[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS COMPREHENSIVE . ............ .. ........ Prepared By The Village Of Douglas Planning Commission VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Prepared by the Village of Douglas Planning Commission in cooperation with the Village Council in cooperation with: Coastal Zone Management Program Land and Water Management Division Department of Natural Resources Ch and with the assistance of- Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S. Waverly Road Lansing, MI 48917 (517) 886-0555 November 1989 This document was prepared in part throughfibiancial assistance provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center LibrarY 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 Thefollowing individuals participated in the preparation of this plan: 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*. 1* no longer serving] PLANNING & ZONING CENTER, INC. Staff 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 (Envirom,nental Planner). Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF MAPS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. i Chapter I GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES: THE AREAWIDE POLICY PLAN ..................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 THEECONOMY ............................................................................................ 3-1 Chapter 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 E)USTING LAND COVER AND USE ............................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8 WATERFRONT .............................................................................................. 8-1 Chapter 9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ..................................................... 9-1 Chapter 10 FUTURE LAND USE .................................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ..................................................... 11-1 Chapter 12 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................... 12-1 APPENDIX A References APPENDIX B Demographic, Economic and Housing Data APPEArDIX C Public Opinion Survey Responses APPENDIX D Soil Types - Tri-Community Area Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan LIST OF FIGURES NUAIBER TITLE PAGE 2.1 Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) - Area 2-2 2.2 Age Cohorts (1980) - Allegan County 2-2 2.3 Age Cohorts (1980) - Village of Douglas 2-2 2.4 Educational Background in 1980 - Persons 25 2-3 and Over, Tri-Community Area 2.5 Saugatuck Public School Enrollments 2-3 Grades K- 12 2.6 Saugatuck Pubhc School EnroUments 2-4 Elementary and High Schools 3. IL Employment By Sector in 1980 - Tri-Community 3-2 Area and Allegan County 3.2 Average Annual Employment - Tri-Conununity Area 3-4 3.3 Monthly Employment - Tri-Commnity Area, 1988 3-5 3.4 Tourism Related Employment, 1988 - Allegan 3-5 County 3.5 Real Property SEV, 1988 - City of Saugatuck 3-5 3.6 Annual Real Property SEV - Tri-Community 3-6 Area (1980-1987) 3.7 Percent In Poverty By Age - Tri-Community 3-6 Area (1980) 4. IL Kalamazoo River Basin 4-2 S. I Linkage Plan 8-7 9.1 Retiree Migration Trends 9-2 9.2 Population Trend - Saugatuck Township 9-2 Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan LIST OF MAPS NUMBER TITLE PAGE Introduction Location it Streets and Roads v Lot Lines vi 2.1 School Districts (note: all maps arefound at the end of each Chapter) 4.1 Topography 4.2 Watercourses 4.3 Floodplains 4.4 Wetlands 4.5 Basement Limitations 4.6 Septic Limitations 4.7 Septic Limitations 4.7a On-Site Wastewater Limitations 4.8 Most Suitable Soils 4.9 Hydric Soils 4.10 Groundwater Vulnerability 4.11 High Risk Erosion Areas 4.12 Critical Dune Areas 4.13 Woodlands 5.1 Land Use/Cover 5.2 Eidsting Land Use By Parcel 5.3 Planning Areas 6.1 Public Facilities 6.2 Water System 6.3 Sewer System 6.4 Gas Mains 6.5 Street Classifications 6.6 Act 51 Roads 7.1 Outdoor Recreation Sites 7.2 Actual and Proposed Bike Paths 8.1 Watersheds 8.2 No-Wake Areas 8.3 Saugatuck Harbor 8.4 Marinas 8.5 Street Ends/Parks 8.5a Street Ends/Parks 9.1 Residential Construction Permits 10.1 Future Land Use 10.2 Entry Points Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan LIST OF TABLES NUM13ER TITLE PAGE 2.1 Population (1950-1980) 2-1 2.2 Educational Status - Persons 25 and Over 2-2 2.3 School Enrollments - Saugatuck School District 2-3 3.1 Impact of Travel On Allegan County, 1986 3-1 3.2 Major Employers 3-1 3.3 Employment By Industry - 1980 3-2 3.4 Employment By Occupation - 1980 3-3 3.5 Average Annual Unemployment Rate 3-3 3.6 Per Capita Income, Allegan County 3-4 3.7 Income and Poverty Characteristics 3-4 Tri-Community Area 4.1 Summary of Relevant Climate Conditions 4-1 4.2 Land Cover Codes for Protected Wetlands 4-3 5.1 Existing Land Use 5-1 5.2 State Historic Sites 5-4 6.1 Non-Park Public Facilities and Public 6-2 Property Inventory 6. 1A Planned Acquisitions/Improvements to 6-2 Public Facilities 6.2 Existing Traffic Counts 6-4 6.3 Tons Generated per Day By Land Use 6-6 6.4 Solid Waste Composition 6-6 6.5 Per Capita Waste Generated 6-6 7. IL Summer Recreation Programs 7-1 7.2 Inventory of Outdoor Recreation 7-3 7.3 Parkland. Inventory 7-4 7.4 Proposed Recreation Projects - Tri-Community 7-6 Area 7.5 Planned Acquisitions/Improvements to Parks and 7-7 Open Spaces 7.6 Recreation Needs In The Tri-Community Area 7-7 1988 Public Opinion Survey 8.1 Kalamazoo River Exceedance Flows (1929-1985) 8-2 8.2 Kalamazoo River Water Quality 8-3 8.3 NPDES Permits Issured In The Tri-Community Area 8-5 8.4 Lake Michigan Lake Levels 8-5 9.1 Rate of Population Change 9-1 9.2 Projected Population - 1970-1980 Trend 9-3 9.3 Projected Number of Households 9-3 9.4 Percentage of Population By Density'rype 9-4 9.5 New Households By Density 'Iype 9-4 9.6 Future Residential Land Needs 9-4 9.7 Available Acreage By Land Use Type 9-4 9.8 Population 2010 - Build-Out Scenario Under 9-4 Zoning In Effect 12.1 Recreation Facilities - Minimum Size 12-4 INTRODUCTION OVERVEEX - to maintain and enhance the employment and tax base of the area; The purpose of this Plan is to provide a - to promote an orderly development process policy and decision making guide regarding all by which public officials and citizens are future land and infrastructure development given an opportunity to monitor change within the Village of Douglas. Within the Plan, and review proposed development; and key planning issues are Identified: a clear set of - to provide information from which to gain goals and policies are outlined; future land uses a better understanding of the area, its are described and mapped, and speciftc imple- interdependencies and interrelationships mentation measures are recommended. and upon which to base future land use All future land uses and policies presented and public investment decisions. in this Plan were developed based on a blending of the natural capability of the land to sustain This Plan is unique in that It was prepared certain types of development; the important nat- concurrently with plans in Saugatuck and ural functions played by unique land and water Saugatuck Township. It was prepared in light of resources in the area, the relative future need the issues, problems and opportunities that the for residential, commercial, and industrial uses: three communities face together, rather than the existing land use distribution-, and the de- being done in isolation as is more frequently the sires of local residents and public officials as norm. While the Douglas Planning Commission expressed through direct interviews, a public oversaw the production of this plan, the Douglas opinion survey, town meetings, and public hear- Village Council was also involved in its prepara- ings. tion. Chapter 11 proposes that the Joint Plan- This Plan was prepared by the Planning & ning Corrunittee established to prepare a Joint Zoning Center, Inc., under the direction of the Plan for Douglas, Saugatuck, and Saugatuck Village of Douglas Planning Commission. Finan- Township be continued and that this Plan be cial support was provided by the Michigan Dept, updated at a minimum of every five years. of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Manage- The contents of this Plan draws directly ment Program. from previously adopted planning documents. There are three critical components to There has been no effort made to explicitly foot- using this plan as a decision making guide. note when material has been so used. Instead it First, are the goals, objectives and policies in is intended that the content of those documents Chapter 1. Second, is the future land use map continue to carry forward where they were found and associated descriptive information pre- to be helpful in addressing the current and sented in Chapter 10. Third, is the supporting projected issues facing the tri-community area. documentation found in Chapters 2-9. in particular. the Village of Douglas Land Use Although this Plan states specific land use Plan of 1986 was frequently relied upon in draft- development policy and proposes specific land ing portions of this Plan. A number of engineer- use arrangements, it has no regulatory power. ing and technical documents prepared by It is prepared as a foundation for and depends outside consultants over the past decade have primarily on the Village zoning ordinance (and also been relied upon. They are referenced in other local tools) for its implementation. This Appendix A. Plan is intended as support for the achievement of the following public objectives, among others: � to conserve and protect property values by SPATIAL LOCATION preventing incompatible uses from locat- The map on the following page show the ing adjacent to each other; location of the Village of Douglas on the shores � to protect and preserve the natural re- of Lake Michigan. This location along 1-196 sources, unique character, and environ- makes it easily accessible to travelers from mental quality of the area; across North America. The shoreline along the Kalamazoo Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan Kent County Ottawa County Grand Rapids Holland Allegan County Barry County Douglas Van Buren County Gmazoo Kalamazoo County DOUGLAS @G Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan Ui River, Lake Kalamazoo, and Lake Michigan and scribed as "cute" or "quaint" by tourists, is the beautiful sand dunes and wide beaches highly favored by visitors and deeply cherished make this a tourist mecca and an attractive by local citizens. As a result, any intensive or place for retirement. poorly planned alterations to the natural envi- The trade area for commercial businesses ronment, or homogenization of the character of in the three communittes is quite small. Local the individual communities Is likely to have a residents tend to only do daily and weekly shopping potentially negative effect on both tourists and locally as Holland, Grand Rapids, and residents. This Plan proposes keeping the scale Kalamazoo are nearby for wider selections of and intensity of such future changes low and consumer goods. Three school districts serve the proposes a variety of mitigation techniques to area but all students within Douglas attend the prevent adverse impacts on the environment or Saugatuck School District. on the character of the area from these kinds of changes. KEY FACTORS GUIDING TEELS PLAN Third, a balance of future land uses is necessary to enhance the stability of the com- Three considerations played prominent munity during poor economic times and to roles in fashioning the contents of this Planjust broaden the population base. Presently there is as they do in the Joint Plan. These are based on a significant lack of housing in the area that is widely held public opinions, past and present affordable for families with children. That, in investment by public and private entities and a concert with a decline in children generally (and growing recognition among citizens of the inter- an increase in the elderly) has severely impacted dependence of the three communities. the Saugatuck School District. If all future land First. Douglas, Saugatuck, and Saugatuck use decisions were made based exclusively on Township function as a single economic, and minimal alteration of the natural enviromnent social unit. Many people live in one of the three or maintenance of the existing community char- comrnunities and work in another of the three. acter, then over time, the community would Most people live in one and shop with some become more vulnerable to economic downturn, frequency in another. School children, by in which usually hits tourist communities very large, attend the same schools. Local cultural, hard. Thus, a balance must be sought between conservancy and retiree activities are jointly what otherwise become competing goals (eco- supported by residents of all three communities. nomic development and environmental protec- Several public services are jointly provided in- tion/community character). This will present a cluding the interurban bus service, sewer and serious challenge in the future. The pressure water (at least between Douglas and Saugatuck) will be great to "sell the farm" for developments and fire protection. The Kalamazoo River and which promise new jobs/tax base. And while Lake Kalamazoo connect all three communities, these are important, the long term impact of as do the local road network. Sometimes it such proposals (in a particular location) could seems, only the three units of government are be very negative and not worth the tradeoff. All separate. Yet despite these interrelationships, such decisions need to be made primarily based each community maintains a strong separate on long term considerations, rather than short identity among many citizens of the three enti- term ones. ties. Even many neighborhoods have strong sep- arate identities (e.g. the hill, the lakeshore, Silver Lake, etc.). This provides an important MAPS richness and depth to the area, but it can also Except as otherwise noted, all the full page be politically divisive. maps presented in this Plan were produced Second, tourism is the primary engine driv- using C-Map software. This is a PC based com- ing the local economy. Despite several industrial puter program initiated by William Enslin, Man- employers that provide important diversity to ager of the Center for Remote Sensing at the area's economy, it is the dollars brought in Michigan State University. All the data on the by tourists and seasonal residents that fuel maps was digitized either by Tim McCauley of most of the local wages and local purchasing. the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. or was The environmental splendor and wide range of downloaded from the Michigan Resource Inven- activities open to tourists are the primary attrac- tory Program (MRIP) database maintained on tion. But no less significant is the small town the State's mainframe computer system by the character of the area. This character, often de- Department of Natural Resources. