue in Section 16, approximately 1/2 miles east
of 20th Street These facilities were recently remodeled and include a meeting room and limited
office space.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police service is provided throughout the Township by the Allegan County Sheriffs Department.
Fire protection is provided through agreements between the Township and several adjoining
communities. These communities include ~op.kins, Martin and Otsego. Map 7 illustrates the
fire service zones within the Township.
CEMETERIES
The Township operates and maintains two cemeteries> One is located on 20th Street, south of
118th Avenue and the second is located at 117th Avenue and 14th Street.
LIBRARIES
At the present time there are no libraries facilities in the Township. Residents must rely on
facilities located in near by communities such as Hopkins, Martin, Allegan and Otsego.
ROADS
All public roads in the Township are- maintained by the Allegan County Road Commission.
However, Watson Township does allocate a portion of its general fund budget to help pay for
road improvements such as dust control and paving. Most of the local county roads within the
Township are gravel and are in need of on-going maintenance. As growth continues, several
roads will be in need of major improvements such as paving. Based on the survey of residents,
residents responding favored the paving of additional roads by a 2 to 1 margin.
PARKS
The Township does not possess any dedicated park land. The only formal recreational areas
within the Township include a public access site located on the north end of Big Lake and two
commercial campground facilities. Based on the resident attitude survey many residents favor
the creation of additional recreational facilities.
UTILITIES
At the present time there are no public and water utilities available within the Township. All
residents must rely on private wells and septic systems.
MS\Waun-MP\aea\87834.01
15
�........................
........; ::::::::::::::
:;;;;;;;~j·~~~~;; ~tm
- - ----<
II
, I
!I
'
I I
~'
I\>
. .,..,
-·
z
I
- ••...__· a::
!
I
MAR IN
,.....
-~....
... ...,.,...,,,~
,, ,..__,,.,.,_
.,.._.,__,..,.
e
-- --
CO-Jk:IAl.
• INDUSTIIIA1.
• l'IIIIUC, ~
STAff GAaa ~ ,a,-•lff
-,anv
IIOAO
=-•vu-
FIRE SERVICE PROVIDERS
LJ ... :HOPKINS
□
....
FIRE DEPT.
MARTIN TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPT.
0 ....OTSEGO FIRF nf:'PT
f-
WATSON TWP .
AUEGAM COUNTY, IIICHIQAN
<
::I
�CHAPTERIV PLANNING ANALYSIS
This chapter analyzes population projections, the existing land use mix, growth trends and
community characteristics in order to determine the future land use needs for Watson Township.
Based on Watson Township's growth over the last few decades, the availability of undeveloped
land and the current desire for rural living opportunities, it is reasonable to expect that Watson
Township will continue to grow. While the growth is not exp~cted to increase dramatically,
steady growth should be expected.
The population of Watson Township is expected to increase by approximately 650 people by the
year 2010. Assuming an average of 3 persons per household this will result in 216 new dwelling
units within the Township. Based on the current mix of housing types it is assumed that the
average amount of land actually devoted to residential use for each future dwelling unit will be
approximately 2 acres. This assumption is based on several considerations:
1.
The current minimum lot size in the agricultural zone is 1 acre.
2.
The majority of land divisions for new homes in recent years have been for parcels over 1
acre and the average lot size throughout the Town.ship is presyntly 2.1 acres.
3.
Many of the soils in the Township are unsuitable for septic systems, thus requiring
parcels that are a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft This is the minimum lot size requirement for
residential zoning districts within the Township.
Based on these assumptions the minimum amount of land needed to accommodate the projected
number of new homes for the Township is determined as follows:
216 new homes x 2 acres/home= 432 acres
A second method recognizes the fact that as in the past, a large percentage of persons building
within the Township will do so on parcels that are within the 2 to 10 acre range. The following
estimates have been prepared based on the present mix of residential parcel sizes. It is assumed
that relatively few new homes will be built on parcels of greater than 10 acres (farmsteads).
216 x 26% x 1 acre= 56 acres (Range: <1 Acre)
216 x 64% x 2.5 acres= 345 acres (Range: 1 to 4.99 Acres)
216 x 12% x 7.5 acres= 194 acres (Range: 5 to 9.99 Acres)
216 x 14% x 1 acre= 30 acres (Mobile Home Park)
Total = 625 acres
Note: % represent the current mix in the type of residential/residential development
MS\Waun-MP'-aea\87834.01
17
�Based on the two alternative estimates presented, between 432 and 625 acres of land can be
expected to be converted to residential use in the accommcxiation of the projected residential
growth expected occui by the year 2010. Based on the amowit of vacant land in the Township, it
appears that there is sufficient land available to handle this projected growth in ·areas that are
reasonably free from severe environmental limitations such as poor soils and high water tables.
COMMERCIAL
Currently there are only a few commercial uses scattered within the Township. These
commercial uses do not satisfy the convenience or comparison shopping of Township residents.
As a result Allegan, Otsego, Plainwell, and to a lesser extent Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo
provide shopping opportunities and retail services needed by Township residents.
Because intensive commercial uses generally need sanitary sewer and public water service it is
felt that these communities will continue to provide most of the commercial services necessary
to serve the community in the future years. _However, it is also recognized that there is a need
for convenience shopping opportunities in the areas of the Township where the population
concentrations will warrant_such uses. The need for some commercial uses in the Township is
supported by the results of the Citizen Attitude Survey where the majority of the respondents felt
that many basic types of retail and service types of ·commercial uses are suitable for the
To~nship. Given the fact that the intersection of US-131 and M-222 also sef\'."eS a larger
regional population it can be expected that a market potential for commercial tand uses will
continue to increase in this area.
INDUSTRIAL
Based on heavy industry's need for sanitary sewer and the lack of industrial growth in the
Township over the years, the amount of land allocated for future industrial growth should be
limited. It felt that the amount of land presently· zoned for industrial use plus an additional 20 to
30 acres to improve the variety of choice should be sufficient to meet future needs.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The following standards for parks provides some guidance for determining future recreatio•nal
needs for Watson Township residents.
Type
Acres Needed Per 1000 Population
.5
MS\W atsn-MP\aea\87834.0 l
Mini-park (specialized facilities that serve a
limited population or groups such as the
elderly or small children).
18
�2.00
Neighborhood playground (Tot-lot. swings,
field and court game area, picnicking, ball
fields, wading pools, toilet fa01-ities, etc.)
5-8
Community park-playfield _(athletic field, are~
of court games, swimming pools, etc.)
Total 10.5 Acres 1000 people
Source:
Recreation Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines - 1983, National
Recreation and Park Association.
Based on a 1989 population estimate of 1,776 people, about 18 acres of recreational land is
currently needed to satisfy the above recreation standards. As was noted previously, the
Township does not have any park land per se although there is land that is presently owned by
the Township adjacent to the closed Township dump. This property is roughly 20 acres in size.
With a 2010 projected population, of 2415, approximately 25 acres of park land will be needed
to meet these standards. It should be noted that these standards are based on a national average
and Watson Township should use such standards only·· as guidelines'. As part of the survey
conducted in conjunction with the Master Planning process the survey found that the majority of
respondents want more recreational facilities provided by the Township. The types of facilities
that were indicated most frequently by respondents include picnic areas, playgrounds, hiking
trails, cross-country ski trails, bike paths, and fitness trails. In light of this analysis, Township
officials should seriously consider the need and desirability of providing some type of additional
recreational facilities for Township residents at some point within the planning period.
MS\Watsn-.MP'-aea\87834.01
19
�CHAPTER V
GOALS AND POLICIES
Planning goals are statements that express the community's long-range desires and serve to
provide direction for related planning activities. Based on previous analysis of the community
each goal's accompanying policies reflect the general strategy that the community will pursue to
attain its goals. Following are set of goals and policy statements that have been developed in
response to various land use issues that exist in Watson Township.
GOAL # 1: The Environment
To insure that new development takes place in an environmentally consistent and sound manner
and that the potential for flood hazard, soil erosion, disturbances to the natural drainage network
and surface and groundwater contamination are minimized, thereby protecting natural resources
and preserving scenic and environmental quality, as well as minimizing the public burden.
Policies
.• Through zoning and site plan review, encourage approaches to land development that
take natural features such soils, topography, steep slopes, hydrology, and nat_ural
vegetation into account in the process of site design.
GOAL #2:
Agriculture
To preserve the agricultural economic base of the township.
Policies
• Support the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, P.A. 116 of 1974 by
encouraging use of preservation agreements by area farmers and approving such
agreements that are consistent with the land use plan.
,
• Through zoning, discourage extensive non-farm development from occurring in .those
areas that contain high quality farmland.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.0 I
20
�GOAL#3:
Density
. Encourage a general• low density pattern of residential development consistent with the
rural/agricultural character found in most areas of the township and encourage higher densities to
occur in areas most appropriate for such development.
Policies
• Establish density standards that are consistent with the natural capacity of soils to handle
on-site septic systems and which promote the preservation of the township's rural and
agrarian qualities.
• Encourage the concentration of development in locations where future public utilities and
services can be most economically and efficiently provided, when they are needed.
GOAL#4:
Commercial Development
Provide for the basic service and shopping needs of the township's residents by directing
commercial development to take place in suitable areas nut in a manner which limits commercial
strip development, minimizes conflicts with surrounding land uses and prevents unnecessary
conflicts with the movement of traffic along major highways.
Policies
• Adopt subdivision regulations in support of land use goals.
• Limit commercial development to a few concentrated areas, rather than allow strip
development.
• Avoid high densities of commercial development that would lead to the need for public
utilities and services that cannot be economically and efficiently provided in the
foreseeable future.
• Encourage the shared use of commercial driveways and limit the number and spacing of
driveways.
• Promote high quality commercial development through local site plan review and site
design standards.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
21
�GOAL#S:
Industrial Development
Provide for limited light industrial development in areas that are easily accessible by major
transportation facilities.
Policies
• Establish and reserve a site for future industrial purposes.
• Promote the development of an industrial park rather than piece-meal single lot
development.
• Promote high quality industrial development through local site plan review and site
design standards.
GOAL#6:
Economic Development
To increase the nonresidential tax base of the township and the availability of jobs within the
community, thereby increasing the ability of the township· to provide services, bettering the
economic well being of residents and improving the overall quality of life in the area.
Policies
• Accommodate limited, high quality commercial development.
• Accommodate limited, high quality industrial development.
GOAL#7:
Land Use Conflicts
Discourage and avoid conflicts between incompatible land uses.
Policies
• Prevent the wide scale scattering of intensive and higher density non-farm land uses in
the rural country-side.
• In areas of higher density, provide for the separation between conflicting land uses by
designating suitable transitional districts or requiring greenbelt or buffer areas.
MS\Watsn-Ml"aea\87834.01
22
�GOAL#8:
Roads
To maximize the efficiency, safety, and ease of maintenance of the road system. Make
provisions for road improvements that will promote growth in a way that is consistent with
adopted goals and policies relating to land use.
Policies
• Limit the number of driveways along major highway arterials by encouraging the shared
use of driveways by commercial establishments through site plan review.
• Encourage clustered development.
• Adopt subdivision regulations in support of land use goals.
• Encourage the development of pu}?lic and private local streets;
standards for private streets.
Adopt minimum
• Establish priorities for incremental road improvements based on the Land Use Plan, and
areas of highest need.
¥-
GOAL#9:
- -
Housing
To provide a wide range of housing opportunities within the township .
•
Policies
• Provide for the construction of single family homes, placement of contemporary quality
mobile homes and construction of multiple housing at acceptable densities.
• Minimize delays due to review and processing of development regulations.
GOAL #10:
Quality of Life
Prevent the establishment of uses which, by their existence, tend to lower property values and
the quality of life within the community.
Policies
• Adopt regulations necessary to prevent establishment of substandard housing units.
MS\Watsn-Ml"aea~834.0l
23
�• Adopt regulations necessary to prevent outdoor storage of household equipment,
household goods, and other materials, where objectionable.
• Adopt regulations requiring the adequate siting and screening of those land uses which
tend to have a blighting influence on the community.
• Provide necessary resources and expertise to enforce the provisions of the zoning
ordinance.
• Encourage separation between conflicting adjacent land uses.
GOAL #11:
Recreation
Provide for diverse recreational opportunities for all resident population groups.
Policies
• Develop a recreation plan which identifies the recreational needs of the community and
sets forth a strategy for the acquisition and devefopment of recreational facilities.
• Work closely with Allegan County, adjacent townships and the school districts in the
provision of recreational facilities that can be used by area wide residents.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
24
�CHAPTER VI
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contains descriptions and recommendations for future land use in Watson
Township. These recommendations will provide overall framework for the management and
regulation for future development and will also serve as the basis for evaluating zoning requests.
The future land use program is general in scope. It is not intended to establish precise
boundaries of land in use or exact locations of future uses. It is also important to note that there
is no schedule to implement recommendations contained here. The timing of a particular land
use is dependent upon a number of factors such as availability of public·utilities, provisions for
adequate roadways, affect on public services and the demand for a particular land use versus the
available land zoned for this use. These factors plus other factors must be considered when
reviewing a request for rezoning for a particular parcel of land.
A general description the various land use recommendations is described in this section. These
recommendations are best illustrated on the future land use map found inside this document. As
background information to the planning process, the fo_llowing narrative provides an explanation
of the relationship of land use planning to zoning.
·· ·
The Relationship of Planning to Zoning
The relationship between land use planning and zoning is an important one. Planning is
basically the act of planning the uses of land within a community for the future while zoning is
the act of regulating the use of these lands by ordinance. The laws of the State of Michigan
require that a community engage in land use planning activities, including the preparation of a
comprehensive plan, prior to the ini_tiation of zoning ordinance within the community. Because
communities are dynamic in nature and the pace of growth is not always foreseeable the periodic
updating of a community's comprehensive plan is a necessity in order to make the plan and its
zoning ordinance realistic and in tune with ever-changing demands of modern day society.
In order to provide a better understanding of the terms of planning and zoning, the following
definitions are provided:
Land Use Planning
The process of guiding the future growth and development of a community. Generally a
document is prepared known as the Comprehensive Plan which addresses the various factors
relating to the growth of a community. Through the process of land use planning, it is intended
that a community can preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health, safety and
general welfare. Additional considerations include: Comfort, good order, appearance,
convenience, law enforcement and fire protection, the prevention and overcrowding of the land
and the avoidance of -undue concentration of population, facilitation of adequate and efficient
MS\W at.,n-Ml¾ca\87834.01
25
�proVIs1on of transportation, water, sewage requirements and services, and the conservation,
development, utilization and protection of natural resources within the community.
Zoning
The process of partitioning a community into districts each of which permits certain uses of land
for the purpose of conserving and promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare
of the people within the community. A zoning ordinance is often adopted which contains
regulations controlling land uses, densities, building heights and bulk, lot sizes, yard and open
spaces, setbacks and accessory uses. A zoning ordinance consists of two distinct parts, being a
written text and a district map. The text sets forth the purposes, uses and district regulations for
each district and the standards for special land uses and the administration of the ordinance. The
map denotes a specific zoning district for every parcel of land within the community.
Zoning is one of the instruments, along with capital improvements programming and the
administration of local subdivision regulations which implements the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. The enactment and administration of the zoning ordinances are legislative
and administrative processes conducted by local units of government relating to the
implementation of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
Land Use Categories
Agricultural and Rural Conservation Plan
As a means of ensuring the continued agricultural and rural qualities of Watson Township, this
plan in essence proposes two "agricultural districts".
The first district "Agricultural
Conservation District" is intended to be an area in which farming activity is promoted as the
primary land use and nonfarm development is discouraged. The second "Agricultural District"
or Rural Conservation District is intended to be similar but nonfarm residences would not be
discouraged to the same degree as in the Agricultural Conservation area.
By making the two designations, it is envisioned that the Township can improve its ability to
protect and conserve the areas within the Township best suited for agricultural purposes while at
the same time accommodate rural residential deyelopment in areas where farming is more
marginal.
,
The two major components to the Agricultural and Rural Conservation Plan are described as
follows:
Agricultural Conservation
As a means of promoting and protecting the majority of the Township's important farmland, the
Land Use Plan proposes the designation of Agricultural Conservation or A-1 District. This
district would encompass over 30% of the Township's land area. Within the planning area, non-
MS\W atsn-MF'laea\87834.01
26
�fann development would be discouraged and rural land uses such as open space and farming
would be promoted.
•
The Agricultural Conservation District contains the majority of soils· that have been classified as
"prime agricultural" soils by the U.S.D.A and also contains the majority of land that is presently
enrolled in the P.A. 116, "Farmland Open Space Preservation Program". The vast majority of
soils in this district also pose severe limitations on development due to their inability to
accommodate on site septic systems and/or other building limitations. The existence of "prime
agricultural soils", the concentration of P.A. 116 enrolled land, severe environmental limitations,
the existing farming activity and the large amount of unfragmented parcels suitable for farming
activity are the principal parameters used in defining the general boundaries of the district.
The primary objectives of this planning district are:
1.
To promote farming activities as the primary land use in the areas of the Township best
suited for such use;
2.
To preserve woodlands and wetlands associated with farms which because of their
natural characteristics, are valuable as water retention and ground water recharge areas
and as habitat for plant and animal life and which have an important and aesthetic scenic
value which contributes to the unique character C?f.the agri_cultural preservation district.
3.
To prevent the conversion of agricultural land to scattered non-farm development, which
· when unchecked, unnecessarily increases the cost of public services to all citizens and
results in the premature disinvestment in agricultural.
The recommended mechanisms and guidelines for use in achieving the objectives of the
agricultural preservation area include efforts to encourage the enrollment of land in the Fann
Land and Open Space Preservation program, and the adoption of zoning regulations that
minimize the negative impacts that non-farm development have in agricultural areas. To be
effective, such regulations should allow for the ability of landowners to sell off limited portions
of their land for development purposes.
Among the options considered for use in Watson Township in the regulation of non-fann
development in the Agricultural Conservation District are:
1.
Existing provisions of the A-G Agricultural District which establishes a minimum lot
area of 20 acres for all uses, but which allows residential development to occur on parcels
of less than 20 acres by conditional use permits.
2
Large Lot Z.Oning which would establish a larger minimum acreage requirement of 5 to
10 acres for non-farm rural residences to be allowed by right.
3.
Sliding scale Z.Oning under which the number of buildable lots allowed is established by
a scale which considers the total size of the parcel owned at the time of ordinance
adoption.
MS\W atsn -MJ'\aea\87834.0 I
27
�4.
Institution of a one-acre minimum parcel size for non-farm residential uses with a
maximum of two acres, and lot width to depth regulations which control the extent to
which non-farm
, parcels can negatively impact upon farm tracts.
Because of the complexity and ineffectiveness of current agricultural zoning provisions, the
complexity of administering a sliding scale approach, and the counter-productive nature of large
lot zoning, it is recommended that the technique which establishes a minimum non-farm
residential dwelling lot size of one acre and a maximum of two acres be utilized in conjunction
with the Agricultural Conservation District outlined on the Land Use Plan.
Other recommended regulatory measures for consideration within the district include the
detailing of permitted uses and special uses that are best suited to accomplish the objectives of
the District. The following list is comprised of uses that are considered to be appropriate within
the Planning District:
Suggested Permitted Uses:
Commercial Agriculture
Wildlife refuges
Dairy farms
Farm dwellings
Non-farm dwellings
Forest preserves
Farm buildings . •'.···
Greenhouses, nurseries, and vineyards
Apiaries, hatcheries
Poultry operations
Home occupations
Transmission and distribution lines, and pipelines of public
utilities
Uses customarily accessory to farm operations
Uses customarily accessory to non-farm dwellings
Suggested Special Uses
Agricultural service establishments such as feed and
fertilizer sales, farm equipment sales, and services
Agricultural labor housing
Confined feed lots
Roadside stands
Essential serv~ce structures such as telephone exchange
and/or repeater buildings and towers, electrical substations, gas regulator stations and buildings
.
.
It is recommended that the zoning ordinance and the zoning map be amended early on in the
planning period in order to begin the implementation of the objectives of the agricultural
preservation district.
Rural Conservation
The Rural Conservation or A-2 Planning District is intended to complement to the Agricultural
Conservation Area. It is identified as a means of preserving the integrity of the Agricultural
MS\Watsn-MPlaea\87834.01
28
�Conservation area where fanning activity is viewed as the primary and permanent use to- be
encouraged during the planning period.
This planning district: while encompassing many active farms, is therefore designed to serve as a
buffer area between the more intensively developed residential districts and the Agricultural
Conservation District. The lot sizes and uses designated for inclusion within this district should
be permissive to accommodate the demand for rural residences while also recognizing that a
fanning activity will remain a major use in the area. By designating this area, it is expected that
the majority of persons desiring to reside in a rural setting on one to ten acres of land will be
accommodated without negatively impacting the Township's most desirable and productive
farmland.
The characteristics utilized in establishing the general boundaries and extent of the rural
conservation district includes soils that are generally unsuitable to support intensive development
due to severe septic system limitations, large areas of farm land and open space and a mixture of
parcel sizes and soils that make the majority of the area suitable for fanning but not to the same
extent as the majority of the areas included ~ the agricultural conservation district.
The primary objectives of this land use classification are:
1.
To provide a buffer between the more exclusive _agricultural conservation district and the
more intensively developed low density residentlai area.
2.
To preserve woodlands and wetlands which are useful as water retention and ground
water discharge areas and which have important aesthetic and scenic value.
3.
To encourage the continued use of valuable farm land while accommodating rural estate
types of residential development at a density that will maintain the overall rural
environment by not overcapacitating the soil and to accommodate a wide variety of nonfarm uses that require large land areas.
4.
To provide a "land bank for areas of land that could be allowed to develop more
intensively when the Township determines that more intensive structural development is
appropriate and when the necessary public facilities and infrastructure is in place to
support it.
Recommended measures for achieving the objectives of the rural conservation land use category
include:
1.
Amend the zoning map at an early point in the planning period to encompass those areas
identified as Rural Conservation on the Land Use Plan.
2.
Amend the zoning ordinance to create the Rural Conservation District with a minimum
lot size of one acre and permitted uses similar to those allowed in the current R-1 Rural
Estate District of the Watson Township Zoning Ordinance. Such uses should include:
Suggested Permitted Uses:
MS\Watsn-MP'saea\87834.01
All permitted uses in the AG Preservation District
29
�Suggested Special Uses:
Parks and other outdoor recreation facilities
Campgrounds
Golf courses
Mineral extraction
Sawmills
Radio towers
Improved Services Planning Area
Within the 20-year planning period and beyond, it can be expected that a demand for land that
can be developed for a higher density of residential use than those permitted in the Agricultural
Planning Districts would accommodate, as well as for commercial and industrial purposes will
be felt. Because this demand should be anticipated, a major objective of the Master Plan is to
delineate those areas considered best suited or able to support the higher uses.
In consideration of the anticipated practical limits of future roadway improvements, existing soil
and development patterns and a general need to promote efficiency in the delivery of a wide
range of services such as fire and police protection, utilities and other improved services, the
Master Plan delineates a long-range "Improved Services Boundary". It is within this boundary
that the majority development is intended to be accommodated. This boundary is intended to
represent the approximate long-range extent of non-nl!,_~ type of development, and the area in
which the Township should concentrate its public improvements. In so doing, the goal of
preserving the agricultural and rural qualities of the majority of the Township can be better
achieved and land uses which are less compatible with rural characteristics accommodated in a
more efficient manner. The major elements of the Improved Service Area are outlined as
follows:
Low Density Residential
The Low Density Residential Planning area is applied to several areas of the Township that have
· .soils generally amenable to single family residential development at densities of less than one
unit per acre without the provisions of public utilities. Much of this area has experienced some
development pressure, as witnessed by a large number of parcels of less than 10 acres that
already exist within the area.
The primary intent of this area is to ultimately accommodate development that is more
exclusively residential in nature while still preserving the area's rural and unique environmental
qualities. It is also intended to ultimately serve as' a transitional area between rural densities of
development and higher concentrations of development.
The unique characteristics of this planning district is that from a zoning map standpoint, it is not
recommended as a district to be currently mapped. It is intended as a floating zone which would
only be mapped when it is demonstrated that there is the necessary infrastructure such as paved
roads, police and fire protection, and utilities to support the higher concentrations. It is therefore
recommended that the areas included within the Long-Range Improved Service Area be zoned
Rural Conservation (A-2) until the Township determines that it is appropriate to accommodate
the higher intensity of development that would be allowed under the Low Density Residential
Designation.
MS\Watsn•Ml¼ea\87834.01
30
�In considering zoning requests for Low Density Residential, the township should avoid situations
that would result in scat_tered or leapfrog development.
The following mechanisms are intended for use in achieving the objectives of a low density
residential district.
1.
Amend the current R-2 Single Family Residential District regulations to restrict the
minimum lot size within the district to approximately one acre for unplatted parcels,
30,000 square feet for platted parcels without public utilities, and 15,000 square feet for
platted parcels if public water and/or sewage utilities are made available.
2.
Eliminate the current R-2 zoning district as a mapped district. It is envisioned that
changes to the existing agricultural zoning provisions as outlined in the Rural
Conservation (A-2) Planning District discussion will accommodate the vast majority of
uses and lot sizes presently found under the current R-2 zoning and will not restrict the
current uses. It is therefore recommended that existing R-2 areas be converted to the
proposed A-2 classification.
3.
Future zoning to the Low Density Residential Classification is recommended to only
occur incrementally, based upon the demand for development of the type that would be
allowed in the Low Density Residential district and it is demonstrated that the
appropriate infrastructure is available to support the higher intensity of development.
M edilfm Density Residential
This land use classification is designed to accommodate single family homes and duplexes of
densities of up to 4 units per acre. It is also intended to accommodate mobile home parks and
multiple family dwelling unit developments as a special approval uses on parcels of property that
are a minimum of 20 acres in size and which are adjacent to paved highways. Such
developments, at densities of up to . 6 units per acre, should be served by either public or
community sewer systems.
The types of dwelling units envisioned in this category can serve as transitional uses between
non-residential uses and low density residential uses. Because public sewer is necessary for
mobile home parks or multi-family development in order to assure long range public health, such
developments should not be approved until proper sewer service and roadways can be provided.
The following guidelines are intended for use in achieving the objectives of the medium density
residential land use classification:
1.
Amend the R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning District's prov1s1ons to
accommodate mobile home parks and multi-:-family residential developments of up to 6
units per acre as conditional uses under specific size, locational and public health
standards.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
31
�2.
Incrementally amend the zoning map to reflect the proposed extent of the medium
density land use category based on periodic re-examination of the needs for such
development (e.g., every five years) or as part of the review process relating to a specific
•
development request.
Lake Residential District
The Lake Residential District is intended to address a variety of existing and potential land use
considerations arising adjacent to several of the Township's more significant in-land lakes. The
objective of the district is to call attention to the existing developments that have occurred
around several of these lakes. Within these areas it is recommended that the Township conduct
more in depth studies of existing parcel sizes and building standards in order to determine the
prevalence of nonconformities under the existing zoning ordinance. It is recommended that
where the majority of properties are non-conforming, that the zoning ordinance be amended to
directly address the problems (e.g. creation of a new zoning district).
Commercial Land Use
Typically, commercial establishments seek out major streets with high traffic volumes to
maximize their visibility and to encourage drive in trade. However, when a major street begins
to develop commercially, traffic congestion too oft~n occurs and conflicts result between
through traffic and vehicles entering and exiting driveways.
This plan recognized that the demands for commercial development in Watson Township are
likely to increase within the planning period as more and more residents move into the area.
These demands are most likely to be greatest along M-222, near the US-131 interchange area
where traffic volumes are greatest and where commercial establishments can take advantage of
passing motorists. Such characteristics are natural attractions for commercial development
In addition to the M-222/US-131 interchange area, several intersections long M-222 are seen as
potentially viable locations for Convenience Commercial establishments that would cater to the
needs of local residents. The intersections of M-222 with 24th Street, 20th Street, and 16th
Street have therefore been identified on the Master Plan map as Convenience Commercial
Planning Areas. It is intended that these areas be limited in size and that secondary access to the
north-south roads be encouraged.
It will be important to direct commercial development in a manner which avoids the generally
undesirable effects that commercial strip development could bring. Therefore, virtually all retail
and service types of commercial development should be directed toward these four areas.
The objectives of the Commercial Land Use Plan are to:
1.
Accommodate commercial facilities that provide sufficient amounts of goods and
services to meet the daily needs of a growing township population while not duplicating
services provided by establishments already located nearby.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
32
�2.
To promote the physical clustering of commercial establishments rather than strip
development, thereby providing for joint use of parking facilities, more convenient
shopping, and.minimized extension of utilities as they are needed.
3.
To provide for efficient accessibility to retail uses thereby minimizing traffic conflicts.
Unless careful site planning and access controls are instituted, conflicts between uses can occur.
Opportunities for integrated uses can be lost, and the capacity of street can be greatly reduced. It
is therefore recommended that the rezoning of land designated by the Land Use Plan for
commercial purposes be done incrementally to help assure that development is not done
prematurely or haphazardly, with disregard for the lack of utilities and the uses that are in
existence or could develop on adjoining sites. Implementation of the commercial land use plan
should therefore involve the following recommendations:
1.
The development of flexible planned unit development zoning provisions that \YOuld
allow the review and approval of proposals incorporating integrated mixed uses, joint
accesses and alternative access characteristics.
2.
The institution of zoning standards and site plan review processes which promote
desirable objectives and a careful scrutinization of site plan features as:
a.
Water, Sewer and Drainage: Until public·or collective systems for these utilities
are pro:vided it is recommended that major development not be permitted unless
careful consideration is given to the individual methods to handle expected water
usage, wastewater generation, and runoff.
b.
Driveway location and spacing: Driveways should be located as far from street
intersections as possible to avoid left turn conflicts and businesses should be
encouraged to share driveways whenever possible. Driveways should be
minimum of 150 feet apart to reduce conflicts and provide gaps in traffic for safer
ingress and egress. It is recommended that commercial parcels have a minimum
of 200 feet of street frontage to promote adequate driveway spacing.
c.
Landscaping: Commercial development should provide landscaping along the
street edge to enhance the aesthetics and to screen parking areas. Specific
landscaping requirements should be incorporated into the zoning ordinance to
ensure adequate ~d uniform landscape treatment among all business.
d.
Alternate Access: A secondary means of ingress and/or egress should be
provided if possible. Such alternate access could take the form of access to an
intersecting street for corner parcels, access across adjacent parking lots, access to
another street to the rear of the property, a frontage road or service drive
paralleling a major street, or a similar alternative.
e.
Signs: The number, size and location of signs should be controlled and kept to a
reasonable minimum to avoid motorists confusion and to ensure individual
business identity.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.0 I
33
�Industrial Land Use Plan
The Industrial Land Use classification as depicted on the Land Use Plan is intended to provide
and reserve adequate' land for future industrial development In so doing, it is recognized that
industrial development will be important to the economy and tax base of the community. The
areas designated are located to provide easy access and to minimize potential conflicts with
residential uses.
Intensive industrial development within the area shown would require the provision of public
sewer and water. Therefore, only light industries that require very little demands for such uses
should be considered.
The objectives of the Industrial Land Use Plan are as follows:
1.
To encourage industries to locate in an industrial park setting.
2.
To promote diversification of the local tax base.
3.
To provide nearby entrepreneurial and employment opportunities for Township residents.
The following guideline~ are intended for use in implementing the industrial land use plan:
...
;,..~
1.
Incrementally expand the availability of industrial zoned properties within the planning
period based on the needs over the entire planning period, keeping in mind that
development without public utilities should be carefully monitored.
2.
Improve plan site review standards relative to industrial uses to ensure building and site
design quality and that those industries being proposed without public sewer and water
facilities will not jeopardize environmental quality.
3.
Encourage the creation of an industrial subdivision rather than piecemeal development to
help assure development and collective use of necessary roads, drainage and other
improvements.
4.
Incoiporate provisions in the zoning ordinance that would discourage extensive outdoor
storage and activity areas that would detract from the character of the Township.
5.
Encourage the landscaping of industrial sites-through site plan review.
6.
Discourage the development of heavy industries which because of their scale or type of
operation could have severe environmental implications or overburden public services.
7.
Incoiporate access control mechanisms similar to those recommended for the commercial
areas into zoning provisions relative to the industrial zone.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
34
�,
HOPKINS
>,,,
......
i
:, i
L --i
.
t OTN
l
OTSEGO
-
•
•
INOU9Tfl1AL
f'U ■ LJC . SElll-~IUC
STAT! GAME .lllU IIOUNO.lllY
-,avED "OAO
UN,-&VID 110.lD
=
~
~!~
Lr J
WATSON TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN
RURAL CONSERVATION
RURAL CONSERVATION TO LOW DEN. RES.
~ CONVENIENCE
■ GENERAL
ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN
,
" A " - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
□ "A "-2"
WATSON TWP.
. - -·
• SIN<IU PAMILY RESIDUITIAL
• MULTt-,,AlltLY flESJD.NTIAL
MOBILI HO... l'AM
a COIIIIMUIC IAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
II
MEDIUM DENS. RES.
■ LAKE RESIDENTIAL
~ INDUSTRIAL
LONG RANGE IMPROVED
---SERVICE BOUNDARY
�Natural Features Preservation
Based on the Citizen Land use Questionnaire and discussions with the Planning Commission, the
preservation of the rural character of the Township can be termed a high priority among
residents. One important aspect of the community's rural character are the natural features found
in the Township. These include hills, woodlands, water resources and soils. The importance of
these features however, go well beyond natural beauty. Taken collectively, these features form
an interrelated, high quality and well-balanced environment that should be protected from
potentially disruptive development practices and land uses.
The following objectives and guidelines should be applied throughout the Township, and
coupled with recommended land uses and densities outlined in the previous sections, are
intended to promote a balance between the desire to accommodate continued development· and
the need to protect the natural environment.
In order to preserve the rural character of the Township and protect the quality of the
environment, the Plan makes the following recommendations:
1.
Through site plan review, subdivision regulations and a public education program:
- Encourage the construction of roads that follow contours rather than running against
them.
·
- Encourage minimum gradi1:1g and cut fill activities on ·steep slopes.
- Encourage the concealment of buildings located on prominent hillsides.
- Discourage the filling of wetlands.
- Evaluate soil suitability for the proposed use.
- Discourage the over improvement of building sites in rural areas that would replace
natural vegetation with large manicured lawns, and other forms of urban landscaping.
- Encourage the use of natural drainageways versus channelization or underground
drains.
2.
Cooperate with the Allegan County Drain Commission to ensure strict enforcement of
the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act. If necessary, adopt and enforce a local
ordinance.
3.
Inform residents and farmers of the problems of over fertilization of lawns and fields near
water bodies and drainageways.
4.
Inform residents of measures that should be taken for proper septic tank and drainfield
maintenance and operation.
5.
Inform residents with livestock and other domesticated animals of the hazards of locating
feeding areas and animal runs where nutrients from animal waste can readily enter
surface waters in the form of runoff.
MS\Watsn-MP\aea\87834.01
36
�6.
Support State and County laws and administrative programs which help to protect natural
resources. The following list of State and County approvals is directed toward the major
environmental protection needs of the area.
FEATURE OF CONCERN .
Wetlands
Proper septic system location and
installation for surface water
and groundwater quality protection
Erosion control during
construction
AGENCY OR APPROVAL REQUIREMENT
State wetlands permits issued by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources are required for
·alteration of any wetland contiguous to lakes,
streams, and other water bodies, and for wetlands
which are five acres or more in size.
Permit required from the Allegan County Health
Department.
An earth change which is within 100 feet of a lake
construction or stream or is one or more acres in size
requires a permit from the a permit from the Allegan
County Road Commission
This agency··presently. administers the provisions of
the the Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Act within Watson Township.
Adequate drainage facilities minimize
flooding
The Allegan County Drain Commissioner reviews
All subdivision plats to assure adequate drainage
facilities. Proposals for developments with storm
water outlets to county drains, as well as mobile
home park proposals, are also subject to approval
by the Drain Commissioner's office. On-site retention
of stormwater is often required.
Roadside drainage
The Allegan County Road Commission reviews all
subdivisions for conformance with Road Commission
standards.
For large lot developments, surface
drainage to roadside ditches is allowed.
If the development is not a subdivision but results in
a drainage discharge to a roadside ditch, approval
from the County Road Commission is required.
Runoff must be restricted and retained on-site to
assure an agricultural rate of runoff.
Spill prevention plans at industrial
sites
MS..Watsn-M11\aea\87834.01
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
reviews and approves Pollution Incident Prevention
Plans submitted by businesses.
Businesses are
required to submit such a plan if they store or use
37
�critical materials on the "Critical Materials Register",
salt, or large quantities of fuel.
Wastewater treatment systems with
discharges of more than 10,000
gallons/day of sanitary sewage
Toe Michigan Department of Natural Resources
issues groundwater discharge permits when
discharges of more than 10,000 gallons/day of
sanitary sewerage (or other discharges) are
proposed.
Toe provisions apply to large-scale
septic systems and other types of wastewater
facilities. Proposed discharges must meet require
ments of the Part 22 Rules of the Water Resources
Commission Act.
Wastewater treatment systems which discharge into
lakes and streams require a federal NPDES permit
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit), which is issued by the Michigan Department
of-Natural Resources.
8.
Developers should be encouraged to contact state and county agencies at the earliest
possible point in the site plan preparation process and to incorporate state and county
agency req~ments for resource protection into•site plans presented to the Township.
Transportation
Toe road system serves as the backbone for growth and development of any community. By
providing a means for internal and external circulation, it serves the community by helping shape
the intensity of land use. Thus, this costly and highly visible element of the community's
infrastructure is one of the most dynamic features of the community's on-going development.
Street Classification
The street system serving Watson Township can be classified as follows:
MAJOR ARTERIALS - This class of street serves major movements of traffic within or
through the area. Mainly designed to move traffic, the secondary function is to provide
land service. M-222 is the major arterial in Watson Township.
MINOR RURAL ARTERIALS - This class of street serves primarily local or shorter distance
traffic and provides a limited degree of continuity. Their principal function is providing
local land access in connection with major arterials. 20th Street and 16th Street south of
M-222 are the Township's two rural arterial streets.
PAYED RURAL COLLECTOR STREETS - These streets serve the internal traffic movement
within specific areas and connect those areas with the major and minor arterial system.
Generally, they are not continuous for any great length. Portions of 12th St., 117th Ave.,
113th Avenue, and 24th St., are considered to be this type of street.
MS\W atsn-MF¼ea\87834.0 I
38
�The collector street is intended to supply abutting property with the same degree of
access as a local street, while at the same time serving local traffic movement. Traffic
control devices may be installed to protect and facilitate movement of traffic; however,
these devices would not be as elaborate as those on arterial streets.
·
UNPAVED RURAL COLLECTORS AND LocAL STREETS - The sole function of these streets is to
provide access to immediately adjacent property. There are a number of these roads in
the community, but they carry a small proportion of the vehicle-miles of travel.
The primary objective of the Transportation Plan of Watson Township is to provide a street
network which will encourage the most logical development of the area while providing for the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
PROBLEMS
The major problem with the street system is increased traffic volume on unpaved rural
collectors. Other factors that may become increasingly significant as growth continues include
the need for better traffic and access controls -along M-222 to avoid traffic and land use conflicts,
and the incomplete grid pattern of the street system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
The following transportation related recommendations are intended to address existing problems
and to avoid problems in the future :
- Within zoning and subdivision regulations institute access controls intended to reduce
traffic conflicts along the major and minor arterials thereby preserving their volume and
function.
- Establish road improvement priorities. Through cooperation with the Allegan County
Road Commission, monitor traffic volumes and road cqnditions as part of a program to
establish road improvement priorities. In this way, the Township can objectively allocate
its limited resources to those areas already having the greatest need.
- Consider the ability of existing roadway conditions to handle projected traffic volumes
resulting from new development when reviewing site plans and rezoning requests.
- Implement the Land Use Plan. This document contains specific land use recommendations
which reflect the adequacy of the existing roadway system. Taken collectively, the
incremental implementation of the various land use proposals will, over the long term,
minimize the need for road improvements.
- It is recommended that zoning and subdivision controls officially recognize the hierarchy
of the road network by taking into consideration the traffic volume, noise, speed and clear
vision requirements of each roadway class. Such requirements should translate in larger
minimum lot frontages and building setbacks along major streets than those along local
platted streets.
MS\Watsn-MI1\aea\87834.01
39
�Community Facilities and Public/Semi-public Land
'RECREATION
Analysis of local recreational opportunities within the Township shows that Township residents
presently must rely on, and at times, compete with others for the use of facilities located in other
nearby communities. While these facilities are adequate for their intended use, it must also be
recognized that as the area's population increases, Watson Township must become increasingly
responsible for providing additional opportunities for its residents. This conclusion is justified
by the results of the resident attitude survey which shows significant desire among residents for
additional facilities.
While it does not appear that the needs identified in the preceding chapter are critical at the
present time, it is important that .planning and decision making for the ultimate provision of
additional recreational facilities begin at an early stage. This is especially important in terms of
land acquisition, where early acquisition can greatly reduce overall costs and better assure the
ability to acquire land in the most desirable location.
It is therefore recommended that the Township take the following measures in establishing a
parks and recreation program, in fulfillment of the above objectives.
1. .
Appoint a "Park Commission" under the provisions of P.A. 271 of 1921, or an "Ad-hoc"
Citizen's Committee to:
Identify potential future park sites
Prepare a Parks and Recreation plan capable of qualifying the Township for the
receipt of Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grants from the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
Identify and pursue potential funding sources sch as private foundations and other
local, state and federal programs.
Work with the Allegan County adjacent communities and school districts to ensure a
coordinated approach to providing facilities with organized recreational activities.
Monitor citizen needs and concerns.
Make necessary recommendations to the Township Board with respect to on-going
parks and recreation needs in the areas of administrative, budgeting and operation
and maintenance.
Administrative Offices, Library and Fire Protection
With respect to fire protection, it should be recognized that while the existence of a fire station
within Watson Township would likely improve the response times and overall fire protection
with the community, the construction of a fire station, the purchase of equipment and the training
M5\Watsn-MPlaea~834.01
40
�of fire personnel is a very capital intensive proposition. Unfortunately, there is no good rule of
thumb that can be applied in Watson Township that will categorically conclude that once the
population reaches X, a fire station should be constructed. Instead, an adequate water supply ~nd
political and financial1 factors must be considered. The most important of these .are the adequacy
and cost of protection being provided under contract with adjacent communities, and at what
point it will be less costly and more efficient.for the Township to begin providing its own fire
protection service.
It is therefore important that the Township periodically assess its position with respect to these
facilities and services as well as available options for improvement. One of these options is, of
course, the acquisition of land and the ultimate construction of one or more of these three
facilities.
If during the remainder of the twenty-year planning period, it becomes apparent that land
acquisition for one or more of these facilities is necessary to ultimately address long range needs,
it is recommended that the following siting factors be taken into consideration:
1.
Fire stations should be located near but not directly on the intersection of two major
streets. This will enhance accessibility to all areas of the township, but reduce the
number of potentially hazardous conflicts directly on the intersection.
2.
Economies of scale and the applicability of fire station locational criteria to other types of
community facilities tend to indicate that a single site capable of ultimately supporting
the collective needs of a fire station, township hall, library and community park should be
considered. Such a site would allow the Township greater decision making flexibility
and the opportunity to minimize overall acquisition and development cost. Such a site
would also allow most administrative, operation and maintenance ·functions to be carried
out in a more cost effective, centralized fashion.
School Facilities
-
It is recommended that the Township work closely with the various school districts in their
efforts to assure that the necessary educational facilities are provided.
Should new school sites in Watson Township be considered, it will be important that the
Township have adequate lead time to consider possible land use and development related
implications.
Public/Semi-public Land
The plan recognized that a variety of public and semi public uses such as churches, parks,
cemeteries, schools and others need to be located in rural and residential areas. However, in
. permitting such uses, measures must be taken to insure compatibility with nearby residential
uses. Traffic, noise, lighting, and trespass should therefore be carefully controlled in order to
mitigate the negative impact on residential uses.
MS\Watsn-MP'-aea\87834.01
41
�CHAPTERVIl
™PLEMENTATION
In order for the Master Plan to serve as an effective guide to the continued development of
Watson Township, it must be implemented. Primary responsibility for implementing the Plan
rests with the Watson Township Board of Trustees, the Planning Commission, and the Township
staff. This is done through a number of methods. These include ordinances, prob:rrams, and
administrative procedures which are described in this chapter.
It is important to note that the Master Plan itself has no legal authority to regulate development
in order to implement the recommendations of the Plan. This implementation must come from
the decisions of the Township Board and Planning Commission to provide needed public
improvements and to administer and establish regulatory measures relative to the use of the land.
The private sector, including individual home and land owners, is also involved in fulfilling the
recommendatioq.s of the Master Plan by the actual physical development of land uses and
through the rezoning of land. The authority for this, however, comes from the Township.
Cooperation between the public and private sectors is therefore important in successful
implementation of the Master Plan.
ZONING
Zoning represents a legal means for the Township to regulate private property to achieve orderly
land use relationships. It is the process most commonly used to implement community Master
Plans. The zoning process consists of an official zoning map and zoning ordinance text
The official zoning map divides the community into different zones or districts within which
certain uses are permitted and others are not The zoning ordinance text notes the uses which are
permitted and establishes regulations to control densities, height, bulk, setbacks, lot sizes, and
accessory uses . .
The zoning ordinance also sets forth procedures for special approval regulations and controls
over signs. These measures permit the Township to control the quality as well as the type of
development
Subsequent to the adoption of this Plan, the Township Planning Commission and Township
Board should review and make any necessary revisions to the zoning regulations to ensure that
the recommendations of the plan as outlined in the previous section are instituted.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Currently the Township does not have its own subdivision control ordinance. Thus, any requests
to plat property or create a subdivision would be done so according to the provisions of the
Subdivision Control Act, Act 288 of 1967. This provides adequate but limited authority for the
Township to regulate new subdivisions. The Plan therefore recommends adoption of a
subdivision control ordinance at some point in the relatively near future.
MS\W atsn-M!>..aca\87834.01
42
�CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Capital Imp:covements Programming is the first step in a comprehensive management system
. designed to relate priorities and programs to community goals and objectives. It is a means of
planning ahead for the funding and implementation of major construction and land acquisition
activities. The typical CIP is six years in length and updated yearly. The first year in each CIP
contains the capital improvement budget The program generally includes a survey of the longrange needs of the entire governmental unit covering major planned projects along with their
expected cost and priority. The Township Board then analyzes the projects, financing options,
and the interrelationship between projects. Finally, a project schedule is developed. Priority
projects are included in the Capital Improvement Program. Low priority projects may be
retained in a Capital Improvement Schedule which may cover as long as 20 yea.rs.
The CIP is useful to the Township, private utilities, citizens, and investors, since it allows
coordination in activities and provides the general public with a view of future expectations.
FUNDING
On-going planning and selective components of the Plan by necessity will require financial
assistance if they are to be realized. Such funds may be generated locally through the general
fund or special millages or may be made available from several state and federal sources.
Among the state and federal sources are:#.
••
- L~d and Water Conservation Fund and Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. Assistan~e
under these programs is available for planning, acquiring, and developing a wide range of
outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The programs are administered by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and are financed by funds appropriate and by the Federal
Government and State legislature. Under the LWCF Program, grants of up to 50% of the cost
of a project are available. Under the MNRTF Program, 100% funding may be obtained.
PLANNING EDUCATION
Planning Commissions should attend planning seminars to keep themselves informed of
planning issues and learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as Planning
Commissioners. These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan Society of Planning
Officials (MSPO) and the Michigan Township Association (MTA) and are a valuable resource
for Planning Commissions. There are also several planning publications which are a useful
information tool for Planning Commissioners. The main publications are Planning and Zoning
~ and Michigan Planner Magazine.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
It is important that the proposals of this Plan be discussed and understood by the citizens of
Watson Township. Acceptance of this Plan by the public is essential to its successful
implementation. Steps should be taken to make Township residents aware of this Plan and the
continuing activities of the Planning Commission. This can be accomplished through newspaper
reports of Planning Commission activity. Contact with local civic and service organizations is
another method which can be used to promote the Township's planning activities and objectives.
MS\Watsn-MPlaca~834.0l
43
�REVISIONS TO THE MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan should be updated periodically (minor review every one to two years, major
review every five to ten years) in order to be responsive to new growth trends and current
Township attitudes. As growth occurs over the years, the Master Plan goals, land use
information, population projections, and other pertinent data should be reviewed and revised as
necessary so the Plan can continue to serve as a valid guide to the growth of the Township. .
MS\Watsn-MP-aea\87834.01
44
�
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
Watson-Twp_Master-Plan_2000
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watson Township Planning Commission, Watson Township, Allegan County, Michigan
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2000-08-23
Title
A name given to the resource
Watson Township Master Plan
Description
An account of the resource
The Watson Township Master Plan was prepared by the Watson Township Planning Commission with the assistance of WW Engineering & Science and was reaffirmed on August 23, 2000.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
WW Engineering & Science (consultant)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Master plan reports
Watson 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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/833081f90eef475430daf32ba983c9ad.pdf
c63c72fdc0bb034e82e27c4ce6ff26ad
PDF Text
Text
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Prepared By The Saugatuck Township
Planning Commission And Board Of Trustees
�SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Prepared by the
Saugatuck Township Planning Commissiqn
in cooperation with the Township Board cif. Ttµ.stees
in cooperation with:
Coastal Zone Management Program
Land and Water Management Division
Department of Natural Resources
and with the assistance of:
Planning & Zoning Center,
302 S. Waverly Road
Lansing, MI 4891 7
(51 7) 886-0555
Inc.
November 1989
This document was prepared in part through.financial assistance
provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorized by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
�The following individuals participated in the preparation of this plan:
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
Planning Commission
Andy Jager, Frank Pluta, Gene Olsen, Herb Klemm•, Teny Locatis, Rex Felker, Robert
Miller, and Jean Vanderberg.
Township Board
Teny Bums, Carole Schreckengust, Patricia Birkholz, Frank Pluta, Mary Lou Novak,
and Tom Murdoch•.
[• no longer serving]
PLANNING & ZONING CENTER, INC.
Sta.ff of Planning & 7-<:ming Center, Inc. who 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
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. i
Chapter l
GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES:
1HE AREAWIDE POLICY PI.AN ...................................................................... 1-.l
Chapter 2
7- .
. .
DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................ .' ....... : 2-t
Chapter3
1HE ECONOMY....................................................................... , .... :............... 3-1
Chapter4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1HE ENVIRONMENT...................... :................ 4-1
Chapter lS
EXISTING I.AND COVERAND USE .......·-··· .. ··········-······· .. ········ ·······-····· ·· .. ·· 5-1
Chapter 6
PUBLIC FACILIDES AND SERVICES ............................................................ 6-1
Chapter 7
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE................................................................. 7-1
Chapter 8
WATERFRONT.............................................................................................. 8-1
Chapter 9
GROWfH AND DEVEWPMENT TRENDS..................................................... 9-1
Chapter 10
FuruRE I.AND USE .................................................................................... 10-1
Chapter 11
INfERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION .. ............... ..................... ............... 11-1
Chapter 12
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ....... ................................... ............... 12-1
APPENDIX A
References
APPENDIXB
Demographic, Economic and Housing Data
APPENDIXC
Public Opinion Survey Responses
APPENDIXD
Soil Types - Tri-Community Area
�Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.15
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.15
3.6
3.7
4.1
8.1
9.1
9.2
9.3
TITLE
Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) - Area
Age Cohorts (1980) - Allegan County
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 - Saugatuck Twp. & 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
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-4
3 -2
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-5
4-2
8-7
9-2
9-2
9-3
�Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF MAPS
NUMBER
TITLE
PAGE
Introduction
2.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.15
4.6
4.7
4.7a
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.13
IS.I
IS.2
IS.3
15.4
~
".-/
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.15
6.6
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.15
8.ISa
9.1
10.1
10.2
Location
ii
Streets and Roads
V
Lot Lines
vi
School Districts {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
Planning Areas
Public Facilities
Water System
Sewer System
Gas Mains
Street Classifications
Act 51 Roads
Outdoor Recreation Sites
Bike Paths
Watersheds
No-Wake Areas
Saugatuck Harbor
Marinas
Street Ends/Parks
Street Ends/Parks
Residential Construction Permits
Future Land Use
Entry Points
�Saugatuck Township 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
TITLE
Population (1950-1980)
Educational Status - Persons 25 and Over
School Enrollments - Saugatuck School District
Impact of Travel On Allegan County, 1986
Maj or 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-Community Area
Lake Michigan Lake Levels
Rate of Population Change
Projected Population - 1970-1980 Trend
PAGE
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-6
3-6
4-1
4-3
5-1
5-4
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-7
6-7
6-7
7-1
7-3
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.!S
9.6
9.7
9.8
12.1
Projected Number of Households
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
9-3
9-4
9-4
9-4
9-4
9-4
12-4
:.,
�vi
;fj.~i
t
~l:
; i
. _,
' • I ,,
,.
,. .f
r;.,fl ~1-!
ht :
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�V
!·
';~·
i-.
'!i ••
l•:
~:. bri ,. ~
.
:
I
•.1
:1
:,'},
..,, ,;_, .
'
''. ~4
'' i;.
~
;
.. ~')i '
1,
,) j
'
l~
- '
·•'./
,~
..w .
~
·J\--- l
),
, J11
,(
~
i ,··.~.u,;
-
0
~
.J~
q..'
~
}'
"•
1.
1:,_7]
I ..... -=-.._" ~
14
l•'
I
..
I
l
.,
..l
--,-'•
;
I•,
,•
'·
!
\ 22
i
:,:
~
~
o,, .. ~
6
(
w
•
23 ~
o,.,
,.,.,."-
-~--~
!·,':
2
:'
..
•
,
0
29
~
28
.
27
25
.~ ··········
!-··
,:
ta.STH AVE.
'\
1
,
,.
i.
{ 35
~
\ T 3N , R 6W
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�i
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this Plan is to provide a
policy and decision making guide regarding all
future land and infrastructure development
within Saugatuck Township. 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 smvey, town meetings, and public hearings.
This Plan was prepared by the Planning &
Zoning Center, Inc., under the direction of the
Saugatuck Township Planning Commission. Financial support was provided by the Michigan
Dept. of Natural Resources. Coastal Zone Management Program.
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 Township zoning ordinance
(and other local tools) 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 ctttzens 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 prepared
concurrently with plans in Saugatuck and
Douglas. It was 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 the Township Planning Commission oversaw the production of this plan, the Township
Board was also directly involved in its preparation. Chapter 11 proposes that the Joint Planning Committee established to prepare a Joint
Plan for Saugatuck, Douglas. and Saugatuck
Township (tri-community area) be continued
and that this Plan be updated at a minimum of
every five years.
The contents of this Plan draw directly from
previously adopted planning documents. There
has been no effort made to explicitly footnote
when material has been so used. 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 Township on the shores
of Lake Michigan. This location along 1-196
makes it 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�u
j
-
;.
,
j
l
Kent County
Ottawa
County
GRaplds
Allegan County
-'
Van Buren County
Barry County
Gmazoa
Kalamazoo
·county
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�m
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 THIS PLAN
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
minimal 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.
Three considerations played prominent
roles in fashioning the contents of this Plan just
as they do in the Joint 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, Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck
Township 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,
conseivancy and retiree activities are jointly
supported by residents of all three communities.
Several public services are jointly provided including the Interurban bus service, 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,
MAPS
Silver Lake, etc.). This provides an important
richness and depth to the area, but it can also
Except as otheiwise noted, all the full page
be· politically divisive.
maps presented in this Plan were produced
Second, tourism is the primary engine drivusing C-Map software. This is a PC based coming the local economy. Despite several industrial
puter program initiated by William Enslin, Manemployers that provide important diversity to
ager of the Center for Remote Sensing at
the area's economy, it is the dollars brought in
Michigan State University. All the data on the
by tourists and seasonal residents that fuel
maps was digitized either by Tim McCauley of
most of the local wages and local purchasing.
· the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. or was
The environmental splendor and wide range of
downloaded from the Michigan Resource Invenactivities open to tourists are the primary attractory Program (MRIP) database maintained on
tion. But no less significant is the small town
the State's mainframe computer system by the
character of the area. This character, often deDepartment of Natural Resources.
scribed as "cute" or "quaint" by tourists, is
Several advantages are realized by computhighly favored by visitors and deeply cherished
erizing this data. Typically, geographic informaby local citizens. As a result, any intensive or
tion is only available on paper maps at widely
poorly planned alterations to the natural envivarying scales. which makes it difficult to comronment, or homogenization of the character of _ pare data sets for planning purposes. With Cthe individual communities is likely to have a
Map, all of the maps can be viewed and printed
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�iv
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
ex;pense n ormally required to obtain the same
results . Another m ajor advantage of computer
mapping is the ability to update maps continuou sly, 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 m ap created by digitizing the lots of
record u sed for assessing purposes in the three
c:ammunities; and 3) a soils base map derived
fr.om the SCS Allegan County Soil Survey. None
0 of.these base maps are exactly identical as they
originate from different sources. All of the land
c.over and use based information and topography is keyed to the DNR/USGS base map. All of
th e 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 informaUon
that it was used as the base for. Please note that
t he extent of the Kalamazoo River on each base
is noticeably different and is related to the water
levels at the time the inventory or survey was
conducted. We have "corrected" the DNR/USGS
base map to include Silver Lake, which is merely
s hown 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 any time 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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�V
ta9T'H AVL
T
a
25
" 27
28
,'
__,... AV&.
C,
•,
'
33
34
T3N,R 6W
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�Saugatuck Township Comprehenstve Plan
�1-1
Chapter 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES:
THE SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP 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 smveys, public opinion smveys, meetings with local officials, and town meetings.
The first step in this process was a survey
of area leaders- including members of the
Township Planning Commission, Township
Board, 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 the
Township and the tri-community area, and the
results were tabulated and presented to Township officials. These results served as the basis
for initiating a public opinion survey.
Citizen views on local planning issues were
obtained through public opinion surveys mailed
to every property owner in the Township and
distributed in each rental complex. Survey questions were prepared for the Township through
consultations with the Township Planning Commission and Township Board. Dr. Brent Steel,
Oakland University, conducted and tabulated
the survey.
The response rate of 38% in Saugatuck
Township was very high considering the length
(about 1 hour completion time) and type of
survey and thus responses probably represent
the majority view. 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 "futuring" session where participants were asked to imagine how they would like
the community to be in the year 2000. Partici-
pants were separated into groups and asked to
prepare of list of their "prouds" and "sorries" in
Saugatuck Township, 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 the Township 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 Township 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 local officials and then presented to Township citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen
comments were reviewed by Township officials
and incorporated into the policy plan.
Following completion of the draft policy
plan, data and trends in the Township were
analyzed. This analysis supported the direction
of the policy plan and was first evaluated by the
Township Planning Commission, and then by
Township citizens at the third town meeting.
Next, key elements of the plan and proposed
strategies to cany it out were first reviewed by
the Township Planning Commission, and then
by Township citizens at the fourth and final
town meeting.
These goals and policies also look beyond
local boundaries to the issues which affect the
region. This was accomplished through the joint
comprehensive planning process, where representatives of the City of Saugatuck and the
Village of Douglas participated in the preparation of joint goals and policies for the region.
Thus, these goals and policies are premised on
a pledge to mutually cooperate in guiding development consistent with the adopted goals and
objectives of the Joint 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, objectives, and policies
that comprise the policy portion of this compre-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-2
hensive plan. These goals and policies will serve
as a guide for land use and infrastructure decisions in Saugatuck Township. 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. and the joint plan. It is intended that the
goals and policies be consulted whenever considering future land use decisions.
TOWNSHIP CHARACTER
Goal: Retain, enhance. and restore where
possible the quiet. scenic, and rural character
of the Township.
Policy: Protect existing rural areas not
served by sewer and water through presexvation
of open space and agricultural activity intermixed with very low density residential land
uses.
Objective: Increase enforcement of existing
ordinances and regulations to better preserve
the established character of the Township and
promote official goals, objectives. and policies.
GROWfH 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 cost effective in relation to service extension.
Policy: Preserve wetlands, woodlots, and
other wildlife areas wherever possible.
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, objectives, and policies of this plan.
Policy: Encourage new land uses and densities/ intensities of development which are consistent with and complement the character.
economic base. and Image of the area. and
which are sited consistent with this plan and
zoning regulations.
Policy: Consider the impact of land use
planning and zoning changes on Saugatuck and
Douglas, 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: Promote site planning and design of
new development which is consistent with the
established character of the Township and compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Objective: Improve the visual appearance of
entrances into the Township through landscape
designs. signs, and land development which
promote the vitality and character of the Township without clutter or safety hazards.
Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing a sign ordinance which is consistent with
the City of Saugatuck and Village of Douglas.
Objective: Develop a program to plant and
maintain trees along Blue Star Highway and to
encourage their maintenance along other roads
in the Township, especially along I-196.
LAND USE & COMMUNI'IY 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 coordinating planning
and zoning, 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: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historically significant structures.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-3
Policy: Provide for necessary community
facilities (i.e. schools, garages. fire halls. etc .)
consistent with this plan and capital improvement programming.
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: Coordinate Capital Improvement
Programming with the City of Saugatuck and
Village of Douglas.
Policy: Discourage the establishment of
high density livestock and poultry operations
(see Chapter 10).
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
goals and policies identified in this plan.
Policy: Advise developers during site plan
review to contact the State Archaeologist, Bureau of History (51 7-373-6358) 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: Discourage the conversion of prime
agricultural land to other uses.
Policy: Discourage spot development of
non-agricultural activities in agricultural areas
to preserve the economic viability of farming and
maintain the rural character of the Township.
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 Preservation 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.).
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 consistent with the character of the
Township and its ability to provide needed public services.
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. and preparing
promotional materials which highlight the attractions of the Township.
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 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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-4
Policy: Promote the development of small,
commercial centers off of major roads, rather
than lot by lot commercial strips.
phasizes the design guidelines contained in this
plan.
Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each
business where feasible and encourage centrally
placed parking lots which serve several businesses.
INDUSTRIAL
Policy: Discourage unsafe and unsightly
strip commercial development through design
and landscaping requirements including but
not limited to berms, planting, rear parking,
clustered shopping areas, and/ or shared access.
Goal: Increase the amount of non-polluting
light industry in the Township without damaging the environment, spoiling the scenic beauty
of the area. or overburdening local roads. utilities, or other public services.
Policy: Improve existing commercial areas.
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
minimize service costs and negative impacts on
other land uses.
Policy: Improve the quality, vitality, and
value of Township commercial districts through
sign regulations which control the design and
location of signs.
Policy: Identify appropriate locations for
small industrial parks which conform to the
design guidelines contained in this plan, the
joint plan, and local zoning regulations.
Blue Star Highway
Policy: Encourage industrial development
in the area on the east side of Blue Star Highway,
adjacent to the commercial area and north of
exit 36.
Policy: Encourage new commercial uses to
locate contiguous to existing commercial development in Douglas and as sewer and water
become available, along other sections of Blue
Star Highway.
Policy: Establish large frontage requirements for commercial property along Blue Star
Highway to prevent traffic hazards as the land
uses change.
Policy: Require frontage roads for commercial strip development along Blue Star Highway
wherever feasible.
Objective: Prepare a subarea plan and design concept for the Blue Star Highway commercial corridor which identifies appropriate land
uses and is consistent with the design guidelines, goals, objectives, and policies contained in
this plan.
Freeway Interchange Areas
Policy: Encourage appropriate highway service commercial development in the freeway
interchange areas on Blue Star Highway.
Objective: Prepare a subarea plan and design concept for the freeway interchange areas
which identifies appropriate land uses and em-
Objective: 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.
Policy: Require the separation of industrial
sites from residential areas through buffers
made up of any combination of parking, commercial 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: Maintain "rural residential" with a
large minimum lot size as the primary residen-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
I
�1-5
tial land use in the township in those areas
where sewer and water are not available or
planned, but not in prime agricultural areas.
Policy: Encourage new rural residential development to locate adjacent to existing rural
residential uses and away from agricultural
uses to minimize sprawl and spot development
in agricultural areas.
Policy: Provide land through zoning for garden apartments, duplexes, and higher density
single family residential development near existing and planned public services, facilities, and
shopping areas.
Policy: Allow pole barns in rural residential
districts subject to height, setback, and location
requirements in the local wning ordinance.
Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low
intensity home occupations in residential areas
to preserve their stability and tranquility.
Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks
in residential areas where there is a demonstrated need and according to the ability of
residents to finance such improvements.
Objective: Adopt and enforce a basic property maintenance code and building code.
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.
WATERFRONT
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 along the Kalamazoo
River, Kalamazoo Lake, Goshorn Lake, Lake
Michigan and connecting streams, creeks, and
drainageways to protect and enhance the scenic
beauty of these waterfront areas, and permit the
continuity of these existing open spaces to remain.
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.
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 actMty by limiting the type and intensity of land development in those areas.
Objective: 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.
Objective: Devise regulations for land development in special environments which permit
development consistent with identified protection objectives and which complement state and
federal regulations for special environments.
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
visual access and the natural beauty of the
waterfront for the broader public.
Policy: Explore the conversion of road ends
which abut water bodies 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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-6
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
and the City of Saugatuck, and other jurisdictions/ agencies if possible, through the use of
local funds, grants and loans, and capital improvement programming.
Objective: Survey the transportation network and identify need for maintenance and
improvements.
Objective: Prepare a capital improvement
budget for financing transportation maintenance and improvements.
Objective: Prepare a capital improvements
program to schedule and prioritize improvements and maintenance.
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 tum lanes, and
speed limit adjustments.
Policy: Promote the resurfacing and
restriping of Blue Star Highway and the adoption of a uniform 45 mph speed limit to improve
traffic safety and flow.
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: Encourage local government participation in activities designed to enhance the
area's seasonal festivals.
Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath
through local funds, grants and loans, and capital improvement programming.
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.
Policy: Maintain the sidewalk system and
require developers to provide sidewalks in appropriate locations through subdivision regulations.
Objective: Investigate developing a joint
public marina and launch facility where federal
and state funding is available to assist with
financing such a venture.
Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, affordable, and dependable public transportation to
increase the mobility and quality of life of those
who depend on public transportation.
TRANSPORTATION
Objective: Encourage expansion of the interurban system consistent with municipal
means to finance the increased service and an
identified public need.
Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and eflkient
road network and improve roads to promote
growth in a way that is consistent with land use
goals, objectives and policies.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-7
Policy: Strive to keep Lakeshore Drive scenic, residential, and open to motorized and nonmotorized traffic.
Objective: Establish alternatives for insuring that homeowners along Lakeshore Drive
have access to their property if erosion of
Lakeshore Drive cannot be abated.
Objective: Apply the boulevard concept to
Bluestar Highway between freeway exits #36
and #41 to control access, improve traffic safety
and flow. and improve the visual appearance of
this highly travelled corridor which provides the
principal means of access to each of the three
jurisdictions.
WATER AND SEWER
Goal: Insure a safe and adequate 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.
Objective: Prepare and implement a plan for
the carefully timed provision of sewer and water
service in the area consistent with the development goals and objectives of this plan.
Objective: 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
services are met.
Policy: Promote a joint agreement with the
City of Saugatuck and Village of Douglas to plan
and implement areawide sewer and water service, including full participation in the
Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority.
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
services consistent with public need and the
ability to finance improvements in the most cost
effective manner.
Policy: Consolidate police. fire , and other
emergency services across the three communities to eliminate overlap in service and expenditures and improve service delivery.
Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24
hour medical service which serves all three communities to be provided by a public or private
entity.
SOCIAL SERVICES
Goal: Those social services 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) in appropriate locations
to provide quality and affordable day care to
working parents.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Goal: Insure the safe, effective, and efficient
disposal of solid waste and toxic substances.
Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid
waste through recycling, composting, waste-toenergy 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.
Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer
and water service into an area is consistent with
the planned intensity of land use for that area,
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1-8
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;
• Arrangements for inspection of. and monitoring underground storage tanks;
• Existing underground storage tanks must
provide spill protection around the fill pipe
by 1998 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
conservation 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, subdivision layout. proximity to goods and services.
etc .. and encourage or implement these through
wning and subdivision regulations.
Policy: Require 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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�-
'Jj
2-1
Chapter2
DEMOGRAPffiCS
POPULATION SIZE
The Township's population has more than
doubled since 1950. reaching an estimated
1,910 people in 1986 according to U.S. Census
population estimates. This represents a 107%
increase from 1950 to 1980. The Township's
growth of 40% since 1970 has been especially
dramatic compared to the gradual population
gains of the City and Village (see Table 2 .1).
SEASONAL POPULATION
The population of each community in the
trt-community area swells during the summer
when seasonal residents and tourists return.
The 1980 census estimates that 116 (14%) of the
Township's 850 total housing units are vacant.
seasonal, and migratory. Nearly all of these (106)
are detached single family units.
An engineering study prepared by
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber for the
Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority
(KLSWA) estimates that the total trt-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 trt-community area increased about 300/4 between 19801986, whereas population increased by an
average of 20%. This reflects the impact of the
seasonal and tourist population on local services.
HOUSEHOIDS 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 trt-community area
declined, going from 2.98 in 1960 to 2 .39 in
1980. The average household size in the Township was 2.69. Smaller household size means a
greater number of households. lf the average
household size in 1960 held true today, there
would be about 300 fewer individual households
in the area.
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 utilities. Although
household size has declined substantially over
the past few decades. national trends suggest
that it will soon cease its decline. Nationwide the
average household size has reached a plateau
and state demographers predict that Michigan
will follow suit.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Historical age cohort data is available on a
regional basis and 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 population, however, has remained
constant (see Figure 2 . 1). This is out of keeping
with statewide trends and suggests that the area
TABLE 2.1
POPULATION ( 1950-1980)
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1950
770
845
447
2,062
1960
927
1,133
602
2,662
1970
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
Sourt:e: U.S. Ce:n&Js Bureau
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
1980
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
CHANGE
40%
107%
112%
83%
�,
2-2
FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 2.1
AGE COHORTS (1980)
AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980)
ALLEGAN COUNTY
ARE
A
§
,mm,
1!l60
-,gee
19
p
E
17
R
13
C
E
N
,,
T
7
17
15
9
p
E
R
15
C
E
N
T
11
13
9
5.+-----,...--,----r--"T""""'-----...--,--......
5-14
Q-4
15-24
3-1---~-...--~---.--~-~----,
0-14
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-«
45-5'
55-64
65+
25-34
35-«
45-5'
55-64
65+
AGE GROUP
AGE GROUP
the area's senior population: the City of
Saugatuck comprises 37% (despite its small
size): and the Village of Douglas. 24%.
FIGURE 2.3
AGE COHORTS (1980)
EDUCATION
SAUGATUCK TWP.
18
p
E
R
Saugatuck Township has a well educated
citizeruy. An analysis of those aged 25 and older
1n 1980 reveals that 31.3% have completed 1 or
more years of college (see Figure 2.4). Table 2.2
contains complete information on the educational status of persons 25 years old and over
by jurisdiction.
14
12
c
10
E
N
a
T
6
4+-~-~-...--~-~--.---,
Q-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-«
45-5'
55-64
65+
AGE GROUP
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
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.
Figure 2.2 and 2.3 depicts the 1980 age
c·ohort distribution 1n the Township (not including the City and Village}, and Allegan County,
for comparison. In accordance with countywide
trends. the Township has a small cohort of
infants and toddlers. The most striking characteristic of the Township is its huge cohort of
45-54 year olds and senior citizens. In regional
terms, Saugatuck Township comprises 39% of
Three school districts, Fennville Public
School District, the Saugatuck Public School
District, and the Hamilton Public School District, serve the Township (see Map 2.1). The
Hamilton School District includes only a small
area of the northeast corner of the Township.
The Fennville School District covers the southern half of the Township, and the Saugatuck
Public School District covers the central portion
of the Township, plus Douglas and Saugatuck.
Thus, the Saugatuck Public School District
serves the majority of the area's households.
TABLE 2.2
EDUCATIONAL STATUS
PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER
SAUGATUCK
TOWNSHIP
Elementary
1-3 years HS
4 years HS
1-3 years College
4+ years College
185
199
373
157
188
SAUGATUCK
CTIY
57
97
276
137
196
DOUGLAS
73
84
213
123
84
AREA
315
380
862
417
468
,,,--....,
r
-._J
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�2-3
FIGURE 2.4
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980
PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
40
p
35
[ill] TOWNSHIP
30
•
CITY
[Z:l VILLAGE
25
E
R
C
E
N
T
20
15
10
5
0
ELEMENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S.
4 YRS H.S.
FIGURE 2.5
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
GRADES K-12
BOO
E
750
N
R
700
0
L
L
M
E
N
T
1-3 YRS COLL.
4 YRS COLL
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 2.6). School enrollment data appears in Table 2.3.
Future elementary and high school enrollments were projected by the Saugatuck Public
650
TABLE 2.3
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
600
550
500 -+--,--.....-..........--.---.-...........................,...................................
13-14 75-76 n -78 1s-eo 81-82 83-84 85-86 87-68
YEAR
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 ,
went from 770 students to 511- a 34% decline
(see Figure 2.5). When divided into elementary
YEAR
K-6
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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
7-12
329
322
299
290
303
296
277
265
246
215
TOTAL
655
629
605
542
535
555
527
540
545
511
�r
2-4
FIGURE 2.6
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS
360
340
E
N
R
0
L
L
M
E
N
T
320
300
280
I
I
260
240
220
PROJECTIONS
\ ~
200
180+-----.-...--,--.--""T"""~-T""""--.--,r--r---r--..---r---,
79-80
81-82
83-84
85-86
87-88
89-90
91-92
93-94
YEAR
School system. These projections. illustrated in
Figure 2.6. show an upturn in high school enrollments in 1991 with a continued climb in
elementary school enrolhnents. Total projected
1994 enrollments. however. are still 23% less
than 1973-7 4 levels.
FUTURE TRENDS
If local demographic trends follow those
projected for the county as they have in the past,
then the overall proportion of retirees in the area
will expand much faster than that of school age
children. The Michigan Department of 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 of retiree in-migration suggest this
will be equally true in the Township.
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 the
Village should result in a natural increase in
young children. but because couples are having
fewer children. school enrolhnents 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. Two key factors
will be the availability of affordable housing and
nearby employment opportunities. In the meantime, schools must use space and resources
efficiently as they experience tighter budgets
and small enrollments.
Many of the demographic characteristics
shown here have been analyzed based on 1980
census information. These trends should be
updated when the 1990 census information is
available. See Appendix B for more demographic
information from the 1980 census.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
H OL
MAP 2.1 PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Saugatuck
~
Fennville
D
Hamilton
DATA SOURCE: Respective School Districts
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
August 1989
SA
I ,
DOUG
�3-1
Chapter3
THE ECONOMY
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
Kalamazoo 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 3()()0/4 increase in park
ECONOMIC BASE
Tourism
Tourism fuels the economy of the tri-community area, with associated boating, restaurant, lodging, and strong retail sectors.
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;
Oval Beach; downtown Saugatuck; sand dunes:
TABLE 3.1
IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986
TOT.TRAVEL
TRAVEL
EXPENDITURES GENER. PAYROLL
$42,413,000
.$/Jobs
.56%
% of State Total
29.52%
%change
1983-86
TRAVEL
GENER. EMPLOYMENT
STATE TAX
RECEIIYfS
LOCAL TAX
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 Travel on Michigan Countle..·
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
Metal Stampings
Office Furniture
Nursing Home
Manufacturing
Marina
Supermarket
Machinery
Pies
EMPLOYEES
43
238
78
12
21
32
24
85
Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�3-2
FIGURE 3.1
EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY
PUBLIC
fill
CITY
■ VILLAGE
~ TOWNSHIP
@ COUNTY
SERVICES
FIN/INS/REAL EST
RETAIL
WHOLESALE
TRANS/COMM/UTIL
MANUFACTURING
CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
0
10
5
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 tri-community area? Although
current travel and tourism statistics are not
available for the tri-community 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
TOTAL
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
TCU •
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
FIRE••
Services
Public Admin.
CTIY
VILIAGE
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, Utillities
•• Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
Saugatuck Township 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
CITY
VILIAGE
TOWNSHIP
AREA
COUN1Y
547
77
87
70
72
13
66
433
34
62
24
45
73
13
70
60
90
39
22
685
43
74
83
74
73
43
144
120
31
1,665
154
223
170
189
231
126
210
270
92
34,025
2 ,315
3 ,319
2,696
4,189
4,300
1,885
5,447
6,129
3,745
63
Source: 1980 U.S . Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
Manqfacturing
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 farming 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 in
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 farming 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. Com, wheat,
and soybeans are other major cash crops. Some
farms also have livestock- primarily hogs and
dairy cattle. Nurseries are a strong agri-business in the area. Rich Products, a major employer in the area, is another category of
agri-business, which was attracted to the region
because of its many fruit farms. The future of
agri-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-cornmunity area and the
county in 1980. This information is illustrated
in graphic form in Figure 3.1. Manufacturing
employs the most people in each of the three
communities. Yet employment in other sectors
varies. 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
of the labor force employed in agriculture (5%)
is low compared to the amount of agricultural
actMty, 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.
Table 3.4 breaks down employment by occupation in 1980. The Township has the highest
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�3-4
FIGURE 3.3
FIGURE 3.2
AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT
MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA, 1988
2.8
2700
T
2.6
H
2.4
0
2.2
E
2.0
M
u
s
A
2650
p
1.8
L
0
2600
2550
N
D
1.4
y
2500
s
1.2
M
2450
1.0+-----------1984
1986
1988
1990
1980
1982
YEAR
E
N
2400
T
2350
proportion of crafts and repair personnel in the
region, representing employment generated by
Broward Marine, Inc. - a major builder ofluxury
boats. Machine operators are second, and sales
workers- probably employed in the City and
Village- are the third largest employment category in the Township. The proportion of professional/technical and service workers is also
high.
2300+---.---,,-.----r---.---,,-.----r---.---,,~
J
F
M A M J
J
MONTH
FIGURE 3.4
TOURISM RELATED EMPLOYMENT, 1988
ALLEGAN COUNTY
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. (Employment data is not
available for individual communities in the trtcommunity area. The Michigan Employment Security Commission aggregates it for Saugatuck
Township, the Village of Douglas, and the City
of Saugatuck.) The trt-community area has a
TABLE 3.5
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
1ri-Communitv
1982
15.2
14.7
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
10.8
11.3
6.5
5.8
1988
5.2
County
14.8
14.3
10.5
10.9
7.3
5.6
5.1
State
15.5
14.2
11.2
9.9
8.8
8 .2
7.6
Source: MESC, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Field Analysl.9 Unit
A S O N D
1.2
E
1.0
MT
0.8
L o
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
p
H
au
y
!
MN
ED
Ns
T
IOOlffl1
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-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�3-3
FIGURE 3.6
ANNUALREALPROPERTYSEV
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87)
70
60
M
S~
E LI
VoN
50
40
s
30
=
Saugatuck
-
Douglas
=
Township*
-
Township**
20
10~~=="""T"""--,r----r-------.----,
1980 1981 1982 1983 19841985 1986 1987
YEAR
• not including Village(s)
•• including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984
nesses increased employment; a number of
small businesses and two restaurants opened;
and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corporation expanded adding two new departments.
Contributing to this was the state and regional
economic boom, and corresponding increases in
construction and spending. Figure 3.2 illustrates this trend.
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
FIGURE 3.7
Seasonal Employment
Local employment increases each summer
as tourists flood into the trt-community area.
.
FIGURE 3.5
PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE
TRI.COMMUNITY AREA (1980)
,.
REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988)
SAUGATIJCK TOWNSHIP & VIUAGE OF DOUGLAS
10
p
E
R
C
E
N
T
DEVELOPMENTAL 1%
AGRICULTURAL 5%
[ill
TOWNSHIP
■
CITY
~ VILLAGE
..
••
so
,.
,.
INDUSTRIAL 2%
...
LE8811WOS5
AGE
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�3-6
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.
assessed at a higher rate due to their high
development potential. comprised 1 %
($430,733) (see Figure 3.5) .
Figure 3.6 illustrates changes in annual
real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for
the Township. The City of Saugatuck was included in the Township's tax base prior to 1985,
when it became a city. This explains the sharp
drop in SEV for the Township between 1984 and
1985. SEV's are also shown for the Township
minus the Village(s) . The figure shows straight
line growth in the Township's tax base since
1980. More complete information on annual
Sev's and 1988 breakdowns can be found in
Appendix B.
TAX BASE
Residential uses make up the bulk of the
area's tax base. Tax base information is aggregated for the Township and Village of Douglas.
In 1988, residential uses comprised 76% of the
property tax base for the Township and Village
of Douglas ($43,730,725). Commercial uses
comprised 16% ($9,402,800) . Agriculture comprised 5% ($2,661,790). Industrial comprised
2% (%1,126,200). Developmental, a recently
created category which refers to lands which are
INCOME
Between 1979 and 1985, census estimates
show Saugatuck Township moving from 7th to
6th place in terms of per capita income in the
County with a 40.4% increase in per capita
income (see Table 3.6). (Per capita income in
1979 was $7,688 for the state and $6. 7 44 for
the county; in 1985 it was $10,902 for the state
and $9,346 for the county.)
TABLE 3.6
PER CAPITA INCOME ($), ALLEGAN COUNTY (TOP TEN)
Saugatuck
Laketown Township
Holland
Gunplain Township
Otsego Township
Plainwell
Saugatuck Township
Allegan Township
Leighton Township
Fillmore Township
1979
9031
8332
8125
8074
7437
7396
7286
7170
7051
7015
Laketown Township
Saugatuck
Holland
Gunplain Township
Otsego Township
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
Fillmore Township
Plainwell
Leighton Township
1985
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
level & above
TOWNSHIP
CTTY
VILLAGE
COUN1Y
16,412
7.1%
74%
15,182
8.6%
75%
14,963
11.3%
73%
17,906
8.00/4
71%
Source: 1980 Census of Population
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�3-7
Table 3. 7 reveals selected income and poverty characteristics by jurisdiction in the tricommunity area. Although the per capita
income in the Township has been consistently
higher than that of the county, the median
household income of $16,412, is lower. The
median household income is the point at which
500/2 of the households earn more and 500/2 earn
less. This statistic is more representative oflocal
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 in poverty goes down. Figure 3.7
reveals the proportion of those in poverty by age.
