1
12
564
-
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/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/26436156f232dc4867041d3059c8e837.jpg
4890cdf14b575fb0d9a3cff29cdd03ae
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C131-0024
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a group of plein air painters at Ox-Bow Art Community, as taken on July, 19, 1962 in Saugatuck, Michigan. In the photograph, the painters are seen working on their compositions outdoors, while looking on to the female subject who is dressed up in summer formal attire and posed standing under a tree in the background. A tire swing can also be seen hanging next to the painters in the foreground. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Plein air painting
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8f33fa335ef336389cc4ca40edbcaac3.jpg
eab498821083111d0e421876310b2234
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C131-0015
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of two artists standing and seated next to a wooden building at Ox-Bow Art Community in Saugatuck, Michigan. In the photograph, the two artists are talking outside on the sandy lawn next to an exterior staircase and an awning above the building's outdoor sink. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/cf1e555ae85fdf244f1796e81aacaa0d.jpg
c8cfa4acd8bf24c0845599648ebc07ec
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C131-0009
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a young artist cleaning something next to a sink at Ox-Bow Art Community in Saugatuck, Michigan. In the photograph, a sign is posted next to the sink reading, "Do not wash brushes in the sink." Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5ac54f5052be2990f100e92e518ed35d.jpg
de26bf4b226f121fe232af1b0fd9d149
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C131-0003
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a group of plein air painters at Ox-Bow Art Community in Saugatuck, Michigan. In the photograph, the painters are seen working on their compositions outdoors, while looking on to the female subject who is dressed up in summer formal attire and posed standing under a tree in the background. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Plein air painting
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3f48bd95568e8bb1dd0e320a7bf74d70.jpg
3fcf6f929f0dee42bdd7ff5d902f12a6
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C130-0015
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of two plein air painters at Ox-Bow Art Community in Saugatuck, Michigan. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Plein air painting
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f19c72a70ce82b5ee305f407a9fdc822.jpg
9e76baf07632bd56a481b3a55861be1c
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C130-0009
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Ox-Bow Art Community, Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a plein air painter at Ox-Bow Art Community. In the photograph, a woman is painting outdoors while looking toward her subject who is another woman in more formal summer attire. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Art School
Plein air painting
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/bffea788237016d7786f4e2292468a31.jpg
e1a774b552a8f040a0c0eb07ae5f2748
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C118-0023
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-13
Title
A name given to the resource
Commercial fishermen in Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of three commercial fishermen working on fishing nets inside a boat. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Fisheries
Fishing boats
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e8874d641732cfe58d4fa41c55714c82.jpg
d36fc9b0bee56178e04c0ea19bd9808d
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
Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183).
Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1960-2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Photographs
Photography -- United States
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
image/jpeg
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RHC-183_C117-0005
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gilbert, Douglas R.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1962-07-13
Title
A name given to the resource
Commercial fishermen in Saugatuck, MI
Description
An account of the resource
Black and white photograph of a fishing boat docked in Saugatuck, Michigan. In the photograph, a few buildings that appear to be fishing shanties and a large barn-like structure can be seen in the background. Scanned from the negative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Saugatuck (Mich.)
Fisheries
Fishing boats
Docks
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</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/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Image
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1960s