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan iv Several advantages are realized by comput- While the accuracy of all of this data is very erizing this data. Typically, geographic informa- satisfactory for land use planning purposes (es- tion is only available on paper maps at widely pecially when contrasted with traditional tech- varying scales, which makes it difficult to com- niques), none of it is sufficiently detailed to be pare data sets for planning purposes. With C- absolutely reliable at the parcel level. As a result. Map, all of the maps can be viewed and printed detailed site analyses of soils, topography, at any scale via a variety of dfferent media (color drainage, etc. are still necessary any time spe- plotter, laser or ink jet printer, or dot matrix cific site designs are being prepared. printer). Information can also be combined (or All computerized data is on file locally and overlaid) so that composite maps can be created accessible via C-Map for local use and updating. and compared in a fraction of the time and Contact the zoning administrator or clerk for expense normally required to obtain the same further information. results. Another major advantage of computer mapping is the ability to update maps continu- ously, so that an up-to-date map is always available. There are three different base maps that have been used in mapping this information: 1) a base map prepared by the DNR which was digitized from the United States Geological Sur- vey (USGS) topographic map series for the area; 2) a lot line map created by digitizing the lots of record used for assessing purposes in the three communities; and 3) a soils base map derived from the SCS Allegan County Soil Survey. None of these base maps are exactly identical as they originate from different sources. All of the land cover and use based information and topogra- phy is keyed to the DNR/USGS base map. All of the soils related data is keyed to the soils base (which was interpreted and mapped by the SCS from nonrectifLed 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 dfferent 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 infor- mation. Using C-Map 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 ex- amining a specific parcel). Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan fill 11 L C3 91 EDEBEDED a) ED 6993 [woo I Li Li Ll V LR r tuDk ED Eli@ E@5' IM9 I B 9 01 :RM 119 Elm GERM --I @ f1 n C= Li Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan Vi CAMPBELL RD. ENTER ST. DOUGLAS BAYOU w LL UPT@ AVE.,, @7 11r I 212-17/11 EI-0 r 196," IA --129TH AVE. 0 0 (4 d7 Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1 GOALS, O&JECTIVES, & POLICIES: THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS POLICY PLAN G oals, objectives, and policies are the foun- pants were separated into groups and asked to dation of a comprehensive plan. They ad- prepare of list of their "prouds" and "sorries" in dress the key problems and opportunities of a Douglas, and things from the past which they community and help establish a direction and would like to preserve. The lists were compared strategies for future community development and then all engaged in an imaging exercise and growth. Goals establish general direction, where groups were established according to objectives represent tasks to be pursued, and topic area and were asked to Imagine that ele- policies are decision guides. The goals, objec- ment of the Douglas in the year 2000. This tives, and policies embodied in this plan were futuring process identified key issues and com- prepared through an extensive process of lead- munity elements which were pulled together to ership surveys, public opinion surveys, meet- form a vision and direction for the Village in the ings with local officials, and town meetings. year 2000. The first step in this process was a survey A draft policy plan, with defined goals and of area leaders- including members of the Vil- objectives, was then prepared based on this lage Planning Commission, Village Council, futuring process and the survey results. The prominent members of the private sector, and draft was refined through a series of meetings other citizens identified in the individual sur- with local officials and then presented to Village veys. Leaders were asked their views on the citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen com- major problems and opportunities facing the ments were reviewed by Village officials and Village and the tri-community area, and the incorporated into the policy plan. results were tabulated and presented to Village Following completion of the draft policy officials. These results served as the basis for plan, data and trends in the Village were ana- initiating a public opinion survey. lyzed. This analysis supported the direction of Citizen views on local planning issues were the policy plan and was first evaluated by the obtained through public opinion surveys mailed Village Planning Commission, and then by Vil- to every property owner in the village and dis- lage citizens at the third town meeting. Next, key tributed in each rental complex. Survey ques- elements of the plan and proposed strategies to tions were prepared for the Village through carry it out were fast reviewed by the Village consultations with the Village Planning Corn- Planning Commission, and then by Village citi- mission and Village Council. Dr. Brent Steel, zens at the fourth and final town meeting. Oakland University, conducted and tabulated These goals and policies also look beyond the survey. local boundaries to the issues which affect the The response rate of 47% in Douglas was region. This was accomplished through thejoint very high considering the length (about I hour comprehensive planning process, where repre- completion time) and type of survey and thus sentatives of the City of Saugatuck and responses probably represent the majority view. Saugatuck Township participated in the prepa- Most respondents were homeowners in their ration of joint goals and policies for the region. mid-fifties, registered to vote, who are long-term Thus, these goals and policies are premised on residents and plan to live In the area for ten or a pledge to mutually cooperate in guiding devel- more years. Survey results are shown in Appen- opment consistent with the adopted goals and dix A. objectives of the Joint Plan. Results of the citizen opinion survey and Thus, the broad based input of area offi- leadership survey were used to identify issues cials, leaders, and citizens, plus detailed analy- for discussion at the first town meeting. This sis of local trends and land use characteristics meeting was a "futuring" session where partici- have formed the goals, objectives, and policies pants were asked to Imagine how they would like that comprise the policy portion of this compre- the community to be in the year 2000. Partici- hensive plan. These goals and policies will serve Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-2 as a guide for land use and infrastructure deci- Policy: Preserve wetlands, woodlots, and sions in the Village of Douglas. With time, some other wildlife areas wherever feasible. elements may need to be changed, others added, and still others removed from the list. Before GROWTH ALANAGEMMENT amendatory action is taken, however, the im- pact of the proposed changes should be consid- Goal: Guide development in a manner ered comprehensively in relation to the entire which is orderly, consistent with the planned plan, and the joint plan. It is intended that the expansion of public services and facilities, and goals and policies be consulted whenever con- strives to preserve the scenic beauty, foster the sidering future land use decisions. wise use of natural resources, protect environ- mentally sensitive areas, and enhance the spe- cial character of each community. VUJ_AGE CHARACTER Goal: Retain and enhance the quiet, scenic, Policy: Encourage development in locations and small town character of the Village. which are consistent with the capacity of exist- Ing and planned public services and facilities, Policy: Encourage new land uses and den- and are cost effective in relation to service ex- sities /intensities of development which are con- tensions. sistent with and complement the character, economic base, and image of the area, and Policy: Review all plans by other public which are sited consistent with this plan and entities for expansion and improvement of exist- zoning regulations. Ing road and street networks for impacts on growth patterns and for consistency with the Policy: Promote site planning and design of goals, objectives, and policies of this plan. new development which is consistent with the established character of the Village and compat- Policy: Consider the impact of land use ible with existing neighborhoods. planning and zoning changes on Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township, and discuss proposed Objective: Improve the visual appearance of changes with the affected J urisdiction(s) prior to entrances into the Village through landscape making such changes. A common procedure for designs, signs, and land development which such communication shall be established and promote the vitality and character of the Village, followed. without unnecessary clutter or safety hazards. Objective: Explore the possibility of estab- UAM USE & COhRMUN= FACUZrMES lishing a sign ordinance which is consistent with Goal: Promote the balanced, efficient, and the City of Saugatuck and SaugatuckTownship. economical use of land in a manner which min- imizes land use conflicts within and across mu- Policy: Encourage the preservation and res- nicipal borders, and provides for a wide range of toration of historically significant structures. land uses in appropriate locations to meet the diverse needs of area residents. Policy: Discourage designs which would block significant views and vistas. Policy: Insure compatible land use planning and zoning across municipal borders and mini- Policy: Encourage traditional American ar- mize land use conflicts by coordinating planning chitectural design. and zoning, separating incompatible uses and requiring buffers where necessary. Policy: Manage the trees lining Village streets to provide a continuous green canopy. Policy: Discourage sprawl and scattered de- velopment through planned expansion of roads Policy: Increase enforcement of existing or- and public utilities and through zoning regula- dinances and regulations to better preserve the tions which limit Intensive development to areas established character of the Village and promote where adequate public services are available. official goals, objectives and policies. Policy: Provide for necessary community facilities (i.e. schools, garages, fire halls, etc.) Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-3 consistent with this plan and capital improve- Policy: Encourage new commercial develop- ment programming. ment to locate adjacent to existing commercial areas. Policy: Coordinate Capital Improvement Programming with the City of Saugatuck and Policy: Encourage a compatible and desir- Village of Douglas. able mix of commercial uses, including sirnilar- ity in the height and design of storefronts. Policy: Encourage approaches to site design which take natural features of the property, Policy: Encourage the design and location such as soils, topography. hydrology, and natu- of neighborhood commercial centers in a man- ral vegetation, into account and which use the ner which complements and does not conflict land most effectively and efficiently by maximiz- with adjoining residential areas. ing open space, preserving scenic vistas, con- serving energy, and any other public policies Policy: Promote the development of small, identified in this plan. commercial centers off of major roads, rather than lot by lot commercial strips. Policy: Advise developers during site plan review to contact the State Archaeologist, Bu- Policy: Discourage unsafe and unsightly reau of History (517-373-6358) to determine if strip commercial development through design the project may affect a known archaeological and landscaping requirements such as berms, site. planting, clustered shopping areas, and/or shared access. ECONOPMC DEVELOPNFM Policy: Improve the quality, vitality, and Goal: Strengthen and expand upon the value of Village business districts through sign area's economic base through strategies which regulations which control the design and loca- attract new businesses, strengthen existing tion of signs. businesses, and enhance the tourism potential of the area consistent with the character of the Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each Village and its ability to provide needed public business where feasible and encourage centrally services. placed parking lots which serve several busi- nesses. Policy: Identify potential sites for industrial development and alternative means of financing necessary public improvements and marketing DOWNTOWN DOUGLAS of the sites (i.e. tax increment financing, special Goal: Improve the quality, vitality, and ap- assessments, state grants and loans, etc.) pearance of downtown Douglas. Policy: Support efforts to foster tourism by Policy: Promote efforts to revitalize the preserving the scenic beauty of the environ- downtown, such as remodelling of storefronts, ment, expanding recreation opportunities, im- improved storefront displays, preservation of proving tourist attractions, and preparing open space, and attractive landscaping. promotional materials which highlight the at- tractions of the Village. Objective: Pursue state and local programs aimed at planning, organizing, and financing Policy: Promote better communication and downtown revitalization projects, such as a cooperation between the public and prtvate sec- Downtown Development Authority and the Main tor. Street program. COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Goal: Encourage high quality commercial Goal: Increase the amount of non-polluting development in appropriate locations which light industry in the area to offer year-round serves the current and future needs of residents employment opportunities to the Douglas work- and tourists. force, without damaging the environment. spoil- ing the scenic beauty of the area, or Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-4 overburdening local roads. utilities, or other Policy: Control the operation of bed and public services. breakfast businesses through special zoning regulations to preserve the character and stabil- Policy: Encourage new industries to locate ity of existing neighborhoods. contiguous to existing industrial areas and to cluster in small industrial parks which conform Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks to the design guidelines contained in this plan in residential areas where there is a demon- and local zoning regulations. strated need and according to the ability of residents to finance such improvements. Policy: Provide land for industrial uses in locations along major thoroughfares, with exist- Objective: Adopt and enforce a basic prop- ing or planned sewer, water, electric, and solid erty maintenance code and building code. waste disposal services to minimize service costs and negative impacts on other land uses. Objective: Improve residential areas ac- cording to an identified need and municipal Policy: Implement site plan requirements means to finance such improvements. for light industries which are designed to incor- porate generous amounts of open space, attrac- Objective: Apply for housing rehabilitation tive landscaping, and buffering from adjacent grant funds and explore the possibility of estab- non-industrial uses. lishing a revolving loan fund for housing reha- bilitation with such funds. Policy: Require the separation of industrial sites from residential areas through buffers SPECML ENVIRONMENTS & OPEN SPACE made up of any combination of parking, com- mercial uses, parks, parkways, or open space. Goal: Protect special environments and open space, including but not limited to sand dunes, wetlands, and critical wildlife habitat, HOUSING/RESMENTLAL from the harmful effects of incompatible devel- Goal: Encourage a variety of residential opment activity by limiting the type and inten- types in a wide range of prices which is consis- sity of land development in those areas. tent with the needs of a changing population and compatible with the character of e-,dsting Objective: Identify development limitations residences in the vicinity. on special environments through a tiered clas- sification system which classifies these environ- Policy: Explore alternative measures to re- ments based on their value to the ecosystem. duce housing costs and make home ownership unique attributes, the presence of endangered more affordable, such as zoning regulations and plant and wildlife species, and other character- other programs which are designed to reduce istics deemed significant. the cost of constructing new housing. Policy: Encourage acquisition of special en- Policy: Discourage the development of high vironments of significant public value by public intensity residential uses along the waterfront. agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations for the purposes of preservation. Policy: Provide land through zoning for gar- den apartments, duplexes, and medium density Policy: Require development projects single family residential uses near the Village deemed appropriate in and adjacent to special core. environments to mitigate any negative impacts on such environments. Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low intensity home occupations in residential areas Objective: Devise regulations through zon- to preserve their stability and tranquility. ing and site plan review for land development in special environments which permit develop- Policy: Discourage the conversion of single ment in a manner consistent with protection family dwellings to multiple family dwellings to objectives and which complement state and fed- preserve the stability of eidsting neighborhoods. eral regulations for special environments. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-5 partment of Natural Resources Recreation Divi- WATERF'RONT sion, on recreation projects which would benefit Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aes- area residents and strengthen the tourism in- thetic values and recreation potential of all wa- dustry. terfront areas for the enjoyment of area citizens. Objective: Examine the feasibility of, and Policy: Promote the preservation of open establish if feasible, a jointly owned and oper- space and natural areas, as well as limited, ated community center to serve residents of all carefully planned development along the ages in all three communities. Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake, Lake Michi- gan and connecting streams, creeks, and drain- Objective: Examine the feasibility of ex- ageways to protect and enhance the scenic panding low cost opportunities for public beach beauty of these waterfront areas, and permit the and campground facilities for area citizens with continuity of these existing open spaces to re- boat launching sites, bike paths, cross-country main. ski trails, and docks for shore fishing. Policy: Some waterfront lands may be de- Objective: Develop a system of cross-coun- veloped to meet residential and commercial try ski trails together with the Village of Douglas, needs, enhance local tax base, and contribute the City of Saugatuck, and other Jurisdic- to paying for local public service costs associ- tions/agencies if possible, through the use of ated with their use and development, consistent local funds, grants and loans, and capital im- with environmental protection policies in this provement programming. plan, where such development would contribute to local quality of life. Policy: Encourage local government partic- ipation in activities designed to enhance the Policy: Maximize public access to the water, area's seasonal festivals. both physically and visually and identify scenic vistas which the Village would like to preserve. Policy: Retain, maintain, and improve all existing publicly owned parks so that they con- Policy: Acquire scenic easements wherever tinue to meet the diverse recreation needs of public values dictate the maintenance of visual area citizens and tourists. access to the waterfront and the property is not available for purchase. Objective: Investigate developing a joint public marina and launch facility where federal Policy: Limit the height and intensity of new and state funding is available to assist with development along waterfront areas to preserve financing such a venture. visual access and the natural beauty of the waterfront for the broader public. TRANSPORTATION Policy: Explore opportunities to convert Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient street ends which abut water bodies for public road network and Improve roads to promote access to the water for fishing, viewing. and growth in a way that is consistent with land use launching of small water crafts. goals, objectives and policies. RECREATION Objective: Survey the transportation net- work and identify need for maintenance and Goal: Enhance the well-being of area resi- improvements. dents by providing a variety of opportunities for relaxation, rest, activity, and education through Objective: Prepare a capital improvement a well balanced system of private and public budget for financing transportation mainte- park and recreational facilities and activities nance and improvements. which serve identified needs of area residents. Objective: Prepare a capital Improvements Objective: Identify and explore opporturii- program to schedule and prioritize Improve- ties to cooperate with other jurisdictions and ments and maintenance. agencies, including Allegan County and the De- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-6 Policy: Implement traffic controls and de- Objective: Devise alternative mechanisms sign features that will increase the efficiency and for financing sewer and water expansions which safety of major arterials, including but not lim- are financially sound and equitable. ited to: traffic signals, deceleration lanes, limit- ing driveways, minimum standards for driveway Objective: Promote a joint agreement with spacing, uniform sign regulations, shared or the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township alternate access, left and right turn lanes, and to plan and implement areawide sewer and speed limit adjustments. water service, including full participation by each in the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Goal: Encourage a wide variety of transpor- Authority. tation means, such as walking, biking, and public transportation, to meet the diverse needs Objective: Investigate refashioning the of area residents. Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority into an independent authority, in order to insure Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath that the needs of area citizen's for quality utility through local funds, grants and loans, and cap- services are met. ital improvement programming. Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer Policy: Promote pedestrian and bike travel and water service into an area is consistent with through a coordinated network of bikepaths, the planned intensity of land use for that area, trails. and sidewalks. scheduled when affordable. and implemented when necessary to meet an identified need in the Policy: Maintain the sidewalk system and area rather than on a speculative basis. require developers to provide sidewalks in ap- propriate locations through subdivision regula- POLICE. FIRE, & EMERGENCY SERVICES tions. Goal: Provide police, fire, and emergency Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, afford- services consistent with a public need and the able, and dependable public transportation to ability to finance improvements in the most cost increase the mobility and quality of life of those effective manner. who depend on public transportation. Policy: Consolidate police, fire, and other Objective: Encourage expansion of the in- emergency services across the three communi- terurban system consistent with municipal ties to eliminate overlap in service and expendi- means to finance the increased service and an tures and improve service delivery. identified public need. Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24 hour medical service which serves all three ju- WATER AND SEWER risdictions to be provided by a public or private Goal: Insure a safe and adequate water entity. supply for the area, and environmentally sound sewage treatment. which are efficiently provided SOCIAL SERVICES and cost effective. Goal: Promote the availability of necessary Policy: Provide a reliable supply of safe, social services to meet identified needs of area clean, and good tasting drinking water. residents. Policy: Minimize the potential for ground- Objective: Explore the possibility of estab- water contamination through planning and zon- lishing support programs for older adults ing which is consistent with the capacity and through the use of volunteers for assistance limitations of the land and available services. with household chores, personal care, and home repair to help them remain independent, Objective: Upgrade and provide adequate shorten hospital stays, and lower health care mains and lines within the existing sewer and costs. water service. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 1-7 Policy: Support efforts to establish commu- etc., and encourage or implement these through nity day care center(s) in appropriate locations zoning and subdivision regulations. to provide quality and affordable day care to working parents. Objective: Establish an educational pro- gram (i.e. "energy awareness week") in coopera- Policy: Provide those social services which tion with the local school system. are efficient to provide at the local level to meet the needs of area residents. Policy: Require developers to provide side- walks in appropriate locations through subdivi- WASTE sion regulations. Goal: Insure the safe, effective. and efficient Policy: Encourage higher density residen- disposal of solid waste and toxic substances. tial development near areas with shopping and services to limit the number and length of trips Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid generated from that development. 