(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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�4-1
Chapter4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
Weather conditions affect the Township'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 growth in the
Township 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
Saugatuck Township 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. 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 l 930's to the
early l 950's. At present. there are no producing
wells in Saugatuck Township .
TOPOGRAPHY
Most of Saugatuck Township 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. 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
EXTREME 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
-11° F - -35° F
96° F - 106° F
Source: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�4-2
DRAINAGE
Most of the Township lies within the
Kalamazoo River Basin, which begins near
Jackson and extends westward into Saugatuck
Township (see Figure 4.1) . The extreme southwestern portion of the Township drains directly
into Lake Michigan. All of the watercourses
within the Township 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, undermining 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. All watercourses, including county
drains, are found on Map 4 .2 .
FIGURE 4.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER BASIN
Lake Huron
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 Saugatuck Township . 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.
WETLANDS
There are many wetlands in Saugatuck
Township. Most are contiguous to or hydrologically connected 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 Public Act 203
of 1979. PA 203 requires that permits be acquired from the Michigan Department ofNatural
Resources (DNR) 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 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
Lakes, an fnland lake or pond. or a river or
stream."
Lake Erle
Regulated wetlands include all wetland
areas greater than 5 acres or those contiguous
to waterways. Wetlands which are hydrologically connected (i.e. via groundwater) 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 ex-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�4-3
TABLE4.2
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 Classification
System
• Wetlands are sometimes, but not always associated
with these land cover types.
isting roads and streets within existing rightsof-way. maintenance or operation of pipelines
less than six inches in diameter. and maintenance or operation of electric transmission and
distribution power lines.
Permits will not be issued if a feasible or
prudent alternative to developing a wetland exists. 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 southcentral part of the Township would likely be
classified as wetlands if they were not in agricultural use and served by county drains.
Of Township residents responding to the
1988 Public Opinion Survey, over 70% indicated
that they are in favor of no new development in
wetland areas.
son.s
A modem soil survey was completed for
Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service in March, 1987. The soil types present
in Saugatuck Township are 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 lim-
itations 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 have
severe limitations on residential and urban development. The degree of soil limitations reflects
the hardship and expense of developing the
land. Fortunately. most of the soils which are
not suited for intensive 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 .5. 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 Saugatuck Township 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 very 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 comer of the Township
and in the southwestern portion of Douglas.
Most parts of the Township that are likely to
experience future growth have moderate to severe limitations for on-site septic systems. Map
4.6 shows the septic limitations for the Township. This map suggests the need for municipal
sewers to accommodate new development in
many areas.
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.
Map 4. 7 provides this more detailed analysis of
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�4-4
severe limitations on septic tank absorption
fields. The "severe" soils have been categorized
as follows:
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 Conservation 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 Saugatuck Township have
been designated by the Allegan County Health
Department as unsuitable for new development
without sewers. Among these areas are 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 (see Map
4.7a). These are in Sections 3 and 4 and the
Goshorn Lake area, which have 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 Health Department
standards by development type.
Single Family Residential
Before a permit is considered, there must
be at least 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 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 Saugatuck Township, 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.
Prime Farmland
Prime farmland soil types have been identified by the Soil 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�4-5
fanning 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 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 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· 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 bluffline recession has proceeded at a long term average of
1 foot or more peryear. The entire Lake Michigan
shoreline in the Township has been designated
as a high risk erosion area. 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 DNRreview and permit, unless
the local unit of government has an approved
high risk erosion area ordinance, as does
Saugatuck Township.
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 area which is in
Saugatuck Township and the City of Saugatuck
has been identifl.ed 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
Saugatuck Township 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 ultimately 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 Saugatuck Township
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 ofI-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
areas along the rivers and streams, the forested
sand dunes between the Kalamazoo River and
Lake Michigan, and the extensive wooded areas
buffering adjacent uses from 1-196 are especially important. They should be managed to
insure their long term existence.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
0
4,000
Scale 1"
8,000
= 9060 ft
MAP4.1 TOPOGRAPHY
Saugatuck Township
Contour interval is ten feet
Darker lines are 50 foot contours
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Maps
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�•
+
N
13eT H
AVC.
A
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
r---+--
A'_;__ _ _
____,·!
::;
,.
!
!
··•,
25
-
•
28
".
:t
i
r
-
i
•
.
i
-~
33
;·.,..•-"",
I
~
.
'••••._
•
36
.....
•
l, T .3N.R 16W
•..
MAP 4.2 WATERCOURSES
Saugatuck Township
Lakes, rivers and streams
Drains and intermittent streams
August 1989
·. DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�+
N
A
0
4,000
1.3ST M N .
_L
.. I
.,,~;~-;~. I
8,000
Scale 1• = 9060 ft
12.T M
s,
AV£ .
0
28
25
• 27
33
T3N,R 1 6W
....
W-89
MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS
■
100 Year Flood Area
~
500 Year Flood Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:MDNR
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�•
N
A
O
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
Saugatuck Township
MAP 4.4 WETLANDS
■
■
II
Lowland Hardwood
Lowland Conifer
Wooded Swamp
August 1989
II
■
■
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Shrub Swamp
II
Marshland Meadow &
Mud Flats
Herbaceous Rangeland
~
Shrub Rangeland
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
,.._.._.
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS
Ill
Severe
■
Excavated
ffiIII]
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
LJ
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County :
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�■
N
A
0
4,000
Scale 1"
8,000
= 9060 ft
MAP 4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
lllffl
mm
Severe
■
Excavated
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
LJ
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County :
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 It
Scale 1" ... 9060 ft
MAP 4.7 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
~ Sandy, moderate to rapid
~ permeability
~ Rapid permeability, wetness
S of highwater table
1§111 Wet, ponding, heavier
l!ll!I clay soils.slow permeability
August 1989
fll
Moderate Limitations
HJ
Slight Limitations
■ Excavated
. ,· DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Alleg. Cnty Hitt, Dept
Saugatuck Township
Sand Dunes
Wetland Soils
Very wet soils, organics,
wetlands, floodplains
Planning & Zoning Cen18r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�■
----------------------r-----1
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
-
l
!
l
!
I
T
I
I
:
r,'
:
,.~
"1---J' T
_/
I
==~ ;
~
/,
.·
- V---- -------!
8
.
IO
. I
(. !I
Ii ( !
(~,\V':'&:.!
' l-
r--------,--«-f
!
a
21
I
It
. r,
.....
.25
...
'•'
MAP 4.7 A
38
Saugatuck Township
""11: ll'lfft ■
l'PWTIK....,IA.C.N.D.I
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS
FKl NO. 2
-·~
..............
...._
----··-
�N
A
0
4,000
Scale 1"
8,000
= 9060 ft
1
'
,
~~
_,,,.
\
/ /
I \
~.j
,
I
~
)
\:::::,
(
4: \
i
,,.\
(~ ~
~1\-t
0/
l
~(orE1~ j' ~r,~
>
.J
CJ
)(_V~/l
MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS
1111
Soils Most Suitable For Development
■
Excavated Areas
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
-
,-......
0
4,000
Scale 1"
8,000
= 9060 ft
MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS
II
Hydric Soils
~
Wetland Soils
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
,..____
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 4.10 PRIME FARMLANDS
II
Saugatuck Township
Prime Farmlands
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
Scale 1"
8,000
= 9060 ft
MAP 4.11 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY
II
Areas most susceptible to contamination
■
Excavated Areas
~
Wetland Soils
August 1989
..
DATA SOURCE : USDA Soils Survey & Alleg. Hlth Dept.
Saugatuck Township
.,,
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
8,000
4,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
A
0
•
',
W-119A
MAP4.12 WATERWELLS
0
Saugatuck Township
Well Location
August 1989
DATA SOURCE :MI Groundwater Survey
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
..
,._.._M
O
4,000
..
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
_o
.._
MAP 4.13 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS
Accretion Area
Saugatuck Township
Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in
feet per year
Recession Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4 ,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
..•
12aT M
f
A.VL
0
~
0
z
~- ·"'
~
t2• T M
A.VC .
/'
"•
a.. ....
11-89
MAP 4.14 Critical Dune Areas
l:23
Saugatuck Township
Critical Dune Areas
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : MONR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
P----0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
...
Saugatuck Township
MAP 4.15 WOODLANDS
[II
Lowland Hardwood
1111
Upland Hardwood
Eill.
Lowland Conifer
August 1989
,
,.,,,
,,,,
l'l'I'"
Upland Con if er
~
Wooded Swamp
IIJ
Shrub Swamp
DATA SOURCE: MONA
~
./
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
.CI•
�3-1
Chapter5
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 Township (see Map 5.1). This
data was obtained in computerized 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 interpretation
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 Saugatuck Township
conducted in the summer of 1988. The inventory
was based on ownership parcels and conducted
both on foot and through a "windshield survey".
The existing 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 (parcelbased) 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 Saugatuck Township 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 Township
is agricultural. This is followed by single family
residential. Vacant land comprises forty six percent of the total land area (street ROWs excluded) of the Township.
AGRICULTURAL
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
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. Prime farmlands are shown on Map 4.10.
TABLE 15.1
EXISTING LAND USE
LAND USE
ACRES
%
TIAMSROW-
Residential
single-family
1317
multi-family
8
mobile home
25
Commercial
126
Industrial
58
Institutional
268
Agricultural
3914
Parks
40
Golf Courses
111
Boat Storage &
29
Service
Kalamazoo
954
River Wetland
Streets & Roads
1340
Vacant
6985
Commer.4..3.
cial/Residentlal
TOTAL
15180
8.68%
0.05
0.16
0.83
0.38
1.77
25.78
0.26
0.73
0.19
6 .28
8.83
46.01
0...00.
100%
• % of total land area minus street ROW's
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�•
5-2
Unique Farmlands
Unique farmland is land other than prime
farmland for the production of specific highvalue food crops, such as vegetables, and tree,
vine and beny fruits. Although these areas are
not prime farmland, 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.
Michigan Farmland Preservation Act
The Michigan Farmland Preservation Act of
1974 (PA 116) allows landowners to enter into a
voluntary agreement with the State whereby
their 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 intensive development
because of soil limitations. Alternatives to conversion of agricultural land should be considered when land use decisions are made.
RESIDENTIAL
The majority of residential development in
Saugatuck Township is scattered along county
roads and along the Lake Michigan Shore. Very
little is concentrated in subdivisions. Most resort-residential development is located along the
Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. Single
family structures are the predominant residential type. There is one area of multiple family
structures in the Township (section 3), and two
mobile home parks in the southern half of the
Township. Mobile homes on individual lots are
largely located in the southwest portion of the
Township. The character of existing residential
areas within Saugatuck Township is described
below in relation to particular planning districts
(see Map 5.4).
Lakeshore Area
The Lake Michigan shore in the Township
is fronted by many large single family homes
along Lakeshore Drive for 3.5 miles from M-89
to the Village of Douglas. 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 some lots are very long and narrow.
Southern Agricultural Area
This part of the Township consists of large
and small farms, orchards, and a growing number of single family homes on large lots (20+
acres) . Typically, these homes are located along
the county roads at the perimeter of each section. In addition to scattered development on
large lots, there is the Pepper Brooke Subdivision in Section 22. This development has 38 lots
on approximately 35 acres. However, homes
have been constructed on only about 7 of the
lots in the 17 years this since this subdivision
was platted. This is not an appropriate area for
further subdivision development.
Kalamazoo River Area
Much of this area 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). There are three
subdivisions in this area: the Kalamazoo-Newport Subdivision in Section 15, Buwolda's Silver
Acres in Section 14, and theJillmarSubdivision
in Section 11. 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 developmentaside 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.
Northeast Area
The northeastern corner of the Township
has a mix of woodlands and farms, with some
steep slopes. Residential development is mostly
on large lots (40+ acres), with some on small lots
(less than 10 acres) within large lots. There are
no subdivisions. Portions of this area west of
63rd. Street have an extremely junky appearance, with rubble strewn about yards in random
fashion and a junkyard located at 63rd. Street
and Old Allegan Road. Non-residential uses are
also mixed with residential uses along Old Allegan Road-especially near the sewage treatment plant. This should be discontinued.
North Blue Star Highway Area
This area has a mixture of wooded, wetland,
and open areas for recreation, including a large
golf course. The only multiple family structures
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�r
Saugatuck Township
MAP 5.1 LAND USE/COVER
WATER
URBAN
LJ
~
■
.........
~
113 Single Family
115 Mobile Home
124 Neighborhood Business
126 Other Institutional
193 Outdoor Recreation
FARMLAND
□
~
~
~
IIIlm
52 Lakes
WETLAND
611 Wooded Swamps
612 Shrub Swamps
621 Marshland Meadow
622 Mud Flats
21 Cropland
BEACH
22 Orchards
72 Beach At Riverbank
73 Dunes
RANGELAND
fll
Ill
31 Herbaceous Rangeland
32 Shrub Rangeland
WOODLAND
412}
414}Broadleaf
421}
429}Conifers
!
I
C
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : MONA
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�Saugatuck Township
LAND USE/COVER
N
A
-.
:i!~~i
:::g1gjiiig1g~::,
:H::H::::::::::::::
~~H~~j~~iiiii~!i~~~~
::::H::::;;;;;:::;;;
·igmmmi::m
,,::,
::::::
~~j~!~
:~m~
:Htt:
g\11~
~~~ill
:::;:::
~~~~
":::Hj
:i::.
�r
Saugatuck Township
MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE
■ Single Family Residential
Iii
Mulltiple Family Residential
■
Residential/Commercial
Agricultural - Orchard
,..,..,,.
■ Commercial
~m
Recreational
■
Junkyard
~llllm
Mobile Home Park
mml Boat Storage/Marina
Vacant
!33!!!!!:i
hH
~ Wetland
Industrial
11illill 1nstitutional
D
Water
■ Agricultural
August 1989
SOURCE: PZC Land Use Survey
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�Saugatuck Township
EXISTING LAND USE
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 It
Scale 1• = 9060 ft
PA 116LANDS&
3
5
MAP · UNIQUE FARMLANDS
■ PA 116 Lands
Saugatuck Township
m
Unique Farmlands
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MONA
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
,...0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 5.4 PLANNING AREAS
mLakeshore
~
North Blue Star
■ Southern Agricultural
~
Riverfront
■ Northeast
■
Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Saug. Town. Plan. Commisssion
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Cenl8r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�w
5-3
in the Township are located where Blue Star
Highway and Washington Road intersect. Most
of the single family residences are located away
from Blue Star Highway and lot sizes vary
widely. The Herhann SubdMsion is the only one
in the North Blue Star area. This area is characterized by a wide variety of land uses, some of
them incompatible with existing residences.
Riverfront - Dunes Area
Along the Kalamazoo River, immediately
north of the City of Saugatuck, are some residential uses. The rest of the area is unspoiled
wetland. sand dunes, and beaches. The residential areas are mostly on small lots fronting the
Kalamazoo River. This area has a distinct
wooded. rural character, even though it is located close to the City of Saugatuck and Blue
Star Highway.
and a mixture of small retail establishments.
Blue Star Highway 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 highway interchanges.
Other Commercial
Other commercial activities scattered
throughout the Township include a marina on
the south side of Kalamawo River in Section 23.
a junkyard in Section 11, and a motel on
Lakeshore Drive in Section 20. None of these
uses are compatible with the predominant land
uses in the area and further commercial development should not be justified in this area based
on their existence.
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
The major commercial area in Saugatuck
Township is in the northern part of the Township along Blue Star Highway. Commercial development in the rest of the Township is very
limited.
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 una4ractive, environmentally incompatible, and
potentially dangerous. The negative effects of
strip commercial areas 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 minimizing "asphalt
landscaping". Siting new development further
back from the highway and retaining a natural
buffer strip would be a major improvement.
Sixty-five percent of people responding to the
1988 Public Opinion Survey indicated that they
did not want to see further strip commercial
development in the future.
Commercial uses along Blue Star Highway
include restaurants, gas stations, boat service,
motels. a junkyard. a campground. small offices
Industrial development is limited in
Saugatuck Township. Less than 1% of the total
land area is devoted to industrial uses. Industrial actMty includes 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 Township is lack of adequately sited land
served with good public facilities (sewer and
water). Saugatuck Township is located 150
miles from Detroit, 180 miles from Chicago and
36 miles from 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.
Of Township residents responding to the
1988 Public Opinion Survey, 49% favored more
industrial development in the Township, 28%
were opposed, and 23% were uncertain.
HISTORIC & .ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATIJRES
Many archaeological sites and some historic sites can be found in Saugatuck Township.
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 two State his-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�fS-4
torte sites in Saugatuck Township, 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, unlike similar designations under fed-
will be affected, archaeologists will negotiate a
voluntary agreement to preserve those artifacts.
The Bureau of History serves in an advisory
capacity and has no legal authority to restrict
development rights.
TABLE 5.2
STATE HISTORIC SITES
DESCRIPTION
WCATION
Saru1atuck Townshlo
Shiver's Inn (historic
name), Oxbow Inn (common name)
Built in 1860's,
originally used
as a resort during lumbering
era. In 1910Art
Institute of Chicago used it for
summer art
school.
Hacklander Site (National Section 23
Historic Site)
Source: Michigan Bureau of History
eral law.
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 Saugatuck Township, mostly related to Ottawa and Potawatomi
cultures. Their exact locations have not been
disclosed by the Bureau of History in order 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 Michigan Bureau of History reviews these projects to
assess their impact on archaeological sites.
The Bureau of History also recommends
that those proposing development projects in
Saugatuck Township contact the State Archaeologist to determine 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
6-1
Chapter6
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
NON-PARK PUBUC FACIIJTIES
A listing of all non-park public facilities in
Saugatuck Township 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. 1.
UTILITIES
Sewer and Water
The 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 participating 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 6.2 and 6.3, 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 the- Township,
due to the fact that the soils are not suitable for
multi-family or commercial septic systems, and
in many areas even residential development is
not appropriate except at very low density. If this
continues. development in the Township may be
brought to a standstill because of a lack of public
utilities.
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 Saugatuck
Township, if provided, 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
TABLE 6.1
(NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES INVENTORY
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
NAME
LOCATION
USE
Township
Hall
36Center
St.. Douglas
1\vp offices,
Saugatuck
Riverside
Cemetery
Douglas
Cemetery
Douglas
North annex
cemeterv
• Land = acres
135th &
Blue Star
130th
south side
130th
northside
SIZE•
CONDITION VALUE
56'xl20'
interurban of- (45'x64')
fices, Douglas police, 2
rental apartments
1350'x730'
Burial
Average
Burial
690'x440'
Average
Burial
330'x530'
Average
Below average
or square feet (Building = Square feet)
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
$175,000$200,000
�6-2
feasible. The absence of a 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 existing water system, consisting of the
City of Saugatuck and Village of Douglas pipelines, does not serve Saugatuck 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 reserve needed for fire protection
(600,000 gallons) down to 2/3 of the needed
amount. A moratorium has been imposed on
new development other than one or two family
dwellings.
Communications from the Michigan Department of Public Health have demanded that
substantial 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
additional 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 estimated 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 service area 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 serve the needs of
Saugatuck Township, the City of Saugatuck and
the Village of Douglas well into the future. This,
combined with a desire to retain local control
over the water system, makes using Lake Michigan water the favored alternative.
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
for the near future, but additional capacity is
needed if service were extended to the southern
portions of the Township.
If a water system is installed in the Township, the best arrangement for water mains is
the gridiron system. Using this system, 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 portion of the service area will be
affected in the event of a break.
Sewer System
Wastewater treatment is provided at a treatment plant located in Section 10 of Saugatuck
Township. 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.
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 (million gallons per day) for
the Township to use the system until 2008.
Thirty year projections for wastewater treatment
for Saugatuck Township include extending serTABLE6.2
PROJECTED SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
WASTEWATER FLOWS
AVERAGE DAY - MGD
PERIOD
Immediate
10-year
20-year
30-year
NORI'H
SOUTII
0 .07
0.28
0.43
0.65
0 .05
0 .19
0 .31
0 .53
TOTAL
0.13
0 .47
0 .74
1.18
Source: Saurtuck Township Area Utility Service
Study, Marc 1988.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
6-3
vice to the south lakeshore residential area and
the area of the Township northeast of 1-196.
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) is 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 300/4 of
suspended solids capacity. Existing effluent
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 $900,000 in 1987.
The two basic alternatives for expanding the
wastewater collection system to 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 no mapped stormwater drains in
Saugatuck Township except for county drains.
Drainage has not been a significant problem in
the northern part of the Township because of
sandy, high permeability soils and lack of large
paved areas.
County Drains
County Drains are found throughout
Saugatuck Township, but mostly in the southern portion. 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 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 Michigan. which
are being eroded by groundwater. Other County
drains in the area are located in the northeast
comer of the Township, east of Saugatuck and
south of Douglas. County drain names and
locations are shown on Table 6.3.
TABLE 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
-
---
-
-·
- - - - - - -- - -
LOCATION
Sections 2, 11
Section 12
Section 12
Section 3, Saugatuck
Section 10
Section 10
Section 35
Section 36
Section 36
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
�6-4
Gas, Electric and Telephone
There are no major gas or oil pipelines in
Saugatuck Township. Gas service is provided by
Michigan Gas Utilities Company and approximate locations of gas mains are shown on Map
6.4. There is one major 760 kilovolt electric
transmission line which crosses the extreme
southeast comer of the Township in Sections
25, 35 and 36. Electricity in the Township is
provided by Consumers Power Company. Telephone service is provided by General Telephone
and Electric Co. (GTE).
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation facilities within the area include streets and roads and a public transportation system (Interurban) . Saugatuck
Township 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. The 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. The area is also served by Greyhound Bus Lines. Transportation facilities are
important in stimulating growth for Saugatuck
Township 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 (Pepper Brooke Lane.). Collectors connect
local streets to arterials and speeds average
25-35 mph. (66th St.). Local arterials facilitate
larger volumes of traffic which originates and
terminates within the tri-community 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 limited (I-196). Locations of collectors.
local arterials and regional arterials are shown
in Map 6 .5. Each class of street has an important function in maintaining the efficient flow of
traffic and it is essential that adequate transpor-
tation 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 on 1-196.
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 two classifications which pertain to
Saugatuck Township are "Primary Road" and
"Local Road". These roadways are shown in Map
6.6. Roads in Saugatuck Township are managed
by the Allegan County Road Commission. which
receives PA 51 funds for maintenance and construction 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
TABLE6.4
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE
LOCATION
4L3L78
Blue Star & 64th
130th E &Wof
Blue Star
Blue Star & 129th
1959 & 1968
(same count)
July 1987 (2
different days)
1969
VOLUME
5,319
368
10,575
8,256
336
Old Allegan. east
of Blue Star
1982
130th & 70th, east
285
of Lakeshore Dr.
July 1987
North 135th at
7,018
Blue Star (northbound)
July 1987
129th at Blue
6 , 192
Star (northbound)
October 1985 Center at Blue
10,861
Star
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
6-IS
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 or planning arrangement among the
Township, Saugatuck and Douglas for Blue Star
Highway and the County Road Commission. yet
the roadway needs repairs and resurfacing.
Vecy little useable traffic count information
is available, making it difficult to assess where
needs are greatest 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 entrance into Saugatuck Township
from North Blue Star Highway is aesthetically
poor and does not present visitors with a positive
first impression.
Over 60% of people responding to the 1988
Public Opinion Survey noted that the appearance of the highway needed improvement.
Nearly 6()0!& of Township respondents indicated
that the Highway needs improvemen ts in better
lane striping, resurfacing. speed limits. traffic
flow and safety. and bike paths.
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 100% by the State. Following
the experimental period, some of the cost burden was borne by the tri-communities through
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. The Interurban is governed by a board consisting of
members from Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck
and Douglas.
POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police
Police protection for Saugatuck Township
is provided by the Allegan County Sheriff Department and the Michigan State Police. 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 satellite post in Fennville which
serves the Township. The Township also has a
constable who performs bar checks and serves
zoning violations.
Fire
Saugatuck Township is 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�6-6
communities involved. The Saugatuck Fire District has 35 volunteer personnel, including the
fire chief. There are two fire stations, one located
in downtown Douglas (4 7 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 responder 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 seive Saugatuck
Township; Saugatuck, Fennville, and Hamilton
school districts. (See Map 6. 5) . Approximately
half of the Township is seived by the Saugatuck
district, with the southern portion of the Township being seived mostly by the Fennville district and the extreme northeast portion seived
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 Township,
especially the Saugatuck district, appear to have
some capacity for accommodating increases in
the school age population. Furthermore, the
part of the Township seived by the Saugatuck
school district is that which is most suitable for
new growth.
OTHER COMMUNITY FACJLITIES
There is more than 200 acres of public land
in Saugatuck Township (see Chapter 7). Other
publicly owned facilities in the Township are the
Saugatuck Riverside Cemetery and Saugatuck
Township Hall (located in Douglas).
SOLID WAS1E 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 planntng 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 Saugatuck Township is handled entirely by
private haulers. The waste stream from the
County, and thus from the Township, 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, 5-1 OOAi 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
(;°"
("
�w
I
6-7
and rural characteristics, much like the
Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas
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 tri-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
currently in operation on Blue Star Highway
adjacent to 1-196 and exit 41. The center is
partially funded by Saugatuck, Douglas and
Saugatuck Township and is very well used.
Allegan County Resource Recovery maintains
the facility, which collects newspapers, plastics.
glass, aluminum and brown paper bags. Pickup
of metal appliances and tires is also possible by
contacting the center. The recycling center was
started in 1984.
The County maintains the facility, which
collects newspapers, plastic and glass.
The Saugatuck Township Landfill (public),
located in Sections 10 and 11, was closed in
1984. As far as new landfills within the Township are concerned, State regulations prohibit
operation of a new landfill on:
• Land considered by the DNR to be a State
recognized unique wildlife habitat.
• Land in 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 Township (Map 4.4), many prime agricultural lands (Map 4.10). numerous archaeologi-
TABLE6.5
TONS GENERATED PER DAY
BYLAND USE
SOURCE
QUANTI1Y (PER DAY)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Not Collected
6.5
2 .8
1.8
0.7
-0.5
11.3
NET TOTAL
Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan
TABLE6.6
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
1YPE
P01SW*
Percentage (%)
44.8
Combustible Wastes
Paper
Plastics
Wood
Yard Wastes
Textiles
Food Wastes
Rubber
Misc. Organics
TOTALS
9.2
3.5
4.1
4.2
11.5
2.2
3.0
82.5
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
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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�6-8
cal sites, land in the 100 year floodplain (Map
4 .3). 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 Township.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
N
A
__
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
.,. . .
.
,···· .,,,···
.....
,~~
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
AVI: ,
25
29
28
;
.
.!
,
f'
'i
0
.
.
'··:
33
r
.. ..---..... ,.
3-4 l,
(
.... , .
' \ TSN.IIIW
·,
MAP 6. 1 PUBLIC FACILITIES
.!
.
••.
/) "
%
.•
I
,_.-J
M-89
',
'
, ....i
SAUGATUCK TWP.
Saugatuck Township
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)Sagatuck City Hall
August 1989
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
,..____
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1• • 9060 ft
MAP6.2 WATER SYSTEM
I,1> IWater Mains
■
j O@'
~
Saugatuck Township
Reservoir
Proposed Water Intake &
Treatment area
Ore·I Existing Well Locations
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: WilNams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�w
N
A
/
I
MAP 6.3 SEWER SYSTEM
Saugatuck Township
I~ISewer Lines
1,1
Discharge Line
August 1ffl
DATA SOURCE: Wdliams & Works, Inc. Gr.and Rapids
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 6.4 GAS MAINS
Saugatuck Township
I/IGas Mains
August 1989
SOURCE :Miehigan Gas Utilities Company
Planning & Zoning Cenler Inc., Lansing.Ml
�w
I
N
A
MAP6.5 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Saugatuck Township
[Lj
Regional Arterials
~
Local Arterials
~
Collectors
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : PZC
I/ I
Local Streets
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1"
= 9060 ft
MAP6.6 ACT 51 ROADS
I/I
County Local Road
~
County Primary Road
~
State Trunkline
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Michigan Department Of Transportation
Saugatuck Township
Planning & Zoning Cena Inc, Lansing, Ml
�w
7-1
Chapter7
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
arks, recreation, and open space are essential to the quality of life of area residents,
P
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 atmosphere 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 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 Commission 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.
· Many of the area's recreational offerings are
located in the Village of Douglas and the City of
Saugatuck. 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.
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 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 OPPORroNITIES
Recreation can be separated into four main
categories: physical, social, cognitive, and environmentally related recreation. The former 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
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
TABLE7.l
SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS
ACTIVITY
T-ball for kids
Little League
Pony League
Slow-pitch softball
Fast pitch softball (girls)
Semi-competitive softball (boys)
Rocket football
Swirmning:begtnner,a~
beginner, intermediate, swimmer, basic rescue & a ~
lifesaving
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
1989
PARTICIPANTS
40
46
19
10-18
27
15-20
57
66
�7-2
Park. Playgrounds are also found at River Bluff,
Sundown, Schultz, and Beery Parks and the
Douglas Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes
are offered at the High school. Walking, hiking,
biking, boating. golfing, swimming. and cross
country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by
a wide range of age groups.
Social Recreation
A variety oflocal 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 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 tri-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.
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 1988 Public Opinion Survey, is not
physical recreation, but the scenic view they
provide.
pact 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. Proposed recreation projects contained in the Saugatuck - Douglas Recreation
Plan are listed in Table 7.4. Table 7.5 includes
a schedule of planned park and open space
acquisitions and improvements.
RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USAGE
The 1988 Public Opinion Survey highlighted those recreational facilities which residents feel are inadequate in the tri-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 hiking 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 tri-community
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
0
M-89.
RECREATION INVENTORY
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 im-
• 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
0
�w
7-3
TABLE 7.2
INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
.. .
• • .... - ...
i .....
l~:
.-
:::1
S11:e
(acrea) oQ C
l.oc:at ton
!]
u•w
C
a.-.u ,0 ;: ~ l: ;;
...
I . River Bluff
27
X
X
2,Sundovn
.4
X
X
).AJaalanchicr
◄
X
4
4-Douglas Beach
5.H. Beery Field
1.2
X
X
20
X
X
7,Union St. Launch
a.center St. Launch
IO . Villa2e Square
12.IJillow Parlt
.,-
14.Spear St. Launch
~
~
~
X
JI
X
X
l(
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
)6
X
X
X
X X
60*
X
X
X
)(
X
X
X
..
X
20. HiRh School
21. St. Peter's
X
X
X
X
.-
..:
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
16 . Oval Beach
2). \Jest Wind KOA
X
• .<:
--
x·
X
22. 6)rd St. Launch
X
X
X
8.6
X
X
X
19 . Elementary Sch.
..
X
JC
-
154
0
UV
X
51
18. Old "Airpor.t"
.. <
X
IS.Ht. Baldhead
17. Tallma2e Woods
0
C
X
l(
X
.... ...
... .• ! ..
~ :
~1 . .
;
!
~ ~ a~
t o
.,
X
X lC
X
2. S
.s
C
~
-
11.Wiclts Parlt
l) . Cuok Park
..
X
1.4
6 . schultz Parlt
: ...
.!.... { l .. - .• :
... ' j ..... -- 3 •
E "' ; 1;; :: !c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
24. Blue Star lliway
Roadside Parlt
X
25. R1 vera ide Park
runs down Holland Street and across Francis
Street to the waterfront and will be served 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 survey of waterfront usage revealed that
the most popular waterfront activity is viewing.
The second most popular use varied by waterbody. Swimming was the primary use of Lake
Saugatuck Township 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,
launchram:e
Union St. at Kal. launch ramp,
River
:etcnic area
pressbox-220
sq.ft., dugouts350 sq.ft., land52,000 sq.ft, 1
acre
beach-36,400
sq.ft. nearly 1
acre, bathhouse280 .ft.
pavillion-1326
sq.ft., land- 20
acres
66'xl20'
NAME OF PARK
Dou las
Beery F1eld
Union St.
Launch Ram:e
Saug_. TwE.
River Bluff
Sundown
Kai River above
1-196 bridge: access from Old AlIeganRd.
hiking, picnic,
27 acres
boaters stop, nature study. swinging & sandbox
Lake MI Bluff at
126th Ave.
66'xl50'
picnics, watching lakes & sun sets, scenic
turnout
30'x200'
picnics, resting
for travelers
Blue Star
Blue Star Hwy.
south of Skyline
Restaurant
Center St. Park
Eastern end of canoe launching.
Center at
picnics, scenic
Kalamazoo River viewing
Fair
None
Good
Acquisition/'89
Good
None
newly installed
entry road & pienic area New
dock & picnic
shelter
Very poor
pad for
dumpster/'89,
more flowers/'89.
toilet improvements/ 1990-92
new fence: needs
landscaping/ 1989-1992
new flowers;
needs new bollards & fence re-
8
fencework/1989,
bollards/ 1989-90
airs
Saug_atuck
Village Square
Butler & Main
Streets
Wicks Park
Waterfront between Main &
Mary Streets
Willow Park
Waterfront at
Butler & Lucy
Waterfront on
Water Street
Spear Street
streetend
Cook Park
Boat Ramp
3 acres
Poor
tennis courts,
drinking fountain,
playground,
benches,
restrooms
bandstand,
boardwalk,
benches. fishIng. restrooms
viewing area.
benches
picnic tables
2.5 acres
Good
1/2 acre
approx.
Good
132 ft
Good
132 ft.
Good
boat launch
66 ft.
Good
additional docking, public
restrooms, gazebo
?
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
7-5
TABLE 7.3 (continued)
PARKLAND INVENTORY
NAME OF PARK
Mt. Baldhead
Park
LOCATION
Park Street
Oval Beach
Park
Lake Michigan
Tallmadge
Woods
USES
picnic shelter, ta- ·
bles, restrooms,
hilting trails, parking, stairway to
observation deck
on top of dune,
two observation
decks on rtver
beach house, concession stand,
parking, picnic
area, BBQ grills,
viewing deck.
stairs to beach,
observation deck.
nature trails
current use restricted
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 Saugatuck Township
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 by
all three jurisdictions. Open space along Lake
Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River were also
given high priority by the majority of respondents, although the response was higher in the
Village (64-6go/4) 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 to the 1988 Public Opinion
Suxvey were asked how frequently they used
various local parks and the overwhelming majority responded "never". Oval Beach is used
most frequently of the area parks by Township
SIZE
51 acres
CONDITION
Good
36 acres
100 acres
new concession
stand &
restrooms/ 1990
Good
residents. Douglas Beach is also frequently
used. Wicks, Schultz, and 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 sexve the social
and recreational needs of the area's elderly population. The suxvey results reflect area support
for a senior center. Fifty-three percent of Township respondents felt that a senior center desexved high priority.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
--
---------
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
1YPE/YEAR
�7-6
TABLE7.4
PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PROPOSED PROJECT
VERY HIGH PRIORITY
LOCATION
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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�w
7-7
RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING
In terms of priorities for spending current
tax dollars. 42%-48% of respondents felt that
parks and recreation are a high priority. Senior
programs were given low local spending priority
in the Township, 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 7.5
PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
ACQlTISillON
NAME
LOCATION
Esther McSic East side
Union St. property
Kai I.a.ke,
North of Blue
Star (Douglas)
Ruth McNaI.and locked
mara property end of Schultz
Park (Douglas)
Blue Star &
Vacant Lot
Main St.
(Douglas)
SE 1/4 secOld
tion 2
Saugatuck
(Saugatuck)
Airport
rMPROVEMENr
FINANCING
DNRLand
Trust
USE
Public open
space
SIZE
CONDITION
124,000 sq.ft. Marshy
(portion under
water) vacant
cosr ($)
Park
132,000
Dry
sq.ft. (vacant)
NA
NA
Future park
land 18,000
sq.ft.; nearly
1/2 acres
154 acres
65,000
NA
Currently for-
Dry
185,000
estry management. possible
future recreation
TABLE 7.6
RECREATION NEEDS IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
1988 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
CI1Y
VILLAGE
TOWNSHIP
Bike paths (68%)
Hiking trails (62%)
Cross-country ski trails (62%)
Lake MI open space (61 %)
Lake Kal. open space (50%)
Kal. River open space (49%)
Boat launching ramps (45%)
Lake MI open space (70%)
Lake Kal. open space (69%)
Bike paths (67%)
Kal. River open space (64%)
Parks (50%)
Boat launching ramps (46%)
Senior Center (45%)
Lake MI open space (67%)
Bike paths (64%)
Lake Kal. open space (62%)
Kal. River open space (62%)
Cross-country ski trails (60%)
Boat launching ramps (59%)
Senior Center (53%)
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�N
+
A
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
ir.;;;;""--!P.!1!!!!11°'-+-',,.
(
\
'·, \ 22 •
~
%
0
i
28
~
-
i
25
"27
1..........
~
0
......:-• . . . .
'
;
'
"
~
~
>
ll
33
••
~
,. .... . ........
..........
l, llN.•IIW
•.,
,
%
~
j
,
,
.,6·-•·'
'
,'
,
C
35
36
'
'
f'
. ...
,,
:
__j
M-89
SAUGATUCK TWP,
MAP7.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION SITES SaugatuckTownship
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
�w
'
N
A
,..____
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1• = 9060 ft
MAP7.2 PROPOSED BIKE PATHS
Saugatuck Township
1. ·1 Bike Paths
[!] Chain Link Ferry
August 1989
DATA ~URCE: Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�8-1
Chapters
WATERFRONT
S
augatuck 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 trt-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 trt-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 trt-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 trt-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 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 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
trt-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-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�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 of2060 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 50% 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
TABLE 8.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER
EXCEEDANCE FLOWS (1929-85)
MONTHLY AVERAGE
CUBIC FT /SECOND
FENNVILLE
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
RNERMOUTH
500/4
95%
500/4
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: Hydrologtc En~eertnfuSection, Land and
Water Resources Divis 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, Ues 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
Saugatuck Township 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.
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 trt-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 Hack.lander 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 carry 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 tri-community area feel that
the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and
Lake is poor to very poor (58%-70%). 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,
TABLE8.2
KALAMAZOO RIVER WATER QUALITY
FECAL
COLIFORM
PER 100 ML
PHOSPHOROUS
TOTAL ORIHO
MG/L MG/L
NITROGEN
N02 N03
MG/L
SEDIMENfS
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
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
NR
1.7
0.34
0 .54
0 .00
9
20
15
28
27
123
26
72
<5
<. l
<5
<. l
<5
<.l
<5
<.l
20
10
<.5
<.5
.5
Saugatuck
3/19/86
6/25/86
9/11/86
Saugatuck
1/10/78
5/1/78
7/20/78
9/11/78
120
69
NR
NR
NR = Not Reported
Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Re sources Division, U.S . Geologic Survey.
Saugatuck Township 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
ofreducing 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-comrnunity 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 waterbody with 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 trtcomrnunity area. All sources of pollution a:ffect
water quality, and hence the utility of the water
resource. While the tri-comrnunity 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�8-5
TABLES.3
NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS
DISCHARGE
Culligan
processed
wastewater
treated municipal
waste
900,000 gal/day
purged groundwater, purgable halocarbons
12,000 gal/day
non-contact cooling water & cooling
tower blowdown
Groundwater
201 Culver St. ,
Saugatuck
340 Culver St..
Saugatuck
6449 Old Allegan
Rd .. Saugatuck
Purge
Twp.
Rich Products
350 Culver St..
Saugatuck
Kal. Lake Water &
Sewer Authortty
Kalamazoo Lake
LOCATION
Kalamazoo Lake
via storm sewers
Kalamazoo River
EXPIRATION DAIB
1991
1990
outfall 001
Kalamazoo River
1993
outfall 001
Kalamazoo River
1990
via storm sewer
Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division
TABLE 8 .4
LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS
YEAR
LOWEST EL
FEET AS.L.
MONTI-I
HIGHEST EL MONTI-I
FEET A.S.L.
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
Aprtl
July
July
Aprtl
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 Michigan Riparian, May 1989
and prevent further pollution within the tricommunity area. These will 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 5 78 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 vagartes of
fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels. This has
not always been done as was evident by extensive shol'.'e erosion and flooding during the last
high water pertod.
When water levels are high "no-wake"
zones. which are always in effect from the channel to Mason Street in Saugatuck. are extended
Saugatuck Township 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 20-27 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 depth
except for a small area running NW-SE from the
center of the bridge and connecting to the Point
Plt:;asant 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 1976 there
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 activities
can go on without much interference.
MARINE SAFETY
The Allegan County Sheriffs Department,
Marine Safety Division, 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�-
I
8-7
skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motorboats are most common on Saturday.
waterfront. but there are few public acces.s sites
and, except for Shultz Park, these provide little
space for transient parking.
EXISTING !AND USE
Existing land use ls 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 ls
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 of residential 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 interj urisdictional meeting on water
front issues on November 1986, ftve key issues
were identified:
• high water and its impacts
• development and acquisition of public
lands along the waterfront:
• limiting the intensity of shoreline development;
• preserving the scenic 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
Jrt
R-2
R-2
R-1
\(commercial)
~wetland
·
AG.
'"
Source: Conaerve Oakland County'• Natural Resources: A Manual for Planning 6: Implementation,
Department of Public Works, Oakland County, MI. September 1980.
Saugatuck Township 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 high 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
similar shore protection devices were installed
to minim1ze the effects of the most recent high
water level. Raising some of the land and structures would be necessary iflake 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 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 trt-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 with
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 additional 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 street 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
Kewatin; 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 trt-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 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. 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�8-9
with the septic limitations of the land and the
limited recreational value of this shallow 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 development 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. The Kewatin should only be retained
if its exterior remains in a good state of repair or
if it is restored as an historic landmark.
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 additional open space along Lake
Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and demonstrates that the primary use of the area's
water bodies is viewing. Yet, recent development
pressures have led to overbuilding 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 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 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 public
marina could be established there.
Surface Water Use Corifllcts
Resolution of surface water use conflicts
will require more planning and a uniform 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 is 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 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.
Surface water use conflicts will 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE FUI'URE 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 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.
Saugatuck Township 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 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 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 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 should
be constructed if resources are available and the
cost could be spread among local citizens and
other users (such as through grants or user
fees) . Visual access from public thoroughfares
and walkways should be maintained in all new
waterfront development.
Protection mechanisms. like the Natural
River designation, should be recognized for the
ancillary benefits they bring to the community.
A local "Friends of the River" organization could
be instituted to annually adopt and clean up the
shoreline to remove floating debris, other waste,
and downed timber that become lodged there. A
special effort to maintain the character of
Lakeshore Drive along the Lake Michigan shoreline should also be initiated.
A comprehensive storrnwater 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 Soil 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.
spectjurisdiction 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 quality. 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 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COOPERATION
Each of these recommendations requires a
strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation.
Watercourses, like the environment, do not re-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�-
I
N
A
Tri-Community
MAPS.1 WATERSHEDS
Kalamazoo River Basin Boundary
[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 SOURCE :Allegan County Drain Commission
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
/
MAP8.2 NO-WAKE
■
No-Wake Area
If]]
Additional No-wake Area During Periods Of High Water
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Tri-Community Wa1Bf'front Committee
Saugatuck Township
~
~
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lanaing, Ml
__......_...,.T
P SCP GMue;;;::.;
m
"'
-- -
- · ....,.,,..
�56
rz·
JI
30
32
J7
JI
JJ
29
J•
37
JO
"
J7
30
JJ
,.
29
,.
29
c::,
\)
24
27
;:
21
JI
26
0
MICHIGAN
k•I• l, IS.000
IOUNOINOS IN
,,i
n:rr
,.:.
... I/
D
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.
Saugatuck Township
Ship & Shore MoteVBoatel (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
lnArea ........ .966
August 1989
DATA SOURCE :DNR
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�I
I
I
�N
A
MAPS.5 STREETENDS/ PARKS
G
Street/Road Ends
[!]
PubHc Access
0
Saugatuck Township
Parks
.
1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Balc:lhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach
Auguat1989
Planning & Zoning Center lne, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
See Preceding Map
For Information
Regarding This Area
MAP 8.5 A STREET ENDS/ PARKS
~ Street/Road Ends
@]
Public Access
August 1989
0
Saugatuck Township
Parks
1) Shultz Park 2) River Bluff Park
3) Sundown Park
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�9-1
Chapter9
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
G
rowth 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 talcing 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 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.
GROWl'H RATES
During the past decade, the Township's
population growth rate hit 4QOA>, 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).
TABLE 9.1
RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE
COMMUNI1Y
Saugatuck
Saugatuck 1\vp.
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1950-60
1960-70
1970-80
20%
34%
35%
29%
10%
11%
35%
16%
6%
40%
17%
22%
The Township's large supply of land has
translated into high growth rates. The Township
is expected to continue to capture most of the
region's residential growth. The Village also continues to have a high rate of growt • and while
this has declined from the higher growth rates
experienced during the past two decades, it is
increasing again in this decade. 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.
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 CONSTRUCTION
Building permit data reveal development
trends in each community since 1980. 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. Aside from new construction, the
number of additions, extensions, and other improvements was also high. See Map 9. 1.
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 majority oflots were 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 lMng, along with the
decreasing supply of land in the City which
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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�est rate of in-migration in the state. Many of
these tmrnigrants 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 climb,
reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as
a whole.
FIGURE9.l
SUBDIVISION TRENDS
CHANGES FROM 1954 TO 1964
p
E
R
~
C o
E u
N s
A
T N
A D
G
s
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
E
70+
~
18-311
10- 15
5-g
Future population for the Township 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 illustrates these results
for each jurisdiction in the trt-community area.
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 its
greater availability ofland, the Village will even-
2--4 1 OR LESS
LOT SIZE (ACRES)
services, 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.
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 high-
FIGURE 9.2
KENT
-767
54 . -1148 .
so1 II -713
•
1412
I
TTAWAI
RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS
I
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN
0
-247
-457
150
AUEGAN. l'-'.RRY
-173
·
I
12
-5
121
l
EATON
· -158
I
- _142
1040
· 132 · 804
·-·--r-..l..._._i_. ___
Net Migration of The Population 65+
1950-60
1960-70
1970-80
VAN IUREN I KALAMAZOO 1'
·
+·
J'
~
-r
I
-13
284
1039
I-
j
I
-447
-1651 •
-1729 1
,sr:I
•
CALHOU_N
-1196
-1131
-592
•
I Wl ·
,LWPH..,· IRANCH
.
, 130 .
s6
- r49
44
- 5 1 85
,· -33
-125
.-• 390
578
I
109
580
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
-181
�9-3
tually overtake the City in terms of overall population growth, as seen in Figure 9.3.
FIGURE 9.3
POPULATION TREND
SAUGATUCK TWP .
PROJECTED LAND USE NEEDS: 2010
3.0
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 44 7 new households
in the Township by 2010. These results are
shown in Table 9.3
Future demand for land by these new
households may be estimated by looking at land
subdivision trends and current settlement patterns or zoned densities. Based on this information, we can expect most of the Township's
residential development to fall into the low density category (2 units per acre). Thus, over half
of these 44 7 new households will settle in low
density residential areas, translating into the
conversion of 205 acres of land. Thirteen acres
would be transformed into medium density residential use, and about 10 acres would be developed at higher densities as apartments of
clustered units. Tables 9.4 to 9.6 show this
projection of current trends.
p
0
p T
H
LJ 0
L u
A!
TN
I o
0
N
-
lWP.ONLY
=
DOUGLAS
=- SAUGATUCK
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
s
0.5
0.0
1950
1960
1980
1970
1990
2000
2010
YEAR
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 could attract new families into
the area. And the region's attraction as a center
for tourism could continue to grow, fostering
greater in-migration of retirees and others
searching for an alternative lifestyle.
TABLE9.2
PROJECTED POPULATION
1970-1980 TREND
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1970
1980
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
1990
1,163
2,074
1,061
4,298
2000
2010
1,254
2,454
1,187
4,895
1,352
2,904
1,328
5,584
TABLE9.3
PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
POP. 2010
1,352
2,904
1,328
5,584
HH SIZE
# HHs
1980 HHs
NEWHHs
2 .00
2.69
2.44
676
1,080
544
2,300
537
633
391
1,561
139
447
153
739
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�9-4
TABLE 9.5
NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE
TABLE9.4
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
BY DENSITY TYPE
COMMUNITY
LOW
Saugatuck Twp. 800/o
Saugatuck
400/o
Douglas
5%
MEDIUM
HIGH
100/o
40%
100/o
200/o
700/o
25%
HOUSEHOLDS
MED. HIGH TOTAL
LOW
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Sa~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.
TABLE 9.6
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS
COMMUNITY
LOW
TABLE9.7
AVAILABLE ACREAGE BY
LAND USE TYPE
ACREAGE•
MED. HIGH TOTAL
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuck
24
4
205
14
26
13
3
4
10
41
34
228
AREAWIDE
234
53
17
303
ACREAGE
COMM.
IND.
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Sal.JS2:atuck1\vp.
Tar.AL ACRES
3
33
155
191
0
49
22
71
RES.
135
197
5,950
6,282
•times 1.25 (20¾ allowance for rights-of-way)
Totals are based on unrounded figures.
TABLE 9.8
POPULATION 2010: BUTI.,D OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuck1\vp.
AREAWIDE
ADDITIONAL
HOUSEHOLDS
330
1,139
16,413
17,882
AVERAGE
HH SIZE
2.00
2 .44
2.69
If the area were developed to its full capacity. what would it look like? This exercise, called
a "build out" scenario, provides a rough estimate
of the buildable capacity of the Township. Acres
were estimated based on vacant or developable
land (not including existing agricultural areas)
in the Township 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 Township's capacity for about
16,413 new households. The new households
are then multiplied by the average household
ADDITIONAL
POPUIATION
PRESENT
POPUIATION
660
2,779
44,151
47,590
1,079
948
1,753
3,780
TOTAL
POPUIATION
1,739
3,727
45,904
51,370
size for that community to derive a population
estimate.
Thus, under a build out scenario, the Township could accommodate about 4 7. 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.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
If development were to proceed under existing zoning, as reflected in the build out scenario,
then the Township would be transformed into a
suburban enclave, complete with a long commercial strip from one end of Blue Star Highway
to another. The agricultural area in the southern
part of the Township, which greatly contributes
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
~
r
�9-5
to the economy and scenic rural character of the
area, would be gradually carved up for residential use. This is problematic in light of the 1988
Public Opinion Survey 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; and
• additional waterfront condominiums are
not needed.
Respondents named Blue Star Highway
and the freeway interchanges as the preferred
locations for future commercial development
and 500/2 named fast food restaurants as a high
priority for Blue Star Highway.
In terms of residential development, the
highest proportion of respondents (49.2%) felt
that detached single-family homes in the $50$70,000 range are needed now. Fifty-eight percent objected to more mobile homes and 89.5%
objected to more waterfront condominiums.
Fifty-two percent felt that prime agricultural
land in the Township should not be limited
exclusively to agricultural production, but 460/2
felt that if residences are allowed to develop on
agricultural lands, then the lot size should be
limited to reduce negative impacts.
These results suggest the need to reevaluate current zoning and regulatory policy. 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 be amended to insure consistency with this plan and the comprehensive
plan of each jurisdiction.
I
I
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
i
�N
A
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
•
•
••
••
..
,..____
0
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•• ••
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
MAP 9.1 Residential Construction Permits Saugatuck Township
0
Residential Construction
Permits 1980-1988
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Saugatuck Township Building Permits
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�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 difficult
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 seeks to anticipate community land use
needs for 20-30 years (see Map 10.1). These
future land use arrangements are based on
information in the preceding chapters which
includes analyses 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 partially reflected through mapping of zoning districts. The planning principles listed above are
implemented primarily 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.
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 Township these
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-2
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
destroy valuable resources and alter the character of an area. These changes also 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 meet s the land. Environmental quality
is best preserved by planning for appropriate
land use actMties in and near sensitive environmental areas, and managing development accordingly. This usually means insuring
conformance with all applicable federal, state
and local environmental regulations.
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 usually 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
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 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 sounds, ground vibrations,
dust, bright lights, restricted air flow, shadows,
odors, traffic, and similarimpacts.Afewobvious
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 Township
was prepared by first identifying conservation
areas and then examining the suitability of remaining lands for various development pur-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-3
poses. Conservation areas fall into 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 can
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 presexvation of prime agricultural
lands for agricultural production purposes.
Other natural resource areas were used as
the basis for identifying conseivation 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 storrnwater 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
conseived 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 consexvation of these areas.
ENTRY POINTS
There are four major entry points into
Saugatuck Township (See Map 10.2). They are:
· • from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo
River
• from 1-196 at Blue Star Highway (north)
near 136th Ave.
• from 1-196 at M-89 (south end)
• from Fennville on M-89
Three entry points oflessor significance are
along Lake Shore Drive which is very scenic, and
along Old Allegan Road and Riverside Drives
(both twisting, hilly and scenic routes).
At the present time. only the entry from
Lake Michigan provides an aesthetic and inviting entry into the Township. 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 estab-
lishments. 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 the
Township from 1-196. The remaining entry
points don't leave a bad impression, they simply
leave no impression at all. The public opinion
suxveys also reflected citizen concern about the
appearance of properties along Blue Star Highway.
If left unresolved, the poor design of these
entry ways 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 joint
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 in the Township.
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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-4
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.
COMMERCIAL
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 commercial zoning of this strip should be eliminated, except as
noted above.
The area between Saugatuck. the North
Blue Star Highway, and I-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 be encouraged 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
In the absence of public sewer, water and
all weather highway access, there is presently
no location in the Township ideally suited for
industrial development, except for the area contiguous to existing industrial development on
the south side of Douglas. If a large light industrial concern, or industrial office facility were to
be interested in a location in the area. the land
between I-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 seived 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 activity.
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 Township .
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 fanning of those soils, and
much of this land is enrolled in PA 116, the state
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-IS
Farmland and Open Space Protection program
(see Map 4 . 10).
The size of existing farms, the location of
these lands away from the hnmediate 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 farmland for present and future food production strongly argues in favor of retaining
these lands in agricultural production for the
entire planning period and beyond.
Nonagricultural development should not be
permitted in this planning area except for purposes related to agriculture. Land divisions
should be controlled to preserve the economic
viability of farming, which depends on large
parcels. When left unchecked, land division and
subdivision encourages residential spot development of agrtcultural lands- a process which
carves up agricultural land. eventually transforming the area from agricultural to rural or
suburban residential.
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 of farms, although the average lot and farm
sizes are smaller. Scattered residential development on large lots is also taking place. 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 Township
has prospered primarily through cultivation of
fruit, grain crops, hay and alfalfa. and in the
case of nurseries. plants. These activities 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- thus capitalizing on economic opportunities presented
by the area's tourism industry.
These issues raise concern over the compatibility of high density livestock and poultry operations with the character of agricultural areas
and the impact of the strong odors on tourismwhich 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
Township's sole source of potable water in this
area, and elsewhere. Based on these economic
and environmental considerations, this planning area is not an appropriate location for high
density livestock operations. Other. more appropriate sites for these operations exist in the
surrounding region and elsewhere in Allegan
County- where such operations have been welcomed and continue to prosper.
Defining High Density Livestock
Operations
The policy of discouraging high density livestock operations in the Township does not apply
to all livestock operations. On the contrary,
raising livestock is an integral part of many
agricultural businesses. is compatible with the
Township's agricultural character, and does not
detract from tourism opportunities. Thus, the
scale at which a livestock operation may be
considered "high density" must be defined.
High density livestock operations may be
defined based on existing state and federal regulatory policy. Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines establish when a
livestock operation reaches a certain density
and intensity that it should be regulated for
environmental protection. The Department of
Natural Resources adopted EPA's size guidelines to determine when a livestock operation
must obtain a discharge permit.
Under this definition, the permitting process begins for livestock producers with 1,000
animal units or more. One thousand animal
units equals: 1,000 slaughter or feed cattle; 700
mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry) :
2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more;
500 horses; 10,000 sheep or lambs; 55,000
turkeys; 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if the
facility has a continuous overflow watering) ;
30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has
a liquid manure system); or 5,000 ducks. [These
guidelines were adopted by the DNR from the
Federal Register, Title 40, "Protection of the
Environment", Chapter 1, Environmental Protection Agency.)
A supplementary definition which was set
by the Department of Agriculture and also based
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-6
on EPA guidelines, describes high density livestock operations as:
Those operations that house or confine
livestock or poultry in such a manner that
any or all of the following apply:
a. Animals are confined or retained in a lot
or building or combination of lots and buildings for a total of 45 days or more in any 12
month period. The confinement or retention
area accumulates manure that has to be
removed.
b. A sustained ground cover (crops, vegetation, forage growth or post haroest residues) is unable to be maintained during the
normal growing season over that portion of
the lot or facility where the animals are
housed, confined, or retained.
c. Notwithstanding any provisions of this
definition, any livestock or poultry operation
may be designated as a High Density livestock or Poultry Operation where it is determined by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources to be a contributor of pollution to the waters of the state. Exception:
if an operation discharges only in the event
of a 25 year, 24 hour storm event.
Although not included in the Department of
Agriculture's (DOA) formal administrative
guidelines, this supplementary definition embodies EPA guidelines and was drafted and
recommended by DOA's Environmental Division. These definitions and guidelines will be
used by the Township to define high density
livestock operations for the purposes of regulation and review.
FUTURE LAND USE BY AREA
Following are brief geographic descriptions
of future land use. These descriptions use the
same planning areas depicted on Map 5.4.
Lake Shore Area
This area should continue to be used for low
density single family homes along the lakeshore
in keeping with the size and quality of homes
presently there. Additional single family homes
in subdivisions can be compatibly developed
behind existing homes provided public sewer
and water are available. An effort should be
made to maintain existing densities or tier the
density of new homes so that no sudden density
change occurs. Density should increase in the
area closest to Blue Star Highway to take advantage of economical expansion of public utilities
and improved access. The wooded areas along
1-196 should be maintained to retain the aesthetic and noise buffering benefits.
Southern Agricultural Area
The area west of Blue Star highway, north
of M-89 and generally south of 128th Avenue is
the area which contains the best agricultural
soils and the largest farms. This area has the
potential to remain economically viable for agricultural purposes for decades and should be
encouraged to do so. The existing trend to divide
these lands into smaller parcels for use by nonfarm residents should be abated, as that will
slowly but surely erode agricultural uses in the
area. The existing wning provisions encouraging single wide mobile homes to locate in this
area should be reexamined, not because the
homes are manufactured (as opposed to site
constructed) but because they represent nonfarm residences in a viable agricultural area.
The Township should consider adopting one of
several restrictive agricultural wning options
such as "exclusive agricultural wning" or "quarter-quarter" zoning to protect the existing investment in agriculture in this area. Intensive
livestock operations should be discouraged. Additional tourist-agricultural activities similar to
those at Crane's orchards and u-pick bluebeny
operations should be encouraged. Farmers
should be informed of the benefits of participation in PA 116, the Michigan Farmland & Open
Space Preseivation Program.
The balance of the land in this southern
third of the Township is currently a mix of
agricultural and residential uses. Where the
land is not suited for agricultural and residential
uses. Where the land is not suited for agriculture, additional residential development at low
density is appropriate. In the distant future, the
areas closest to Douglas may be suited for subdivision development provided that sewer and
water are available. No additional subdivisions
(like Pepper Brooke) should be permitted in this
area. The commercial strip zoning along Blue
Star Highway south of the Douglas interchange
should be eliminated except for the two existing
commercial areas already in existence at each
interchange.
Kalamazoo River Area
The area north of Riverside Road and south
of the Kalamazoo River, and the area south of
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�10-7
roughly the north border of Sections 14 and 15
(north of the Kalamazoo River) should receive
limited development that is carefully sited on
large lots to avoid wetland destruction. No lots
should be allowed to be established that are
unbuildable under existing DNR or Army Corps
of Engineers wetland regulations and local zoning. Much of the development on the north side
of Silver Lake is proceeding on long narrow lots
that under existing zoning and the state Subdivision Control Act can be redivided every 10
years into 4 additional lots. This can result in
unplanned subdivisions over time with a menagerie of private access roads and serious
problems for emergency vehicles. Zoning regulations in this area should be reexamined to
insure they are not unwittingly creating a serious future problem. This entire area should be
managed with conservation of the natural environment the preeminent goal and private construction permitted only to the extent that it
does not significantly encroach thereon. Low
intensity recreation activities are appropriate.
Northeast Area
Steep slopes, thick forests, significant wetlands and the lack of any public services make
this area unsuited for any intensive development except possibly as follows. If sewer and
water were to become available along Old Allegan Road, then some residential subdivision
on the south side would be appropriate. The
north side should probably also develop this
way. but existing nonresidential uses and the
sanitary sewer treatment plant, could rationally
be used to justify limited nonresidential development. provided the road were either improved
to all season standards or the development did
not have any significant transportation needs.
The area south of 136th Ave. , west of 63rd St.
and east of I-196 may be appropriate for limited
light industrial or a large office complex if necessary sewer and water. and roadway improvements were made. Existing wetlands in this area
would have to be respected.
North Blue Star Highway
This area, bounded by I-196 on the east.
Saugatuck and (generally) one lot deep east of
the River on the west. is the area most appropriate for intensive future development in the
Township. Many of the soils in the area are more
suited for basements than in most other parts
of the Township. Sanitary sewer and water could
be more economically run into this area than
elsewhere , and access is good. Septic limitations
are also less than in other parts of the Township
permitting some development prior to sanitary
sewer and water. With the exception of some
significant wetland areas that must be respected, this area is well suited for residential
development at various densities.
Development along Blue Star Highway is
currently of a mixed character. The existing
zoning regulations should be reviewed to refine
permitted uses to those with a highway service
orientation (rather than simply allowing any
general business use). New wholesale, storage
and boat repair facilities should remain off the
road frontage. Minimum lot widths should be
wide and serious consideration should be given
to adoption of parallel access drive or service
drive requirements. Parking in the front should
be studied and possibly prohibited.
This entire area deserves more refined
study than this plan is able to undertake at this
time. A lot-by-lot corridor analysis and
sewer /water expansion plan should be prepared. Special attention should focus on timing
and sequencing controls to prevent opening up
too much land for intensive development prematurely or other public service needs will not be
met. Identification and acquisition of lands for
new public facilities, parks and roadway improvements in this area should be undertaken
as a part of that analysis.
Riverfront-Dunes Area
This area is already nearly as intensively
developed as it should be. The steep forested
east river bank and sand dunes (which are
ranked as of "critical" importance by the DNR),
dictate low intensity development in this area.
The construction of luxury boats is the only
intensive land use activity in this area. The sand
dune areas on both sides of the channel ought
to be acquired and managed by a public body or
conservancy agency. The area north of the channel should logically be connected to the existing
Saugatuck Dunes State Park and the area south
of the channel should be added to the parkland
owned by the City of Saugatuck. A Joint management entity could be created. In the alternative, residential development at a density no
greater than one unit per 5- 10 acres. should be
established. Existing duneland regulations
must be modified to conform with new state
requirements.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�Saugatuck Township
MAP 10.1 FUTURE LAND USE
~ Agricultural
I&;
Ill
Rural Residential
■
Highway Commercial
ffilill . Institutional
,,.,,,.,,,
.,,,,,,,,
Low Density Residential
,,,, ,.,,.
,,,,,,,,,
Conservation/Recreation
!!!!!!!:
■ Medium Density Residential
~
Floodplain/Wetland
■
Mixed Residential
HH
Industrial
■ City Center Commercial
D
Water
August 1989
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
Saugatuck Township
FUTURE LAND USE
�"I
+
N
A
.. ··
..... ,.
~···· , . ..
,. , ..... .
0
4,000
,..0
8,000
AVC,
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
. ._ _ _I A - - - - ~ •
!l%
~
,a
2.8
l
G
1..........
•
r' ..... ,♦
1
!
~
taeTH
25
27
•h-0••1
AVE ,
,, ,,.•
J
0
'·
Q,
'
··:
34\
53
,. ......-.......... , .
•.,
l, TlM.RlfW
•,,
.•·
,r
MAP 10.2 MAJOR ENTRY POINTS
I♦
I
j
35
38
4
/·'
,'
i
,. . -~• -'
lof-89
SAUGATUCK TWP.
Saugatuck Township
Entry Points
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�I.
11-1
Chapter 11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
B
~
y 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 wrung ordinance and
subdivision control regulations. These regulatory instruments are described in the next chapter.
However, effective integration of this Plan
will also require an ongoing commitment to
intergovernmental cooperation with Douglas
and Saugatuck. In particular, the Joint Plan
prepared concurrently with this one should be
implemented as steadfastly and also kept current with comprehensive reviews at least once
each five years.
It will also be very important to make every
effort to keep Saugatuck, Douglas, Laketown
Township, Manlius Township, and Ganges
Township officials informed of proposed
changes to this Plan or any of its regulatory
instruments (such as zoning) and to encourage
their input prior to such a change being made.
Likewise, those jurisdictions should be encouraged to reciprocate with proposals and an opportunity for review by Saugatuck Township
prior to action on any change which may impact
on the Township. A copy of this Plan and any
amendments to it will be filed with the clerk of
each of these jurisdictions, as well as with the
County Clerk, the County Planning Commission, the County Economic Growth Alliance, the
West Michigan Regional Planning Commission,
and Department of Natural Resources.
Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional
public services such as police and possibly public works should be continued where mutually
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 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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
��12-1
Chapter 12
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
PRIMARY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Relationship to Zoning
The Township has a zoning ordinance
adopted pursuant to the Township Rural Zoning
Act, PA 184 of 1943. The intent of this ordinance
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 Enabling Act requires
the zoning ordinance be based upon the analysis contained in the Plan prepared by the Planning Commission to guide future land use
decisions, the zoning ordinance should be revised to reflect this Plan's new goals, policies,
and future land use proposals. However, the
zoning district map and the future land use map
(10.1) will not be identical. The zoning map
typically reflects existing land use (where it is
desirable to continue it) and small areas zoned
for more intensive use then at present. The
future land use map reflects land use arrangements at some future time. (See Section 10.10,
p. 245-250, Michigan Zoning&: Planning, 3rd
Ed., by Clan Crawford, ICLE, Ann Arbor. 1988).
The Township 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.
Numerous suggestions for changing the
Township zoning ordinance have been offered
throughout this Plan. Key ones include:
• elimination of strip commercial zoning between Douglas and M-89 along Blue Star
Highway
.
• adoption of protective agricultural zoning
• amendment of the sand dune development
requirements
• refining the commercial uses permitted
along Blue Star Highway.
In addition, the zoning ordinance and fee
structures should be amended to permit the
Township to require developers of new commercial and industrial uses and all proposed multifamily developments to pay into an escrow fund
to be used for payment of professional review
fees by engineers, planners and attorneys (if
necessary) . Unused escrowed dollars would be
returned.
Relationship To Plans/Zoning
In Acijacent Jurisdictions
The land use proposals in this plan were
carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring compatibility with those of Saugatuck and Douglas
and 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 adjoiningjurisdiction. 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. In particular. lots which would
be unbuildable under ·existing state or local
regulations (such as lots which are wholly
within a protected wetland) should be prohibited.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�"I
12-2
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.
The Township Planning Commission should develop a formal capital improvement program.
Land Use & I,ifrastructure Policies
A strong effort will be necessary to coordinate future capital improvement 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
BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.) is the basic building
code adopted by the Township 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.
The Township 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. Saugatuck Township is not an
entitlement community. Therefore, it must
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
• Weatherization and Energy Conservation
• Home Repair for the Elderly
• Public Improvement in conjunction with
targeted housing activity (limited 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 Township alone, or in concert with
Douglas and Saugatuck could establish a hous-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�12-3
ing rehabilitation program which would help
preseIVe 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
$500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure
improvement.
• Communities in Transition program funds
community development activities. such
as public sewer 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.
Michigan State Housing Development
Authority (MSHDA) Programs
To help preseIVe 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 maxi.mum
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 ofrecreational lands
through the sale of oil, gas. and mineral leases
and royalties from oil, gas. and mineral extractions on state lands.
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 maxi.mum
for acquisition projects: for development pro-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�12-4
jects, 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 Fund
The Recreation Bond Fund draws from
bonds approved by voters in 1988. It 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 tri-community area include deficiencies in bicycle trails, fishing access, fishing piers, boat launches,
campgrounds, nature areas. hiking 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 minimum 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
maybe obtained from: DNR. Recreation Services
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
TABLE 12.1
RECREATION FACILITIES&: THEIR MINlMUM NUMBER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO
ACHIEVE MINIMUM POINTS
RECREATION FACILI'IY
MINIMUM SIZE
Bicycle Trail
Playground
1 mile
3 pcs. of play
equipment
50 feet
5 parking spaces
10 campsites
1/2 mile
Swimming Beach
Boat Launch
Campground
Non-motorized Trail
Cross-country Ski
Hiking
Nature
Horse
Fishing Access
50 feet
Fishing Piers
1
Nature Area
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 Ju:tlon Program Guidel>ook,
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�1
12-5
improvement of its boat launch site on
Kalamazoo Lake.
Land Acquisition Grants
Land acquisition grants are available for
projects aimed 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.
Watenvays 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
in effect for five years, when they will be 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 of bringing 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. sidewalks, 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. SpecialAssessi:nent Bonds - require that
the principal amount borrowed plus interest be repaid through special assessments
on the property owners in a special assessment district for whatever public purpose
the property owners have agreed (by petition or voting) to be assessed.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�"I
12-6
TAX INCENTIVES
The state law permitting communities to
provide property tax incentives for industrial
development is Act 198. This Act allows a community to provide tax abatements as an incentive for industrial firms which want to renovate
existing or build new facilities.
ADDfflONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Other Planning & Economic
Development Assistance
The Township Planning Commission
should maintain regular communication with
the County Planning Commission, with the West
Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and
with the Allegan County Community Growth
Alliance. These organizations should be encouraged to continue their County and region-wide
planning and economic development efforts and
to share relevant matertals with the Township.
Likewise a copy of this Plan should be forwarded
to each of these agencies when adopted.
Pro-Business Alliance
One way to strengthen the Township's economic development potential is to establish a
pro-business exchange in Township government (or jointly with Douglas and Saugatuck)
modelled after the Michigan Bell Business Retention and Expansion Program. (Saugatuck
Township is not eligible for participation in the
Michigan Bell Business Retention and Expansion program because it is 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 (Le. 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.
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 prtvate or public
health insurance.
The poor are often overlooked in community
development efforts, yet they are the group most
in need of public assistance. Seven percent of
Township 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.
The Township should continue 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 of Trqffic 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 tri-community 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
deserves a more thorough and careful analysis
than has been possible to date. A lot by lot
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
/!'""-
�12-7
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.
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 maintenance 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 political influences
in day to day administration. Efforts are presently underway to evaluate the potential for
doing so.
/10·
,._
Periodic Updating and Revisions
As these additional studies are undertaken
the plan should be updated to reflect the new
information. At a minimum the plan should be
comprehensively reviewed and updated at least
once every five years.
Managing Growth and Change
The key to successfully managing future
growth and community change is integrating
planning into day-to-day decision making and
establishing a continuing planning process. The
only way to get out of a reactionary mode (or
crisis decision making) is by planning and 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).
The current rate of growth in the Township
does not warrant a more sophisticated mechanism for growth management than that described in the previous pages. However, should
the rate or predominant type of development
change, Township officials should be prepared
to move forward quickly with more targeted
regulatory tools.
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 Township officials to pick from
among the new tools, those that will provide
greater choice over local destiny and quality of
life.
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.
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�APPENDIX A
References
�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 data sources are referenced throughout the plan.
DEMOGRAPIIlCS
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- Summary Tape File 3A (microfiche) for
Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and Allegan County.
HISTORY
Joe Armstrong and John Pahl, River & Lake: A Sesquicentennial History OF Allegan County,
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 tri-community area
Parks and Recreation Commission. with the assistance of the Saugatuck Public School District.
February 1985.
�,~
SOLID WAS1E
Allegan County Solid Waste Plan, prepared for the Allegan County Board of Commissioners
and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Allegan County Planning Commission,
PA. 641 solid Waste Planning Committee, and the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission,
September 1983.
ECONOMY
Real and Personal Property SEV, 1980-88, Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax
Commission.
The Economic Impact of Travel on Michigan Counties , prepared for the Michigan Travel
Bureau by the U.S. Travel Data Center, July 1988.
Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile, First Edition, Research Monograph# 1,
Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, 1986.
Michigan Employment Security Commission, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Detroit, Michigan.
UTILITIES
A Feasiblllty Study on the Utlllzation of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir, SaugatuckDouglas Water System, prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland
Engineering, Inc. , January 18, 1983.
Facilities Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976.
Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &
Huber, Inc., March 1988.
Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommendations, Wolverine Engineers & Smveyors, Inc., July 1, 1987.
Village of Saugatuck Streets and Public Utilities Condition Report, May 1984.
Waterworks Reliability Study for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority, prepared by
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc., March 1987.
ZONING
City of Saugatuck Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989.
Saugatuck Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989.
Village of Douglas Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989.
,._
�APPENDIX
B
Demographic, Economic, and Housing Data
�"I
A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
1. Age Cohorts (Raw Data)
Saugatuck
Douglas
Area
Saug. Twp.
County
--------------- ----------- -------------------------------------------------- --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
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
13
15
21
3
11
30
47
6
17
18
15
19
13
24
14
50
106
92
101
136
59
21
27
138
57
26
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+
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--Sumrnary 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 (8.1)
14,406 (17.7)
14,760 (18.1)
13,209 (16.2)
9,306 (11 . 4)
7,820 (9.6 )
6,981 (8.6)
8,473 (10.4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980).
�3. Change in Age Cohorts from 1960-1980
Age
1960 M/F
Tri-Community Area
-
1960
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
Michigan
Another State
Born Abroad
Foreign Born
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saug. Twp.*
Area
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)
2182 (58.3)
1340 (35.8)
(0.2)
7
210 (5.6)
124
(7.2)
County
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
1910
487
670
500
8
(53.4)
(13. 6)
(18. 7)
(14.0)
(0.2)
County
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
Area
County
1561
2.39
852
100
27,282
2.95
19,520
1,911
�7. Marital Status
Saugatuck
Saug Twp
Douglas
----------------------------------------------- - -------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
Saug Twp.
Area
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
11
4
116
106
5
66
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
Douglas
Saug Twp.
Area
County
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- ----- --
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)
22 (5.5)
46 (11.3)
81 (19.9)
32 (7 . 9)
36 (8.9)
189 (46 . 5)
Source: (same as above), item 109.
72
116
133
99
68
246
(9.8)
(15.8)
(18.1)
(13.5)
(9 . 3)
(33.5)
130
181
265
204
160
769
(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
Saugatuck
Total Units
Owner occupied
Renter occupied
772
334 (43.2)
205 (26.5)
Douglas
529
271 (51.2)
117 (22.1)
Area
County
850
2,151
531 (62.4) 1,136 (52.8)
117 (13.7)
439 (20.4)
31,864
22,271 (69.8)
4,961 (15.5)
Saug Twp.
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
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
66.2
11.1
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
*
Area
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
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
6
83
227
24
39
5181
281
206
1127
9
8
8
15
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
�"I
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEV
RESULTS
PAUL HARRIS:
ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTOR
...
RESPONSE RATE
WE SENT 966 SURVEYS FROM OAKLAND UNIVERSITY USING
THE MAIL LABELS FROM THE TOWNSHIP. WE RECEIVED (es
of 11 /29/68)
372 SURVEVS FROM THIS MAILING.
PRODUCING A RESPONSE RATE OF 37.7 PERCENT.
IN
ADD IT I ON, WE RECEIVED 22 RENTER SURVEYS WHICH WERE
DISTRIBUTED BY THE TOWNSHIP. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
SURVEYS USED IN THE FORTHCOMING ANALYSES IS: 394.
�COt1t1UNITY VALUES
Q.J.:
r,?\
Importance of things people look for in a community.
NOTE: OR IGI NAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: NOT IMPORTANT, 4& 5: IMPORTANT, 3:HAS BEEN OMITTED
Q.2: How has the community changed.
(~
\ ,
IMPORTANT
87.71
~QI IMPOR]:ANT
6.51
5.31
15.31
4.61
15.11
21.01
31.01
9.31
37.51
6.31
19.41
13.91
29.11
23.61
24.81
49.91
49.11
16.91
21.31
rural/country atmosphere
quiet
friendly people
attract 1ve/beut t f ul surround1 ngs
~ood place to raise children
raditional values
religious opportunities
freeoom to be myself
chance to get involved tn locel org·s
low crime rate
~ood school system
ow tax rates
close to larger cities
convent ent shop pin~ opportuni tes
availabilit~ of goo housing
family in t e area
job in area
water based rec re at ion nearby
not i ndustri a1i zed
better place to live
stayed about the same
worse place to live
90.71
70.01
82.61
69.81
58.81
42.21
73.21
31.21
82.81
59.41
73.91
47.91
43.71
50.81
28.71
37.51
58.91
57.91
CHECKED
21.51
58.11
20.41
ai As the area grows and chanes, which best describes Saug. Twp ..
1= small village, 2= bedroom community, 3= Holland suburb, 4: Small city
community as is
community as would like it to be
community as think it will be
mt
63.21
19.91
19~21
17.31
26.01
3
4.21
11.91
48.41
!1.4: How would you rate the commun1tes on the following.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: POOR, 4 & 5: GOOD, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
bust ness c1i mate
churches
community events
entertat nment
general appearance
flous1ng
jobs
location
med1 ca 1 care
recreation
restaurants
roads
POOR
35.81
10.91
30.11
51.41
21.71
33.31
59.81
2.71
55.71
13.11
29.71
36.31
.GQQO_
w.71
59.71
41.41
28.91
50.41
29.01
10.41
84.91
20.81
70.31
51.91
33.81
4
4.21
7.61
5.71
�POOR
26.21
ll.4: cont.
schools
sen1 or c1 ti zen services
shopping
social services
texes
34.31
41 .71
41 .81
63.21
B
29.41
35.01
10.61
16.41
COt1tlUN ITV PROBLEMS
Q.6:
Problems feced by the communities, how importent ere they to you.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= NOT A PROBLEM, 4 & 5: PROBLEM, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
NOT
violent crime
vandalism
teens w/ nothing to do
drugs
alcohol
unemp 1oyment
new job opportunities
housrng shortages
pub 1i c recreet ion
too much development
not enough development
leek of e hospitel ...
trefic sef ety
perking downtown Saug.
skateboerds/bikes downtown Seug.
run down property
1it ter downtown aree
litter along blue star Hwy
appearance of bus. along Blue
congestion at oval beech
quafity oval beach facilities
Inad. eccess to waterbodi es
local schools
Township QOV't services
county govt services
leadership elected officiels
Inadequate Twp. taxes
inadequete local planning
i nedequate 1oca 1 deve 1opment
erosion & fl oddi ng
contami net ion drfki ng water
water quality
wetlands
send dunes
other env. destruction
lned. senior programs
erosion e1ong 1eikeshore Dr.
inad. water supply
inad. sewer service
snowmobiling on public roads
A PROBLEM
75.91
47.21
30.31
18.51
17.91
32.71
23.21
32.21
67.61
43.21
69.61
34.01
63.21
23.11
47.71
48.81
60.31
57.61
49.31
53.01
53.91
50.01
44.41
45.61
47.51
44.41
74.91
28.71
28.21
47.91
35.51
21.91
27.91
31.41
27.61
52.91
26.71
35.41
36.21
64.11
PROBLEM
9.51
42.91
56.81
57.91
65.61
33.51
48.71
31.01
14.41
46.11
14.51
56.81
25.61
69.51
20.41
29.31
12.61
20.41
40.61
9.81
14.81
33.91
25.71
25.71
28.51
26.01
5.01
36.21
36.81
36.51
45.11
61.01
46.41
42.51
26.71
16.41
61.71
34.71
33.61
18.61
�SHOPP ING & SERVICES
Where do you go most often for the fo11ow1ng things.
( 1= Saugatuck, 2= Holland, 3= close to work, 4= belter service)
(5= more choice, 6= 1ower cost)
1
2
3
4
5
6
T4.41:~TSI o.9112.blnrnl
appliances
0.01 79. 1I
1.71
4.31
6.31
6.61
auto/truck sales
13.01
72.71
2.51
4.21
5.11
2.51
auto /truck services
75.11
19.71
1.61
0.01
3.61
0.01
bakery goods
79.51 14.01
4. 11
0.91
0.01
1.51
banking
60.11 26.61
5.61
4.91
1.71
0.91
beautician/barber
25.41 55.01
1.61
1.01 10.41
6.51
books
41.61 51.21
0.91
3.71
0.91
1.61
car wash
6.41 66.51
0.01
0.01 16.21
7.01
clothing
65.31 26.61
3. 11
3. 11
0.01
0.01
day care
0.01 75.41
0.01
0.01 21.21
3.41
dept. store
46.01 50.91
2.11
0.01
1.01
0.01
dry c1eaners
50.11 46.31
0.01
0.91
2.61
0.01
f ami 1y restaurants
40.51 39.91
0.01
0.91 16.61
0.01
fancy restaurants
5.01 65.01
3.71
0.91
5.31
0.01
fast food
62.21 28.31
2.01
3.91
3.61
0.01
flower shop
25.51 46.31
1.91
1.91 16.31
6.21
furniture
48.51 47.31
0.81
0.01
0.61
2.51
groceries
56.61 31.41
4.01
1.71
1.41
2.91
fiardware
69.81 24.51
1.41
2.81
1.41
0.01
laundromat
lawn&. garden supplies
34. 11 53.51
1.01
0.01
5. 11
6.41
50.61
37.91
1.01
1.01
2.51
7.01
lumber
medical services
30. 11 53.31
8.01
4.31
4.31
0.01
3.01 88.51
2.01
0.01
6.61
0.01
movies
66.81 27.51
2.61
1.41
0.91
0.91
pharmacy
18.21 62.51
2.11
0.01
7.41
7.41
sport 1ng goods
_g, 1O:
COttt1ERC IAL DEVELOPMENT
Approve or disapprove of future commercial development.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= DISAPPROVE, 4 &. 5= APPROVE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
in small shopping centers
in one large shopping center
in downtown Saug.
in downtown Dougles
in scattered commercial areas
in strip commercial areas
nowhere
_g~ Where should new commercial
PI $APPROVE
31.21
48.21
62.71
38.51
45.71
64.71
46.81
APPROVE
54.6i
33.01
23.51
47.71
28.91
20.51
22.81
development occur.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= DISAPPROVE, 4 &. 5= APPROVE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
along North Blue Star Hwy.
along South Blue Star Hwy.
along Butler St. in Sougotuck
along Water St. in Saugatuck
elong Lake St. 1n Saugatuck
along M-89 outside oT Fennville
et freeway interchanges
DISAPPROVE
APPROVE
17.01
23.41
77.01
75.11
74.11
32.11
27.21
74.11
65.21
14.11
13.11
14. 11
40.01
52.11
�INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
11.•.12.; Does the area need more industrial
development.