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 Manage- ment Plan prepared under PA 641 of 1978. Objective: Adopt regulations for on-site storage and transportation of hazardous waste which require: � Secondary containment for on-site storage of hazardous waste-, � No transfer of hazardous waste over open ground. � Arrangements for inspection of, and mon- itoring 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 stan- dards; Objective: Encourage the development and use of biodegradable containers. ENERGY Goal: Promote site design and building which is energy efficient and encourage energy conservation through good land use planning and wise public building management. Objective: Prepare energy guidelines or standards which address landscaping, solar ac- cess, solar energy systems, sidewalks, subdivi- sion layout, proximity to goods and services, Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 2-1 Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPEEMS POPULATION SIZE HOUSEHOLDS AND The population of the Village of Douglas has AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE more than doubled since 1950. This represents Until recently, the average household size a 112% increase from 1950 to 1980, and a 17% in the United States has continued to shrink, increase since 1970 (see Table 2. 1). There is due to an aging population, higher divorce rates, some skepticism over 1986 Census estimates, postponed marriages, and lower birth rates. In which show a 5% decline in Village population. keeping with state and national trends, the av- Current trends and projections indicate popula- erage household size in the tri-community area tion growth, rather than decline, and 1990 Cen- declined dramatically, from 2.98 in 1960 to 2.39 sus estimates will almost certainly reveal in 1980. The average household size in the population growth. Village in 1980 was 2.44. Smaller household size means a greater number of households. If SEASONAL POPULATION the average household size in 1960 held true The population of the each commurifty in today, there would be about 300 fewer individ- the tri-community area swells during the sum- ual households in the area. mer when seasonal residents and tourists re- The number of households is an excellent turn. The 1980 census estimates that 23% (123) gauge of the demand for land and services. As of the Village's 529 total housing units are va- household size decreases, the additional house- cant, seasonal, and migratory. Nearly all of these holds create further demand for land, housing, (108) are detached single family units. transportation, and public utilities. Although An engineering study prepared by household size has declined substantially over Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber for the the past few decades, national trends suggest Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority that it will soon cease its decline. Nationwide the (KLSWA) estimates that the total tri-community average household size has reached a plateau area population is @comprised of one-third sea- and state demographers predict that Michigan sonal residents and two-thirds permanent resi- will follow suit. dents and that the weekend daytime population during the surnmer is about 2,500 persons. AGE DISTRIBUTION Although sewer and water demand typically Historical age cohort data is available on a grows with population, the study found that regional basis and a comparison of age cohorts demand for sewer and water in the tri-commu- in the tri-community area between 1960 and nity area increased about 30% between 1980- 1980 reveals a large drop in the proportion of 1986, whereas population increased by an young children, with a corresponding increase average of 200/6. This reflects the impact of the in the childbearing cohort (20 to 30 year olds) seasonal and tourist population on local ser- and 45-54 year olds. The proportion of retirees vices. to the total population, however, has remained TABLE 2.1 POPULATION (1950-1980) COMMUNrrY 1950 1960 1970 1980 CHANGE Saugatuck 770 927 1,022 1,079 40% Saugatuck Township 845 1,133 1,254 1,753 107% Douglas 447 602 813 948 112% AREAWIDE 2,062 2,662 3,089 3,780 83% Sou= Us, Censm Burmu Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 2-2 FIGURE 2.1 FIGURE 2.2 AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980) AGE COHORTS (1980) 19- AREA 17. ALLEGAN COUNTY P 17- P 15. E E 15- R 13. R 13- C C 11- E E N N 9 T T 7- 7. 5- 5. 0-4 5:14 16:24 25*U 35@44 45!54 SS'64 6s, 0-14 5-'14 1 S@4 2S@U 3544 4@U 55@4 AGE GROUP AGE GROUP of the County, although the Village has a much FIGURE 2.3 lower proportion of children aged 5-14, and a much higher proportion of senior citizens. In AGE COHORTS (1980) regional terms, the Village comprises 24% of the 2D_ VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS area's senior population; the City of Saugatuck 18. comprises 37% (despite its small size): and the P 16. Township, 39%. E R 14. C 12- EDUCATION E jo N The Village of Douglas has a well educated T citizenry. An analysis of those aged 25 and older in 1980 reveals that 35.9% have completed 1 or 5-'14 1_@24 25@U 35:44 41@54 SS@4 more years of college (see Figure 2.4). Table 2.2 AGE GROUP contains complete information on the educa- tional status of persons 25 years old and over constant (see Figure 2. 1). This is out of keeping byjurisdiction. with statewide trends and suggests that the area has experienced high in-migration of retirees through time. Retirees are attracted by the SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS area's special resort quality, small town charac- The Saugatuck Public School District ter, and scenic beauty. serves the Village of Douglas (see Map 2. 1). Figures 2.2 and 2.3 depict the 1980 age School enrollment data for Saugatuck High cohort distribution in the Village of Douglas, as School and Douglas Elementary, the two compared to Allegan County. In accordance with schools which comprise the Saugatuck Public countywide trends, the Village has a small co- School system, illustrate the impact of areawide hort of infants and toddlers. The cohort distri- demographic trends on the school system. Be- bution of the Village of Douglas resembles that tween 1973 and 1989, enrollments in the TABLE 2.2 EDUCATIONAL STATUS PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER SAUGATUCK SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP CITV DOUGLAS AREA Elementary 185 57 73 315 1-3 years HS 199 97 84 380 4 years HS 373 276 213 862 1-3 years College 157 137 123 417 4+ years ollege 188 196 84 468 Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 2-3 FIGURE 2.4 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980 PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 40 35- TOWNSHIP CITY 30- VILLAGE P 25- E R C 20- E ...... ....... ...... ...... N 15- ...... ...... ....... ... ...... ...... T 10 ...... . . .. ...... ...... ....... 5 .... ....... ...... ...... 0 ELEMENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S. 4 YRS H.S. 1-3 YRS COLL. 4 YRS COLL. FIGURE 2.5 (see Figure 2.6). School enrollment data appears in Table 2.3. Future elementary and high school enroll- SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS ments were projected by the Saugatuck Public GRADES K-12 School system. These projections show an up- turn in high school enrollments in 1991 with a 750 E N R 700- TABLE 2.3 0 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS L SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT L M E 600- YFAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL N T 550 79-80 326 329 655 5M] 80-81 307 322 629 5-86 87-M 8 73:74 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 8 1-82 306 299 605 YEAR 82-83 252 290 542 1 1 83-84 232 303 535 84-85 259 296 555 Saugatuck Public School system, grades K- 12, 85-86 250 277 527 have declined by 340/6 (see Figure 2.5). When 86-87 275 265 540 divided into elementary and high school enroll- ments, however, the data reveal a 17% increase 87-88 299 246 545 in elementary school enrollments since the 88-89 296 215 511 1983-84 school year, and a 28% decrease in t high school enrollments over the same period Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 2-4 FIGURE 2.6 SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS 360- 340- E 20 N 3 R 3 00- 0 L 280- K-6 PROJECTIONS L 7-12 2660 M E 240- N 220- T 200 1801 79-80 81-82 8@84 8586 87-88 89-90 91-92 93-94 YEAR continued climb in elementary school enroll- employment opportunities. In the meantime, ments (see Figure 2.6). Total projected 1994 schools must use space and resources efficiently enrollments, however, are still 23% less than as they experience tighter budgets and small 1973-74 levels. enrollments. Many of the demographic characteristics FUTURE TRENDS shown here have been analyzed based on 1980 census information. These trends should be If local demographic trends follow those updated when the 1990 census information is projectedforthe county as theyhave in the past, available. See Appendix B for more demographic then the overall proportion of retirees in the area information from the 1980 census. will expand much faster than that of school age children. The Michigan Department of Manage- ment and Budget projects that Allegan County's school age population will grow only 3% by the year 2000, while senior citizens will increase by 30%. The area's small cohort of infants and children. large cohort of middle aged to elderly, and high rate of retiree in-migration suggest this will be equally true in the Village. These figures reveal the need to plan for the needs of an aging community, as well as initiate efforts to attract families with children into the area. The large cohort of individuals in their childbearing years in the Village and Township should result in a natural increase in young children, but because couples are having fewer children, school enrollments will probably ex- pand only slightly. The Saugatuck Public School system is not likely to meet its potential capacity for enrollments unless a sequence of events or actions attracts new families with young chil- K-6 @@7 12J dren into the area. Two key factors will be the availability of affordable housing and nearby Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan HO LAND 7. -671 F$Cm AP MAP 2.1 PUBLIC lonl- 7 SCHOOL DISTRICTS 13 a - ILLIC" L 14 Im Saugatuck z 99 Fennville F]Hamifton DATA SOURCE: Respective School Districts 3G 3, 06 1. Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI August1989 SAUGAT DOUGLAS 3-1 Chapter 3 THE ECONOMY ECONOPMC BASE large wetlands abounding with wildlife; or- chards and specialty farms: and a scenic loca- Tourism tion on Lake Michigan encompassing Silver, Tourism fuels the economy of the tri-com- Goshorn, Kalamazoo and Oxbow lakes, and the munity area, with associated boating, restau- Kalamazoo River. The area also has a reputation rant, lodging, and strong retail sectors. Of the as a cultural center which serves as an artists' three jurisdictions, the City of Saugatuck relies retreat. The Ox Bow Art Workshop and the Red most heavily on tourism. The Village of Douglas Barn theater add to the area's cultural ambi- has boating and lodging facilities which capital- ence. ize on tourism, but its commercial sector is Although it is located in Laketown Town- primarily oriented towards local clientele. The ship, the Saugatuck Dunes State Park serves as Township has a small commercial sector which another tourist attraction to the tri-community compliments that of the Village, but it is primar- area. The Park offers no camping and thus many ily seasonal residential and rural. with a large visitors stay in the tri-community area. Visitor agricultural area to the south. Although the City counts from the Michigan Department of Re- of Saugatuck is seen as the resort center of the sources, Parks Division, reveal that the park has area, the Village also benefits from and contrib- increased in popularity since the 70's. Visitor utes to the tourist trade. counts performed by the Parks Division show The area's resort flair is defined by: historic that 47,463 people visited Saugatuck Dunes buildings- including quaint bed and breakfast State Park in FY 1988 a 300% increase in park inns; the many festivals; outstanding boating; attendance since 1979. when It attracted only Oval Beach; downtown Saugatuck; sand dunes; 11,714visitors. TABLE 3.1 1MPACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986 TOT.TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL STATE TAX LOCALTAX EXPENDITURES GENER. PAY- GENER.EM- RECEIPTS RECEIPT'S ROLL PLOYMENT $/Jobs $42,413,000 $7,689,000 869jobs $2,191,000 $363,000 % of State Total .56% .49% .62% .71% .49% % change 29.52% 37.87% 18.39% 27.98% 32.48% 1983-86 Source: U.S. Travel Data Center, `The Economic Impact of Travel on Michigan Counties." TABLE 3.2 NWOR EMPLOYERS PRODUCT/SERVICE EMPLOYEES Hansen Machine Metal Stampings 43 Haworth Office Furniture 238 Harbors Health Facility Nursing Horne 78 Enterprise Hinge Manufacturing 12 Douglas Marine Marina 21 Tafts Supermarket Supermarket 32 Paramount Tool Co.. Inc. Machinery 24 Rich Products Pies 85 Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 3-2 FIGURE 3.1 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980 TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY PUBLIC CITY IIA SERVICES VILLAGE FIN/INS/REAL EST TOWNSHI COUNTY RETAIL ........... ............ ........ ........... ................... WHOLESALE TRANS/COMWUTIL .......... MANUFACTURING I I ---------------------------------------- ........ ................ . ................ ............I............-...... CONSTRUCTION AGRICULTURE 0 5 1,0 15 20 25 30 40 PERCENT How much money does travel and tourism in Allegan County in 1986, generating $7.7 generate in the tri-community area? Although million for payroll, 869 J obs, $2. 1 million in state current travel and tourism statistics are not tax receipts, and $363,000 in local tax receipts. available for the tri-community area, studies This ranks Allegan County 33rd out of conducted for Allegan County reveal the tremen- Michigan's 83 counties in travel and tourism dous impact of travel and tourism on local econ- revenues. Selected data from this study is repro- omies In the County. This is especially true for duced in Table 3. 1. Saugatuck-Douglas- the major resort center in the County. A study prepared for the Michigan Manqfacturing Travel Bureau by the U.S. Travel Data Center in Manufacturing is central to the year-round 1986 found that travellers spent $42.4 million stability of the area's economy. Although there TABLE 3.3 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY - 1980 cr1y VILIAGE TOWNSHIP AREA COUN`1Y TOTAL 547 433 689 1,669 34,025 Agriculture 9 16 37 62 2,041 Construction 30 27 75 132 2,009 Manufacturing 156 169 274 599 13,033 TCU* 25 10 17 52 1,407 Wholesale Trade 13 7 20 40 1,398 Retail Trade 146 67 106 319 5,017 FIRE ** 21 15 39 75 1,126 Services 125 96 107 328 7,105 Public Admin. 22 26 14 62 889 Transportation, Conununicatiion, Utilhfies Finance, Insurance, Real Estate .............. ............. Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 3-3 TABLE 3.4 EP"LOYMENT BY OCCUPATION - 1980 _EOUN-1Y cny VILLAGE TOWNSHIP AREA TOTAL 547 433 685 1,665 34,025 Manag. & Admin 77 34 43 154 2,315 Prof. Technical 87 62 74 223 3,319 Sales 63 24 83 170 2,696 Clerical 70 45 74 189 4,189 Service 72 73 73 231 4,300 Farm, Fishing 13 13 43 126 1,885 Crafts & Repair 66 70 144 210 5,447 Machine Operators 60 90 120 270 6,129 Laborers, Mat. Moving 39 22 31 92 3.745 Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. in Figure 3. 1. Manufacturing employs the most TABLE 3.5 people in each of the three communities. Yet AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEWPLOYMENT RATE employment in other sectors varies. Thirty-nine Tri-Community County State percent of the Village of Douglas' labor force is 1982 15.2 14.8 15.5 employed in manufacturing. Yet unlike the City, 1983 14.7 14.3 14.2 the service sector dominates the retail sector. 1984 10.8 10.5 11.2 Service employ 22% ofVillage workers, with only 1985 11.3 10.9 9.9 15% in the retail sector. Construction (6%) and the public sector (6%) are the fourth largest 1986 6.5 7.3 8.8 employers of village residents, and agriculture 1987 5.8 5.6 8.2 (4%) is fifth. 1988 5.2 5.1 7.6 Although nearly all of the region's fanning Source: NESC, Bureau of Research & Statistics. Ficid occurs in the Township, 1980 employment by Analysis Unit sector shows that the proportion of the labor I force employed in agriculture in the Township are few manufacturing firms, they provide a high (5%) is low compared to the amount of agricul- percentage of area jobs. Major area employers tural activity, and only slightly higher than the are listed in Table 3.2. Village of Douglas. Many farmers have alterna- tive sources of income outside of fanning, caus- Agriculture ing the census to count them in another employment sector. Agriculture is another strong component of Employment by occupation in 1980 is the area's economic base. Although farms are shown in Table 3.4. The highest proportion of located in the Township. Census employment workers in Douglas are machine operators, fol- information reveal many individuals in agricul- lowed by service workers, crafts and repair tural employment in the Village (see Figure 3. 1). workers, and professional /technical workers. Rich Products, a major area employer, is an agri-business which was attracted to the region Average Annual because of Its many fruit farms. The future of Employment and Unemployment agri-industry is bright in light of Michigan De- Unemployment has declined dramatically partment of Commerce efforts to promote and with Michigan's economic growth of the late expand food processing industries in the state. 80's. Table 3.5 reveals average annual unem- ployment rates in the area since the last state- EAUWYNaMT wide recession. (Employment data is not Table 3.3 breaks down employment by eco- available for individual communities in the tri- nomic sector for the tri-community area and the community area. The Michigan Employment Se- county in 1980. This information is illustrated curity Commission aggregates it for Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and the City Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 3-4 of Saugatuck.) The tri-community area has a FIGURE 3.2 slightly higher rate of unemployment than Al- legan County, although since 1986 the unem- AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT ployment rate has dipped below that of the state 2.8. TRI-COMMUNITY AREA revealing local or regional economic growth. Average annual employment in the tri-com- T 2.6- munity area bottomed out in 1986. This re- H 2.4- flected the loss of American Twisting, which 0 2.2. employed about 20 people, and the burning of U 2.0. Broward Marine (about 100 employees) and S 1.8. Brighton Metal (about 10 employees). Yet in A 1987, areawide employment jumped dramati- N 1.6. cally. During that year Broward Marine re- D 1A_ opened its doors; Rich Products, Harbor Health S 1.2 Facilities, Paramount Tools and other area busi- 1.0j nesses increased employment; a number of 1@W 1982 1984 1986 IM 1960 small businesses and two restaurants opened; YEAR and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corpo- I ration expanded adding two new departments. Figure 3.3 reveals the impact of tourism on Contributing to this was the state and regional employment in the tri-community area during economic boom, and corresponding increases in the summer months. construction and spending. Figure 3.2 illus- The high number ofjobs created during the trates this trend. summer months are primarily unskilled jobs in the service/retail sector, especially eating and Seasonal Employment drinking establishments and various other rec- Local employment increases each summer reation-oriented uses. Figure 3.4 reveals this as tourists flood into the tri-community area. explosion in summer employment for tourism- TABLE 3.6 PER CAPITA INCOME ($). ALLEGAN COUNTY (TOP TEN) 1979 1985 Saugatuck 9031 Laketown Township 13,013 Laketown Township 8332 Saugatuck 12,631 Holland 8125 Holland 11,608 Gunplain Township 8074 Gunplain Township 10,947 Otsego Township 7437 Otsego Township 10,239 Plainwell 7396 Saugatuck Township 10,228 Saugatuck Township 7286 Douglas 10,150 Allegan Township 7170 Fillmore Township 10,120 Leighton Township 7051 Plainwell 9,886 Fillmore Township 7015 Leighton Township 9,539 Source: 1985 Per Capital income Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau TA13LE 3.7 INCOME & POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980) TOWNSHIP CITY VILLAGE COUNW Median HH income 16,412 15,182 14,963 17,906 % in poverty 7.1% 8.6% 11.3% 8.0% Income 200% of poverty 74% 75% 73% 71% level & above Source: 1980 Census of Population Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 3-5 FIGURE 3.3 FIGURE 3.4 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT TRI-COMMUNITY AREA, 1988 TOURISM RELATED EMPLOYMENT, 1988 2700- ALLEGAN COUNTY 2650- 1.2 E E 1.0 M T M 2600- P H .0.8 L 0 2550- 0 U L .0.6 S 0 Y A 2500- M N Y E D M 2450- N S E T N 2400- W ATCN T No 2350- J F U A Id J J A S 0 010 BMTARV I Mm" 2300-1 J F M A M J J A S 0 N MONTH gated for the Township and Village of Douglas. In 1988, residential uses comprised 76% of the FIGURE 3.5 real property tax base for the Township and Village of Douglas ($43,730,725). Commercial uses comprised 16% ($9,402,800). Agriculture REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988) comprised 5% ($2,661,790). Industrial com- SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP & VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS prised 2% (%1,126.200). Developmental, a re- cently created category which refers to lands which are assessed at a higher rate due to their RESIDENTIAL 76% high development potential, comprised 1% ($430,733) (see Figure 3.5). Figure 3.6 illustrates changes in annual I. . . . . . . DEVELOPMENTAL 1% real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for AGRICULTURAL 5% the Village of Douglas, compared to Saugatuck iNDUSTRIAL 2% Township and the City of Saugatuck. The figure ............. shows a steady increase in the Village's real COMMERCIAL 16% property tax base since 1980. The sharp drop in Township SEV is explained by the incorporation of the City of Saugatuck and its corresponding I removal from the Township's tax base. More related industries in Allegan County. This in- information on annual Sevs and 1988 break- crease creates a high demand for teenage em- downs can be found in Appendix B. ployees. Tri-community area businesses note the difficulty of filling these jobs, and the need INCOME to import seasonal labor. This is yet another Between 1979 and 1985, census estimates impact of the demographic make-up of the area show a dramatic rise In per capita income in the (i.e. the low number of teenage children). New Village of Douglas- an increase of 47.40/6- mak- industry and affordable housing in the area ing it one of the top ten communities in terms of could attract families with children who, in turn, per capita income in Allegan County. Table 3.6 could staff area businesses during peak sum- shows this comparison. (Per capita income in mer months. 1979 was $7,688 for the state and $6,744 for the county: in 1985 it was $10,902 for the state TAX BASE and $9,346 for the county.) Residential uses make up the bulk of the Table 3.7 reveals selected income and pov- area's tax base. Tax base information is aggre- erty characteristics by jurisdiction in the tri- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 3-6 FIGURE 3.6 ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY SEV TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87) 70- 60- M S I L 50- Saugatuck E L I Douglas V 0 40- N Township S Township 30- 20- 00@ 10 1980 141 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19'87 YEAR not including Village(s) including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984 community area. Although the per capita in- FIGURE 3.7 come 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 PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE representative of local trends as it is less easily TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (19M) distorted by a few high income wage earners. 50- Poverty data correspond with median 70- TOWNSHIP household income. As median income goes up, CITY the proportion in poverty goes down. Despite its P VILLAGE rapid growth in per capita income, the Village of E Douglas has the lowest median household in- R C 40 come and the highest percentage of poor in the E region. Figure 3.7 reveals the proportion of those N 30 in poverty by age. (The poverty level used by the T 1980 census in recording this data was an annual income of $3,778 for those under 65, and $3,689 for those 65 and over.) Although the largest number of poor persons are under 55, a LEM TMM 55 S&M high proportion are elderly. AGE 0000@A@ Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 4-1 40 Chapter 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT physiographic formation which is adjacent to Lake Michigan. Weather conditions affect the Village's eco- nomic base. Variations in average conditions, especially during the summer months, can TOPOGRAPHY cause fluctuations in tourism and outdoor rec- Most of Douglas is relatively flat, but local reation activities, upon which the local economy variations in elevation of up to 50 feet exist in is dependent. Prevailing winds determine some places between uplands and the floodplain lakeshore and sand dune erosion patterns, of the Kalamazoo River, and along the Lake which impose limitations on development along Michigan Shore. The golf course in the north- the Lake Michigan shore. west part of the Village and Tannery Creek north Below, In Table 4. 1. is relevant climatic of Section 21 are areas having steep slopes. information for the area. These conditions gen- Steep slopes present Impressive scenery erally do not pose limitations on the area's and pose increased maintenance and construc- growth except along the Lake Michigan shore, tion costs as well as safety risks. This is espe- where natural forces can cause rapid and exten- cially true with unstable landforms such as sive erosion of beaches and sand dunes. The sand dunes. Generally, slopes exceeding 7% climate Is also considered favorable for growing should not be developed intensively, while certain fruits, such as apples and blueberries. slopes of more than 12% should not be devel- oped at all because of erosion and storm water GEOLOGY runoff problems. On the topographic map (Map Douglas is located on the southwestern 4. 1), steep slope areas are indicated by three or flank of the Michigan Basin, which is a bedrock more contour lines in close proxin-dty. feature centered in the middle of the Lower Peninsula. The sandstone and shale bedrock is DRAINAGE overlain by glacial deposits from 50 to 400 feet Douglas lies within the Kalamazoo River thick. There are no outcroppings of the bedrock Basin, which begins near Jackson and extends and the proximity of the bedrock to the surface westward into Saugatuck Township, Douglas of the ground does not impose limitations for and Saugatuck (see Figure 4. 1). All of the land normal excavating or construction. Glacial de- in the Village drains into the Kalamazoo River, posits consist primarily of sandy lakebed depos- except for areas directly adjacent to Lake Mich- its east of the Lake Border Moraine, a major Igan. Most areas of the Village drain fairly well TABLE 4.1 SUNDdARY OF RELEVANT CLDdATE CONDITIONS CLIMATE VARIABLES AVERAGE CONDIT[ON EXTREME CONDIT[ON Coldest Months (January-February) 23.30 F - 25. 