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
1= 17.61,
2= 9.61,
3: 23.41,
4= 16.01,
5= 31.11
Ir'
BLUE STAR HIGHWAY
9~ What are your priorities for Blue Star Highway.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 &. 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED
better lighting
untf orm sign controls
improve traffic flow
add a center turn 1ane
install public sewer
install public water
imp rove drainage
improve appearance
create commercial strip
more tourist orientated bus.
more shopping
more industry
more personal services
more auto services
more offices
fast food rest.s
drive thru businesses
no changes
better lane striping
re surfacing
uniform speed limit
bike bath
more tree
a
R
35.01
24.41
35.21
40.21
40.21
52.41
22.31
46.81
65.31
40.61
44.51
39.21
36.61
47.51
59.71
45.31
30.11
30. 11
29.41
61.31
32.11
22.61
45.11
39.91
35.41
43.71
43.21
26.61
44.21
61.31
50.51
27.51
49.31
26.91
29.01
13.01
32.51
36.21
35.51
59.61
73.51
57.11
54.31
49.61
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
.Q.14: What type of residential development is needed in Saugatuck.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
( 1= needed now, 2= needed 1eter, 3= not needed, 4= hos been omitted)
1
apartments
attached single-femily homes
detached single-family homes(50-70)
detached single-family homes(70+)
waterfront condos
low income housing
mobi 1e homes
seniors housing
country estates
37.41
21.71
14.tr 27h
13.61
42.51
49.21 17.81 16.01
32.41 20.21 25.11
1.61
37.71
19.31
36.41
32.11
1.51
7.81
4.61
21.81
18.21
69.51
37.11
58.31
17.81
27.91
�RECREATION
Q.15: Type of eddttionel recre8tion81 f8ciltties 8re needed in the
S8UQ8tuck 8re8 .
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2: LOW PRIORITY, 4&. 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED,
6= HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE OF LOW RESPONSE
basketball courts
bike paths
boat l_aunching ramps
camp1ng
community center
cross country ski trai 1s
fitness center
~olf course
ikin~ trails
horse 8Ck trails
ice rink
Lk. front open space(Lk. Ml)
LI<. front open space(Lk.Kal)
pub 1i c Mari nos
pri vote marinas
movie theater
nei ~hborhood p1aygrounds
pars
picnic areas
raquetb811 courts
Riverfront open spece(K81 river)
senior citizen center
shuffle board
softb811 fields
swimming pool(s)
tennis courts
HIGH
LOW
so.5'°1
19.31
17.11
40.61
34.91
24.71
29.91
60.81
27.01
36.1 I
29.91
20.11
27.01
31.81
SO.Bl
32.61
43.31
32.51
34.51
44.21
21.BI
26.BI
40.61
47.71
37.01
55.31
~
64.41
58.91
34.51
34.91
59.81
46.91
17.41
55.61
38.71
41.61
67.01
61.91
44.51
19.41
44.81
35.71
50.91
44.11
16.81
61.81
53.11
27.61
21 .91
42.11
23.21
WATERFRONT DEVELOPHENT & SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Q.16: Which of the followin~ best desribe ~our use (s) of nearby water
bodies.
~Qtion
. ng
sw1mm1ng
sunbathing
ft shi ng~boot)
f 1sh1 ng shore)
noture study
S8i11ng
windsurfing
waterskiing
powerboot i ng
scuba di vi
W8terfow1 unt.
ice fishing
ice skatin~
cross coun ry ski .
snowmobi 1i ng
tcebooting
other
I dont use it
"ft
I"
(VALUES EPRESENT PER ENT CHECKED)
~I
3.01
4.61
, 28.91
28.41
21.61
2.31
0.01
7.11
15.01
3.81
9.61
3.81
0.81
6.11
2.31
0.81
12.41
'-3.81
&1
3.01
8.11
6.91
B.61
6.11
3.01
6.91
•13.51
3.01
1.51
3.01
0.81
0.81
0.01
0.01
6ijl
"'55.1 I
44.91
38.81
16.51
23.11
19.01
9.41
15.71
22.81
6.31
0.81
1.51
0.01
B.61
1.51
0.01
1~1
6.11
3.81
13.71
12.91
12.41
0.81
0.81
6.91
9.61
1.51
3.81
. - 14.21
2.31
3.01
3.01
0.01
17.31
6.31
23.91
�D.17: Which term best describes your opinion of the present woter
-quelity of the following water bodies.
H1
8.71
very good
go~cl
fa1r
poor
ve,:-y poor
don t know
0~
7.91
19.61
14.01
37.11
21.31
19.81
17.31
39.71
14.51
SL
t.?1
0.01
7.11
11.81
17.61
14.91
48.61
25.21
33.81
13.01
11.61
9.71
g_ 18: Besed on your experience in recent yeers the water quality of the
following water bodies has.
1ff1
19.71
improved greetly
improved slightfy
steyed the same
deteriorated slightly
deteri oreted great 1y
don't know
11 .81
23.71
20.21
13.01
1~
13.81
12.61
22.81
21.01
17.71
&
1H'1
B.91
16.41
18.11
6.11
47.41
21.BI
20.91
2B.31
5.51
11.11
11.J.9.;. Indication of feeling about the adequacy of the following facilities
on each weter body.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= INADEQUATE, 4 &. 5= ADEQUATE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
KR
Boot launch
boat s1i ps(r)
boot slips(c)
marinas
swim. beaches
Boat serv1 ce
pumpout focil.
Fish cleening
Comp grouds
perks
public rest.
other public.
Des. boat mor.
Des. no wake
INAD-A9,0
45.6 2~1
20.6
5.3
14.4
35.6
23.0
26.4
25.8
54.7
43.4
51.7
39.0
49.7
41.0
48.9
55.5
68.2
46.5
59.0
23.0
33.5
21.5
32.4
34.1
31.3
30.3
33.4
1o/\°~8~
20.5 49.7
6.1
23.0
38.5
27.2
25.7
27.0
48.5
40.3
49.5
27.3
35.7
35.7
55.5
57.2
31.7
57.6
25.0
31.3
21.0
18.2
26.2
31.9
39.0
46.5
&
IJ1
I~~-~
20.5
16.8
17.8
25.5
34.6
24.3
35.5
46.3
44.0
37.5
21.8
25.2
25.4
11~•
~8,~
20.6
20.7
40.1
45.0
59.4
37.0
19.6
19.5
18.0
32.8
32.4
37.3
35.7
52.0
17.B
19.4
36.8
33.7
16.3
34.9
47.3
45.9
37.2
28.5
23.0
27.9
ADO
21.1
25.2
31.0
39.8
26.4
28.9
20.9
11.1
18.6
19.3
18.6
25.3
27.0
38.6
g~ Should the TownshiP. actively coopenste in the construction of an
areawide marina.
1= 40.31,
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
2= 7.11,
3= 12.61,
4= 7.91,
5: 32.11
g=2.1.;, Should the Township actively seek to find alternatives for low
cost access by Township resldents to Lake Michigan beech facilities.
( 1=strongly disegree to 5= strongly agree)
1= 11.61,
2= 7.21,
3: 13.41,
4= 20.91,
5: 46.61
OTHER LAND USE QUESTIONS
g~ Should ·pole barns" be allowed to be constructed in residential
districts
1= 28.61,
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
2= 6.51,
3= 30.51,
4: 18.31,
5: 16.11
,..
�.Q.23: Should prime ogriculturol lend in Seugetuck Township be limited
exclusiYely to egriculturel production or should residentiel homes
be permitted to be deYeloped.
CHECKiD
leeYe for exclusive eg. use
38.4
ellow residences
52.01
uncertei n
9.61
9.24: If residences ere premitted, should the size of the lots be limited
to reduce impects on egriculturel lends.
C\CKjD
yes, reduce size
4 .9
no, lots eny size
39.91
uncertein
14.21
9~ Should other non-egriculturel uses be permitted in egriculturel
zones.
yes= 43.41,
no: 32.51,
uncertain= 24.11
.U,26: Which, if eny, of the following types of "home occupations" do you
f eYor being permitted in residentielly zoned erees.
( f = strongly oppose to 5: stronly favor)
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= OPPOSE, 4 & 5: FAVOR, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED
r'~
WW
39.81
bed & breekf est
heirdressers/berbers
music 1es sons
dance lessons
accounting/tax prep.
low offices
medical offices
edul t foster cere
dey care
"evon", "emwef
typing serYi ces
dressmekt i ng/ a1t.
cerem1cs
clothing boutiques
b~kery_
p1zzene
smell engine repair
antique seles
14.81
19.11
19.61
45.51
46.81
39.41
35.41
44.21
18.61
13.21
37.21
57.61
51.01
63.91
48.91
40.31
EW
42.81
74.61
68.71
67.01
41.01
37.21
38.21
44.81
36.11
60.41
67.61
38.11
26.11
34.51
25.21
33.31
49.01
ENY I RONt1ENT AL PROTECT I ON
.0....2L Whet limitations, if eny, should be imposed on deYelopment in
each of the following erees.
( 1= no new deYelopment, 2= Yery low density, 3: moderate density)
(4= No special regulation)
,,-----....
~
forested send dunes
open send dunes
wetlends & swamps ed~oining
wet 1ends & swemps tn end
elong the Kel. r1Yer
elong Kel. leke
elong Lk. HI
elong Silver Lk.
~
87.41
82.81
72.61
34.71
39.71
32.91
30.51
~
8.51
10.21
19.01
33.11
24.01
27.11
23.31
~ ~
1.81
3.51
4.41
31.31
34.41
35.91
35.71
2.41
3.51
4.11
0.91
1.91
4.11
10.51
�PUBLIC SERVICES
9.28: How would you rate the fallowing local public services.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= POOR, 4 &. 5: GOOD, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
ambulance
animal control
building inspections
cemetaries
drain maintenance
ftre protection
first responder unit
i nturban bus
land use planning
library
dust control on roads
park maintainace
playground equip.
shenff services
property assessment
public boat launching
schools K-6
schools 7-12
schools- community ed.
snow removal
state police
storm drat nage
street 1i ght i ng
road maintainance
road re surfacing
water service
zoning enforcement
keeping intersections clear
rm-
35.21
26.91
5.71
34.81
12.51
10.41
16.41
56.31
12.51
39.21
17.01
15.21
34.71
55.71
34.91
22.81
23.91
15.91
20.91
4.61
22.01
25.01
42.41
41.91
30.91
43.01
42.61
f\
R
29.31
25.61
62.41
21.31
67.41
66.41
71.41
9.21
51.31
20.81
41.91
44.91
37.91
11.81
27.11
45.01
46.01
45.31
53.91
81.81
32.81
23.91
26.41
22.11
19.21
15.01
15.91
~
r---.
.....
g~ What are your prtor1ties for how the Township s~ends your tax
dollars.
( 1:low priority to 5= high priority
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
cemetary maintenemce
enforcing ordinances
road re surf act ng
fire protection
ambulance service
Twp. admin. services
Twp. hall maint.
park& rec. services
plan future
waterfront imp.
interurban bus
LOW
35.41
14.81
11.31
0.01
2.71
45.01
51.91
24.71
17.91
39.81
41.01
HIGH
29.01
44.91
72.21
88.11
81.01
25.01
15.61
42.21
61.01
41.11
42.61
I",
�9.30: How frequently do you use the followf ng servf ces,.
( 1= never, 2= less than ltfme/montti, 3= one t1me/month)
(4= one time/week, 5= more often)
recyc 1i ng center
interurban bus service
river bluff park
Saup. -Doug. di strf ct 1i brary
ova beacti
Douglas beach
sun aown park
shultz park
Saug. Dunes St. Park
beery field
wicks park
other parks out of area
Twp. office services
1
seB
52.41
64.91
39.01
41.41
55.21
73.41
47.31
67.01
62.11
73.01
52.61
44.51
~
34.01
31.61
30.91
24.41
20.11
21.11
40.51
20.71
14.21
24.31
32.31
43.51
rob
7.51
2.71
15.31
13.11
11.81
1.71
6.01
5.41
1.61
1.81
11.91
9.11
4
-s:51
1.71
0.91
8.41
8.91
10.01
3.81
4.51
3.91
1.61
0.91
2.11
0.91
~
4.31
0.01
6.41
12.21
2.91
0.01
1.81
3.01
0.01
0.01
1.11
1.91
.Q.31: Which of the following options do you prefer for solving the
problem of shore eros10n undermimng Lake Shore Road.
CHECK;o
34.3
provf ding shore protection ...
closing lake Shore Drive ...
rebuilding the road ...
closing sections of road ...
30.51
34.81
6.11
Q.32: If it meant an increase in genera 1 property taxes, wh1 ch of the
follwing services do you tflink Saugatuck Twp. should increase or
add.
CHECKED
police protection
fire protection
addi ti one 1 road paving
ambulance service
municipal water service
muni ci pa1 sewer service
renovate Twp. hall
est ab 1i sh archi Ye ...
more parks
comm. rec. center
seniors center
1ndustri a1 park
drainage control
trash collection
combined ma1nt. garage
economic development
24hr. medical service
community poo1
26.41
35.51
25.41
36.01
23.11
22.31
2.31
0.01
3.81
7.91
18.81
16.21
11.71
6.91
8.41
8.91
46.41
13.51
Q.33: Which of the following methods do you support for paying for
public water and sewer service.
1= gerneral prop. tax, 2= special assessment, 3= seperate fee, 4: uncertain
wells & treatment facilities
individual street/road lines
connections to each property
access to sewer and water euth.
1
41.21
26.71
11.11
26.11
r,h
22.31
15.91
11.01
3
16.0ll
26.01
48.41
33.11
4
23.21
24.91
24.61
29.81
�J;l.34: Which of .the following stetements is closet to your position on
government services end property texes.
Nice to have better services, but. ..
I would like better government services, ...
Local government tries to do to much, ...
Other
C~CKED
.71
17.51
· ,30.21
8.61
Q.35: Place a check before each of the follwing Township
boards/commissions et wh1ch you have attended a meeting in the
1ast 2 years.
CHECKED
Township Boe rd
27.41
planning/zoning commision
18.31
zoning ooerd of eppea 1s
15.71
board of review(taxes)
25.41
9.11
schoo 1 board
Saug Township fire district
5.61
interurban trans. system
6.31
Kal. Lk. weter & Sewer Authority
0.81
Saug. twp. Park & Rec. Commiss1on
1.51
.Q.36: How responsive do you feel these parts of local government are to
Saugatuck Township citizens.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: NOT RESPONSIVE, 4 & 5: RESPONSIVE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
Twp. Board
planning/zoning commision
zoning lloard of appea 1s
board of review(taxes)
schoo 1 board
Saug. twp. fire district
interurban tnms. system
Ka 1. Lk. water & Sewer Auth.
Saug. twp. Park & Rec. Comm.
NOT R~SP°IS IVE
2.7
29.21
28.91
36.81
16.61
4.41
23.91
18.61
18.21
RESK,ONII VE
7.6
27.21
24.81
24.91
32.31
42.71
33.01
19.71
24.31
!J.37: Should the Township adopt a policy of consolidating services with
other governmental unit.
yes= 62.51,
g~
no= 10.31,
uncertain:27.21
If yes, whet services should be consolideted.
NOTE: THESE VALUES CORRESPOND TO THE PERCENT WHO ANSWERED "VES"
ABOVE
Sewer
water
strorm water
police
street &. roads
parks &. summer Rec.
planning
zoning
bu11 d1 ng permits
Townshl p manager
Comb. 1nterurban veh1 ca 1 mai nt.
CHECKED
45.71
44.21
26.91
43.11
35.31
35.51
35.31
29.41
21.61
27.91
27.41
�9_39: Should the City of Sougotuck, the Villoge of Douglos{ ond the
Township of Saugatucl< consolidate into a single uni of
government.
yes= 49.4:C,
no= 50.6:C
BACKGROUND INf.ORNATION
,tl-40: Are you a regi sterd voter.
yes: 95.2:C,
no: 4.81
9-41: How many years have you resided in Saugatuck Township.
less than 1
1 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 20
more thon 20
CH§CKED
.61
12.21
30.1:C
20.81
33.21
.Q.42: How many more years do you think you will stay fn the Saugatuck
area.
less than one
1 - 3
4 - 10
more than 10 yrs.
CHE~KED
o. I
7.8:C
17.61
72.01
~ How many months of each year do you typically reside in
Saugatucl< Township.
~
81.01 OF RESPONDENTS SAID " 12 MONTHS"
_g~ Please check each of the following that apply to you.
NOTE: PERCENT AGES INDICATE MULTIPLE RESPONSES
residential property owner
renter
own or manage o business in area
CHECKED
92.0:C
27.51
16.7:C
!I~ Which of the following best represents where you live.
NOTE: 11. 11 OF RESPONDENTS DID NOT ANSWER TH IS QUEST ION
I
on the dunes/bluff along Lk. Ml
on the dunes along Kalamazoo Lake
elsewhere along Kalamazoo Lake
along Kalamazoo River
a1ong Si 1ver Lake
elswnere along the Kal. river
on hi 11 in Saug.
else. in Saug.
near downtown Doug.
else. in Doug
in Arg. area of Saug. twp.
e1se. tn Saug. twp.
CHECKED
8.91
0.81
1.71
7.51
7.51
0.01
0.01
2.51
0.01
7.81
20.81
32.11
�"I
J;l.46: Whet is the highest level of educetion you hove f i nished.
cH;cKED
less then high school
high school greduete
some co 11 ege
essoctete's or techntcel degree
college greduete
greduete or professionel degree
.61
11.01
25.81
9.91
34.1 I
12.1I
g~ Pleese provide the following tnformetion ebout eech person thet
normelly lives in your housenold.
AVERAGE AGE OF RESPONDENTS
56.77
SEX OF RESPONDENTS
mele
femele
68.01
32.01
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
employed
not emp1oyed
55.81
44.21
COMMUNITY
Oougles
City of Seugatuck
Sougetuck Township
Holfend
other
9.41
7.11
34.01
15.61
34.01
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RETIRED
38.31
�APPENDIX
D
Soil Types - Tri-Community Area
�SOIL TYPES - TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
SOILTYPE
AND SLOPE
SOIL NUMBER .
LIMITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC TANK
, 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
1 OB
l0C
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
I
I
CATEGORY B - SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, man 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%
Pi~estone 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,
SE3,
SE3,
SE5,
SE5,
SE3
SE5
SEl,
SEl,
SE3,
SE5,
SE3,
SE5,
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 loam1 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-Capa:c loams, 1-6%
Metamora sari.dy loam, 1-4%
Rimedoamy s·an:d; 0-4%
Seward loamy fme sand, 1-6%
41B
16B
21B
SB
SC
33A
14C
14D
14E
75B
42B
28A
60B
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE3
SE3
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE3
SE5
SE3
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�..
SOILTYPE
AND SLOPE
•· ·LIMITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION FIELDS
SOIL NUMBER
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
Na polean 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, SE5
SE6
SE6, SE4
SEll, SE6
SE5, SE6
SE4, SE6
SES, SE3, SE5
SES, SE3.
SES, SE6
SE6
SE6, SElQ'·;
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
~
~.
1
. ·i'•
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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
MD2, · •; ;r
SL
' •·:
.MDl
·\'-; t '~'t
'
r
. S~l -F·;~,s
:U·• ..
SEl .
· t:~ · ;~- r.')Mti2.
' .
.. SL
··~·
~· : ·i.-:
', ~~
[f:Jh
•
c:
�. •.
UNCLASSIFIEB:SQILS
34
Aquents, ~andy and loE1-my
Pits
Udipsamments
18
66
KEY FOR LIMJTATION CODES
SEVERE LIMITA'TIONS:
SLOPE
SHRINK-SWELL
WET.NESS
POU-.R-' FILTER
PERC,S ·SLOWLY
PONDING
CUT-BANKS CAVE·
FLOODING
EXCESSIVE HUMUS
LOW STRENGTH
SUBSIDES
SEl
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5 f·
SE6
..
SE7 t ,..
SE8
SE9
SEl0
SEll
t
MODERATE LIM1TAT-IONS:
MDl
MD2 .
MD3
SLOPE
SHRINK-SWELL
·WETNESS
!
SLIQHT LIMITATIONS:
SL
. SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
;,
!;._.•
•
,,.
.;$'"
-r·:-..p·~-, ,..
,-::""":,~\
~
~....+
,r,
• ~ • • ' .,
f
&-
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
�. ·~
~
.
.. _::.i::
·1
, ,l _,
\ 1
N
SOIL TYPES
TOWNSHIP -NORTH 1/2
�0
~
-..
. i
'-.-
.,.::_;._
.
•
�
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
Saugatuck-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan_1989
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Saugatuck Township Planning Commission, Saugatuck Township, 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
Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan
Description
An account of the resource
The Saugatuck Township Comprehensive Plan was prepared by the Saugatuck Township Planning Commission in cooperation wit the Township Board of Trustees and Coastal Management Program, with the assistance of the 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 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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6469aa05d27cccbfa4acc2bc278ad17e.pdf
f905de05ab4244b301dbc7dd2d781bac
PDF Text
Text
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
�-
-
'
- --- .- - - ---
�VILLAGE OF ' SAUGATUCK
LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAM
The Village of Saugatuck proposes through this land use program to guide,
direct, and integrate future development of land within Village limits
in accordance with,and in light~of specific village land use policies,
objectives, and strategies. The planning program will guide future
public and private decisions making processes that will Impact .the use
of the land within the village.
Following adoption of this plan, no
public or private action affecting the use of land shall be undertaken
that is not consistent with this plaDning program.
The planning program
will be reviewed yearly by the planning commission.
It will be expand-
ed, added to, or updated as appropriate.
The Village considers the
planning program to be a process that will respond over time to change
while basic objectives remain.
The land use plan to follow will reconvnend future land use patterns for
specific parts of the village. It will guide the development and structuring of legislative ordinances and controls affecting the use of land,
for example, zoning ordinances, site planning regulations, and subdivision regulations.
The village will continue to work on additional plan-
ning programs to compliment the land use elements e.g. traffic planning,
infra-structure planning, recreation planning, etc.
Suggesting land
uses and development strategies is just one portion of a program that
will ultimately involve most facets of village administration.
The discussion to follow is in two main parts:
1)
Community Profile
2)
Land Use Policies
The former is a discussion of the Village as it is now, and as it has
been.
This is reflected in population data, economic considerations,
existing land uses,existing infa-structure, the historical derivation
of structure and function and other generally measurable factors.
The
latter, using the profile as a base, developes, discusses and maps the
villages feeling about what Saugatuck should look like in the years ahead.
The assumption is that development will occur, the village will grow,
1
�and that it is encumbent upon conwnunity leaders to Insure that it grows
in a fashion that is in the best interests of its citizens.
2
�COMMUNITY PROFILE
SUMMARY OF MAJOR TRENDS/INFLUENCES
* Existing land use is low density/low intensity;
* Environmental amenities remain, for the most part, in tact;
* Many existing shorelines and scenic areas are under-utilized as both
public and private resources; there is a great potential for increased
public and private investment;
* Tourism and seasonal populations are major supporters of an active,
vital economic structure; these influences have shaped the structure
of the economy and the use of the land;
* A recently completed sewer system will cause pressures for increased
growth;
1,
The Village and surrounding area is becoming a "retirement center";
seasonal dwellings are being converted to year-round dwellings;
* Population movement trends have shifted from rural to urban to urban to
rural; that is expected to increase growth pressures in the Village.
These factors singly or in combination suggest that the next few years may
be its most active.
There certainly will be increased growth pressure.
The
Village has many characteristics that will make It an ideal place for resident1ul growth, commercial growth1 and growth as a public and private recreational resource.
3
- - - - -- -
�COMMUNITY PROFILE
INTRODUCTION:
This section will discuss present and historical land use, population,
and economic characteristics,
Information presented here wi 11 describe
the Village and its function.
Prior land use decisions and their affect
on development patterns will become apparent,
This discussion will
describe the present, and enable the Village to direct, plan, and organize the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The natural environment is perhaps the most distinguished feature of
the Village and surrounding area,
Its uniqueness and Importance has
been recognized officially by the Michigan State Department of Natural
Resources.
The DNR has with the advise and urging of the West Michigan
Regional Planning Commission, designated the Vlll _age as an Area of
Particular Concern (APC}.
Areas of Particular Concern are those having
scarce resources, unusual scenic beauty, unusual economic value, recreational attractions or some combination of the above,
APC's are
located in coastal areas and influence and have an impact upon coastal
and Great Lakes waters.
Alteration of the environmental qualities of
an APC could have a significant impact upon coastal and Great Lakes
waters,
The Village qualifies as an APC because of its proximity to
Lake Michigan and, because of its fragile and unique environments
particularly the Dune Areas,
Alterations of these environments would
significantly impact coastal waters.
cussed in greater detail below.}
4
(The environments . wlll be dis-
�The designation extends to the entire Village,
The significance of
this designation is the recognition of the uniqueness and importance
of the area, and the need to preserve and conserve its function as a
coastal area.
The . State of Michigan by this designation pledges sup-
port in whatever way possible to preserving the Integrity of this area
as a coastal zone.
OVERVIEW:
The Village is one of the most scenic in the State and perhaps the
country.
It has unique shorelands, dune areas, and other natural areas
as well as being a major art, antique and craft center.
The Vlllag.e is
a major tourist attraction in Michigan and in the central United States.
In addition, it is a desirable residential area.
Corrrnunity facilities
are sufficient to support families and retired people,
It is within
corrrnuting distance of the major employment center in Western Michigan,
Grand Rapids, as well as an important secondary employment center,
Kalamazoo.
The provision of convnunity facilities has recently been expanded.
Sewer is now available throughout the Village, and water is potentially
available.
This should have a direct impact on growth potential.
The
Village's capacity to absorb further development has_ greatly increased,
This will make it very difficult to rely on past projections for indications of future trends,
LAND USE:
Development in the Village is primarily low-density and loW""lntensity,
Residential densities average approximately 2-3 units per_ gross resi~
dential acres.
Single-family residential areas are approximately 5
�units per~ acre of land area (excludes streets and other rightof-way) based upon the most common lot size -- 66 1 x 132' or 8,712
square feet.
Existing motels and tourist accomodation facilities are
low-intensity.
The largest doesn't have a hundred units.
Village
Center commercial and retail uses have floor areas typical of local
neighborhood or commercial facilities, though they are primarily
tourism oriented.
Of the approximately 730.41 acres of land within Village boundaries,
some 367 or approximately 50% are vacant (see Table I for detailed
breakdown and Figure 1 for map of existing uses),
Water accounts for
181.60 acres or 19.94% of the total area within Village limits (912.01
acres).
A relatively large part of the total land area is devoted to Parks
Recreation Uses -- 105.07 acres or approximately 15%.
&
Other than this.
the largest portion of existing land area, 94.03 acres, ts devoted to
single-family residential,
Another 38 a~res ls In seasonal residential
use.
As Figure 1 indicates, there is a great deal of shoreline within the
Village (approximately 5 miles) on the Kalamazoo River. Kalamazoo Lake,
and Lake Michigan, suggesting water•ori~nted activities, tourism, etc~
in general uses ·characteristic of waterfronts,
developed whe:
~
The Village, In fact.
it did in large part because of water access.
The water was first used t" transport lumber to market, · to travel between major cities and.in general, to conduct trade and commerce,
The
lumber industry is gone and there are more efficient means of transport
now so the waterfront plays a different role,
. _,_ r:. . · -- -
--
It is primarily a recrea-
�TABLE I
EXISTING USE OF LAND
SAUGATUCK, MICHIGAN
Type and Use
Residential
Single-Family (2)
Two-Family Res.
Seasonal Res.
Multi-Family Res.
Mobile Horne
TOTAL
Non-Residence
General Business
Local Business
Aecom.Business
Industrial
Warehse.& Storage
Public
Semi-Public
Park or Recreation
School
Roads & Highways
Piers
Number
of
Uses
Acreage
Acres/100
321
2
198
13
1
94.03
0.30
38.28
1. 74
0.01
7.36
0.02
534
Pop. 1970
% Total
Acreage
(1)
10. 31
0.03
3.00
4.20
0 .13
o.oo
0 .19
0 .o 1
134.36
10.51
14.74
13
45
16
3
3
11
7.79
0.61
0.35
0.35
O .19
0.85
0.07
.7
4.06
105.07
3.11
0 .10
0.23
0.45
11. 52
4.52
4.50
2.48
0.92
2.12
0 .16
0.49
0.49
0.27
3
3.33
0.32
8.22
0.24
7 .14
0.26
647
363.48
28.42
39.84
Agricultural or
Vacant
366.93
28.71
40.22
Water Area
181.60
14.21
19.94
912. 01
71.34
100.00
TOTAL DEVELOPED
LAND
TOTAL LAND
(1)
(2)
11
1
91.22
647
1970 population calculated by consultant to be 1,278.
Includes Resident Business.
SOURCE:
Existing Use of Land, Schel 1ie Associates Inc., March, 1970
7
0.34
10.00
0.36
�FIGURE I
a:
• •
,.
/
•
•
-
t
#
>L ·c
'
<
1n~ .
-
Q
II(
Ill
•-.
1:11111
u
Q
1--
<
Q
~
<
rn
u
z
!D uz
:; u
z
! .
;.
:,
0
~
u
Cl
w
..;
◄
;.
i
0
:,
! i
!
:
z
:,
w
g
! n
:, u
0
!
0
◄
z
0
u
~
.
~
~
◄
◄
◄
:,
0
u
:,
D
!
~
◄
)
I
l
"'
::,
t
0
!
.z..
"'><
Ill
z
◄
0
z
i
.~
•
.
?
.• • • •• . . . ~ 0
z
"' .., .,
.
.,
!
; :: : ~
D ·I 11~0011•
D
~·
0
Ill
•i
0
:,
i
I
u
I
!
0
0
Q
.z
- ......
.. .
~
u
:,
~
~
i
•
0
t
:!:
z
~
1
'
l
f
8
!
�tional resource.
Thus, the waterfront areas have developed for recrea-
tional uses -- commercial, transit and seasonal lodging, marinas, etc.
The waterfront area is conveniently divided from the major year-round
residential area by a steep ridge.
On top of the ridge are the majority
of the •village's year-round single-family homes.
tively unaffected by tourism.
This area is compara-
It is comparatively uncongested,
Although tourists and seasonal residents are prevelant in the Village
for just half the year, they have had major Impacts upon
With the exception of the
11
land use.
ridge11 area, most of the Vlllage';s land uses
respond either to demands of tourists or of seasonal residents.
A somewhat more detailed discussion of specific areas within the Village
will follow.
The Village is divided into eight (8) fairly well dis-
tinguished planning areas or
11
districts 11 for the purpose of more de-
tailed description and to assist with the preparation of a future land
use plan map.
Growth objectives and strategies then will be formulated
for each district based upon existing characteristics and general
community planning policies,
Refer to Figure 2 for the location of the
planning are.as. Area one is particularly important and therefore will
be discussed last.
!\REA TWO
CENTER TRANSITION AREA
Area 2 is generally north of the Village Center along and on either side
of Butler Street.
It is occupied by approximately 21 si _n gle-family
structures and approximately one two-family structure,
typically old and large,
The homes are
Some area over a hundred years ·old and would
qualify as "Historic Structures",
Many are characteristic of urban areas
where homes bec~use of their age and size become difficult to heat and
keep in good repair,
9
--·--
-- - - - --
-··----
�'..~, ,,
~:s
~.
........
'
'
·J~. '\, '\
,..
\.'\
~
~
:;
I
(0
\
\
~.
''
~'
~••
\.,~ _.,i~
~
.-,J
_{,:.iy
... ... ,.
',\ .. ~' jf•,
'•,
.
··..•
.•••
:•.•••.••.....••
CX)
'I'_
�Bulter Street, in the area, is fairly heavily travelled during the
tourist season.
Holland Street to the north and east is a main entranc~.
It is typical for vehi c les entering the Village to enter on Holland, go
south on one of three east-west streets and proceed Into the Village
Center ·along Bulter.
Thus it is heavily travelled for a two land resi-
dential street, though it has remained residential to Mary Street.
homes are primarily frame, white, and in good repair.
The
Most structures
are occupied on a year-round basis,
AREA THREE - WATER STREET SHORELINE
The most predominate uses in the Water Street area are waterfront
oriented.
These include public and private marinas, restaurants capi-
talizing on the waterfront view,
rides, charter boats, etc.
tourist attractions offering boat
One of the Village's two Industries, The
American Twist i ng Company is located here,
There are perhaps ten single-
family homes, four multi-family structures, includ·ing a new twenty·
four (24) unit condominium, and transient lodging facilities, the largest
of which has some sixty-four (641 units.
Bas i ca 11 y, the area · is ·a mixture of uses.
It is the second most active
tourist center in the Village east of the Kalamazoo River.
been
a number
of substantial commercial investments along the waterfront
making the area one of the Village's most active,
investments
There have
In proximity to these
are under utilized properties that do not appear to generate
economic activity and are apparently not, at this time, f~rther developed.
The water line is almost entirely lined with bulkheads and utilized in
a water related capacity.
terms of tourist activity.
Area 3 is a natural extension of Area 1 in
Tourists visit the shops and galleries in
11
�Area 1, walk the boardwalk along the water and perhaps eat in Area 3,
Areas 1 and 3 are closely related in terms of contribution to the
Village 's economic base, and tourism orientation.
compliment each other.
They support and
Vistors to one area invariably visit the other.
Area 3 supports more diverse uses of greater intensity than one, however, it would not ex ist without the unique attractiveness of Areal.
AREA FOUR - LAKE STREET
Area 4 is similar to area 3 in the sense that It is basically along the
shoreline.
However, in terms of activity, use, access, development, and
investment, it is very dissimilar.
There are some 35 single-family
homes, a number of transient lodging, a marina, some commercial facilities, and the areas largest industry,
Much of the area ls vacant.
Many of the structures are in poor repair,
little investment in recent years,
There appears to have been
Althouqh there are exceptions, the
waterfront is generally under-developed and in poor repair,
Expecting limited transient lodgings, the area has little attraction
for tourists.
Many of the single ~family homes are seasonal dwellings
-- occupied only during - the summer months,
Lake Street at the Blue
Star Highway is the Village's second major entrance.
Traffic volumes
result both from thru-traffic going to the Center area and that associated with the major industrial use,
parking
The latter generates
and a significant amount of truck traffic,
on street
The latter is In
excess of that typically anticipated In a relatively small Village.
Generally then, Area 4 does not make the best use of its considerable
natural amenities.
The latter includes the shoreline, the waterfront
area, and the base of the ridge on the east s1de of Lake Street,
12
There
�is a great deal of redevelopment potenti ~l In this area.
AREA FIVE - COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL
This area is primarily "on the ridge 11 single-family residential.
homes are typically 30-60 years olu generally in good repair.
The
The
area is uncongested and except with rare exception, unaffected by
tourist activity.
A notable exception is the traffic entering the
Village along Holland Street.
main entrance.
The latter is presently the Villages
In addition, there is.a restaurant and the Village's
largest marina along this entry-way,
This area contains the great majority of the villages permanent (yearround) residents, in single-family homes,
Although there are seasonal
residences in that part of the area fronting the Kalamazoo River.
AREA SIX - MAPLE STREET
This area is undeveloped, except for village-owned utilities and approximately eight single-family homes,
It is traversed by a deep and
scenic ravine, ~nd contains some wet area~ (areas with development
limitations).
Maple Street is the eastern most Village boundary.
Across
from this area in the township there are commercial uses including warehouses, and storage sheds.
It is the last substantial tract of conti-
guous vacant property on the east side of the river in the village -approximately 60 acres.
Ownership is in large tracts,
There are no
known recorded subdivisions,
AREA SEVEN - PARK STREET
Park Street is an existing residential area west of the Kalamazoo Ri.ver,
I
It i s primarily occupied by seasonal residents -- i.e., in residence for
13
�only the summer months.
Area 7 includes the private residential
enclave, Shorewood, at the western most end of Campbell Street.
There
are appoximately 100 single-family structures, of which the great
majority are seasonal.
In addition, there are about two tourist lodging
facilities and a tourist orientated, season, commercial use.
Permanent
single-family home development is beginning along Campbell Street.
There are some twenty (20} relatively new homes built in that area at
present.
The area Is largely either developed or platted.
Many of the plats are
long and, very narrow, or very small in overall square footage.
Platted
lots range in size from 6,000 to 7,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet.
Much of the area was obviously platted in an uncoordinted unplanned
manner.
Park Street is generally considered to be one of the most
scenic and desirable waterfront residential areas in the state,
AREA EIGHT - MT, BALDHEAD
The Mt. Baldhead Area is one of the most unique, scenic·, beautifully
preserved mature dune areas in the Lake Michigan area,
dune area is vegetated, forested and stable,
Most of the
There are some
11
blow-outs 11
(_~reas free of vegetation through wind disturbancel and some areas that
have been cleared for recreational purposes.
The area is recognized by
the Michigan State Department of Natural Resources as an Area of Particular Concern (APC}.
The entire area is some 250~300 acres ofwhich approximataly l50 is owned
by the Presbyterian Church, perhaps 60•75 by the Village of Saugatuck
and the remainder in large private holdings.
The only development is
camping facilities, consisting of a number of cabins, and outbu; ldings
14
�and the Oval Beach Lakefront swimming and recreation area.
no other activity areas in the area,
There are
The Mt. Baldhead area is an
important part of the Village's overall attra~tiveness.
visual relief, as well as access to Lake Michigan,
It provides
It is an impor-
tant counterpoint to Area 1, the Village Center and Area 3, the secondary
tourist center.
With Areas 1 and 3, the Mt. Baldhead area completes an
attraction that provides activity,unusual speciality shopping experiences,
eating and boating,and unparalled visual quality,
The combination is
unique and the result, a vital active , tourist economy.
Mt. Baldhead is
not only an important natural resource for the entire state and country,
but also a "display case" for the Village Itself and has, therefore, a
direct and positive influence on the economic vitality of the convnunity.
15
�AREA ONE - VILLAGE CENTER:
Area 1, the Village Center is the most Intensely used area,
It includes
the central business area, restaurants and shops,and is the focal point
of much of the area's activities.
heavily utilized by to 11 rists,
During the sullltler months, the area is
Much of the revenue gained locally
through tourist expenditures comes from this area.
The Village Center
is known for excellent anitque shops and art galleries.
The Village
Hall is here -- the center of municipal activity and, itself, a tourist
attraction.
The center expresses the style, activity, and scenic and
architectural qualities that make the Village one of the most unique in
the country.
Center architecture is both late nineteenth century Victorian, and COlllTlercial and residential
structures built some forty years prior.
The
latter are typically characterized by their wood frames, gabled roofs
and false fronts.
They are typical of early merchantlle establishments
and reflect the area's lumber harvesting industry.
The later Victorian
structures are fairly typical of small towns, are similar in architectural
characterJand predominantly of masonry construct -i on.
While none are
larger than two stories, several have large floor areas due to long, narrow floor plans conmonly used.
Original facades are not elaborate in
their architectural detail, however several stylistic elements are present including ltalinate cornices and brack~ts, and Greek revival entablatures end pediments.
Other particularly interesting features include
press-tin ceilings and cornices and lead~glass transoms.
Generally then, the structures are small, understated, simple and classical in design.
They reflect turn of the century conmercial demand for
limited, accessible, retail space,
16
Unlike most villages, much of the ort-
�glnal architecture has survived.
tarian and elegant.
The style remains simple, spare, utili-
The atmosphere is informal.
J
The structures comfor-
table; The scale is human and pedestrian, and compliments, with~ut over•
powerlng 1 the surrounding natural environment.
is at eye level, open, readily accessible.
The charm of the center
The center preserves Village
History, focuses the surrounding natural environment,and establishes a
sense of cornlort and place.
It is unique, and It is surviving well.
17
�GROWTH TRENDS
Population growth has been steady although not always at the same rate as
surrounding areas.
(It should be kept in mind, that the Village recently
completed a sewer sy s tem.
Prior to that, sewage had to be handled through
individual ·septic systems, which was often cumbersome, inconvenient and not
an inducement to growth.
Had the Village had sewers In prior years, growth
trends would probably be considerably different,
growth.)
There would have been more
Village popula_tion increased from 770 permanent (year-rounrl\ resi-
dents in 1950 to 1,022 in 1970 (see Table II for all population breakdowns).
From 1970-1975, it was estimated that the Village had grown by 176 permanent
residents, an increase of 17%.
From 1975-1998, the Village Is expected to
increase by 1,396 permanent residents, a 37% increase,
Figures from the
Saugatuck-Douglas Sewer Facility Plan will be used where possible,
They were
used in the sewer faci 1 i ty project and are apparently accepted as accurate by
the community.
Building permit data gathered and tabulated by the Village Clerk's office
for the period 1970-1978 indicates steady though not dramatic growth (see
Table II I).
Equally significant, some twenty-one (21) permits were issued
during that time for commercial remodeling and four (4) for new co1m1ercial
establishments.
These trends suggest investor confidence.
Tourists, transient, and seasonal populations increase the numbers of people
in the Village during
11
peak11 periods by at least threefold.
Seasonal resi-
dents (during the summer months} were estimated to be 617 in 1975 (see Table
IV), making the Village's effective
l ,900 people.
11
permanent 11 summer population closed to
In addition, there is a transient (overnight• weekend) popu-
lat ion of 280 and peak weekend "day visitors" of 2,650.
These factors all
add to population impacts, and increase loads on infra-structure,
18
As sug-
�COMPARATIVE
POPULATION DATA
I--'
LO
1950
1960
% Chng.
50-60
Village of
Saugatuck
770
927
Saugatuck
Township
845
Village of
Douglas
Allegan CO.
Michigan
1970
% Chng.
60-70
1975
--
20.4
1022
10.2
1198*
1396*
37.0
1133
34.1
1254
10.7
1495*
2445*
95.0
447
602
34.7
813
35.0
951*
1906*
35. 0
47,493
57,729
21.6
66,575
15.3
6,372,000
7,823,194
22.7
8,815,083
13.4
--
% Chng.
71,100**
**
102,500**
9,110,000** 10,505,000**
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
*
1998
Saugatuck - Douglas
Facilities Plan
Williams & Works
Population PRojections ••• To the Year 2000
Michigan Department of Management & Budget
1998 Figures are for the Year 2000
70-98
54. 0
19.o
�RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED*
1970 - 1978
Single
Famil~
1970
N
Triplex
Multi-Family
4
1971
c:>
Duplex
2
1S72
4
1973
4
4
1974
3
4
1975
2
1976
3
1977
3
1978
1
TOTAL
*
24
3
4
3
24
14
In number of dwelling units e.g. duplex - 2
SOURCE: Saugatuck Vi 1lage Clerk
6
24
= 68
�TABLE IV
VILLAGE OF SAUGATUCK
POPULATION COMPOSITION
1975
1998
Seasonal Residents
617
719
Transient Population
280
400
Day Visitors
2650
3820
Permanent Population
1198
1396
TOTAL
4745
6335
rv
j---1
SOURCE:
Saugatuck-Douglas Facilities Plan 1976
Wi 11 lams & Works, Inc., Grand Rapids, Ml
�gested in Table IV, these factors are expected to increase at the same time
that the permanent population increases.
An additional factor "impacting" population Is the increasing relative age
of the population., and the apparent fact that the · area is becoming retirement orientated.
The population of the Village and surrounding area has
historically been older than normal.
In 1970, persons over 65 in Allegan
County was 9.4% of total population, in the state 8.5% and In the Village,
17.2% (U.S. Census).
The population of persons over 60 in Allegan County is projected by the
West Michigan Area Agency on Aging to increase by 76% by 1990 compared to
34% in the state as a whole.
Part of the reason that the relative age of the population Is higher than
expected Is because young people leave the area to find employment.
An-
other however, and an increasingly important one, Is that people are moving
from urban areas to rural areas.
These are often retirees but include young
couples as well.
Population movements that have been prevalent for a hundred years -- people
moved from rural areas to urban areas -- are reversing,
It has become
apparent since 1970 that populations are now moving from urban areas to rural
areas.
While urbanized areas such as Wayne and Kent Counties are expected
to grow minimally from 1970-2000, many rural townships will double in population (David Goldberg, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, 1978}.
All egan County is expected to Increase by 75% from 66,575 to 115,816 from
1970-2000.
Retired persons are converting what were once seasonal homes, or
cottages, to year-round homes,
areas,
Young families are simply moving to rural
with or without permanent lodging and with or without employment
pros pect s.
The latter trends is creating a labor pool that could be an
22
�enticement to industrial and commercial growth.
These trends have important implications for the Village.
They suggest
increased growth, _beyond growth rates experienced in the past,
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
There are a number of important factors contributing to the strength of the
local economy.
Industrial employment in the Village is significantly higher
than for a typical small village.
A relatively large number of employed
persons commute to surrounding employment centers such as Grand Rapids and
Kalamazoo.
Without question, however, the most significant sector of the
economy with the greatest impact on dollars spent in the area, on land use,
and on future land use planning eff,1rts is tourism.
It is this sector that
gives and sustains the function and vitality of the community,
Probably 90-100% of all retail establishments depend on tourism.
without it, they would not be in business.
That is,
(Opinions of local businessmen.)
According to statistics compiled from information from the Michigan State
Tourism Bureau, tourists spend approximately 5.5 million dollars in the
Saugatuck-Douglas area per season.
Approximately 72% of all money spent in
the area on lodging is spent in Saugatuck.
spent on tourism come into the Village.
Approximately 95% of all monies
There are approximately 221 jobs in
the Village and ilTITlediately surrounding it, that are directly dependent
upon tourism and another 106 indirectly dependent upon tourism (these are, of
course, seasonal).
Trends suggest a 12% incr~ase in expenditures by tourists
each year.
The tourism industry is obviously a vital one, and of great importance in
the area.
Its survival is closely related to the survival of the economic
vitality of the community.
23
�LA~lD USE POLICIES
OBJECTIVES &STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTIOM:
Objectives and strategies follow from an understanding of the history
of the ·village; population and land use trends; and economic characteristics as developed and discussed in the Profile.
of what Village growth should
it can be.
be
They are an expression
based upon, what it has been, and what
Objectives and strategies express and define a theme that
will guide and integrate, and provide a foundation upon which decisions
affecting land use can be made.
This. section will first dev,,lop and present generalized objectives and
strategies.
A land use map will be prepared locating land use classi-
fication districts in the Village (see enclosed).
A discussion in
greater detai 1 wi 11 fol low, classifying areas by ''Intent", suggested
11
Land Uses and Controls 11 , and
11
Key Words 11 ,
This section is meant to
describe what the Village suggests as the best use and function of
specific areas in terms of the generalized objectives and strategies.
The discussion proceeds from the general to specific narrowing overall
objectives and strategies to specific suggested land uses,
A brief
discussion of major headings will help explain the process.
OBJECTIVES
Objectives refer to what the Village intends to accomplish with its
overall land use planning program.
STRATEGIES
Strategies indicate how the Village Intends to realize its objectives.
24
�LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS- INTENT:
This indicates what the plan is trying to accomplish in terms of land use
within a specified area.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION - LAND USE & CONTROLS:
This will suggest, in general, land uses, intensity, density, and controls
on land uses within a specified area.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION - KEY WORDS:
This is meant simply to give a "first-glance" understanding of what the
plan is trying to 'accomplish in a specific area by listing selected
descriptive words.
It Is included strictly for the ease and convenience
of the reader.
GENERAL OBJECTIVES:
To preserve the existing character and function of the Village;
To encourage development that does not detract from the existing
character and function of the Village;
To eliminate existing and potential blighting influences; to improve
under-utilized areas,and unimproved shorelines and potentially environmentally significant areas.
GENERAL STRATEGIES:
The following strategies are designed to implement the objectives above.
They are designed to direct Village planning,development and infra-structure policies.
The 1 ist is not meant to be all-inclusive,
It is antici-
pated that it will be added to and subtracted from as objectives are rea~
lized and new opportunties arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The integrity of the Village as a coastal area and a designated Area
of Particular Concern will be maintained (see Profile).
�Open-space and views along Lhe waterfront will be enhanced, encouraged,
and preserved.
The preservation of views from the ridgeline to the water and
surroundinq area will be encouraged.
Propertie~ w~~t of the Kalamazoo River .
will be maintain ed inithei·rnatural state and undisturbed by vehicular traffic.
Recreation plans as developed in the Saugatuck-Douglas Area
Parks
&
Recreation Plan will be implemented.
Redevelopment of under-utilized areas particularly those along shore1 ines that do not provide good visual or physical access . will be encouraged~
Planned unit developments(see discussion in Profile) will be encouraged
that maintain open-space; maintain existing environments; maintain scenic
qualities; provide recreational amenities; and propose other planning considerations that will help the Village realize its land use objectivP-s.
ACTIVITY AREAS
Retail and colllllercial development that would detract from the vitality
of the city center will be discouraged.
Community serving retail and tourist orient ,ited facilities will be
located in proYimity to the city center.
Highest densities of residential use,and intensity of commercial uses,
will be encouraged in the Culver-Lake Street area.
Proposed dc ~e lopments will be analyzed with respect to impacts upon
and consequences for traffic circulation syst~ms. Proposals that provide
off-street parking, 1 imit access points and help to solve existing circulation problems will be encouraged- The Village will continue to study
and analyze traffic problems and propose solutions•
Proposals will be analyzed with respect to overall fiscal impact.
Those that positively benefit the Village will be encouraged, those costing
more t han they return in revenues will be discouraged.
26
�Generally then, development that compliments the existing character and
function of the community, that preserves and develops open-space, and
that least disturbs existing environmental amenities will be encouraged.
In addition, i_t is recognized that areas exist· that are not optimally
developed, that detract from environmental
and scenic qualities and that
do no contribute to the economic vitality of the co.,vnunity.
Redevelopment
of these areas is encouraged.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS/DISTRICTS (See Figure 11)
DISTRICT I
VILlAGE CENTER
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed discussion)
The Village Center is the focus of the community and much of the surrounding
area.
It is the center of activity; a focal point for tourists and
speciality shoppers.
It is occupied prfmarily by specialty shops, and is
a major arts and crafts center.
character of thP. Village,
economy.
It expresses the history and unique
It is the major coJtributor to the c01TJT1unity 1 s
The Center experiences major concentrations of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
INTENT
The Village Center District is designed to preserve the existing character
and function of the Center.
It is the intent of this planning program to
maintain and develop the Center as a theme expressing the character of
the Village as a whole.
LAND USES
&
CONTROLS
Proposed new, or extensions of existing,structures shall not differ significantly in bulk or height from existing structures.
27
New land uses will
�be primarily orientated towards serving tourists and speciality shoppers art galleries, antique stores, etc.
Uses other than retailing, commercial,
I
governmental, or tourist orientated, will not be encouraged.
I
The Planning
Convnission wil.1 review development and re-development proposals to insure
that they compliment the existing historical and architectural character
of the Center (see Profiles for discussion}.
Uses that in the j udgement
of the Planning Conlllission will detract from the existing char,,r:ter of
the Center, because of architectural or historical considerations, or the
market they intend to serve, or the kinds and volumes of traffic they may
be expected to generate will not be permitted.
KEY WORDS
Vi 1lage Center
Tourism
Resort Area
Arts
&
Crafts Center
Limited Vehicular Traffic
Preservation of Scale
Maintenance of Rural, Village, Informal Atmosphere
Maintenance of Historical
&
Architectural lnt_e grity
.
28
-·· -
··- -- - .. - --·--·
�DISTRICT II
CENTER TRANSITION AREA
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed discussion).
The Center Transition Area Is an area Just norih of the Village Center.
is composed, prin~rily of older, large, singie-family homes.
It
Many of the
homes were constructed around the turn of the cen1 ·.ry or before.
Many
are of the type generally associated with older, often historical urban
residential areas.
Because of their size and age they have high main-
tenance and energy costs.
As a result, because of cost constraints, it
often Is not feasib)e to use the structure as a single-family residence.
INTENT
The Center Transition Area is designed to accomnodate the full or partial
conversion of dwelli11gs to uses that wfll allow them to maintain their
value.
The district is designed to control conversion of existing dwelling units
to small scale, low intensity speciality shops, or places of interest to
tourists and visitors because they are of historical i mportanc~, or because they display items of historical signiflcanoe,
This district is
intended to provide an opportunity for ho111eowners to convert their dwelling~
to speciality shops or attractions in areas where It is felt to be most
appropriate.
These areas will be in proximity to the center area, and
will have had some conversions, or have experienced pressure to convert
prior to the adoption of the land use plan.
Maintenance of the historical
significance of all structures in the area will be encouraged. Emphasis
.,
w i 11 remain on maintaining the area as a low-density, sl _
n
gle~family
1
residential area,
29
- - - - -- - - - - ----
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
'
•
'
'
'
LAND USE & CONTROLS
Permitted land uses will be single-family residential dwellings or
speciality shops in converted or remodeled single-family homes.
Off-
street parking will be re4uired where deemed appropriate by the Planning C~mmission.
The use of signs and advertising displays will be
strongly controlled by ordinance.
Increased vehicular or pedes rian
traffic, increased noise, or the use of ~dvertising displays will not
be permitted to conflict with use of the area for slngle-family residential.
Residc- :1tial dwelling unit densitles wlll be 2-5 unlts/acre.
KEY WORDS
Low Density
Low Intensity
Historical Preservation
Single-family Re~:dential
limited Scale Speciality Shops or Attractions
30
- - - - - --- - -- -
�/ I I I I I I I I I
DISTRICT Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
WATER STREET SHORELINE
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed discussion).
The Water Street
Kalamazoo River.
Shoreline runs generally along Water
Street and the
It is currently a mixture of uses -- conwnercial, tran--
sient lodging, residential, industrial.
Some areas are under-developed,
under-utilized, and becoming increasingly deteriorated.
INTENT
The Water Street
Shoreline District is designed to permit commercial,
recreational and residential growth that does not detract from the
Village Center, and that improves physical and visual access to the waterfront.
The district provides an area for the expansion of the architec-
tural and historical themes expressed tn the Village Center,
The district
will accommodate new retail and residential growth, and will serve as a
secondary tourist focal point.
Shorelines will be preserved, protected,
and enhanced.
LAND USES & CONTROLS
Planned unit residential, retail, and convnercial development will be encouraged.
Views will not be obstructed within public rights-of-ways.
Development will stress open-space.
Public access from the land to the
water, and from the water to the land will be encouraged.
Development wi 11 be low-density and low-intensity: height and scale will
be similar to the Center Area.
Planned unit development regulations will
apply for residential development exceeding 4 units/acre Jincludlng that
designed for lodgin~). or where 4 or more units are to be proposed as
part of a single project.
31
�I
I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KEv ·woROS
Preserved/Protected Shorelines
Open-Space/Green Areas
Planned Unit Development
Seconda:y Tourism Focal Point
Resort Lodging
Minimize Height and Bulk
Architectural Characteristics Consistent with Village Center
32
I
I
,
�t1'
DISTRICT IV
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WI I J
LAKE STREET ENTRANCE/SOUTH SHORELINE
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed description).
This area is qlong the southern shoreline of the Village along the River.
Existing land uses are primarily seasonal and transient lodging facilities.
Some commercial and permanent family uses are interspersed.
structures are deteriorating and under-utilized.
Hanv of the
Huch of the shoreline
is likewise unusable, under-utilized, _and deteriorating.
Portions are
becoming blighted.
INTENT
The Village Entrance/South Shoreline District is designed to provide
an area for development and re-development that is similar in use to
the Center Shoreline but more intense, less strictly tourist orientated,
higher density and permitting of greater bulk and height.
The shoreline
is to be re-developed and maintained to permit visual and physical access,
and to
permit
more active use of the shore and water.
This area will become a main entry into the Village and will be many
visitors first impression of the Village,
It is, important that this
.1mpress1on
. is a favorable one; that land u~es express the care and plan\
ning given to guiding Village growth.
LAND USE & CONTROLS
The same uses as District 111 are encouraged,· but they may be more intense.
Larger scale resort lod9Jos1i . recreational uses, restaurants, etc. may
be permitted.
Water, and waterfront activities will be encouraged .
•
Gradual relaxing of hei~ht regulations _fro/'1 the western end to a maximum
at the extreme east will be permitted providing that additional open-space
area be provided -to compensate for increased height,
�AI I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I r-(,.1 I /
Planned unit development regulations shall apply when proposed development is to exceed 4 units/acre or where 4 or more units are proposed
as a single project.
KEY WORDS
Colllllerclal/Retail
Resort Lodging
Water Access
Water/Waterfront Activities
Planned Unit Developments
Village Entrance
Open-Space/Green Areas/Waterfront Development
�I / I I I I I I I I I /
----...J.. 1 1 I ~
DISTRICT V
COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAJ.
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION (See Profile for detailed description)
This is the Village's primary year-round residential area.
posed primarily of low-density, single-family homes.
It is com-
Most of the area
is unaffected by tourist related vehicular and pedestrian congestion.
INTENT
The Community Residential District is designed to preserve the singlefamily, low-density, neighborhood residential character of the area.
To
provide a quiet, non-congested, living environment for primarily yearround residents
and to identify and plan for the preservation of his-
torical sites within the area.
LAND USES & CONTROLS
Encourages land uses are:
low density single-family residential dwellings
(2-3 units/net acre of residential land area);and single-family cluster
homes developed in accordance with PUD regulations and not intended for
transient residents, providing that very low overall densities be maintained.
KEY WORDS
Low Density/Single-Family Residents
Year-Round Residents
Uncongested/Quiet
Historical Homes Identification & Preservation
35
- - - - - - - - - ---
-
·-
�-
/ II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l----l I I)
DISTRICT VI
MAPLE STREET
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed discussion).
11
Maple Street" i_s a largely vacant area on the eastern most edge of the
Village.
It is the last substantial tract of vacant land in the Village
on the east side of the river.
Land uses in proximity include single-
family dwellings in the Village; and a village owned and operated water
pumping facility.
INTENT
The Maple Street district is designed primarily to permit low-density
sing 1e-fam i 1y deve 1opment.
The district may acconmodate 1ow•dens i ty
(3-5 units/acre) and innovative development techniques such as cluster
zones, PUD's etc.
The areas scenic and environmental qualities are
recognized and will be preserved.
The area may respond to specialized
housing needs of primarily year-round residents, for example, who want
to stay in the conununity but can no longer maintain a single-family home.
LAND USES & CONTROLS
Encourage land uses include:
large lot single-family residential; low-
density PUD's, and cluster developments.
Encouraged uses will not be
tourist orientated,or respond to the need for transient lodging,
KEY WORDS
Large Lot Single Family
''
Low-Density PUD's
Year-Round or Seasonal Residents
36
J
�-
'-'---L._J I I I,,J-----1--l_J_ I I I I I I I I _LJ.J
,:
DISTRICT VII
.EARK STREET
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION
(See Profile for detailed discussion)
Park Street is i.n that portion of the Village that is west of the
Kalamazoo River.
Single-family homes comprise most of the area, though
there are limited lodging and retail facilities.
Host of the properties
are developed, or platted and have waterfront access.
INTENT
The Park Street District is designed to provide low-density waterfront
residential opportunities stressing open-space, and physical and visual
access to the water; and to maintain the waterfront in its natural state
preserving the existing natural features, however, bulkhe~ds will be permitted.
ENCOURAGED USES
Low-density single-family residential, and planned unit developments will
be encouraged.
Residential other that PUD will not exceed 3 units/acre.
KEY WORDS
Waterfront Residential
Preservation of Shoreline
Low-Density Single-Family Residential
31
-
-
- - - -·
-
-
· -
-
--➔- ·
_____J
�DISTRICT VIII
MT, BALDHEAD PRESERVATION
&CONSERVATION
AREA
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION (See Profile for detailed discussion)
This district is among the most scenic and unique dune areas in the country.
Excepting a pri~ately owned camp, and public recreation sites, the area is
undeveloped.
I
i'
The majority is privately owned.
INTENT
The Mt. Baldhead Preservation
&
Conservation Area Is designed to preserve
the existing ecological and scenic quality as a recreational and natural
resource.
The Village recognizes this area as one of the state's most
I
I
significant resources, and is convnitted to preserving it in its natural
state, and as a public resource.
I'
,..._
LAND USES & CONTROLS
Land use controls will provide for minimal dl,sturbance of natural areas,
provision of pedestrian access ways (e.g. boardwalks) to preserve terrain, and
prohibition of all-terrain vehicles on other than improved,approved access
ways.
Any development will conform to planned unit development regulations
and site plan review procedures and regulations.
Restrictions will en-
courage minimum project size (e.g. 9-15 acres) with clustering of structures
to preserve natur~l terrain and minimize access ways.
Permanent, seasonal, or transient residential dwelling units and low-intensity, passive, recreational uses (e.g. swl0111ing, hiking} only will be
permitted.
size.
Dwelling .unit density will be regufated according to project
Largest sites will be permitted maximum densities-· (approximately
2-3 units/acre).
Development of single dwellings on a sing_te lot shall
not exceed 1 unit/2 acres.
Single unit development shall be subject to
the PUO review process.
Proposals that increase, enhance, or facilitate public access to, or
I
'
�enjoyment of natural dune and waterfront areas will be encouraged.
The
Old Channel/Oxbow Lagoon area will be preserved in its natural stat · .
The relationship between structural placement. and roadway and other
access way placement, shall be governed by the following general rules:
It is the policy of the Commission to preserve vegetation in Dune
Areas.
~here vegetation must be removed for construction purposes, the
Commission may require that a plan be presented to, and approved by. the
Commission illustrating what vegetation will be removed and why.
If a
plan is required the ~ommission will make a determination regarding its
(
conformance with community planning policies and may require that the
,At
plan be amended.
The Conmission may require that cleared areas be re-
planted in dune grass or other suitable natural materials.
Fore-dune ridges and all crests will be undisturbed.
In no case
will the natural topography of a dune crest be altered.
Roadways and pathways will be located in troughs between dune crests
,<;}
-y..__
I
.'
II
and other natural gaps.
KEY WORDS
Fragile Environment
r
Preservation of Existing Environment
Conservation of Existing Environment
Low-Density
Public Access to Waterfront
39
'
I
I
�-
/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_ I I I /
w·u 11 ,, , , u:~:· i /\I :, 1 1•J.n '.J•,1i111 ~l•~:{ <w 'l'I 11,: ~;1\l 1< i/\'l'Ul :K
VJJ.LN;,,: 111.\:!NlN(i crn::;w~:;icx~ Al'f'I.W.\I:1.F: 1U
nuL1 .. >,
/
r
Al'/\11'1 '·,Wf .:' 1~3, ( 0:-~IX l:,11t,~ E',1;;, ~ll l[JJ'j Ill.I•: l ISi•:
l ll•:Vbl Ol>h!l ·:N'l'0 /\NI l 11.1,;;u,n Nti~
***
Defon' any act. ion
[01·
* * * * * *
t:ht• conslnt<'.Uon t,1· dcvt>lop:n .: nt of an upartr,v :11t,
11 Udi111~ or aJxd·tnll!nl c<>lllph•.x , u c.ond(lffii1Yi111n hid !ding or conde.r.ni.1n.iun1 ,·,:itn:llcx,
iC' l'Cational CQrnpl<ix, shall be r~rantL'Cl l>y any l>uildin~ ol'fi.c .i als and hdore
1y rc:,,£.Jnjn~, that. v.ould p(~rmit nn1lti.-family, comff'rjcal, conID.:!rc:iaJ rcx·rcationn.l
oo
r inuuslrht] u:,;t~'::i, t.he following rules and rcguh•.tions shn]l
mr•1. p1·m•jd8cJ
mt a site plan approw~d for purposes of re7oning, shall suffice for purposes
f
Lrr:1 nting a h11ild:lng JlPnni.t ns well.
-z::
A.
DefjnHions:
ApartITCnt:
Apartment is dcf ined a.c; a uuildi.ng com,isling
of roore than tv.o self-contaiJ1ed dwelling uni.ts.
I
I
I
I
C.Ondr.rni.11 i um :
Condominium is defined as a building consbting
of any self-conta1.ned dwelling w1iti:. that arc subjret to the
provis1ons of the Michigan Horiwntal Real Property Act.
Multipln Use Deve~nt:
A nultiple use develo1:irent is
~
~
\
I
defin~'Cl us an application of a b-pecific area of land to several
concurrent uses, any one or nore of which m.i.ght not ot.hPnvisc
be allowed in the zoned district in which the particular parcel
is located.
B.
~lication Procedure and Approval Process:
1.
Genera.l.
Whenever any apa.rtrrr_mt, condominium or
multiple use constructi.on or ciPvclo1'lncnt is proposed
I
and before any building penn.lt or rc~nninr. (sec nbtwP.)
shall
lx_,
granted, the developer shall apply for and
secure approval from the Saug:mtck Vil la~e Plmud n~
Cann:i ss ion in accordance wi.th the foll o\\'i n~ proco<lures
and shall obtain appmval of l>oth a skntch plan ru1d c.le-
t a.U rd
R it.n
plan.
. el
�-
/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WI\ )
0111111..i!;fJ.lou :Ulcl 1.hc' d<Neloper to J·c~1ch a11 umfon;l.and in~
dc~s.ih'11 invc:;t111cnt:, thr: dcvc.ilnp<'J' :--;h:\ll :s11lrnil a. Hlmb•.h
,,-r
plan of hi.s propo:-::i l Ln lh0. S:1111 ·.alll':k \'.i.l l:ll';e Pl :inning
u ~\Ill i ss IIll\ •
'1l1e f-.ketch plan ~_;hall he drawn to approxilrute
scah.· and clearly show th,? followin~ infonuation:
( 1) boundarirn-. oJ the property;
(2) ]oculi.on uml heighl of all huilc.lin~.;; and
Al
(:l) interior roadway 8)1 8Lcm, parking facilities
and all existing ri~ht::.-of-way and ea.somnts,
whPther publi.c or private;
(4) del .inl!ation o( the various r~icluutial and/or
comn::-] rcial areas indicating for each such area
its size , nU11i>cr of lmil<ling:-;
and canposition
in terns of total murber of dwelling Wlits,
approximate percentage allocation by dwelling
Wlit type, plus a calculation of the net
residential density and coo1oorcial density;
(5) the interior
I
I
I
I
open space system;
(6) the overall stonn water drainage sy~tun;
(7) if grades exceed 3(1,t of portions of _the site,
h~ve a noderate to high susceptibility to erosion
or a noderate to high susceptibility to flooding
and/or ponding, an overlay outlining tho above
suscepti.ble &>il shall be provided;
(8) principal ties to the neighborhood and coonunity
with resJX,--ct to transportion, water supply and
sewage disposal;
..
J
�--
/ I I I I 111111111111111 KI Y
(!::l)
general description of the provision of other
:]
comrunity facilities, such as schools, recreational facilities, fire protection services and
cultural facilities, i.f any and suoo indication
of how th,••;c lll '<.--><ls are
proJX.lsed to be acc.anmdatoo;
{lO)a location unp sho,dng uses and ownership of
abutting lands;
b.
In add.i.tion, the t'ollowiu'"' doc1i111..mtation
~ha.l I a.cco,~inny the Slmtch Plan:
(1) Evjdcnco that the proposal is CU1patilllo
K
wilh rn11.,~hhori ng pro1x~rtieti and uses;
GP
(2) (i<.!neml Htaturcnt as to ho.v comron open
space is to be owned and maintained;
( 3) 'llle Sketch Plan sha.11 show the ill tended total
project.
If the developrent is to be con-
structed in phases, a gencrtl.l indication of
t
"
j
-,-....
I
I
how the sequence of phases is to proceed
shall be identified.
c.
The
Planning Cannission shall hold a public
hearing or hearings on any application for apartroont, condoodnium or rrultiple use construction or
developrents, and shall adhere to public hearing
requirarents for re-zonings.
d.
Following the public hearing, the Planning O:m. mission • within 60 <.lays, approve or disapprove
the Sketch Plan or nuke nodifications thereto and
so notify the applicant of its decision.
e.
Approval of a Sketch Plan shal 1 not consistute
approval of the detailed site plan 1 but shall be
deaood an expression of approval of the layout as
a guide to the preparation of the detailod plan.
I
�-
/\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\r----iY
f.
Request for changes in Sketch Plan.
If after a
/f-
Sketeh Plan is approved, an appl:\cant seeks to
amend the approved plan, the applicant shall then
resul.Jtnit his entire Sketch Plan, us amended, to the
Planning Coomission for approval in accordance with
the above procedures.
:1.
AvpJ:i cation Jor lk'ta ilt'<.l Site Plan Approval :
a. After rc-ccivi.ng approval
r~-an the
PlUJU\ing Cunnissi.on
on u. Skd.ch P]an, the~ uppli.ca.nt shall prepare hili detailc~d td.tc plan nnd BUI.Jt1rit it to tho Plannin1.t Oll1mission
for app1·oval.
lJo,IJl~v< ir, if
nurc than 6 nonlh.~ 1-.a::. elall.'-il-~
K
GP
I
I
~
I'----.
l.>. 'l.11u detailed sit~ plan shall conionn to the
I
I
I
-,-
Sketch Plan tint hns been given approval,
It
should incorporate u.ny rcvi:c.ions or other
features that nuy have lx.•cn recooncnded by the
I
,'
I
I
Plannfo1~ (b11n1ssion a.t the preliminary review,
All such C<X\pliu.nccs shall be clearly indicated
by tho applicant on the appropriate sulxni.ssion,
c. 'l'hc dc~ta.iled Site Plu.n shall include the following
infomu.tion:
(1) nn
area map showing the applicant's entire
holding, tha.t portion of the .applicant's
prope➔rty
undor consideration, and all
properties, subdivisions, street, utilities
and easuoonts within 300 feet of applicant's
property;
(2) a topographic rmp showing contour intervals
of not nure than 1 feet of elevation shall
be provided;
I
�(3) a site plan showing location, proposed use, and
s
height of all buildings, location of all parking
areas, with access aud egress drives thereto,
location of outdoor storage, if any; location
of all existing or poropscd site inprovaoonts,
including drains, culverts, retaining walls
'
l
and fences, description of irethod of w-«1ter b'l.lpply
I
and sewage disposal and location of such facili;,
ties; locatic:m and size of n.11 signs; location
and design of lighting facilities; and the
anount of building area proposed for non-residen-
• :1
,.,
I
•
tial uses, if any;
(4) a tracj_ug overlay f:»howing all soil typet:,;, their
locations and those nrcas, if any, with noderate
to hjgh suscept.ibilit.y to erosion.
wj
L
I
.
'\
,
For areas
t
l
I'
I
'.(
.
I
I
I
~
~
th potential erosion probla1t:>, the overlay
~
I
Hhal1 a]i:-;(> jncludc :u1 outlino and description
,'
1n·orlC>:-;tJd vc.~ot.u.tiun.
d. Hu1uiru.l 8Lan<.larclc.; :for
Approval.
'l11e
Plnnnint-t
0.1111ti:-::s1.on '::. rcvic..w of tho detai h .'<l Si tc Plan sh!\ ll
incl ucln the fu]] owing:
(1) adequacy and urrangcncnt o.r vehicular tra.Uic ·
access and circulation, including intersections,
road widllk~, channelization, traffjc controls
ru1d pc.'<.lestrian novurent;
(2) location, arrang~nt, appearance and
sui'ficicncy of off-street parking;
(3) locution, arrangarent, size and entrances of
bui.ldi.n1:.rs, walkways and lighting;
(4) relationship of the various uses to one another;
cL
�'
'
I
j
(5) adE..,quacy, type and arrangarent of trees, shrubs,
and other landscaping constituting a visual
and/or a noise deterring screen between adjacent
uses and adjoining lands;
(6) in the case of residential w;cs, the adequacy
of useablc open space for playgrounds and
recreation;
(7) adL,quacy of water supply, storm water and
sanitary w.tSte djsposal facilities;
(8) adequacy of structures, roadways and land-
J
scaping in areas with m:xterate to high
:.C
susceptibility to flooding ponding and/or
,-
\
-
erosion;
I
I
I
(9) coopliance with all regulations'of the Saugatuck
~
i-.
Village ZDning Ordinance;
I
(lO)CCXJ\)a.tibility of adjoining uses on and oft the
I
'
I
I
I
site and preservation thereof.
4.
Action on the Detailed Site Plan:
'Ille Planning Q:mnission
shall render it~ approval or disapproval withi.n 60 dayH of
final hearing nnd so notify the applicant and iho building
oJ'ficial, who nuy th<.Jn isHuo tho usu pemrlt.
5.
nevoca t. i.on :
In any c:U:iC where the construct ion bas not
r,.x111-.~11< :cd with i11
01w
year frcm the tlaLu of approval by
th<! Pla111ii11~~ Co11111i:-;~;.ion, :.uay JX!l1nit:-: is:.-.u<:d on ~uch
a1,proval :,h:il I. lie nul 1 autl void.
■
�SAUGATUCK TWP.
-- - ------t--'
-.
I
l----------~~J!?o
SAUGATUCK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
OLD ALLEGAN RD / 0
'
•-------1---h-=-~.---------.,,......--~,'~
I
I
I
I
I
·- - - - - - - - I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
-
--,
- - - - - - - - - -.- - i - - -
I
I
<r
-1
'
DOUGLAS
I
~
I
I
I
I
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
,- - -1'- - .., . ._.
I
LJJ
I
I
I
,
CR.
I
I
I
I
'J I,'
'/ \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__ _
i~
,
'
I
I
I
I
TANNERY
130Tfi
I
I•
·•---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
'.(
:,
_______ .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
'
•'
I
I
I'
'
I
I
/
''
'
'
'
'
''
I
,
I
I
I
' 'I
I
I
/
')
AVE
I
I
..... - - - -i-:._~
I
I
I
=
�
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
Saugatuck_Land-Use-Plan_1979
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Saugatuck Village Planning Commission, Allegan County, Michigan
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1979
Title
A name given to the resource
Village of Saugatuck Land Use Planning Program
Description
An account of the resource
The Village of Saugatuck Land Use Planning Program was prepared by the Saugatuck Village Planning Commission with the assistance of the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission in Summer 1979.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
West Michigan Regional Planning Commission (consultant)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Land Use--planning
Saugatuck (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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9c74653ef1df274400eb394e1b7ede89.pdf
57db24dd294ca91cebce56e50d09cda3
PDF Text
Text
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
Prepared By The City Of Saugatuck
Planning Commission
�CITY OF SAUGATUCK
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Prepared by the
City of Saugatuck Planning Commission
in cooperation with the Saugatuck City Coµncil
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 OjfI.Ce 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:
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
[* no longer serving)
•
PLANNING & ZONING CENTER, INC.
Sta.ff of Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. who 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
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. i
Chapter 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES:
TI-IE AREAWIDE POLICY PI.AN ..................................................................... 1-l
Chapter 2
DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................... 2-1
Chapter 3
TI-IE ECONOMY............................................................................................ 3-1
Chapter 4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND TI-IE ENVIRONMENT....................................... 4-1
Chapter 5
EXISTING I.AND COVER AND USE............................................................... 5-1
Chapter 6
PUBLIC FACILIDES AND SERVICES ............................................................ 6-1
Chapter 7
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................. 7-1
Chapter 8
WATERFRONT.............................................................................................. 8-1
Chapter 9
GROWTI-I AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS................................................. .... 9-1
Chapter 10
FlJfURE I.AND USE .................................................................................... 10-1
Chapter 11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ..................................................... 11-1
Chapter 12
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................... 12-1
APPENDIX A
References
APPENDIXB
Demographic, Economic and Housing Data
APPENDIXC
Public Opinion SuIVey Responses
APPENDIXD
Soil Types - Trt-Community Area
�I
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.1
8.1
9.1
9.2
TITLE
Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) - Area
Age Cohorts (1980) -Allegan County
Age Cohorts (1980) - City of Saugatuck
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-Cornmnity Area, 1988
Tourism Related Employment. 1988 -Allegan
County
Real Property SEV, 1988 - City of Saugatuck
Annual Real Property SEV - Tri-Community
Area (1980-1987)
Percent In Poverty By Age - Tri-Community
Area (1980)
Kalamazoo River Basin
Linkage Plan
Retiree Migration Trends
Population Trend - Saugatuck Township
PAGE
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-4
3-2
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3 -6
4-2
8-7
9-2
9-2
�i
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF MAPS
NUMBER
TITLE
PAGE
Introduction
2.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4. 7
4. 7a
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7 .1
7 .2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.5a
10.1
10.2
Location
ii
Streets and Roads
V
Lot Lines
vi
School Districts (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
Groundwater Vulnerability
High Risk Erosion Areas
Critical Dune Areas
Woodlands
Land Use/Cover
Existing Land Use By Parcel
Planning Areas
Historic District
Public Facilities
Water System
Sewer System
Gas Mains
Street Classifications
Act 51 Roads
Outdoor Recreation Sites
Proposed Bike Paths
Watersheds
No-Wake Areas
Saugatuck Harbor
Marinas
Street Ends/Parks
Street Ends/Parks
Future Land Use
Entry Points
�City of Saugatuck 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
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
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
9.4
TITLE
Population (1950-1980)
Educational Status - Persons 25 and Over
School Enrolhnents - 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
Saugatuck Condo Projects Since 1980
State Historic Sites
Non-Park Public Facilities and Public
Property Inventory
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-Community Area
Lake Michigan Lake Levels
Rate of Population Change
Projected Population- 1970-1980 Trend
Projected Number of Households
Percentage of Population By Density Type
PAGE
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-2
3 -3
3-3
3-6
3-6
4-1
4-3
5-1
5-1
5-4
6-2
6-4
6-6
6-6
6-6
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
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
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 City of Saugatuck. 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 the
City of Saugatuck Planning Commission. Financial support was provided by the Michigan Dept.
of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Program.
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 City zoning ordinance (and
other local tools) 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 prepared
concurrently with plans in Douglas and
Saugatuck Township. It was 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 the City of Saugatuck Planning
Commission oversaw the production of this
plan, the City Council was also involved in its
preparation. Chapter 11 proposes that the Joint
Planning Committee established to prepare a
Joint Plan for Saugatuck, Douglas, and
Saugatuck Township (tri-community area) be
continued and that it be updated at a minimum
of every five years.
The contents of this Plan draws directly
from previously adopted planning documents.
There has been no effort made to explicitly footnote when material has been so used. Instead it
is intended that the content 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 City of Saugatuck Land Use
Plan of 1979 was frequently relied upon in drafting portions of this Plan. 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 map on the following page show the
location of the City of Saugatuck on the shores
of Lake Michigan. This location along 1-196
makes it easily accessible to travelers from across
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�ll
Kent County
-'
I
Ottawa
County
GRaplds
Allegan County
1'
'
Barry County
'
;,
Van Buren County
Gmazoo
Kalamazoo
County
SAUGATUCK
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�ill,
across North America. Toe 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 serve the
area but all of the students in Saugatuck attend
the Saugatuck School District.
KEY FACTORS GUIDING THIS PLAN
•
Three considerations played prominent
roles in fashioning the contents of this Plan Just
as they do in the Joint 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, Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck
Township 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 services are Jointly provided including the Interurban bus service. 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 primacy 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
activities open to tourists are the primacy 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 visitors 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
minimal 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 veiy
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.
MAPS
Except as otherwise noted, all the full page
maps presented in this Plan were produced
using C-Map software. This is a PC based computer program initiated by William Enslin, Manager of the Center for Remote Sensing at
Michigan 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
I
J
�Jv
the State's mainframe computer system by the
Depru:tment of Nat ural Resources.
Several advantages are realized by computerizing this data.1)plcally, geographic information is only -a-vailable 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
p.Iotter, laser or ink Jet printer, or dot matrix
pnn,ter). 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 r equired to obtain the same
-: results . .Apother 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 b ase 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 jg 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 t o 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 survey was
conducted. On the maps showing all of
Saugatuck Township, 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 C-Map on a color monitor, up to
ten levels of information can be overlaid on the
screen at once, including "rooming" 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
absolut ely reliable at the parcel level. As a result,
detailed site analyses of soils. topography.
drainage, etc. are still necessary any time 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 wrung administrator or clerk for
further information.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�V
~l
I
I'O
m
r
C
.,______.
"'
V)
-i
•
.
)>
(I)
~
~
:I
~
co
co
KALAMAZOO
RD.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
::0
"'•
~
�vi
~
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-1
Chapter 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES:
THE CITY OF SAUGATUCK 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, obj ectives, and policies embodied in this plan were
prepared through an extensive process of leadership surveys, public opinion surveys, meetings with local officials, and town meetings.
The first step in this process was a survey
of area leaders- including members of the City
Planning Commission, City Council, 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 the City and the trtcommunity area, and the results were tabulated
and presented to City officials. These results
served as the basis for initiating a public opinion
survey.
Citizen views on local planning issues were
obtained through public opinion surveys mailed
to every property owner in the City and distributed in each rental complex. Survey questions
were prepared for the City through consultations with the City Planning Commission and
City Council. Dr. Brent Steel, Oakland University, conducted and tabulated the survey.
The response rate of 51 % in Saugatuck was
very high considering the length (about 1 hour
completion time) and type of survey and thus
responses probably represent the majority view.
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 "futuring" session where participants were asked to imagine how they would like
the community to be in the year 2000. Participants were separated into groups and asked to
prepare of list of their "prouds" and "sorries" in
Saugatuck, 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 the Saugatuck 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 City 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 local officials and then presented to City
citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen comments were reviewed by City officials and incorporated into the policy plan .
Following completion of the draft policy
plan, data and trends in the City were analyzed.
This analysis supported the direction of the
policy plan and was first evaluated by the City
Planning Commission, and then by City citizens
at the third town meeting. Next. key elements of
the plan and proposed strategies to carry it out
were first reviewed by the City Planning Commission, and then by City citizens at the fourth
and final town meeting.
These goals and policies also look beyond
local boundaries to the issues which affect the
region. This was accomplished through the Joint
comprehensive planning process, where representatives of the Village of Douglas and
Saugatuck Township participated in the preparation of Joint goals and policies for the region.
Thus, these goals and policies are premised on
a pledge to mutually cooperate in guiding development consistent with the adopted goals and
objectives of the Joint 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, objectives, and policies
that comprise the policy portion of this comprehensive plan. These goals and policies will serve
as a guide for land use and infrastructure deci-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�7
1-2
sions in the City of Saugatuck. 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, and the joint plan. It is intended that the
goals and policies be consulted whenever considering future land use decisions.
CITY CHARACTER
Goal: Retain and enhance the scenic, small
town, resort oriented character of Saugatuck.
Policy: Encourage new land uses and densities/intensities of development which are consistent with and complement the character.
economic base, and image of the area, and
which are consistent with this plan and zoning
regulations.
Policy: Promote site planning and design of
new development which is consistent with the
established character of the City and compatible
with existing neighborhoods.
Objective: Improve the visual appearance of
entrances into the city through landscape designs, signs, and land development which promote the vitality and character of the City,
without cluttering the area or creating safety
hazards.
Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing a sign ordinance which is consistent with
Saugatuck Township and the Village of Douglas.
Policy: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historically significant structures.
Policy: Discourage designs which would
block significant views and vistas, especially
from the ridgeline to the water.
Policy: Manage the trees lining City streets
to provide a continuous green canopy.
Objective: Increase enforcement of existing
ordinances and regulations to better preserve
the established character of the City and promote official goals, objectives and policies.
Policy: Preserve wetlands, woodlots. and
other wildlife areas wherever feasible.
GROWfH MANAGEMENT
Goal: Guide development in a manner
which is orderly, consistent with the planned
expansion of public services and 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 each community.
Policy: Encourage development in locations
which are consistent with the capacity of existing and planned public services and facilities,
and cost effective in relation to service extension.
Policy: Review all plans by other public
entities for expansion and improvement of existing transportation networks for impacts on
growth patterns and for consistency with the
goals, objectives, and policies of this plan.
Policy: Consider the impact of land use
planning and zoning changes on Douglas and
Saugatuck Township, and discuss proposed
changes with the affectedjurisdiction(s) prior to
making such changes. A common procedure for
such communication shall be established and
followed.
LAND USE & 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 coordinating planning
and zoning, 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 (i.e., schools, garages, fire halls, etc.)
consistent with this plan and capital improvement programming.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-3
Policy: Coordinate Capital Improvement
Programming with the City of Saugatuck and
the Village of Douglas.
Policy: Encourage new commercial development to locate adjacent to existing commercial
areas.
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 effecttvely and efficiently by maximizing open space, preserving scenic vistas, conserving energy, and any other public policies
identified in this plan.
Policy: Preserve the quality, vitality, and
value of City commercial districts through sign
regulations which control the design and location of signs.
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 lrnown archaeological
site.
Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each
business where feasible and encourage centrally
placed parking lots which serve several businesses.
DOWNTOWN SAUGATUCK
Goal: Protect and enhance the appearance
of downtown Saugatuck and promote design
and activities which enhance the festive atmosphere and foster tourism.
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 consistent with the character of the
City and its ability to provide needed public
services.
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, and preparing
promotional materials which highlight the attractions of the City.
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 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.
Objective: Pursue state and local programs
aimed at planning, organizing, and financing
downtown improvement projects.
Policy: Continue to promote the preservation and renovation of historic structures and
districts in accordance with the Saugatuck Historic District regulations, in order to preserve
Saugatuck's historic character.
Objective: Identify alternative solutions to
the parking problems and traffic congestion
which occur in downtown Saugatuck during the
tourist season which do not detract from the
unique character of downtown, and do not penalize the community for the rest of the year.
Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing a shuttle bus to transport visitors downtown from an outer parking area.
Objective: Implement parking improvements and expansion through a variety of
planned financing approaches including capital
improvement programming, public/private
partnerships. special assessments, a Downtown
Development Authority, and others as appropriate.
Policy: Encourage prospective developers to
include off-street parking or alternatives in their
site design which help solve existing parking
and circulation problems.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-4
Policy: Discourage signs and advertising
which are inconsistent with the established
character of the downtown area.
more affordable, such as zoning regulations and
other programs which are designed to reduce
the cost of constructing new housing.
Policy: Maintain Butler Street's pedestrian
character with attractive landscaping and
benches to encourage shopping and social activity. and design improvements to reduce traffic
congestion.
Policy: Discourage the development of high
intensity residential uses along the waterfront.
Policy: Preserve and expand parks, greenbelts, benches, and landscaping in the downtown area.
INDUSTRIAL
The City has little roomfor industrial development. The following goals and policies reflect
the City's position on industrial growth beyond
its borders, or within the City if it expands
through annexation fn the future.
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: Encourage new industries to locate
in small industrial parks near major transportation routes, 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: Implement site plan requirements
for light industries which incorporate 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 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
Policy: Provide land through zoning for
apartments, duplexes, and medium density single family residential uses.
Policy: Maintain the present mix of housing
types (i.e. single family. multiple family, duplex,
etc.).
Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low
intensity home occupations in residential areas
to preserve their stability and tranquility.
Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks
in residential areas where there is a demonstrated need and according to the ability of
residents to finance such improvements.
SPECIAL ENVJRONMENTS & 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.
Objective: 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.
Objective: Devise regulations for land development in special environments which permit
development in a manner consistent with 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-5
agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations
for the purposes of preservation.
WATERFRONT
Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aesthetic values and recreation potential of all waterfront areas for the enj oytnent of area citizens.
Policy: Promote the preservation of existing
open space and natural areas along the
Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake, and Lake
Michigan to protect and enhance the scenic
beauty of these waterfront areas and permit the
continuity of these existing open spaces to remain.
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.
Policy: Acquire scenic easements wherever
public values dictate the maintenance of visual
access to the waterfront and the property is not
available for purchase.
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 tourtsm industry.
Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath
through local funds, grants and loans, and capital improvement programming.
Objective: Develop a system of cross-country ski trails together with the Village of Douglas,
Saugatuck Township, and other jurisdictions/agencies if possible, through the use of
local funds, grants and loans, and capital improvement programming.
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 tourtsts.
Objective: Explore the possibility of developing a joint public marina and launch facility
where federal and state funding is available to
assist with financing such a venture.
TRANSPORTATION
Policy: Limit the height and intensity of new
development along waterfront areas to preserve
visual access and the natural beauty of the
waterfront for the broader public.
Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient
road network and improve roads to promote
growth in a way that is consistent with land use
goals, objectives and policies.
Policy: Preserve street ends which abut
water bodies for public access to the water.
Goal: Encourage a wide vartety of transportation means, such as walking, biking, and
public transportation, to meet the diverse needs
of area residents.
Policy: Encourage additional boating related activities, such as transient slips and a
municipal marina.
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 actMties
located to serve identified needs of the area.
Policy: Promote pedestrtan and bike travel
through a coordinated network of bikepaths,
trails, and sidewalks.
Objective: Survey the transportation network and identify need for maintenance and
improvements.
Objective: Prepare a capital improvement
budget for financing transportation maintenance and improvements.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-6
Objective: Prepare a capital improvements
program to schedule and prioritize improvements and maintenance.
when necessary to meet an identified need in the
area rather than on a speculative basis.
Objective: Regulate deliveries and keep
them off of main streets in the downtown area.
POLICE, FIRE, & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, affordable, and dependable public transportation to
increase the mobility and quality of life of those
who depend on public transportation.
Policy: Maintain the sidewalk system and
require developers to provide sidewalks in appropriate locations through subdivision regulations.
Objective: Encourage expansion of the interurban system consistent with municipal
means to finance the increased service and an
identified public need.
WATER AND SEWER
Goal: Insure a safe and adequate water
supply for the area, and environmentally sound
sewage treatment. which is efficiently provided
and cost effective.
Policy: Provide a reliable supply of safe,
clean, and good tasting drinking water.
Objective: Devise alternative mechanisms
for financing sewer and water expansions which
are financially sound and equitable.
Policy: Minimize the potential for groundwater contamination through planning and zoning which is consistent with the capacity and
limitations of the land.
Policy: Promote a joint agreement with the
Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township to
plan and implement areawide sewer and water
service, including full participation by each in
the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority.
Objective: Upgrade and provide adequate
mains and lines within the existing sewer and
water service.
Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer
and water service into an area is consistent with
the planned intensity of land use for that area,
scheduled when affordable, and implemented
Goal: Provide police, fire. and emergency
services consistent with a public need and the
ability to finance improvements in the most cost
effective manner.
Policy: Explore the feasibility of consolidating police services across the three communities
to eliminate overlap in service and expenditures
and improve service delivery.
Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24
hour medical service which serves all three jurisdictions to be provided by a public or private
entity.
·SOCIAL SERVICES
Goal: Those social services 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) in appropriate locations
to provide quality and affordable day care to
working parents.
WAS1E MANAGEMENT
Goal: Insure the safe, effective, and efficient
disposal of solid waste and 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:
'---"
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�1-7
• Secondary containment for on-site storage
of hazardous waste:
• No transfer of hazardous waste over open
ground:
• Arrangements for inspection of, and monitoring underground storage tanks;
• Existing underground storage tanks must
provide spill protection around the fill pipe
by 1998 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 of a
biodegradable container ordinance.
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.
Objective: Prepare energy guidelines or
standards which address landscaping, solar access, solar energy systems, sidewalks, subdivision layout, proximity to goods and services.
etc .. and encourage or implement these through
wning and subdivision regulations.
Objective: Establish an educational program (i.e. "energy awareness week") in cooperation with the local school system.
Objective: Pursue funding or financing
techniques to retrofit public buildings to reduce
heating and cooling costs.
Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing a low interest. revolving loan fund for
retrofitting private homes where improvements
would be paid off through savings in heating
costs.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�2-1
Chapter2
DEMOGRAPlllCS
POPULATION SIZE
The City of Saugatuck has grown by 400Ai
since 1950, reaching an estimated 1,090 people
in 1986 according to U.S . Census population
estimates. The City grew only 5% between 1970
and 1980- slow compared to the 40% increase
experienced by the Township. (see Table 2 . 1).
SEASONAL POPULATION
The population of the each community in
the tri-community area swells during the summer when seasonal residents and tourists return. The 1980 census estimates that 26% (203)
of the City's 772 total housing units are vacant,
~easonal, and migratory. Nearly all of these (143)
fu-e detached single family units. Although 3 or
more unit cc:e'1dominiums make up about 23%
of the total seasonal units.
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 trt-community area increased about 30% between 19801986, whereas population increased by an
average of 200Ai. This reflects the impact of the
seasonal and tourist population on local services.
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 trt-community area
declined, going from 2 .98 in 1960 to 2 .39 in
1980. The average household size in the City in
1980 was the lowest at 2.0, indicative of the high
proportion of "empty nesters" and retirees.
The number of households is an excellent
gauge of the demand for land and services.
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. As
household size decreases, the additional households create further demand for land. housing,
transportation, and public utilities. Although
household size has declined substantially over
the past few decades, national trends suggest
that it will soon cease its decline. Nationwide the
average household size has reached a plateau
and state demographers predict that Michigan
will follow suit.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Historical age cohort data is available on a
regional basis and 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 population. however. has remained
TABLE 2.1
POPULATION (1950-1980)
COMMUNI1Y
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1950
770
845
447
2.062
1960
927
1,133
602
2 ,662
1970
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
Source: U.S. Cemus Bureau
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
1980
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
CHANGE
40%
107%
112%
83%
�2-2
FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 2.1
AGE COHORTS (1980)
AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980)
AREA§
--
19
p
E
17
R
C
13
15
ALLEGAN COUNlY
""""" 1960
-1980
17
p
11
E
N
g
T
7
3--~-.-~-~---,--~-~
()-1•
s.1,
15-24
25-34
15
E
35-«
55-<14
·-
R
13
C
E
N
T
11
g
5-14
()-4
15-24
25-34
~4
45-54
55-44
I&.
AGE GROUP
SS.
AGE GROUP
age groups. The City also has a large cohort of
45-54 year olds. In regional terms, the City of
Saugatuck comprises 37% of the area's senior
population (despite its small size): Saugatuck
Township comprises 39%: and the Village of
Douglas, 24%.
FIGURE 2.3
AGE COHORTS (1980)
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
20
18
p
16
E
R
C
14
EDUCATION
12
E
N
T
10
Saugatuck has a well educated citizenry. An
analysis of those aged 25 and older in 1980
reveals that 43.6% have completed 1 or more
years of college. The City has the highest relative
proportion of college graduates in the region (see
Figure 2.4). Table 2.2 contains complete information on the educational status of persons 25
years old and over by jurisdiction.
s
()-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-«
45-54
55-<14
6St
AGE GROUP
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 and 2.3 depict the 1980 age
cohort distribution in the City, in comparison to
Allegan County. The City has a small cohort of
infants and toddlers compared to even the
County. But its most striking characteristic is
its huge cohort of senior citizens relative to other
SCHOOL ENROILMENTS
The Saugatuck Public School District
serves the City of Saugatuck (see Map 2.1).
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
TABLE 2.2
EDUCATIONAL STATUS
PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER
Elementary
1-3 years HS
4years HS
1-3 years College
4+ years College
SAUGATUCK
SAUGATUCK
TOWNSHIP
CITY
185
199
373
157
188
DOUGLAS
57
97
276
137
196
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
73
84
213
123
84
AREA
315
380
862
417
468
r---
~
�2-3
FIGURE 2.4
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980
PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
40
[ill] TOWNSHIP
•
CITY
~ VILLAGE
35
30
p
25
E
R
C
E
N
T
20
15
10
5
0
ELEMENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S.
4 YRS H.S.
FIGURE 2.5
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
GRADES K-12
800
E
N
R
0
L
L
M
1-3 YRS COLL.
4 YRS COLL.
(see Figure 2.6). School enrollment data appears
in Table 2.3.
Future elementary and high school enrollments were projected by the Saugatuck Public
School system. These projections show an upturn in high school enrollments in 1991 with a
750
TABLE 2.3
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
700
650
E
N
600
T
550
500 -+-..---.---.---..-.....-.--.--.......-..--.................--.--.......--.
73-74 75-76 n-18 79-80 61-82 63-84 85-86 87-68
YEAR
Saugatuck Public School system. grades K-12,
have declined by 34% (see Figure 2.5). When
dMded 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
YEAR
K-6
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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
7-12
329
322
299
290
303
296
277
265
246
215
TOTAL
655
629
605
542
535
555
527
540
545
511
�2-4
FIGURE2.6
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS
360
340
E
N
R
0
L
L
320
300
280
I
I
260
M
E
'X
240
N
T
PROJECTIONS
220
I
·~
200
180
79-80
I
81-82
83-84
85-86
87-88
89-90
91-92
93-94
YEAR
continued climb in elementary school enrollments (see Figure 2.6). Total projected 1994
enrollments, however. are still 23% less than
1973-7 4 levels.
FU1URE TRENDS
If local demographic trends follow those
projected for the county as they have in the past.
then the overall proportion of retirees in the area
will expand much faster than that of school age
children. The Michigan Department of 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 City.
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 impact of demographic trends on the
school system could be lessened by the large
cohort of individuals in their childbearing years
in the Township and the Village. 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. Two
key factors will be the availability of a.ffordable
housing and nearby employment opportunities.
In the meantime, schools must use space and
resources efficiently as they experience tighter
budgets and small enrollments.
Many of the demographic characteristics
shown here have been analyzed based on 1980
census information. These trends should be
updated when the 1990 census information is
available. Other useful demographic indicators
are summarized in Appendix B.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
H OL
MAP 2.1 PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
II
Saugatuck
~
Fennville
D
Hamilton
DATA SOURCE: Respective School Districts
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
August 1989
SA
I ,
DOUG
�3-1
Chapter3
THE ECONOMY
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
Kalamazoo River. The City 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 tri-community
area. The Park offers no camping and thus many
visitors stay in the tri-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
attendance since 1979, when it attracted only
ll,714visitors.
ECONOMIC BASE
Tourism
Tourism fuels the economy of the tri-community area, with associated boating, restaurant, lodging, and strong retail sectors. Of the
three jurisdictions, the City of Saugatuck relies
most heavily on tourism. 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. 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 area's resort flair is defined by: historic
buildings- including quaint bed and breakfast
inns; the many festivals; outstanding boating;
Oval Beach; downtown Saugatuck; sand dunes;
TABLE 3.1
IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986
TOT. TRAVEL
TRAVEL
EXPENDl'IURES GENER. PAYROLL
$42,413,000
$/Jobs
% of State Total
.56%
%change
29.52%
i983-86
TRAVEL
GENER. EMPLOYMENT
STATE TAX
RECEIPTS
LOCAL TAX
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 Travel on Michigan Counties."
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
Metal Stampings
Office Furniture
Nursing Home
Manufacturing
Marina
Supermarket
Machinery
Pies
EMPLOYEES
43
238
78
12
21
32
24
85
Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
3-2
FIGURE 3,1
EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY
PUBLIC
E]
CITY
■ VILLAGE
TOWNSHIP
SERVICES
r,;a
FIN/INS/REAL EST
@ COUNTY
RETAIL
WHOLESALE
TRANS/COMM/UTIL
MANUFACTURING
CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
10
5
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
PERCENT
rism generate in the tri-community area? Although current travel and tourism statistics are
not available for the trt-community 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.
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
TABLE 3.3
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY - 1980
TOTAL
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
TCU*
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
FIRE••
Services
Public Admin.
CTIY
VILLAGE
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, Utillities
•• Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
AREA
1,669
62
132
599
52
40
319
75
328
62
COUN1Y
34,025
2,041
2,009
13,033
1.407
1,398
5,017
1,126
7,105
889
~
'-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
-
�3-3
TABLE 3.4
EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION - 1980
TOTAL
Manag. & Admin
Prof. Technical
Sales
Clerical
Service
Farm, Fishing
Crafts & Repair
Machine Operators
Laborers, Mat. Moving
Cl1Y
VILLAGE
TOWNSHIP
AREA
COUN1Y
547
77
87
433
34
62
24
45
73
13
70
90
22
685
43
74
83
74
73
43
144
120
31
1,665
154
223
170
189
231
126
210
270
92
34,025
2,315
3,319
2,696
4,189
4,300
1,885
5,447
6,129
3,745
63
70
72
13
66
60
39
Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
TABLE3.5
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RA'IE
Trt-Cornmunity
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
15.2
14.7
10.8
11.3
6.5
5.8
5.2
County
14.8
14.3
10.5
10.9
7.3
5.6
5.1
State
15.5
14.2
11.2
9.9
8.8
8.2
7.6
Souroe: MESC, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Field
Analysis Unit
percentage of area jobs. Major area employers
are listed in Table 3.2.
EMPLOYMENT
Figure 3.1 illustrates 1980 employment by
economic sector in each community as compared to the County. Manufacturing employs
the most people in each of the three communities. Yet employment in other sectors varies.
Twenty-nine percent of Saugatuck's labor force
are employed in manufacturing, but retail employment is also very high at 27%. This reveals
the dominant nature of the City's retail sector as
compared to that of the region (15%) and the
County (15%). The area's service sector employs
23% of Saugatuck's labor force. Five percent are
employed in transportation, communication, or
utilities, and another 5% are employed in construction. Data on employment by industry appears in Table 3.3.
Employment by occupation in 1980 is
shown in Table 3.4. The highest proportion of
workers in Saugatuck are professional/technical workers, followed by managerial and administrative, service, and clerical workers.
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. (Employment data is not
available for individual communities in the tricommunity area. The Michigan Employment Security Commission aggregates it for Saugatuck
Township, the Village of Douglas, and the City
of Saugatuck.) 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 businesses increased employment: a number of
small businesses and two restaurants opened:
and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corporation expanded adding two new departments.
Contributing to this was the state and regional
City of Saugatuck 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
D
s
2650
2.6
E
2.4
M
2600
p
L
0
2550
2.2
2.0
1.8
y
1.6
M
E
N
T
1.4
1.2
1.0
1980
2500
2450
2400
2350
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
2300
YEAR
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
s
0
N
D
MONTH
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 trt-community area.
Figure 3.3 reveals the impact of tourism on
employment in the tri-community area during
the summer months.
The high number of jobs created during the
summer months are primarily unskilled jobs in
the seIVice/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,
FIGURE 3.4
TOURISM RELATED EMPLOYMENT, 1988
ALLEGAN COUNTY
1.2
E
1.0
MT
0.8
0.6
p
H
L o
ou
y
!
0.4
MN
0.2
E
0.0
MONTH
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
N
T
D
s
�3-5
FIGURE 3.6
ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY SEV
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87)
70
60
M
S~
ELI
50
vo 40
N
s
30
=
Saugatuck
-
Douglas
=
Township*
-
Township....
20
10.-~~=--------1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
YEAR
• not including Village(s)
•• including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984.
could staff area businesses during peak summer months.
TAX BASE
Residential uses make up the bulk of the
area's tax base (65%), representing an SEV of
$21,167,486. Yet commercial uses comprise
one-third of the City's real property SEV at
FIGURE 3.5
REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988)
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
RESIDENTIAL 65%
$10,677,205. Industrial uses comprise 2% of the
tax base, with an SEV of $1,126,200 (See Figure
3.5).
Figure 3.6 illustrates changes in annual
real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for
the City of Saugatuck. Saugatuck was also included in the Township's tax base prior to 1985,
when it became a city. This explains the sharp
drop in SEV for the Township between 1984 and
1985. SEV's are also shown for the Township
minus the Village(s). The figure shows a jump in
the City's tax base between 1983-84 following
incorporation, with a steady increase since then.
More complete information on annual SEVs and
1988 breakdowns can be found in Appendix B.
INCOME
According to 1985 census estimates, the
City of Saugatuck has the second highest per
capita income in the county- although the City
has given up first place to Laketown Township
since 1979. 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.)
COMMERCIAL 33%
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
3-6
FIGURE 3.7
p
.
.
E
so
PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980)
70
lEl
TOWNSHIP
•
CITY
~
VILLAGE
R
C
"
E
N
,o
T
20
"
LESSTMANS5
...
56-51
AGE
Table 3.7 reveals selected income and poverty characteristics by jurisdiction in the tricommunity area. Although the per capita
income in the area has been consistently higher
than that of the county, the median household
income is lower. The median household income
is the point at which 50% of the households earn
more and 50% earn less. This statistic 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 in poverty goes down. Although
the City has a higher proportion of persons in
poverty than the Township, it also has a higher
proportion of individuals with earnings 200% or
more above the poverty level.
Figure 3. 7 depicts the proportion of persons
in poverty by age. (The poverty level used by the
1980 census in recording this data was an
annual income of $3,778 for those under 65,
and $3,689 for those 65 and over.) While some
of the City's poor are elderly, the largest number
are under 55.
TABLE3.6
PER CAPITA INCOME ($), ALLEGAN COUNTY (TOP TEN)
1985
1979
Saugatuck
Laketown Township
Holland
Gunplain Township
Otsego Township
Plainwell
Saugatuck Township
Allegan Township
Leighton Township
Fillmore Townshi2
Laketown Township
Saugatuck
Holland
Gunplain Township
Otsego Township
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
Fillmore Township
Plainwell
Le!,ghton Townshi2
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
level & above
TOWNSHIP
CI'IY
VILLAGE
COUN1Y
16,412
7.1%
74%
15,182
8.6%
75%
14,963
11.3%
73%
17,906
8 .0%
71%
Source: 1980 Census of Population
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�4-1
Chapter4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
TOPOGRAPHY
Weather conditions affect Saugatuck'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 portion of the City on the east side of
the Kalamazoo River (and Lake) has an escarpment, from 20 to 40 feet high, separating two
relatively flat areas. The wate rant area. located
below the escarpment, extends from the east
bank of the river two to four blocks inland. The
"hill" area above the escarpment extends further
inland past the City limits and into Saugatuck
Township . The area on the west side of the
Kalamazoo River consists entirely of sand dunes
between the river and Lake Michigan. with a
narrow strip of flat land along the waterfront.
The highest point in this area is Mt. Baldhead,
which rises 310 feet above Lake Michigan.
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. On the topographic map (Map
4.1), steep slope areas are indicated by three or
more contour lines in close proximity.
GEOLOGY
Saugatuck 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 lake bed deposits east of the Lake Border Moraine, a major
physiographic formation which is adjacent to
Lake Michigan.
DRAINAGE
Saugatuck lies within the Kalamazoo River
Basin, which begins near Jackson and extends
westward into Saugatuck Township, Douglas
TABLE4.l
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CLIMATE CONDITIONS
CLIMATE VARIABLES
Coldest Months (January-February)
Hotest Month (July)
Annual Average Temperature
Average Rainfall
Average Growing Season
Average Annual Snowfall
Elevation Above Sealevel
Prevailing Winds
AVERAGE CONDITION
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 Soil Survey, Allegan County
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
EXTREME CONDITION
-11° F - -35° F
96° F - 106° F
�•
4-2
ational or agricultural uses. Installation of public utilities and permanent construction for residential, commercial or industrial uses should
not occur in floodplain areas.
Several parts of the City are built in the
floodplain. Among these are the blocks between
Water Street and the Kalamazoo River, a narrow
strip along the west bank of the river and an area
near the Blue Star Highway bridge. A substantial portion of the undeveloped land in the northeastern corner of the City also lies in the
floodplain.
FIGURE 4.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER BASIN
WETLANDS
Q)
-IC
Ill
-'
Lake Erie
and Saugatuck (see Figure 4.1). Most of the City
drains into the Kalamazoo River. The remainder,
consisting of the west slope of the sand dunes,
drains directly into Lake Michigan. A small area
is drained by Goshorn Creek, a short-run
stream that flows into the Kalamazoo River. All
areas of the City drain fairly well due to adequate
slopes and highly permeable soils. An exception
to this is the wetland area near Goshorn Creek.
Watercourses in Saugatuck are shown in Map
4.2.
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 Saugatuck. 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, recre-
There are several wetlands within the City
of Saugatuck. Most are contiguous to or hydrologically connected to Lake Michigan, the
Kalamazoo River or Goshorn Creek. Wetlands
are valuable in storing floodwaters and recharging groundwater. They are also habitat for a wide
variety of plants and antmals.
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 (DNR) 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 d.uratton
sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances 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 inland 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 (i.e. via groundwater) to waterways are also regulated. Activities exempted
from the provisions of the Act include farming, grazing of antmals, farm or stock ponds, lumbering, maintenance of existing nonconforming
structures. maintenance or improvement of existing roads and streets within existing rtghtsof-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines
less than six inches in diameter. and maintenance or operation of electric transmission and
distribution power lines.
Permits will not be issued if a feasible or
prudent alternative to developing a wetland exists. 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�4-3
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.
sons
A modem soil survey was completed for
Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service in March, 1987. The soil types present
in the City of Saugatuck are shown on the map
and table in Appendix D. Each soil type has
unique characteristics which pose limitations
for particular uses. 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 Saugatuck have severe limitations on residential and urban development. The degree of soil limitations reflects
the hardship and expense of developing the
land.
TABLE4.2
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 Classification
System
• Wetlands are sometimes, but not always associated
with these land cover types.
Basement Limitations
Limitations for dwellings with basements
are shown on Map 4 .5. 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 west side of the City in the sand
dunes, which have excessive slopes. The escarpment area, with excessive slope. the large area
of open space near the high school. with wetness, and an area north of Allegan and Maple
Streets. with wetness and excessive shrinkswell potential, are other parts of the City with
severe limitations.
Septic Limitations
Most of the soils in the City of Saugatuck
impose severe limitations on septic tank absorption fields because of excessive slope and rapid
permeability. The remainder are sand beaches
and excavated areas, which are not rated for
septic limitations. The permeability of soils in
the City ranges from very poorly drained to
excessively drained. with most being excessively
drained. Map 4 .6 shows the septic limitations
for the City. This map suggests the need for
municipal sewers to accommodate new development in those areas not presently served (east
side).
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.
Map 4. 7 provides this more detailed analysis of
severe limitations on septic tank absorption
fields. The "severe" soils have been categonzed
as follows:
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 Conservation 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�•
4-4
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 on Map 4 .8 .
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 Consetvation 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 at least 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 will not be issued septic
system permits.
All Other Residential, Plus Commercial
These fall under State guidelines of at least
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.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are another limitation on development. They are very poorly drained, saturate
easily and retain large quantities of water. Map
4 .9 shows where these soils are. In Saugatuck.
hydric soils are found near watercourses and
correspond to present or former wetlands. There
are only two areas of these soils in the City; along
Goshorn Creek and north of Campbell Road
between River Road and Manchester Lane. Residential, commercial and industrial development in areas containing hydric soils should be
discouraged.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is an unseen resource and is
therefore particularly vulnerable to mismanagement and contamination. Prior to the l 980'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
because of septic systems, intensive development and a high water table.
Protection of groundwater resources is
problematic because of diflkulties in locating
aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative
location of groundwater at particular points.
According to well logs from Michigan Groundwater Smvey (MGS) data. well depths near the
City of Saugatuck range from 29 ft . to 215 ft ..
with the municipal well being at 200 ft. Soils
most vulnerable to groundwater contamination
are found on Map 4.10.
SPECIAL FEATURES
Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches
The Lake Michigan shoreline in Saugatuck
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 in Douglas and Saugatuck
Township due to bluff erosion is a graphic example of the power of wave action. These natural
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�4-5
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 Saugatuck 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
4.11, 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 does not.
WOODLANDS
The wooded areas of the Saugatuck are
primarily hardwoods. Large areas of upland
hardwoods are found in the sand dune area
between the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan, and in the undeveloped area in the eastern
part of the City. Woodlands in the City are
shown on Map 4.13. 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
should be managed to insure their long term
existence.
Sand Dunes
The sand dunes along Lake Michigan on the
west side of the City 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 area which is in the City
of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township 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 222
of 1976. The designated critical dune area is
shown in the shaded region of Map 4.12.
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.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�~
-------------------■
N
A
0
1200
600
Scale 1"
=
u
1800
1212 ft
........ ·
_) (1c /··--.
..........
MAP4.1 TOPOGRAPHY
.
.,
(,__ ____
.·•••··.
'•·:::.::
.......
:_~.- ....
"•
Saugatuck
Contour interval is ten feet
Darker lines are 50 foot contours
Augult 1989
DATA SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Maps
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, LMlling, Ml
. . ...
�N
A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
CD
r
C
r,
(/)
-I
.
1-
►
:::0
(/)
I
1(!)
(!)
MAP 4.2 WATERCOURSES
I/I
k''I
Saugatuck
Lakes, rivers and streams
Drains and lntennittent streams
August 1089
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning a Zoning Cen• Inc, Lanllng, Ml
�---------------------A
N
----
,.
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
l/)
-I
.
1-
J>
::0
(/}
I
1(!)
'.O
CAMPBELL
MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS
■
100 Year Flood Area
~
500 Year Flood Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:MONR
Saugatuck
Plannng & Zoning Centar Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
MAP 4.4 WETLANDS
■
Ill
II
Saugatuck
Lowland Hardwood
Shrub Swamp
Lowland Conifer
Herbaceous Rangeland
Wooded Swamp
August 1989
■
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
II
Marshland Meadow &
Mud Flats
Shrub Rangeland
Planning & Zoning Cen- Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
1200
600
Scale 1"
=
1800
1212 ft
MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS
Ill
Severe
■
Excavated
mIIIl
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
W
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County :
Saugatuck
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
MAP 4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
1111
IIIlil
mill
Severe
■
Excavated
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County:
Saugatuck
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
Saugatuck
MAP 4. 7 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
~ Sandy, moderate to rapid
~ permeability
~ Rapid permeability, wetness
el of highwater table
11&1 Wet, ponding, heavier
a
Moderate Limitations
hH
Slight Limitations
■ Excavated
1111 clay soils.slow permeability
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Alleg. Cnty Hlth Dept
~
~
Ill
Sand Dunes
Wetland Soils
Very wet soils, organics,
wetlands, floodplains
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lan1ing, Ml
�---------------------- ---·---
b;
r-~
I
i
I
/2
:
! ~~
-
i
/4
/
;=
µ _____ __ ____ _
10
•
. 'D
25
I
-·
II
-~~
~--~
I
II
I
1
311
I
I
~
. --
".,
:,e
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IJZJ
-
MAP 4.7 A
Saugatuck
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS
f'IC1 NO. 2
.......................
.......
....__
�N
A
,__.._.
0
600
I'
1200
1800
/
I
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
I
I
MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS
11111
Soils Most Suitable For Development
■
Excavated Areas
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Saugatuck
Planning & Zoning Centar Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
IJIII A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS
11111
Hydric Soils
~
Wetland Soils
August 1~
DATA SOURCE : USDA SoU Survey, Allegan County
Saugatuck
Planning
a Zoning c.,., Inc, Lanllng, Ml
�N
A
0
600
1800
1200
I
,I
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAP 4.10 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY
Ill
Areas most susceptible to contamination
■
Excavated Areas
~
Wetland Soils
August 198Q
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soils Surwy & Alleg. Hitt, Dept.
Saugatuck
Planning & Zoning Cenlar Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
600
0
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
, ..................
········
NJ /
'
1(/)
lI
I
f-
(!)
(!)
!
KALAMAZOO LAKE
MAP 4.11 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS
~
Accretion Area
■
Recession Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MONA
Saugatuck
Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in
feet per year
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�.~----------------------A
■
N
'I
I
, / I
,,
0
600
1200
I
I
1800
I
I'
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
I
I
.
1(/)
I
1l!)
lO
KALAMAZOO LAKE
MAP 4.12 CRITICALDUNEAREAS
~
Saugatuck
Critical Dune Areas
August 1Q89
DATA SOURCE: MONR
Planning & Zoning
een• Inc, Lansing, Ml
,,
�N
A
1200
Scale1"= 1212ft
Saugatuck
MAP 4.13 WOODLANDS
II
Lowland Hardwood
ill!
Upland Conifer
1111
Upland Hardwood
~
Wooded Swamp
lliiJ
Lowland Conifer
~
Shrub Swamp
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MONA
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�3-1
Chapter5
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 City (see Map 5. 1). This data
was obtained in computerized 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 Saugatuck, conducted in the summer of 1988. The inventory
was based on ownership parcels and conducted
both on foot and through a "windshield smvey".
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING LAND USE
lAND USE
ACRES
%
11.AMSROWResidential
single-family
174
multi-fainily
24
26
Commercial
Industrial
2
Institutional
21
249
Parks
Boat Storage &
6
Service
29
Kalamazoo
River Wetland
Streets & Roads
106
136
Vacant
Commer2...3.
cial/Residential
775
TOTAL
22 .45%
3 . 10
3.35
0.26
2 .71
32. 13
0.77
3 .74
13.68
17.55
Mil
100.04%
• % of total land area minus street ROWs
The existing 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 (parcelbased) 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 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 Saugatuck is
parks. This is followed by single fainily residential, commercial and multiple family residential,
respectively. Vacant land comprises eighteen
percent of the total land area (street ROW's
excluded) of the City.
RESIDENTIAL
Most of the residential development in
Saugatuck is concentrated around the center of
the City. Other residential areas are along
Campbell Road and along the west shore of
Kalamazoo Lake. Most resort and seasonal residential development is located along Kalamazoo
Lake and the Kalamazoo River. Single family
structures are the predominant residential type.
A number of large older homes have been conTABLE5.2
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
CONDO PROJECTS SINCE 1980
PROJECT
Bridges of Saugatuck
Waterside
Saugatuck Shores
East Shore Harbor Club
Bay View + 4 single family
Saugatuck Harbors
Holland & Francis
Windjammer
TOTAL
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
# UNITS
8
6
16
46
13
24
6
8
127
�-
p
■
IS-2
verted to two or three units or bed and breakfast
establishments. Multiple family structures are
found along Lake Street. in several condominium developments lining the east shore of
Kalamazoo Lake . and in other parts of the City.
New condominium developments since 1980 are
shown on Table 5.2. Apartment complexes in the
city include Ridgewood Oaks Apartments and
Olde Mill Apartments on Maple Street in the
northeast comer of the City. and Harbor View
Apartments north of Campbell Road in the
southwest part of the City.
COMMERCIAL
The major commercial area in Saugatuck is
the City Center. which is primarily tourist oriented, with some establishments serving local
residents. Businesses include a bank. hardware, furniture, restaurants. drug store. clothing, tourist accommodations and many other
tourism related activities. Other commercial activities are scattered throughout the City and
along the waterfront. Boat storage and repair
facilities represent a different type of commercial
use and line the waterfront throughout the City.
The largest of these is located between Holland
Street and the Kalamazoo River.
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial activity in Saugatuck is limited
to one site near Culver and Griffith Streets. The
site is occupied by Rich Products. which produces food products (fruit pies). Another site on
Water Street. formerly occupied by American
Twisting Co .. is vacant. There are no other occupied industrial sites in the City, nor are any
available.
PLANNING AREAS
Eight planning areas have been identified
within Saugatuck. These planning areas represent portions of the City within which particular
land uses or other characteristics give a distinguishable identity or quality. Some people may
identify with these areas as "neighborhoods".
Following are brief descriptions of existing land
use. These descriptions are based on the planning/neighborhood areas depicted on Map 5.3.
City Center
The City Center is the most intensely developed area of Saugatuck. It includes the central
business district. restaurants and shops. and is
the focal point of much of the City's activities.
During the summer months. the City Center is
heavily used by tourists. Much of the revenue
gained locally through tourist expenditures
comes from this area. The City Center is known
throughout the state for its excellent antique
shops and art galleries. The City Hall is an
historic building and also serves as a tourist
attraction. This area expresses the style. activity, and scenic and architectural qualities that
make the City one of the most unique in the
region.
Generally. the structures are small, simple,
and classical in design. They reflect tum of the
century commercial demand for limited and accessible retail space. Unlike most cities, much
of the original architecture has survived. The
style remains simple, spare, utilitarian and elegant. The atmosphere is informal. The scale is
human and pedestrian and compliments the
surrounding natural environment without overpowering it. This unique City Center preserves
the history of Saugatuck and establishes a sense
of comfort and place.
Center Transition Area
The area immediately north of the City Center along both sides of Butler Street is occupied
by 22 single-family structures. The homes are
typically old and large. Some are over a hundred
years old, with historic qualities. Many of these
homes have become difficult to heat and keep in
good repair because of their age and size. The
homes are primarily white and wood frame and
are in good repair. Most structures are occupied
on a year-round basis.
Water Street Shoreline
Most development along Water Street is
waterfront oriented. This includes public and
private marinas. restaurants capitalizing on the
waterfront view, tourist attractions offering boat
rides. and charter boats. A number of substantial commercial investments along the waterfront have made this area one of the City's most
active. There are approximately ten single-family homes. four multi-family structures. including a new twenty-four (24) unit condominium,
and transient lodging facilities, the largest of
which has forty units.
The water line is almost entirely lined with
bulkheads and utilized for boat docks. The waterfront area is a natural extension of the City
Center in terms of tourist activity. Tourists visit
the shops and galleries in the City Center, then
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
~
�walk the boardwalk along the water and perhaps
eat there. Both areas are closely related in terms
of contribution to the City's economic base and
tourism orientation.
Lake Street
The Lake Street area follows the shoreline
of Kalamazoo Lake between Griffith Street and
Blue Star Highway. Land uses in this area include approximately 35 single-family homes,
several condominium developments. several
transient lodging establishments, a marina,
some commercial facilities , and the City's largest industry. Rich Products. Many of the singlefamily homes are seasonal dwellings occupied
only during the summer months.
Park Street
Park Street follows the west bank of the
Kalamazoo River. There are approximately 100
single-family structures in this area, most of
which are occupied by seasonal residents. Other
land uses include tourist lodging facilities and
waterfront oriented commercial uses. Approximately twenty new single family homes have
been built along Campbell Road.
Much of the area was platted in an uncoordinated and unplanned manner. Many of the
plats along Park Street are either long and narrow, or are small in overall square footage. Platted lots range in size from 6 ,000 square feet to
25 ,000 square feet.
Mt. Baldhead
The HHill"
This area is located "on the hill" above the
City Center, Lake Street and waterfront areas
and consists primarily of single-family homes.
The homes are typically 30-60 years old and in
good repair. The area is uncongested and is
affected by tourist activity only at the fringes ,
where traffic enters the City along Holland
Street, the City's main entrance. This area contains most of the City's permanent (year-round)
residents
Holland Street
Holland Street is the main entrance into the
City from the north. The street is lined with trees
and residences and gives visitors a favorable
impression as they enter the City. Most of the
residents are year-round, although there are
some seasonal residences fronting the
Kalamazoo River.
Maple Street
This area is underdeveloped, except for cityowned utilities (water wells) and approximately
eight single-family homes. Additional homes are
being built above a deep and scenic ravine which
traverses this area. The area contains some
wetlands and areas with development limitations. This area is the last substantial tract of
vacant property in the eastern part of the city,
covering approximately 60 acres. Ownership is
in large tracts. There are no recorded subdivisions. Across from Maple Street in Saugatuck
Township are commercial uses including warehouses and storage sheds.
The Mt. Baldhead area is one of the most
unique, scenic, and beautifully preserved mature dune areas along the Lake Michigan shore.
Most of the dune area is vegetated, forested and
stable. There are some "blow-out" areas free of
vegetation through wind disturbance and some
areas that have been cleared for recreational
purposes. The area is recognized by the Michigan State Department of Natural Resources as
an Area of Particular Concern (APC).
The dune area covers approximately 300
acres, 150 acres of which is owned by the Presbyterian Church, 75 acres by the City of
Saugatuck, and the remainder in large private
holdings. The only development is the Oval
Beach Lakefront swimming and recreation area.
The Mt. Baldhead area is an important
component of the City's attractive natural environment, and enhances the City Center and the
waterfront. With those areas, the forested dunes
and Mt. Baldhead complete an attraction that
provides unparalleled visual quality, contributing to a vital active tourist economy. Mt. Baldhead is not only an important natural resource
for the entire state and country, but also a
"display case" for the City itself and therefore
has a direct and positive influence on the economic vitality of the community.
lllSTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES
Some archaeological sites and historic sites
can be found in Saugatuck. 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
TABLE 3.3
STATE HISTORIC SITES
DESCRWTION
Sawtatuck:
All Saints Episcopal
Church
Singapore (Village Hall)
WCATION
252 Grand St.
Marker on Village Hall on
Butler St.
Clipson Brewery Ice House - 900 Lake St.
Twin Gables Hotel (Singapore Country Inn is commonname)
888 Holland
Horace D. Moore House
St.
736 Pleasant
Warner P. Sutton House
(Beachwood Manor)
St.
Fred Thompson-Willliam
633 Pleasant
Sorin~er House
St.
Source: Michigan Bureau of History
recognition for historic resources in Michigan.
Designated historic sites have unique historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering, or
cultural significance. There are six State historic
sites in Saugatuck, which are listed on Table
5 .3. 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.
State historic site designation does not include any financial or tax benefits, nor does it
impose any restrictions upon the owner of the
property, unlike similar designations under federal law.
Historic Districts
Architecture in the City Center of
Saugatuck is generally late nineteenth century
Victorian, with some commercial and residential
structures built forty years before the Victorian
period. The oldest structures are characterized
by their wood frames, gabled roofs and false
fronts . They are typical of early mercantile establishments and reflect the area's lumber harvesting industry. The later Victorian structures
are typical of small towns and are predominantly of masonry construction. While none are
larger than two stories, several have large floor
areas due to long, narrow floor plans commonly
used. Original facades are not elaborate in their
architectural detail, however several stylistic elements are present including Italianate cornices
and brackets, and Greek revival entablatures
end pediments. Other particularly interesting
features include press-tin ceilings and cornices
and lead-glass transoms.
Saugatuck has taken local steps to preserve
its historic character and particularly the City
Center area. 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 wning ordinance. Historic districts provide a means for the
community to protect its historic resources from
development pressures. The Saugatuck historic
district is shown in Map 5.4.
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 Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas. mostly related to
Ottawa and Potawatomi cultures. Their exact
locations have not been disclosed by the Bureau
of History in order to protect them from exploitation. 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.
The Bureau of History also recommends
that those proposing development projects in
Saugatuck contact the State Archaeologist to
determine 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. The
Bureau of History serves in an advisory capacity
and has no legal authority to restrict development rights.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
~
�Saugatuck
MAP 5.1 LAND USE/COVER
WATER
URBAN
EI].
113 Single Family
.......
........
.......
115 Mobile Home
1,11,11,1,
1,1,1,11,.
■
......•••
~
124 Neighborhood Business
126 Other Institutional
193 Outdoor Recreation
FARMLAND
□
~
~
~
IIIIill
I
RANGELAND
II
mm
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
■
421}
429}Conifers
August 1989
I.
I
I
I
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
r---.0
600
1200
Scale1 " = 1212ft
City of Saugatuck
LAND USE/COVER
1800
�-
II-
Saugatuck
MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE
l§ffl Mulltiple Family Residential
ruill
m~
rrrrrrm Res,.dent'1a1/Commerc1a
. I
l;;,:ili..;J
mm
Junkyard
■ Commercial
~
Mobile Home Park
II
ffl
Vacant
ffiIIl]
Wetland
D
Water
~ Single Family Residential
Boat Storage/Marina
Industrial
[it]
·..:..:..:.,:j
~gg
Agricultural - Orchard
Recreational
Agricultural
August 1989
SOURCE: PZC Land Use Survey
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
City of Saugatuck
EXISTING LAND USE
A
~lillll
0
500
1000
1500
Scale 1" = 1032'
~
,.
.
/
~·
.· ,
,
. ,,,
,
,,-:·)
,; ~
i. ~~
- ,. 1~ arY ·,
lffi ~~ ~~/.
@II !fl ~ ~ ' / l::.
I If lj \4i4 ~·14J ;
:mmm:
1e
ri HmTI
Dr: ~:mr,.:..§mmi
ill
rrm
,-z1 "~•........,...__,.,,,_,.,
I ._.;
,,■ = ··:'_:·~~
: ~~ ,-;~ '.;,
~•A,
1/·
· ¼_ •
~
ri;B•
~
~
~:
~,,::, -✓ 1
,•.•..
• •
V
&al
"'
/
,'
,,
r~
,
~
. (111
-~~
◄
~
".
'"
,.1·
,
,.
;f;',\
,,. : , / /2
~
j
,,.,.
/,,;,j;',
�.II
N
A
,.._.._..
0
600
1200
Scale 1'' = 1212 ft
KALAMAZOO LAKE
MAP 5.3 PLANNING AREAS
,,
■ City Center
§
Lake Street
■
m
The Hill
[]
Maple Street
Center Transition
~ Water Street
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : Saugatuck Planning Commisssion
Saugatuck
■
~
m
Park Street
Mount Baldhead
Holland Street
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
Scale 1"
12,000 ft
= 9060 ft
MAP 5.4 SAUGATUCK HISTORIC DISTRICT
■
Saugatuck
Historic District
August 1989
DATA SOURCE : City Of Saugatuck Ordnances
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lanling, Ml
�6-1
Chapter6
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
NON-PARK PUBLIC FACil.JTIES
A listing of all non-park public facilities in
the City of Saugatuck is found on Table 6.1. This
includes police and fire stations, municipal government offices, vacant lands and other public
facilities. All are found on Map 6.1.
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 participating 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 6.2 and 6.3. extend
only for very short distances into Saugatuck
Township. Most of the developed part of the City
is served by both water and sewer, and the
system is designed to accommodate expansion
and addition of new lines.
Numerous engineering studies have been
conducted which discuss various alternatives
for improvement of utillties. 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 utillties in the area are
more pronounced than in typical communities
due to the relatively high seasonal and daily
visitor population, especially pronounced in the
City of Saugatuck.
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
for the near future, but additional capacity is
needed if service 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 reserve needed (600,000
gallons) for fire protection down to 2/3 of the
needed amount. A moratorium has been imposed on new development other than one or two
family dwellings. The pumping capacity of both
wells has dropped due to depletion (drawdown)
of groundwater.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�-
■
6-2
TABLE 6.1
(NON-PARK} PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES INVENTORY
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
USE
SIZE*
CONDmON VALUE
NAME
LOCATION
City Hall
City offices,
council
chambers
3338 Wash- Public works
in.lrton Rd.
3338 Washin.lrton Rd.
Water
Maple St.
Built 1882,
remodeled
1989
Built 1985
$475,000
Built 1985
$25,000
Maple St.
Water
Built 1973
$80,000
Park St.
Residence
$94,000
Butler &
Restrooms
Remodeled
1978
Built 1988
Restrooms
Fair
$6,400
Restrooms
Fair
$13,000
Poor
$4,000
Maintenance bldg.
Sand & salt
storage
Pump
House #1
Pump
House #2
Mt. Baldhead Park
Butler St.
comfort
statoin
Park St. comfort station
Water St.
comfort station
Beach storage bldg.
• Land =
102 Butler
$275,000
$65,000
$97,000
Main
Mt. Baldhead
Wicks Park
Oval Beach
Storage,
restrooms,
concessison
acres or square feet (Building = Square feet)
Communications from the Michigan Department of Public Health have demanded that
substantial 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
additional 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 service 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
serve the needs of all three communities well
into the future. This, combined with a desire to
retain local control over the water system.
makes using Lake Michigan water the favored
alternative.
Sewer System
Wastewater treatment is provided at a treatment plant located in Section 10 of Saugatuck
Township. 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
~
,_,,
�6-3
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. Douglas and Saugatuck
merged their facilities in the late 1970's to form
the KLSWA. 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.
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) is 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 300/2 of
suspended solids capacity. Existing effluent
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 $900,000 in 1987.
Storm Sewers
There are very few mapped stormwater
drains in Saugatuck. Drainage has not been a
significant problem in most developed areas
because of sandy. high permeability soils and
lack of large paved areas. However, there are
some problems in low-lying 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
There is one County drain locted within
Saugatuck. The Golf drain follows Goshorn
Creek and aids in removal of water from a low
lying wetland area in the northeast portion of
the City.
Gas, Electric and Telephone
There are no major gas or oil pipelines in
Saugatuck. Gas service is provided by the Michigan Gas Utilities Company and approximate
locations of gas mains are shown on Map 6.4.
Electricity in Saugatuck is provided by Consumers Power Company. Telephone service is provided by General Telephone and Electric Co.
(GTE).
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation facilities within the area include streets and roads and a public transportation system (Interurban). Saugatuck is served
by a major Interstate highway (I-196), with access two miles away in Saugatuck Township,
and by a State highway (M-89), located four
miles to the south in Saugatuck Township. Blue
Star Highway, part of the Great Lakes Circle
Tour, is the other major highway serving the
area. The nearest railroad is the Chesapeake
and Ohio RR, which runs north and south five
miles east of the City boundary. Kent County
International Airport is within 50 miles and is
served by 3 major airlines, with 126 flights per
day. Parking is an important issue in the City
Center because of the daily and seasonal tourist
economy. It is crucial that adequate parking
facilities be provided to stimulate and maintain
the vital tourism in the City. The area is also
served by Greyhound Bus Lines.
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. (Holland St.). Local arterials facilitate
larger volumes of traffic which originates and
terminates within the area, with a trip length of
ten miles or less and an average speed of 35-45
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�-
p
6-4
mph. (Blue Star Hwy.). Regional arterials are
typically used for high speed through traffic, and
access to the roadway is usually limited (1-196).
Locations of collectors. local arterials and regional arterials are shown in Map 6.5. 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 on 1-196.
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
6.2 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 two classifications which pertain to
the City of Saugatuck are "Maj or Street" and
"Local Street". These roadways are shown in
Map 6.6. Funding is provided to cities and villages for street maintenance and construction
TABLE6.2
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE
WCATION
4L3L78
Blue Star & 64th
130th E &Wof
Blue Star
Blue Star & 129th
1959 & 1968
(same count)
July 1987 (2
different days)
1969
VOWME
Old Allegan, east
of Blue Star
1982
130th & 70th, east
of Lakeshore Dr.
July 1987
North 135th at
Blue Star (northbound)
July 1987
129th at Blue
Star (northbound)
October 1985 Center at Blue
Star
5,319
368
10,575
8,256
336
285
7,018
6,192
10,861
based on the number of miles of streets by class.
within each community. Saugatuck has 3.03
miles of Major Streets and 8.94 miles of Local
Streets under Act 51 designation.
Parking
The scenic natural setting of Saugatuck. its
reputation as a haven for artists, unique commercial and residential character, and its proximity to major metropolitan areas, make it an
attractive resort center. With this comes overcrowding of the City Center with automobiles on
summer weekends. Several recent studies indicate that most of the congestion occurs in an
area along Butler and Water Streets. The downtown area has become saturated and alternative
parking facilities have been suggested as a result of those studies. One alternative is a park
and ride system, which utilizes a parking lot at
the periphery of the City and a shuttle from that
lot to the downtown area. The existing Interurban system could be used for such an alternative. ThiS concept, if implemented, could also
relieve some of the congestion from the City
Center area and make it an even more attractive
place to visit. Other alternatives suggested in
recent years include construction of additional
parking lots or parking ramps. and changes to
existing parking spaces, including downsizing
and reducing the permitted parking period.
Each alternative has proponents and detractors.
A mechanism to resolve the current impasse is
being sought.
Entrances Into the City
Holland Street to the north and east is the
main entrance into the City from the north (from
1-196). It is typical for vehicles to enter the City
on Holland. then turn onto one of three eastwest streets and proceed into the City Center
along Butler. Holland is heavily travelled for a
two lane residential street and has remained
primarily residential from the City limits to Mary
Street. A restaurant and the City's largest marina are located along Holland Street. Butler
Street serves as the "main street" for the Center
City area, with commercial development on both
sides of the street. It is heavily travelled during
the tourist season.
Lake Street at Blue Star Highway is the
City's second major entrance. Traffic volumes
result from traffic going to the City Center area
and from traffic associated with the industrial
use, Rich Products. The industrial location generates a significant amount of truck traffic. The
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
■
�6-5
intersection with Blue Star Highway, while aesthetically pleasing, raises safety questions because of a combination of high speed traffic,
poor visibility due to vegetation and curvature
of the Highway, and lack of signaling. However,
current traffic volumes do not justify further
action at this time.
Street Conditions
Many streets in the City are built on an
unstable clay base. which causes pavement to
crack and deteriorate because of excessive
shrink-swell potential. Storm water drainage is
also inadequate many places, and water remains along the sides of some roads or runs
across the roads, eroding the base and pavement. Recently paved roads, including Elizabeth
Street in 1988 and East, West, Takken and
Taylor Streets in 1989. have had a sand cushion
and underdrains installed. Some roads in the
northern and western parts of the city are unpaved, but are not used frequently or only in the
summer. In the 1988 Public Opinion Survey.
46% of City respondents rated street maintenance as "poor". while 68% rated street resurfacing as "poor".
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/4 by the State. Following
the experimental period, some of the cost burden was borne by the trt-communities through
the 1 mill assessment. The system has four
buses and in 1988 there were approximately
3 7,000 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 communities.
POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police
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 ser-
vices occurs during the summer, particularly
during festivals and holidays.
Police protection is also provided by the
Allegan County Sheriff Department and the
Michigan State Police. 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
satellite post in Fennville.
Fire
Saugatuck is 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
fire 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 responder unit with 11 volunteers because of the
distance from ambulance services. The first responder unit appears to average about 10 calls
per month .
SCHOOLS
Saugatuck is served by the Saugatuck
school district. The school system operates two
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�-
■
6-6
facilities. Douglas Elementary School accommodates grades K through 6 , and Saugatuck High
School accommodates grades 7 through 12. In
addition to being used for educational purposes,
the schools also have indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Enrollment is approximately 550
students.
OTHER COMMUNI'IY FACllJ.TIES
There is more than 97 acres of public land
in Saugatuck, most of which is parks (see Chapter 7). Other publicly owned facilities are listed
in Table 6. 1.
SOLID WASTE 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 Saugatuck is handled entirely by private
haulers. The waste stream from the County, and
thus from the City, 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 6.3.
Table 6 .4 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
Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas
area. Solid waste generated has been broken
down into specific categories. The numbers
probably do not match the actual breakdown of
TABLE6.3
TONS GENERATED PER DAY
BYLAND USE
SOURCE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Not Collected
QUANTI1Y (PER DAY)
6.5
2.8
1.8
0.7
-0.5
11.3
NETTOTAL
Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan
TABLE6.4
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
1YPE
POTSW •
Combustible Wastes
Paper
Plastics
Wood
Yard Wastes
Textiles
Food Wastes
Rubber
Misc. Organics
Percentage (%)
44.8
9.2
3.5
4.1
4.2
11.5
2.2
3.0
82.5
TITTALS
Noncombustible Wastes
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonFerrous
Misc. Inorganics
TITTALS
5.3
6.6
0.8
0.5
4.3
17.5
• Proportion of Total Solid Waste
Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan
TABLE6.5
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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�6-7
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 .5.
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
currently in operation on Blue Star Highway
adjacent to 1-196 and exit 41. The center is
partially funded by Saugatuck, Douglas and
Saugatuck Township and is very well used.
Allegan County Resource Recovery maintains
the facility, which collects newspapers, plastics,
glass, aluminum and brown paper bags. Pickup
of metal appliances and tires is also possible by
contacting the center. The recycling center was
started in 1984.
State regulations prohibit operation of a
new landfill on:
• Land considered by the DNR to be a State
recognized unique wildlife habitat.
• Land in 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 wetlands in the City
(Map 4 .4), critical dune areas (Map 4.12). land
in the 100 year floodplain (Map 4.3), and areas
susceptible to groundwater contamination (Map
4.10), 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 not possible for a
landfill to be located within existing City boundaries.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�I,-------------------•■
N
A
.
,..___
0
600
1200
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
I
I
I
MAP 6.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES
1) City Hall 2) Public Restrooms 3) Waterwell
August 1989
Saugatuck
4) Fire Station 5) Saugatuck High School
Planning & Zoning Cen18r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
jilFW W
0
--
4,000
8,000
12.000 h
Scale 1• • 9060 ft
MAP 6.2 WATER SYSTEM
I-# IWater Mains
~
Saugatuck
Reservoir
■ Proposed Water Intake &
Treatment area
j O@ Ore
August 1989
I Existing Well Locations
OAT~ SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids
Planning I Zoning Cen18r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�■
I
N
A
MAP 6.3 SEWER SYSTEM
Saugatuck
I~ISewer Lines
1,1 Discharge Line
August 1ffl
DATA SOURCE: Williams & Wor1<a, Inc. Grand Rapid&
Planning & Zoning Centar Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 6.4 GAS MAINS
j
Saugatuck
/I Gas Mains
August 1989
SOURCE:Michigan Gas Utilities Company
Planning & Zoning Center Inc., Lansing.Ml
�,-~-------------------
■
N
A
MAP 6.5 STREET CLASS I Fl CATIONS
[ZJ
[Zl
0
Regional Arterials
I/ I
Saugatuck
Local Streets
Local Arterials
conectors
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: PZC
Planning & Zoning Cenller Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
600
Scale 1"
1200
=
1800
1212 ft
wl
MAP6.6 ACT51 ROADS
IZI
0
Saugatuck
Major Street
County Primary
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MOOT
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�7-1
Chapter7
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
arks, recreation, and open space are essenP
tial 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 atmosphere 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 Commission 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 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 OPPORTIJNITIES
Recreation can be separated into four main
categories: physical, social, cognitive, and environmentally related recreation. The former 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.
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
ACTIVITI
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, intermediate, swimmer, basic rescue & advanced
lifesaving
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
1989
PARTICIPANTS
40
46
19
10-18
27
15-20
57
66
�.-7-2
TABLE 7.2
INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
. .
• • ... - ...
~i jj I~:
g
u ••
S11:e
l.ocat lon
(acre ■)
g _. -
u ....
:;;
..
•l ;
"' t◄
: !;
I.River Bluff
27
X
X
2,Sundown
.4
X
X
J.>.,aalanchier
S.H. Beerv Field
1.2
X
X
20
X
X
7.union St. Launch
a.center St. Launcl
IO.Villa2e Souare
11 • IJick.s Park.
12.Willow Park.
l).Cook Parlt
14.Soear St. Launch
i
IQ~
X
)I
X
)I
X
JI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JI
~
X
X
.,-
X
X
-
X
51
X
X
)I
X
16. Oval Beach
36
X
X
X
X X
60*
X
X
X
X
)(
X
X
X
-X
20. Hilth School
X
X
X
X
21. St. Peter's
23. West Wind KOA
X
X
x·
IS.Ht. Baldhead
22. 63rd St. Launch
s; L~
X
X
.s
8.6
X
6a
X
)I
-
19. Elementarv Sch.
◄
X
2.s
154
: ◄ :a
X X
-
17. Tallma2e Woods
18. Old "Airoor.t"
.
I
~
X
X
C:
C
X
1.4
6,Schultz Park
.I11~
..
X JI
4
4. Ooul!.laa Beach
. ...
0
..
: ...
.
j
• ~
.~~ 1.
:: ~ •. : ~ :
~
...
...
ii
3
~
• <
~
X
.--
..:
12
X
X
24. Blue Star Uiway
Roadside Park.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25. Riveraide 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, swimming, and cross
country skiing are also popular. and enjoyed by
a wide range of age groups.
Social Recreation
A variety oflocal 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.
the High School. the Masonic Hall, and various
area clubs.
Cognitive Recreation
The tri-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.
City of Saugatuck 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 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 1988 Public Opinion Survey, is not
physical recreation. but the scenic view they
provide.
RECREATION INVENTORY
Map 7 .1 identifies parks and recreational
facilities in the tri-community area. Table 7.2
contains an inventory of these outdoor recreation facilities. 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.
Proposed recreation projects contained in
the Saugatuck-Douglas Recreation Plan are
listed in Table 7.4. Table 7.5 includes a schedule
of other planned park and open space acquisitions and improvements.
RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USAGE
The 1988 Public Opinion Survey highlighted those recreational facilities which residents feel are inadequate in the tri-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 hiking 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 rec-
ommended bike paths in the tri-community
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.
• 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 served 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 survey of waterfront usage revealed that
the most popular waterfront activity is viewing.
The second most popular use varied by water-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�7-4
TABLE 7.3
PARKLAND INVENTORY
~
NAME OF PARK LOCATION
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
1YPE/YEAR
USES
SIZE
CONDITION
pressbox-220
sq.ft., dugouts350 sq.ft., land52,000 sq.ft. 1
acre
beach-36,400
sq.ft. nearly 1
acre, bathhouse280 .ft.
pavillion-1326
sq.ft., land- 20
acres
66'xl20'
pressbox & wash- None
room poor; otherwise good
Dou las
Beery Field
Center & Main
Sts.
baseball. playground, picnic
Douglas Beach
Lakeshore Dr.
public beach &
picnic
Schultz
softball, picnic,
130th &
Kalamazoo River playground,
launchramQ
Union St. at Kal. launch ramp,
River
Qicnic area
Union St.
Launch RamQ
Saug_. Twp_.
River Bluff
Kal River above
1-196 bridge; access from Old Al-
leganRd.
Sundown
Blue Star
Lake MI Bluff at
126thAve.
Blue Star Hwy.
south of Skyline
Restaurant
hilting. picnic,
27 acres
boaters stop, nature study. swinging & sandbox
picnics, watch66'xl50'
ing lakes & sunsets, scenic
turnout
picnics, resting
30'x200'
for travelers
Fair
None
Good
Acquisition/ '89
Good
None
newly installed
entry road & pienicarea. New
dock & picnic
shelter
Very poor
pad for
dumpster/'89,
more ilowers/'89,
toilet improvements/ 1990-92
new fence; needs
landscaping/ 1989-1992
new flowers;
needs new bollards & fence re-
~
fence work/1989,
bollards/ 1989-90
airs
Center St. Park
Saug_atuck
Village Square
I
Eastern end of canoe launching,
picnics, scenic
Center at
Kalamazoo River viewing
Butler & Main
Streets
Wicks Park
Waterfront between Main &
Mary Streets
Willow Park
Waterfront at
Butler & Lucy
Waterfront on
Water Street
Spear Street
streetend
Cook Park
Boat Ramp
3 acres
Poor
tenni.s courts,
drinking fountain,
playground,
benches,
restrooms
bandstand,
boardwalk,
benches, fishing, restrooms
viewing area,
benches
picnic tables
2.5 acres
Good
1/2 acre
approx.
Good
132 ft
Good
132 ft.
Good
boat launch
66 ft.
Good
additional docking, public
restrooms, gazebo
~
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�7-5
TABLE 7.3 (continued)
PARKLAND INVENTORY
NAME OF PARK
Mt. Baldhead
Park
LOCATION
Park Street
Oval Beach
Park
Lake Michigan
Tallmadge
Woods
USES
picnic shelter, tables, restrooms,
hiking trails, parking, stairway to
obseIVation deck
on top of dune,
two obseIVation
decks on liver
beachhouse,concession stand,
parking, picnic
area. BBQ grills,
viewing deck,
stairs to beach,
obseIVation deck,
nature trails
current use restricted
body. Swimming was the primary use of Lake
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 Saugatuck cited
preservation of existing waterfront open space
and increased access to the waterfront as their
highest waterfront need. Acquisition ofland and
provision of access to Lake Michigan was given
highest priority for the waterfront. Open space
along Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River
were also given high priority by the majority of
respondents. although the response was higher
in the Village (64-69%) and Township (62%)
than in the City of Saugatuck (48-50%). A large
number ofrespondents 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 is used most frequently of the area parks
by residents of each jurisdiction. and is used
CONDITION
SIZE
51 acres
Good
36 acres
Good
100 acres
Good
PI.ANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
1YPE/YEAR
new concession
stand &
restrooms/ 1990
most heavily by City residents. Douglas Beach
is also frequently used. Wicks, Schultz, and
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. Saugatuck's survey results do not reflect support for a senior center. Only 25% of
City residents called for a senior center- surprising, given the high proportion of seniors in
the City's resident population.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�.-7-6
TABLE 7.4
PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PROPOSED PROJECT
VERY HIGH PRIORITY
LOCATION
. Downtown Saugatuck on the river
Willow Park preseivation and improvement
Lake Michigan Shoreline
Acquire extensive land areas
Saugatuck High School
New dug outs - football field
Douglas Elementary School
Renovation of playground equipment
Convert weight room to storage & coach's offices Saugatuck High School
On river in Saugatuck
Remodel Wicks Park restrooms
North of Oval Beach Park
Acquire land to access to Oxbow Lagoon
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.
City of Saugatuck 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 City respondents. Senior programs were given low local spending priority in
the City, despite the high average age ofrespondents.
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 7.5
PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
WCATION
East side
UruonSlKal. Lake,
North of Blue
Star (Douglas)
Landlocked
RuthMcNamara property end of Schultz
Park (Douglas)
Vacant Lot
Blue Star &
Main St.
(Douglas)
Old
SE 1/4 SecSaugatuck
tlon 2
(Saugatuck)
Airport
NAME
Esther McSic
property
ACQUISITION
COST($)
185,000
IMPROVEMENf
FINANCING
DNRLand
Trust
USE
Public open
space
SIZE
CONDITION
124,000 sq.ft. Marshy
(portion under
water) vacant
Park
132,000
Dry
sq.ft. (vacant)
NA
NA
Future park
land 18,000
sq.ft.: nearly
1/2 acres
154 acres
65,000
NA
CUrrently forestry management. possible
future recreation
Dry
TABLE 7.6
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 (50%)
Lake MI open space (70%)
Lake Kal. open space (69%)
Bike paths (67%)
Kal. River open space (64%)
Parks (50%)
Lake MI open space (67%)
Bike paths (64%)
Lake Kal. open space (62%)
Kal. River open space (62%)
Cross-country ski trails (60%)
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�N
+
A
.,·
••..1
O
4,000
8,000
,····......,-··
12,000 ft
,,·· ,
~-0 AVC ,
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
2.5
"'
/j "
----. .·...... .
..
'·
.
,
l, TJN,RIIW
•.,
, ....
('
, . .•· •
55
M-89
SAUGATUCK TWP.
MAP7.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION SITES Saugatuck
1) - 25) See Chapter 7, Table 7.2
26) West Shore Gott Course 27) Clearbook Gott Course 28) Mi-Ro Gottcourse 29) Center Street
August 1989
DATA SOURCE :Saug. - Doug . Parks & Rec. Plan. 1985
Planning & Zoning Cenl&r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
600
1200
1800
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
L
•
KALAMAZOO LAKE
MAP 7.2 PROPOSED BIKE PATHS
~
Proposed Bike Paths
~
Chain Link Ferry
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Saugatuck Township Par1< and Recreation Commission
Saugatuck
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�8-1
Chapters
WATERFRONT
S
augatuck 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 actMties 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
actMty. 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 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 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-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
i,
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 500/4 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 500/4 exceedance flow in Fennville ranged from a low of 860
cfs during the summer months to 2010 cfs
TABLE 8.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER
EXCEEDANCE FLOWS (1929-85)
MONTHLY AVERAGE
CUBIC FT /SECOND
FENNVILLE
janua:ry
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
RIVER MOUTH
500/4
95%
500/4
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: Hydrologlc En~eertnfuSection, 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 ECOSYS'IEMS
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
thrivinglumbertown, 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
City of Saugatuck 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.
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. 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 tri-community area feel that
the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and
Lake is poor to very poor (58%-700Ai). 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,
TABLES.2
KALAMAZOO RIVER WATER QUALITY
FECAL
COLIFORM
PER lOOML
PHOSPHOROUS
TOTAL OR1HO
MG/L MG/L
NITROGEN
SEDIMENIS
MG/L
HEAVY METALS
MERCURY
MG/L
MG/L
LEAD
N02 N03
MG/L TONS/DAY
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
NR
NR
NR
1.7
0.34
0.54
0 .00
9
20
15
28
27
123
26
72
120
69
NR • Not Reported
Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geologic Survey.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
<5
<. l
<5
<.l
<5
<.l
<5
<. l
20
10
<.5
<.5
.5
�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
ofreducing 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 waterbody with 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�8-3
TABLE8.3
NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS
DISCHARGE
Culligan
processed
wastewater
treated municipal
waste
900,000 gal/ day
purged groundwater, purgable halocarbons
12,000 gal/day
non-contact cooling water & cooling
tower blowdown
Kal. Lake Water &
Sewer Authority
Kalamazoo Lake
Groundwater
201 Culver St. ,
Saugatuck
340 Culver St.,
Saugatuck
6449 Old Allegan
Rd., Saugatuck
Purge
1\vp.
Rich Products
350 Culver St.,
Saugatuck
WCATION
Kalamazoo Lake
via storm sewers
Kalamazoo River
outfall 001
Kalamazoo River
outfall 001
Kalamazoo River
via storm sewer
EXPIRATION DAIB
1991
1990
1993
1990
Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division
TABLE8.4
LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS
YEAR
WWESTEL
FEETAS.L.
MONTI-I
HIGHEST EL MONTI-I
FEET A.S.L.
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 Michi&an Riparian, May 1989
and prevent further pollution within the tricommunity area. These will 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
City of Saugatuck 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 20-27 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 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 1976 there
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,
durtng 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 2 7 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
0I"
�8-7
skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motorboats are most common on Saturday.
EXISTING LAND USE
Existing land use ts 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
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 of residential 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
waterfront. but there are few public access sites
and, except for Shultz Park. these proVide little
space for transient parking.
CONFLICTS/PROBLEMS
At an interjurtsdictional 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;
• limiting the intensity of shoreline development;
• preservtng the scenic character of the
shoreline enVironrnent 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
J-t
R-2
R-1
R·2
~(commercial)
~wetland
·
AG.
10 I
Source: Conaerve Oakland County•• Natural Reaourcea: A Manual for Planntni &: Implementation,
Department of Public Works, Oakland County, MI. September 1980.
City of Saugatuck 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 high 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
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 necessaxy 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 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.
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 with
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-cornmunities 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 additional 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 street 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
Kewatin: 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 primaxy 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. 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�8-9
with the septic limitations of the land and the
limited recreational value of this shallow 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 development 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.
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 additional open space along Lake
Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and demonstrates that the prtmary use of the area's
water bodies is viewing. Yet, recent development
pressures have led to overbuilding 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 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 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 public
marina could be established there.
Surface Water Use Coriflicts
Resolution of surface water use conflicts
will require more planning and a uniform 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 is 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 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.
Surface water use conflicts will 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE FUrURE 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 actMties 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.
City of Saugatuck 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 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 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 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 should
be constructed if resources are available and the
cost could be spread among local citizens and
other users (such as through grants or user
fees). Visual access from public thoroughfares
and walkways should be maintained in all new
waterfront development.
Protection mechanisms, like the Natural
River designation, should be recognized for the
ancillary benefits they bring to the community.
A local "Friends of the Riverff 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.
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 Kalamawo River Basin.
The Soil 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.
spectjurisdiction 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 quality. 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 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COOPERATION
Each of these recommendations requires a
strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation.
Watercourses. like the environment, do not re-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
Saugatuck
MAPS.1 WATERSHEDS
·1.•j
[#,
Kalamazoo River Basin Boundary
[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 SOURCE :Allegan County Drain Commission
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�r-
/
N
A
7
MAPS.2 NO-WAKE
■
Saugatuck
No-Wake Area
E'.~m Additional No-wake Area During Periods Of High Water
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Tri-Community Waterfront Comminee
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�31
>O
32
JI
JI
33
2,
,.
34
37
JO
2•
2,
37
,.
30
,.
2'
,.
23
,.
33
~
.
2•
27
~
31
26
,.
22
•
27
20
--~:...,...~~ ; ,.'.:.:.,
-#~ 2 - , -,·-·: -·
~--Oo
:-::::.-~✓,,,.. 2
·i~~~
~~~~--=
MICHIGAN
Sol• 11 IS.000
IOUNDINOS IN P"Eff
FHT
,oi
....
f
MAP 8.3 SAUGATUCK HARBOR
�MAP8.4 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.
Saugatuck
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
lnArea.........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
Saugatuck
Parks
~ Pub_lic Access
1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Baldhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach
August 1Q89
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing , Ml
�N
A
See Preceding Map
For Information
Regarding This Area
MAPS.SA STREET ENDS/PARKS
~ Street/Road Ends
@]
Public Access
August 1989
0
Saugatuck
Parks .
1) Shultz Park 2) River Bluff Park
3) Sundown Park
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�9-1
Chapter9
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
G
rowth 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.
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.
GROWfH RATES
The City went from a 19% growth rate in the
60's to only 6% in the 70's. The City's slowing
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.
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. About 28% of the 1980 population
resided in the City of Saugatuck.
TABLE 9.1
RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck 1\vp.
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1950-60
200/o
34%
35%
29%
1960-70
100/4
11%
35%
16%
1970-80
6%
400/o
17%
22%
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Building permit data reveal development
trends in Saugatuck since 1980. Most of
Saugatuck's growth has taken place along the
lakeshore in the form of multiple family condominiums (see Map 9.1). The City has seen the
development of eight condominium projects
containing 127 individual units since 1980, and
only 10 single family homes in this period. Aside
from new construction, the number of additions.
extensions. and other improvements was high.
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 immigrants are retirees. Figure 9.1 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 ofretiree
migration into the County continued to climb,
reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as
a whole.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Future population for the City of Saugatuck
was projected based on the 1970 to 1980 population trend, rather than long term trends, due
to recent changes in the rate of population
growth described above. A composite straightline trend can be projected by applying
logarithms to determine the ratio of change
based on the 1970 to 1980 trend. Table 9.2
illustrates these results.
Thus if current trends continue, the area
can expect about 1800 more people in 2010 than
in 1980. Only 15% of this growth is expected to
occur in the City. Sixty-four percent is projected
to take place in the Township, and 21 % in the
Village. Due to its greater availability ofland, the
Village will eventually overtake the City in terms
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�9-2
FIGURE9.l
KENT
TTAWAI -767
54
501
1412
RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS
•
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN
0
I
I
I
-1148 .
-713
I
I
+·
·44
- s
. 578
FIGURE9.2
POPULATION TREND
SAUGATUCK TWP.
3.0
p
U
T
H
0
L u
A!
TN
D
2.0
-1WP .ONLY
=
=
SAUGATUCK
DOUGLAS
1.5
1.0
I s
0
N
0.5
0.0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
YEAR
of overall population growth, as seen in Figure
9 .2.
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 139 new households
-r,
-13
284
1039
J.-
.-- 390
2.5
I
-5
121
VAN BUREN 1'1CALAMAZOO ,•
~
p
·
l
EATON
, -158
- _142
I
1040
· ___
132 ..,!_.
·
804
_____
.J._
~
0
150
AutciAN •l • i.Aiiv
-173
12
Net Migration of The Population 65+
1950-60
1960-70
1970-80
-247
-457
! CAis ·
I 130
ss
1
109
,
-447
-1651 •
1
, -1729
,n.
I
I
,
•
I
CALHOUN
-1196
-1131
-592
!
JWPH.., IR~~c;H
36
-33
580
•
I
-149
-12s
-181
in the City by 2010. These results are shown in
Table 9.3.
Future demand for land by these new
households may be estimated by looking at land
subd.Msion trends and current settlement patterns or zoned densities. Zoned densities are
roughly equivalent to those of the Village. Based
on this information, Saugatuck can expect
about 40%> of its new households to settle in low
density residential areas, 40% in medium density, and 20010 in high density.
This translates into the conversion of 24
acres into low density residential use, 14 acres
in medium density residential, and about 3
acres would be developed at higher densities as
apartments or clustered units. This would leave
a maximum of 94 acres of residentially zoned
land available for development. Tables 9.4 - 9.6
show this projection of current trends.
BUILD OUT SCENARIO
The projections shown above are only estimates based on current trends. Yet any number
of events could alter these trends. For example,
Saugatuck's attraction as a center for tourism
could continue to grow, fostering greater in-migration of retirees and others searching for an
alternative lifestyle. The City could reach an
annexation or other development agreement
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�9-3
with the Township and add to its existing supply
of land. The Township could provide sewer and
water service and attract a higher proportion of
the area's projected households.
But based on current trends and land availability, how much more development could the
City accommodate? This exercise. called a "build
out" scenario, provides an estimate of the buildable capacity of the City under currently zoned
densities. Acres were estimated based on vacant
or developable land by zoned use and density /minimum lot size. These results are shown
for each jurisdiction in Table 9 . 7. Redevelopment potential was considered for under utilized
parcels along the waterfront on Lake Street.
(Township estimates do not include existing
agricultural areas.)
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) .
The new households are then multiplied by the
average household size for that community to
derive a population estimate.
The City has an estimated 135 acres zoned
residential available for development. Under
current zoning, this translates into about 330
new households, or 600 new residents. Actual
future land use projections predict that only
about 41 acres of land will be transformed into
residential use by the year 2010. Yet development proposals are already underway which
could bring the City very close to its current
residential build out capacity. No land is available for industrial expansion in the City, and
only about 3 acres could be developed for commercial use.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Without an annexation or other development agreement with the Township (i.e. PA 425
agreement, or consolidation int o a single unit of
government), the City will soon reach its build
out capacity. A policy implication of the shrinking supply of land is the lack of affordable
housing. As the land supply shrinks, the price
of housing increases. This hurts not only young
people who would like to remain in the area, but
also elderly residents on low to moderate fixed
incomes. The cost of housing in the City has
reached a point where many parents can no
longer expect that their children could afford to
buy a home in the City. In the public opinion
survey, City respondents felt that detached single family homes in the $50-70,000 range are
most needed now (52 .6%). The second highest
need expressed was for low income housing
(40.2%).
In terms of strategies to achieve affordable
housing, 43.6% of City respondents favored low-
TABLE9.2
PROJECTED POPULATION
1970-1980 TREND
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Dou.l!las
AREAWIDE
1970
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
1980
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
1990
1,163
2 ,074
1,061
4,298
2000
1,254
2 ,454
1,187
4 ,895
2010
1,352
2,904
1,328
5,584
TABLE 9.3
PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
POP.2010
1,352
2 ,904
1,328
5,584
HH SIZE
2.00
2.69
2 .44
#HHs
676
1,080
544
2,300
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
1980 HHs
537
633
391
1,561
NEWHHs
139
447
153
739
�9-4
TABLE 9.5
NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE
TABLE9.4
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
BY DENSITY TYPE
COMMUNITY
LOW
Saugatuck Twp. 800/4
400/4
Saugatuck
5%
Douglas
MEDIUM
100/4
40%
70%
HIGH
100/4
20%
25%
HOUSEHOLDS
MED. HIGH TOTAL
LOW
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuck 1\vp.
AREAWIDE
56
8
358
421
56
107
45
207
28
38
45
111
139
153
447
739
Totals are based on unrounded figures.
TABLE 9.6
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuck
AREAWIDE
LOW
24
4
205
234
TABLE 9.7
AVAILABLE ACREAGE BY
LAND USE TYPE
ACREAGE*
MED . HIGH TOTAL
14
26
13
3
4
10
17
53
ACREAGE
COMM.
IND.
COMMUNITY
41
34
228
Saugatuck
Douglas
303
TOTAL ACRES
Sal..l$!,atudc1\vp.
3
33
155
191
0
49
22
71
RES.
135
197
5 ,950
6,282
*times 1.25 (2<:m allowance for rights-of-way)
Totals are based on unrounded figures.
TABLE9.8
POPULATION 2010: BUILD OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuckl\vp.
AREAWIDE
ADDITIONAL
HOUSEHOLDS
330
1,139
16,413
17,882
AVERAGE
HHSIZE
2 .00
2 .44
2 .69
ering the minimum square footage requirement
of'housing (now 1040) to make housing more
affordable, while 35% opposed. The current
standard, while slightly higher than that of
Douglas or the Township, is still not excessive.
In terms of density and minimum lot size, 55%
felt that new housing should be at a lower
density than along the Lake Kalamazoo waterfront. revealing dissatisfaction with waterfront
condominium development. Most (65%) felt that
residential density should be the same as that
on "the hill", which is about 5 units per acre.
Another policy implication is that as available land for commercial use is occupied, pressures increase for conversion of residential
areas adjacent to the downtown for commercial
use. Residents and officials wish to preserve the
mixed use character of the Lake Street and
ADDITIONAL
POPUI.ATION
PRESENT
POPUI.ATION
660
2 ,779
44,151
47,590
1,079
948
1,753
3,780
TOTAL
POPUI.ATION
1,739
3,727
45.904
51,370
Water Street districts. while preventing further
conversion of the historic homes to the northeast of Water Street, and protecting the residential integrity of "the hill". In the Public Opinion
Survey, most City respondents agreed, saying
that new commercial development was needed
(59.1 %), but should take place in small shopping centers along Blue Star Highway and at the
freeway interchanges, rather than in downtown
Saugatuck or downtown Douglas.