10 F -110 F - -350 F Hotest Month (July) 71.50 F 960 F - 1060 F Annual Average Temperature 48.30 F Average Rainfall 35.7 inches Average Growing Season 153 days Average Annual Snowfall 79.7 inches Elevation Above Sealevel 590 feet Prevailing Winds Westerly Source: USDA Soll Survey, Allegan County Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 4-2 FIGURE 4.1 facilities north of Blue Star Highway on Kalamazoo Lake are the only developments in RIVER BASIN the floodplain. There is not much floodplain area within the Village. with the West Shore golf course area and Tannery Creek being the only Lake Huron sizeable floodplain areas. WEILANDS . . . . . . . . . . There are numerous areas within the Vil- lage which could be considered wetlands. Most are contiguous to or hydrologically connected to the Kalamazoo River or Tannery Creek. Some -C are herbaceous and shrub rangelands, which 0 may or may not be considered wetlands, subject to site characteristics. Wetlands are valuable in storing floodwaters and recharging groundwa- a ter. They are also habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. Because wetlands are a valuable natural resource, they are protected by Public Act 203 of 1979. PA 203 requires that pennits be ac- "A quired from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to altering or filling a Lake Erie regulated wetland. The Wetland Protection Act defines wetlands as "land characterized by the presence of water at afrequency and duration suftient to support and that under normal cir- due to adequate slopes and highly permeable cumstances does support wedand vegetation or soils. Exceptions are the West Shore golf course aquatic I!fe and is commonly referred to as a bog, area in the northwest part of the Village and swamp, or marsh and Is contiguous to the Great Tannery Creek. Watercourses In Douglas are Lakes, an inland Lake or pmd, or a river or shown on Map 4.2. s&eanL" Regulated wetlands include all wetland areas greater than 5 acres or those contiguous FLOODPLAINS to waterways. Wetlands which are hydrologi- Areas adjacent to creeks, streams and riv- cally connected (i.e. via groundwater) to water- ers are susceptible to periodic flooding that can ways are also regulated. Activities exempted cause extensive damage to buildings and can from the provisions of the Act include farming. pose a substantial threat to public health and grazing of animals, farm or stock ponds, lum- safety. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has bering, maintenance of existing nonconforming mapped the boundaries of the 100 year flood- structures, maintenance or improvement of ex- plain in Douglas. Those boundaries are denoted isting roads and streets within existing rights- by the shaded areas on Map 4.3 and is the area of-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines that would be inundated during an Intermediate less than six inches in diameter. and mainte- Regional Flood. The Federal Flood Insurance nance or operation of electric transmission and Program has established guidelines for use and distribution power lines. development of floodplain areas. Those regula- Permits will not be Issued if a feasible or tions indicate that development in floodplains prudent alternative to developing a wetland ex- should be restricted to open space, recreational ists. An inventory of wetlands based on the or agricultural uses. Installation of public utili- DNRs land use\cover inventory are illustrated ties and permanent construction for residential. on Map 4.4. Table 4.2 shows the land use\cover cornmercial or industrial uses should not occur codes pertaining to regulated wetlands in the in floodplain areas. area. Herbaceous and shrub rangelands may Several homes along Douglas Bayou and not actually meet the statutory definition of small areas of the boat storage and maintenance wetland, so on site inspections will be necessary Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 4-3 to establish whether a Weiland indeed exists in wetness, low strength, excessive slope, or such areas. shrink-swell potential. These areas are found primarily in the extreme southern part of the soma Village, near and within the Felkers Subdivision, A modem soil survey was completed for in the West Shore golf course area, and along Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation Lakeshore Drive between Center St. and Camp- Service in March, 1987. The soil types present bell Rd. Most of these areas are considered in the Village of Douglas are shown on the map severe because of excessive wetness. and table in Appendix D. Each soil type has unique characteristics which pose opportunities Septic Limitations for some uses and limitations for others. The Most of the soils in Douglas impose severe most important characteristics making the soil limitations on septic tank absorption fields, suitable or unsuitable for development are lim- while some impose only slight limitations. The itations on dwellings with basements, Ihnita- remainder are excavated areas or beaches, tions on septic tank absorption fields, and which are not rated for septic limitations. The suitability for farming. Soil limitations have permeability of soils in the Village ranges from been classified into three categories, which are very poorly drained to excessively drained, with described below. neither one predominant. Map 4.6 shows the � Slight: Relatively free of limitations or lim- septic limitations for the Village. This map sug- itations are easily overcome. gests the need for municipal sewers to accom- � Moderate: Limitations need to be consid- modate new development in some areas not ered, but can be overcome with good man- presently served. including parts of the Felkers agement and careful design. Subdivision and the southeast part of the Vil- � Severe: Limitations are severe enough to lage. make use questionable. The degree of soil limitations reflects the Approximately half of the soils in Douglas hardship and expense of developing that land have severe limitations on residential and urban for a particular use. Those soils classified as development. The degree of soil limitations re- severe" have varying degrees of development flects the hardship and expense of developing potential based on the nature of the limitation. the land. Map 4.7 provides this more detailed analysis of Basement Limitations severe limitations on septic tank absorption fields. The "severe" soils have been categorized Limitations for dwellings with basements as follows: are shown on Map 4.5. Some soils impose severe limitations on basements because of excessive A- Sandy, moderate to rapid permeability B. Rapid permeability, wetness and high TABLE 4.2 water table LAND COVER CODES FOR PROTECTED C. Wet, ponding, heavier (clay) soils, slow WETLANDS IN TRI-CObUdUMTY AREA permeability CODE DESCRIPTION D. Very wet soils, organics, wetlands, flood- plains, unable to support septic fields. 31 Herbaceous Rangeland* 32 Shrub Rangeland* Soils in categories B and D are not able to 412 Upland Hardwoods support septic fields because of extreme wet- 414 Lowland Hardwoods ness. Soils in category A are classified as "se- 421 Upland Conifers vere" by the Soil Conservation Service, however the Allegan County Health Department consid- 429 Lowland Conifers ers them to have only moderate limitations for 611 Wooded Swarips septic systems. They can be made suitable for 612 Shrub Swamps development by increasing the distance between 621 Marshland Meadow the septic system and the water table. Soils with 622 Mud Flats moderate and slight limitations also appear on Source: Michigan DNR Land Cover/Use Classification Map 4.7. Soils that are most suitable for devel- System opment, with respect to basement and septic * Wetlands are sometimes, but not always associated limitations, are shown in Map 4.8. with these land cover types. I Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 4-4 Portions of the Felkers Subdivision in Doug- dustrial development in areas containing hydric las have been designated by the Allegan County soils should be discouraged. Health Department as unsuitable for new devel- opment without sewers.(see Map 4.7a) GROUNDWATER Standardsfor Septic Systems Groundwater is an unseen resource and is The Allegan County Health Department has therefore particularly vulnerable to mismanage- established certain standards for septic sys- ment and contamination. Prior to the 1980's, tems. These standards apply somewhat differ- little was known about groundwater contamina- ent site characteristics when determining the tion in Michigan, and some startling facts have degree of limitations for septic systems, com- recently been revealed. pared to the Soil Conservation Service ap- The leading causes of groundwater contam- proach, which focuses on soil types and slope. ination in Michigan are from small businesses Below is a review of these Health Department and agriculture. More than 50% of all contami- standards by development type. nation comes from small businesses that use organic solvents, such as benzene, toluene and Single Family Residential xylene, and heavy metals, such as lead, chro- Before a permit is considered, there must mium, and zinc. The origin of the problem stems be at least four feet of dry soils between the from careless storage and handling of hazardous bottom of the septic system and the water substances. On paved surfaces where hazard- table. in addition, there must be one foot ous materials are stored, substances can seep between the existing ground surface and through or flow off the edge of the pavement. the seasonal water table, and two feet be- Materials can get into floor drains which dis- tween the existing ground surface and the charge to soils, wetlands or watercourses. clay. Special permits will be considered only At present, groundwater is the only tapped if the site size is at least two acres and the source of potable water for the Village of Doug- septic system is put on top of four feet of las, City of Saugatuck, and Saugatuck Town- sand. Residential sites that fail to meet ship. The glacial drift aquifers in the area are those requirements, such as the small lots especially vulnerable to contamination because in Felkers Subdivision, will not be issued of rapid permeability and high water table. In a septic system permits. local example, Douglas'municipal water supply has been contaminated by volatile organic com- All Other Residential, Plus Commercial pounds (VOC's), supposedly by an industrial These fall under State guidelines of at least site within the Village. Some areas without mu- two feet between the existing ground sur- nicipal sewer and water service are in danger of face and the water table and four feet of dry groundwater contamination due to septic sys- soil between the bottom of the septic system tems, intensive development and a high water and the water table. No special permits are table. issued for these uses. Most of the land along Protection of groundwater resources is the entire length of Blue Star Highway not problematic because of difficulties in locating served by public utilities does not meet aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative these State standards and has been denied location of groundwater at particular points. commercial permits. Public sewers will be According to well logs from Michigan Ground- necessary. water Survey (MGS) data, well depths in and around Douglas range from 33 ft. to 240 ft. Soils Hydric Soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination Hydric soils are another limitation on devel- are found on Map 4. 10. opment. They are very poorly drained. saturate easily and retain large quantities of water. If SPECIAL FEATURES artificially drained, they are often suitable for Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches farmland use. Map 4.9 shows where these soils The Lake Michigan shoreline in Douglas is are. In Douglas, hydric soils are found near very susceptible to wind and water erosion dur- watercourses and correspond to present or for- ing storms and high lake levels due to resultant mer wetlands. Residential, commercial and in- wave action. The current closing of Lakeshore Drive in Douglas and Saugatuck Township due Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 4-5 to bluff erosion is a graphic example of the power Areas needing special attention in such stan- of wave action. These natural processes pose dards are vegetation, drainage and erosion pro- hazards to public health and safety. The tection. Shorelands Protection Act of 1970 was enacted to identify areas where hazards exist by desig- WOODLANDS nating them and by passage of measures to minimize losses resulting from natural forces of The wooded areas of Douglas are a mixture erosion. High risk erosion areas are defined as of hardwoods and conifers. Upland hardwoods areas of the shore along which bluffline reces- are scattered throughout the Village, with some sion has proceeded at a long term average of 1 large patches near Lake Michigan. Conifers are foot or more per year. The entire Lake Michigan only found in small patches in the extreme shoreline in Douglas has been designated as a southern part of the Village. Woodlands are high risk erosion area, with some portions erod- shown on Map 4.13 Mature trees represent a ing at a rate of 1.6 feet per year. Within the valuable resource in maintaining the aesthetic designated area, shown on Map 4.11, alteration character of the Village, not to mention their of the soil, natural drainage, vegetation, fish or overall importance to wildlife and the natural wildlife habitat, and any placement of perma- environment. In particular, the wooded areas nent structures, requires a DNR review and along the rivers and streams are especially im- permit, unless the local unit of government has portant. In some areas along 1- 196, especially in an approved high risk erosion area ordinance, the southern part of the Village, trees buffer the which Douglas does not. freeway from surrounding land uses. They should be managed to insure their long term Sand Dunes existence. The sand dunes along Lake Michigan in the extreme northwest corner of the Village repre- sent a unique and fragile physiographic forma- tion and ecosystem that is very susceptible to wind and water erosion, and destruction due to careless use or development. The dune area which is in the Village, the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township has been identified by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a critical dune area, subject to protec- tion 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 com- mercial or industrial uses, multifamily uses of more than 3 acres, and any use which the local planning commission or the DNR determines would damage or destroy features of archaeolog- ical or historical significance must ultimately be approved by the State. Single family residential development is to be regulated at the local level. The law prohibits surface drilling operations that explore for or produce hydrocarbons or natural brine as well as mining activities (except in the case of permit renewals). The legislation also imposes certain standards on construction and site design in critical dune areas. Site design and construction standards for sand dunes should be enhanced to prevent further deterioration of this fragile environment. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan J: .. ........ ........... ............... ............ . 4\ 0 'X (@7 j@ MAP 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY Douglas Contour interval is ten feet A E952s;-N@@ Darker lines are 50 foot contours 0 Soo 1600 2400 Scale 1" = 1748 ft AugustI989 DATA SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Maps Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI N CAMPBELL RD., - ------------------------------------------- ......... ........... ............ .............. @ENTER ST..-. DOUGLAS BAYOU 0 /V1 ..7 ............................................................................ 130THI AVE- 0 .................. ... .................................... ............... ............... 42- 1 61 AV 31 AT ----------- 129TH AVE. ......................................... i 0) 10) 0 T ........................... ............. C) (A (A MAP 4.2 WATERCOURSES Douglas Lakes, rivers and Streams m2ls@@@ 0 800 1600 2400 L A A @q Drains and intermittent Streams Scale 1" = 1748 ft August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI ELL R 15-i 0 800 1600 2400 CAMPB Scale 1 1748 ft x C. ENTER S I X V) X"Z X Ld L 1@OTHI AVE ---------- AMA, 196 J ............ )> 31 129TH AVE. CF) Ln 0 -4 T (A ':4 % MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS Douglas m 100 Year Flood Area 500 Year Flood Area August 1989 DATA SOURCE:MDNR Manning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, M( ---------------------------------------- - - 0 800 1600 2400 Scale 1" 1748 ft ---------- Iv L-.L X/1 L'- JEEBL V MAP 4.4 WETLANDS Douglas I Lowland Hardwood Shrub Swamp Marshland Meadow & Mud Flats Lowland Conffer Herbaceous Rangeland Wooded Swamp Shrub Rangeland August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc. Lansing, MI 0 8W 16W 2400 Scale 1 1748 ft .. ........ ........................ ...... .............. .. ......... . ...... ...... ............ ...... . . ................ ............ ............... ...... ........... .......... ........... ........... ....... .......... ............ . ............. ....... ............... .... ........ .......... .... .... ... ........ ......... ...... .... ...... ................ ...... ... .... iii: ... .... ....... ... ....... .............. ... . . . . . . . . . .... ....... .......... ................ ..................... ............. ...... ... .............. ............. ........................... ..... .... ............ ....... . ............ ........................ ............... ..... .. ................ ........ ..........: ....... ........... ............. ............. ................ ................ ......................... .......... ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............ ............ -- - ------ - --------- --------- --- ....... ................................. ............................... ............................ . . . . . . . . . ............. .............. ............... .................... ........... ... ........ MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS Douglas m Severe 0 Excavated Moderate Wetland Soils A Slight Sand Dunes August1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI ...... 0 wo 1600 2400 ............... ............. Scale 1 1748 ft ........ . .. ........ .. ... ........ ..... ..... ........ ........ .......... -------------------- .... . ........ 771 . .......... .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ---------- ------------------- ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ Aff . . . . . . . . . . ........... . .......... ... ........ ...... ... ............. .................. ............. .......... .. . ... 4 ............ .. ................ ::::::::::::::q ............ w a aq a a m ... ... w m .. .... .... p ow r r wr wa w w a .......... .. . ........ maww w w m d :::V: w . . . . . . . . . . m q ::.:www m. . . . . . 0ww wmFF am. . .qq . . .. . . ............ w w . . . . . . . w q rw a m . . . . . . . . . . . . mwm . . . . . . . . m ............. w m r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :........... ....... q 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . w m m m w w a . . . . . . . . . . . . . q m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAP 4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS Douglas fin Severe 0 Excavated Moderate Ez Wetland Soils L.- J. Slight R Sand Dunes AugustI989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 800 1600 2400 Scale 1 1748 ft ................ ...... .... ..... . . . . . .............. :::: ............. ...... . . . . .... ..... ....... ------ ..... ............ .................. ................. .............. .................. ........... ===fl@ ..................... .. ........ ..... -------- ........ .............. - - - -------------- ........ .......... ......... ..... ......... ............. MAP 4.7 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS Douglas Sandy, moderate to rapid Moderate Limitations Sand Dunes permeability NAM Rapid permeability, wetness Slight Limitations Wetland Soils of highwater table FA A NOR Wet, ponding, heavier Excavated H*Ha Very wet soils, organics, ON clay soils,slow permeabilit wetlands, floodplains August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Alleg. Cnty HIth Dept Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- guns 3 Los a ------------ --- ------- --- --- ------------ ----- --- -------------- ----------- -- DOUMAS 5 1A -------------- ------ --------------------- --- ---- 21 23 20 L I cc> --------------------- ------------------------- ism 20 to w 32 33 34 35 36 LEGENO KFTC 1-B It RUM cm imm" Uw-Kw MAP 4.7 A Douglas mp I symm ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS Fn NO. 2 L*Cffww a Pow*= sew"m firth 0kwTf K"C swims fu "a *cap 0 800 1600 2400 Scale 1 1748 ft ........ ........ .............. -- - ------- --- ---- - --- ------ ------- - ------------------ --------------- ---------- ---- - ---- --- -- --- ---- Aft MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS Douglas Soils Most Suitable For Development M Excavated Areas August1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 N 0 Soo 16M 2400 Scale 1 " = 1748 ft MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS Douglas m Hydric Soils A I* m Wetland Soils August'1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 800 16M 2400 Scale 1" 1748 ft T-7 ........... ............ iZ.;;;; ......n ----- 111 .......... ..... ....... ---------- ........... ... ............ .......... ............. .......... .. ........ MAP4.10 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY Douglas Areas most susceptible to contamination A Excavated Areas Wetland Soils August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soils Survey & Alleg. HIth Dept. Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI N 0 CAMPBELL RD., 0 0 Soo 1600 2400 v 1748 ft 7. EN ER ST. 0 V) ----------- LL 130THI AVE.' 31 12 9 T H AVE;- LT) U) MAP4.11 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS Douglas Accretion Area Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in A Recession Area feet per year August1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI N KALAMAZOO LAKE PBELL ST. 0 800 1600 2400 Scale 11748 ft iCENTER ST. DOUGLAS BAYOU (Y Lij 130THI AVE.- 7 pi 129TH AVE. 0) CD 0 0) (A U) MAP4.12 CRITICAL DUNE AREAS Douglas CrRical Dune Areas August1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 800 16M 2400 Scale v 1748 ft ------------------------- 1. W ........... MAP 4.13 WOODLANDS Douglas 19 Lowland Hardwood Upland Conifer Upland Hardwood Wooded Swamp Lowland Conifer Shrub Swamp August 1989 DATA SOURCE: IVIDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, IVII Chapter 5 EXISTING LAND COVER AND USE LAND USE/COVER DATA SOURCZS RESMFZITIAL Land cover and use refers to an inventory The majority of residential development in of existing vegetation, natural features, and land Douglas is clustered in the Village Center area use over the entire Village (see Map 5. 1). This and along the Lake Michigan shore. Most resort data was obtained in computerized form from and seasonal residential development is located the Michigan Resource Inventory System along Lake Michigan. Single family structures (MIRIS) database, which is maintained by the are the predominant residential type. Two mo- Michigan Department of Natural Resources bile home parks are located in the southern part (DNR). The data came from photo interpreta- of the Village near the intersection of Blue Star tions of aerial infrared photos by trained inter- Highway and 130th Avenue. There are several preters at the West Michigan Regional Planning multiple family structures within the Village. Corrunission. The DNR will update this data Among these are an apartment building at the every 5 years. Land cover and use categories comer of Ellis and Center Streets, condomini- included in the data are explained on the legend ums between Ferry Street and Kalamazoo Lake, to Map 5. 1. The wetlands and woodlands maps and apartments in the block between Fremont in Chapter 4 were also derived from this data. and Center Streets west of Blue Star Highway. MIRIS data was supplemented by a thor- Several large older homes have been converted ough land use inventory of Douglas, conducted to two or three units or bed and breakfast in the summer of 1988. The inventory was based establishments. There are currently three bed on ownership parcels and conducted both on and breakfasts in the Village. foot and through a "windshield survey". The existing use of every parcel was recorded and TABLE 5. IL evaluated in combination with low-level aerial EXISTING LAND USE imagery available from the Allegan County Equalization Department and the MIRIS land LAND USE ACRES % cover/use map to prepare the existing (parcel- M"SROW* based) land use map (see Map 5.2). The following description is based on these maps and data Residential sources and the USDA Soil Survey of Allegan single-family 218 16.98% County. multi-family 29 2.26 Land use by category is shown in Table 5. 1. mobile home 18 1.40 This information was derived from the afore- Commercial 44 3.43 mentioned data sources and areas were calcu- Industrial 32 2.49 lated using CMAP computer mapping software, Institutional 28 2.18 The predominant land use in Douglas is single family residential. This is followed by golf Agricultural 24 1.87 courses, commercial, and boat service and stor- Parks 23 1.79 age, respectively. Vacant land comprises forty Golf Courses 130 10.12 five percent of the total land area (street ROWs Boat Storage & 34 2.65 excluded) of the Village. Following are brief geo- Service graphic descriptions of existing land use. These Kalamazoo 34 2.65 descriptions are based on the planning/neigh- River Wetland borhood areas depicted on Map 5.3. Streets & Roads 155 12.07 Vacant 5-0 40.19 TOTAL 1284 100.080/0 % of total land area minus strret ROWs Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 5-2 Village Center Scattered Residential is Approximately 25 blocks of long-estab- In the southern part of the Village along lished neighborhoods surround the original 130th. Avenue, and along Ferry Street between center of the Village. These consist primarily of Center Street and 130th. Avenue, residential older homes with some homes less than 30 years development is scattered along the road with old scattered throughout. The condition of varying lot and structure sizes. Ferry Street is homes in this area varies widely, with some lightly travelled and residences are minimally structures recently improved and others lacking affected by vehicle traffic. Commercial uses ad- maintenance over a long a period of time. Al- jacent to the residential areas are not buffered though dilapidated houses are relatively few in and also impact upon adjoining residential number, they have a significant negative impact uses. In addition to single family homes, there on aesthetics and property values in the Village are two mobile home parks located next to each Center area. Accessory buildings such as sepa- other south of 130th. Avenue and east of Blue rate garages or sheds are prevalent on residen- Star Highway. Harbours Apartments are located tial properties in the Village Center area, and south of 130th. Avenue, between Water and many of these are poorly maintained as well as Union Streets. highly visible. One home on north Water Street There are also residences along south Water was built in the floodplain, too close to the Street, from east 130th. Avenue to South Street. waterfront. It is vacant and not maintained, and This area is surrounded by undeveloped land, detracts