The high seasonal and weekend population
has also created pressures for the downtown.
Parking appears to be the number one problem.
although 72% of survey respondents felt it is
only a problem during the summer months. City
officials are currently exploring alternative solutions to the problem. Most City respondents felt
that demolishing the old public works building
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�9-5
for parking was the most acceptable solution,
but this building has been sold to private developers.
The greatest problem caused by the lack of
room for industrial expansion is the lack of
corresponding job opportunities. The domination of the commercial/retail sector in
Saugatuck has created a large number of low
paying service jobs, especially in the summer,
but few high paying jobs with the potential for
year round employment. This problem requires
a regional solution. Industrial expansion must
either occur in the Village or Township. One
strategy is to pursue a joint agreement with the
Village and/ or Township to pool resources and
develop an industrial park-a costly endeavor
for either the Village or City to undertake alone.
Land scarcity also has environmental and
aesthetic consequences. If development were to
proceed under the build out scenario, then the
northeast and west side of the City will gradually
develop into low and medium density residential. If not properly managed, this could destroy
the wooded area abutting Kalamazoo Lake and
the dunes. High density development could also
take place along Kalamazoo Lake in the southern portion of the Lake Street mixed-use district.
These projected development trends are
problematic in light of the 1988 Public Opinion
Smvey which revealed that the vast majority of
respondents have the following preferences:
• maintain the scenic, small town/rural
character of the area;
• preserve open space along the waterfront:
• protect the environment by prohibiting development of dunes and wetlands.
• prevent the development of more waterfront condominiums (900,'6 of City respondents).
These results suggest the need to explore
alternatives for preserving the City's wooded
areas, wetlands, and lakefront open space (or
views) while allowing for environmentally-sensitive development in or adjacent to these areas.
They also reveal the need to explore solutions to
the lack of affordable housing for area residents.
The City's land scarcity will make provision of
affordable housing in the City very difficult,
therefore the City's alternatives could include
consideration of a joint agreement with the Village and/ or Township for a mutually beneficial
area housing project. A similar strategy would
expedite development of an industrial park to
attract, and better manage, industrial growth in
the area. Commercial growth to serve the needs
of area residents, will probably take care of itself.
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 wning, subdivision regulations,
and site plan review must be amended to insure
consistency with this plan and the comprehensive plan of each jurisdiction.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-1
Chapter 10
FUTURE LAND USE
F
uture land use arrangements are difficult to
predict accurately and guide precisely to
achieve the desired result reflected in the goals,
objectives, and policies in Chapter 1. Yet, they
are critically important to the future quality of
life in the City of Saugatuck. Therefore, something more than goals and policies is needed. A
generalized depiction of future land use arrangements represents one consistent implementation of adopted land use goals. objectives, and
policies. This is typically embodied in a future
land use map and plan.
The future land use map accompanying this
chapter (see Map 10.1) seeks to anticipate community land use needs for 20-30 years. These
future land use arrangements have been formulated based on information in the preceding
chapters. These arrangements are based on
analysis of existing land use, impacts of area
trends. projected future land use needs if current trends continue. and a strong emphasis on
the relationship of land use activities to the
natural resource base. All proposals are intended to be consistent with the goals, obj ectives, and policies presented in Chapter 1 (which
were created with substantial public input).
Many factors could intexvene that would
require either a substantial 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.
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 partially reflected through mapping of zoning districts. The planning principles listed above are
implemented primarily 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
• Consexvation 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.
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 City these in-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
~
~
�10-2
elude 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 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. These changes also 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. This usually means insuring
conformance with all applicable federal, state
and local environmental regulations.
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 usually 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
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 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 sounds, 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.
COMMUNI1Y CHARACTER
When applying the above planning principles to new development proposals, one of the
key considerations is compatibility with the
character of existing development in an area. To
describe the character of Saugatuck, many descriptive words and phrases come to mind,
among them: quiet, friendly, clean, small, aesthetically pleasing, bountiful natural assets,
and good location. Several Public Opinion Surveys in the past three years have revealed the
following four factors as among the most important reasons why people like Saugatuck:
friendly people, attractive/beautiful surroundings, low crime rate and small town atmosphere.
There is a vexy strong identification on the part
of the residents with the character of their City.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�r-
10-3
Saugatuck can be described as being both a
resort residential and year-round residential
community which is primarily dependent upon
the tourist trade it has built throughout this
century. Most residents would like it to remain
like a small village.
DEVELOPMENT
Almost all of the land in private ownership
in Saugatuck is developed. The exceptions are
some large parcels in the northeast and southwest comers of the City. Of these the land
currently used as a church camp adjacent to the
publicly owned Mt. Baldhead area poses the
most potential concern. This area contains
heavily wooded sand dunes which are a major
asset to the region and should not be developed.
The City should initiate steps to insure that
these lands are not subjected to more intensive
development. A consexvation easement is a good
tool to consider using to accomplish this task.
Outright public acquisition, and then leaseback
for camp purposes is another.
The most likely development proposals the
City will face in the next two decades (unless
annexation occurs). will be redevelopment of
existing properties. This is already occurring on
a small scale with individual cottages being
replaced with larger, year round homes. It will
accelerate (if permitted) into replacement of cottages with large densely packed condominiums
along the waterfront as has already occurred on
Lake Street. Without proper land development
regulation, the character of the community
could be significantly changed. Walling off the
waterfront will not advance that goal. With regard to new residential development. affordable
single-family homes and apartments were the
preferred types, with waterfront condos (90%
opposition) and mobile homes (71 % opposition)
receiving the highest response as not being
needed. More industrial development in the area
was supported by nearly 36% of those responding but 22.6% strongly disagreed. Yet 42.2% of
the respondents favored spending tax dollars to
stimulate economic development. The need for
more commercial development in small shopping centers was supported by almost half of the
respondents. City residents prefer this new development along Blue Star Highway, especially
within the Village of Douglas.
TOURISM
A strong tourist oriented character is something that most Saugatuck residents have come
to accept. Yet the increased activity and congestion that go with successful tourism are characteristics which are directly opposed to the
existing small town atmosphere. This is one of
the reasons why solving a very difficult summertime parking problem has been so vexing for the
City.
YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Historically, Saugatuck has had very little
industrial development and has been primarily
a community with residential and commercial
development. This situation has reduced the
potential for year round employment and has
made the attraction of new families into
Saugatuck more difficult. The significance of
this trend is that the City could become even
more seasonal and retirement oriented than it
already is. This in tum would further reduce the
capacity of existing commercial businesses to
operate year round and further hinder the delivery of certain services such as education. Some
new industrial development is both needed and
desirable. However, there is no good location for
it in the City, and the existing industrial facilities
do not represent the best use of their present
locations. As a result, the City must a maintain
strong effort in conjunction with Douglas and
Saugatuck Township to attract new industry
into the area, even if it is not located in
Saugatuck.
BLENDING THE RESORT AREAS WITH THE
YEAR ROUND COMMUNI1Y
There will probably always be a division
within the community between resort and seasonal areas and year-round areas. Recognizing
the importance of each and fair representation
of both in community decision making will be
an ongoing challenge in making future land use
and infrastructure decisions. Achieving and
maintaining a balance will be the key to long
term success. The existing commercial and residential areas are quite well separated and the
demarcation lines are fairly clear. It will be
important that they remain essentially where
they are as far as new commercial activity, or
the necessary balance may be lost.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-4
The mapping of future land use ts a logical
extension of the goals and policies stated in this
Plan. Land use ts the primary purpose for which
a parcel of land is occupied. This Plan is designed to promote orderly development and ensure that appropriate areas are available for all
classes of land uses anticipated to be needed
within the City during the planning period
(roughly 20 years) based on existing trends. The
future land use plan promotes orderly development in a number of other ways. Home owners
can invest in their properties with protection
from the intrusion and congestion of undesirable uses in the neighborhood. Overcrowding
can be avoided. The City and utility companies
can adequately plan for the services needed in
(re)developing areas and ensure that adequate
land has been reserved within the City for all
necessary uses.
Each of the major classes offuture land use
are described below. Descriptions of planning
areas or neighborhoods are also provided to
supplement the general land uses depicted on
Map 10.1. These specific descriptions correspond to the planning areas depicted on Map
5.3.
FUl'URE LAND USE
Conservation and Recreation Areas
This category embodies environmentally
sensitive or "conservation" areas, as they are
referred to here, and existing parks and recreational resources in the City which were identified on the existing land use map. Conservation
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 present severe limitations for development
and 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.
Saugatuck's water resources, sand dunes,
and other natural assets make it a desirable
place to live. Destroying these resources would
destroy the essential qualities which continue to
attract residents and tourists to the area. Therefore, future actions and policies to protect the
natural environment will be of utmost importance. These lands should be managed to re-
main as near to their natural state as possible.
Only when other more important public purposes demand ·it, should these lands be altered
or converted to permit another use. The City
wning ordinance should be amended to include
better conservation of these natural resource
areas.
Mount Baldhead: This large critical dune
area with a mixture of open sand and rolling
forested dunes should remain in its present
state without any substantial alteration. Since
most of this area is in public ownership , that ts
feasible. However, the church camp property
could at any time be sold to the private sector
and divided into 2 acre lots and converted to
about 50 single family homes under existing
zoning regulations. State dune regulations may
result in a lower overall density, but residential
development of this area ts not appropriate. The
City should initiate a conservation easement or.
other contractual. deed restriction, or covenant
to insure that this land remains substantially in
its present open space use.
The Mt. Baldhead/Park St. area also contains a large woodlot of upland hardwoods.
These trees stabilize the dunes and are a central
element of Saugatuck's scenic character. As
such, it is essential that they be preserved for
future generations. This can be achieved either
through a conservation easement-where the
land ts acquired by a nonprofit conservancy or
public agency- or through a woodlot or tree
preservation ordinance. A woodlot ordinance ts
recommended as it views the forest as a whole,
rather than tree by tree. The woodlot ordinance
would include regulatory provisions to maximize
preservation of trees while allowing limited residential development (usually through a transfer
of development rights and flexible wning approach .)
Low Density Residential
This area. which encompasses the Park
Street planning area, should continue to be used
predominantly for low density single family
homes. The sand dunes. steepness of the terrain, limited access, heavy woodlands and significant floodplain, argue against any higher
density development. Most of this area is an
identified "critical dune area" which must meet
stringent DNR requirements or. at local option.
local wrung regulations which are approved by
the DNR Any new development should be clustered at a density not greater than one unit per
five acres. Density will vary within this area
however, in recognition of a large number of
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-IS
existing developed lots in the Penyman-Park
Street area. However, the new state dune regulations may result in prohibitions against expansions and/ or replacements of existing
structures which may become damaged, due to
the relatively high density of existing development in this area.
Smaller undeveloped lots should be permitted to be used only when combined with existing
adjacent lots (if under the same ownership) or
via a special review procedure to minimize environmental impacts and impacts on adjoining
uses. Existing wning in this area should be
reexamined to consider enlarging the minimum
lot size requirement for undivided areas and to
insure conformance with new state dune regulations.
Single family residential development
should be encouraged in this district, because
it is compatible with existing uses and demand
for scenic , waterfront parcels.
City Center Residential
This dominant residential area in the City
is comprised of that area known as "the hill" and
most of the Holland Street planning area. These
areas have different needs and are addressed in
more detail below.
The Hlll:This area represents the older
more established neighborhood immediately
surrounding the City Center. It is on an escarpment east of downtown that rises suddenly,
providing scenic relief and a natural barrier.
Housing density generally ranges between three
and five units per acre. There are not many
undeveloped lots in this area, except on land
with some soil limitations.
Recommendations for this area are as follows:
• Maintain an average density of three or
four dwelling units per net acre while
maintaining a minimum lot size of 8712
square feet.
• All new housing development should be
required to hook into the City water and
sewer system.
• All new development should be encouraged
to maintain an architectural theme that
complements, rather than detracts from
existing housing in the area.
• No commercial activity should be permitted in this residential neighborhood. Bed
and breakfast activity is probably not appropriate in this area. except along Griffith
street.
Holland Street: The large residential lots
fronting on the River and the marina activity are
presently compatible due primarily to the large
open spaces with mature trees. However, any
pressure which may arise to increase the intensity of waterfront activity in this area or the
intensity of commercial development should
probably be resisted. The marina and associated
activities are separately illustrated on Map 10.1
as "harborfront".
The riverbank rises sharply and provides a
remarkable natural green wall to boats entering
from the channel. It also makes riverfront access
difficult without complex stairways, elevators,
or similar devices which would be difficult to
install without negatively impacting on the character of the area. Many lots are irregularly
shaped with poor access, narrow width, and
would not be suited for more traffic. Nor are they
adequately sized to accommodate additional
parking.
The residential lots on the east side of Holland Street are a more uniform size and shape,
and for the most part, contain well maintained
older homes. New development should only be
residential and should be designed to be compatible with the architectural character of existing homes in the area.
Medium Density Residential
The medium density category represents
the highest density of residential development
in the City. It is found in condominium development along Lake Kalamazoo and in one development overlooking the Lake on the hill. Future
medium density development should be restricted to these same areas. it should not exceed 8 units per acre.
City Center Commercial
This is the original commercial area of the
City. It has gradually been transformed into a
commercial shopping area predominantly oriented to the day tourist. Businesses face a substantial challenge in trying to meet all expenses
and generate a profit in just the summer
months. This is most evident each spring as
several new businesses open shop. Several actions are necessary to encourage the continuation of the kind of commercial mix which is
mutually supportive.
First, the existing historic character of the
City Center should be maintained. The historic
preseivation ordinance is designed to do this,
but some structures have been modified incon-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-6
sistent with the code (and perhaps prior to the
adoption of the code). New regulations may be
necessary to insure new structures are architecturally harmonious. Structures that are relatively new but architecturally inconsistent
should be modified, as the opportunity presents
itself, to improve their harmony with the character of the district.
Second, the key to long term success of this
area is to maintain the proper balance of tourist,
versus general business activity.
Third, the public open space in this area
needs to be retained and maintained. It is central to the small town character of the City.
Fourth, in conjunction with the Water
Street area. a better solution to parking problems must be found for the summer months.
Professional assistance should be sought. Options should not include the establishment of a
multi-level parking structure in the downtown
or near the waterfront.
Fifth. the City and the business community
need to promote a harmonious working relationship that is based on commitment to a long
range course of action. A progressive alliance
should be encouraged (see Chapter 12).
Downtown Saugatuck will continue to serve
as the major center for commercial tourist activities in the region. But expansion of commercial
uses outside of the downtown area presently
zoned for commercial use should be discouraged, and appropriate measures should be
adopted to mitigate impacts of the city center on
adjoining residential areas.
Institutional
This category comprises existing institutional uses, including churches, public utilities,
government offices, and schools. Public facilities
(i.e. schools, utilities, and offices) have the capacity to meet public service needs for the planning period of this plan.
Water Street
This waterfront planning area identified in
Chapter 5 is not shown as a single entity on the
future land use map because of the clear distinctions in use that occur there- distinctions
which are incorporated into other future land
use designations. such as city center commercial, conservation/recreation, and harborfront.
Water Street runs along Saugatuck's central
eastern shore and presents an interesting mix
of public and private open space, residential,
commercial, and marine oriented activities.
Yet, the area also deserves some attention
as a general planning area because of certain
trends which could alter its character. The existing trend towards conversion of single family
homes in the area to commercial or bed and
breakfast use is appropriate, provided the architectural character of the area remains in harmony. Every opportunity to prevent the
establishment of new "modem" designs and
eliminate existing ones should be seized. Likewise, wherever possible. the original elegance of
buildings in this area should be restored.
Public access should be preserved where
possible. The existing boardwalk is a special
asset which should remain open to public access, and as the opportunity presents itself.
could be expanded further throughout this area
and into the Lake Street area. Change in the use
of existing street ends should be carefully scrutinized, and public access insured in any event.
Mixed Residential
This designation describes the future of
much of the Lake Street planning area (to the
south) and the Center Transition planning area
(which adjoins the downtown commercial area).
It is characterized by a mixture of residential
and commercial uses.
Lake Street: This area has a high potential
for negative future change. The market for waterfront condominiums remains fairly strong
along the West Michigan shoreline. It is often
profitable to purchase waterfront property. remove an existing residence and redevelop as
condominiums. Several such conversions have
already occurred (at the western end of Lake
Street and between Griffith and Butler) to the
detriment of public values. In particular, public
access to and viewing of the waterfront has been
lost, and a canyon has been created by the high
structures now lining this part of the shoreline.
To prevent further loss of Saugatuck's character, this area must receive more specific zoning
treatment than under existing wning regulations-which treat it as a predominantly commercial area. rather than a predominantly
residential area.
A strong effort should be made to concentrate any new large structures which may be
proposed only on the north side of Lake Street.
tucked close to the ridgeline so they do not block
the view of residents on the hill. If they are put
on the south side, they should have large
amounts of open space on either side to insure
a public view of the Lake.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-7
If more intensive development is desired
and can be adequatelymanaged, the City should
consider establishing a bulkhead line from Griffith to Blue Star and thereby increase the dockage area. This should be done only if a common
walkway were established that is open to public
access for the entire length and if such action
would not result in overcrowding of Lake
Kalamazoo at the time it were implemented.
Such a proposal should include a means to deal
with increased traffic, parking and boat launching. If this idea were implemented, it may not be
desirable to maintain the historic district designation in this area, as many existing structures
would likely be removed consideration could be
given to identifying this area as Mharborfront"
and permitting a mix of marina, commercial,
and residential uses.
The area east of Blue Star Highway should
not be intensively developed due to the extensive
wetlands in this floodplain.
Center Transition Area: This area north of
the City Center presents a real challenge to local
land use regulations. There is some pressure to
convert these large residential structures into
commercial use, but the market isn't sufficient
to justify this and it would dramatically alter the
area's overall residential character. Therefore,
existing municipal policy allowing limited commercial activity as accessory to the primary
residential use of the properties on North Butler
should continue to be carefully administered.
Conversion of entire structures to commercial
use should not be permitted.
Additional bed and breakfast establishments in this area would be appropriate. The
northeast portion of this area has characteristics more in keeping with the residential area on
Mthe hill" and should be maintained in concert
with the recommendations described for that
area.
Harbor.front
The marina area along Holland Street is the
only area categorized as harborfront at the adoption of this plan because of its special orientation to the water. However, further changes
along Water and Lake Streets as previously
described could also warrant classification of
these areas as Mharborfront".
Industrial
This category applies to the small industrial
area in the City, which is currently occupied by
Rich Products. Although commercial rather
than industrial use is the best use of these
properties in the long term, Rich Products is a
strong, local company and a major employer,
and without a public effort to relocate it in
comparable facilities elsewhere, this plan encourages its continuance.
The City encourages expansion and continued improvement of the industrial area under
development in Douglas- especially an industrial park which could provide jobs and bolster
the economy of the entire tri-community area.
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.
The City supports future efforts to create an
industrial park within the trt-community area,
provided it targeted nonpolluting, light industrial and office activities that were compatible
with the tri-community area.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The PUD designation is recommended for
most of the Maple Street planning area. This is
the only major area of the City on the east side
of the River which is not fully developed. Extensive soil limitations, wetlands, some floodplains,
and forested acreage characterize this area. The
area's two wells provide the primary source of
groundwater for the City (and presently for
Douglas as well). The area contains some multifamily development and is well suited for more
multifamily development, provided it is carefully
sited, or single family development on large lots.
The natural characteristics of the land
make it especially well suited for planned unit
development. Good site design could cluster
units, while keeping the overall density equal to
or less than the adjoining City Center residential
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-8
area. The City should consider requiring that all
subdivisions and multi-family development projects be designed as a PUD in this area, provided
that existing PUD provisions in the zoning ordinance are revised to remove some problematic
provisions. PUD can allow flexibility in site design and housing density, thereby increasing
open space, preserving natural features of the
site. and enhancing the quality of the development project-to the benefit of both developers
and the community. This concept can also encourage innovative design and efficiency in providing public services.
Design flexibility under PUD is typically
accomplished through density transfers, according to a predetermined regulatory scheme,
and comprehensive site plan requirements and
design standards. In this way, buildings may be
clustered through mixtures of housing types
such as detached houses. townhouses, and
apartments. This mixture of housing types creates fine housing opportunities for various
groups without negatively affecting adjoining
land uses.
ENTRY POINTS
~
There are three major entry points into the
City of Saugatuck. (See Map 10.2). They are:
• from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo
River
• from Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo
River Bridge
• from Blue Star Highway onto Washington
Road/Holland Street
At the present time, the entries from Lake
Michigan and over the Kalamazoo River provide
an aesthetic and inviting entry into the City. The
public opinion surveys reflected citizen concern
about the appearance of properties along Blue
Star Highway. The old entry sign/intersection at
Holland Street/Washington and Blue Star Highway is especially bad. The situation is further
harmed by signs along 1-196 which fail to inform
southbound travelers at exit # 36 that they can
access Saugatuck (only Ganges is mentioned).
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 joint effort to develop alternatives for improving the entry points
into all three communities 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.
CITY-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Residential
Residential use will continue to be the predominant developed land use 1n the City. 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 do not result in housing
deterioration. Equally important will be efforts
to blend new development with the older character of existing land uses.
Within Saugatuck, there will be pressure to
remove existing homes along the waterfront and
replace them with higher density condominiums. Condominium development that greatly
diminishes the public view of the waterfront
should not be permitted, especially along Lake
Street. Additionally. the height of new construction should not exceed 25-30 feet along the
waterfront. It would be better to place taller,
higher density development back "into the hill"
and leave the shoreline open.
Another residential issue relates to affordable housing. The City. like many communities
in Michigan, is faced with an affordable housing
crisis. lf the Saugatuck School District is to
survive with the same breadth of programming
and quality it has today. then affordable housing
must be available for families. 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 achieve
this. The only housing of this type being built in
the area is on large lots in rural parts of the
Township.
More apartments and temporary housing
for summer workers could be provided in selected areas throughout the City. But unlike
Douglas and some areas of Saugatuck Township, the City has little acreage well suited for
the higher density development typically associated with affordable housing. For this reason,
the City supports the construction of affordable
housing within Douglas or Saugatuck Township, and may cooperate on such a venture
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�10-9
where feasible and where mutual benefits are
clear.
Other Recommendations
The following recommendations are important to maintaining the character of the City and
improving its present function and hence
should be implemented as a part of the future
land use plan.
• The maintenance and replanting program
recently prepared for the aging trees
throughout the City should be consistently
implemented.
• Sidewalk repairs, replacement, and installation are badly needed in some blocks.
• Curb, gutter and street repair /repaving
should be performed on a scheduled periodic basis consistent with an adopted capital improvements plan. New curbs at intersections with sidewalks should all be
sloped to accommodate handicapper and
bicycle access.
• A network of bicycle paths should be encouraged. This network should complete a
regional network and inner city streets
which connect the routes should be
marked, but no additional right-of-way is
necessary at these junctures.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�----------------~-
....
ar.
MAP 10.1 FUTURE LAND _USE
g
Low Density Residental
~ City Center Residential
~
Saugatuck
Floodplains/Wetlands
/1111 fl Institutional
~ Medium Density Residential ■
Mixed Residential
,_,
,.
City Center Commercial
~
smf \Conservation/Recreation
-✓
m'rn Harborfront
mm
r~ ~ ~T:l Industrial
[E:E::
•••••
I
Planned Unit Development
'W'Wlil'W
::::
·:g:
N
0
----
600
Scale 1" = 600ft
August1989
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
1200
1800ft
.
,·
. _,
�N
A
,.._.__
O
600
1200
Scale 1" = 1212 ft
MAP 10.2 ENTRY POINTS
Saugatuck
I•I Entry Points
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: City Of Saugatuck 0-dnances
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
-
�11-1
Chapter 11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
B
y 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.
However, effective integration of this Plan
will also require · an ongoing commitment to
intergovernmental cooperation with Douglas
and Saugatuck Township. In particular, the
Joint Plan prepared concurrently with this one
should be implemented as steadfastly and also
kept current with comprehensive reviews at
least once each five years.
It will also be very important to make every
effort to keep Douglas and Saugatuck Township
officials informed of proposed changes to this
Plan or any of its regulatory instruments (such
as zoning) and to encourage their input prior to
such a change being made. Likewise, those jurisdictions should be encouraged to reciprocate
with proposals and an opportunity for review by
the City of Saugatuck prior to action on any
change which may impact on the City. A copy of
this Plan and any amendments to it will be filed
with the clerk of each of these jurisdictions, as
well as with the County Clerk, the County Planning Commission, the County Economic Growth
Alliance, the West Michigan Regional Planning
Commission, and Department of Natural Resources.
Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional
public services such as police and possibly public works should be continued where mutually
beneficial. Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority has functioned well and should continue
to strengthen its efforts.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
- ~
--- -- - - - - - - -
�12-1
Chapter 12
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
PRJMARY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Relationship to Zoning
The City of Saugatuck has a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to the City-Village Zoning Act, PA 207 of 1921. The intent of that
ordinance 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 oflot to be covered, and open space to
be preserved within each district.
Because the Zoning Enabling Act requires
the zoning ordinance be based upon a Plan and
this Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission, has been prepared to guide future land use
decisions, the zoning ordinance should be revised to reflect this Plan's new goals, policies,
and future land use proposals. However, the
zoning district map and the future land use map
(10.1) will not be identical. The zoning map
typically reflects existing land use (where it is
desirable to continue it) and small areas zoned
for more intensive use then at present. The
future land use map (on the other hand) reflects
land use arrangements at some future time. (See
Section 10.10, p. 245-250, Michigan Zoning &
P_lanning, 3rd Ed .. by Clan Crawford, ICLE, Ann
Arbor, 1988) .
The City 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.
In addition. the zoning ordinance and fee
structures should be amended to permit the City
to require developers of new commercial and
industrial uses and all proposed multi-family
developments to pay into an escrow fund to be
used for payment of professional review fees by
engineers. planners and attorneys (if necessary) . Unused escrowed dollars would be returned.
Relationship To Plans/ZoniJllg
In Adjacent Jurisdictions
The land use proposals in this plan were
carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring compatibility with those of Douglas and Saugatuck
Township. Equal care should be taken in the
future to seek and receive comment on proposals that are on or near a border from an adJoiningJurisdiction. Failure to do so will only insure
future conflict over adjacent land uses. or the
provision of new public services.
Relationship to Subdivision Regulations
The City of Saugatuck should adopt subdivision regulations if the remaining undeveloped
land is to be platted as opposed to developed
under PUD provisions. 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 is added assurance that
development will occur in an orderly manner.
The City of Saugatuck should consider amending its subdivision and zoning regulations to
prohibit the establishment of lots which would
be unbuildable under existing state or local
regulations (such as lots which are wholly
within a protected wetland).
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 of funding , 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.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
12-2
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.
The City Planning Commission should develop
a formal capital improvement program.
Land Use & Irifrastructure Policies
A strong effort will be necessary to coordi-
nate future capital improvement 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
BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.) is the basic building
code adopted by the City 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.
The City 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. The City of Saugatuck is not an
entitlement community. Therefore, it must
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
• Weatherization and Energy Conservation
• Home Repair for the Elderly
• Public Improvement in conjunction with
targeted housing activity (limited 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 City alone, or in concert with Douglas
and Saugatuck Township 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 f. m cially viable businesses needing fina ial
assistance for growth, modernizatio or
expansion. Limit $750,000).
• Commercial Retail Loan program is for
commercial, services, tourism, and other
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�12-3
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
$500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure
improvement.
• Communities in Transition program funds
community development activities, such
as public sewer 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
197ofl97lS
This Act 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 fuU faith and credit" of the
municipality.
• A DDA can request the municipality to
borrow money and issue notes in anticipation of collected taxes.
• A DOA, with municipality approval, may
create a "tax increment fmancing 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 Gover-
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
12-4
nor 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.
On November 6, 1984, Michigan residents
cast their vote in favor of Proposal B. This constitutional amendment created the Michigan
Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRfF), Public
Act 101 of 1985, which ofikially 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 City recently received approval of a
$50,000 CZM grant to improve its parking facilities at Oval Beach.
The Recreation Bond Fund
The Recreation Bond Fund draws from
bonds approved by voters in 1988. It 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:
TABLE 12.1
RECREATION FACILITIES &: THEIR MINIMUM NUMBER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO
ACHIEVE MINIMUM POINTS
RECREATION FACILI1Y
MINIMUM SIZE
Bicycle Trail
Playground
3 pcs. of play
Swimming Beach
Boat Launch
Campground
Non-motorized Trail
Cross-country Ski
Hiking
Nature
Horse
Fishing Access
Fishing Piers
Nature Area
1 mile
equipment
50 feet
5 parking spaces
1O 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, Mlchll!an's 1987-88 Recreation Al:·
tioo Program Guidel>ook.
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 DNR has identified Allegan County
as deficient in a number of recreational facilities.
Those relevant for the tri-community area include deficiencies in bicycle trails, fishing access, fishing piers, boat launches,
campgrounds, nature areas, hiking 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 minimum 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�12-3
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.
The City has received preliminary approval
of a $62,500 recreation bond fund grant for
improving the beachhouse facilities at Oval
Beach.
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
$11,000through 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 aimed at open space presexvation: 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.
provement Act (Act 233 of 1987). and the Local
Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act
(Act 237 of 1987, as amended). The acts will be
in effect for five years. when they will be 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 of bringing 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.
Road Funds
(c) Projects for reducing congestion on
county primary and city major streets
within urban counties.
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 Im-
(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.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�■
12-6
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, sidewalks. 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 in a special assessment district for whatever public purpose
the property owners have agreed (by petition or voting) to be assessed.
TAX INCENTIVES
The state law permitting communities to
provide property tax incentives for industrial
development is Act 198. This Act allows a community to provide tax abatements as an incentive for industrial firms which want to renovate
existing or build new facilities.
ADDfflONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Other Planning & Economic
Development Assistance
The City Planning Commission should
maintain regular communication with the
County Planning Commission, with the West
Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and
with the Allegan County Community Growth
Alliance. These organizations should be encouraged to continue their County and region-wide
planning and economic development efforts and
to share relevant materials with the City. Likewise a copy of this Plan should be forwarded to
each of these agencies when adopted.
Pro-Business Alliance
One way to strengthen Saugatuck's economic development potential is to establish a
pro-business exchange in City government (or
jointly with Douglas and Saugatuck Township)
modelled after the Michigan Bell Business Retention and Expansion Program. (Saugatuck is
not eligible for participation in the Michigan Bell
Business Retention and Expansion program because it is 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.
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. Over eight percent
of the City's 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.
The City should continue to monitor the
number of people in poverty through the census
counts and work with local churches and nonprofit groups to assist them through food drives.
temporary shelters, or other needed services.
Collection of Trqffi.c 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
f"
�12-7
recent traffic count information. The tri-community 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.
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
along the water should be initiated. One option
is to create a local nonprofit land conservancy.
There are several very effective ones operating in
Michigan. Priority should be given to building a
trust fund for acquisition and maintenance or
tying into existing ones by the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations.
Periodic Updating and Revisions
As these additional studies are undertaken
the Plan should be updated to reflect the new
information. At a minimum the plan should be
comprehensively reviewed and updated at least
once every five years.
Managing Growth and Change
The key to successfully managing future
growth and community change is integrating
planning into day-to-day decision making and
establishing a continuing planning process. The
only way to get out of a reactionary mode (or
crisis decision making) is by planning and 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 City officials to pick from
among the new tools, those that will provide
greater choice over local destiny and quality of
life.
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�APPENDIX A
References
�■
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 data sources are referenced throughout the plan.
DEMOGRAPHICS
U.S. Census, Current Population Reports, East North Central 1986 Population and 1985 Per
Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places. Series P-26, No. 86-ENC-SC (also
referencedfor economic data).
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980- Summary Tape File 3A (microfiche) for
Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and Allegan County.
HISTORY
Joe Armstrong and John Pahl. River & Lake: A Sesquicentennial History OF Allegan County,
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.
NAnJRAL RESOURCES
Michigan Resource Inventory System Database, Department of Natural Resources.
Soil 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 Boolr., 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 tri-community area
Parks and Recreation Commission, with the assistance of the Saugatuck Public School District.
February 1985.
~
�~
SOLID WA-,TE
Allegan County Solid Waste Plan, prepared for the Allegan County Board of Commissioners
and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Allegan County Planning Commission,
PA 641 solid Waste Planning Committee, and the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission,
September 1983.
ECONOMY
Real and Personal Property SEV, 1980-88, Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax
Commission.
The Economic Impact of Travel on Michigan Counties , prepared for the Michigan Travel
Bureau by the U.S . Travel Data Center, July 1988.
Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile, First Edition, Research Monograph # 1,
Michigan State University, Travel, Tourtsm and Recreation Resource Center, 1986.
Michigan Employment Securtty Commission, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Detroit, Michigan.
UTILITIES
A Feasibillty Study on the Utillzation of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir, SaugatuckDouglas Water System, prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland
Engineertng, Inc., January 18, 1983.
Facillties Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976.
~
Saugatuck Township Area Utlllty 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 Utilltles Condition Report, May 1984.
Waterworks Reliabillty 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
•
�■
I"'
A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
1. Age Cohorts (Raw Data)
Douglas
Saugatuck
Area
Saug. Twp.
County
--------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------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
13
15
21
3
11
30
47
6
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+
17
18
15
19
13
24
14
50
106
92
101
136
59
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
0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Saugatuck
49
97
170
198
101
136
107
221
(4.5)
(9.0)
(15.8)
(18.4)
(9.4)
(12.6)
(9.9)
(20.5)
Douglas
51
134
186
156
106
82
95
138
(5.4)
(14.1)
(19.6)
(16.5)
(11.2)
(8.6)
(10.0)
(14.6)
Saug. Twp.
107
226
277
273
142
265
191
231
(6.3)
(13 .2 )
(16.2)
(15.9)
(8.3)
(15 .5)
(11.2)
(13.5)
Area
207
457
633
627
349
483
393
590
(5.5)
(12.2)
(16.9)
(16.8)
(9.3)
(12.9)
(10.5)
(15.8)
County
6,600 (8.1)
14,406 (17.7)
14,760 (18.1)
13,209 (16.2)
9,306 (11.4)
7,820 (9.6)
6,981 (8.6)
8,473 (10.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: (same as above , 1960 and 1980).
0
�•
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
Michigan
Another State
Born Abroad
Foreign Born
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saug. Twp.*
Area
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)
2182 (58.3)
1340 (35.8)
7 (0.2)
210 (5.6)
124
(7.2)
County
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
1910
487
670
500
(53.4)
(13.6)
( 18. 7)
(14.0)
8 (0.2)
County
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
Area
County
1561
2 .39
852
100
27,282
2.95
19,520
1,911
�■
7. Marital Status
Saug Twp
Douglas
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%)
Saugatuck
Single
Married
Separated
Widowed
Divorced
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
11
4
116
106
5
66
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
Douglas
Saug Twp.
Area
County
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975-80
1970-74
1960-69
1950 - 59
1940-49
Pre 1940
36
19
51
(6 . 3)
(3.3)
(9.0)
73 (12. 8)
56 (9.8)
334 ( 58. 7)
22 (5.5)
46 (11.3)
81 (19.9)
32 (7. 9)
36 (8.9)
189 (46.5)
Source: (same a s above), item 109.
72
116
133
99
68
246
(9.8)
(15 . 8)
(18.1)
(13.5)
(9.3)
(33.5)
130
181
265
204
160
769
(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
Saugatuck
Total Units
Owner occupied
Renter occupied
772
334 (43.2)
205 (26.5)
Douglas
529
271 (51,2)
117 (22.1)
Area
County
850
2,151
531 (62.4) 1,136 (52.8)
117 (13.7)
439 (20.4)
31,864
22,271 (69.8)
4 , 961 (15.5)
Saug Twp .
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
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
66.2
11.1
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
6
83
227
24
39
5181
281
206
1127
9
8
8
15
78
Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Surnmary Tape File 3A, item 93.
Detroit, MI , tel. 313-354-4654 .
�•
APPENDIX
C
Public Opinion Survey Responses
�■
CITY OF SAUGATUCK
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEV
RESULTS
PAUL HARRIS: AIIIITAHT RBSBARCH DIRJ!CTOR
RESPONSE RATE
WE SENT 726 SURVEVS FROM OAKLAND UNIVERSITY USING
THE MA IL LABELS FROM THE CITV. WE RECEIVED (es of
11 /29/88) 372 SURVEVS FROM THIS MAILING, PRODUCING
A RESPONSE RATE OF 51.2 PERCENT. IN ADDITION, WE
RECEIVED 11 RENTER SURVEYS WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED
BV THE TOWNSHIP. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEVS USED IN
THE FORTHCOMING ANALYSES IS: 383.
�COt1t1UNITY VALUES
Q.:.!:
•
lmportcnce of things people look for inc community.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= NOT IMPORT ANT, 4 & 5: IMP ORT ANT, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
small town ctmosphere
quiet town
friendly people
ettract1Ye/beutiful surroundings
good plcce to raise children
{rcditioncl values
religious opportunities
freei:iom to be myself
chance to get involved in loccl org·s
low crime rate
good school system
Tow tax rates
close to lcrger cities
convenient shopping opportuni tes
cvcilability of good housing
f ami 1y in tne 8re8
job in area
water based recreation ne8rby
not industrielized
Q.2:
NOT 1r~iRTANT
16.81
3.31
2.71
3 t .61
34.91
36.21
13.21
35.31
4.41
t 4. t I
6.91
20.41
27 .41
19.01
56.61
40.81
t 4.61
23.71
IMP~~NT
70.31
94.31
94.01
57.81
49.01
46.21
75.91
37.91
91.01
64.01
78.31
54.71
49.41
53.91
25.51
43.91
66.41
46.91
How has the community changed.
better place to live
stoyed obout the some
worse ploce to live
CHECKED
32.81
43.21
24.01
9~
As the area grows and chonges, which best describes Sougetuck.
1= smell villoge, 2= beclroom community, 3= Hollond suburb, 4= Smon city
community as is
community as would like it to be
community as think it will be
g.:-4;,
1
67.51
65.31
19.71
~
11.71
19.11
-rlt
2.71
21.81
How would you rate the communites on the following.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= POOR, 4 & 5= GOOD, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
business climate
churches
community events
entertainment
geneftJl appearance
flousmg
1ob
location
medical care
recreation
resteurant~
~
8.41
28.41
41.71
10.91
34.11
63.81
4.61
45.41
12.21
24.51
ft
68.21
47.51
36.81
71.91
25.21
9.31
93.01
27.71
67.61
58.81
4
24.01
20.31
39.41
�■
114
ft
10.51
cont
roeas
schools
senior citizen services
shopping
social services
taxes
26.01
43.01
47.41
65.71
mi
62.61
38.81
39.01
15.41
18.21
COt1t1UN ITY PROBLENS
Q&
Problems faced by the communities, how importent ore they to you.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= NOT A PROBLEM, 4 &. 5: PROBLEM, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
NOT
violent crime
property crime
vondelism
teens w/ nothyi ng to do
drugs
alcohol
unemployment
new job opportunities
housmg shortages
public recreation
too much development
not enough development
lack of health care...
trafic safety
perking deowntown Seug.
skateboards/bikes downtown Seug.
run down property
litter downtown area
litter elong blue ster Hwy.
appearance of bus. along Blue
congestion at ovel beech
quefity ovel beach facilities
access to weterbodies
local schools
city gov·t services
counfy gov·t services
leadership elected officiels
lnedequete taxes
inodequete locol phmning
inadequate local development
erosion&. flodding
contamination dnlcing water
water quelity
wet lends
send dunes
other env. destruction
ined. senior progrems
erosion along lel<eshore Dr.
ined. weter supply
ined. sewer service
snowmob111 ng on pub 11 c roeds
A PROBLEM
88.01
73.61
73.31
31.BI
29.21
28.81
50.81
19.91
33.51
66.51
50.61
63.11
35.21
65.01
32.01
56.11
60.21
66.51
61.11
54.71
66.61
57.41
60.51
65.11
44.51
28.61
35.41
60.61
33.11
37.91
47.61
21.61
22.41
43.01
40.41
37.51
46.91
14.41
35.21
47.11
57 .61
PROBLEM
5.31
13.91
12.81
49.61
44.31
49.11
21.71
52.51
38.11
22.91
36.81
22.61
55.21
18.71
65.81
22.01
27.61
18.51
21.51
32.51
12.21
25.71
24.31
4.41
40.51
27.01
42.51
12.41
53.41
45.01
39.41
46.51
57.01
35.71
38.41
18.21
23.61
74.11
40.51
21.31
16.01
�SHOPPING & SERVICES
Where do you go most often for the following thi~gs.
1= So~otuck, 2= Hollond, 3= close to work, 4= better serv1ce,
5: mo choice, 6= lower cost
·
J;l.8:
-
opplionces
outo/truck soles
outo /truck services
bokery goods
benking
beoutician/borber
books
car wosh
clothing
doy core
dept. store
dry cleoners
fom11y restouronts
fancy restaurants
fost food
flower shop
furniture
~roceries
ordwore
loundromat
1own &. gorden sup.
lumber
med1col services
movies
phormocy
sporting goods
11~
1
29.71
0.01
16.01
78.11
77.41
73.71
37.11
51.11
14.01
85.91
0.61
42.51
64.71
38.61
2.01
74.71
15.31
56.21
71.41
86.71
38.11
64.91
36.51
0.01
77.11
8.31
~
68.01
56.31
14.11
11.31
10.41
31.31
41.51
42.91
9.81
56.11
49.21
30.21
39.81
79.31
15.71
3
7. 11
9.11
8.11
6.31
8.61
9.31
7.71
5.61
12.51
2.21
12.81
4.81
1.21
5.01
5.31
4.41
34.31
37.91
24.61
10.61
47.31
20.91
43.81
90.31
15.81
66.41
4.31
4.11
10.81
3.31
3.31
10.71
2.71
2.61
2.71
7.31
4
2.41
3.61
3.01
0.01
0.01
5.41
3.81
0.01
3.01
2.21
1.81
0.01
0.01
2.81
0.01
0.01
0.61
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
3.41
3.81
0.01
0.61
0.71
-for
13.91
11.11
0.91
1.81
0.61
17.61
0.01
24.71
0.01
27.31
1.01
3.01
12.91
13.31
4.41
29.61
0.91
0.91
0.01
4.91
5.11
5.21
6.41
1.51
11.11
Approve or disopprove of future commerciol development.
NOTE: OR IGI NAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= DISAPPROVE, 4 &. 5: APPROVE, 3= HAS BEEN OMI ITED
in smell shopping centers
1n one 1orge shopping center
in downtown Soug.
in downtown Douglas
in scottered commerciol oreos
in str1 p commerci o1 oreos
nowhere
Jt.11.;.
o1s~E.~fYE
48.91
53.91
51.01
45.91
67.61
59.11
a1~0VE
7.51
24.51
37.81
37.31
30.61
17.91
10.81
Where should new commercial development occur.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= DISAPPROVE, 4 &. 5: APPROVE, 3: HAS BEEN OMI ITED
-
along
olong
olong
olong
olong
olong
North Blue Star Hwy.
South Blue Ster Hwy.
Butler St. in Sougotuck
Weter St. in Sougotuck
Loke St. in Sou~otuck
M-89 outside o Fennville
ot freewoy interchenges
Dl~APPfVE
25.4
17.91
56.31
50.81
58.BI
31.61
16.21
A~~VE
9. I
69.81
24.91
29.51
22.71
37.11
60.61
6
~
5.41
5.41
0.61
0.91
0.61
2.61
1.91
3.01
0.01
1.51
2.61
0.91
0.91
0.01
0.71
5.61
2.41
0.61
0.01
5.51
1.71
0.01
0.01
1.81
6.21
�•
!I~
DOWNTOWN
Whet ere your priorities for $eugetuck's downtown.
'
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3: HAS BEEN OMI ITED
LOW G~.WIIIY
edditionel pub11c restrooms
benches for pedestriens
control truck traffic
dress up store fronts
flowers & lendscepe
historic preservetion
resident oriented businesses
more perking
tourist oriented businesses
new lighting
offices
reduce cer treffic
restaurants
shopping
weterfront retail businesses
writerf ront who 1es61 e business
waterfront boat services
writerfront perk
g~
51.21
36.01
48.81
34.71
22.51
27.11
25.41
51.31
45.61
60.51
49.01
53. 1I
47.11
59.11
83.61
45.6:C
35.61
36.61
48.01
40.81
55.11
64.61
43.31
70.51
26.11
38.4:C
18.71
31.3:C
35. 11
38.51
26.01
6. 11
40.91
52.71
Do you feel there is e perking problem other then between
Memoriel Dey end Labor Dey 1n downtown Seugetuck.
yes= 24.81
.Q~
HIGHr.~ORITY
no= 72.21
uncerte1n= 2.41
Which of the following options do you prefer for providing
edditionel perking downtown.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: DISAGREE, 4 & 5: AGREE, 3: HAS BEEN OMI ITED
AGREE.
-so.cl
DISAGREE
demolish old public works build.
aquire edd. public property
leeve problem for downtown bus.
cre8te pertnershi p...
g~
32.61
47.5:C
61.5:C
32.61
38.41
25.61
38.81
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPt1ENT
Does the riree need more i ndustri el deve1opment.
( 1= strongly disrigree to 5: strongly egree)
1= 22.61,
2: 11.21,
3: 9.91,
4: 16.41,
5: 35.91
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPt1ENT
Q.17:
Whet type of residentiel development is needed in Seug8tuck.
{1= needed now, 2= needed later, 3= not needed, 4= don't know)
1
epertments
37. 11
1o.ar
atteched single...
29.51
18.71
38.51
13.31
det8ched single ... (50-70)
52.61
11.71
29.51
6.11
detached single ... (70+)
33.71
17.71
36.21
12.41
W8terfront condos
4.BI
2.51
90.41
2.21
1ow income housing
40.21
4.51
48. 91
6.41
mobile homes
4.91
B.61
71.41
15.11
seniors housing
30.11
14.11
38.11
17.71
~
~
�Would you favor lowering the min. square footcge to mcke housing
more affordable.
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
•
1= 29.8:C,
g_ 19:
2: 13.8:C,
5: 28.71
New housing should be built et e density that ts ...
( 1=higher then, 2= lower then, 3= seme es, 4= uncertain)
1
21.41
sfu
23.6:C
22.81
16.7:C
42.7:C
32.91
9.71
22.21
5.S:C
4.81
Saug. waterfront of Lk.Kel.
on the hi 11 in Saugatuck
in downtown Saugatuck
in downtown Douglas
the shore of Lk. M"I
agr. areas Saug. twp.
J].20:
4: 6.21,
3: 21.41,
5.81
~
SO.SI
53.11
39.11
45.71
14.7:C
4
~
4.S:C
8.21
28.41
15.41
37.2:C
RECREATION
Type of additional recreational facilities are needed in the
Saugatuck area.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3: HAS BEEN OHi ITED
6: TOO FEW TO LIST
basketball courts
bike peths
boet 1eunchi ng ramps
camping
community center
cross country ski trails
fitness center
golf course
fl1k1ng trails
horseback tra11 s
ice rink
Lk. front open space(Lk. HI)
Lk. front open spece(Lk.Kal)
public Hennes
private merines
movie theater
neighborhood playgrounds
perks
picnic arees
raquetbell courts
riverfront open spece(Kel river)
senior citizen center
shuffle boerd
softbell ff elds
swimming pool(s)
tennis courts
.Q.21:
LOW PRliRITV
51.3
16.7:C
33. 11
45.4:C
42.01
25.01
35.41
59.91
27.0:C
51.51
46.41
25.61
31.81
39.41
60.3:C
43. 91
60.01
46. 11
49.7:C
72.41
28.8:C
30.0:C
58. 91
62.21
46.91
53.0:C
14.BI
66.0:C
45.01
32.11
33.61
61.5:C
33.91
18.11
62.41
18.21
37.7:C
60.71
49.71
36.91
10.61
37. 71
20.41
41. 11
31.31
5.21
48.6:C
24.51
17 .01
16.61
36.71
23.71
WATERFRONT DEVELOPNENT & SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Which of the following best desribe your use (s) of nearby water
bodies.
(VALUES REPRESENT PERCENT CHECKED)
~
sw1mm1ng
~I
sunbathing
fishing(boat)
12.01
------- --
HIGH PRIORITY
6.81
6.81
a½i:c
'68.71
56.91
33.71
21.k1
4.71
4.21
6.81
�■
~~ cont.
is ing{shore)
nature study
sailing
windsurfing
waterskiing
powerboat t ng
scuba dtvtn~
waterfowl unt.
ice ftshing
ice skating
cross country ski.
snowmobi 1i ng
iceboating
other
I dont use it
}5\
1f.51
· 28.21
11.71
3.41
10.21
24.61
1.01
7.61
4.21
0.51
10.21
2.61
1.31
~5
24.BI
17.21
6.61
12.51
• 31.11
0.51
1.01
5.21
4.41
9.11
1.61
2.91
34.7:C
35.21
16.6,S
21.71
39.71
8.41
1.31
0.81
1.01
12.51
2.91
0.81
6.01
5.01
3.11
I
~I
10.41
3.41
3.71
B.91
14.61
0.51
4.21
6.81
2.11
5.51
2.11
1.61
.
{I\
22.71
.(l.22: Which term best describes your opinion of the present water quality
of the following water bod1es.
KR
f!i
very good
po?cl
a1r
poor
ver_-w poor
don t know
&1
5.01
20.41
26.51
33.11
9.61
6.71
15.21
32.11
31.21
11.51
11A1
32.01
30.21
9.21
4.01
7.11
~I
6.91
21.71
17.61
8.51
40.91
9.23: Bcsed on your experience in recent years the water quality of the
following water bodies has.
Hffz
improved great 1¥i
improved slight y
16.81
30.61
stayed the same
deteriorated slightly 17.61
detert otated great 1y 12.41
don't know
12.41
.(1.24:
,.
rl"..
1~1
13.61
32.21
18.91
12.31
12.01
10~
19.91
35.81
20.81
5.91
7.01
7~
9.51
25.01
5.91
2.61
49.01
Indication of feeling about the adequacy of the followtng faciltttes
on each water body.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2: INADEQUATE, 4 &. 5: ADEQUATE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
DESCRle:!1011
u.
a~~~ ~~~
boat launch
boat sltps(r)
21.1
boat slips{c)
9.2
marinas
18.9
swim.beaches 26.2
boat ser-11ce
18.7
pumpout f aci 1. 24.5
fish cleaning
29.2
camp grouds
39.0
parks
26.9
public rest.
32.7
other pub. acc. 37.0
des boat mom 44.9
des no wake
27.2
41.9
56.9
55.9
36.9
42.0
35.3
33.0
26.3
45.0
39.6
20.0
26.8
49.0
ft
20.2
9.1
19.6
28.6
14.7
16.4
28.7
41.5
26.3
30.1
35.6
44.4
25.7
45.6
64.3
60.3
32.8
46.9
37.6
33.1
27.7
48.7
42.3
17.9
25.9
47.8
U1
M
1i~~
23.5 17.5
20.6
20.7
14.9
19.4
19.4
20.3
51.7
26.7
45.8
33.3
36.4
13.1
20.6
24.7
77.3
27.6
18.8
19.2
17.2
52.0
28.9
25.7
21.4
42.3
A
19.6
13.7
16.6
11.4
9.7
12.5
17.2
39.3
32.3
22.8
27.0
28.2
17.6
24.9
27.5
22.5
20.4
21.B
16.0
17.6
17.7
17.7
19.9
18.9
19.9
37.8
~
""
�Should the City c,ctively cooperote in the construction of on
areawide marina. ( 1= strongly diseJgree to 5= strongly eJgree)
1= 33.61,
2: 13.81,
3: 11.91,
4: 8.91,
5: 31.71
OTHER LAND USE QUESTIONS
Do you think summertime festiY81s ere good for the 58ugetuck eree.
yes= 76.81,
no= 11.11,
uncertain= 11.61
!1.27: Which, if eny, of the following types of ·home occupations· do you
favor being permitted in resi denl 1811 y zoned erees.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= OPPOSE, 4 & 5: FAVOR, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
bed & breakfast
h8irdressers/berbers
music 1essons
d8ncelessons
accounting/ta)( prep.
lew offices
medical offtces
edult foster cere
dey care
·evon·, ·emway"
typing services
dressmeiki ng/ a1t.
ceramics
clothing boutiques
bakery
ptzzana
smell engine repair
antique seles
.Q...21t
OPPOSE
FAVOR
44.81
6.71
11.31
13.01
34.31
44.61
36.81
26.61
34.11
13.01
9.31
39.81
60.81
66.91
70.91
59.01
48.21
40.21
84.41
76.71
72.11
43.91
42.61
42.51
49.41
49.51
71.21
78.31
37.01
22.01
19.51
16.31
20.11
37.81
28.41
67.31
Whet 8re your priorities for Blue Ster Ht ghwey.
NOTE: ORIGINAL PRESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: LOW, 4& 5: HIGH, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
better lighting
uniform sign controls
improve traffic flow
add e center tum 1ane
instell public sewer
install public weter
improve dretnege
1mprove eppeerance
creete commerci81 strip
more tourist orientated bus.
more shopping
more industry
more personel sendces
more auto services
more offices
fest food rests
drive thru businesses
no changes
A
31.31
32.51
23.21
27.11
30.31
31.81
23.01
43.41
58.51
34.51
29.31
38.01
42.51
35.31
40.11
40.01
61.11
HIGH
sf]i
52.31
48.01
50.81
41.21
38.71
35.01
66.81
37.31
28.31
41.11
49.81
47.91
35.41
38.01
50.01
40.41
19.21
�■
eef&
cont.
e er 1ane str1 ping
re surfacing
uniform speed limit
bike bath
more trees
~
6~.~~
13.01
34.61
22.41
33.71
65.31
56.61
69.91
48.41
~
ENVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION
g~ What 11mitat1ons, if any, should be imposed on development in
eech of the following areas.
( 1= no new deve 1opment, 2= very 1ow density, 3= moderate density)
(4= No special regulation)
1
eTo)
forested sand dunes
open sand dunes
84.41
wetlands & swamps ad'1oining 73.11
wet 1ands & swamps in and
70.61
along the Kal. river
39.01
along Kal. lake
39.01
along Lk. Ml
34.81
along Silver Lie.
35.31
!).30:
r&
-rlr
10.41
1.61
16.21
12.71
32.81
31 .91
43.61
28.21
6.41
13.31
19.51
21.51
16.81
24.51
""
4
1.91
2.51
4.21
3.41
8.81
7.61
4.81
12.11
PUBLIC SERVICES
How would you rate the following local pub11c services.
NOTE ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= POOR, 4 & 5: GOOD, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
ambulance
animal control
building inspections
fire protection
first responder unit
tnturban bus
1and use p1tmni ng
librar~
other tty Hall services
parking in downtown
park mainteinace
playground equip.
pol1ce protection
property assessment
pub1i c boet 1eunches
schools K-6
schools 7-12
schools- community ed.
sewer serv1 ce
snow remove 1
storm drainage
street lighting
street mai nta1 nonce
street resurfacing
water service
waterfront maintenance
zoning enforcement
~
42.01
37.01
6.81
6.71
6.51
65.61
17.91
37.41
64.91
25.91
29.81
17.21
49.91
45.51
6.81
9.11
10.51
20.81
8.71
25.61
32.21
46.21
68.21
24.91
31.61
46.01
fi
14.91
24.11
71.01
69.71
73.81
13.51
65.21
31.01
9.71
55.71
38.31
53.21
24.61
22.71
63.31
58.01
60.81
53.51
61.31
35.61
35.41
22.21
9.31
41.01
28.01
23.71
ff:::'
,,,..
~
�9.31:
Whot ore your priorities for how the City spends your tox doll ors.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= LOW, 4 &. 5: HIGH, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
preventing crime
enforcing ord1 nences
traffic enforcement
fire protection
ombulence service
weter supply
sewer service
street repeir
pork &. recreot ion
improve perking downtown
senior progrems
1mprove Cfty appearance
plan for future
weterfront improvement
interurben bus
economic development
Jl,32:
rt
58.91
53.41
91.81
72.91
86.11
83.91
78.71
48.31
40.81
22.51
55.41
79.71
56.21
41.11
42.21
16.91
27.01
1.11
10.41
7.11
8.31
2.31
31.61
37.61
41.11
23.21
13.31
24.81
39.61
23.11
How frequently do you use the following services.
( 1= never, 2= less Ulen 1 time/month, 3= one time/month)
(4= one time/week, 5= more often)
recycling center
interurb. bus service
river bluff perk
Seug-Doug 11 brery
ovor beocfl
Douglas beech
sun clown pork
shultz perk
Seug Dunes St. pork
beel'.'Y field
wicks perk
other perks
City Hell services
Q.all:
H1GH
62.9)
~I
1
79.21
66.91
64.81
34.91
9.81
68.71
84.71
64.51
52.81
78.21
51.81
67.41
30.81
2
8.71
27.01
26.41
46.41
28.21
17.91
10.81
26.21
26.81
12.11
22.41
18.01
38.71
_3_
8.71
0.61
4.51
12.01
21.11
7.51
3.11
3.71
13.11
2.51
8.31
11.41
21.51
4
3.41
1.41
0.61
3.41
18.41
0.81
0.81
3.41
1.11
2.81
12.21
1.21
6.01
5
Ml
4.11
3.71
3.41
22.51
5.01
0.61
2.31
6.11
4.21
5.31
2.11
3.01
If it meent en increese in generel property texes, which of the
follwing services do you tflink Saugatuck should increase or odd.
police protection
f 1re protect1on
better St. me1 ntenence
more perking
better wet er que 11 ty
better sidewelk
sidewelk snow removel
new street 1ight i ng
more flowers &. trees
community Rec. center
seniors center
industriel perk
drei nege contro 1
tresh collection
CHECK!°
17.5
13.81
37.31
28.71
48.81
25.61
10.41
16.71
20.91
18.81
11.51
14.91
9.41
23.51
�g....3..3..:. cont.
com61ned meint. ger8ge
economic development
24hr. medic81 service
community poo 1
.QM;, Which of the following stetements is closet to your position on
government services end property texes.
nice to heve better services, but...
I would like better government services, ...
1oc81 government tnes to do to much, ...
other
!1.35: Pl ace e check before eech of the f o11 wing City boerds/
commissions 8t which you h8Ye et tended 8 meeting in the
1est 2 yeers.
city council
plenning commision
zoning t>oerd of appee 1s
board of review(taxes
schoo 1 boord
Seug twp. fire district
i nterurben trons. system
Kol. Lk. water & Sewer Auth.
~
-
CH~~~~
38. 11
21.41
17.51
8.61 ·
5.21
5.21
12.51
How responsive do you feel these parts of locol government are to
Saugatuck citizens.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= NOT RESPONSIVE, 4 & 5= RESPONSIVE, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED
NOT R~f ONS IVE
city council
5 . ,t
planning commision
44.71
zoning tioerd of eppeals
39.31
board of review(taxes)
49.81
school board
21.51
Seug. twp. fire district
3.51
interurban tnms. system
22.51
Kal. Lk. weter & Sewer Auth.
33.51
g~
RESPSNS IVE
2 . 11
31.01
23.61
13.01
39.91
57.41
37 .Bl
31.61
Should the City adopt e policy of consolidating services with
other governmental units.
yes: 5B.01,
no= 7.51,
uncerte1n 34.51
Q.38:
If yes, what services should be consolidated.
NOTE:
THESE VALUES CORRESPOND TO THE PERCENT WHO ANSWERED
ABOVE
sewer
water
strorm water
·ves·
~~EP
54.01
37.11
I
�CHECKED
Q.38: cont:
pol1ce
street & rocds
perks & summer Rec.
ple~ning
zomng
building permits
ct ty meneger
comb. vehfcel metnt.
other
50.11
44.41
41 .81
44.11
44.91
30.51
28.51
36.81
Should the City of Seugetuck, the V11lege of Dougles1 end the
Township of Scugetucl< consolidete into e single unh. of
government.
yes= 52.81,
no= 47.21
BACKGROUND INFORNATION
Q.40:
Are you a registerd voter.
yes= 85.41,
.QM;.
no= 14.61
How meny ye8rs heve·you resided 1n the City of Seugeituck.
CH~fiP
less then 1
1- 5
5 - 10
10-20
more than 20
Q.42:
15.21
21.11
29.11
32.51
How many more years do you think you will stay in the Saugetuck
area.
CHE~KED
less thtm one
3.
more than 1O yrs
~
*
5.61
20.81
69.61
1 - 3
4 - 10
How many months of each year do you typi ca 11 y reside in the
Saugatuck.
60.81 responded thct length of stay is 12 months
9.51 responded that length of stey is less then 6 months
Q~
Please check each of the following theit cpply to you.
residential property owner
renter
own or manage e business in area
Q.45:
C~CKiP
4.0
3.41
11.71
Which of the following best represents where you live.
(
on the dunes/bluff elong Lk. Ml
on the dunes olong Kolcmozoo Loke
elsewhere Dlong Kalamazoo Lake
81 ong Ka 1amazoo Ri Yer
CHECKiP
2.7
0.51
16.31
12.21
�gAS:.
cont.
CH~CKED
.01
along Silver Leke
elswllere elong the Kel. river
on hi 11 in Seug.
else. in Seug.
neer downtown Doug.
else. in Doug
in Arg. eree of Seug. twp.
else. 1n Saug. twp.
.QM;,
2.21
45.31
16.61
1.41
1. t I
0.51
0.01
Whet is the highest level of educetion you heYe finished.
CHECKED
less than high school
high school graduate
some co 11 ege
essociate's or technical degree
college graduete
grad. or prof. degree
1.11
12.3:i
18.61
1.61
36.71
29.61
I
g.47:
(
),
Please provide the following informetion abouteach person that
norma 11 y 1i ves in your houseno 1d.
A\/ERAGE AGE OF RESPONDENTS
54.32
SEX OF RESPONDENTS
mete
female
63.31
36.11
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
employed
not emp 1oyed
67.31
32.71
COMMUNITY
Douglas
City of Saugatuck
Seu~. Township
Hol end
other
7.51
44.01
0.51
24.11
23.71
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RETIRED
38.31
,.,,..\
I
�•
APPENDIX
D
Soil Types - Tri-Community Area
•
........-----=-•
�SOIL TYPES - TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
SOIL TYPE
AND SLOPE
SOIL NUMBER
LIMITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION FIELDS
LIMITATIONS FOR
DWELLINGS WITH
BASEMENTS
CATEGORY A- SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, LOW WATER TABLE
44B
Chelsea loamy fine sand, 0-6%
44C
Chelsea loamy fine sand, 6-12%
44D
Chelsea loamy fine sand, 12-18%
44E
Chelsea loamy fine sand, 18-30%
' l0B
Oakville fine sand, 0-6%
l0C
Oakville fine sand, 6-18%
J· l0E
Oakville fine sand, 18-45%
Oakville fine sand, loamy substratum, 0-6% 53B
Urban land - Oakville complex, 0-6% ·
72B
SE4
SE4
SEl, SE4
SEl, SE4
SE4
SE4
SEl, SE4
SE3, SE5, SE4
SL
CATEGORY B - SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, IDGH WATER TABLE
'
Brady sandy loam, 0-3%
19A
SE3
> 57A
Covert sand, 0-4%
SE3, SE4
. SE3, SE4
Matherton loam, 0-3%
22A
Metea loamy fine sand, 1-6%
27B
SE4, SE5
Metea loamy fine sand, 6-12%
27C
. SE4, SE5
Morocco fine sand, 0-3%
70A
SE3, SE4
Morocco-Newton complex, 0-3%
15B
SE3, SE4
Pipestone sand, 0-4%
SE3, SE4
26A
Thetford loamy fine sand, 0-4%
51A
SE3
Tedrow fine sand,0-4%
49A
SE3, SE4
SL
MDl
SEl
SEl
SL
MDl
SEl
SL
SE4
SE3
MD3
SE3
SL
MDl
SE3
SE3
SE3
SE3
SE3
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
SB
SC
33A
14C
14D
14E
75B
. 42B
28A
60B
SE3, SE5
SE3, SE5
SE3, SE5
SE5, SE3
SE5, SE3
SE3
SE5
SE1,SE5
SEl, SE5
SE3, SE5
SE5, SE3
SE3, SE5
SE5, SE3
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
SE3
SE3
SE3
MD3,MD2
MDl, MD2, MD3
SE3
MDl
SEl
SEl
SL
SE3
SE3
SL
�•
SOILTYPE
AND SLOPE
_ J,11\fITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION FIELDS
SOIL NUMBER
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
SE6, SE4
· SE3, SE{4
6
73A
50
48
.. 17
64
l ; • 29
· .J: 65
30
.,
36
::.:· 4
2
74
39
i'-,
.,
I
I
.
,I (
SE6, SE5
SE6
SE6, SE5
SE3, SES
SE6
SE6
SE6, SE5
SE6, SE3, SE4
SE6, SE4
SE6, SE4
SE6''' SE5·
.
SES, SE6, SE5
SE6
SE6, SE4
· SEU, SE6
, ..
SE5, SE6
'
,··. SE4, SE6
SES, SE3, SE5
5'.
67
47
69
7
45
23
62
SE6, SEl0
SES, SE3
SE6
SE6
SE6
SES, SE3
SE8,SE6
SE6
SE6
.,. ~'
...
,:
SES, SE3
SES, SE6
SE6
SE6, SEl0
SES, SE6
SE6, SEl0
SE6
SE6, SElO
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
..t
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
UB
UC
UD
UE
63B
31B
SL
SL
MDl
SEl
SEl
SL
SL
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
MD2
SL
MDl
·sEl
SEl
MD2
SL
'
�UNCLASSIFIED SOILS
Aquents, sandy and loamy
Pits
Udipsamments
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
PERCSSLOWLY
PONDING
-CUTBANKS CAVE
FLOODING _.
EXCESSIVE HUMUS
LOW STRENGTH
SUBSIDES
MODERATE LIMITAXIONS:
MDl
MD2
MD3
SLOPE
SHRINK:: SWELL
WETNESS
SLIGHT LIMITATIONS:
SL
SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
.f
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
�! '
N
A
SAUGATUCK
SOIL TYPES
�
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
Saugatuck_Comprehensive-Plan_1989
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Saugatuck Planning Commission, City of Saugatuck, 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
City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan
Description
An account of the resource
The City of Saugatuck Comprehensive Plan was prepared by the City of Saugatuck Planning Commission in cooperation with the Saugatuck City Council and Coastal Zone Management Program, and with the assistance of the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc.
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.)
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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/199d4becdb3bae11f5af631c15e710f8.pdf
4225d8d04dfa907ab9c46b08881200ff
PDF Text
Text
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
Prepared By The Village Of Douglas
Planning Commission
�VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Prepared by the
Vlllage of Do~ P1amdng Commlaalon
in cooperation with the Vlllage Council
in cooperation with:
Coastal Zone Management Program
Land and Water Management Division
Department of Natural Resources
and with the asststance of:
Planning &: Zoning Center, Inc.
302 S. Waverly Road
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 886-0555
November 1989
�Tttejoll.owtng
tndwtduals parttt:fpaf.ed In the preparatiDn of th.is plan:
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
P1anntn1 Comml.sslon
Kendal Showers. Erwin Kasten. Kathy Johnson. Debra Quade, Cheryl Giller, John
Haas. Bffl Schroeder, Betty Mokma, Philip Walter, and William Campion•.
vma,e Council
Mike Esposito, Embrtt Giles, Debra Quade, Kendal Showers, Dean Johnson, George
Baker. Pat Shanahan. Joe Brady. William campion•, and Jane Mayer*.
t• no longer servtng]
�Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. i
Chapter 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES:
TI-IE AREAWIDE POLICY PI.AN .....·................................................................ 1-l
Chapter2
DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................... 2-1
Chapter3
TI-IE ECONOMY....................................................................................... ,.... 3-1
Chapter4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND TI-IE ENVIRONMENT....................................... 4-1
Chapter5
EXISTING LAND COVER AND USE............................................................... 5-1
Chapter 6
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES............................................................ 6-1
Chapter 7
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................. 7-1
Chapter 8
WAIBRFRONT....................................................... ....................................... 8-1
Chapter 9
GROWfH AND DEVELOPMENT 1RENDS.... .. . ... ... ... .. . .. . ... .. . ... .. . .. . ... . .. .. . .. ... . . 9-1
Chapter 10
FlmJRE LAND USE .................................................................................... 10-1
Chapter 11
INIBRGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ..................................................... 11-1
Chapter 12
STRAIBGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................... 12-1
APPENDIX A
References
APPENDIXB
Demographic, Economic and Housing Data
APPENDIXC
Public Opinion Survey Responses
APPENDIXD
Soil Types - Tri-Community Area
�Vlllale of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) -Area
Age Cohorts (1980) - Allegan County
.Ae Cohorts (1980) • Village of Douglas
BdUcatt&nal Background In 1980 - Persons 25
and Over. Tri-Community Area
Saugatuck Public School Enrollments
Grades: K-12
saugatud( Public School Emollments
Elementary and High Schools
f3mP)oyment By Sector in 1980 -Tri-Community
Area and Allegan County
Aftrage Annual Employment - Tri-Community Area
Monthly Employment - Trt-Commnity Area. 1988
Tourtsm Related Employment. 1988 - Allegan
County
Beal Property SEV. 1988 - City of Saugatuck
Annual Real Property SEV - Tri-Community
Ana (1980-1987)
~ In Poverty By Age - Tri-Community
,Atea.{1980)
. . .,r,w,;;o Rlftr Basln
M,?lrage P.lml
MtpeUG,aTmi!l6
~~- Saugatiu•.k:~
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-4
3-2
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-6
3-6
4-2
8-7
9-2
9-2
�Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF MAPS
NUMBER
TITLE
PAGE
Introduction
=-
2.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7a
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6,4
6.5
6.6
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.5a
9.1
10.1
10.2
Location
ii
Streets and Roads
V
Lot Lines
vi
School DiStrtcts (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
Hydrtc Soils
Groundwater Vulnerability
High Risk Erosion Areas
Crttical Dune Areas
Woodlands
Land Use/Cover
Existing Land Use By Parcel
Planning Areas
Public Facilities
Water System
Sewer System
Gas Mains
Street Classifications
Act 51 Roads
Outdoor Recreation Sites
Actual and Proposed Bike Paths
Watersheds
No-Wake Areas
Saugatuck Harbor
Marinas
Street Ends/Parks
Street Ends/Parks
Residential Construction Pennits
Future Land Use
Entry Points
�v--.e of Dougt•• Comprehensive Plan
LIST OF TABLES
TITLB
tton (1950-1980)
EducatbW status - Persons 25 and Over
~ 1 :mmoDments - Saugatuck School District
lmpaet c l ~ On Allegan County. 1986
~Qr~
~Bylndustry'-1980
~ By Occupat1ot1 - 1980
A~Antlmd Unemployment Rate
Per Caplbl kleorlle. A
County
tncome -.d. Poverty Characterlsttcs
1\1.comnwoJty Atea
$wnmarJ o f ~ Climate Conditions
tand om.- Codes rot h)tected Wetlands
&dStfnllmm uae
State SM.ic Sims
FacdtNcs Cid Public
tntmJ
Jl'Jlanned:::::
PAGE
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-4
4-1
4-3
5-1
5-4
6-2
6-2
fbnproyements to
6-4
Day Ely Land Use
6-6
6-6
6-6
7-1
7-3
7-4
7-6
7-7.
�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
�i
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 Village of Douglas. 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 ofllcials 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 the
Village of Douglas Planning Commission. Financial support was provided by the Michigan Dept.
of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Program.
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 m Chapter 10. Third, is the supporting
documentation found in Chapters 2-9.
Although this Plan states specific land use
development policy and proposes specill.c land
use arrangements. it has no regulatory power.
It ts prepared as a foundation for and depends
primarily on the Village zoning ordinance (and
other local tools) 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 inforrnation from which to gain
a better understandlng 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 prepared
concurrently with plans in Saugatuck and
Saugatuck.Township. It was 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 the Douglas Planning Commission
oversaw the production of this plan, the Douglas
Village Council was also involved in Its preparation. Chapter 11 proposes that the Joint Planning Committee established to prepare a Joint
Plan for Douglas, Saugatuck, and Saugatuck
Township be continued and that this Plan be
updated at a minimum of every five years.
The contents of this Plan draws directly
from previously adopted planning documents.
There has been no effort made to explicitly footnote when matenal has been so used. Instead it
is intended that the content 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 was frequently relied upon in drafting portions of this Plan. 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 map on the following page show the
location of the Village of Douglas on the shores
of Lake Michigan. This location along I-196
makes it easily accessible to travelers from
across North America. The shoreline along the
Kalamazoo
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�u
11
Kent County
Ottawa
County
GRaplds
Allegan County
Van Buren County
Barry County
Gmazoo
Kalamazoo
County
DOUGLAS
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�Hi
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 serve the
area but all students within Douglas attend the
Saugatuck School District.
KEY FACTORS GUIDING THIS PLAN
Three considerations played prominent
roles in fashioning the contents of this Plan just
as they do in the Joint 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, Douglas. Saugatuck. and Saugatuck
Township 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 services are jointly provided including the Interurban bus serVice, 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 communit'f 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
activities open to tourists are the primary attraction. But no less significant iS the small town
character of the area. This character. often de-
scribed as "cute" or "quainr by tourists. is
highly favored by visitors 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 comm unity 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
minimal 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. Th us, 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.
MAPS
Except as otherwise noted. all the full page
maps presented in this Plan were produced
using C-Map software. This is a PC based computer program initiated by William Enslin, Manager of the Center for Remote Sensing at
Michigan 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�Iv
Several advantages are realized by computerizing this data. Typically, geographic information is only available on paper maps at widely
varying scales, which makes it d1fficult 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
dJgitlzed 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
ongtnate 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 nonrectlfted 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 survey was
conducted. On the maps showing all of
Saugatuck Township, we have •corrected" the
DNR/USOS base map to tnclude Silver Lake,
wbfcb tsmerelyshownasa wetland (not an open
:water body) GD tJSGS maps. A transparency can
..a1J be made by photocopying any of these
mapa kt Wdet te overJay several levels of mfor~ u.ng C.Map on a color monitor, up to
- ~ mfoimatk,m can bi overlaid on the
-..., mcl.udibg - ~ In on any
MWmild. °be estrable when Q---~killlOiJ..-»~dl-.
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 any time 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 wntng administrator or clerk for
further information.
~
�V
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�vi
r, ._.
~
ST. ·
i-: 1----'-_,__7'1
V)
>--<~---'--+--+---'----+-+--i
)~
~
Id
I,.
AVE. '°
.r-
-------~196
I
31
129TH
AV
•a.
~
I:
V,
.-I
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
0,
OI
-1
J:
V,
-I
�1-1
Chapter 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES:
THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS 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 smveys, meetings with local officials, and town meetings.
The first step in this process was a survey
of area leaders- including members of the Village Planning Commission, Village Council,
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 the
Village and the tri-community area, and the
results were tabulated and presented to Village
officials. These results served as the basis for
initiating a public opinion survey.
Citizen Views on local planning issues were
obtained through public opinion surveys mailed
to every property owner in the Village and distributed in each rental complex. Survey questions were prepared for the Village through
consultations with the Village Planning Commission and Village Council. Dr. Brent Steel.
Oakland University, conducted and tabulated
the survey.
The response rate of 4 7% in Douglas was
very high considering the length (about 1 hour
completion time) and type of smvey and thus
responses probably represent the majority view.
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 "futuring" session where participants were asked to imagine how they would like
the community to be in the year 2000. Partici-
pants were separated into groups and asked to
prepare of list of their "prouds" and "sorries" in
Douglas, 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 the Douglas 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 Village 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 local officials and then presented to Village
citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen comments were reviewed by Village officials and
incorporated into the policy plan.
Following completion of the draft policy
plan, data and trends in the Village were analyzed. This analysis supported the direction of
the policy plan and was first evaluated by the
Village Planning Commission. and then by Village citizens at the third town meeting. Next. key
elements of the plan and proposed strategies to
carry it out were first reviewed by the Village
Planning Commission, and then by Village citizens at the fourth and final town meeting.
These goals and policies also look beyond
local boundaries to the issues which affect the
region. This was accomplished through the joint
comprehensive planning process, where representatives of the City of Saugatuck and
Saugatuck Township participated in the preparation of joint goals and policies for the region.
Thus, these goals and policies are premised on
a pledge to mutually cooperate in guiding development consistent with the adopted goals and
objectives of the Joint 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. objectives, and policies
that comprise the policy portion of this comprehensive plan. These goals and policies will serve
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�1-2
as a guide for land use and infrastructure decisions in 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, and the joint plan. It is intended that the
goals and policies be consulted whenever considering future land use decisions.
Policy: Preserve wetlands, woodlots. and
other wildlife areas wherever feasible.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Goal: Guide development in a manner
which is orderly, consistent with the planned
expansion of public services and 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 each community.
VJLLAGE CHARACIER
Goal: Retain and enhance the quiet. scenic,
and small town character of the Village.
Policy: Encourage new land uses and densities/ intensities of development which are consistent with and complement the character,
economic base, and image of the area, and
which are sited consistent with this plan and
zoning regulations.
Policy: Promote site planning and design of
new development which is consistent with the
established character of the Village and compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Objective: Improve the visual appearance of
entrances into the Village through landscape
designs, signs. and land development which
promote the vitality and character of the Village,
without unnecessary clutter or safety hazards.
Objective: Explore the possibility of establishing a sign ordinance which is consistent with
the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township.
Policy: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historically significant structures.
Policy: Discourage designs which would
block significant views and vistas.
Policy: Encourage traditional American architectural design.
Policy: Manage the trees lining Village
streets to provide a continuous green canopy.
Policy: Increase enforcement of existing ordinances and regulations to better preserve the
established character of the Village and promote
official goals, objectives and policies.
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
entities for expansion and improvement of existing road and street networks for impacts on
growth patterns and for consistency with the
goals, objectives, and policies of this plan.
Policy: Consider the impact of land use
planning and zoning changes on Saugatuck and
Saugatuck Township, and discuss proposed
changes with the affectedjurisdiction(s) prior to
making such changes. A common procedure for
such communication shall be established and
followed.
LAND USE & COMMUNITY FACll,ITIES
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 coordinating planning
and zoning, 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 (i.e. schools, garages. fire halls, etc.)
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
~
~
�consistent With this plan and capital improvement programming.
Policy: Coordinate Capital Improvement
Programming With the City of Saugatuck and
Village of Douglas.
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 e:ffectlvely and efficiently by maximizing open space, preserving scenic Vistas. conserving energy, and 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.
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 consistent with the character of the
Village and its ability to provide needed public
services.
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, inlproving tourist attractions, and preparing
promotional materials which highlight the attractions of the Village.
Policy: Promote better communication and
cooperation between the public and private sector.
•
COMMERCIAL
Goal: Encourage high quality commercial
development in appropriate locations which
serves the current and future needs of residents
and tourists.
Policy: Encourage new commercial development to locate adjacent to existing commercial
areas.
Policy: Encourage a compatible and desirable mix of commercial uses, including similarity in the height and design of storefronts.
Policy: Encourage the design and location
of neighborhood commercial centers in a manner which complements and does not conflict
With adjoining residential areas.
Policy: Promote the development of small,
commercial centers off of major roads, rather
than lot by lot commercial strips.
Policy: Discourage unsafe and unsightly
strip commercial development through design
and landscaping requirements such as berms.
planting, clustered shopping areas, and/ or
shared access.
Policy: Improve the quality, Vitality, and
value of Village business districts through sign
regulations which control the design and location of signs.
Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each
business where feasible and encourage centrally
placed parking lots which serve several businesses.
DOWNTOWN DOUGLAS
Goal: Improve the quality, Vitality. and appearance of downtown Douglas.
Policy: Promote efforts to revitalize the
downtown. such as remodelling of storefronts.
improved storefront displays. preservation of
open space, and attractive landscaping.
Objective: Pursue state and local programs
aimed at planning, organ1z1n.g, and financing
downtown reVitalization projects, such as a
Downtown Development Authority and the Main
Street program.
INDUSTRIAL
Goal: Increase the amount of non-polluting
light industry in the area to offer year-round
employment opportunities to the Douglas workforce, without damaging the enVironment, spoiling the scenic beauty of the area. or
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�1-4
overburderung local roads, utilities. or other
public services.
Policy: Encourage new industries to locate
contiguous to ex:1sting industrial areas and to
cluster in small industrial parks which conform
to the design guidelines contained in thiS plan
and local zoning regulations.
Policy: Provide land for industrial uses in
locations along major thoroughfares. with existing or planned sewer, water, electric. and solid
waste disposal services to m:tnttnlZe service costs
and negative impacts on other land uses.
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.
Policy: Require the separation of industrial
sites from residential areas through buffers
made up of any combination of parking, commercial uses, parks. parkways, or open space.
HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL
Goal: Encourage a variety of residential
types in a wide range of prices which is 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: Control the operation of bed and
breakfast businesses through special wning
regulations to preserve the character and stability of exiSting neighborhoods.
'
Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks
in residential areas where there is a demonstrated need and according to the ability of
residents to finance such improvements.
Objective: Adopt and enforce a basic property maintenance code and building code.
Objective: Improve residential areas according to an identified need and municipal
means to finance such improvements.
Objective: Apply for housing rehabilitation
grant funds and explore the possibility of establishing a revolving loan fund for housing rehabilltation with such funds.
SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTS & OPEN SPACE
Goal: Protect special environments and
open space, 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 ofland development in those areas.
r'\
<
Objective: 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: Discourage the development of high
intensity residential uses along the waterfront.
Policy: Encourage acquisition of special environments of significant public value by public
agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations
for the purposes of preservation.
Policy: Provide land through zoning for garden apartments, duplexes. and medium density
single family residential uses near the Village
core.
Policy: Require development projects
deemed appropriate in and adjacent to special
environments to mitigate any negative impacts
on such environments.
Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low
intensity home occupations in residential areas
to preserve their stability and tranquility.
Objective: Devise regulations through zoning and site plan review for land development in
special environments which permit development in a manner consistent with protection
objecttves and which complement state and federal regulations for special environments.
Policy: Discourage the conversion of single
family dwellings to multiple family dwellings to
preserve the stability of existing neighborhoods.
~
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
~
-:'.'
�1-5
•
WATERFRONT
Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aesthetic values and recreation potential of all waterfront areas for the enjoyment of area citizens.
Policy: Promote the preseivation of open
space and natural areas, as well as limited,
carefully planned development along the
Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake, Lake Michigan and connecting streams, creeks, and drainageways to protect and enhance the scenic
beauty of these waterfront areas. and permit the
continuity of these existing open spaces to remain.
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 to the water,
both physically and visually and identify scenic
vistas which the Village would like to preserve.
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
visual access and the natural beauty of the
waterfront for the broader public.
partment 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: 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.
Objective: Investigate developing a joint
public marina and launch facility where federal
and state funding is available to assist With
financing such a venture.
TRANSPORTATION
Policy: Explore opportunities to convert
street ends which abut water bodies for public
access to the water for fishing. viewing, and
launching of small water crafts.
Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient
road network and improve roads to promote
growth in a way that is consistent with land use
goals. objectives and policies.
RECREATION
Objective: Survey the transportation network and identify need for maintenance and
improvements.
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
which seive identified needs of area residents.
•
Objective: Identify and explore opportunities to cooperate with other jurisdictions and
agencies, including Allegan County and the De-
Objective: Prepare a capital .improvement
budget for financing transportation maintenance and improvements.
Objective: Prepare a capital improvements
program to schedule and prioritize improvements and maintenance .
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�1-6
Policy: Implement traffic controls and design features that will increase the efficiency and
safety of major arterials. including but not lim•
ited 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.
Goal: Encourage a wide vartety of transportation means. such as walking, hilting, and
public transportation, to meet the diverse needs
of area residents.
Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath
through local funds, grants and loans. and cap·
ital improvement programming.
Policy: Promote pedestrian and bike travel
through a coordinated network of bikepaths,
trails, and sidewalks.
Policy: Maintain the sidewalk system and
require developers to provide sidewalks in appropriate locations through subdivision regulations.
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.
WATER AND SEWER
Goal: Insure a safe and adequate 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.
Objective: Upgrade and provide adequate
and lines within the existing sewer and
water service.
mains
Objective: Devise alternative mechanisms
for financing sewer and water expansions which
are financially sound and equitable.
Objective: Promote a joint agreement with
the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township
to plan and implement areawide sewer and
water service. including full participation by
each in the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water
Authority.
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
services are met.
Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer
and water service 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
services consistent with a public need and the
ability to finance improvements in the most cost
effective manner.
Policy: Consolidate police. fire, and other
emergency services across the three communities to eliminate overlap in service and expenditures and improve service delivery.
Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24
hour medical service which serves all three jurisdictions to be provided by a public or private
entity.
SOCIAL SERVICES
Goal: Promote the availability of necessary
social services to meet identified 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
r--
�1-7
•
Policy: Support efforts to establish community day care center(s) in appropriate locations
to provide quality and affordable day care to
working parents.
Policy: Provide those social services which
are efficient to provide at the local level to meet
the needs of area residents.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Goal: Insure the safe, effective, and efficient
disposal of solid waste and toxic substances.
Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid
waste through recycling, composting. and
waste-to-energy projects.
etc., and encourage or implement these through
zoning and subdivision regulations.
Objective: Establish an educational program (i.e. "energy awareness week") in cooperation with the local school system.
Policy: Require 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.
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:
• Arrangements for inspection of, and monitoring underground storage tanks:
• Existing underground storage tanks must
provide spill protection around the fill pipe
by 1998 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
conservation 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, subdivision layout, proximity to goods and services.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�2-1
Chapter2
DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION SIZE
The population of the Village of Douglas has
more than doubled since 1950. This represents
a 112% increase from 1950 to 1980, and a 17%
increase since 1970 (see Table 2.1). There is
some skepticism over 1986 Census estimates.
which show a 5% decline in Village population.
Current trends and projections indicate population growth, rather than decline, and 1990 Census estimates will almost certainly reveal
population growth.
SEASONAL POPULATION
The population of the each community in
the tri-community area swells during the summer when seasonal residents and tourists return. The 1980 census estimates that 23% (123)
of the Village's 529 total housing units are vacant, seasonal, and :migratory. Nearly all of these
(108) are detached single family units.
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 trt-community area increased about 30% between 19801986, whereas population increased by an
average of 20%. This reflects the impact of the
seasonal and tourist population on local services.
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 dramatically, from 2.98 in 1960 to 2.39
in 1980. The average household size in the
Village in 1980 was 2.44. 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.
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 utilities. Although
household size has declined substantially over
the past few decades, national trends suggest
that it will soon cease its decline. Nationwide the
average household size has reached a plateau
and state demographers predict that Michigan
will follow suit.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Historical age cohort data is available on a
regional basis and a comparison of age cohorts
in the tri-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 population, however. has remained
TABLE2.l
POPULATION ( 1950-1980)
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
1950
770
845
447
2,062
1960
927
1,133
602
2,662
1970
1980
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
CHANGE
40%
107%
112%
83%
�2-2
FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.2
AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980)
AGE COHORTS (1980)
ALLEGAN COUNTY
ARE
A§
=1960
17
19
p
E
R
C
E
N
T
-1980
17
15
1a
11
9
p
E
A
15
C
E
N
T
11
1a
9
7
5.+----,r----r-"""T""-,---,------.----,
0-1'
5-14
15-24
25-34
3S-44
45-54
5-14
0-4
3+--~-~-~----~-~
15•24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
AGE GROUP
65+
55-64
AGE GROUP
of the County, although the Village has a much
lower proportion of children aged 5-14, and a
much higher proportion of senior citizens. In
regional terms, the Village comprises 24% of the
area's senior population; the City of Saugatuck
comprises 37% (despite its small size): and the
Township, 39%.
FIGURE 2.3
AGE COHORTS (1980)
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
20
18
p
E
R
C
E
N
16
14
12
EDUCATION
10
The Village of Douglas has a well educated
citizenry. An analysis of those aged 25 and older
in 1980 reveals that 35.9% have completed 1 or
more years of college (see Figure 2.4). Table 2.2
contains complete information on the educational status of persons 25 years old and over
by jurisdiction.
T
•+-----~-----0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
AGE GROUP
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 and 2.3 depict the 1980 age
cohort distribution in the Village of Douglas, as
compared to Allegan County. In accordance with
countywide trends, the Village has a small cohort of infants and toddlers. The cohort distribution of the Village of Douglas resembles that
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
The Saugatuck Public School District
serves the Village of Douglas (see Map 2.1).
School enro11ment 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 school system. Between 1973 and 1989, enrollments in the
TABLE 2.2
EDUCATIONAL STATUS
PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER
Elementary
1-3 years HS
4 years HS
1-3 years College
4+ years College
SAUGATIJCK
SAUGATIJCK
TOWNSHIP
CITY
185
199
373
157
188
DOUGLAS
57
97
276
137
196
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
73
84
213
123
84
AREA
315
380
862
417
468
�2-3
FIGURE 2.4
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980
PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
40
l]fil TOWNSHIP
35
•
30
p
25
~
20
E
N
T
15
E
CITY
~ VILLAGE
10
5
0
ELEMENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S.
4 YRS H.S.
FIGURE 2.15
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
GRAOESK-12
BOO
E
N
R
0
L
L
1100
T
llliO
4 YRS COLL.
(see Figure 2.6). School enrollment data appears
in Table 2.3.
Future elementary and high school enrollments were projected by the Saugatuck Public
School system. These projections show an upturn in high school enrollments in 1991 with a
TABLE2.3
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
850
M
E
H
1-3 YRS COLL.
500-1-.......,-.--.-,....-.--r-T""-r-T--i--r"--r-"-r--'I
73-74 75'78 71-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 8H6 &NIB
VEAR
School ~em:. pes K-12,
34% (see Fflure 2.5). When
at.f" and hjp sdlool enro.11-
data~ a 17% inerease
YEAR
79-80
K-6
7-12
TOTAL
326
80-81
81-82
82-83
83-84
84-85
85-86
307
306
252
329
322
299
290
232
303
259
296
277
265
246
215
655
629
605
542
535
555
527
540
545
511
86-87
87-88
88-89
250
275
299
296
�2-4
FIGURE 2.6
SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS
360
340
E
N
R
0
L
L
M
E
N
T
320
300
280
260
"il,,...
240
[
PROJECTIONS
'\ I
- ... )
. ~ 7-12 _
/
~
220
200
180
79-80
I
I
I
'' '··•:;.,
I
81-82
83--84
85-86
87-88
89-90
91-92
93-94
YEAR
•
continued climb in elementary school enrollments (see Figure 2.6). Total projected 1994
enrollments, however, are still 23% less than
1973-74 levels.
FUTIJRE TRENDS
If local demographic trends follow those
projected for the county as they have in the past,
then the overall proportion of retirees in the area
will expand much faster than that of school age
children. The Michigan Department of 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 of retiree in-migration suggest this
will be equally true in the Village.
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 Village and Township
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. Two key factors Will be the
availability of affordable housing and nearby
employment opportunities. In the meantime,
schools must use space and resources efficiently
as they experience tighter budgets and small
enrollments.
Many of the demographic characteristics
shown here have been analyzed based on 1980
census information. These trends should be
updated when the 1990 census information is
available. See Appendix B for more demographic
information from the 1980 census.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
H OL
MAP 2.1 PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
■
Saugatuck
~
Fennville
D
Hamilton
DATA SOURCE: Respective School Districts
Planning & Zoning Center Inc. Lansing, Ml
August 1989
s
I
DOU
�3-1
Chapters
THE ECONOMY
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
Kalamazoo River. The area also has a reputation
as a cultural center which sexves 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 tri-community
area. The Park offers no camping and thus many
visitors stay in the tri-community area. Visitor
counts from the Michigan Department of Resources. Parks Division, reveal that the park has
increased in popularity since the ?O'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
attendance since 1979, when it attracted only
11,714 visitors.
ECONOMIC BASE
Tourism
Tourism fuels the economy of the tri-community area. with associated boating, restaurant. lodging. and strong retail sectors. Of the
three jurisdictions, the City of Saugatuck relies
most heavily on tourism. 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. Although the City
of Saugatuck is seen as the resort center of the
area. the Village also benefits from and contributes to the tourist trade.
The area's resort flair is defined by: historic
buildings- including quaint bed and breakfast
inns; the many festivals; outstanding boating;
Oval Beach; downtown Saugatuck; sand dunes;
TABLE 3.1
IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986
TOT.TRAVEL
TRAVEL
EXPENDITURES GENER. PAYROLL
$42,413,000
$/Jobs
.56%
% of St.ate Total
29.52%
%change
1983-86
TRAVEL
GENER. EMPLOYMENT
STATE TAX
RECEWI'S
LOCAL TAX
RECEWI'S
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 Travel on Michigan Counties.·
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
Metal Stampings
Office Furniture
Nursing Horne
Manufacturing
Marina
Supermarket
Machinery
Pies
EMPLOYEES
43
238
78
12
21
32
24
85
Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�3-2
FIGURE 3.1
EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY
PUBLIC
fill
CITY
■ VILLAGE
SERVICES
E::;a TOWNSHIF
FIN/INS/REAL EST
~ COUNTY
RETAIL
WHOLESALE
TRANS/COMM/UTIL
MANUFACTURING
CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
10
5
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
PERCENT
How much money does travel and tourism
generate in the trt-community area? Although
current travel and tourism statistics are not
available for the trt-community 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.
Manqfacturing
Manufacturing is central to the year-round
stability of the area's economy. Although there
TABLE 3.3
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY - 1980
TOfAL
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
TCU •
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
FIRE**
Services
Public Admin.
CITY
VILLAGE
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, Utillities
.,. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Source:1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
AREA
1,669
62
132
599
52
40
319
75
328
62
COUN1Y
34,025
2,041
2,009
13,033
1,407
1,398
5,017
1,126
7,105
889
�3-3
TABLE 3.4
EMPLOYME,NT BY OCCUPATION - 1980
TOTAL
Manag. & Admin
Prof. Technical
Sales
Clertcal
Service
Fann, Fishing
Crafts & Repair
Machine Operators
Laborers. Mat. Moving
CI1Y
VlLLAGE
TOWNSHIP
AREA
COUN1Y
547
77
87
63
70
72
13
66
60
39
433
34
62
24
45
73
13
70
90
22
685
43
74
83
74
73
43
144
120
31
1,665
154
223
170
189
231
126
210
270
92
34,025
2,315
3,319
2,696
4,189
4,300
1,885
5,447
6,129
3,745
Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics.
TABLE 3.5
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
To-Community:
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
15.2
14.7
10.8
11.3
6.5
5.8
5.2
County
14.8
14.3
10.5
10.9
7.3
5.6
5.1
State
15.5
14.2
11.2
9.9
8.8
8.2
7.6
So=: MESC, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Field
Analysis Unit
are fewmanufacturtng firms, they provide a high
percentage of area jobs. Major area employers
are listed in Table 3.2.
Agriculture
Agrtculture is another strong component of
the area's economic base. Although farms are
located in the Township, Census employment
information reveal many individuals in agrtcultural employment in the Village (see Figure 3.1).
Rich Products, a major area employer, is an
agrt-business which was attracted to the region
because of its many fruit fanns. The future of
agrt-industry is bright in light of Michigan Department of Commerce efforts to promote and
expand food processing .industrtes in the state.
EMPLOYMENT
Table 3.3 breaks down employment by economic sector for the tri-community 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 vartes. Thirty-nine
percent of the Village of Douglas· labor force is
employed in manufacturtng. Yet unlike the City,
the service sector dominates the retail sector.
Service employ 22% ofVillage 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.
Although nearly all of the region's fanning
occurs in the Township. 1980 employment by
sector shows that the proportion of the labor
force employed in agrtculture in the Township
(5%) is low compared to the amount of agrtcultural activity, and only slightly higher than the
Village of Douglas. Many farmers have alternative sources of income outside of farm.ing, causing the census to count them in another
employment sector.
Employment by occupation in 1980 is
shown in Table 3.4. The highest proportion of
workers in Douglas are machine operators, followed by service workers. crafts and repair
workers. and professional/technical workers.
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. (Employment data is not
available for individual communities in the trtcommunity area. The Michigan Employment Securtty Commission aggregates it for Saugatuck
Township, the Village of Douglas. and the City
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
jii.:;-,
�3-4
of Saugatuck.} The tri-cornmunity 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 trt-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 1n
1987, areawide employment jumped dramatically. During that year Broward Marine reopened its doors: Rich Products, Harbor Health
Facilities, Paramount Tools and other area businesses increased employment: a number of
small businesses and two restaurants opened;
and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corporation expanded adding two new departments.
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 3.2
AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
2.8
2.6
T
H
2.4
0
2.2
u
s
A
2.0
1.8
N
D
1.4
s
1.2
1.0 +---.-----.--..------.----,
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
YEAR
Figure 3.3 reveals the impact of tourism on
employment 1n the tri-community area during
the surmner months.
The high number of jobs 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 this
explosion in summer employment for tourism-
TABLE 3.6
PER CAPITA INCOME ($), ALLEGAN COUNTY (TOP TEN)
Saugatuck
Laketown Township
Holland
Gunplain. Township
Otsego Township
Plainwell
Saugatuck Township
Allegan Township
Leighton Township
Filhnore TownshiQ
1979
9031
8332
8125
8074
7437
7396
7286
7170
7051
7015
Laketown Township
Saugatuck
Holland
Gunplain Township
Otsego Township
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
Filhnore Township
Plainwell
Leighton TownshiQ
1985
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
level & above
TOWNSHIP
CI1Y
VILLAGE
COUNTY
16.412
7.1%
74%
15,182
8.6%
75%
14,963
11.3%
73%
17,906
8.0%
71%
Source: 1980 Census of Population
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�3-5
FIGURE 3.4
FIGURE 3.3
MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA, 1988
TOURISM RELATED EMPLOYMENT, 1988
ALLEGAN COUN'IY
2700
1.2.
2650
E
M
p
L
0
y
M
E
N
T
1.0
2600
Q.8
2550
0.6
2500
0.4
E
MT
p H
L o
ou
y s
A
0.2
2450
0.0
MN
E D
Ns
T
2400
2350
2300+.-........---T-.--"T"'"""""T'""--,--r--"T"'""-r--,--,
J F M A M J J A S O N 0
MONTH
FIGURE 3.5
REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988)
SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP & Vlll.AGE OF DOUGLAS
~V'V'II DEVELOPMENTAL l'Y•
AGRICULTURAL 5%
INDUSTRIAL 2%
related industries in Allegan County. TWs 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 turn,
could staff area businesses during peak summer months.
TAX BASE
Residential uses make up the bulk of the
area's tax base. Tax base information is aggre-
gated for the Township and Village of Douglas.
In 1988, residential uses comprised 76% of the
real property tax base for the Township and
Village of Douglas ($43,730,725). Commercial
uses comprised 16% ($9,402,800). Agriculture
comprised 5% ($2,661.790). Industrial comprised 2% (%1,126,200). Developmental, a recently created category which refers to lands
which are assessed at a higher rate due to their
high development potential, comprised 1o/o
($430,733) (see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.6 illustrates changes in annual
real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for
the Village of Douglas, compared to Saugatuck
Township and the City of Saugatuck. The figure
shows a steady increase in the Village's real
property tax base since 1980. The sharp drop in
Township SEV is explained by the incorporation
of the City of Saugatuck and its corresponding
removal from the Township's tax base. More
information on annual Sev·s and 1988 breakdowns can be found in AppendJx B.
INCOME
Between 1979 and 1985, census estJmates
show a dramatic rise in per capita income in the
Village of Douglas- an increase of 47.4%- making it one of the top ten communities in terms of
per capita income in Allegan County. 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.)
Table 3.7 reveals selected income and poverty characteristics by jurisdiction in the tri-
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�3-6
FIGURE 3.6
ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY SEV
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87)
70
60
M
S~
ELI
VoN
50
~
-
40
=
-
s
30
Saugatuck
Douglas
Township*
Township**
20
10.k~~~-----------1980 198119821983 1984 1985 1986 1987
YEAR
* not including Village(s)
including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984
**
community area. Although the per capita income in the area has been consistently higher
than that of the county, the median household
income is lower. The median household income
is the point at which 50% of the households earn
more and 50% earn less. This statistic 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 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. 7 reveals the proportion of those
in poverty by age. (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.) Although the
largest number of poor persons are under 55, a
high proportion are elderly.
FIGURE 3.7
.
PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980)
tfil TOWNSHIP
71)
p
E
R
C
E
N
T
■
••
CITY
~ VILLAGE
so
••
,o
.
,.
LESSTHAH55
...
M,..51
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
AGE
�4-1
Chapter4
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
CLJMATE
Weather conditions affect the Village'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 growmg
certain fruits, such as apples and blueberries.
GEOLOGY
Douglas 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 lake bed deposits east of the Lake Border Moraine, a major
physiographic formation which is adjacent to
Lake Michigan.
TOPOGRAPHY
Most of Douglas is relatively flat. but local
variations in elevation of up to 50 feet exist in
some places between uplands and the floodplain
of the Kalamazoo River, and along the Lake
Michigan Shore. The golf course in the northwest part of the Village and Tannery Creek north
of Section 21 are areas having steep slopes.
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. On the topographic map (Map
4.1). steep slope areas are indicated by three or
more contour lines in close proximity.
DRAINAGE
Douglas lies within the Kalamazoo River
Basin, which begins near Jackson and extends
westward into Saugatuck Township, Douglas
and Saugatuck (see Figure 4.1). All of the land
in the Village drains into the Kalamazoo River,
except for areas directly adjacent to Lake Michigan. Most areas of the Village drain fairly well
TABLE4.1
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CLIMATE CONDITIONS
CLIMATE VARIABLES
AVERAGE CONDITION
EXTREME CONDIDON
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
-11 ° F - -35° F
96° F - 106° F
Source: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�FIGURE 4.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER BASIN
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
due to adequate slopes and highly permeable
soils. Exceptions are the West Shore golf course
area in the northwest part of the Village and
Tannery Creek. Watercourses in Douglas are
shown on Map 4.2.
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 flood•
plain in Douglas. 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.
Several homes along Douglas Bayou and
small areas of the boat storage and maintenance
facilities north of Blue Star Highway on
Kalamazoo Lake are the only developments in
the floodplain. There is not much floodplain area
within the Village, with the West Shore golf
course area and Tannery Creek being the only
sizeable floodplain areas.
WEn.ANDS
There are numerous areas within the Village which could be considered wetlands. Most
are contiguous to or hydrologically connected to
the Kalamazoo River or Tannery Creek. Some
are herbaceous and shrub rangelands. which
may or may not be considered wetlands. subject
to site characteristics. Wetlands are valuable in
storing floodwaters and recharging groundwater. They are also habitat for a wide variety of
plants and animals.
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 (DNR) prior to altering or filling a
regulated wetland. The Wetland Protection Act
defines wetlands as "land charactertzed. by the
presence of water at a .frequency and duration
s4ffteient to support and that under normal circumstances does support wetland vegetation ar
aquatic life and ts commonly referred t.o as a bog,
swamp, or marsh and ts conttguou.s to the Great
Lakes. an inland 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 (i.e. via groundwater) to waterways are also regulated. Activities exempted
from the provisions of the Act include farming.
grazing of an.tmals. farm or stock ponds, lumbering, maintenance of existing nonconforming
structures. maintenance or improvement of existing roads and streets within existing rightsof-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines
less than six inches in diameter. and maintenance or operation of electric transmission and
distribution power lines.
Permits will not be issued if a feasible or
prudent alternative to developing a wetland exists. An inventory of wetlands based on the
DNR's land use\cover inventory arc illustrated
on Map 4.4. Table 4.2 shows the land use\cover
codes pertaining to regulated wetlands ln the
area. Herbaceous and shrub rangelands may
not actually meet the statutory definition of
wetland, so on site inspections will be necessary
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�4-3
to establish whether a wetland indeed exists in
such areas.
SOILS
A modem soil survey was completed for
Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service in March, 1987. The soil types present
in the Village of Douglas are 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 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.
Approximately half of the soils in Douglas
have severe limitations on residential and urban
development. The degree of soil limitations reflects the hardship and expense of developing
the land.
Basement Limitations
Limitations for dwellings with basements
are shown on Map 4.5. Some soils impose severe
limitations on basements because of excessive
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 Classification
System
• Wetlands are sometimes, but not always associated
with these land cover types.
wetness, low strength, excessive slope. or
shrink-swell potential. These areas are found
primarily in the extreme southern part of the
Village, near and within the Felkers Subdivision.
in the West Shore golf course area. and along
Lakeshore Drive between Center St. and Campbell Rd. Most of these areas are considered
severe because of excessive wetness.
Septic Limitations
Most of the soils in Douglas impose severe
limitations on septic tank absorption fields.
while some impose only slight limitations. The
remainder are excavated areas or beaches,
which are not rated for septic limitations. The
permeability of soils in the Village ranges from
very poorly drained to excessively drained, with
neither one predominant. Map 4.6 shows the
septic limitations for the Village. This map suggests the need for municipal sewers to accommodate new development in some areas not
presently served. including parts of the Felkers
Subdivision and the southeast part of the Village.
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.
Map 4. 7 provides this more detailed analysis of
severe limitations on septic tank absorption
fields. The "severe" soils have been categorized
as follows:
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 categoxy A are classified as "severe" by the Soil Conservation 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�4-4
Portions of the Felkers Subdivision in Douglas have been designated by the Allegan County
Health Department as unsuitable for new development without sewers.(see Map 4.7a)
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 Health Department
standards by development type.
Single Family Residential
Before a permit is considered, there must
be at least 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 RestdentiaL Plus Commercial
These fall under State guidelines of at least
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 not
served by public utilities does not meet
these State standards and has been denied
commercial permits. 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 Douglas, hydric soils are found near
watercourses and correspond to present or former wetlands. Residential, commercial and in-
dustrial development in areas containing hydric
soils should be discouraged.
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 Village of Douglas, City of Saugatuck. 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.
Protection of groundwater resources is
problematic because of dilliculties in locating
aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative
location of groundwater at particular points.
According to well logs from Michigan Groundwater Suivey (MGS) data, well depths in and
around Douglas range from 33 ft. to 240 ft. Soils
most vulnerable to groundwater contamination
are found on Map 4.10.
SPECIAL FEATURES
Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches
The Lake Michigan shoreline in Douglas 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 in Douglas and Saugatuck Township due
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�4-15
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
IIlinim1ze losses resulting from natural forces of
erosion. High risk erosion areas are defined as
areas of the shore along which bluilline recession has proceeded at a long term average of 1
foot or more per year. The entire Lake Michigan
shoreline in Douglas has been designated as a
high risk erosion area, with some portions eroding at a rate of 1.6 feet per year. Within the
designated area, shown on Map 4.11, 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,
which Douglas does not.
Sand Dunes
Areas needing special attention in such standards are vegetation, drainage and erosion protection.
WOODLANDS
The wooded areas of Douglas are a mixture
of hardwoods and conifers. Upland hardwoods
are scattered throughout the Village, with some
large patches near Lake Michigan. Conifers are
only found in small patches in the extreme
southern part of the Village. Woodlands are
shown on Map 4.13 Mature trees, represent a
valuable resource in maintaining the aesthetic
character of the Village, not to mention their
overall importance to wildlife and the natural
environment. In particular, the wooded areas
along the rivers and streams are especially important. In some areas along I-196, especially in
the southern part of the Village, trees buffer the
freeway from surrounding land uses. They
should be managed to insure their long term
existence.
The sand dunes along Lake Michigan in the
extreme northwest comer of the Village 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 area
which is in the Village, the City of Saugatuck
and Saugatuck Township has been identified by
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(DNRJ as a critical dune area, subject to protection under the Michigan Sand Dune Protection
and Management Act, PA 222 of 1976. The
designated critical dune area is shown in the
shaded region of Map 4.12.
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 signiflcance must ultimately 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 pemut 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 to prevent
further deterioration of this fragile environment.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
'
:
_.;I,
.t
'
--
I
:'/,
-~
-
~
,'I --
~-
'
.,,
:·
,.
,,
~
--------------✓';:.
,
-
----
-----
=---==--
/
--
,- __,,-- -~
- -==:-:::=,:~
~
~ I
- ------
...___ -
I
-
--:-"'\--..,
--------c!3 ~
~
--;··
~
---------------
_./ .,,,------------ C
~
c:::::::)
-
·...,
--~ - ~
_____ __. __3-.,-....,---- _,,
-
'
-
~
~
----
'
-~,.
---
-~~---"'IT1
----- --
.::--- _J:
-- _/ ✓----~
:::::::::=~....,.__~- . j·~
------
:;:;.
- ---
;'~~~ -----
;J_
j
~\
,,,_,_ '~''
0
-------Douglas
MAP4.1 TOPOGRAPHY
Contour interval is ten feet
Darker lines are 50 foot contours
0
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Maps
Planning & Zoning Cenler Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
CAMPBEL:..... RD .
..... _. ,:_:::.:;.:7············-······-·········-·················
I
I
I ,
/
/ C E NT ER
~.J:·:····•........../
i
DOUGLAS
---------
.•··
.............. -
r==
0
I
>-Cl:'.
;
'r{
I
I
Cl:'.
w
U...
I:
'Ii
I
I
I
•
,
I ,
•
1.:30THI
~.,..............\ .....
r
\~
·-....." ., .
L. ..........i'
~If' JJ1
ij
fTl
I
I
v,
I
.
I
,/(
~
'
. 1
\~
0
r·····--···1 _]
i
'··························i
fTl
.
....____,__, 12 9 T H
-I
-I
I
'I
(/)
.\
-I
/
/1
I
Douglas
MAP4.2 WATERCOURSES
0
Lakes, rivers and streams
[2]
Drains and intermittent streams
0
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
m
(Ji
CJ)
.·········•...... ~
t;V~~-\
l ,,
August 1989
AVE .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CJ)
-..
J. . .•······,'//.>
:·:.:
1~
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing. Ml
�N
A
,.._.._.
CAMPBELL
1600
0
RO. -
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
I
CENTER
/1
IV)
>-0:'.
I
O:'.
w
L...
~
1
..
196 ,
.)-
'
---------'1-.,, " ' · ~
I
31
, ~ 12 9 T H
\ \J)
, I
0
I XI
I
AV!::.
Ol
Ol
--i
I
1 rr1
,.✓:;/
l/l
--i
//
MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS
Douglas
100 Year Flood Area
500 Year Flood Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
I
Ol
U1
--i
I
l/l
--i
�N
A
-------i
, I
0
L--,---
I
800
1600
2400
'--,
I
I
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
_j
r - -,,----.. . __--------1___,
--1 ~
I
/
1 ' .~
I ,
-=:::,,
I \
I
- ,
,
.:e
- ••
-··::::r
I
/
'
I
~I
;:
l\
..__.
•:!Blfflftih...,'
I
,- -<-.____,
I
,
l__,
,
~
l r - - -_,__________,~·
I
•
~
-~
MAP 4.4 WETLANDS
•
■
■
II
Lowland Hardwood
Lowland Conifer
Wooded Swamp
August 1989
II
■
■
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Douglas
Shrub Swamp
II
Marshland Meadow &
Mud Flats
Herbaceous Rangeland
Shrub Rangeland
Planning & Zoning Cent&r Inc:, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
,I/IC
: ·: :
j::/
r
C. .
§.
a
:
t::,
,'
i:::-:::,,
. •.· ..:" :......... .· .
.
..... .
.... .. ,.··-- •::::::
::: :::; ;:::: .
•.
. .
'
•·•
-·•·•
! :: : : '. ~ : i ~ i i.
...
.. ...
! " . ·: : ::::
·· · •
MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS
1111
Severe
■
Excavated
flIIIIl
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
Q
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County:
Douglas
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP 4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
Ill
Severe
mm
Moderate
~
Wetland Soils
CJ
Slight
~
Sand Dunes
August 1989
Douglas
Excavated
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County:
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
��----------------------,- ·-----i'
:
I
I
I
!
I
r
,
b _...
''
/
I
''I
I
I/
I
i
__
'
-
: ==I
T T T
- - -- - - --- - --
!
8
~
20
-·I!
o'-,/
l!
rir I
-
t
~
1
-
----
·---------------------- i-------
I
I!
l
''D
I
......
...
t
2S
I
I
I
I
II
-~\~
I
I
1
'
II
"'·'('s
311
"= .
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
,::::-:.:~.:--.. . W:.IUll
m =.r:r1::o
W.M.lll
MAP 4.7 A
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS
Douglas
38
�N
A
,_____
0
800
9
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS
Ill
Soils Most Suitable For Development
■
Excavated Areas
DATA SOURCE: USDA SoU Survey, Allegan County
Douglas
Planning & Zoning Cent&r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS
lil
Hydric Soils
~
Wetland Soils
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County
Douglas
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
��N
A
CAMPBELL
RD.
0
800
1600
2400
- / - - -?cale 1" = 1748 ft
/'
ST. ··
'
I
\
ft/l
/
I I
/
,~- - - ~ 1
>-
--~/
0::
I
--
I
a::
w
Li.
,
,.
130TH
AVE. ,c
r,
I
.... _
I
..)
I
.........
.,.
.'}
'...,
.--
-7
--------~~. __,
I
---..,
._J__,
~
// '
' 196
31
-,________,..._,. 129TH
AVE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - . · 0)
0)
--!
I
t/l
--!
MAP 4.11 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS
Accretion Area
Douglas
Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in
feet per year
Recession Area
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
KALAMAZOO
,..___
LAKE
0
A
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 tt
CENTER
ST.
DOUGLAS
BA YOU -
I----lj)
~-,.-/
>-er
--
tr
w
LL
130TH
~
AVE.c.
_ _ _J . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _- , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ . . - - : - - - - - - - - - .
729TH
AVE.
I))
m
-!
I))
Ul
-!
~
I
t/)
0
JJ
-!
Ul
-1
--
MAP4.12 CRITICALDUNEAREAS
fgj
Douglas
Critical Dune Areas
Auggst 1989
DATA SOURCE: MDNR
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale, .. = 1748 ft
.._______
/1/
,,,.,~,,,,.,..,.
,,
,.,,.,
n
,,.,.,.,,,,;-,;
.,.,..,.,..,.,,.,.,.,
,::i~~~~~~H~~H~i~H~i~~
,~;~:gfigg~f1!Hi!~ffigg;
MAP4.13 WOODLANDS
II
II
§
§
Upland Conifer
Upland Hardwood
Wooded Swamp
Lowland Conifer
Shrub Swamp
DATA SOURCE: MONA
-c::cc::.::.:::::c-;;;;:.;;;;;;.~,
i;;;;;;;;;;;;
Douglas
Lowland Hardwood
August 1989
t._i~i:;::ill"
.,.,,-,,,.,.,,,,,,..,.,,,,.n,,,,,.,.,,.,.,,.,._,,.,,,.,..,.,.
,,.;,.,.,,.,.,,.,.,.,,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,.,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.,.,.,
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�5-1
Chapter5
EXISTING LAND COVER AND USE
LAND USE/COVER DATA SOURCES
RESIDENTIAL
Land cover and use refers to an inventory
of existing vegetation, natural features, and land
use over the entire Village (see Map 5.1). This
data was obtained in computerized 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 Douglas, conducted
in the summer of 1988. The inventory was based
on ownership parcels and conducted both on
foot and through a "windshield survey". The
existing 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 (parcelbased) land use map (see Map 5. 2). The following
description is based on these maps and data
sources and the USDA Soil Smvey of Allegan
County.
Land use by category is shown in Table 5.1.
This infonnatlon was derived from the aforementioned data sources and areas were calculated using CMAP computer mapping software.
The predominant land use in Douglas is
single family residential. This is followed by golf
courses. commercial, and boat service and storage, respectively. Vacant land comprises forty
five percent of the total land area (street ROW's
excluded) of the Village. Following are brief geographic descriptions of existing land use. These
descriptions are based on the planning/neighborhood areas depicted on Map 5.3.
The majority of residential development in
Douglas is clustered in the Village Center area
and along the Lake Michigan shore. Most resort
and seasonal residential development is located
along Lake Michigan. Single family structures
are the predominant residential type. Two mobile home parks are located in the southern part
of the Village near the intersection of Blue Star
Highway and 130th Avenue. There are several
multiple family structures within the Village.
Among these are an apartment building at the
corner of Ellis and Center Streets, condominiums between Ferry Street and Kalamazoo Lake,
and apartments in the block between Fremont
and Center Streets west of Blue Star Highway.
Several large older homes have been converted
to two or three units or bed and breakfast
establishments. There are currently three bed
and breakfasts in the Village.
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING LAND USE
IAND USE
Residential
single-family
multi-family
mobile home
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Agricultural
Parks
Golf Courses
Boat Storage &
Service
Kalamazoo
River Wetland
Streets & Roads
Vacant
TOTAL
ACRES
218
29
18
44
32
28
24
23
130
34
34
155
fil.6
1284
%
1IAMSROW-
16.98%
2.26
1.40
3.43
2.49
2.18
1.87
1.79
10.12
2.65
2.65
12.07
1:U..N
100.080/4
• % of total land area mtnus street ROWs
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�5-2
Village Center
Approximately 25 blocks of long-established neighborhoods surround the original
center of the Village. These consist primarily of
older homes with some homes less than 30 years
old scattered throughout. The condition of
homes 1n this area varies widely, with some
structures recently improved and others lacking
maintenance over a long a period of time. Although dilapidated houses are relatively few in
number. they have a significant negative impact
on aesthetics and property values in the Village
Center area. Accessory buildings such as separate garages or sheds are prevalent on residential properties in the Village Center area. and
many of these are poorly maintained as well as
highly visible. One home on north Water Street
was built in the floodplain, too close to the
waterfront. It is vacant and not maintained, and
detracts from the aesthetic quality of the waterfront. The tree lined streets, relatively large lots
and large wood frame homes give this part of the
Village a classic charm.
Lakeshore Area
The Lake Michigan shore is lined with both
large and small single family homes. many of
them seasonal dwellings along Lakeshore Drive.
The condition of structures in this area is fairly
consistent from house to house. with most of
them being in good to excellent condition. The
lakeshore area is characterized by scenic vistas
of the lake, although sand dunes and numerous
structures obstruct the view of the lake while
travelling north from Center Street. Large trees
line the road and many homes are on wooded
lots. A bed and breakfast establishment is also
located in this area.
Campbell Road & West Center Street
The residential area along Campbell Road
in both Douglas and Saugatuck includes a mix
of newer and older homes. To the south of this
area is the West Shore golf course, which contributes to a rural setting, with its large trees
and open space. There is also some vacant land
outside of the golf course which is in the floodplain and thus should not be developed. Felkers
subdivision south of West Center St. is a partially completed residential subdivision on an
area of poor soils where new homes will have to
be connected to the sewer system in order to be
permitted.
Scattered Residential
In the southern part of the Village along
130th. Avenue. and along Ferry Street between
Center Street and 130th. Avenue, residential
development is scattered along the road with
varying lot and structure sizes. Ferry Street is
lightly travelled and residences are minimally
affected by vehicle traffic. Commercial uses adjacent to the residential areas are not buffered
and also impact upon adjoining residential
uses. In addition to single family homes. there
are two mobile home parks located next to each
other south of 130th. Avenue and east of Blue
Star Highway. Harbours Apartments are located
south of 130th. Avenue, between Water and
Union Streets.
There are also residences along south Water
Street, from east 130th. Avenue to South Street.
This area is surrounded by undeveloped land,
including an orchard, which serves to give it a
rural character. Several residences are located
on the Kalamazoo River between Schultz Park
and Water Street as well.
Condominiums
Three major condominium developments
have occurred in Douglas within the last five
years. The Amity condominiums are located
north of 130th. Avenue between Water Street
and Blue Star Highway. The Mariners Cove
condominiums are located adjacent to the boat
docks on Kalamazoo Lake near Saugatuck.
Tower Harbour condominiums are located along
Ferry Street directly south of Mariners Cove.
COMMERCIAL
The major commercial areas in Douglas are
Blue Star Highway from the Kalamazoo River
bridge to 130th. Avenue, and in the Village
Center. Boat storage and repair facilities represent a different type of commercial use and are
found mostly in areas near the waterfront.
Blue Star Highway
The commercial area along Blue Star Highway is concentrated from Chestnut to 130th and
represents a form of unplanned commercial
strip development. Lots were developed independently at widely varying points in time without any consideration for safe and functional
design vis a vis adjoining parcels. Commercial
strips 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 en-
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
��5-4
East of the bridge down to where Tannery
Creek enters the Douglas Bayou is characterized
by residential development and some boat slips.
The balance of the shoreline in Douglas is largely
wetland to Schultz Park with a few single family
homes.
HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEA1URES
Some archaeological sites historic sites can
be found in Douglas. 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 three State historic sites in Douglas, which are listed on Table
5.2.
State historic site designation does not include any financial or tax benefits. nor does it
impose any restrictions upon the owner of the
property, unlike similar designations under federal law.
TABLE 5.2
STATE WSTORIC SITES
DESCRIPI10N .
LOCATION
Douirlas:
Dutcher Lodlle # 193 Hall
Asa Goodrich House
Sarah Kirbv House
86 Center St.
112 Center St.
294 W. Center St.
Source: Michigan Bureau of History
Archaeological Sites
Archaeological sites are of particular scientific value to the fields of anthropology. ecology.and biology and may have hlStoric or ethnic
signiftcance as well. There are 120 atchaeologlcal sites scattered throughout Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas, mostly related to
Ottawa and Potawatomi cultures. Their exact
Iocattonsbave not beendiSclosedbythe Bureau
of History ..
t,o protect them from~
tatfon. ~ cil F ~; ~
.
-.er
~tllatthctr
History reviews these projects to assess their
impact on archaeological sites.
The Bureau of History also recommends
that those proposing development projects in
Douglas contact the State Archaeologist to determine if the project may affect a lmown archaeological site. This is particularly critical
given the existence of Indian Burial sites fn the
area. If an important archaeological site will be
affected, archaeologists will negotiate a voluntary agreement to preserve those artifacts. The
Bureau of History serves in an advisory capacity
and has no legal authority to restrict development rights.
�Douglas
MAP 5.1 LAND USE/COVER
WATER
URBAN
113 Single Family
115 Mobile Home
124 Neighborhood Business
•••
•••
•••
126 Other Institutional
193 Outdoor Recreation
□
52 Lakes
~
~
~
611 Wooded Swamps
IlIIIll
FARMLAND
WETLAND
612 Shrub Swamps
621 Marshland Meadow
622 Mud Flats
BEACH
21 Cropland
72 Beach At Riverbank
22 Orchards
73 Dunes
RANGELAND
II
Ill
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
�N
A
Village of Douglas
LAND USE/COVER
0
800
1600
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
2400
�MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE
~ Single Family Residential
I] Mulltiple Family Residential
~
~
~j~~:
nm
Douglas
Agricultural - Orchard
Recreational
[fflffl
Junkyard
■ Commercial
~
Mobile Home Park
il!IIII Boat Storage/Marina
[II Vacant
HH
Industrial
III]]]
Wetland
!Im!
Institutional
D
Water
Residential/Commercial
___ .__ Agricultural
~~~~
August 1989
SOURCE: PZC Land Use Survey
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
,-,.-.0
700
1400
Village of Douglas
EXISTING LAND USE
2100
Scale 1" = 1438'
...
•
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
lSUfOYIL PS
Douglas
MAP5.3 PLANNING AREAS
~ Lakeshore
9
Waterfront
■
II Campbell & West Center
~
Ferry & W. Of Blue Star
~·
Village Center Residential
Bluestar Industrial
~
East 130th
■ Blue Star Commercial
August 1989
a
DATA SOURCE; Douglas PlaMing Commisssion
Village Center Commercial
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
~
�6-1
Chapter6
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
NON-PARK PUBUC FACIUTIES
A listing of all non-park public facilities in
the Village ofDouglas is found on Table 6.1. This
includes police and fire stations, municipal government offices, vacant lands and other public
facilities (see Map 6.1). Table 6. la lists planned
acquisitions and improvements to non-park
public facilities.
UTILITIES
Sewer and Water
The Saugatuck-Douglas area sewer and
water systems are managed by the Kalamazoo
Lake Sewer and Water Authortty, which is responsible for operation and maintenance and
provides water production and wastewater
treatment. Each participating 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 6.2 and 6.3, extend
only for very short distances into Saugatuck
Township. Most of the developed part of the
Village is served by both water and sewer, and
the system is designed to accommodate expansion and addition of new lines.
Numerous engineering studies have been
conducted which discuss vartous 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 area are
more pronounced than in typical communities
due to the relatively high seasonal and daily
visitor population.
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
chlortnation and iron sequestertng. 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 liver 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
for the near future. but additional capacity is
needed if service 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 durtng peak months. This has led
to restrtctions on non-essential uses such as
lawn sprinkling. car and boat washing, and has
reduced the minimum reserve needed for fire
protection (600,000 gallons) down to 2/3 of the
needed amount. A moratorium has been imposed on new development other than one or two
family dwellings. The pumping capacity of both
wells has dropped due to depletion (drawdown)
of groundwater.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�6-2
TABLE 6.1
(NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITJES INVENTORY
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
NAME
LOCATION
USE
Gravel storCorner
Ferry & Cen- age
ter
Library
Mixer&
Library
(Saugatuck- Center Sts.
Douglas)
Office, fire
Spring &
Fire barn
Center Sts. barn
Vacant lot
DPWbarn
Water&
Center Sts.
DPWbarn
Two
pump houses
& pumps
Barn
(launch
ramp
curently
closed)
SIZE*
CONDillON VALUE
28,000 sq. ft. Dry
(1/2 acre+)
$35,000
4327 sq.ft.
Good
(1 lot-8400
SQ.ft.)
2560 sq.ft.
Good
(1/4 acre10,000
Sa.ft.)
2432 sq.ft.
Poor
(1 3/4 acres80,000
sq.ft.)
$96,000
Well housing combined
bldgs=360
sq.ft. (land
includes
DPWbarn)
66 sq.ft.
None
wide
Good
$100,000
Land is valuable. river
frontage &
walk be converted to
park and/or
marina
$26,000
Gerber,
Varied
South.
Ferrnont.
Randolph,
Soencer
• Land = acres or square feet (Building= square feet/acres)
1/2 vacant
street ends
on K. River
&Lake
TABLE 6.lA
PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC FACILITJES
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
NAME
WCATION
USE
Allegan
County Rd.
Commission
barn
Douglas Masonic Lodge
130th &
Water Sts.
DPW
barn/Interurban facilitv
Village &
Public Hall
Union &
Center Sts.
SIZE*
CONDillON ACQUISITION COST
3700 sq.ft.
Fair
$55,000(2.2 acres)
total less interurban
share
7,000 sq.ft. Poor
Free (lease
(8,400 sq.ft .•
exchange
1 lot)
with Masonic)
Land = square feet (Building = square feet/ acres)
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
FINANCING
SOURCE
$55.000/land
contract
With F.M.B.
$200.000/loc
al fund raisers. histortcal monies if
available
�6-3
Communications from the Michigan Department of Public Health have demanded that
substantial 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. 1s contaminated. and well #2, which is used for emergency
purposes only, may become contaminated
through further use. As a result. alternatives for
additional 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 service 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
serve the needs of all three communities well
into the future. This, combined with a desire to
retain local control over the water system,
makes using Lake Michigan water the favored
alternative.
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) is 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 3()(% of
suspended solids capacity. Existing effluent
quality and treatment efficiency was found to be
excellent. Increasing the rated capacity of the
facility to 1.2 MOD 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 $900,000 in 1987.
Sewer System
Wastewater treatment is provided ata treatment plant located in Section 10 of Saugatuck
Township. 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.
The sewer system in Douglas was built
entirely since 1978. Douglas and Saugatuck
merged their facilities in the late 1970's to form
the KLSWA 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.
Storm Sewers
There are very few mapped stormwater
drains in Douglas. Drainage has not been a
significant problem in most developed areas
because of sandy, high permeability soils and
lack of large paved areas. Efforts are currently
underway to improve stomiwater drainage.
County Drains
There are three County drain districts
which are partially located within Douglas.
These include the Herring, Jager Crane. and
Warnock drains. All are located in the extreme
southern part of the Village
Gas, Electric and Telephone
There are no major gas or oil pipelines in
Douglas. Gas service is provided by Michigan
Gas Utilities Company and approximate locations of gas mains are shown on Map 6.4. Electricity in the Village iS provided by Consumers
Power Company. Telephone service is provided
by General Telephone and Electric Co. (GTE).
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�6-4
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation facilities within the area include streets and roads and a public transportation system (Interurban). Douglas is served by
a major Interstate highway (I-196). which runs
along the eastern edge of the Village, and by a
State highway (M-89). located three miles to the
south in Saugatuck Township. Blue Star Highway, part of the Great Lakes Circle Tour, is the
other major highway serving the area. The 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. The area
is also served by Greyhound Bus Lines. Transportation facilities are important in stimulating
growth for Douglas 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 (Union 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 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 11rnited (1-196). Locations of
collectors, local arterials and regional arterials
are shown in Map 6.5. 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.
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 6.2 shows what very limited Information is presently available from the County
Road Commission.
PA 51 of 1951 provides for the classlftcatlon
of all publJc roads, streets and highways for the
purpose of managtng the motorvehicle htghway
fund. The two classiflcations which pertain to
the Village of Douglas are ·Major Street" and
"Local Street". These roadways are shown in
Map 6.6. 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. Douglas has 4.34 miles
of Major Roads and 10.92 miles of Local Roads
under Act 51 designation.
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.
TABLE 6.2
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE
LOCATION
4L3L78
Blue Star & 64th
130thE &Wof
Blue Star
Blue Star & 129th
1959 & 1968
(same count)
July 1987 (2
different days)
1969
1982
July 1987
July 1987
Old Allegan, east
of Blue Star
130th & 70th, east
of Lakeshore Dr.
North 135th at
Blue Star (northboundl
129th at Blue
Star [northbound)
October 1985 Center at Blue
star
VOWME
5,319
368
10,575
81256
336
285
7,018
6,192
1~861
�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 (except from the bridge to Center St.).
causing pedestrians to use the shoulder, unsafely. The roadway needs to have more than
two lanes (at least from Center to 130th) or
clearly delineated deceleration and right tum
lanes. The shoulders are paved in places and
these are often mistaken for actual lanes, which
poses a safety hazard and results in the paVing
deteriorating rapidly since the foundation for
heavy use is not in place. There is no cooperative
maintenance or planning arrangement among
the Village, Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township for Blue Star Highway and the County Road
Commission, yet the roadway needs repairs and
resurfacing.
Very little useable traffic count information
is available, except for the intersection with
Center Street, making it difficult to assess where
needs are greatest 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 entrance into Douglas from south Blue
Star Highway does not cause visitors to have a
positive first impression of the community.
Over 60% of people responding to the 1988
Public Opinion Survey noted that the appearance of the highway needed improvement.
Nearly 76% of Village respondents indicated
that the Highway needs improvements in better
lane striping, resurfacing, speed limits, traffic
flow and safety, and bike paths.
Intentrban
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 1OOo/4 by the State. Following
the experimental period. some of the cost burden was borne by the tri-communities through
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 communities.
POIJCE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police
The Village 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. Police
protection for the Village of Douglas is also
provided by the Allegan County Sheriff Department and the Michigan State Police. 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 satellite post in Fennville.
Fire
Saugatuck is 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
fire stations, one located in downtown Douglas
(4 7 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 lntemational Pumper
• 1968 International Pumper
• 1959 Ford Pumper
• 1949 Seagrave Aerial
• 1977 GMC Step Van
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�6-6
• 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 responder unit with 11 volunteers because of the
distance from ambulance services. The first responder unit appears to average about 10 calls
per month.
TABLE6.3
TONS GENERATED PER DAY
BYLAND USE
SOURCE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Not Collected
NEfTOTAL
QUANTI1Y (PER DAY)
6.5
2.8
1.8
0.7
-0.5
11.3
Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan
SCHOOLS
Douglas is served by the Saugatuck school
district. The school system operates two facilities. Douglas Elementary School accommodates
grades K through 6, and Saugatuck High School
accommodates grades 7 through 12. In addition
to being used for educational purposes, the
schools also have indoor and outdoor recreation
facilities. Enrollment is approximately 550 students.
•
OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITlES
There is more than 37 acres of public land
in Douglas, most of which is parks (see Chapter
7). Other publicly owned facilities are listed in
table 6.1.
SOLID WAS'IE 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
out-side of Allegan County. Solid waste removal
in Douglas is handled entirely by private haulers. The waste stream from the County, and
thus from the Village, 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
TABLE 6.4
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
1YPE
POTSW•
Percentage(%)
44.8
9.2
Combustible Wastes
Paper
Plastics
Wood
Yard Wastes
Textiles
Food Wastes
Rubber
Misc. Organics
3.5
4.1
4.2
11.5
2.2
3.0
82.5
TITTALS
Noncombustible Wastes
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonFerrous
Misc. Inorganics
TITTALS
5.3
6.6
0.8
0.5
4.3
17.5
* Proportion of Total Solid Waste
Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan
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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�6-7
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;6 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 individual efforts. The
contributors to the solid waste stream by land
use are shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.4 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
Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas
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 tri-community
area, but give a rough estimate of the components.
Per capita waste generated from various
land uses is shown in Table 6.5.
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
currently in operation on Blue Star Highway
adjacent to 1-196 and exit 41. The center is
partially funded by Saugatuck, Douglas and
Saugatuck Township and is very well used.
Allegan County Resource Recovery maintains
the facility, which collects newspapers, plastics,
glass, aluminum and brown paper bags. Pickup
of metal appliances and tires is also possible by
contacting the center. The recycling center was
started in 1984.
State regulations prohibit operation of a
new landfill on:
• Land considered by the DNR to be a State
recognized unique wildlife habitat.
• Land in the 100 year floodplain.
• Prime agricultural lands.
• A DNR designated and officially mapped
wetland.
• So close to an histortc 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 wetlands in the
Village (Map 4.4). prime agrtcultural lands (Map
4.10). 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 Village.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP 6.1 Public Facilities
Douglas
1)2 Pumphouses 2)Vacant block 3)1/2 Vacant street ends on Kzoo Rvr & Lake 4 & S)Vacant lot 6)Llbrary
7)Fire District #1 & Fire Barn 8)DPW Barn 9)Saugatuck Township Hall 10)Village Hall 11)Outcher Hall
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:
Planning & Zaring Center Inc Laneing Ml
�N
A
o
•.ooo
e,ooo
12,000 tt
Scale 1" • 9060 ft
MAP6.2 WATERSYSTEM
I# IWater Mains
■
~
Douglas
Reservoir
Proposed Water Intake &
Treatment area
I00 0,'0 I Existing Well Locations
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�l
-----------
N
A
I
l
I
t"
I
I
I
I
I
UUIII
\'
MAP 6.3 SEWER SYSTEM
Tri-Community
I~ISewer Lines
1,1
Discharge Line
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: Wdliams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids
Planning & Zoning Cen18r Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
,..____
0
4,000
8,000
12,000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
MAP 6.4 GAS MAINS
Douglas
I/IGas Mains
August 1989
SOURCE:Michigan Gas Utilities Company
Planning & Zoning Center Inc., Lansing.Ml
�N
A
MAP 6.5 STREET CLASSIFI CATIONS
[ZJ
Regional Arterials
~
Local Arterials
G::J
Collectors
August 1989
DATA SOURCE: PZC
I/I
Douglas
Local Streets
Planning I Zonil'l9 Center Inc Lansing Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP6.6 ACT 51 ROADS
I,, I Major Street
14'1
0
Douglas
State Trunkline
County Primary
~ t 1989
DATA SOURCE: MOOT
Planning I Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
2400
�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 atmosphere 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 STRUCTIJRE
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
Village is also represented on the Township Park
and Recreation Commission- an independent
governmental entity charged with provision of
area parks and recreational programs which
was created by the Township in November 1970.
The Commission has six elected members, and
is staffed by a part-time maintenance person.
Representatives of both Douglas and Saugatuck
Township may be elected to the Commission.
The Commission completed the Saugatuck Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan in February of 1985 and updates the plan periodically.
Revision of the plan is currently undetway.
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.
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 Commtssion, the County Planning
Commission, the County Drain commissioner,
Village of Dou&Ias
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 RECREATION.AL OPPORTIJNITIES
Recreation can be separated into four main
categories: physical, social, cognitive, and environmentally related recreation. The former 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.
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
ACTIV11Y
1989
PARTICIPANTS
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, intermediate, swJmmer, basfC rescue & advanced
lifesaving
40
46
19
10-18
27
15-20
57
66
..
-
�7-2
Sundown, Schultz, and Beery Parks and the
Douglas Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes
are offered at the High school. Walking, hildng,
biking, boating. golfing, swimming, and cross
country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by
a wide range of age groups.
Social Recreation
A variety oflocal 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,
the High School. the Masonic Hall, and various
area clubs.
Cognitive Recreation
The tri-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.
I,
I
I;
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 actlvitles 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 Village citizens. as
identified in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. is
not physical recreation, but the scenic view they
provide.
RECREATION INVENTORY
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 trt-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.
Proposed recreation projects contained in
the Saugatuck - Douglas Recreation Plan are
listed in Table 7.4. Douglas officials have also
proposed the following future recreation lmprovement projects:
• Relocate the public service garage located
at Center Street and the Kalamazoo River
and develop the site into a riverfront park.
Install restrooms.
• Acquire and develop a park site located
west of Ferry St. in close proximity to the
existing residential area.
• Develop Schultz Park to its fullest potential
by: creating a landscaped buffer along I196: establishing picnic facilities; installing restrooms; installing lawn watering
equipment; expanding to add more ball
fields and other facilities; and ensuring
adequate parking.
• Develop a pedestrian/bicycle route from
Schultz Park to the Village's northern
boundary which closely follows the waterfront.
• Expand the Douglas public beach.
Table 7.5 includes a schedule of other planned
park and open space acquisitions and improvements in Douglas.
r"'"\
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 hiking 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 tri-community
area. Those recommended for Douglas are
shown below in order of priority:
• Center Street from Tara to Lake Shore
Drive.
Village of Douglas ComprehensiVe Plan
~
"'
�7-3
TABLE 7.2
INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
1.ocation
Size
(acreal
I.River Bluff
27
2-Sundovn
.4
l-Amalanchier
~i:u
..
...0..,
:
""
j
....
~
"" .
!! :; •. : . •:
~
....u ...
. - ~:
411• .
.:: =
~~
! c.-,g
!
3
~
if
t ~
.... . : !i '} ...• - i ] ~~ :: . :: ~ a • 8t ,_i-9
!J ,..~~I
X
X ,
X
1.2
X
X
20
X
X
8-Center St. Launcl
X
-
X
)
l(
X
X
'J(
.s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
60*
'A
X
X
X
X
)(
X.
X
X
X
..
X
20. Hil!:h School
21. St, Peter's
X
X
X
.~
..::
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
36
2). West Wind KOA
X
X
16. Oval Beach
22. 63rd St. Launch
X
X
51
8.6
X
X
IS.Ht. Baldhead
19. Elementary Sch.
X
X
)I
X·
154
X
41
X
-
.s
l 7. TallmaRe Woods
X
X
2.s
~
X
-
18. Old "Airpor.t''
.;.
L
X
X X
)
12,Willow Park
14.Spear St. Launch
~
C:
'lC
X
11. Wicks Park
13.Cook Park
41
X
5.H. Beery Field
10.Villaae Square
•
C
l(
4
1.4
7.Union St. Launch
0
)
4. Douglas Beach
6.schult:i: Park
I
C
l -- M
X
24. Blue Star lliway
Roadside Park
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25. Riverside Park
• 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 St. Peter's Drive. 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.
• 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.
Those recommended for Saugatuck are
shown below in order of priority:
• Park Streets from Campbell to Perryman.
• Oval Beach road.
The regional bike path system would connect with Saugatuck's chain link feny to afford
bicyclists east/west access. This connection
runs down Holland Street and across Francis
Street to the waterfront and will be served 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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�7-4
TABLE 7.3
PARKLAND INVENTORY
NAME OF PARK LOCATION
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
1YPE/YEAR
USES
SIZE
CONDITION
pressbox-220
sq.ft., dugouts350 sq.ft., land52,000 sq.ft, l
acre
beach-36,400
sq.ft. nearly 1
acre. bathhouse280 .ft.
pavillion-1326
sq.ft... land- 20
acres
66'xl20'
pressbox & wash- None
room poor; otherwise good
Dou las
Beery Field
Center & Main
Sts.
baseball playground. picnic
Douglas Beach
Lakeshore Dr.
public beach &
picnic
Schultz
softball, picnic,
130th &
Kalamazoo River playground,
launchram2
Union St. at Kai. launch ramp,
River
2icnic area
River Bluff
Kal River above
1-196 bridge; access from Old AlleganRd.
hilting, picnic.
27 acres
boaters stop, nature study. swinging & sandbox
Sundown
Lake MI Bluff at
126thAve.
Blue Star
Blue Star Hwy.
south of Skyline
Restaurant
picnics, watch66'xl50'
ing lakes & sunsets. scenic
turnout
30'x200'
picnics, resting
for travelers
Center St Park
Eastern end of canoe launching,
picnics, scenic
Center at
Kalamazoo River viewing
Sau9.atuck
Village Square
3 acres
tennis courts,
2.5 acres
drinking fountain,
playground,
benches,
Butler & Main
Streets
Fair
None
Good
Acquisition/'89
Good
None
newly installed
entry road & pienicarea New
dock & picnic
shelter
Very poor
pad for
dumpster /'89,
more fiowers/'89,
toilet improvements/ 1990-92
new fence: needs
landscaping/ 1989-1992
new.flowers;
needs new bollards & fence re-
fence work/ 1989,
bollards/ 1989-90
Poor
additional docking, public
restrooms, gazebo
Good
restrooms
Wicks Park
Waterfront between Main &
Mary Streets
Willow Park
Waterfront at
Butler & Lucy
Waterfront on
Water Street
Spear Street
streetend
Cook Park
Boat Ramp
bandstand,
boardwalk,
benches, fishing. restrooms
Viewing area,
benches
picnic tables
1 /2 acre
approx.
Good
132 ft
Good
132 ft.
Good
boat launch
66 ft.
Good
~
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�7-3
TABLE 7.3 (continued)
PARKLAND INVENTORY
NAME OF PARK
Mt. Baldhead
Park
LOCATION
Park Street
Oval Beach
Park
Lake Michigan
Tallmadge
Woods
USES
picnic shelter, tables, restrooms.
Wking trails. parking, stairway to
observation deck
on top of dune,
two observation
decks on river
beach house, concession stand,
parking, picnic
area. BBQ grills,
viewing deck.
stairs to beach,
observation deck.
nature 1rails
current use restricted
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 smvey of waterfront usage revealed that
the most popular waterfront actMty is viewing.
The second most popular use varied by waterbody. Swimming was the primruy use of Lake
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
SIZE
51 acres
CONDITION
36 acres
Good
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
1YPE/YEAR
Good
new concession
stand&
restrooms/ 1990
100 acres
Good
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 by
all three Jurisdictions. Open space along Lake
Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River were also
given high priority by the majority of respondents in the Village (64-69%). 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 is used most frequently of the area parks
by residents of each jurisdiction. Douglas Beach
is also frequently used. Wicks. Schultz, and
Beery park are more frequently used by Douglas
and Saugatuck residents. than those 1n the
Township.
Despite the low usa_ge of ~ parlcs m.
fleeted Jn the survey. 50% ofV~ rupopdent!s
sa.tcl that addJ.ticmal par.ks WOJtt • JUlhi ~
lbe survey~ not ,:eive
~
Q'J)e
a
�7-6
TABLE 7.4
PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS
TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PROPOSED PROJECT
VERY HIGH PRIORITY
LOCATION
Willow Park preservation and improvement
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
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
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.
(active, passive, neighborhood, waterfront. etc.)
Village respondents feel is needed. Future recreation plans could explore this issue.
It is important to note that survey responses reflect the usage charactertstics 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- espe-
cially 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�7-7
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 support for a
senior center in the Village and Township. Fortyfive percent of Village respondents and 53% of
Township respondents felt that a senior center
deserved high priority. Only 25% of City residents called for a senior center- surprising,
given the high proportion of seniors in the City's
resident population.
RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING
In terms of priorities for spending current
tax dollars, 42-48% of respondents felt that
parks and recreation are a high priority. Waterfront improvement was rated high by 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 truces.
TABLE 7.5
PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
ACQUISillON
LOCATION
Esther McSic East side
Union SL property
Kal. Lake,
North of Blue
Star (Douglas)
RuthMcNaLandlocked
mara property end of Schultz
Park (Douglas)
Blue Star &
Vacant Lot
Main St.
(Douglas)
SE 1/4 SecOld
tlon2
Saugatuck
(Saugatuck)
Airport
NAME
IMPROVEMENT
USE
Public open
space
SIZE
CONDITION
124,000 sq.ft. Marshy
(portion under
water) vacant
COST($)
185,000
FINANCING
DNRLand
Trust
Park
132.000
Dry
sq.ft. (vacant)
NA
NA
Future park
land 18,000
sq.ft.; nearly
1/2 acres
154 acres
65,000
NA
Currently for-
Dry
estry management, possible
future recreation
TABLE 7.6
RECREATION NEEDS IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
1988 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
CITY
VILLAGE
TOWNSHIP
Bike paths (68%)
Hiking trails (62%)
Cross-country ski trails (62%)
Lake MI open space (61 %)
Lake Kal. open space (50%)
Kal. River open space (49%)
Boat launching ramps (45%)
Lake MI open space (70%)
Lake Kal. open space (69%)
Bike paths (67%)
Kal. River open space (64%)
Parks (50%)
Boat launching ramps (46%)
Senior Center (45%)
Lake MI open space (67%)
Bike paths (64%)
Lake Kai. open space (62%)
Kal. River open space (62%)
Cross-country ski trails (6()0/4)
Boat launching ramps (59%)
Senior Center (53%)
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
+
A
O
•.000
8,000
,2.000 ft
Scale 1" = 9060 ft
25
"'
'
" -~---··
:
•!
j
t 55
55
''
,'
%
~
,
.,,,,
.......;
MAP 7.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION SITES
,.
w-89
,i
,;
SAUGATUCK TWP.
Douglas
1) - 25) See Chapter 7, Table 7.2
26) West Shore Golf Course 27) Cleart>ook 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
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
•
•
••
•
II
MAP 7.2 ACTUAL & PROPOSED BIKE PATHS
Douglas
[2J Proposed Bike Paths
1,1
August 1989
Actual Bike Path
DATA SOURCE: S8ugatuck Township Park and Raoreallon Commluion
Plan"'"I & Zoning C41m1r Inc Lansing, Ml
�8-1
Chapters
WATERFRONT
augatuck was the first settlement in Allegan
County. Its natural protected harbor along
S
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.
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 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 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 llmite d 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 KaJarna~ 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-communtty area is part of the Kalamazoo
River Basin.
Eight small watershed areas lie within the
tri-communtty area and discharge Into Lake
Michigan via the Kalamazoo River (see Map 8.1).
These include Goshorn. Peach Orchard. Tan-
Village of Douglas COJDPr.ehensive Plan
�8-2
nety, Silver and "Cemetecy" 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 DMsion. 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 50% 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
TABLE 8.1
KALAMAZOO RIVER
EXCEEDANCE FLOWS ( 1929-85)
MONTHLY AVERAGE
CUBIC FT /SECOND
FENNVILLE
95%
RNERMOUTH
500/4
95%
1350
1400
1950
2010
1690
1750
2430
2510
2000
1560
1210
1070
1070
1220
1510
1620
50%
January
Februaty
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1600
1250
970
860
860
980
1210
1300
710
790
1010
1040
830
630
480
410
480
520
650
750
890
990
1260
1300
1040
790
600
520
600
650
810
940
Source: Hydrologtc En~eertnfuSection, Land and
Water Resources Divis on, Mic gan Department of
Natural Resources.
Village of Douglas
during April. Corresponding estimates for the
mouthoftheKalamazooRiverrangedfrom 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.
n
PRIMARY ECOSYSTEMS
The tri-community area has three basic
ecosystems. two of which parallel the waterfront. The first ecosystem is comprtsed 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 comprtsed 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 vecy 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. Altertng the
prehensive Plan
r\
"'
�8-3
environment in an area of "particular concern"
could have a significant impact on the quality of
coastal and Great Lakes waters.
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 trt-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 carry 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 to very poor (58%-70%), Lake Michigan is rated fair to good (31-500/4). 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,
TABLE8.2
KALAMAZOO RIVER WATER QUALITY
FECAL
COUFORM
PER lOOML
Fennville
1/27/88
5/18/88
7/28/88
9/21/88
PHOSPHOROUS
TOTAL ORIHO
MG/L MG/L
NITROGEN
N02 N03
MG/L
SEDIMENIS
MG/L TONS/DAY
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
NR
NR
NR
1.7
0.34
0.54
0.00
9
20
15
28
27
123
26
72
HEAVY METALS
LEAD MERCURY
MG/L
MG/L.
<5
<.l
<5
<.l
<5
<.l
<5
<.l
Saugatuck.
3/19/86
6/25/86
9/ 11/86
Saugatuck.
1/10/78
5/1/78
7/20/78
9/11/78
120
69
20
10
NR • Not Reported
Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geologic Sw:vey.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan,
<.5
<.5
.5
�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
ofreducing 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 '?O'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 monitortng 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 1n 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 Nonpolnt Pollution Assessment Report concluded that 99% of
Michigan's watersheds have at least one waterbody with 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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�8-15
TABLE8.3
NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS
201 Culver St..
DISCHARGE
LOCATION
Ka1amaz.oo Lake
Groundwater
Purge
Twp.
proces.sed.
wastewater
treated murucipal
waste
900,000 gal/ day
purged groundwater, purgable halo-
Rich Products
350 Culver St.,
carbons
12,000 gal/day
Culligan
Kal. Lake Water &
Sewer Authority
Ka1amaz.oo Lake
Saugatuck
340 Culver St.,
Saugatuck
6449 Old Allegan
Rd., Saugatuck
Saugatuck
EXPIRATION DATE
1991
via storm sewers
Ka1amaz.oo River
outfall 001
Ka1amaz.oo River
outfall 001
Ka1amaz.oo River
non-contact cool- via storm sewer
ing water & cooling
tower blowdown
1990
1993
1990
Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division
TABLE 8.4
LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS
YEAR
LOWEST EL
FEETAS.L.
MONTH
HIGHEST EL MONTH
FEET A.S.L.
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 Michigan Riparian, May 1989
and prevent further pollution within the trtcommunity area. These will 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 5 78 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 frmn the channel to Mason Street In Saugatuck, are extended
Village of Douglas Compteh~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-wakeff 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;
• swtrn:mers;
• 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 IJlintrnum
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 Natlonal 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 ls 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 1976 there
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 activities
can go on without much interference.
MARINE SAFETY
The Allegan County Sheriff's Department,
Marine Safety Division, 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 offkers
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. IO 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 Sheriff's Department include sailboat and motorboat conflicts
and complaints over the noise and attitude ofjet
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�8-7
skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motorboats arc most common on Saturday.
waterfront, but there arc few public access sites
and. except for Shultz Park. these provtde little
space for transient parking.
EXlSTING LAND USE
Existing land use ls described in detail in
Chapter 5. All land uses along the waterfront arc
oriented to the water. The bulk of the waterfront
in the Township from the channel to the City is
developed as stngle 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 of residential 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 interjurlsdictional 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:
• limiting the intensity of shore line development:
• preserving the scenic 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
R-2
R-1
~(commercial)
~wetland
·
AG .
.• ,
Source: CoDNne O&ldand County·• Natural RNOurcea: A Manual for Pl•nnln•
Department of Public Works, Oakland County, MI. September 1980.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
a
Implementatloa.
�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 high 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
similar shore protection devices were installed
to minlmize 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.
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 trt-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 with
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 purchaslng 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 additional 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 street end 1n 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 trt-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 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. Recommendations to prevent this are
lncluded 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, espec1ally
around Lake Kalamazoo.
Additional development around Silver Lake
needs to remain at a very low density in keeping
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
,--,,.
' 71
~
�8-9
with the septic limitations of the land and the
limited recreational value of this shallow 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 development 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
waterlront. The Kewatin should only be retained
if its exterior remains in a good state of repair or
if it is restored as an historic landmark.
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 suivey strongly supports the provision of additional open space along Lake
Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and demonstrates that the primary use of the area's
water bodies is viewing. Yet, recent development
pressures have led to overbuilding of condominiums along the waterlront, 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 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 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 public
marina could be established there.
Surface Water Use Cof\/ll.cts
Resolution of surlace water use conructs
will require more planning and a uniform 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 is typically perlormed
by an inventory of existing surlace 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 surlace water use conflicts are difllcult
to evaluate. Some time or surlace 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 surlace
water use is regulated, each unit of government
would need to agree to a common regulato:ry
approach.
Surface water use conflicts will 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE FtrI'URE USE
In seeking to balance economic development with environmental protection, the concept of car:rytng capacity should be a major
consideration. If the carrying capacity ofland or
water is exceeded, then actMties cannot be
undertaken without unacceptable b:npacts 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive P'lan
�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 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 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 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 should
be constructed if resources are available and the
cost could be spread among local citizens and
other users (such as through grants or user
fees). Visual access from public thoroughfares
and walkways should be maintained in all new
waterfront development.
Protection mechanisms, like the Natural
River designation, should be recognized for the
ancillary benefits they bring to the community.
A local "Friends of the River,. organization could
be instituted to annually adopt and clean up the
shoreline to remove floating debris, other waste,
and downed timber that become lodged there. A
special effort to maintain the character of
Lakeshore Drive along the Lake Michigan shoreline should also be initiated.
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 Soil 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.
spectjurisdiction 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 quality. 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 INTERGOVERNMENl'AL
COOPERATION
Each of these recommendations requires a
strong degree of intergovenunental cooperation.
Watercourses, like the environment. do not re-
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
��5~
,z
3,
JO
"
3'
J,
33
,,
,.
)4
31
JO
29
)7
JO
29
JI
,.
c:::,
,.
27
,.
23
,. "
,.
J3
\)
.:
,.
2J
•
21
27
25
2J
16
24
26
24
22
20
"
,.._I\
...
;;5
2
MICHIGAN
lka.l• 1:11.000
80\JNDIN091N l"!!:T
,..,.
,.;.
100D
;:;,.
MAP 8.3 SAUGATUCK HARBOR
2
�MAP 8.4 MARINAS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
,a.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Douglas
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 5augatuck (8)
Coral Gables (50))
V & L Properties (10)
Back Bay Marina (12)
Southside Marina (24)
Total Nurrt>er Of Permitted Marina Boat Slips
In Area .........966
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:DNR
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI
��N
A
MAP8.5 STREETENDS/ PARKS
G
Street/Road Ends
[!]
Public Access
0
Douglas
Parks
1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Baldhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach
~
1
·,
-, - -
DATA SOURCE:
Plllirilng & Zoning Cen1et Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
See Preceding Map
For Information
Regarding This Area
MAP 8.5 A STREET ENDS/ PARKS
~ Street/Road Ends
~
Public Access
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:
[!]
Douglas
Par1<s
1) Shultz Par1< 2) River Bluff Park
3) Sundown Par1<
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�9-1
Chapter9
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
G
rowth 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 subdMsion 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 wning and use requirements. A
more complete discussion of these issues is
included below.
GROWfH RATES
Between 1950 and 1970 the Village of
Douglas grew more rapidly than either
Saugatuck Township or Saugatuck. with a
growth rate of 35% (see Table 9.1). In terms of
actual numbers, the Village's population more
than doubled between 1950 and 1980, when it
reached a total of 948. Then, between 1970 and
TABLE 9.1
RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE
1950-60
1960-70
1970-80
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Twp.
Douglas
20%
34%
35%
6%
AREAWIDE
29%
10%
11%
35%
16%
COMMUNilY
40%
17%
22%
1980 the growth rate slowed to 170Ai and surrounding Saugatuck Township's growth rate
soared at 40%. Saugatuck's growth rate, on the
other hand, nearly ground to a halt. These
changing growth trends reflect the scarcity of
land in the city and the desire for scenic, rural
living which is attracting many to the Township.
Recent trends, however, suggest that growth in
the Village is increasing.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Building permit data reveal development
trends in Douglas since 1980. The Village has
attracted much of the area's multiple family
housing development. About 46 single family
homes and 73 multiple family units have been
constructed in the Village since 1980. Most of
this construction has occurred south of Center
Street along Lakeshore Drive; in the northwest
corner of the Township: and north ofWestshore
St. and east of Ferry St. (see Map 9.1). Aside from
new construction, the number of additions, extensions, and other improvements was also
high.
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 immigrants are retirees. Figure 9.1 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 climb.
reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as
a whole.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Future population for the Village of Douglas
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
�9-2
FIGURE9.l
KENT
OTTAWA
54
501
•
1412
RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN
-767
I -1148
I
I
-713
I
I
I
-247
-457
150
.AUEG-AN -,• •·RAY
-173
Net Migration of The Population 65+
1950-60
1960-70
1970-80
·
-5
·
121
132
I
12
1040
l
EATON
· -158
-142
I
·
804
· - · - • .J._ - - • _j_.
VAN IUREN ,•KALAMAZOO,•
+·
"
-13
284
1039
-r
f
1---
~
-·~, CA.is
. 390
-445
578
growth described above. A composite straightline trend can be projected by applying logarithms to determine the ratio of change based
on the 1970 to 1980 trend. Table 9.2 illustrates
these results.
Thus if current trends continue, the tricommunity 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 its greater availability of land, the
Village will eventually overtake the City in terms
of overall population growth, as seen in Figure
9.2.
130
I
I
85
109
1
I
f
•
CALHOU_N
-1196
-1131
-592
I
t
-,sr.',.!2WH..,--.;u.NCH
-i"49
•
--,.-
36
1
/
-33
580
'
I
-125
-181
Residential land in the Village is zoned predominantly for medium density residential development (4 to 5 units per acre). If present
trends continue. about 70% of the 153 new
households will settle in medium density residential areas. translating into the conversion of
26 acres of land. Only 4 acres would be transformed into low density residential use, and
about 4 acres would be developed at higher
densities as apartments or clustered units. This
would consume 34 acres of the Village's presently undeveloped residentially zoned land.
FIGURE9.2
POPULATION TREND
PROJECTED LAND USE .NEE;DS: 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 153 new households
in Douglas by 2010. These results are shown in
Table 9.3.
Future demand for land by these new
households may be estimated by looking at land
subdivision trends and current settlement patterns or zoned densities.
-447
-1651
1
I
-1729
SAUGATUCK TWP.
3.0
p
2.5
0
p
T
H
U 0
L u
A!
2.0
-
TWP.ONLY
=
SAUGATUCK
=
OOUGLAS
1.6
TN
I D
1.0
0
0.5
s
N
0.0
1950
1960
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
1970
1980
YEAR
1990
2000
2010
"'
�9-3
leaving an excess of 163 acres. Tables 9.4 to 9.6
show this projection of current trends.
BUILD OUT SCENARIO
The projections shown above are only estimates based on current trends. Any number of
events could alter these trends. For example, the
location of a new industry in the Village could
attract new families into the area. Provision of
sewer and water service in the Township could
intensify the type, density, and rate of growth
that occurs there. And Saugatuck's attraction
as a center for tourism could continue to grow.
fostering greater in-migration of retirees and
others searching for an alternative lifestyle.
If the Village 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 Village
under currently zoned densities. Acres were estimated for each community in the tri-community area based on vacant or developable land
(not including existing agricultural areas) 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).
The new households are then multiplied by the
average household size for that community to
derive a population estimate.
Almost 200 acres of land are available for
residential development in the Village. Most of
this land is zoned for 4 to 5 units per acre. Thus.
under a build out scenario. the Village could
accommodate about 1, 139 new households. or
2,779 new residents, bringing the total population to over 3,700 people (see Table 9.8).
Douglas also has nearly 50 acres of vacant,
industrially zoned land-the highest amount in
the trt-community area. Thirty-three acres are
available for commercial development.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The future land use plan projects that given
current population growth trends, Douglas will
need only about 37 acres of residential land.
Thus, the Village is far from meeting its capacity
for residential development, as well as commercial or industrial use. This wealth of land combined with the availability of utilities and
proximity to commercial services make Douglas
an ideal site for development of an industrial
park and affordable housing. This is s.tgnificant
in light of the widely expressed need by both
officials and citizens for additional jobs, families
with children (in terms of the shrinking school
enrollments), and affordable housing in the
area.
T.ABLE9.2
PROJECTED POPULATION
1970-1980 TREND
COMMUN11Y
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Dou~as
AREAWIDE
1970
1,022
1,254
813
3,089
1980
1990
1,079
1,753
948
3,780
1,163
2,074
1,061
4,298
2000
2010
1,254
2,454
1,187
4,895
1,352
2,904
1,328
5,584
TABLE 9.3
PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Saugatuck Township
Douglas
AREAWIDE
POP. 2010
1,352
2,904
1,328
5,584
HHSIZE
# HHs
1980 HHs
NEWHHs
2.00
2.69
2.44
676
1,080
544
2.300
537
633
391
1,561
139
447
153
739
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�9-4
TABLE9.5
NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE
TABLE 9.4
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
BY DENSITY TYPE
COMMUNITY
LOW
Saugatuck Twp. 80%
Saugatuck
40%
Douglas
5%
MEDIUM
HIGH
100/o
10%
20%
25%
40%
70%
HOUSEHOLDS
MED. HIGH TOTAL
LOW
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Douglas
SaUJ!atuck Twp.
AREAWIDE
56
8
358
421
56
107
45
207
28
38
45
111
139
153
447
739
Totals are based on unrounded figures.
TABLE9.6
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS
COMMUNTIY
LOW
TABLE9.7
AVAILABLE ACREAGE BY
LAND USE TYPE
ACREAGE*
MED. HIGH TOTAL
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saugatuck
24
4
205
14
26
13
3
4
10
41
34
228
AREAWIDE
234
53
17
303
ACREAGE
IND.
COMM.
COMMUNTIY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Sa.1.1,!!atuck1wp_
TOTAL ACRES
3
33
155
191
0
49
22
71
RES.
135
197
5,950
6,282
*times 1.25 (20¾> allowance for rights-of-way)
Totals are based on unrounded figures.
TABLE9.8
POPULATION 2010: BUILD OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT
COMMUNITY
Saugatuck
Douglas
Sa, 1gat,rlc'Iwp.
AREAWIDE
ADDITIONAL
HOUSEHOLDS
330
1,139
16,413
17,882
AVERAGE
HHSIZE
2.00
2.44
2.69
In the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. 52.4%
of Village respondents felt that apartments and
60.6% felt that detached single-family homes in
the $50-$70,000 range are needed now. Yet the
majority ofrespondents (41.8%) opposed lowering the minimum residential square footage requirement to make housing more affordable.
However, the existing requirement of 1000
square feet is not excessive.
Other strong preferences of Village citizens
as revealed in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey
are:
• maintain the scenic. small town character
of the Village;
• no strip commercial development:
• small commercial shopping centers off of
major roads:
• preserve open space along the waterfront;
ADDITIONAL
POPUIATION
PRESENT
POPUIATION
660
2,779
44,151
47,590
1,079
948
1.753
3,780
TOTAL
POPUIATION
1,739
3,727
45.904
51,370
• protect the environment by prohibiting development of dunes and wetlands;
• additional waterfront condominiums are
not needed (81.4% of Village respondents).
The majority of respondents felt that future
commercial development is most appropriate
along Blue Star Highway (66-71%) and at the
freeway interchanges. Village respondents listed
fast food restaurants as their top commercial
land use priority for Blue Star Highway. E.
Center St. in Douglas was the preferred location
for future neighborhood commercial development. Priorities for downtown Douglas include
more businesses oriented to the needs of residents, historic preservation, flowers and landscaping, a waterfront park, and dressing up
store fronts.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�When asked how underdeveloped waterfront lands 1n Douglas should be used, 81 % felt
that it should be acquired and preserved as open
space. Alternatively, 80-90% opposed developing it with condominiums.
Polieies to achieve the public's development
objectlves are included in Chapter 1, and the
Future Land Use Plan in Chapter 10. Regulatory
tools, such as zoning, subdtvtsion regulations,
and site plan review must be amended to insure
consistency with this plan and the comprehensiVe plan of each jurisdiction.
�N
A
•
•
•
•
0
800
1 600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
•
•
• 0
~
~
II
r-:::
MAP9.1 RESIDENTALCONSTRUCTION PERMITS
Douglas
[!] Residential Construction
Permits 1980-1988
Al.l;USt 1989
DATA SOURCE: Douglas Building Permi18
Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
800
1600
2400
Scale 1" = 1748 ft
MAP10.2 ENTRVPOINTS
[• I
Douglas
Entry Points
E:} Minor Entry Points
August 1989
DATA SOURCE:
Planning 6 Zoning Cenler Inc, Lansing, Ml
�10-1
Chapter 10
FUTURE LAND USE
ood land use planning is essential to the
future quality of life of the trt-community
area. Future land use arrangements are difficult
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 seeks to anticipate community land use
needs for 20-30 years (see Map 10.1). These
future land use arrangements are based on
information in the preceding chapters which
includes analyses of exi.Stlng 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 mix.ed 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.
G
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
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 partially reflected through mapping of zoning districts. The planning principles listed above are
implemented primarily through wrung 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.
Protection of Public Health and Sqfety
Key situations in which this principle is
applied include:
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-2
• avoiding construction in areas which present natural hazards. In the Village 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.
Conseroation ofNatural 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. These changes also 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. This usually means insuring
conformance with all applicable federal, state
and local environmental regulations.
Minimi.zing Public Service Costs
Public service costs may be min.fmized 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 usually 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
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 they serve. This saves municipal costs
on initial road construction and future maintenance, reduces evexyone'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 sounds, 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.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
When applying the above planning principles to new development proposals, one of the
key considerations is compatibility with the
character of existing development in an area. To
describe the character of Douglas. many descriptive words and phrases come to mind.
among them: quiet. friendly, clean, small, aesthetically pleasing, bountiful natural assets,
and good location. Several Public Opinion Surveys in the past three years have revealed the
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-3
following three factors as among the most important reasons why people like Douglas: small
town atmosphere, quiet town and friendly people. respectively. There is a very strong identiflcation on the part of the residents with the
character of their Village. Douglas can be described as being both a resort, residential and
year round residential community which for the
most part has avoided commercial oriented
tourism. Two surveys two years apart indicate
that this is the way most residents would like it
to remain.
DEVELOPMENT
Although Douglas is a small community
(approximately 2 square miles). over 50 percent
of its land is still undeveloped. This makes the
residents sensitive to the quantity and type of
development that could occur there. Without
proper land development regulation, the character of the community could be signiflcantly
changed. In a 1986 survey. almost 70 percent of
those responding felt that development in the
Village should be encouraged. Yet, residents
overwhelmingly still want the community to remain like a small village. In residential development, affordable single-family homes and
apartments were the preferred types, with waterfront condos and mobile homes receiving the
highest response as not being needed. More
industrial development was supported with 68.9
percent of those responding that it was needed
in a 1986 survey, but fewer than half so indicating in a 1988 survey. However. the 1988 survey
did reveal that over half of the respondents
(56%) favored spending tax dollars to stimulate
economic development. The need for more commercial development and services was also
clearly indicated with Blue Star Highway and
East Center Street being the preferred locations.
TOURISM
A strong tourist oriented character is something that it appears most Douglas residents
would like to prevent. The increased activity and
congestion that go with successful tourism are
characteristics which are directly opposed to the
existing quiet town atmosphere. This is not an
anti-tourism sentiment, rather it is one which
opposes the transformation of the existing character of the Village to one dominated by tourism
rather than one where tourists are served as a
part of other commercial acttvities in the Village.
YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT/
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Historically. Douglas has had very little industrial development and has been primarily a
community with residential and commercial development. This situation has reduced the potential for year round employment and has
made the attraction of new families into Douglas
more dtlTicult. The signiflcance of this trend is
that the Village could become even more seasonal and retirement oriented than it already is.
This in turn would reduce the capacity of existing commercial businesses to operate year
round and further hinder the delivery of certain
services such as education. Some new industrial
development is both needed and desirable.
BLENDING THE RESORT AREAS
WITH THE YEAR ROUND COMMVNITY
There will always be a division within the
community between resort and seasonal areas
and year-round areas. The recognition of the
importance of both and fair representation of
both in community decision making will be an
ongoing challenge in making future land use
and infrastructure decisions. Achieving and
maintaining a balance will be the key to long
term success.
The mapping of future land use is a logical
extension of the goals and policies stated in this
Plan. A land use is the primary purpose for
which a parcel of land is occupied. The plan is
designed to promote orderly development and
ensure that appropriate areas are available for
all classes of land uses anticipated to be needed
within the Village during the planning period
(roughly 20 years) and based on existing trends.
The future land use plan promotes orderly development in a number of other ways. Home
owners can invest in their properties with protection from the intrusion and congestion of
undesirable uses in the neighborhood. Overcrowding can be avoided. The Village and utility
companies can adequately plan for the services
needed in developing areas and ensure that
adequate land has been reserved within the
Village for all necessary uses.
Each of the major classes of future land use
are described below. Descriptions of various
geographic areas or neighborhoods are also provided to give a greater depth of understanding
to the land uses depicted on Map 10. 1.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-4
DEVELOPMENT .AND CONSERVATION AREAS
The extensive water resources and other
natural assets are at the top of the list as the
reasons why Douglas Is such a desirable place
in which to live. Toe actions and policies that
are instituted in the future to protect the natural
environment will be of utmost importance. The
future land use map for the Village was prepared
by first identifying conservation areas and then
examining the suitability of remaining lands for
various development purposes.
Conservation 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 present severe limitations for development and 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.
These lands should largely be managed to
remain in their natural state. Only when other
more important public purposes demand it,
should these lands be altered or converted to
permit another use. If conserved and wisely
used, waterways will present a linked natural
greenbelt system that continues to enhance the
area for years to come. The Village zoning ordinance should be amended to include better
conservation of these areas.
RESIDENTIAL
Residential use will continue to be the predominant developed land use in the Village. The
existing residential areas in Douglas provide a
rtch 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 ranlcs of part-time
residents and absentee owners does not result
in housing detertoration. 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 Jurtsdictions 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
effi, -!ntly. However, if speculative market forces
pro -;ed unabated, then the future residential
uses will be high cost condominiums occupied
by seasonal residents and in contemporary designs. A large amount of such development
would be incompatible with the existing character of the Village. The Public Opinion Survey
indicates that 81.4% oppose new condominiums along the Douglas waterfront.
If the Saugatuck School Distrtct is to survive with the same breadth of programm!ng 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. Manufactured housing can be built within this price range and if
properly designed can meet an important local
housing need. There are two mobile home parks
in the Village already. However, the Public Opinion Survey revealed nearly 600!6 of the respondents were opposed to new mobile home parks.
In light of improved quality and design of
new manufactured homes. especially if constructed as double wides with pitched roofs, the
Village should investigate encouraging the development of a mobile home subdivision with lot
sizes consistent with other developed parts of
the Village. Such a subdivision would not be a
mobile home park (which may also be needed).
Existing state standards for mobile home parks
are such that lot sizes are too small to fit with
the character of many communities and local
governments are without authority to require
that they be any larger. However. by failing to
provide any place that double wide manufactured homes are encouraged to be built. then
the market for such homes can usually only be
satisfied in new mobile home parks.
A unique opportunity exists for the area
communities to take the initiative in providing
affordable housing. If plans proceed to acquire
the property known as the Jager property. for a
new water intake plant, then 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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-5
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 village
should be encouraged on soils suitable for basements and served with public sewer and water.
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 activities. This
should be encouraged.
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. parking and signage on many
properties are poorly designed, so any opportunity to improve design. safety. and function
should be seized. Additional tourist-oriented retail businesses should be discouraged in this
area. and instead redirected to downtown
Saugatuck and the original Douglas Village Center. However, additional restaurant. motel and
related services would not be inappropriate provided the market was adequate to support them.
General business uses like shoe stores, banks,
hardware stores, etc .. should be encouraged in
the general business area in Douglas and not in
interchange areas.
INDUSTRIAL
The location of the Haworth facility in Douglas is not the best use of that property in the long
run (which is commercial). However, it is a
well-maintained local company which is a major
employer, and without a public effort to relocate
it in comparable facilities elsewhere. this plan
encourages its continuance. At the same time.
the small industrial area south of the mobile
home park on the east side of Blue Star should
continue to be developed for light industrial
activities and should be expanded to the east
and south, and possibly to the west across Blue
Star as well.
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 par.ks 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 ')ortngs must
be conducted. infrastructure must be completed. utilities must be installed 300 feet into
the park. and protective covenants must be
established.
AGRICULTURE
While agricultural activities used to play a
significant role in land use in the Village. except
for the MSU research facility such is no longer
the case. In light of ample agricultural acreage
in the Township and the limited availability of
public sewer and water, it is more appropriate
that lands which might otherwise be suited for
agricultural use in the 0Village, be used for more
intensive structural uses. such as single family
housing. The raising of farm animals within the
Village is also not appropliate in light of the
nuisance problems they raise (noise, odors, insects, waste disposal, etc.) for present and future residential use.
ENTRY POINTS
There are three major entry points into the
Village of Douglas. (See Map 10.2). They are:
• from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo
River via Lake Kalamawo
• from I-Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo
River Bridge
• from 1-196 at Blue Star Highway Oust
south of 129th Street)
At the present time, the entries from Lake
Michigan and over the Kalamazoo River provide
an aesthetic and inviting entry into the Village.
The entry from the south along Blue Star Highway is not as good. 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 southbound
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-6
I-196 at exit# 36 which tell travelers that they
can access Ganges. but not Saugatuck and
Douglas.
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 joint effort to develop alternatives for improving the entry points
into all three communities 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.
FUTURE LAND USE BY AREA
Following are brief geographic descriptions
of future land use. These descriptions use the
same planning areas depicted on Map 5.3.
Lake Shore - Resort Residential Area
This area should continue to be used for low
density single family homes along the lakeshore
in keeping with the size and quality of homes
presently there. It is anticipated that seasonal
vacation homes will continue to be the dominant
use. Density will vary within this area, but a
minimum lot size of 8,400 feet should be maintained.
The proposed water intake facility, if constructed in this part of the Village, should be
designed to be compatible with the character
and quality of existing homes, and include extensive insulation and buffering techniques to
eliminate (to the maximum practical extent) any
noise impacts on adjacent homes.
Campbell Road & West Center Street
Additional single family homes in subdiVisions can be compatibly developed behind existing homes along Lake Shore Drive between
Center and Golf View Drive by extending public
sewer and water in this area. An effort should
be made to maintain existing densities or tier
the density of new homes so that no sudden
density change occurs. Areas south of the golf
course (on both sides of 130th) are similarly
suited for residential development.
Development under the Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept should be encouraged
for this area. Through PUD, development flexibility in design and housing density is allowed
to achieve maximum open space. This concept
also encourages innovative and imaginative design and efficiency in providing public services.
The use of PUD in this area offers the specific
advantage that the recreational land and environmentally sensitive areas can be integrated
into the development plan and their preseivation enhanced. The PUD concept allows buildings to be clustered through mixtures of housing
types such as detached houses, townhouses.
and apartments. This mixture of housing types
creates fine housing opportunities for households and families of all age groups.
Ferry/Blue Star to 129th
This planning area is presently characterized by a golf course, a couple of commercial
activities. a multiple family use and an industrial concern, along with a lot of vacant and
underdeveloped property. Future land use in
this area could arguably be encouraged to go
several different ways. The golf course property
could remain as such or be converted to single
family or multiple family residential use in a
compatible way. Additional commercial use or
expansion of the Haworth facility could occur
north of the existing plant. However, such expansion, if it occurred should be carefully scrutinized and restricted to prevent unnecessary
impacts on adjoining residential uses to the
north. Over time this area should be encouraged
to develop for multiple family use.
South of 130th on the west side of Blue Star
could be developed for commercial on the Blue
Star frontage and medium to high density residential behind it in order to be compatible with
the Township future land use plan. However, it
would also not be inappropriate for the industrial area on this side of the road to expand to
the quarter section line in compliment to the
industrial area under development on the east
side of Blue Star. The likelihood of this occurring
is not great however, due to significant soil
limitations in this area.
The small residential area that is landlocked from the rest of the Township should be
annexed into the Village at the first opportunity.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
17(\
�10-7
•
•
South of East 130th and
East of South Blue Star
There are presently two existing mobile
home parks and the emerging light industrial
park in this area. The residential activity should
be encouraged to expand east to the pond.
Typical development in this area could include
mobile home parks, duplexes, and garden style
apartments not to exceed three habitable stories. This area is suited for higher density activity because of its location along major arterial
roads which can accommodate the heavier traffic flow. It can also act as a buffer use between
single-family residential development to the
north and the light industrial area to the south.
Individual multiple-family uses should be designed with a landscaped buffer or open space
where abutting single family residential uses.
The area south to the Village limits should
be used for light industrial activity. Light industrial development that will provide year round
employment and thereby contribute to and stabilize an exiSting economy that suffers somewhat from seasonal business, should be
targeted to locate in this area. The location
chosen for this area was based on its access to
the Blue Star Highway (U.S. 31) and its close
proximity to the interchange for I-196.
For industrial uses locating in this area, it
is recommended that an industrial park design
concept be used. An effort to insure quality
design of the fronts of such buildings. with deep
landscaped setbacks, minimal signage and no
front yard parking should be initiated to both
improve and enhance this major entrance into
the Village.
Blue Star Commercial Area
This area is intended to provide opportunities for a full range of commercial uses. Grocery,
hardware, clothing, pharmaceutical, hairdressing, bank and similar businesses should characterize this area. It is not an appropriate
location for boat and vehicle storage or similar
warehousing activities. Office development
would also be acceptable in this area. Larger
merchandisers should be encouraged to locate
here because there is opportunity for smaller
retail outlets or service establishments to locate
in the Village Center Commercial area and also
because the highway can better accommodate
the larger volume of traffic that is generated by
larger retail stores. No industrial uses should be
allowed in this area.
This area should be encouraged to develop
in clusters of general business activity in small
commercial complexes with shared parking facilities. The parking should be off of the street
and gained via much better defined access.
Curb, gutter and sidewalks should be provided
through this area. The properties extending
down West Center Street to Ferry Street could
be commercially developed, but should be less
intensively used than the properties along Blue
Star. They should also be designed to blend With
the character of residences in the area.
This entire area deserves more refined
study than this plan is able to undertake at this
time. A lot-by-lot corridor analysis and access
redesign plan should be prepared. Significant
improvement to both the aesthetic quality and
function of this area could be accomplished if a
special plan for the corridor were prepared.
East 130th Street
This area has significant potential for new
residential development west of Schultz Park. As
long as the wetlands and floodplain along Tanner Creek are respected, very interesting subdivisions or planned unit development could
occur. No lots should be allowed to be established that are unbuildable under existing DNR
or Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations
and local zoning. The area that backs up to the
Village Center should either be buffered by the
existing woods or an effort should be made to
insure compatibility in structure type between
new residences in this area and the existing
character of Village Center homes. This area is
not well suited for either commercial or industrial development.
Eventual housing unit density for this area
Will be only slightly lower than in the Village
Center Residential neighborhood. The recommended average density for these areas is two
to three dwelling units per net acre with a
minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet. Linear
form residential development along 130th
should be prohibited.
Village Center Residential
This area represents the older more established neighborhoods immediately surrounding
the Village Center Commercial (downtown).
Housing in this area for the most part is architecturally similar with most homes being built
pre-1950. Housing density generally ranges between one and three units per net acre. It is also
within this area where homes offering potential
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-8
for historic preservation can be found. The area
also has some development potential. This development could occur in three ways: 1) existing
vacant lots could be developed, 2) the second lot
of a double lot could be sold off and developed,
and 3) existing housing stock could be improved
and expanded.
Recommendations for this area are as follows:
• Maintain an average density of three or
four dwelling units per net acre while
maintaining a minimum lot size of 7,920
feet.
• All new housing development should be
required to hook into the Village water and
sewer system.
• All new development should be encouraged
to maintain a similar architectural theme
With existing housing in the area.
• Housing rehabilitation and historic preservation efforts should be focused on this
area.
Strong efforts will be necessary to retain the
charm and ambiance of the old Village Center.
A housing code enforcement program should be
considered to insure the safety and habitability
of the old homes in the area. An inventory,
maintenance and replanting program for the
aging trees should be initiated. Sidewalk repairs, replacement and installation are badly
needed in some blocks. No nonresidential activity should be permitted outside of the Village
Center Commercial area, except perhaps along
the waterfront, and then only if compatible with
adjacent uses. Expansion and improvement of
public land along the waterfront here should be
initiated whenever possible. Ultimately a pedestrian and/or bikepath connecting the Village
Center with Schultz Park along the waterfront
should be considered.
Village Center Commercial
This is the original commercial area of the
Village. While it no longer performs many of the
functions that it once did. it still plays a valuable
role and should be maintained. The several
vacant lots should be developed for new commercial. Small retail and service establishments
such as restaurants. specialty shops, barber
shops, bakeries, government and other small
offices are appropriate here. New buildings
should be of a style that is compatible with
existing structures in the area.
The exterior of the Township Hall should be
better maintained and the Lodge (Town Hall)
should be acquired by the Village and its historic
character restored. The upstairs could be properly rehabilitated into offices for municipal use,
or leased to local professionals.
The Village office space is too small and
should be expanded into the area being vacated
by the fire equipment. A conference room is
badly needed. Second floor space above existing
commercial establishments should be made
available for residential use provided that all
building code requirements are met.
Harbor.front
This area is well suited for a combination of
multiple-family residential. commercial and recreational uses. Because of its high values stemming from its waterfront location, development
should be restricted to a specific blend of uses
and design to preserve and enhance its unique
character in the community.
Recommendations for this area are as follows:
1. Multiple-family development should be clustered on the western portion and on the
southern one-quarter of this area. It should
be limited in height so as to not block the lake
view by backlot properties. It should be
tucked into the hill as much as possible and
designed to enhance the natural setting
rather than detract from it.
2. A bonus system should be considered that
would allow higher than normal densities on
certain areas of a site in exchange for retaining an increased amount of open space as
common space or for general public use on
other areas of the site.
3. A pedestrian/bike path available for public
use should be developed in close proximity to
the waterfront. This path could be developed
in conjunction with the already existing private road or be placed right along the waterfront.
4. Use of the Planned Unit Development concept
should be encouraged for this area.
5. Boat cradle storage would be more appropriately located elsewhere.
6. The private road presently servicing the
Harborfront should be improved and dedicated to the Village.
7. A parking lot for cars and trailers adequate to
meet the needs of marina users should be
constructed so as to blend into the natural
land form as much as feasible.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�10-9
8. Any recreational use which is not disruptive
to the residential community along the
Harborfront should be allowed.
9. The eastern end should remain free of any
structures tall enough to block the view of the
Lake from Blue Star Highway. The old platted
but never developed public streets north of
the Kewatin should be improved to the width
of the rtght-of-way and utilized to establish a
public parking and viewing area to take advantage of this, the single best view of Lake
Kalamazoo. The parking area should provide
for auto and trailer space. The Spencer Street
end at the waterfront should be improved to
establish a public boat launching area. A
small amount of additional land may need to
be acquired to permit adequate vehicular
access and viewing.
10. Additional martna development, if any,
should be restrtcted to the west end and
middle portion of the property, not extend
into the Lake any further than the existing
dock line and be setved by more than one
point of access. Whether additional dockage
should be developed will be dependent upon
an analysis of dockage on Lake Kalamazoo at
the time of the proposal, and in consideration
of the factors discussed in Chapter Eight Waterfront.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
I,
'
'
'
'
�Douglas
■
Village Center Commercial
mm~I
lndUstrial
Floodplain/Wetland
■
Recreation
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml
�N
A
0
700
1400
Village of Douglas
FUTURE LAND USE
2100
Scale 1" = 1438'
........................
.·- ....................... .
�11-1
Chapter 11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
B
~
y 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
subdMsion control regulations. These regulatory instruments are described in the next chapter.
However. effective integration of this Plan
will also require an ongoing commitment to
intergovernmental cooperation with Saugatuck
and Saugatuck Township. In particular, the
Joint Plan prepared concurrently with this one
should be implemented as steadfastly and also
kept current with comprehensive reviews at
least once each five years.
It will also be very important to make every
effort to keep Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township officials informed of proposed changes to
this Plan or any of its regulatory instruments
(such as zoning) and to encourage their input
prtor to such a change being made. Likewise,
those jurisdictions should be encouraged to reciprocate with proposals and an opportunity for
review by the Village of Douglas prtor to action
on any change which may impact on the Village.
A copy of this Plan and any amendments to it
will be filed with the clerk of each of these
jurtsdictions, as well as with the County Clerk.
the County Planning Commission, the County
Economic Growth Alliance. the West Michigan
Regional Planning CommiSsion, and Department of Natural Resources.
Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional
public services such as police and possibly public works should be continued where mutually
beneficial. Likewise. efforts to convert the
Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority into
a truly independent authortty should be continued. This would 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�12-1
Chapter 12
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
PRIMARY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Relationship to Zoning
Toe Village of Douglas has a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to the City-Village Zoning Act, PA 207 of 1921. The intent of that
ordinance is to regulate the use of land to provide for orderly growth and development and
allow the integration ofland uses without creating nuisances. The wrung ordinance defines
land use districts and regulates height. bulk,
use, area oflot to be covered, and open space to
be preserved within each district.
Because the Zoning Enabling Act requires
the wning ordinance be based upon a Plan and
this Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission. has been prepared to guide future land use
decisions, the zoning ordinance should be revised to reflect this Plan's new goals, policies,
and future land use proposals. However, the
zoning district map and the future land use map
(10.1) will not be identical. The zoning map
typically reflects existing land use (where it is
desirable to continue it) and small areas zoned
for more intensive use then at present. The
future land use map reflects land use arrangements at some future time. (See Section 10.10,
p. 245-250, Michigan Zoning & Planning, 3rd
Ed., by Clan Crawford, ICLE, Ann Arbor, 1988).
The Village should continue to maintain a
formal site plan review process. Through this
process applicants, in order to obtain wrung
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.
In addition, the zoning ordinance and fee
structures should be amended to pennit the
Village to require developers of new commercial
and industrial uses and all proposed multi-family developments to pay into an escrow fund to
be used for payment of professional review fees
by engineers, planners and attorneys (if neces-
sary). Unused escrowed dollars would be returned:
Relationship To Plans/Zoning
In Aclj'acent Jurisdictions
The land use proposals in this plan were
carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring comp a U b ili ty with those of Saugatuck and
Saugatuck Township. 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
The Village of Douglas adopted subdivision
regulations Dec. 7, 1987. The enabling legislation that pennits 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 is added assurance
that development will occur in an orderly manner. The Village of Douglas should consider
amending the subdivision and zoning regulations to prohibit the establishment oflots which
would be unbuildable under existing state or
local regulations (such as lots which are wholly
within a protected wetland).
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 of funding, 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 man-
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�12-2
ner. The use of capital improvements programming can be an effective tool for implementing
the comprehensive plan by gMng 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.
The Village Planning Commission should develop a formal capital improvement program.
Land Use & Irifrastructure Policies
A strong effort will be necessary to coordi-
nate future capital improvement 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
BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administrators International. Inc.) is the basic building
code adopted by the Village 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.
The Village 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. The Village of Douglas is not an
entitlement community. Therefore, it must
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 actMties include:
• Home Improvement Programs
• Rental Rehabilitation Programs
• Weatherization and Energy Conservation
• Home Repair for the Elderly
• Public Improvement in conjunction with
targeted housing activity (limited 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 Village alone. or in concert with
Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township could establlsh 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).
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�12-3
• 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
$500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure
improvement.
• Communities in Transition program funds
community development activities, such
as public sewer 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
197ofl975
This Act 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 DDA may issue revenue bonds. These,
with municipality approval, may be secured by "the full faith and credit" of the
municipality.
• A DDA 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 jinaneing 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.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�ta◄
Mfcldgcm Natural Resoun:es Trust Fund
"111e Kammer Recreatlonal Land Trust Fund
iAct of 1976 fP'ub:UC Act 204) was passed by the
M1dligan Legislature and sJgned by the GoverDrr.on July 23 1976. ThlsAct created the Mich1gatl Land Trust Fund. The purpose of the
pzqp-am was to provide a source of funds for
publlc accp.dsWon mrecreational lands. Funds
accrued from the sale of oil. gas and mineral
leases and royalties from oil. gas. and mineral
ext::ractlen& on state lands.
On November 6. 1984. Michigan resJdents
cast their v.ote ln favor of Proposal B. ThJs con~ amencbnent created the MichJgan
Natural Resowces Trust Fund (MNRrF) and
~ that oil. gas. and other mineral lease
and royalty payments be placed into the Fund.
With proceeds used to acquire land or rights in
Ja8d for recreation uses or for protection of the
laud because oftts environmental Jmportance or
Its IICOAic beauty. and to develop publk recreaflon fadJlttes.. The 14tcbtgan Legtslature passed
the MtchiganNat.uw Resourees Trust Fund Act
of 1985 (Public Act 101) to Implement the
amendm,mt. 111e MNRI'F oftldaJly replaced the
M(Qbjgantand Tl:µstFund on October 1. 1985.
.Aa#'indMdual. group. otgamzation. or untt
gl' ~ [ may sul».nlt a land acquiSltion
~ but only units ofgovemment can take
We n, and twuiage the land. Only units of
~ t i t can submit deYelopment proposals.
~ ~ for local grants must include a
~ lhatob or at least 25 percent of the total
~ d f . . 'lben ts nornmnnvm orrnaxtrrnrm
. . . . . .fan proJeda; for development pro-
:!;i ii•~fuodb1g~ls$15.000.
is $750..QPO.
!l'I
l'ta'lt """4
-~IIQl,l.1ntatFund
..,.._~
• •; · : :· : .. .•-
by.the
flle(Jaw-
.,.PIANd_,
Mldl~
TABLE 12.1
RECREATION FACD..rl'IES & THEIR MINIMUM NUMBER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO
ACHIEVE MINIMUM POINTS
RECREATION FACILI1Y
Bicycle Trail
Playground
SwunrnJng Beach
Boat Launch
Campground
Non-motor1zed Trail
Cross-country Ski
Hildng
Nature
Horse
Fishing Access
Fishing Piers
Nature Area
MINIMUM SIZE
1 mile
3 pcs. of play
equipment
50feet
5 parking spaces
10 campsites
1/2 mile
50feet
1
10 acres
NOTE: Points arc not to be awarded ~!ifor
cross-counuy ski trails, nature trails, and
ill
trails. 1bcae trails arc to be conatden:d as one
ty.
Source: DNR, Mlclwran's 1987-88 Recreation Action Prop-am Guidebook •
eluding 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 recrea-
tional facilities.
Any individual. group, organization. or unit
of government may submit a land acquiSltlon
proposal, but only units ofgovernment may take
tltle 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. 'lbcre ts Dll mtolmum or maxnnum
for acqwsWon pr(?jects; for development proJeeta. the mtnhanrnfumttng teQUest Js $15,000,
flao~
$87~4)()().
�12-5
The Recreation Bond Fund
Recreation Improvement Fund
The Recreation Bond Fund draws from
bonds approved by voters in 1988. It calls for
money to be spent on DNR and local recreation
facilities in four categortes:
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 DNR has 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, hiking 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 minimum 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 tourtsm 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
Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-3043.)
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 aimed 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 198 7), and the Local
Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act
(Act 237 of 1987, as amended). The acts will be
:in effect for five years, when they will be 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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
i
�12-6
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 1s 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 publlc improvements. Bonding offers a
method of financing for improvements such as
water and sewer lines, street construction. sidewalks. and publlc parking facilities. Common
municipal bond types include:
1. General Obligation Bonds - full faith and
credit pledges, the principal amount bor-
rowed 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 in a special assessment district for whatever public purpose
the property owners have agreed (by petition or voting) to be assessed.
TAX INCENTIVES
The state law permitting communities to
provide property tax incentives for industrial
development is Act 198. This Act 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
The Village Planning Commission should
maintain regular communication with the
County Planning Commission, with the West
Michigan Regional Planning Commission. and
with the Allegan County Community Growth
Alliance. These organizations should be encouraged to continue their County and region-wide
planning and economic development efforts and
to share relevant materials with the Village.
Likewise a copy of this Plan should be forwarded
to each of these agencies when adopted.
.Pro-Business Alliance
One way to strengthen Douglas's economic
development potential is to establish a pro-business exchange in Village government (or Jointly
with Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township) modelled after the Michigan Bell Business Retention
and Expansion Program. (Douglas is not eligible
for participation in the Michigan Bell Business
Retention and Expansion program because it is
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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
,,,.......__
�12-7
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 wrung, 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.
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. Over eleven percent
of the Village's 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.
The Village should continue to monitor the
number of people in poverty through the census
counts and work with local churches and nonprofit groups to assist them through food drives,
temporary shelters, or other needed services.
Collection of Trqf/ic 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 trt-cornmunity 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 south to the freeway exit has the potential
to grow haphazardly under existing zoning regulations. As a result it deserves a more thorough
and careful analysiS than has been possible to
date. 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.
Public Open Space Acquisition
Programs to acquire public open space
along the water should be initiated. One option
is to create a local nonprofit land conservancy.
There are several very effective ones operating in
Michigan. Priority should be given to building a
trust fund for acquisition and maintenance or
tying into existing ones by the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations.
Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority
Once the Township Joins as a full member
of the Kalamawo Lake Sewer & Water Authority,
it 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 political influences in day to day adrniniStration.
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
information. At a minimum the Plan should be
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
II
!
::
-
�12-8
comprehensively reviewed and updated at least
once every five years.
Managing Growth and Change
The key to successfully managing future
growth and community change ls 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 Village officials to pick from
among the new tools, those that will provide
greater choice over local destiny and quality of
life.
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
��REFERENCES
Listed below are some of the key reports, studies, plans, and data sources whfCh IAH!le ~
references tn the preparation of this plan. Other data sources are referenced throuQhOllt
the--.,.
n£MOORAPIIICS
U.S. census. eurrent Population Reports. East North Central 1986 P.optdattOn and 1'B5 Per
Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places, Series P-26, No. 86-ENO-SC (al$)
referenced.for ecorwmtc data).
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980-SutnmarY Tape FJle S A ~ Saugatuck. Saugatuck Township, the Village of D~uglas. and Allegan County.
BJSTORY
Joe .Armstrong and John Pahl. River ~Lake: A&uqulcentemalal m.tm70F.:;:A:dlll--■c••••
Michigan. published by the 1835 Committee. 1985.
MASTERPlANB
Saugatuck Townehlp General Development Plan. ptepared fur saugatuck =•~ldar-:l&V
Wil11ams & Works. Inc•• 1975.
Village of Dou,lu Land Use Plan, prepared by the Village of Douglas Pllaan,,tngnntng:4aM•••
with the asststance of the West Michigan Regional Planning CommJssion, adopted November UL
1986.
Land U&e-Vllla8e of saa,atuck, prepared by the Saugatuck
asststanee of the West Mtchtgan Regtonal PlartnUlg co.mtssloJI. 19
NATORAL RESOtJRCES
Michigan Resouree Inventory System Database. De
Soll S'lllftJ' of Allelan county. lllcNca-. United ~l)el~~ol~lil'A
Conservation Serrice. March 1987.
OWNBR8BIP
LUU1 .Mid and Plat
1989.
�SOLID WASTE
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,
P.A 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 ln Michigan: A Statistical Profile, First Edition, Research Monograph # 1,
Michigan State University, Travel. Tourism and Recreation Resource Center. 1986.
Michigan Employment Security Commission, Bureau ofResearch & Statistics, Detroit. Michigan.
UTILITIES
A Feasibility Study on the Utillzation of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir, SaugatuckDouglas Water System, prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland
Engineering, Inc., January 18, 1983.
Facilities Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976.
Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &
Huber, Inc., March 1988.
Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommendations, Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., July 1, 1987.
Village of Saugatuck Streets and Public Utlllties Condition Report, May 1984.
Waterworks Rellablllty 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.
�r-1"'
APPENDIX
B
Demographic, Economic, and Housing Data
,.,,-.....
,
�A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
l. Age Cohorts (Raw Data)
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saug. Twp.
Area
County
------------------------------------------------------------------------------1496
61
13
15
21
3
11
30
47
6
17
18
15
under l
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+
19
13
24
14
50
106
92
1:01
136
59
21
27
138
57
"ft
2.
Age
---------0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
23
11
17
19
6
36
59
14
15
23
18
14
16
22
1860
84
72
106
82
48
11
30
-as
49
4
25
26
56
24
29
20
106
47
23
32
34
4
52
94
46
46
86
212
67
2560
2544
1289
1332
4274
5989
1522
1642
1758
1666
�0
-
3. Change in Age Cohorts from 1960-1980
Age
1960
1960 M/F
Tri-Community Area
1980 M/F
1980
Change 1960-80
------------------------------------------------------------------------------121/140
274/249
133/146
129/139
170/166
142/147
115/163
196/232
0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
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
Michigan
Another State
Born Abroad
Foreign Born
County
Saugatuck
Douglas
Saug. Twp.*
Area
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)
2182 (58.3)
1340 (35.8)
7
(0.2)
210 (5.6)
124
(7.2)
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
1910
487
670
500
8
County
(53.4)
(13.6)
( 18. 7)
(14.0)
(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 £am.
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
Area
County
1561
2.39
852
100
27,282
2.95
19,520
1,911
�7. Marital Status
Saugatuck
Saug Twp
Douglas
-------------------------------------------------------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
l. Structure Type
Douglas
Saugatuck
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 Horne/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
11
4
116
106
5
2,151
1,709
1,311
101
84
100
113
66
31,864
28,985
23,190
1,001
583
1,199
3,0
442
364
22
22
29
5
5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item
Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654
2. Year Structure Built - Year Round Units
Douglas
Saugatuck
Area
Saug Twp.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------3568 (12
(7. 6)
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)
22 (5.5)
46 (11.3)
81 (19.9)
32 (7.9)
36 (8.9)
189 (46.5)
72
116
133
99
68
246
(9.8)
(15.8)
(18.1)
(13.5)
(9.3)
(33.5)
130
181
265
204
160
769
(10.6)
(15.5)
(11.9)
(9.4)
(45.0)
4326 (14
4458 (15
3647 (12
2507 (8
10479 (36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: (same as above), item 109.
��4. Annual Average Employment
Year
-Tri-Community Area
Ave. Ernp.
-------------------------------
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
Douglas
Saug Twp.
Area
County
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5181
227
83
Less than 55
55-59
60-64
65+
67
77
3
6
8
15
24
9
8
39
78
281
206
1127
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
�VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
PUBLIC OPINION SUR\JEV
RESULTS
PAUL HARRIS:
ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTOR
RBSPOHSE RATE
WE SENT 550 SURVEVS FROM OAKLAND UNIVERSITY
USING THE MAIL LABELS FROM THE VILLAGE. WE RECEIVED
(es of 11 /29/68) 257 SURVEVS FROM THIS MAILING,
PRODUCING A RESPONSE RATE OF 46.7 PERCENT.
IN
ADD IT I ON, WE RECEIVED 30 RENTER SURVEYS WHICH WERE
DISTRIBUTED BV THE VILLAGE. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
SURVEYS USED IN THE FORTHCOMING ANAL VSES IS: 267.
�COt1t1UNITY VALUES
.QJ.:
lmportonce of things people look for in o community.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2 = NOT IMPORT ANT, 4 & 5 = IMPORT ANT, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED
smttll town otmosphere
Quiet town
friendly people
8t troct 1ve/beut i ful surroundtngs
good plttce to reise children
{reditionel vttlues
re 1i gi ous opportunities
freedom to be myself
chance to get invol11ed in locel org's
low crime rete
good school system
row tax rates
close to lerger cities
convenient shopping opportuni tes
011011 ebi 1i ty of goocf housing
f amny in the area
job in oreo
water based recreation nearby
not industriolized
9.2:
NOT IM~WANT
IM~J.l~NI
9.21
7.11
4.91
31.61
24.31
34.91
5.61
29.01
4.91
24.61
10.41
16.41
17.91
25.51
43.61
42.91
13.51
27.21
87.91
86.91
65.71
57.31
57.11
43.11
79.01
41.31
90.31
61.71
65.41
59.91
50.61
62.21
52.21
44.11
61.21
53.61
How hes the community chenged.
PERCENT gHECKEP
24. I
better place to live
steyed about the some
worse place to live
56.61
16.91
Q~ As the area grows end chanes, which best describes Dougles.
1= sme 11 Yi 11 oge, 2= bedroom community, 3= Ho 11 and suburb, 4= Smo 11 c1 ty
community os is
community es would like it to be
community os think it will be
Q.4:
ml
rll--rh
76.BI 6.71 3.41
37.91
23.11 15.21
~I
13.11
23.91
How would you rete the communites on the following.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2 = POOR, 4 &. S =EXCELLENT, 3 =HAS BEEN OMITTED
business climete
churches
community events
entertei nment
generel oppeerence
floustng
1obs
focotion
med1 ce1 cere
recreet1on
resteurents
~
5.41
21.61
47.21
18.51
33.31
47.41
2.21
48.91
13.21
15.31
EX~~~i'fi
72.11
45.91
25.11
67.21
33.41
9.51
88.51
31.01
74.61
61.11
�Q.4: cont
roads
schools
senior citizen services
shopping
social services
t~uces
.U&
~
13.51
20.81
33.61
35.41
61.41
EXW.~!NT
64.01
52.31
38.71
10.61
13.91
Problems faced by the communities, how important are they to you.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2 =NOT A PROBLEM, 4& 5: A PROBLEM, 3 =HAS BEEN OMITTED
violent crime
property crime
vandalism
teens w/ nothy1 ng to do
drugs
alcohol
unemp1oyment
new Job opportuni t1 es
hous1 ng shortages
pub1i c recreet 1on
too much deve 1opment
not enough development
leek of health care ...
trafic safety
perking deowntown Saug.
skateboards/bikes downtown Seug.
run down property
11 tter downtown area
Utter along blue star Hwy
appearance of businesses along Blue
congestion et oval beach
quertty oval beech fac11tt1es
access to weterbodt es
local schools
Vtlle e ov't services
NOT A PROBLEM
80.21
51.31
39.41
13.61
8.21
6.71
28.51
21.51
27.91
63.01
50.01
52.51
19.11
51.91
23.81
47.31
42.91
64.51
57.11
39.41
39.61
45.51
61.31
49.81
41.71
34.41
28.51
SIU
49Jtl
II
A PRBjLEM
7.
29.31
26.41
69.51
59.61
68.21
29.41
49.61
42.01
18.31
35.51
26.21
70.01
22.31
67.21
23.41
32.61
9.81
20.31
49.61
15.91
15.41
22.71
18.11
22.81
26.71
39.01
8.71
31.71
•.,.
31.31
11.
�.Q.8:
Where do you go most often for the fo11owing things .
1= Sougotuck, 2= Hollond, 3= close to work, 4= better service
5= more choice, 6= lower cost
opplionces
outo/truck soles
euto /truck services
bekery goods
bonktng
beoutic1on/barber
books
cer wosh
clothing
dey cere
dept. store
dry cleoners
family restouronts
f ency resteurants
fast food
flower shop
furniture
Rroceries
ordwore
laundromet
lown & gorden supplies
lumber
medicol services
movies
phormocy
sport tng goods
g_ 10:
1
st:,I
3.51
20.31
84.41
86.01
68.31
41.81
47.81
10.51
55.41
3.51
63.71
75.01
45.41
6.31
81.01
26.61
61.71
74.21
91.61
48.01
76.81
38.01
1.31
74.41
13.21
67.31
57.41
7.41
4.91
21.01
42.21
42.71
53.11
37.01
70.71
24.11
17.51
34.11
82.41
15.51
42.61
30.11
15.71
4.51
43.51
14.91
45.51
80.61
18.61
62.61
23.0i
3
0.01
6.71
7.21
1.11
5.71
5.71
1.61
5.51
3.51
7.61
4.21
5.71
2.21
2.41
3.41
1.31
4.31
2.61
1.51
1.71
3.61
3.71
4.11
2.61
3.11
4.71
-&
1.21
6.41
1.51
2.31
1.51
0.01
1.21
1.21
0.01
0.01
4.11
1.51
4.01
0.01
0.01
1.21
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.61
1.71
4.91
1.31
0.01
0.01
5
6.71
10.61
6.01
3.31
0.01
2.31
12.11
1.61
27.11
0.01
20.11
1.21
2.61
11.61
3.41
0.01
23.41
1.11
0.01
0.01
1.21
0.01
6.41
14.11
1.21
8.51
6
10.61
2.81
2.21
1.11
1.11
2.31
1.21
4.71
0.01
1.51
1.21
1.11
2.41
4.61
2.31
2.01
4.51
8.61
2.21
2.01
2.91
1.11
0.01
2.71
11.11
Approve or disopprove of future commerciol deYelopment.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HA\IE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 & 5 = APPROVE, 3 = HAS BEEN OMMITTED
in smell shopping centers
in one large shopping center
in downtown Seug.
in downtown Douglos
in scottered commercial oreos
in strip commercial orees
nowhere
9.11:
DISAePROVE
14.01
50.81
50.61
50.21
42.11
46.71
61.51
APPROVE
72.BI
34.61
27.31
38.01
38.01
42.21
20.31
Where should new commerc1al development occur.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 & 5 =APPROVE, 3 =HAS BEEN OMITTED
Along North Blue Ster Hwy.
Along South Blue Star Hwy.
Along Butler St. in Saugatuck
along Water St. 1n Sougntuck
olong Lake St. 1n Seu~atuck
along M-B9 outside o Fennville
at freewoy interchanges
QISAPSROVE
A~~~E
22.81
63.81
61.31
63.81
36.51
17.91
70.81
21.11
23.81
17.51
38.51
65.01
27. I
6.31
�Q. 12:
'w'here should new neighborhood commerciol development occur.
( 1= strongly disopprove, 5= strongly epprove)
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 &. 5 = APPROVE, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED
elong Mein St. in Dougles
elong E. Center St. inl)ougles
elong W. Center St. in Dougles
elong 130th Ave. in Dougles
DISAPPROVE
ArROVE
30.81
37.11
51.31
54.01
42.01
26.61
4.71
40.71
g.13: Whet ere your priorities for Dougles downtown.
NOTE: OR IGI NAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2 =LOW PRIORITV, 4 &. 5 =HIGH PRIOTIRY, 3:: HAS BEEN OMITTED
Additionel public restrooms
benches for pedestriens
control truck traffic
dress up store fronts
flowers&. ltmdscepe
historic preservetion
resident oriented businesses
More parking
tourist oriented businesses
new lighting
Offices
reduce cer treffic
restaurants
shopping
waterfront reteil businesses
waterfront wholesele business
waterfront boat services
waterfront park
g~
HIGH
32.5:C
37.8:C
28.0:C
60.51
61.31
62.3:C
68.0:C
23.61
26.6:C
22.1 I
25.31
4.0:C
29.2:C
49.2:C
34.91
17.31
25.BI
61.11
LOW
56.71
46.01
50.4:C
26. 1I
21.11
21.01
17.61
37.51
45.0:C
47.11
45.41
73.9:C
45.8:C
32. 7:C
53.6:C
70.81
50.4:C
30.7:C
Does the eree need more i ndustri a1 deve1opment.
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly egree)
1= 28.71, 2= 14.71, 3= 11.61, 4= 8.51, 5: 36.41
RES I DENT I AL DEVELOPttENT
Whet type of residentiel development is needed in dougles.
{1 = needed now, 2= needed 1eter, 3= not needed, 4= don't know)
11~
apartments
attached single-family homes
detached single-family homes(S0-70)
detached single-family homes(70+)
waterfront condos
low income housing
mobile homes
seniors housing
country estates
ll,16;
!h1
rhl
37.41 13.01
60.61 11.61
19.91 14.21
6.11
5.71
39.61
9.11
10.2:C 5.3:C
21.41 24.1 ll
16.01 12.31
~
28.9:C
14.1 :c
36.21
81.41
31.51
58.BI
27.21
38.71
f14I
20.71
13.71
29.71
6.91
19.71
25.71
27.2:C
32.91
Would you favor lowering the min. square footage to make housing
111ore effonleble. ( 1= slrongly disagree to 5= strongly ogree)
1 =41.81, 2 =6.U, 3 = 11.71, 4 = 13.91, 5 =26.01
�J;l.17:
New housing should be built ot o density thot...
( 1=higher thtm, 2= lower thtm, 3= some es, 4= uncertein)
1
2
3.01 65.31
clang the Sciug. wciterfront of Keil.
on ttie hi 11 in Seugotuck
in downtown Sougotuck
in downtown Dougles
o1ong the shore of Lk. HI
es ttie ogr. ereos of Soug. twp.
2.91 20.01
4.31 62.31
15.71 36.41
14.91 19.91
42.61 10.31
2f.3I
65.21
4
lo.41
11.91
20.81 12.61
35.51 12.41
48.81 16.41
26.51 20.61
RECREATION
Type of edd1tione1 recreet1one1 facilities ere needed in the
Oougles eree.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2 = LOW PRIORITY, 4& 5 = HIGH PRIORITY, 3 = WAS OMITTED
bosketboll courts
bike paths
boot 1ounchi ng romps
comping
community center
cross country ski treils
fitness center
golf course
fliking treils
horsebeck trei 1s
ice rink
Lk. f rant open spece(Lk. HI)
LI<. front open spoce(Ll<.Kel)
pub 1i c Hori nas
privete merinos
movie theeter
neighborhood p1eygrounds
porks
picnic ereos
requetbe 11 courts
riverfront open spece(Kel river)
senior citizen center
shuff 1e boerd
softboll fields
swimming pool(s)
tennis courts
g_ 19;
LOW PRl%RITY
35. :I
20.01
32.41
51.91
25.21
36.21
37.71
65.71
39.61
57.31
33.6:1
16.2:1
17.21
38.21
52.51
28.51
33.6:1
30. 11
26.91
48.51
15.51
25.71
48.21
54.71
38.21
51.01
HIGH PRIORITY
29.71
66.51
45.61
21.61
44.71
43.81
39.21
15. ti
33. ti
t 1.61
39.7:1
69.61
69.11
32.8:1
7.81
38.41
33.61
49.81
37.0:1
14.21
64.tl
45.21
18.51
19.41
40.21
28.11
WATERFRONT DEYELOPHENT & SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Which of the following best desribe your use (s) of neerby weter
bodies.
( VALUES REPRESENT TRE PERCENT CHECKED)
Qes~ouon
view ng
swtmmrng
sunbethtng
f i sht ng(boet)
fishtng(shore)
nature study
se11tng
wt ndsurft ng
weterskttng
/f.41
2.41
11.51
23.71
21.61
• 31.71
7.31
1.01
8.41
7~1
2.41
6.31
11.51
9.11
16.01
18.BI
5.21
13.91
eW1
•58.21
54.71
27.21
11.51
33.BI
30.31
10.51
17.41
1Wi1
4.91
3.51
10.BI
B.01
20.61
2.11
1.01
11.51
�KR
_g_ 19: con~
powerboat1ng
SCUb8 dtv1ng
weterf owl flunt
ice fishing
tee skating
cross country ski.
snowmobiling
iceboating
other
I dont use it
Q.20:
-
3TII
0.01
9.81
3.81
8.41
4.51
0.01
1.41
13.61
~
3&
1.01
LN
SL
3.11
3.11
8.41
4.21
2.11
3.11
3~
7.31
1.01
3.11
1.01
10.11
3.11
1.01
, 2:r.71
2.11
5.61
8.01
2.11
5.61
3.51
2.11
9.81
7.71
35.91
Which term best describes your opinion of the present water
quelity of the following wester bodies.
KR
o.ol
very good
go~o
fatr
poor
Ye'] poor
don t know
4.81
15.11
26.81
43.41
9.91
_KL
Lt1
SL
3.81
19.21
26.31
40.21
10.51
7.41
26.11
35.31
19. 11
5.51
6.61
0.01
7.21
15.91
23.51
15.91
37.51
o.ol
Based on your experience in recent years the weter quality of the
following water bodies hes.
KR
Bl
improved great 1y
improved slightfy
stayed the seme
deteriorated slightly
deteriorated greatly
dont' know
Q.22:
26.21
18.71
15.41
18.41
13.91
~
KL
ITI
0.41
18.51
14.01
4.51
20.61
42.01
4'f.
19.11
21.01
32.61
12.71
10.51
25.71
18.01
16.91
18.81
13.01
Indication of feeling about the adequacy of the following
foci 1it i es on each wot er body.
DESCRIPTION
boat launch
boat slips(r)
boat slips(c)
marinas
swim.beaches
boat service
pumpout fac11.
fish cleaning
camp grouds
parks
public rest.
other pub 1i c
des. boat mor
des. no wake
u
~~
27.3 38.2
4.7 56.8
6.5 57.9
17.9
52.6
16.3
22.8
16.5
45.3
46.6
52.3
36.0
31.8
24.6
34.5
22.9
26.0
15.7
23.1
16.8
9.2
20.2
41.7
~~
~te.8
24.4 46.0
6.6
12.9
49.4
12.6
16.1
11.7
39.6
46.2
42.4
34.0
35.8
25.0
56.9
64.6
18.8
57.0
43.2
28.7
19.6
18.0
18.7
21.7
21.4
50.0
35.1
25.8
22.8
36.7
28.7
33.7
29.9
46.5
36.9
36.8
22.5
27.8
39.0
46.0
20.7
13.4
12.7
13.2
34.0
20.9
43.3
7.1
31.3 12.3
19.7 34.5
mAQ.5.LADQ
~ITT
29.6 13.2
18.3 29.7
13.3 20.2
26.8 13.0
18.7
16.8
21.8
14.3
30.6
32.5
18.0
17.1
38.1
11.6
10.2
10.0
45.5 4.2
21.0 10.2
27.8 26.2
Should the vi11Gge actively cooperate in the construction of an
Greawide mDr1na. ( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
1=39.41, 2: 3.01, 3 =23.41, 4 = 14.91, 5 =19.31
�Should the 11i1lege ectively seek to find alternatiYes for low cost
access by Y111age residenfs to additional Lake Michigan beach
foci 1i ti es.
( 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree)
1= 23.61, 2= 4.9:C, 3: 21.71, 4= 25.11, 5: 24.7:C
How should underdeveloped waterfront lands be used in Douglas.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HA\/E BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2: DISAGREE, 4 & 5: AGREE, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
DISAGREE
11.2:C
69.81
81.7:C
81.51
90.3:C
63.8:C
47.9:C
pub1i c aqui sit 1on to 1eeve open
develop for residential sub.s
deve 1op 1 story condos
develop 2 story condos
develop 3 story condos
deve 1op meri nes
mixed use ...
,P.26:
AGREE
~
14.91
11.0:C
13.41
6.2:C
20.41
31.5:C
OTHER LAND USE QUESTIONS
Whet are your priorities for Blue Star Highway.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED
better 1i ght i ng
uniform sign controls
improve traffic flow
add e center tum 1one
install public sewer
install public water
improve drainage
improve appearence
create commercial strip
more tourist orientated bus.
more shopping
more industry
more personal services
more auto services
more offices
fast food rest.s
drive thru businesses
no changes
better lane striping
bresurf acing
uni farm speed 11 mi t
bike bath
more trees
.P~
LOW PRIORITY
HIGH PRIORITY
28.7:C
50.61
47.61
48.4:C
36.21
37.41
45.51
29.3:C
30.51
32.51
30.01
28.4:C
16.6:C
35.81
41.01
33.4:C
37.51
29.21
38.7:C
42.31
37.2:C
44.21
49.7:C
34.81
23.1 :C
27.81
27.1 :C
22.7:C
36.BI
29.2:C
75.7:C
32.91
27.91
44.61
42.01
36.31
38.7:C
25.51
50.2:C
30.01
28.1 :C
48.71
65.1 :C
59.0:C
60.2:C
61.01
Which, if any, of the following types of "home occupattons" do you
favor being permitted in res1denlia11y zoned erees.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= OPPOSE, 4 & 5: FAVOR, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
bed & breakfast
hatrdressers/barbers
mus1c lessons
WW
43.71
13.01
g
33.91
76.51
�FAVOR
OPPOSE
9.27: cont.
do nee 1essons
accounting/tax prep.
low offices
medi ca 1 off f ces
odult foster core
day core
"avon·, ·amwoy·
typing services
dress~el<ing/olt.
ceram1cs
clothing boutiques
b~kery_
66.01
66.41
40.11
37.91
41.11
36.91
42.41
69.71
71.21
25.31
14.51
20.41
1 t.71
19.51
16.61
18.01
19.11
41.01
37.91
30.71
27.01
40.01
16.21
11.21
50.21
74.21
72.51
79.31
71.31
48.1 I
P1ZZ8r18
sme 11 engine repair
antique soles
r'
tr
ENVIRON ME NT AL PROTECT I ON
What 11m1tetions, if any, should be imposed on development in
each of the fo11ow1ng areas.
( 1= no new development, 2= very low density, 3= moderate density)
(4= No special regulation)
Q.28:
,rn
forested sand dunes
open sand dunes
78.61
wet 1ands & swamps ed j. 71.61
wet lends & swomps in. 62.31
along the Kal. river
26.81
along Kol. lake
23.21
along Lk. Ml
22.21
along Silver Lk.
20.61
2
mil
10.51
5.81
15.61
39.71
31.11
35.81
36.41
3
4.71
4.71
12.81
12.11
28.01
39.01
37.01
38.61
PUBLIC SERVICES
Il.r.Zi; How would you rate the following local public servfces.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= POOR, 4& 5: EXCELLENT, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
ambulance
animal control
bui 1ding inspections
fire protection
first responder unit
Inturban bus
land use planning
library
other village hall services
perking in aowntown
park maintainace
playground equip.
pol1ce protection
property essessment
public boat 1ounch1ng
schools K-6
schools 7-12
schools- community ed.
sewer service
POOR
26.31
62.11
33.61
9.71
11.71
12.91
43.11
9.71
12.61
25.71
16.61
17.41
5.21
74.01
41.31
9.51
16.61
19.31
14.71
~i~P1
16.41
26.71
64.51
64.31
75.41
19.71
69.81
48.11
43.31
52.71
57.91
69.71
4.41
26.21
65.71
59.41
51.31
45.31
4
~
6.21
8.61
10.11
5.41
6.71
5.11
4.41
~
�cont
snow remova1
storm drei nege
street lighting
street m8int81nence
street resurfecing
weter servf ce
W8terfront me1ntanence
zoning enforcement
Q.29:
fQOR
1~
28.61
23.11
22.91
33.21
25.2:1
38.31
41.11
a
35.1 I
45.01
44.61
24.71
41.6:1
17.91
17.41
Q.30: Whet ere your priorities for how the villege spends your tex
doll ors.
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5: HIGH PRIORITY, 3: HAS BEEN OMITTED
preventing crime
enforcing ordinences
treffic enforcement
fire protection
ambulance service
weter supply
sewer service
street repair
perk & recreet ion
improve parking downtown
senior progrems
improve vn 1age eppearance
planning for future
weterfront improvement
interurban bus service
economic development
Q.31:
LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY
15.11
18.61
23.21
4.51
9.51
7.01
10.51
10.41
22.61
51.01
36.91
22.21
10.51
17.91
21.81
17.41
72.71
47.81
37.21
86.81
74.21
83.41
66.81
71.31
45.3:1
19.21
38.01
49.21
65.71
54.51
56.61
56.1 I
If it meant en increase in general property texes, which of the
follwing services do you tliink Douglas should increese or edd.
police protection
fire protection
better St. maintenance
more parldng
better water quality
better sidewalk
sidewalk snow removal
new street lighting
More flowers'& trees
community rec. center
seniors center
industriel park
drainege control
trash collection
combined meint. garage
economic developmenl.
24hr. medical service
communt ty poo 1
CHECKED
12.9:t
18.11
24.01
10.11
59.91
18.51
15.01
10.51
24.41
24.41
19.51
15.71
17.8:C
25.41
17.41
23.01
41.81
25.81
�Which of the following stotements is closet to your position on
government services and property taxes.
CHECKED
58.4:C
Nice to heve better services. but...
I would like better government services, ...
Local government tnes to do to much, ...
Other
15.71
16.91
9.01
How frequently do you use the following services.
( 1= never, 2= less then t time/month. 3= one time/month)
(4= one time/week, 5= more often)
recycling center
interurb8n bus service
river bluff p8rk
Saug.-Doug. district librery
over beach
Douglas beach
sun oown perk
Shultz P8rk
Seug. Dunes St. Perk
beery field
wicks perk
other perks out of eree
vi 11 age he 11 services
n
46.71
58.61
36.41
38.81
43.31
79.01
41.4:i
61.51
59.41
66.51
56.81
36.01
2
6.71
3
9. ti
25.41 7.71
31.31 5.51
23.5i 15.11
33.11 11.51
34.11 10.01
15.61 3.11
35.61 12.31
24.11
9.71
19.51 13.41
18.11 11.51
26.41 10.21
38.31 21.71
4
~
2.61
3.51
17.61
6.91
9.21
1.21
7.31
2.31
5.41
1.51
3.01
1.21
5
1.21
17.61
1.21
7.41
9.61
3.41
1.21
3.41
2.31
2.31
2.31
1.7,C
2.81
How important e priority is it to you for the Township to improve
the exterior appearance of the Township Hall.
( 1=low priority to 5= high priority)
1 = 32.61, 2 = 25.71, 3 =21.01. 4:: 10.91, 5 =9.81
ll.35:
Place e check before each of the follwing Village
boerds/commissions et which you heve attendee a meeting in the
1est 2 years.
CHECKED
Village council
44.61
plennrng commision
37.61
zoning lloerd of appee1s
12.51
board of review(texes)
15.7.
4.21
schoo 1 board
Saug twp fire district
5.91
interurban trans.system
16.41
10.1:C
Ka 1. Lk. WDter &. Sewer Auth.
SDug. twp. Park&. Rec. Comm.
5.61
Q.36:
How responsive do y_ou feel these perts of local government are to
Douglas citizens. 11 = not very responsive to 5: very responsive)
NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED
1 &. 2= NOT VERV RESPONSIVE, 3 &. 4= VERY RESPONSIVE
3 =HAS BEEN OMITTED
Village council
plennrng commision
Zoning t>oerd of eppeals
NOT YER~~PONSIYE VERY R:afa:Ns IVE
2 .4
25.61
29.81
.I
41.01
19.11
�NOT YERV !1fSPONSIVE VERY RESPRNSIYE
Q.36:
12. I
59. I
boerd of review(texes)
schoo 1 boerd
Seug twp fire district
interurben tnms. system
Kat. Lk. weter & Sewer Auth.
Saug. twp. Perk & Rec. Comm.
37.31
56.91
53.71
46.61
40.11
21.11
21.01
16.71
30.01
14.21
Should the Village adopt ei poltcy of consolidating services with
other governmenteil units.
68.21
11.71
20.11
yes
no
uncertain
Q.38:
If yes, what services should be consolideited.
NOTE: THESE VALUES CORRESPOND TO THE PERCENT WHO ANSWERED "YES"
ABOVE
c~~P
Sewer
water
strorm weiter
police
street & roeids
parks & summer Rec.
planning
zoning
building permits
Yi 11 age manager
Comti. interurban veh1ca1 maint.
~
Should the Ctty of Seugetuck, the v111ege of dougles, end the
Township of Saugatucl< consolidate into a single untt of
government.
yes= 47.51,
g.40:
no= 52.51
Are you a regt sterd voter.
yes= 87.61,
g~
54.71
34.11
47.41
44.61
43.91
38.31
32.81
28.21
24.01
51.21
no= 12.41
How many years have you resided in the Villeige of Douglas.
less than 1
1 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 20
more than 20
D,42;
CH~l<fP
.2
18.81
22.31
23.41
32.31
How many more years do you thtnk you wtll stey tn the Douglas
eree.
less then one
1 - 3
4 - 10
more then 1o yrs.
c,wo
2.21
20.51
75.01
�9.43:
How mtiny months of eoch yeor do you typicolly reside in the
Douglas area.
73.51 responded that length of stay is 12 months
1 1.81 responded that lenglh of stay is less than 6 months
.Q.44:
Please check each of the following that apply to you.
residential property owner
renter
own or manage a business in area
Q.45;
78.41
17.11
21.31
Which of the following best represents where you live.
on the dunes/bluff along Lk. Ml
on the dunes along Kalamazoo Lk
elsewhere along Kelemezoo Leke
along Kalamazoo River
along Silver lake
elswnere elong the Kol. river
on hil 1 in Saug.
else. in Saug.
near downtown Doug.
else. in Doug.
in arg. area of Saug. Twp.
else. in Saug. twp.
Q.46:
CHECKED
CHECKED
16.BI
1.11
1.1 I
0.41
0.01
0.01
1.11
2.21
41.01
34.01
2.21
0.01
What is the highest level of education you have finished.
less than high school
high school graduate
some college
associate·s or technical degree
college graduate
graduate or prof essi ona l degree
CHEC'iD
5.7
19.91
30.61
3.21
21.01
19.61
Please provide the following information abouteach person that
norma 11 y 1i ves in your housello1d.
AVERAGE AGE OF RESPONDENTS
55.06
SEX OF RESPONDENTS
male
female
62.51
37.51
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED
61.41
COMMUN ITV
Douglas
City of Saugatuck
Saugetuck Twp.
Holland
other
51.01
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RETIRED
38.01
13.51
0.01
6.71
27.41
�APPENDIX
D
Soil Types - Tri-Community Area
�SOIL TYPES · TRI-COMMUNITY AREA
SOILTYPE
AND SLOPE
SOIL NUMBER
LIMITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION FIELDS
LIMITATIONS FOR
DWELLINGS WITH
BASEMENTS
CATEGORY A - SANDY, RAPID PERMEABJLITY, 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
1 OB
lOC
lOE
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, IDGH 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
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
SB
SC
33A
14C
14D
14E
75B
42B
28A
60B
SE3, SE5
SE3, SE5
SE3, SE5
SE5,SE3
SE5, SE3
SE3
SE5
SEl, SE5
SE1,SE5
SE3, SE5
SE5, SE3
SE3, SE5
SE5, SE3
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
SE3
SE3
SE3
MD3,MD2
MDl, MD2, MD3
SE3
MDl
SEl
SEl
SL
SE3
SE3
SL
�SOILTYPE
AND SLOPE
SOIL NUMBER
LIMITATIONS FOR
SEPTIC 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,
SE6
SE6,
SE3,
SE6
SE6
SE6,
SE5
SE6
SE6
SE6
SES, SE3
SES, SE6
SE6
SE6
SE6, SE3, SE4
SE6, SE4
SE6, SE4
SE6, SE5
SES, SE6, SE5
SE6
SE6, SE4
SEll, SE6
SE5, SE6
SE4, SE6
SES, SE3, SE5
SES, SE3
SE8,SE6
SE6
SE6, SElO
SE8,SE6
SE6, SEl0
SE6
SE6, SEl0
SE6
SE6
SES, SE3
SE5
SE5
SES
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
UC
11D
llE
63B
31B
SL
SL
MDl
SEl
SEl
SL
SL
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
MD2
SL
MDl
SEl
SEl
MD2
SL
�UNCLASSIFIED SOILS
34
18
66
Aquents, sandy and loamy
Pits
U dipsammen ts
KEY FOR LrnITATION CODES
SEVERE LIMITATIONS:
SEl
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SEl0
SEll
SLOPE
SHRINK-SWELL
WETNESS
POOR FILTER
PERCSSLOWLY
PONDING
CUTBANKSCAVE
FLOODING
EXCESSIVE HUMUS
LOW STRENGTH
SUBSIDES
MODERATE LIMITATIONS:
MDl
MD2
MD3
SLOPE
SHRINK-SWELL
WETNESS
SLIGHT LIMITATIONS:
SL
SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
�N
A
10 ■
10■
DOUGLAS
SOIL TYPES
�y
��
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
Douglas_Comprehensive-Plan_1989
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Village of Douglas Planning Commission, Village of Douglas, Saugatuck Township, 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
Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan
Description
An account of the resource
The Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan was prepared by the Village of Douglas Planning Commission in cooperation with the Village Council and the Coastal Zone Management Program, with the assistance of the 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
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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e4e37f9c6e43b8b42edea8e2afa1a9ac.pdf
420514b54784cd2fd315f9ba28ca42c7
PDF Text
Text
• J'
•
.,. '•
~ 4• I
J.°,\
iL
..
~
'
'.)
;
'
t
-~ .
'.
►.-
'
~
.,
'
,.
{
'
'
·,·
Dorr
Towns.h ip
I'
l· ..
L
Allegan County, Michigan .
'
L•'
..
•'
! '
.
't
r
T •• •
.
'
·,
L·
.•,
L,,
L:
••
••
L<
Ll
·Master Plan
j
:
,· :J ,
'
'
I
.
'
1991 '
' , ,.
•'•
I
L.
L
L
L
..
,
}
�DORR TOWNSHIP
TOWNSHIP BOARD
Donald Kaczanowski, Supervisor
Dick Dutkiewicz, Clerk
Paul Burmania, Trustee
Joe Graczyk, Treasurer
Norman Fifelski, Trustee
PLANNING COMMISSION
Robert Wagner, Chairperson
Norma Schaendorf, Secretary
Steve Spykman
Louis Hamish
Darwin Duff
Mike Kelly
Paul Burmania
Adopted: May 21, 1991
PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF:
WW Engineering & Science, Inc.
Governmental Services Division
SSSS Glenwood Hills Prkwy, S.E.
P.O. Box 874
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49588-0874
(616) 942 - 9600
�RESOLUTION TO ADOPT
r
I
a
REVISED MASTER PLAN
ror
DORR TOWNSHIP
WHEREAS. the 1974 Dorr Township Master Plan is over 15 years old and significant
changes have taken place in the Township since that time, AND
WHEREAS, the citizens of Dorr Township have expressed a strong desire to prcsCIVc
agricultural land which is a significant natural and economic resource of the
Township.AND
WHEREAS, there is also a need to provide for residential development which will offer a
_rural life style while protecting prime agricultural land. AND
WHEREAS, there is also a need to provide for orderly growth in a manner consistent
with the goals and policies of Dorr Township. AND
WHEREAS, a revised Master Plan will sCIVe as a guide for the future orderly
development of Dorr Township, preserve prime agricultural land and maintain the rural
character of Dorr Township, AND
L-
WHEREAS, Michigan Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended, authorizes the adoption of a
Township Master Plan by the Planning Commission
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Dorr Township Planning Commission
does hereby adopt the revised Master Plan for Dorr Township,
,-
�BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of the adopted Plan be forwarded to members
of the Dorr Township Board
VOTE
i .
Motion by:
Seconded by:
YEAS:
,E
O
v .((
- 4-
-
NAYS:
IV v r-'lf
-
ABSENT:
-r
- d- •
&.)
u
0
·~I(::/1
, i ~A'\..J,~-,,.-.
,, .~-,.._
I
Robett Wagner
V
Chairperson,
Planning Commission
I, Dick Dutkiewicz. Oerk of Dorr Township, do hereby cenify that
was adopted by the Dorr Township Pla.'lning Commission on ...-:I
(7,n
the
a1if
resolution
I.;;; I ,
'
,.,
"
,~c..-v
I
L
l
.
r1.c ~>~
Dick Dutkiewicz
Oerk
Dorr Township
~u~
�!
Table of Contents
.~
fJlu.
Chapter
I -
1
Introduction
1.
,.
I
Agriculture
Residential Land Use
Commercial Land Use
Industrial Land Use
Roads, Sewer, and Water
Public Services
Parks and Recreation
Natural Features
2.
3
Goals and Policies
3
4
4
-
5
5
6
6
7
Physical Description
8
Regional Setting
Natural Features
8
8
l~
I
3.
Communi!Y Faciliti.es
Township Offices
Fire Services
Public Safety
Libraries
Cemetarics
Educational Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Historical Sites
Utilities
Solid Waste Disposal
Roads and Transponation
(
!_
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
I
1. '.
j:
4.
Social and Economic Characteristics
Population
Households
Economic Characteristics
I
\...
I""',
1
L
r-
21
21
26
26
�Table of Conte~ (continued)
&la.
Chaptu
5.
Existing Land Use and Analysis
Agriculture
Residential
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Public/Semi-Public
Schools
Recreation
l.
6. . Planning Analysis
Population Projections
Residential Land Use Needs
Other Land Use Needs
Total Future Land Use Needs
Roads and Streets
7.
Future Land Use Plan
The Relationship of Planning and Zoning
Plan Concepts
Agriculture
Rural Estate
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Public/Semi-Public
Streets
'-
8.
Implementation
27
27
29
31
32
32
33
35
35
35
35
37
41
43
46
46
47
48
49
. 49
50
51
53
53
54
ss
�..
I
List of Ta/Ms
l_
1. 24-Hour Traffic Counts and Capacity
2 . . Historical Population Changtl, 1960- 1990
3. Rectlnt Devdopment Activity - BMilding PD'lllits
lsslWl 1985 - 1990 (April)
4. Agtl ofResidents
5.
Pu Capita Income
6.
7.
8.
9.
Existing Land Use: Changu Sinctl 1978
I 0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
•
Population ProjtlCdon.,
2010 Land Use Nt!tltb
Rt!creadon Land Standards and Nt!tltb
Traffic Vallone Proj«tions
FormalCountyDrauu
SMitabltl Soils for Development
Prime and Unique Farmland Soib
Existing Strat Classi/icatJon
LotSplits 1980-1990Bys«tion
Existing Landu.
P.A.1161.antb
F11111re Lfllld Use Map
19
23
24
-
25
25
34
37
41
42
44
JO
11
12
2fJ
,,.,,.21
22
�..
DORR TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The fundamental purpose of the Master Plan is to allow Dorr Township to set fonh in a
comprehensive manner the goals and objectives for its physical development. The
Township Planning Act. Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended, specifically gives
Township Planning Commissions the authority to prepare and officially adopt a Master
Plan. This Plan will serve as an advisory guide for the physical conservation of certain
areas and for the development of other areas into a desirable living environment for
present and future township residents.
Planning, in simple terms, is a goal-oriented and continuous process which seeks to
improve a community and create a better environment. As such, a Master Plan is a "tool"
by which this goal can be reached. It is used by both individuals and public officials to
make decisions concerning the long-range future of a community.
In 1974, the Allegan County Planning Commission prepared a General Development Plan
for each township in Allegan County. ~ anticipation of future growth, a Plan update was
undertaken by Dorr Township in April of 1990. This Plan includes demographic
information, a. natural resources inventory, population projections, future land use needs,
a future land use map, and methods to implement the Plan.
I
I.
The Master Land Use Plan provides:
1.
A comprehensive means of integrating proposals that look 20 years ahead to meet
future needs regarding general and major aspects of physical conservation and
development throughout the Township;
2.
An officiaL advisory policy statement for encouraging orderly and efficient use of
the land for residences, businesses, industry. parks and recreation areas, and
agriculture, and for coordinating these uses of land with each other, with streets
and highways, and with other necessary public facilities and services;
3.
A logical basis for zoning, subdivision design, public improvement plans, and for
facilitating and guiding the work for the Township Planning Commission and the
Township Board as well as other public and private endeavors dealing with the
physical conservation and development of the Township;
,-•
\
1.·
i
I
I
r.
r
L
JNJ\DorrTpMPl.a\89443
1
�r.
I
'-
4.
A means for private organizations and individuals to determine how they may
relate their building and development projects and policies to official township
planning policies; and
s.
A means of relating the plans of Dorr Township to the plans of adjacent
townships and cities and to development of the region as a whole.
The final clement of the plan will synthesize the recommended goals and needs of the
Township with the analysis of existing conditions and trends. The plan will conclude
with an implementation program that will define strategies and will address specific tools
for implementation such as the,.zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and a capital
improvements program.
The Dorr Township Plan is intended to be long-range and dynamic, based on the longterm goals and objectives looking 20 years forward. With that in mind, there is an
important caveat to this planning process: the Master Plan is general in scope. It is not
necessarily intended to establish the ·precise boundaries of land use areas or the exact
locations of individual future land uses. Its greater function is to serve as a decision
making frame-work. The Master Plan insures that more detailed future decisions can be
related to the broader community-wide perspective provided in the plan, and that
decision makers will have confidence that their decisions have a clear and rational basis.
(
I_
f
l
(
l_
JNJ\DonTpMP'>,aea\89443
2
�'l -
CHAPTER 1
GOALS AND POLICIES
\
l
,'
-
t
l
Planning goals are statements that express the community's long-range desires and serve
to provide direction for related planning activities. Each goal has accompanying policies
which reflect the general strategy that the community will pursue to attain its goals.
Following are goals and policy statements that have been developed for shaping the Dorr
Township Master Plan, based upon citizen input and technical analysis of the data. At a
meeting held on December 12, 1990, members of the Dorr Township Board of Trustees
and the Planning Commisssion met and concurtt.d on these goals and policies. These
goals and policies were developed from a public workshop held on September 18, 1990
which was attended by about 40 Township residents.
GOAL #1:
Agriculture
Preserve lands suitable for agricultural uses in the Township, and manage growth to
minimize the encroachment of residential, commercial, and industrial uses into areas
valued for agricultural pmposes.
Policies:
•
Suppon the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, P.A. 116 of
1974, by encouraging use of preservation agreements by area farmers
and approving such agreements that are consistent with the land use
. plan.
•
Develop zoning regulations which restrict non-farm development in
a:rcas consisting primarily of prime farmland.
•
Develop zoning regulations and utility extensions policies which make
lands which are less suitable for agriculture use more attractive to
develop than prime agricultural .land.
•
Encourage propcny tax poli?CS that assess farmland for its present use
rather than its potential use.
•
Develop zoning regulations which discourage the formation of flaglots or irregularly-shaped land divisions which result in large numbers
of acres that are not buildable, not easily serviced by public utilities,
and are in some cases removed unnecessarily from agricultural
production.
(.
r
I
t
.JNJ\DorrTpMP..'89443
3
�GOAL #2:
(
Residential Land U•
Centralize residential land uses in the Township using the intersection of 142nd Avenue
and 18th Street as well as·the settlement of Moline as points around which residential
development will be focused. ·
I:..:
Policies:
•
Encourage the highest concentrations of residential development to
occur in locations where there are existing public utilities and where
future public utilities and services can be most economically and
efficiently provided when they are needed.
• · Establish density standanis that are consistent with the natural capacity
of soils to handle on-site septic systems and w~ch promote the
preservation of the Township's rural and agrarian qualities.
GOAL#3:
r
I
•
Provide for a variety of housing types in appropriate locations and at
acceptable densities. Special attention should be given to the needs of
senior citizens, young couples, and low/moderate income households.
•
Encourage creative design of neighborhoods to enhance desirability
including amenities such as sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian paths,
open space, and pedestrian linkage to commercial centers.
Commercial Land Us~
Plan for and encourage expansion of the retail and service businesses in the central area
of the Township (downtown Dmr), and in Moline.
I
Policies:
• Identify and provide for the basic service and shopping needs of the
Township's residents.
•
Expand public utilities and services in those areas identified as
desirable for commercial retention and expansion.
•
•
Discourage, through zoning controls, commercial development in areas
that would lead to the need for public utilities and services that cannot
be economically and efficiently provided in the foreseeable future.
•
Discourage, through zoning, the development of wide-spread strip
development along 142nd Avenue.
I
l
l
I
L,
I
f.
L
JNl\Don'TpMP.a\19443
L
4
�..
•
Encourage the shared use of commercial driveways and access roads
and limit the number and spacing of driveways along arterials;
encourage the use of frontage roads or service drives to minimize
traffic congestion and hazard
•
Promote high quality commercial development through local site plan
reviews.
•
Establish landscaping guidelines and promote a downtown desigr plan
to maximize aesthetics and unify the commercial district
,..
\
l -
GOAL#4:
Industrial Land Use
Provide for industrial development in areas served by adequate
transportation systems and potentially served by public utilities and
services.
Policies:
GOAL #5:
•
Establish and reserve suitable land for future industrial purposes.
•
Expand public utilities and services in those meas identified as
. desirable for industrial development
•
Promote the development of industrial plats rather than scattered single
lot development.
•
Promote high quality industrial development through local site plan
review.
•
Work with the Allegan County Growth Alliance to attract desirable
manufacturing or processing operations to the area.
Roads, Sewer, and Water
Provide for adequate infrastructure that will ensure balanced, orderly growth and ensure
the safety and well-being of Township residents.
Policies:
• Systematically improve Township roads giving priority to roads in
areas intended to suppon the highest concentrations of development
•
Establish a program that ultimately results in paving of all roads in the
Township.
·
r
L
JN.J\Don-TpMP,aea',89443
f
)
l..'
s
�i
•
Work with Allegan County Road Commission and law enforcement
agencies toward widening of 142nd Avenue and the addition of traffic
safety measures such as left-hand tum lanes, deceleration lanes, and
an acceptable maximum speed limiL
•
Provide street lighting in all present and future residential areas and at
street intersections where necessary.
•
Study the feasibility of a separate sanitary sewer system for the Dorr
area, along with funding sources.
•
Provide, where feasible and necessary, water, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer services in areas of the Township identified for residential,
commercial, and industrial developmenL
•
Protect and preserve groundwater supplies by participating in statewide programs to monitor quality of groundwater and by establishing
density standards that are consistent with the natural capacity of soils
to handle on-site septic systems.
I
\.
GOAL #6A&B: Public Services
A.
Ensure a greater level of public safety by cooperating with surrounding
Townships to secure more regular police protection.
Policies:
• Maintain a close, cooperative relationship with the Allegan County
Sheriff's Department to ens~ adequate police protection.
•
B.
Initiate ongoing dialogue with Leighton, Hopkins, and Salem
Townships to assess mutual levels of needs and possibilities of shared
police services.
Ensure enforcement of local zoning ordinances and building codes.
Policies:
• Review procedures with appropriate staff regarding enforcement and
compliance.
• Supply adequate training and staffing for enforcement officials.
GOAL#7:
f
Parks and Recreation
Plan for and develop active and passive outdoor recreation facilities to meet the needs of
existing and future residents of the Township.
JNJ\Don'I'pMP.a\89443
6
�Policies:
•
Pursue recreation funding from Department of Natural Resources
through preparation of a Township Recreation Plan or by amending
Allegan County Recreation Plan.
•
Design and construct bicycle paths that link commercial, residential,
and recreational areas, and that link to bicycle paths beyond Township
boundaries.
• Plan
for additions to existing parks in Dorr Township based on
Recreation Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (National
Recreation and Park Association), and local needs.
(
L
•
GOAL#&
Work .with residential developers to set aside suitable portions of land
for parlcs, and road easements for pedestrian/bicycle paths.
Natural F~atuns
Ensure that new development takes place in an environmentally consistent and sound
manner, minimizing the potential for soil erosion and disturbances to natural resources
such as woodlands and wetlands, thereby preserving scenic and environmental quality.
Policies:
• 'Through wning and site plan review encourage approaches to land
development that take natural features such as soils, topography, steep
slopes, hydrology, and natural vegetation into account in the process of
site design.
•
Encourage soil conservation practices and the prudent use of fertilizers
and pesticides.
•
'Through site plan review, discourage practices which would alter the
natural valuable function of wetlands, especially those not protected
under the State of Michigan Wetlands Protection Act (P.A. 203 of
1979).
•
Preserve and protect through wning those soils identified as prime
agricultural soils, and utilize for development those soils not identified
as having agricultural value.
•
Establish landscaping guidelines for existing and future commercial,
industrial, and residential development which, through site plan
review, would preserve and increase the numbers of trees and other
woody vegetation in _the Township.
.
L..
.JNl\DorrTpMPlaea\89443
(
7
.
�!
\
-
CHAPI'ER2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPI'ION
'•-
r
I
\_
Any plan for the future must be based on knowledge of existing conditions and the
· influences that have shaped the community. This chapter examines the natural features
that have impacted upon the community, and have helped to determin~ what the
community is today. These include the location of the community, its topography, soils,
and water resources.
REGIONAL SEITING
Dorr Township is located in the northern tier of townships in Allegan County and
consists of 36 square miles of land area. It lies approximately six miles south of the
Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area, fifteen miles cast of the City of Holland, and
approximately twenty-two miles cast of the La.kc Michigan shoreline.. The settlement of
Dorr is situated centrally in the Township. Other residential concentrations are found at
North Dorr, located along the northern boundary of the township, and at Moline, located
along the eastern boundary. Dorr Township is bounded on the north by Kent County's
Byron Township, on the cast by Leighton Township, on the south by Hopkins Township,
and on the west by Salem Township.
L
United States Highway 131 traverses the eastern edge of the Township in a north/south
direction, providing the principal access route to the community. This major artery also
links the Grand Rapids Metropolitan Arca with the Kalamazoo Metropolitan Area.
NATURAL FEATURES
Geology
The bedrock in Allegan County consists of Mississippian Sandston~ and Shale, which are
pan of the bowl-like rock formation known as the Michigan Basin. The upper bedrock
layers of Dorr Township are sandstone of the Marshall Formation. Overlying these
bedrock formations is a mass of glacial drift ranging from about 50 to 400 feet in
thickness, deposited when the glacial ice receded about 10,000 years ago. The
physiography of Dorr Township is determined by these underlying glacial till plains
resulting in surface relief that varies from flat to undulating.
Topography and Drainage
r-
The general topography of Dorr Township is flat to moderately rolling, with no
significant topographical features. The greatest variations in terrain exist in the
northeastern and southwe_stem portions of the Township.
l.
rL
JNJ\DoirTpMP.aea\19443
8
�L
Four major drainage patterns can be seen in the Township. The northwestern and central
western portions of the Township are in the Little Rabbit River drainage basin. The
central and north central portions are in the Dorr and Byron Drain system, which flows
into the Little Rabbit River Drain. The eastern portion of the Township is in the Red
River drainage basin which joins the Little Rabbit River on the western side of the
Township, and the southern most portions of the Township drain into the Rabbit River
where it flows through Hopkins Township. The Little Rabbit River drains into the
Rabbit River in southwestern Salem Township. Only a small segment (about 1.5 miles)
of the Rabbit transects the southwestern comer of the Township. The Rabbit ultimately
flows into the Kalamazoo River which empties into Lake Michigan at Saugatuck.
A number of formal country drains provide control of drainage within the Township. (see
Map 1). The Allegan County Drain Commission maintains this drainage system.
No major flood plains exist in the Township. Flooding has not historically been a major
problem, and the Township does not participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.
Dorr Township has no dominant surface water features. A few small lakes and ponds are
scattered throughout the Township, and sand mining in Sections 20, 21, 28, 29 and 33 has
resulted in numerous small lowlands and ponds. Monterey Lake, is located about one
mile west of Dorr Township in southern Salem Township.
Soils
The soils in Dorr Township range from well drained, sandy or loamy materials to poorly
drained sandy, loamy, or silty material. The locations of these soils are an imponant
consideration in both the existing and future physical development of the Township.
While residents in the Moline area are served by the Moline-Dorr Sewer Authority, the
balance of homes and businesses must rely on soil suitability to obtain a safe water
supply and to dispose of waste. ·
·
l.
Map 2 has been prepared based on soils and their suitability for development without
public sewers. The factors considered include hazards of flooding, depth to water table,
percolation rate, and slope. It should be noted that the soils with severe limitations will
in most cases present problems for the efficient operation of individual septic systems.
B~cause of high water tables or rapid lateral movem~nt of subsurface waters in these
areas, the use of septic tanks and drainage fields provides increased potential of pollution
of wells and surface waters. In addition, there is a potential for seasonal flooding of
basements. Intensive development in these areas often results in increased demands for
public sewer and/or water systems to compensate for environmental hazards or health
hazards.
.
.JNl\DorrTpMP,aea'89443
9
�•
DORR TOWNSHIP T4N, Rl2W
.. .
~~ -.~
.
\ -;...
. t . -In;--·.
-
\.
•• ·) ~_.L!1!,,. .
Al.LEG
--- •. .
•
~
.
.,,,:,· .
-
•:I •
·.
J.
I
J
'
•
.
·/"
.
_:_.-!J
""';
i._~--
_-._/ . . . .
.
v
\ -_
/
-
:
. I:
-~i
/
..,,
• ,___ ,_......,.i:::::.._,
I
1·
D
,. ,..
.I
.P
.
,!>-
- -
9CAl£ I" •
. ·,
_.I
2000'
I
I
I -
LEGEND
>
0
.
..
'
.
·.
. .
.
. - ..
-.
. -.
-:
Cl'OI COUNTY OIIAINS
.
-·. ·> .··
-----
11l£0 COUNT"f DRAINS
.. ;
.
~.
\
I
===
11.YOl! NATURAL WATER COURSl:s
ftllNO~ NATURAL WATER COl.flSES - ·
CllAIIAGE DISTRICT
CORPORATE LIMITS
1
. '·
'•
•=----•-
STATE HtGHWAY
cooon
ROAD
L"IMPROVED ROAD OR TRAIL
!!:
4.
:r
U)
z
%
U)
z
~
~ ,_
1-
z
~
l&I
J
0
U)
0
l&I
~
1-
:r
cc
1,1
MAP 1
FORMAL COUNTY DRAINS
-......
,
AL.LEGAN (Xll.NTY DRAINS
DORR TOWNSHIP
LYI\N B. FLDIING DRAIN co,.t.1ISSIONER
D.A. RATEON
..,_: I,..
...
UNO
·-,~')?'·
a ASSOCIATES,
IIICMIGAII
DATE
INC.
~~s'i/.;T--.u,IUMI,
49010
S1€ET NO._aF_
�)
BYRON T\./P,
ti
<KEHT CIJ.M"Y>
ti
t;
t;
. t;
,-:
~
"'
~,
~ -~1
=
=--J -__ ~.
~
146TH AVE,
-.,:
~
~
.,~
l4 ◄ TH
MOLINE
I
I
I 1\\\1
144TH AVE,
a..
0...
'.:)
~
I--
I-~
142ND AVE,
w
_J
Z
D
1--
<t
:r:
(I)
L'.)
1-1
w
_J
140TH AVE,
8TH AVE.
136
13(,TH AVE,
~
.,,
,-:
~
~
~
~
~
HOPKINS T\./P.
MAP 2
4>
.......
b-£..11"
DORR TOWNSHIP
ALLEGAN COUNTY
SUIT ABLE SOILS FOR DEVELOPMENT
1990
T
J.£!lftlll:
-
SOILS WHICH ME GENEIW.1.Y SUITABLE f'OR ON SIT£
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
lWO OR MORE Of lliE
FOLLOWING CHAAACTOIJS'llCS:
- SOIL PERCOLATION RATE
- SLOl'E(lfSS 1liAN 1&:l)
- OEPlH OF HIGH WA'IER TABI.£
- NO FLOOD HA2ARO
our ro
OH-SITE IINES'TIGATION MAY S11U. BE NECESSARY
TO DETERMINE SEPTIC SYSTEM SUITABIUTY.
_IU.ll,A, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , ~ - -
-...................
..~·.!:...-=-V
___ ___
._...
�)
/
BYRON T\./P,
I:;
t;
<KE:NT C!UflY)
ti
t;
I:;
t:;
~
~
141TH
144TH AV[,
CL
~
CL
~
I-
I~
HZND AV[,
w
_J
~
(I')
Z
D
II
L'.J
141ST AVE.,
':-
'I ,I
I
>--<
I
w
20
I
.....J
=----p
I
I
140TH AV[,
8TH AVE:.
I
I
I
136TH AVE,
t;
ill
J -, I
136TH AVE.
A
ru
~
~
~
HOPKINS T\./P.
MAP 3
{f
DORR TOWNSHIP
ALLEGAN COUNTY
PRIME & UNIQUE FARMLAND SOILS
1990
Uli£lilt.
-
PRIME FARr.11.ANO SOILS >S DEFINED BY THE U.S. DEPT.
Of AGRJCULTIJRE WHICH ME SEST SUITED TO FOOD,
FEED, FORAGE F1BER ANO OIL SEED CROPS. CERTAIN
AREAS MAY l!E PRIME fARMIAND ONLY WHEN WEU.
DRAINEO OR NOT FlOODED DURING CROWlt-lC SEASON,
UNIQUE FARMLAND IS USED FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF HIGH-VALUE FOOD AND F1BE/I CROPS.
EJW,IPLES Of SUCH CROPS ARE \IEGETABLES
Al-ID TREE. VINE. AND BERRY FRUITS.
.. ..:::i!!t.•.!:.,..~v
-11.1.D.A. _ _ _ _ _ _ "-'ll/lY<#.IUSolHCIOIIIIY.
_____ .___ ......... _.... .,.._
�By mapping these soils according to their suitability for development, patterns are
identified which make it possible to determine ·the development potential of specific
areas. Altl,lough the map is not intended as a substitute for on-site investigation or
detailed engineering studies, it does generally define those areas that should be
considered as suitable for development
Soils which generally have unsuitable
characteristics for building or septic use may still be useful with on-site modifications or
detailed site analysis. However, significant development in these areas will increase the
need for public utilities.
Another important feature of soils within Dorr Township are the soils that arc considered
as prime or unique farm land by the United State Departmc~t of Agriculture. Prime
farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the land that is best suited
to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and produces the highest yields with
minimal inputs of energy and economic resources. Unique farmland is land other than
prime farmland dw is used far the production of spec:i:fic high-value food and fiber
crops, such as vegetables and ne, vine, and berry fruits. Map 3 delineaaes the soils
within Dorr Township dw ~ consideml as prime er unique agriculture IOils.
I.
�,.
I
l
CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Township's community facilities are those which provide tangible services to the
residents. A well rounded set of services is necessary to meet the needs of a growing
community like Dorr Township. The services provided are discussed briefly below:
~
I
I
Township Offices - The Township Hall is located at 4194 18th Street. The building was
constructed in 1990 and financed by a bond issue through · the Dorr Downtown
Development Authority (DOA). Included in the hall are offices for Township officials, a
meeting room, conference room, lounge, and three bays for fire trucks. Also, the hall
provides office space for the Wayland Arca Medical Service Corporation which provides
emergency medical services for Wayland and surrounding areas including Dorr
Township. The Township offices will be staffed initially on a pan-time basis, and future
plans are to provide office space for a pan-time police officer.
Fire Service - The Township utilizes 20-22 volunteer fire fighters as well as a FU"C Chief
and Assistant Fire Orief who arc compensated for their services. F°U"C fighting equipment
maintained at the Dorr Township Hall includes two pumper trucks, two tank trucks, a
jeep, and an equipment van. The cost of an additional tanker truck housed in Moline is
shared through an agreement with the Leighton Township F°U'C DcpartmcnL
Public Safety - General police protection is provided by the Allegan County Sheriff's
Department and the Michigan State Police out of the Wayland post. The Township will
be considering a future contract with the Allegan County Sheriff's Department for a parttime officer, and may consider sharing this officer jointly with Leighton Tov.,islup.
Libraries - Dorr Township maintains two libraries: The Dorr Township Libraty located
at 1807 142nd Avenue in Dorr, and The Moline Public Library located at 4410 Oiappcll
in Moline. Financial support is provided through the Township General Fund, Leighton
Township, and through book fines collected in Allegan County. Dorr Township has its
own library board and is a member of the Lakeland Librmy Cooperative. .Fu~ plans
include expansion of The Dorr Township Library into the old adjo~g fire barn.
1-
Cemeteries - Six Cemeteries arc located throughout the Township: in Dorr on 142nd
Avenue, at North Dorr on 108th Street, on 17th Street north of 146th, on 138th Avenue at
,-
22nd Street, at St Stanislaus Catholic Church on 136th Avenue, and on 14th Street nonh
of 142nd Avenue. These facilities are maintained by Dorr Township.
Educational Facilities - Two school districts serve Dorr Township. Wayland Union
Schools, serving most of the population, maintains a IC-4th grade elCIDl!otary IChool
locatai at 4159 18th Street in Dorr, and another elementary school far 5th IDd 6th pllde
students at 1148 1st Stteet in Moline. Hopkins Public Schools, tcnina soutbem pmdons
14
�r
I --
of the Township, maintain Sycamore -Elementary School at 2163 142nd Avenue in Dorr.
St. Stanislaus Catholic School, located at 1871 136th Avenue, houses grades pre-school
through 8th, and Moline Christian School at 1253 1st Street in Moline provides
classrooms for grades pre-school through 9th.
Parks and Recreation - The Dorr Recreation Association has authority over recreational
programming in the Township. With grant monies, the Association has hired a part-time
director. Programming includes baseball and softball programs as well as Rocket
Football. One of the main goals of the Rceteation Association is to acquire more land for
recreational purposes.
Two parks are found in Dorr Township, located across from one another on 142nd
Avenue. On the north side of 142nd lies the Dorr Township Park. consisting of nine
acres. Facilities include two baseball ~nds and three softball diamonds, two
basketball couns, lighted tennis couns, and a shelter with kitchen. South of 142nd is
Gries Park, managed by the Dorr Recreation Association.
Gries Parle, consisting of seven acies, has two ball diamonds, bathrooms, an enclosed
shelter with kitchen, and an open covered sh~lter. Dorr Township provides some
maintenance assistance at the park and may assist further with maintenance in the future.
The privately owned Hungry Horse Wilderness Campground is located south of 142nd
Avenue west of Dorr. Situated on a parcel over 90 acres, the campground offers hiking
and hayrides, a swimming pool, and campsites on about ten ( 10) acres.
A private recreational area exists at Sandy Pines on Monteray Lake in neighboring Salem
Township. While a Sandy Pines membership is required to take advantage of the
recreational opportunities found there, limited public access is available on the lake.
Public fishing and boat launching is also found on Green Lake, three miles cast of Dorr
Township in neighboring Leighton Township. Other regional recreation areas include
the Allegan State Game Arca, approximately five miles from the Township limits, and
Yankee Springs State Park. located approximately eight miles southeast of the Township
in Barry County. Gun Lake County Park is located approximately eight miles southeast
of Dorr Township in Wayland Township.
Historical Sites - Other than several Centennial farms, no designated, historical sites exist
in the community. Buildings having historical significance include the site of Tony's
Antique Shop, which is a former school house, and St. Stanislaus Catholic Church on
136th Avenue, which is over 100 years old. A former one-room school house located on
138th Avenue just east of 14th Street may also be of historical significance.
JNJ\DorrTpMP..'89443 _
lS
�Utilities - Dorr residents obtain water exclusively through private wells. The majority of
residents utilize drainfields for wastewater disposal. However, residents of Moline are
served by the Moline-Dorr Sewer Authority established in 1978. The Sewer Authority
was funded through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and continues to be financed by hook-up and user .fees. The system, which is not
yet at full capacity, serves approximately 200 homes with the potential of serving about
one hundred more. The lagoon treatment facility for the system is located east of old
U.S. 131 in Leighton Township. The-Authority is considering expansion of the system
north of Moline to accommodate future industrial and residential development.
Some residents of Dorr Township have found it necessary to double the siz.e of their
drainfields to handle increased water usage. Commercial establishments near downtown
Dorr have also been limited in drain field capacity due to existing high water table.
Intensive commercial and industrial development in the Township is limited in those
areas not served by tbe Sewer Ambarity Service Alea.
-
l
Solid Waste Dispoaal - Dem Township ntilizes the South Kent Landfill located west al
U.S. 131 off 100th Street in Bymn Township. Tim facility hu a paopw,owcl HI,
expectancy of at least 10 years; length of service will be influenced by ICmt County's
m:endy constructed solid waste incincntm. No 1l'8DSfer facilities exist in die Towmbip.
A recycling station is being COllSlnlCled by Allepn County at 1620 14'-l A.._ ia
downtown Don-. Allepn· County bas sugesaect mancina of NC)'Clina efl'a.uitllniap a
mandatory fee! impoacd upon poperty ownen ill the Townsbip.
Roads and TnNpOl"tatloa - Tbc .._ sysrem forms the IDOlt basic framework for
growth and development of a O'IJIIAIDity. By pmvklina a ma DI illtlenlll 111d
ex1emal circulation, it lm'¥el CM CO!HRIIPDity by belpina lbape die !r1 lily W
Thus, this costly and long-Jasdng ~Jemmt beeomea aee of die w d)'llllllie , _ . . ,
cnmmunity.
·
•
The st=t
follows:
system
D'Yin, Den Townsbip, iDnSUted aa Map 4. eap
--c. . .. . _
Co,,,,.,,.d Accas Ai"teriaJs • These fadlides (US-131) IMl!ftilWft'l
function bGt instead are devotrd ~ to
latp ~ ~ traffic at rebdivel)'
. - , malii-Jw, ilMdad
a
�Major Rural Anerials (county primary)-This class of streets serves major movements of
I -
traffic within or through the area. Mainly designed to move traffic, the secondary
function is to provide land service. This class of street typically interconnects major state
anerial highways. According to the Allegan County Road Commission map, county
primary roads in Dorr Township include 146th Avenue (unpaved:), a portion of 144th
Avenue, 142nd Avenue, a portion of 22nd Street, all of 18th Street, the portion of 14th
Street that joins 142nd and 144th, and 12th Street north of Moline.
Collector Streets (county local) - These streets provide internal traffic movement within
specific areas and connect those areas with the major arterial system. Generally, they are
not continuous for great length.
The rural collector street is intended to supply abutting property with the same degree of
access as a local street,. while at the same time carrying the "collected" traffic of local
streets. Traffic control devices may be installed to protect and facilitate movement of
traffic; however, these devices would not be u elaborate as those on arterial st1ee11. In
rural areas like Dorr Township, rural collectors typically represent the highest pc:m,naq,
of street miles. Within Dorr there arc currently 11 miles of paved collector streecs and 54
miles of gravel collcctors.
Local Feeder Stree_ts - ~e sole function of these streets is to provide
accea
to
immediately adjacent piopeny. In developed areas, they make up the major pm,entap
of the streets of the community, but carry a small proportion of the vehicle-.U.S of
travel. In Dorr Township, examples of these streets include those within Dorr,
and developed subdivisions.
Mott..
l
I
I
The Allegan County Road Commission is responsible for the maintenance ..S
improvement of all roads in Dorr Township, excluding private roads and U.S.-131. 1le
County is currently into the third year of its second five year resurfacing prograa 11a
program recogniz.es six groups of four townships each, with Dorr·being pan of a lft:IIP
that includes Leighton, Wayland, and Hopkins townships. Over each five year
each group of townships shares equally in monies available through the County
roads resurfacing millage.
Each fall, officials from the Allegan County Road Commission meet with local
to determine resurfacing priorities. In 1985 and 1989, during the resurfacing of
of 142nd Avenue and 18th Street, Dorr Township contributed additional funds to
paved shoulders along portions of these roads.
In Dorr Township, the rebuilding and surfacing of 146th Avenue, which is
almost entirely a gravel road, has been designaled u a pricrity. Surfacing of
17
�r•
r
will be accomplished in two stages with the township sharing costs at a rate of $25,000
per mile, approximately a 10 percent match.
I
f
Improvements to County local roads may be requested by township officials. In which
case the township then bears 100% of the cost of those improvements. The Road
Commission may provide improvement services of the township may let a request for
bids.
Conditions ·of roads in the township ·are generally good. Some surface crai;.king on
Division Street (Old U.S.-131) has resulted due to using old, cracked asphalt as a subsurface, and is cu.rrcntly under repair.
CQncems cU1TCntly facing Dorr Township are primarily the existing and projected traffic
volumes along 142nd Avenue from the center of Dorr east to the U.S.-131 freeway, and
along 18th Street north of Dorr which provides access to and from Byron Center in Kent
County. Continued population growth and development in and adjacent to Dorr
Township will generate increased traffic. As shown in Table 1, recent traffic counts by
the Allegan County Road Commission show traffic volumes cU1TCntly operating within
their 24-hour designed capacity.
1.
A 2. 7 mile long segment of the Pennsylvania Railroad transects the northeast corner of
the Township.
Air transportation is provided by the Kent Count International Airport, located about 15
miles northeast of the Township in Kent County, and by the South Kent Airpon located
south of 64th Street in Byron Township, which provides service for private aircraft and
training flights. No public transportation is available in Dorr Township.
•
JNN>on'I'~3
18
�Table 1
DORR TOWNSHIP
24 - Hour Traffic Counts
and Capacity at Selected Locations by Year
r
24-Hour
Locatiao
l
L
Intcrsection-142nd Avenue
at 18th Street North:
South:
East :
West:
2.
lntersection-142nd Avenue
at 16th Street South:
East :
West:
3. 'Intersection-144th Avenue
at 18th Street South:
4.
lntersection-144th Avenue
at 16th Stn:et East:
Somce:
1988
Caaaciti:
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
4,286
3!Xl1
3,242
6,717
S,328
2,000 (gravel)
8,000
8,000
1990
2.121
6,822
5,752
282
6,638
6,663
8,000
130
146 •
2,000 (lravel)
156
165 •
Allegan County Road Ow,,miuiaa
• 1990 Bs1ima1es hued upoo 4,. UICRllle ia amnber ot wllicJes per ,-r. per ~
hours OD majer paved anerials; 2,. inaase far pawl ft1ldL
�)
l
BYRON Tw'P,
<KENT ClllMY>
t;
~
~
~
I.
-+
~T
, 1• ■ ,tr• ■ • ■ t■ ■ 1•• ■ ■ ■,■ •j ■ ■ L■ c~~ ■
\~;e
• •
•
■•■■• ■■
~-,C:i~ .\. l
~46TH AVE.
~
.,,.
~
i•-··r k--t---J'f:::;:::}:::: 4>Et---~-- ----~ ....u.. ~M□,:!~EAVL
142ND AVL
Z
□
f-
-_,
I
l!)
w
I
-=:::-___,. -
140TH AV[,
27
291
25
I
LLJ
~~--t--~--r-·~
~ J_R::--t---- f' ---- -----½----- --r -~ ,,......
...
~
33
0
~i----·-rt·;t ------ 1 I
a) 1
~r-~
l..f-7L~---~.,C-+---b,----~il
136TH AV[,
I
HOPKINS Tw'P.
MAP 4
DORR TOWNSHIP
ALLEGAN COUNTY
EXISTING STREET CLASSIFICATION
LIJilllD;
•
■ ■
•
DPflfSSWA'W(CONlROL ACClESS AftlDIIAL)
MAJOII All'IERIAL(COUNTY PRIMARY ROADS)
PAVED COUECTDRS
• - - • UNl'AIIEI) COUECTOftS
LOCAL S1REETS
---~~----.,~-
�CHAPTER 4
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Understanding the people of Dorr Township will help establish the basis for developing the
Master Plan. This discussion will review the Township population characteristics and trends, as
well as economic conditions and housing characteristics of the community.
Population Characteristics - Table 2 illustrates past growth and future population projections
of Dorr Township relative to the four sutTOunding Townships. Populations shown are for
unincorporated areas only.
The table indicates that between 1960 and 1970, Dorr Township experienced a 32% increase in
population, greater than the rate experienced by any of the surrounding townships and Allegan
County as a whole. Between 1970 and 1980, Dorr Township increased it's population by 64%,
or double the rate of the previous decade. This increase was largely due to the development of
Ranchero Estates and Litchfield Downs Subdivision constructed under the FHA 235 Housing
Program. Again, this growth significantly surpassed the surrounding townships and Allegan
County. 1990 U.S. Census figures indicate a much slower rate of growth, 8.8%, between 1980
and 1990 for Dorr Township. Both Hopkins and Leighton Townships show a somewhat higher
rate of growth than Dorr Township, as docs the County as a whole. Both Salem and Byron
(Kent County) Townships show a significantly higher rate of growth than Dorr Township over
the past decade, but those rates do not vary greatly from the previous decade.
Table 3 illustrates building permit activity in Dorr Township over the past five years, and
permits taken out through April of 1990. The data show an average of 39 new single family
homes each year since 1985, and a trend for 1990 that shows that this average will likely be
surpassed. Using the average household size of 3.4 people given for Dorr Township in the 1990
Census information, if 40 new homes are constructed in 1990, the community will experience
approximately 136 persons residing in new dwellings in 1990. Areas where high concentrations
of property splits or subdivisions have OCCUired arc indicators of where growth is occurring in
the Township. Map 5 indicates that over the past ten (10) years, development activity has
primarily been in Sections 15 {where Pine View Estates, Hidden Forest, and Nonhview
Subdivisions arc located), 19, 20, 21 {Pine Hills Subdivision), 22, and 31.
Another important factor when considering Dorr's population profile is the age of its residents.
Table 4 shows the age breakdown as reported in the_ 1980 U.S. Census, and compares Dorr
Township to Allegan County as a whole. Median age is also given for both jurisdictions. Dorr
Township exhibits a youthful population, with 44% of it's residents under twenty years of age,
and 39% in the child-bearing years of ages 20-44 years. Another 12% of Dorr Township's
residents are in the 45-65 years age group, and only 4.5% arc age 65 or older. The Township is
younger than the county as a whole, with a median age of 23.7 compared to 28.5 in Allegan
County.
JNl\DorrTpMP,-'89443
21
�_
BYRON__,,
HIP.
Ii
i;
i
i
Ii
~
2
l.
0.:
....>
0.:
>
1--
-•"'L Cz
....::c
%:
lo.I
_.
<
"'
I -
8
w
_.
.....
25
I
\
.
HOPKINS T \JP.
IIAP 6
DORR TOWNSHIP
ALLEGAN COUNTY
LOT SPLITS 1880-1990 BY SECTION
,·
I
22
�--
~--·~ -...
,
I
r -
'
'
.,.--1
'
~
7
-·1
/
TABLE2
Historical Population Change
Dorr Township and Surrounding Townships•
1960-1990
Municipality
1960.
%
Absolute
Chan1e
Cbam:e
1970
'¼,
Absolute
Chance
Chan1e
1980
%
Absolute
Chan1e
Chance
1990
DorrTwp.
2,313
32.1
742
3,055
64.1
1,959
5,014
8.8
439
5,453
Leighton Twp.
1,951
20.7
403
2,354 -
17.8
418
2.772
10.7
297
3,069
Hopkins Twp.
1,766
18.0
318
2,084
1.2
25
2.100
11.4
241
2,350
Salem Twp.
1,459
19.5
285
1,744
25.2
439
2,183
24.1
525
2,708
Byron Twp.
(Kent Co.)
6,036
24.l
1,457
7,493
34.8
2,611
10,104
30.0
3,131
13,235
Allegan Co.
57,729
13.3
8,846
66,575
18.4
14,980
81,555
11.0
8,954
90,5()()
Source:
19(i(), 1970, and 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
Excludes population of incorporated areas
•
JNN>orrTpMP-aea\89443
23
�-•-
--~
_,,-
.-.,......,
-~-)
.,
Table 3
RECENT DORR TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1985 -1990 (April)
19851
19861
19872
19882
19892
19902
(Through April)
Single Family Homes
Mobile Homes
(Double Wide)
Stores and
Customer Service
Multi-Family
Buildings
22
26
43
----
----
----
1
(Hillcrest Mall)
----
4
----
---
--------
Office/Professional
Government
SoUJCe:
2
JNN>orrTpMP\aca'\89443
----
-----
54
27
222
----
1
3
3
4
1
----
10
----
1
50
1
(6 units)
----
----
Dorr Township Offices
Professional Ccxie Inspections of Michigan, Inc.
24
TOTAL
2
(6 units)
----
2
,-•·-·
~
�{
l.,.._
Table4
Age of Residents
r
1980
% under
20yrs
L
%From
20-44
%From
45 -64
%65
years
years
years
and over
Median
Age
Dorr Township
44.3
39.1
12.2
4.S
23.7
Allegan County
35.5
36.0
18.2
10.3
28.5
Source:
1980 U.S. Census Data
Tables
Per ·eapita Income
1979 and 1987
Place
1979Per
Capita Inoome
1
1987 Per
Percent
Capita Income2
Chanu
Dorr Township
6,063
9,003
48.5
l
Leighton Township
7,051
·10,441
48.1
r·
l ,
Hopkins Township
Salem Township
6,262
5,968
9,754
9,794
55.8
64.11
l
Byron Township
(Kent County)
7,364
11,650
58.2
Allegan County
6,744
10,440
54.8
State of Michigan
7,688
11,973
55.7
r
L
rJ
Source:
1
2
1980 U.S. Census
U.S. Census Fi~s
It '
rL
JNN>on-T~3
2S
�r
r
r
I
Another important factor when considering Dorr's population profile is the age of its
residents. Table 4 shows the age breakdown as reported in the 1980 U.S. Census, and
compares Dorr Township to Allegan County as a whole. Median age is also given for
both jurisdictions. Dorr Township exhibits a youthful population, with 44% of it's
residents under twenty years of age, and 39% in the child-bearing years of ages 20-44
years. Another 12% of Dorr Township's residents are in the 45-65 years age group, and
only 4.5% are age 65 or older. The Township is younger than the county as a whole,
with a median age of23.7 compared to 28.5 in Allegan County.
Households - In 1980, there were 1,380 households in Dorr Township which is an
increase of 80.4% over the 1970 figure according to U.S. Census data. As mentioned
above, the average number of pcrsops per household in 1980 was 3.63 which was higher
than the Allegan County household average of 2.95 persons. Preliminary 1990 U. S.
Census figures show 1,581 occupied housing units in the Township (an increase of
14.6%) and an average household size of 3.4 persons (average household size takes into
account a vacancy of36 households in the Township).
I .
I
Economic Characteristics - A comparison of income levels for 1979 and 1980 in Dorr
Township, sU1TOunding townships, Allegan County and the State of Michigan reveals that
Dorr Township experienced the second lowest increase in per capita income from 1979
to 1987 (sources: 1980 U.S. Census and 1987 Census figures), surpassing only Leighton
Township slightly. In 1987, Dorr showed the lowest income level compared to the other
stated jurisdictions, and in both 1979 and 1987 Dorr Township fell below both county
and state averages·for per capita income. (Sec Table 5).
I1- .
JNN:>orrTpMP'-\89443
L.
26
�I
,r.
CHAPfER 5
EXISTING LAND USE AND ANALYSIS
r
This chapter describes the existing land uses in the Township and compares and analyzes
the land use changes which have occlllTCd since 1978, when a complete land use
inventory of the Township was completed through the Michigan Resource Information
System (MIRIS). This evaluation is a necessary tool in assessing the character 9f a
community, identifying problems and opportunities, and will also be very useful in
developing goals and objectives to guide future development Table 6 contains a tally of
acreage assigned to specific land uses, and changes which have occurred since 1978.
The existing land uses are illustrated on Map 6. This map was completed in August of
1990 using plat maps, field inspections, and through conversations with Township
officials. Structures under construction at the time of this land use survey were classified
as existing land uses.
Generally, the land developed for residential and commercial uses is concentrated near
the center of the Township at Dorr and on the east side of the Township at Moline. The
predominant land use in these areas is detached single family houses in subdivisions.
Other significant residential development has occlllTCd in the southwest quadrant, with
primarily single family homes located on parcels over one acre in size.
The existing land uses in the Township have been classified into a number of categories
which arc described as follows:
AGRICULTURE
This category includes those lands used for cropland, orchard, or pasture at the time of
the land use survey. The amount of land devoted to this use decreased appreciably since
1978, with a loss of 1010 acres, or 6.2% of the agricultural land existing in 1978. This
decrease can be directly related to the increase in residential land use, and to a lesser
extent the increase in commercial and industti.al land use.
However, over half of the Township (66.1 % ) is still designated as agricultural, with most
of that used as cropland. The majority of fannland lies in the upper one-half of the
Township and in the central portion of the southeast quadrant
L
l
Many parcels of land in the Township are enrolled in Public Act 116 of 1974, The
Fannland and Open Space Preservation Act, with a total of S,421 acres or 23.5% of the
. total land in the Township enrolled. Under this land, farmers or owners of large tracts of
open space forego the development rights to their land and continue to farm it or
maintain it as open space for a minimum enrollment period of ten years in exchange for
tax benefits.
~\119443
�Map 7 illustrates those areas of the Township enrolled in P.A. 116; large contiguous
areas of land enrolled in P.A. 116 occur in sections 8 and 9, and also in section 12.
RESIDENTIAL
This category includes detached single family houses, multi-family dwelling units and
mobile home parks. In the future, this category could also include condominiums which
can be constructed as either multi-family units or single family detached homes, both
owner occupied.
The Township has one multi-family apartment complex, located on Church Street, south
of the intersection of 18th Street and 142nd Avenue. The complex contains 16 units
housed in three buildings.
Two mobile home parks exist in the Township; one is located on 138th Avenue just east
of the Township boundary at 24th Street. It has room for 50 units. Another is located at
the eastern end of 143rd avenue where it intersects 17th Street, and also has room for 50
units.
The predominant residential land use in the Township is the detached single family
house, which comprises 8.0% of the total Township area or 1849 acres. This is nearly
double the acreage reported as residential in 1978. While most of the additional acreage
is a result of homes on parcels of over one acre in size, 121 acres is due to lots located in
platted subdivisions. When determining new residential acreage outside of platted
subdivisions, a parcel over 20 acres in size with a new home was considered to equal 5
new acres of residential land use; parcels of 20 acres or less were considered totally
residential in character.
As previously mentioned, most of the residential activity outside of platted subdivisions
has occurred in the southwest quadrant of the Township, nearly half of which is zoned
Rural Estate, which requires a minimum lot size of one acre. These acreage lots are
generally located along paved and unpaved county line roads, and many of these parcels
are narrow and very long. This type of land division results in lots which are often
unused or underused in the rear section, and may hinder the development of future
platted subdivisions by making road extensions and land assemblage difficult
JNN)onTpMp\aea\Jl9443
29
�)
)
ti
IOl1H ST.
ti
!
IN
~,
ti
iCI
(KEHT COUNTY)
Iii
ii
~
BYRON TWP.
Iii
~
Iii
,.:
"'
~-
I
Iii
;I
~
~I
I
I
..
Iii
~
N
1"1H A\£.
~.
~Ji~4a1W
I
I
I
ti,
~
I
"JI
,.,~~
~
I
I
...15
I
146TH A',£.
IHTH A\.f:.
B
Q_
3:
~
I-
w
-J
<(
142ND A\.f:.
(/)
141ST A\£.
...}
I
,,
z
0
II
(.'.)
---
w
_J
(
-
10
29
I
l~
I
32
I
I
-1--....,..,--,..~-lii--1:I - - -
~
..L
I
~
"'
"-../ J I J ; ~---~"'~
~
25
-+t,~
137TH A\'E.
13'lH A\£.
~
N
0
--r I
O
)
I
Iii
~
I
-
,
I. 7I
'j-~
) l I-
'""'
1Jli11i A"E
e
HOPKINS TWP.
MAP 7
~
W!14'
:.;A,
DORR "TOWNSHIP
ALLEGAN COUNTY
P.A. 116 LANDS
T
1990
Ltmlll;
-
P.A.
-
"!£AA OF EXPIRATION
1111 LANDS
- -.-......
_ .. _,r
...................
.. .......... -.... --~
--.. -.
�COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
This category includes those uses which provide retail goods and services and office
uses. Since 1978, commercial and office uses in the Township have nearly tripled,
increasing ~ 25 to 75 acres, yet still COIDplise only .3CJ> of the total land use.
Commercial uses in the Township are located along 142nd Avenue from east of 16th
street to 20th Street, and along 18th Street primarily just nonh and south of 142nd
Avenue. Commeicial development in the settlement of Dorr includes the Hillcrest Mall
completed in 1986, which provides a grocery store, restaurant, children's clothing store, a
bowling ally, and other available retail space. Other commcrcial uses in Dorr serve retail
and service needs of the local population. ·
Another small CODlmelcw area is located in Moline, just west of the Conrail Tracks and
nonh of 144th Avenue. These uses also serve the needs of local residents.
Along 142nd Avenue, the major east-west route in the Township, land is mned for
commcrcial use to a depth of 500 feet between 12th
Township to 20th ·street four· miles west. The result
commercial uses in a strip-development pattern. Currmdy,
office uses are found west of 16th Street to just west
142nd Avenue retains a rural residential and agricul
some industtial uses found west of the interchange at
the Township's eastern boundary. Concerns 10 be addlll!l6lii!liil• 8111Ufdilllll._
roadway should include the number and placement ot,
signs, and landscaping requirements for existing and furm.
•1111••1-••••
In Moline, the area mned for commcrcial uses includll
between the US 131 Expressway and 14th Street, the
US 131, and an area west of the Conrail Traclcs enena•
Avenue. The concerns mentioned above for 142nd Av,,ea•1■
of 144th Avenue zoned for CODJmeiew. Since
neighboring Leighton Township,
COIDiDeicw devel
impacted by similar development in Leighton 'IiC>WJUhifl·t •,11
policy concerning the futme of 144th Avenue will be
Another large one mile square area, section 30, is
Currendy, DO COIDWCICial uses exist in this section.
contains a greara, amount of forested land than any
· section is bounded on the west by 24th Stmet which is
Avenue which is a gravel road. No Olher public road
addition, with the exception of a mobile home part in
section, liuJe residendaJ. development JJu OCCUlled
conn11Cldal development in this an:a should tab Imo
access, the nnl cJmacu::rof the --.am1 die ....i
1'11111rztilli'UJli ill
�INDUSTRIAL
This category includes such uses as manufacturing, warehousing, and processing of
goods and materials as well as the outdoor storage of goods and materials. Extractive
operations, such as ~ gravel, and oil or gas mnoval may also be considered industrial
in nature.
•
uses in Dorr Township compdse only .3C1, of the total land use, but still show a
greater than tluce-fold increase since 1978. This increase is due to the development of
Industrial
industrial areas just west of the US 131 Interchange at 142nd Avenue and east of the
Conrail tracks north of Moline as well as to the presence of scattered smaller industrial
uses throughout the Township.
~ north of 144th Avenue between tbe US 131" ~ 111d
contains over SOO acres of land zoned far iPduadal use. A
dWIJllll'8IICIIII
near Moline will likely be served by die ez.i-rtna leW' Mndll!!lll. bat ftlllll,...,
development in the Township will ~ Jimiled by die •lwwe of
The
service.
one,.....
Some extractive uses also exist in the Towasbip, 111d while 1111d 111d .,,,.._ - • •
h a v e ~ in number since 1978, at leut
CII t&li
Avenue has continued to expand its ~ Mio. lefttal all •
operating in the southwest quadrant of tbe TOWllllaqt. mfie . . JJl:
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
This category includes those areas and
park,s. and golf courses which are a --....._
uses are those used by a limited n
generally non-profit in nature such as
and medical or institutional facilities.
The Existing Land Use Map identifies dll ....,_
of the public/semi-public uses by symbol
As indicated in Table 6, the increase .
(by ten acres) resulting in essentially the
1978. The increase represents the
14th Street, and IDCft accurate ei.U.:-..~.tt;:;ii
~
........
.._.._...._l'tll_
�SCHOOLS
More than half of the Township, primarily the central and northeast paniom, is in die
Wayland Union Public School Disttict, while the remah•da- lies within the Hopkins
Public School District.
·
Wayland Union Schools maincain -an elcmemm:y ~ I on 18th Sa. in the •ldement
of Dorr, serving 500 lbJdents in grades IC-4th pade. The Den ElfllmDtlly Scbeol
completed an expansion propam in the fall of 1990 adctin1 fifteen ~ and a
gymnasium. Students in 5th and 6th grades attend the elementary school in Moline, in
neighboring Leighton Township. Population trends for this area indicate that die
elementary schools will condnue 10 expcricnce p)Wtb.
The Hopkins School Dillrict m,inudn1 die Sycamore BJeaauay School an 142nd
Avenue, in the west central section of tbe Township, 111d telWS audellls from botll Dorr
and Salem Townships. Tbe bnilctina homes 1.50 elementary ltWlents in fhe ftJGIDI,
functioning at grealBr than desip ClplCU)'. VOla'I recend)' tamed down a
bcmdlna
request for funding 1D expand the builctina, and 1be requea will be 1nupi Wen Ibo
voters again in the fall of 1990. Aa:mdina ID scbool ......... lft)Wdl in Darrad
Salem Townships exceeds powlh in tbe m,wining pon:iom of lbe ac:hool cllaic&.
Moline Christian School, knted in die leCdenent of Moline. hu a 1990 . . . . _
figure of 208 students in ll'ldes lC-9cb pade, plm 45 JD ICbool lOJden1L "nll . . _ hit
experienced a 25% incaase in e,__.lal)·lpcf Jtndeals OWl'lbe lllt . _ ,-a.llld
added portable classmams., accneaamaae tbe IIOWdl. Scbao1 .........._. ,._
stated that continued powtb will rel8lt in ID cffiJn to e+a..cl die ecilrina Wiff.
St Stanislaus Catholic School kJCaled It the ..,.dmn .....,. fl
Street enrolls 138 snldents in grades pre-school dnap 811P ..,.,
class in 1990 indicates p,wth far the IChoal. T.be . _ . lddecl
four of which are r uendy in w u ckt1.llhiDL TIie
expected growth in tbe . . . fDlln.,
RECREATION
The amount of land . ._Rllll!!ld
Local recreation
Dorr and Gries
acres. In addition,
south of 142nd A.ven.11111•~
•
recreational uses.
Elementary School
�TABLE 8
EXISTING LAND USE: CHANGES SINCE
. 1971
1990
Land Use
Residential
Acres
'5of
Tatal
U7I
Acres
ae,.
'5of
Tatal
Acns
lncrelse
1885
8.2
970
4.2
+915
+94.3
1849
7
29
8.0
•
.1
-
-
--
-
Commercial/Offices
73
.3
25
.1
+41
+192
Agricultural
(includes cropland
orchar~ and pasture)
15,227
66.1
16.237
70.5
-1010
-6.2
5,421
23.5
Industrial
58
.3
17
.1
+41
+241.2
Public/Semi-public
· eludes schools, parks,
.:metcries, outdoor
recreation, institutions,
government bldgs.)
65
.3
59
.3
,116
+10.2
Transportation
•Roads
•Rail
•Air
735
689
36
10
3.2
3.0
.2
Utilities
255
1.1
Extractive
26
.1
Open Water
16
.1
Total acres
in use
11,UG
•Single Family
•Multi-Family
•Mobile Homes
•P.A. 116
(farmland and
open space
preservation)
Fmested
•
-
Nece:
RelOIIII
�CHAPTER'
PLANNING ANALYSIS
This section of the Plan anal)'7,a populad.oa. traffic volume projectiom, exicdag land me
mix, growth trends and cmnouoity cbmc1eristics in order to de&ermine futl.n 1111d me:
needs for Dair Township. Tbroap this pmces., the Township Board 111d PJmmina
Commission will have a basic 11rideline to ·follow in detamining how macl land ii
needed to acc:nmn1oda1e future needs.
POPULATION PROJECl'IONS
When making popu1adon projecdons, usumptions are based on a combination of
historical trends and judpments made wida a knowledp of the local ara. PJojecdona
me only !dined esrimeea of fulln CGiditioas and it ii hq,nuible 10 pecilely foncut
the end result of the actions of individual ad public deciliom.
While recognizing the aocertaiotia in fanca-rin1 faun ,opuJadoa ......... it ia
reasonable to assume that the fon:es at wodc in die put will candnue imo fbe. llllill~
Table 7 illustraies popu)ation ptujectiom far the years 1995, 2000, and 2010 alias four
diffe:n:nt methods to calc11J11e futln populadom. An expJanadaa al each al dae four
methods used is also deac:ribed in dlis table. Far pmpmra of dlis ~~ D hu
been selected a it
iepaeae:ms
an awn., of line diffeaeat IIIBdlods of JIN.lecdna
~---Dll!l-
••••w. - -- --
popu1adon and integraaes bislnical powth .... Bwd • tllil
could be expected to experience an tncnue of 804 people by 1 year 2,000, and 3,m by die yell' 2010. AIP•n•ie,1 an .,,.._ tJI M - - ··
household, 1,110 new dwelling IIIIDI will be wrlod in lbe , - , 2018 • 11a1illllilliiDdl•-ll1W
projected popu)alioa.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NEBDS
--............
In DmT Tawnsbip, .._..,.. Gllllide.
ofl
dlcli
._,....,_
ia - - plats wDl . ........
lilefcrtre
�3.
4.
5.
The consauction of additional sanitary sewer may encourage more plat
development which uses less land per lot.
•
The advent of site_ condominium development will minimize the need 1D Cl9l1e
parcels in excess of ten (10) acres to cimimvent the Township and State of.
Michigan's land subdivision ~ o n s . Also, the Subdivision Conaml Act of
1967 which regulates the size and ti.ming of land divisions will likely
amended
within this planning period.
As land costs increase the demand for mulµ-family residential units (lpllWWW
or condominiums) will also increase resulting in more dwelling unm per acre,
thereby decreasing the average lot size in the Township.
It is assumed that the average lot size outside of platted subdivisio~s will deCreue from
five acres to two acres. It is also assumed that the average lot size for a plaued lat wiD
remain at .SO acres including road right-of-way. In light of these assumptioas dlll1. die
Plan suggests that the average lot size for future residential development in the TOWlllllip
will be approximately 1.25 acres. Based on these assumptions, the amoam tfl land
needed to accomoooate the projected number of new dwelling units can be
as follows:
1,110 dwelling units x 1.25 acres/dwelling unit• 1,388 acres
Thus, approximately 1,388 acres of land will be needed to accommodate is .,.....,
population of 9,226 people by the year 2010. While cunmt ~sidential land
stands at 1885 acres, the needs for 2010 will represent a 74., increase in ladlll
residential purposes. The existing land use inventory shows a total of 3,911
vacant or undeveloped land in the Township (forested plus open/banm) and
of agricultural land not enrolled in P .A 116. It wouJd appear that based
acreage, there is sufficient land in the Township for the projected residential Dela.
Consideration must also be given, however, to the sui1ability of these vac:u1
residential land use. Suitable soils, IOpOgraphy, wetlands, street type, traffiq
adjacent land uses and availability of public utilities will affect the feasi · ·
residential land uses.
�TABLE 7
DORR TOWNSHIP
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1990
1995
2000
2010
Census
Est.
Est.
Est.
Alternative A
5,453
6,116
6,779
8,105
Alternative B
5.453
6,053
6,653
7,853
Alternative C
5,453
6,603
7,995
11,721
Alternative D
SAS3
6,257
7,142
9,226
Alternative "A" assumes an average of 39 new dwelling units consttucted per year with
an average of 3.4 persons per household.
Alternative "B" assumes yearly growth of 120 persons (based on the 1970-1990 average
annual growth projected mathematically).
Alternative "C" assumes increased in-migration 10 sustain the 1970-1990 growth rate of
3.9% per year (geometric progression).
Alternative "D" is the average of projections "A", "B", and "C"
OTHER LAND USE NEEDS
Commercial
The settlement of Dorr serves as a neighborhood shopping center for residents of the
Township. A neighborhood center provide.; for the sale of convenience goods (foods,
drugs, and sundries) and personal services Oaundry, dry cleaning, banking, barbering,
repair and professional services, etc.) for the day to day living needs of the adjacent
surrounding area. Such a center usually includes one super market.
The trade area for these types of commercial uses is generally within a three mile radius
which would include nearly all of Dorr Township since most of ~e commercial uses arc
centrally located.
JNN>orrTpMpwa\89443
37
�Also, since 4,000 people are generally considered the minimum number needed to
support a neighborhood shopping center, the existing population in the Township is
sufficient to sustain these uses. Even so, in the 1987 Survey of Attitudes conducted by
the Township, many residents indicated that they shop for routine household goods and
services in the Grand Rapids Metro area to the north in Kent County.
Currently, residents within this area travel to the Grand Rapids Metro area for non. convenience goods such as apparel, appliances, and hardware items. It is beyond the
scope of this study to determine if stores offering such goods would be economically
feasible in the Township. However, in the 1987 Survey of Attitudes, a majority of people
indicated that they thought Dorr Township needed more commercial businesses,
especially those that could provide household items such as appliances, fmniturc, clothes,
etc. Also indicated by the survey was a high desire for more businesses and professional
services such as finance, insurance, real estate, medical, dental, and legal services.
•
In addition, at the Public Workshop held on September 18th, 1990, citizens indicated a
need for downtown commercial growth., for more retail businesses, longer business
hours, and more service type businesses. As the Township continues to grow, the
demand for shopping opportunities will increase. By the year 2010, the local population
is estimated to be 9,226 people, or more than double the number needed to support a
single neighborhood shopping center. Additional retail uses will be needed to serve these
additional residents and 111Blket forces will likely determine the types of uses necessary.
Currently, the Township has about 73 acres of bmd which is used for commercial or
office use, and a total of 1,186 acres mned for commercial use, leaving about 1,113 acres
available for commercial development. Also some available retail space exists in the
Township. It would appear that there is more than sufficient land available to satisfy the
future commercial land use needs for this planning period. However, the land zoned
commercial should be examined to determine its feasibility for development, especially
the land in Section 30 which is primarily wooded and· not served by primary roads. It
should be noted that, without including the 640 acres mned for commercial use in
Section 30, 546 acres are available for this commercial use, primarily along 142nd
Avenue. Areas may exist which by vinue of existing or proposed adjacent land use, and
potential of being served by public utilities, are better suited for future commercial use.
JN.NlorrTpMpw:a\119443
38
�Industrial
Dorr Township currently bas 58 acres used for industrial purposes, which represents only
.3% of the total land in the Township. In the 1987 Survey of Attitudes, the respondents
indicated a desire for more ligh.t industries (light assembly, warehousing, etc.) and for
more research or "high tech" industries (robotics, electronics, biological, etc.).
Currently, approximately 480 acres in the northeast portion of the Township are zoned
for industrial use. This area of the Township is also served by the Pennsylvania Railroad
and the Dorr-Moline Sewer Authority. The existing system could accommodate some
manufacturing uses that have been proposed for the site, and additional industrial
potential will be determined in light of a sewer study presently being conducted by the
sewer authority.
The existing amount of land mned industrial appears to be sufficient to meet the stated
needs of Dorr citizens for the next 'five to ten years. Also, some light industrial uses have
developed west of the US-131 interchange at 142nd Avenue, indicating potential for this
area to accommodate further industrial uses. Toe key issues for additional industrial
development in the Township will be availability of a variety of sites served by either rail
or major highway access, and availability of public water and sewer service. As growth
occurs in the Grand Rapids Metro area, particularly in Byron ~ownship to the north, and
as sewer and water services are extended, the need for additional land mncd for
industrial use will need to be reexamined.
In addition, adjacent land in Byron Township to the north of Section 1 in Dorr Township
is also zoned for industrial use. Efforts to coordinate industrial development between the
two municipalities could benefit both communities.
Just east of Dorr Township's industrial mne in neighboring Leighton Township mning
will not accommodate industrial uses. Coordinating plans for industrial expansion
between the two comm.unities may also prove beneficial to both municipalities.
JNN)orrTpMp\lea\89443
39
�(
I
•
I
L
Parks and Recreation
Recreation space can be divided into two broad categories called local recreation space
and county or regional recreation space.
Local Recreation Spac:e is considered to be land that supports facilities designed to
serve populations at the local unit of government level or school district level. Local
recreation space can be further divided into the following levels:
Mini Parks-
Spccializ.cd facilities that serve a limited population or
group such as the elderly or small children. Standards
suggest .5 acres of these parks per 1000 population 1•
Neighborhood Parks •
Include tot lots, playgrounds, and neighborhood parks
intended primarily to serve small children and the
minimum recreation needs of neighborhoods. Facilities
include basic play equipment. ball fields, tennis courts, and
shaded rest areas.
These facilities, normally 1 to 4 acres in size, are generally
within easy walking distance and are often located in
conjunction with elementary schools.
The National Recreation and Park Association suggests that
in
with population concentrations that justify
neighborhood level parks, a standard of 2 acres per 1000
persons be provided.
areas
Community Parks -
Include playfields and community pub catering to
children, teenagers, and adults. Emphasis is placed on
active recreation, providing large sports fields, tennis and
basketball courts, and swimming pools. Parking lots and
picnic areas are also commonly found at this level
Minimum standards suggest such facilities be between 10
to SO acres in size and be located to serve a 5 to 10 mile
radius.
The National Recreation and Park Association suggest a
standard of 8 acres per 1,000 population be provided for
community level parks.
Taken collectively. the neighborhood and community park
land stan~ or local park land standards is 10 acres per
1,000 population. This is the same amount recommended
by the Michigan Recreation Opponunity Standards, and
generally excludes lands supporting school facilities.
1
Recreation Parks and Open Space Standards and Guidelines - 1983, National Reaeation and Park
Association.
JNN)orfl~\19443
40
�County or Regional Recreational Space
Is intended to serve the needs of families, large groups, and
adults from both within and outside the county. The range of
activities accommodated at this level is extremely broad;
however, the primary emphasis is on more passive pursuits,
many of which require sizeable tracts of land. Among the more
common facilities are picnic areas, boat ramps, overnight
campgrounds, large spons fields, parking lots; S)Vimming
beaches, motorized and non-motoriz.ed trails, wilderness areas,
and shelter buildings. Some recreation areas at this level are
retained in an almost pristine natural state without facilities of
any type with the possible exception of parking lots, picnic
areas, and natural trails.
Unique and aesthetic natural areas offer the best sites for county
or area-wide level recreation. Sites arc nonn.ally in excess of 50
acres, although 100 acres or more is preferred and should be
within a half hour's driving time.
The National Recreation and Parks Association suggests that
between 5 and 10 acres of regional or county level recreation
land be provided for each 1,000 persons residing within a given
county-wide service area.
Table 9 compares recreational facilities in Dorr Township with the recommended
standards which have been adopted by the State of Michigan. For purposes of this Plan,
both Dorr Township Park and Gries park arc considered community parks, while
playgrounds associated with elementary schools constitute neighborhood park space.
Because of its location within Allegan County, the Allegan State Game Area is
considered county or regional recreation space, as is the Hungry Horse Wilderness
Campground located within the Tqwnship. Although the Hungry Horse is located on a
nearly 100 acre parcel, only ten of those acres were considered to be actually improved
for recreational use.
Total Future Land Use Needs·
In total it is estimated that the Township will need approximately 1,388 additional acres
by the year 2010 to meet projected residential land use needs. If commercial and
industrial land uses increase by fifty percent over the next ten years, those needs will
require approximately 37 and 29 acres respectively. If deficiencies in recreational land
are brought into line with recommended standards, an additional 80 acres will be needed.
Table 8 summarizes the 2010 land use needs:
Table 8
2010 Land Use Needs
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Recreational
1,388
37
29
_..m
1,534 Total Acres
JNN>orrTpMp'laea'89443
41
�-,
,
·".'
'
'
-.
')
.
-~
'
.
Table 9
DORR TOWNSHIP RECREATION LAND
1
STANDARDS AND NEEDS 1990 • 2010
m•ow@wM•iiiiti■i■iriiiii\tlii
Mini Park
.5 Acre / 1000 Pop.
Neighborhood Park
2 Acres / 1000 Pop.
Community Park
8 Acres / 1000 Pop.
5 Acres/ 1000 Pop.
County or Regional Park
1
2
I
O
I
3
3
4
4
5
5
2
11
9
14
12
19
17
I
16
44
28
57
41
74
58
I
45,010
27
+44,983
36
+44,974
46
+44,964
Recreational Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines - 1983
National Recreation and Park Association
2 Includes Allegan State Game Area Acreage
�Roads and Streets
r
'-
I
In order to analyze future traffic conditions, projections of traffic volumes to the year
2010 at selected locations were compared to their existing design capacity. These
comparisons are shown in Table 10.
The theoretical capacities, as determined by the state and local authorities, reflect the
amount of traffic the street was designed to accommodate daily and still provide a
relatively smooth flow of traffic. When daily traffic volumes are higher than the
capacity, motorists experience more frequent delays, reduced maneuverability,
congestion at intersections, lower overall speeds, and increased potential for accidents.
When the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 1.00, congestion occurs. When the volume to
capacity ratio exceeds 1.25 (125% of design~ street capacity), congestion can become
severe and alternatives should be evaluated to increase capacity or divert traffic to
another route. When volumes exceed 1.5 times their capacity. congestion can become
severe and frustrated motorists may select alternate routes, increasing traffic on those
streets. At that point, methods to increase the capacity of the street, provide an alternate
route, or divert some traffic to a new facility should be considered. At double the
capacity (a volume/capacity ratio of 2.0 or greater), traffic may be at a standstill during
certain periods of the day.
·.
Deterioration of a street's traffic-carrying capacity may also be measured in terms of
"level of service". This term is defined as a qualitative measme of the effect of a number
of factors which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to
maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs.
Levels of Service A through F, representing the best through the worst operating
conditions respectively, generally vary. between peak and non-peak traffic times on the
same street segment. Each of the levels of service is described as follows:
Level of Service A • represents virtually complete free-flow conditions in which the
speed of individual vehicles is controlled only by driver desires and prevailing
conditions, not by the presence or inteiference of other vehicles. Ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream is unrestricted.
Level or Service B, C, and D - represents increasing levels of flow rate with
correspondingly more inteiference between vehicles of the traffic stream. Averagc
running speed of the stream remains relatively constant through a portion of this range,
but the ability of individual drivers to freely select their speed becomes increasingly
restricted as the level of service worsens. Level of Service C (1.0 to 1.25 of capacity) is
normally considered an acceptable design for an area such as Dorr Township.
JNN>on-TpM~
43
�..
Level of Service E - (volumes are 1.25 to 1.50 of the "capacity") is representative of
operation at or near capacity conditions. Few gaps are available, the ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream is severely limited, and speeds are low. Operations at thisJevel
are unstable and a minor disruption may cause rapid deterioration of flow into Level of
Service F.
·
Level of Service F - represents forced or breakdown flow. At this level, stop-and-go
l_ -
patterns have already been set up in the traffic stteam, and operations at a given point
may vary widely from minute to minute, as will operations in short adjacent highway
segments as congestion increases through the traffic stream. Operations at this level are
highly unstable and unpredictable.
Table 10 shows that 142nd Avenue just east and west of the community of Dorr will
experience some capacity problems by the year 2000. On 142nd Avenue east of Dorr in
the year 2000 a·level of service E may be mached. This stretch may continue to decrease
in level of service toward 2010.
142nd Avenue west of Dorr will ma.ch a Level of Service E by the year 2005 according
to Table 10. These projections are based on a constant increase of four percent per year.
I.
!I
These projections indicate that traffic volumes and accidents on 142nd Avenue should be
monitored closely. Widening of this road may be necessary within ten to fifteen years.
However, an adequate level of service can be lengthened and road widening prolonged
by proper attention to access control measures such as left tum lanes, deceleration lanes,
limitations on number and location of curb cuts.
Improvements to the 18th
Avenue/142nd Avenue intersection may have to occur earlier as intersections will
become congested earlier due to more nnning movements and a greater volume of traffic.
Improving this intersection will therefore help to maintain or improve the level of service
along 142nd Avenue in the future.
·
The level of service for 18th Avenue is projected to be acceptable through the year 2010.
,.
L
Table 10
TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS (24 Hour Period)
24 Hour
r-
L
r.
~
l ,
';
r
L ..
Location
142nd east of 18th
142nd west of 18th
18th Avenue
nonh of 142nd
18th Avenue
sou.th of 142nd
JNJ\OorrTpMp'\aQ\99443
Capacity
V/CRatio
2000
2005
8,000
8,300
6,998
10,098
8,514
12,286 14,947
10,359 12,603
8,000
5,141
6,255
7,610
9,259
1.15
8,000
3,432
4,175
5,080
6,181
.77
8,000
1995
44
2010
(2010}
1.86
1.57
�I -
I
l
Traffic accident information provided by the Allegan County Road Commission indicates
that in 1989 fifty-five accidents occurred along 142nd Avenue, and through June of 1990
twenty-eight accidents had occurred along the same roadway.
Likewise, while current traffic volumes on gravel roads may be well below the design
capacity of the roadway, the type of traffic and condition of the roads should also be
considered when determining future improvements to gravel surface roads.
JNJ\Don'I'pMpwea'\89443
45
�This chapter
in Dorr Town
management
evaluating zo ·
The To
·
Townshi
When prep
guide for phy
into the best
there is no sch
particular land
utilities, provisi
a particular land
factors, must be
land.
As background .
explanation of th
The relationship
basically the act
zoning is the act
of Michigan
the preparation
community.
The following
"zoning".
�Land Use Planning
The process of · ·
document is prep
factors relating to the
it is intended that a
health, safety, and
order," appearance
overcrowding of
adequate and effi
services. and
within the communi
Zoning
Z.Oning is one of the ·
administration of-......__
of the comprehensive llllllll
arc legislative and
relating to the impJ.CllllCIII
.. .
. PLAN CONCEPrS
The Future Land Use
Township. These
are intended to guide
•
The preserv
supported by
•
The cen
Moline.
•
The
plannin
~
·
�FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
The Future Land Use Map 8, recommends a number of different land use classifications.
The following descriptions of these future land use classifications explain the intended
uses, the general location for each classification and a brief explanation for the proposed
land use.
AGRICULTURE
Farming activities are the predominant uses within this classification, although single
family houses and related agricultural accessory support uses including food processing
would also be allowed.
types
The areas proposed for agricultural use are those where soil
are identified as being
prime for the cultivation of food and fiber crops. These farm soils are considered to be a
unique natural resource for Doff Township, and farming activities are considered to be
the highest and best use of this resource. In addition, soils in the areas recommended for
agricultural uses tend to be among those that are least suitable for development, primarily
due to increased water capacity.
•
Other factors used in recommending agricultural use are the existence of bona fide
farming operations, proximity to non-farm uses, and enrollment of land in P.A. 116
(Farmland and Open Space Preservation). Areas in Dorr Township recommended for
Agriculture designation are the northern one-third of the Township west of the U.S. 131
expressway, and the southeastern portion of the Township, primarily south of 140th
Avenue and including most of the southern tier of Sections.
Preservation of prime farmland has been stated as a primary concept of the Dorr
Township Master Plan, yet CUITCnt zoning regulations do not actively protect these lands.
Present regulations require a minim1UI1 lot size of one acre and e minimum lot width of
200 feet in the agricultural zoning district. The numbers or sizes of these lots are not
further regulated except by the State of Michigan Subdivision Control Act of 1967,
which limits the number of lot splits- of ten or less acres in size to four in any given ten
year period.
A number of regulatory measures exist which may be effective in Dorr Township. These
include: The sliding scale approach, which bases the allowable number of lot splits on
the acreage of the parcel which is to be subdivided; the quarter/quarter zoning district
method which allows one lot split for a non-farm dwelling unit per each 40 acre parcel;
the exclusive agricultural zoning district method which does not permit non-farm
dwelling units; and the buffer district method which allows a transition from fann to
non-farm uses when development becomes desirable.
lNN>orrTpMv-\89443
48
�These methods are discussed in more detail in the implementation section of the plan.
and their integration . into the zoning ordinance is dependent upon the support of the
farming community.
RURAL ESTATE
This land use classification is designed to seive as a transition between the Low Density
Residential and Agricultural land use classifications. The minimum lot size would be
one acre with 200 ft. of lot width. This lot size will provide adequate area for septic
system placement and will result in fewer non-farm activities next to active farms than if
Low Density Residential uses were located next to Agriculture areas. Agricultural
activities would be permitted within this classification. The lot size and permitted uses
within this category are intended to satisfy a demand for a rural life style but on land
which is not considered to be prime agricultural due to soil type or proximity to existing
or planned residential areas. Rural Estate areas are not intended to be served by public
· water and sewer.
Areas designated for Rural Estate in Dorr Township arc found generally south of 144th
Avenue, west of 20th Street. and in an area between U.S. 131 and the more densely
developed eastern side of the settlement of Dorr. The areas designated have already
experienced substantial development in terms of non-farm dwellings on parcels one or
more acres in size, yet still retain areas of parcels with 40 or more acres in size, the
minimum number of acres necessary for most viable farm operations. While the
likelihood of increased residential development is high in these areas, they are not likely
to be scived by public water and sewer within the planning period.
I.
In Sections 14 and 24, the Rural Estate designation was determined to be an effective
transition between the Low Density Residential area east of Don- and between the
Industrial designations recommended near the U.S. 131 Interchange. A small area of
Rural Estate designation is found fronting on 12th Street in Section 13. Dctenninations
for this area were based on the fact that a 40 acre parcel in this area will remain in P.A.
116 for 90 years. substantially decreasing the likeliness for more intensive uses. Also,
the Rural Estate designation was determined to be an effective transition between the
Low Density Residential area south of the settlement of Moline, and the Industrial areas
planned around the U.S. 131 Interchange.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
[
r
l -
Another major plan concept of the Dorr Township Master Plan is to centralize intensive
land uses around the communities of Dorr and Moline, thus enhancing a sense of
community. The Low Density Residential designation is intended to encompass the
already existing subdivisions around Dorr and Moline as well as future development that
will likely occur in platted subdivisions along with accompanying schools, libraries,
JNJ\Don-TpMp\aa'l89443
49
�t·•·-
.
/
.'
.
parks, and churches. The predominant use within this classification will be single family
houses, although two family dwellings would be allowed along major roads.
[
I
\.
l
Lot sizes in this area would be a minimum of 15,000 square feet unless served by public
water and sewer, in which case a minimum size of 12,000 square feet would be allowed.
A minimum lot width of 100 feet will help ensure adequate separation for well and septic
systems as well as driveways.
Around the community of Dorr, the area designated as Low Density Residential is
bounded approximately by 144th Avenue pn the north, 140th Avenue on the south, by
20th Street on the west, and about one-half mile east of 16th Street on the east. Near
Moline, the Lo'! Density Residential area is recommended between U.S. 131 and 12th
Street extending north and south one-half mile in each direction from 144th. The higher
densities of residential development that will occur in this area will benefit by proximity
to services such as public water and sewer, street lightin$ and improved transportation
networks that are likely to be provided in areas of more intense devclopmenL The Plan
recognizes that public sanitary sewer service may someday be provided within the
community of Dorr and the existing sewer in the Moline area may also be expanded.
In both locations, the Low Density Residential acts as a transition from the more intense
,Medium Density Residential and commercial or office·uses found nearer the community
centers, to the areas planned for Rural Estate. Where residential uses do occur adjacent
to commercial or office uses, provisions for adequate buffering, such as greenbelts,
berms, or walls, should be required.
r
1.·
I.
r
\ '
I
l
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
This classification is designed to accommodate multi-family dwelling units, mobile home
parks, offices and institutional uses such as hospitals, schools and funeral homes, as well
as single and two family dwellings. Medium Density Residential areas should be located
on paved streets to facilitate access by fire and police service. The types of dwelling
units envisioned in this category can serve as a transition zone between non-residential
uses and low density residential areas. Because public sewer is necessary to assure long
range public health, MDR areas should not be zoned or developed until sewer service and
roadways can be provided to serve this type of use.
In general, areas for which Medium Density Residential is recommended are found south
of the 142nd Avenue commercial conidor between Radstock and 14th Street and in other
locations within one-half mile of downtown Dorr, including an area west of 18th Street
and south of 142nd Avenue where existing multi-family dwellings are located. Also,
areas surrounding the two existing mobile home parks in the Township, one south of
143rd Avenue and the other in Section 30 in the southwest portion of the Township, have
been designated as Medium Density Residential. In Section 30, adequate space for park
expansion has been designated.
JNN>orr'fpMplaa'\119443
so
�Medium Density Residential areas that are adjacent to areas planned for commercial use
along 142nd Avenue are envisioned as developing into office uses or multi-family.
Office would supply support services to both commercial uses and industrial uses that
may flourish near the U.S. 131 interchange while multi-family would provide housing
opportunities nearby for industrial workers. In Section 16 along '18th Street, an area is
planned for MDR as it is across from existing commercial uses, and also is located along
a major north-south arterial.
A small parcel on 142nd Avenue in Section 22 across from the cemetery has been
designed for MDR. The Plan recognizes the limited development potential of this site
but recommends MOR as it would accommodate a duplex or a small office building.
In Section 21, the MDR designation recognizes the multi-family development that has
occurred. Further multi-family development in the Township should only be permitted
as small scale projects (four to eight unit buildings) on private septic systems until public
sewer_ become a reality. Multi-family developments without public sewer could not
exceed a density of 4.35 units per acre. If public sewer or a community system is
provided the density could be increased to ten ( 10) units per acre.
•
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
This classification includes both retail/service uses as well . as office uses. The
communities of Dorr and Moline will continue to provide shopping opponunities and
services for most Township residents. In addition, because of the nature of 142nd
Avenue and the presence of U.S. 131, the .Township will increasingly provide the
commercial needs of highway and transient traffic.
Commercial areas are designated both north and south of 142nd Avenue extending west
from 20th Street nearly continuously to the U.S. 131 interchange, excepting some areas
recommended for either public or residential use. Due to heavy truck traffic using 142nd
Avenue as a route to the City of Holland, fairly high vehicle speeds. the noise generated
by traffic, and the location of the freeway interchange, residential development was not
considered as a viable alternative for this section of 142nd Avenue. Also, 142nd Avenue
has an already established commercial character with various food establishments, a
grocery store, and other retail and service establishments cast of Dorr. Uses likely to
develop or increase here include those of a neighborhood/convenience shopping nature,
including food stores, pharmacies, and personal services such as dry cleaning and shoe
repair. These uses usually attract patrons within a 5-8 minute driving time.
In addition,-142nd Avenue may develop shopping opponunitics that will afford boch
residents of Dorr Township and passing motorists those retail items and services used
less frequently, such as stores offering household items and appliances, movie theatms,
JNN>arrTpMfNea'89443
l
L
Sl
�repair garages, hardware stores, and specialty shops.
These types of uses generally
attract patrons within a 15-20 minute driving time.
f.
r.
I
l.
A small area on the south side of 142nd Avenue east of 18th Avenue in downtown DoIT
has been designated for office use. Four houses in good condition stand on this site, and
it is envisioned that over time these homes will conven to a non-residential use,
preferably office, since the limited setback. lack of on-site parking, and proximity to
other residential uses would restrict the use of this site for commercial purpose. It is also
envisioned that, if converted to offices, these structures would retain theh present
architectural character, thus enhancing the village atmosphere of downtown Dorr.
Commercial uses arc also recommended in the vicinity of the U.S. 131 expressway
interchange in anticipation of development generally refeITCd to as highway commercial,
including such uses as auto service stations, fast food restaurants, and overnight lodging.
A commercial area is also recommended for the east side of 18th Street nonh from 142nd
Avenue to 143rd Avenue. This designation recognizes current commercial zoning in this
area, some established commercial uses, and the fact that 18th Street is a major northsouth artery.
In Moline, commercial uses arc recommended adjacent to the Pennsylvania Railroad
tracks encompassing approximately four blocks in the area considered downtown
Moline. Commercial or service uses already established in Moline include a bank, U.S.
Post Office, and a grain elevator. Zoning in this area currently allows a wide range of
commercial uses including machine shops, storage buildings and yards, and some
manufacturing,
j
L
j
•
Prior to this Master Planning process, all of Section 30 was zoned for commercial use.
There are no commercial uses in this Section however and the Plan does not envision this
as a viable commercial area due to the absence of good paved roads in the area, the
distance from 142nd and 18th Avenues and the distance from the planned and existing
population centers in the Township. This Section is now planned primarily for Rural
Estate, excepting the area around the mobile home park designated as Medium Density
Residential. Toe Rural Estate designation which requires a one acre lot size will help
preserve the existing wooded nature of this area and will not result in population
inappropriate to be served by the unpaved roads around this Section.
In each case of commercial development, consideration should be given to adjacent uses
particularly near residential development where sufficient landscaping. setbacks, buffers
and shielded lighting should be required.
Along 142nd Avenue, commercial
development will require specific access control measures such as service roads, shared
drives, access drives, deceleration lanes, turning lanes, and additional traffic control
measures to help ensure traffic and pedestrian safety.
JNJ\DorrTpMp'wea\89443
L
52
�INDUSTRIAL
This classification is intended to accommodate uses such as manufacturing and
processing, warehouses, and may allow as special uses such operations as refining,
distilling, rendering, and junk or salvage yards. Uses allowed will be evaluated on the
basis of compatibility with adjacent land uses and the potential for danger or offense to
nearby residents. While industrial uses may be allowed where served by private sewage
disposal systems and wells as approved by the Allegan County Health Department, the
Plan recommends that the industrial development occur in those areas where utilities
exist or arc planned for, with access to major arterials and railways. In order to promote
orderly and efficient industrial areas, industrial parks should be encouraged.
,
In Dorr Township, industrial uses arc recommended for the area around the U.S. 131
interchange, and for the area north of Moline, between U.S. 131 and 12th Street (North
Division). Industrial development near the interchange will follow a pattern established
by other communities to the north of Dorr Township, which recognize the excellent·
access afforded by the expressway to major metropolitan centers such as Grand Rapids
and Kalamamo. In addition, Dorr Township offers excellent access to the Oty of
Holland via 142nd Avenue. Locating industrial uses near the intersection of these two
roads also helps confine trucks to major arteries that arc consttucted to withstand heavier
types of traffic. Property near the interchange that fronts Oli 142nd Avenue is currently
zoned to allow uses such as retailing and wholesaling of goods, warehousing, trucking
facilities, and limited fabrication of goods.
The area north of Moline is cmrcntly the site of several industrial uses,·and an industrial
park is proposed for the area. The Pennsylvania Railroad serves this area, and the
Moline-Dorr sewer system has the ability to handle additional capacity that will be
generated by the proposed park. The entire area designated for industrial uses is also.
zoned for industry.
The intensity of industrial development in the Township will be dependent upon the
extension of both water and sewer services. Of primary concern should be adequate site
development standards plus requirements for sufficient buffering between industrial uses
and other uses.
PUBLIC/SEMI - PUBLIC
•
This category includes those areas and facilities such as schools, govcmmcnt building,
parks and golf courses which arc available for use by the general public. Semi-public
uses arc those used by a limited number of people with specific interests which arc
generally non-profit in nature such as churches, non-public schools~ private golf courses·
and medical or institutional facilities. The Plan recognizes that it is necessary to provide
for the establishment of certain non-residential land uses within residential amlS subject
to the implementation of measures which are designed to insure compatibility. Such nonJNN>on-TpMp>..'89443 .
S3
�L..-
.
'
residential uses commonly include religious and educational institutions, recreational
uses such as parks, golf courses and play fields, public utility facilities and home
occupations. Traffic generation, noise, lighting and trespassing should be carefully
controlled in order to mitigate the negative impacts on residential uses.
The Future Land Use Map illusttatcs the major public/semi-public uses in the Township.
Expansion or location of these uses should depend upon compatibility with adjacent land
uses and the extent to which neighborhood character will be maintained.
STREETS
The Plan recommends the construction of one future street being the extension of 16th
Avenue between 142nd Avenue and 144th Avenue. This proposed two lane paved
roadway would provide access to the planned low density residential uses in Sections 14
and .15. By illustrating this road on the Future Land U:se Map the Planning Commission
is recommending that !lllY future development in this area incorporate this road into the
project.
JNl\DorrTpMp'wca\89443
S4
�CHAPTER 8
IMPLEMENTATION
In order for the Master Plan to serve as an effective guide to the continued develOPI••
of Dorr Township it must be implemented. Primary responsibility for implementing die
Plan rests with the Dorr Township Bori, the Planning Commission, and the Township
staff. This is done through a number of methods. These include ordinances, ~
and administrative procedures which are described in this chapter.
It is important to note that the Master Plan itself has no legal authority to re...,._
development in order to implement the recommendations of the Plan.
'l'bil
implementation must come from the decisions of the Township Board and P1anmna
Commission to provide needed public improvements and to administer and estab.\illa
regulatory measures relative to the use of the land.
The private sector, including individual home and land owners, is also involved
fulfilling the recommendations of the Master Plan by the actual physical devel~
land uses and through the remning of land. The authority for this, however, comes
the Township. Cooperation between the public and private sectors is therefore ~
in successful implementation of the Master Plan.
ZONING
Zoning represents a legal means for the Township to regulate private ptoperty to ac,.-.-.
orderly land use relationships. It is the process most commonly used to. impllellllllL
community Master Plans. The mning process consists of an official mning
mning ordinance texL
The official mning map divides the community into different mnes or districts
which cenain uses are permitted and others are noL The mning ordinance text
uses which are permitted and establishes regulations to control densities, height,
setbacks, lot sizes, and accessory uses.
The zoning ordinance also sets forth procedures for special approval regulations
controls. These measures permit the Township to control the quality as well as
of development
Subsequent to the adoption of this Plan, the Township Planning CollDDllilliDI
Township Board should review and make any necessary revisions to die
regulations to ensure that the recommendations of the Plan as outlined in this
instituted.
JNN>on'l'pMiela'l9443
�The Plan recommends the following specific changes to the Township Z.Oning
Ordinance:
1.
Develop a separate zoning district for mobile home parks. This could be done by
eliminating the B-3 zoning district as a single family zone and incorporating the
existing B-3 regulations in the B-2 or A, Residential districts. The B-3 zone
could then be used as a mobile home· park zone.
2.
Amend the E, Commercial regulations so that those uses which are truly
industrial in nature are deleted. Consideration should also be given to deletion of
this chapter and incorporating the commercial uses into the C and D zoning
chapters with some uses allowed only as special uses. This may require changes
to the Zoning Map.
3.
Amend the Agricultural zoning regulations so that prime farmland can be
preserved. Several zoning methods to preserve prime farmland were briefly
discussed in the previous chapter. The Plan recommends that a committee be
formed (perhaps consisting of Township Board members and Planning
Commissioners) to work with the farming community to develop farmland
preservation zoning regulations. Such regulations will only be successful if they
are supported by farmers.
4.
Amend the Ordinance to address the problem of flag lots particularly in the
Agricultural zone.
5.
Adopt access control mcas\ll'CS to regulate the commercial development
recommended for 142nd Avenue. Such measures should address the number, size
and spacing of driveways, service drives or frontage roads, building setbacks,
deceleration lanes, and driveway alignment. The Commission should work with
the Allegan County Road Commission to enlist their cooperation in enforcing
such measures.
6.
Develop specific landscaping regulations for buffering between uses, and
improving the appearance of buildings and parking lots.
7.
Develop specific sign regulations for the size , location, and number of signs
permitted for each zoning district.
8.
Develop zoning ordinance provisions to regulate site condominiums.
JNN>orrTpMP'-'89443
S6
�Other Zonine; Considerations
•
Review the Zoning Ordinance and discuss the need to retain the provision
allowing residential uses to be permitted in commercial and industrial zones
with a special use permit.
•
Review the industrial and commercial zoning regulations for the uses
permitted and to determine whether certain uses should only be permitted as
special uses.
•
The Planning Commission should sponsor amendments to the Zoning Map to
amend certain areas of the Map in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan.
Specifically. the commercially zone land in Section 30 and the commercially
zoned land on 144th west ofU.S.-131.
•
Review the entire Ordinance to determine the need for additional definitions
and regulations in light of the changes recommended by the Plan.
PREPARE AND ADOPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
•
Capital Improvements Programming is the first step in a comprehensive management
system designed to regulate priorities and programs to community goals and objectives.
It is a means of planning ahead for the funding and implementation of major construction
and land acquisition activities. The typical CIP is six years in length and updated yearly.
The first in each CIP contains the capital improvement budget. The program generally
includes a survey of the long-range needs of the entire governmental unit covering major
planned projects along with their expected cost and priority. The Township Board then
analyzes the projects, financing options. and the interrelationship between projects.
Finally, a project schedule is developed. Priority projects are included in the Capital
Improvements Program.
Low priority projects may be retained in a Capital
Improvements Schedule which may cover as long as 20 years.
The CIP is useful to the Township. private utilities, citizens, and investors, since it allows
coordination in activities and provides the general public with a view of future
expectations.
SEWER AND WATER STUDY
One of the major premises of this Plan is that the community of Dorr will be served by
public sanitary sewer and water within the planning period. Steps need to be taken now
to provide for this. The Plan recommends that study be conducted within the next two to
four years to determine the feasibility of public utilities in the DOIT area. Funding for this
study should be pursued through the State of Michigan Rural Grant Program
administered by the Department of Commerce. This program requires a ten percent local
JNJ\DorrTpMp\lca\89443
S1
�-•
..
mat.ch and should be applied for in 1991. This Plan will need to be submitted with the
grant application as evidence that there is community suppon for this project and that the
project is pan of an overall plan to accomplish a vision of the community.
RECREATION PLAN
The Plan recommends that the Township prepare a recreation plan in order to be eligible
for state recreation funding programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund. and Quality of Life Bond.
Assistance under these programs is available for planning, acquiring; and developing a
wide range of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The programs are administered by
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and are financed by funds appropriated
by the Federal Government and State Legislature. Under the•LWCF program, grants of
up to 50% of the cost of a project are available; under the MNRTF Program, 100%
funding may be obtained; and the Quality of Life Bond program will fund 75% of a
project.
Application for grants under these programs must first be submitted by April 1st of each
year but a community must have an approved recreation plan on file with the DNR in
order to apply for a grant.
-
PLANNING EDUCATION
Planning Commissions should attend planning seminars to keep themselves informed of
planning issues and learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as
Planning Commissioners. These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan
Society of Planning Officials (MSPO) and the Michigan Township Association (MTA)
and are a valuable resource for Planning Commissions. There are also several planning •
publications which are a useful information tool for Planning Commissioners. The main
publications are Plannine and Zonine News and Michiean Planner Maeazine.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
It is important that the proposals of this Plan be discussed and understood by the citizens
of Dorr Township. Acceptance of this Plan by the public is essential to its successful
implementation. Steps should be taken to make Township residents aware of this Plan
and the continuing activities of the Planning Commission. This can be acc~plished
through newspaper reports of Planning Commission activity. Contact with local civic
and service organi7.ations is another method which can be used to promote the
Township's planning activities and objectives.
JNN>orrTpMpwa'\89443
S8
�REVISIONS TO THE MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan should be updated periodically (minor review every one to two years.
major review every five to ten years) in order to be responsive to new growth trends and
current Township attitudes. As growth occurs over the years, the Master Plan goals, land
use information, population projections, and other pertinent data should be reviewed and
revised as necessary so the Plan can continue to serve as a valid guide to the growth of
the Township .
•
lNJ\DorrTpMpwa'\89443
59
�
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
Dorr-Twp_Master-Plan_1991
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dorr Township Planning Commission, Dorr Township, Allegan County, Michigan
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1991-05-21
Title
A name given to the resource
Dorr Township Master Plan
Description
An account of the resource
The Dorr Township Master Plan was prepared by the Dorr Township Planning Commission with the assistance of WW Engineering & Science, Inc. and was adopted on May 21, 1991.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
WW Engineering & Science, Inc. (consultant)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Master plan reports
Dorr 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>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
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
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b18a9ad8e7a01845730a641d5ca2295a.jpg
339b4c89aff1c103c83c13d5183ae73c
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
Robert H. Merrill photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909/1950
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-222
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family.
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
Merrill_LS00476
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1936-09-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Michigan. Pile Allegan County ditch mammoth tooth
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white lantern slide of a man standing in a water-filled ditch in which a mammoth tooth was found in Allegan County, Michigan. Several men stand or crouch on higher ground nearby.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Lantern slides
Allegan County (Mich.)
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & 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/jpg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/48e280e623c84f485b0521a25cd8d3cf.jpg
e43b6ae46b51016da218c8f0dfef4c7d
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
Robert H. Merrill photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909/1950
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-222
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family.
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
Merrill_LS00475
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1936-09-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Michigan. Allegan County mammoth tooth
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white lantern slide of a mammoth tooth from Allegan County, Michigan next to a measuring stick.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Lantern slides
Mammoths
Allegan County (Mich.)
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & 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/jpg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ffa30c17df824940b74b6381991f8bef.jpg
26952db4bd22e417d16d710dfbbf8d1d
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
Robert H. Merrill photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909/1950
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-222
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family.
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
Merrill_Films_B_012
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1936-09-20
Title
A name given to the resource
Lamont artifacts
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of Lamont artifacts including part of a skull.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Archaeology
Hopkins (Mich.)
Mammoths
Allegan County (Mich.)
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & 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/jpg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/87ef320c2e1addac1d5093fdae0861a9.jpg
070f4f1ad02669cbe2edbddecd9b2e9c
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
Robert H. Merrill photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909/1950
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-222
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family.
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
Merrill_Films_B_011
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1936-09-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Tony holding tooth
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a man, Tony, holding a mammoth tooth in front of a house.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Archaeology
Hopkins (Mich.)
Mammoths
Allegan County (Mich.)
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & 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/jpg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955