from the aesthetic quality of the water- including an orchard, which serves to give it a front. The tree lined streets, relatively large lots rural character. Several residences are located and large wood frame homes give this part of the on the Kalamazoo River between Schultz Park village a classic charm. and Water Street as well. Lakeshore Area Condominiums The Lake Michigan shore is lined with both Three m ajor condominium developments large and small single family homes, many of have occurred in Douglas within the last five them seasonal dwellings along Lakeshore Drive. years. The Amity condon-Aniums are located The condition of structures in this area is fairly north of 130th. Avenue between Water Street consistent from house to house, with most of and Blue Star Highway. The Mariners Cove them being in good to excellent condition. The condominiums are located adjacent to the boat lakeshore area is characterized by scenic vistas docks on Kalamazoo Lake near Saugatuck. of the lake, although sand dunes and numerous Tower Harbour condominiums are located along structures obstruct the view of the lake while Ferry Street directly south of Mariners Cove. travelling north from Center Street. Large trees line the road and many homes are on wooded CObUYIERCLAL lots. A bed and breakfast establishment Is also located in this area. The major commercial areas in Douglas are Blue Star Highway from the Kalamazoo River Campbell Road & West Center Street bridge to 130th. Avenue, and in the Village The residential area along Campbell Road Center. Boat storage and repair facilities repre- in both Douglas and Saugatuck includes a mix sent a different type of commercial use and are of newer and older homes. To the south of this found mostly in areas near the waterfront. area is the West Shore golf course, which con- Blue Star Highway tributes to a rural setting, with its large trees and open space. There is also some vacant land The commercial area along Blue Star High- outside of the golf course which is in the flood- way is concentrated from Chestnut to 130th and plain and thus should not be developed. Felkers represents a form of unplanned commercial subdivision south of West Center St. is a par- strip development. Lots were developed inde- tially completed residential subdivision on an pendently at widely varying points in time with- area of poor soils where new homes will have to out any consideration for safe and functional be connected to the sewer system in order to be design vis a vis adjoining parcels. Commercial permitted. strips often have inconsistent setbacks, an ex- cessive number of driveways, excessive signs. 0 poorly controlled ingress and egress and are poorly designed with respect to the natural en- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 5-3 vironment. These characteristics make the strip Village, occupying approximately 12.9 acres of unattractive, environmentally incompatible, land, or less than 1% of the Village's total land and potentially dangerous. The negative effects area. of strip comrnercial areas can be mitigated by Amajor deterrentto new industries locating consolidation of driveways and parking facili- in the Village is lack of adequately sited land ties, grouping of stores into "mini malls" (e.g. served with good public facilities (water). Doug- Weathervane Mall), reducing the number and las is located 150 miles from Detroit. 180 miles size of signs, and site design standards which from Chicago and 36 miles from Grand Rapids require that natural features be positively incor- along a major interstate highway. There is also porated into new developments, as well as min- a railroad within five miles. This is an advanta- imizing "asphalt landscaping". This area has a geous location for small scale, light industrial mix of highway service (like motels and gas development. stations) and general business activities (like the grocery store) but functions more as a general AGRICULTURAL business area meeting the wide general busi- ness needs of the tri-community area. The only active agricultural land use in Douglas is an orchard in the southeast area of Douglas Village Center the Village on 130th. Avenue between Water This small retail area consists of restau- Street and The Harbor apartments. The orchard rants, public and private offices and specialty is owned and operated by Michigan State Uni- shops and is used mostly by local residents. versity for conducting agricultural, plant and Uses include the Post Office, Village Hall, party soil research. There are a few areas in the Village stores, restaurants, beauty salon, police depart- which are considered prime farmland by the ment, insurance, real estate and legal services, USDA Soil Conservation Service. Most, with the antique shops and the public library. Parking is exception of the MSU site, are vacant lands located along both sides of Center St. and is which have not been farmed for some time or are adequate to meet current needs. There are sev- used for other purposes (e.g. West Shore golf eral vacant lots and buildings in this area which course). In light of Saugatuck Township's efforts could be used for new retail development. to protect existing farmlands and to concentrate new commercial and residential development Boat Storage and Repair where public utilities can be economically pro- vided, it would not be inappropriate to convert There are several large boat storage and prime agricultural lands within the Village of repair establishments in the Village. Most of this Douglas to other land uses since utilities can be type of commercial development is found along more economically provided here. Kalamazoo Lake north and west of Blue Star Highway. Other large boat storage and repair establishments are Tower Marine, located at WATERFRONT Hamilton and Center Streets, and Douglas Ma- Large marina and boat dockage character- rine, off of Blue Star Highway in the new indus- ize the west end of Kalamazoo Lake with the trial park. Kewatin (a retired Great Lakes cruise boat now used as a museum) dominating the shoreline on INDUSTRIAL the east end. Adjacent is a small, relatively Industrial development in Douglas is lo- unimproved public access site. Shoreward is a cated primarily along Blue Star Highway. An large expanse of land extending from Blue Star industrial park area located east of Blue Star Highway to the west end of St. Peters Drive Highway between 129th. and 130th. Avenues which is presently being used as a dumping contains four firms; Rich Products. Douglas ground for dredge material. The view of Lake Marine, Enterprise Hinge, and a clothing ware- Kalamazoo from east St. Peters St. to the bridge house. Haworth, Inc. is located between Ferry along Blue Star Highway is the most scenic Street and Blue Star Highway in an area other- public viewing opportunity of the Lake that pres- wise characterized by commercial development. ently exists. How this land is utilized in the Hansen, Inc. is on Blue Star Highway south of future will have more to do with the resulting 130th. Avenue. Douglas Gas Co. is located on character of the Village than the development of 130th. Avenue just west of Schultz Park. These any other area. are the only significant industrial uses in the Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 5-4 East of the bridge down to where Tannery History reviews these projects to assess their Creek enters the Douglas Bayou is characterized impact on archaeological sites. by residential development and some boat slips. The Bureau of History also recommends The balance of the shoreline in Douglas is largely that those proposing development projects in wetland to Schultz Park with a few single family Douglas contact the State Archaeologist to de- homes. termine if the project may affect a known ar- chaeological site. This Is particularly critical HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL F7_A11JRES given the existence of Indian Burial sites in the area. if an important archaeological site will be Some archaeological sites historic sites can affected, archaeologists will negotiate a volun- be found in Douglas. Historic and archaeological tary agreement to preserve those artifacts. The sites are designated by the Michigan Bureau of Bureau of History serves in an advisory capacity History. and has no legal authority to restrict develop- Historic Buildings and Sites ment rights. The Michigan State Register of Historic Sites was established in 1955 to provide official recognition for historic resources in Michigan. Designated historic sites have unique historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance. There are three State his- toric sites in Douglas, which are listed on Table 5.2. State historic site designation does not in- clude any financial or tax benefits, nor does it impose any restrictions upon the owner of the property, unlike similar designations under fed- eral law. TABLE5.2 STATE HISTORIC SITES DESCRIPTION LOCAT[ON Douglas: Dutcher Lodge # 193 Hall 86 Center St. Asa Goodrich House 112 Center St. Sarah Kirby House 294 W. Center St. Source: Michigan Bureau of History Archaeological Sites Archaeological sites are of particular scien- tific value to the fields of anthropology, ecol- ogy,and biology and may have historic or ethnic significance as well. There are 120 archaeologi- cal sites scattered throughout Saugatuck Town- ship, 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 explot- tation. Recipients of Federal assistance must ensure that their projects avoid damage or de- struction of significant historical and archaeo- logical resources. The Michigan Bureau of Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan MAP 5.1 LAND USE/COVER Douglas URBAN WATER 113 SIngle Family 52 Lakes 115 Mobile Home WETLAND 124 Neighborhood Business 611 Wooded Swamps 126 Other Institutional EE 612 Shrub Swamps 193 Outdoor Recreation F 621 Marshland Meadow UM 622 Mud Flats FARMLAND 21 Cropland BEACH 22 Orchards 72 Beach At Riverbank 73 Dunes RANGELAND 31 Herbaceous Rangeland 32 Shrub Rangeland WOODLAND 4121 414)Broadleaf 4211 429)Conifers August 1989 DATA SOURCE: IVIDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI Village of Douglas LAND USE/COVER 0 goo 1 Wo 2400 Scale 1" 1748 ft .............. ..... ........ ................ ............. @iii .... ... ... ............ ................ ................ ................ ................ ........... ......................... ............... ......... .......... .............. ------------ --------- ........... - ---------- ............ .......... ---- ....... ........................ ........................ .......... .......... ."T.M. ----------------------- . ....... . .. .............. MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE Douglas El Single Family Residential Agriicultural - Orchard 61 Mulltiple Family Residential Recreational Reside nti al/Co m merci al Junkyard Commercial Mobile Home Park Boat Storage/Marina Vacant Lj Industrial Wetland i 1, 0`11 Institutional Water 0 Agricultural August 1989 SOURCE: PZC Land Use Survey Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI Village of Douglas EXISTING LAND USE 0 700 14M 2100 Scale 1" 1438' 'n F-P, .. ...... ......... . ..... ... Val, ............ ............ .......... ............ .............. ........... ............ ........... ........... ..... ................ iaal .......... ME@ EWA 0 8w 16W 24W Scale 1 1748 ft i-.H II I T IIT I MAP5.3 PLANNING AREAS Douglas Lakeshore Waterfront Village'Center Commercial A Campbell& West Center Ferry & W. Of Blue Star Village Center Residential Blue Star Commercial Bluestar Industrial East 130th LEW August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Douglas Planning Commisssion Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 6-1 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES NON-PARK PUMIC FACuzms demands. The water is not treated, except for chlorination and iron sequestering. Parts of the A listing of all non-park public facilities in current water system date back to 1907 in the Village of Douglas is found on Table 6. 1. This Saugatuck, and to 1914 in Douglas. In addition, includes police and fire stations, municipal gov- the water mains are old, small and substandard, ernment offices, vacant lands and other public leaks are a problem on older service lines and facilities (see Map 6. 1). Table 6. 1 a lists planned there may be some unmetered taps. Growth is acquisitions and improvements to non-park restricted in areas not serviced by the system public facilities. and is limited overall at present because of insufficient pumping capacity. UTHZITES The existing water system also has many Sewer and Water dead end lines, which are susceptible to water The Saugatuck-Douglas area sewer and discoloration and development of tastes and water systems are managed by the Kalamazoo odors due to stagnation. The best arrangement Lake Sewer and Water Authority, which is re- for water mains is the gridiron system, where all sponsible for operation and maintenance and primary and secondary feeders are looped and provides water production and wastewater interconnected, and the small distribution treatment. Each participating community is re- mains tic to each loop to form a complete grid. sponsible for providing and financing their OVI/M if an adequate number of valves are inserted, infrastructure. The KLSWA performs the con- only a small 1 block area will be affected in the struction work or contracts it out. event of a break. A primary feeder from the The service areas for the sewer and water Saugatuck wells to the system's primary 12" systems, shown on maps 6.2 and 6.3, extend feeder loop has been installed, and all of the only for very short distances into Saugatuck primary 12" feeder loop has been completed, Township. Most of the developed part of the including two river crossings. Village is served by both water and sewer, and In 1984 and 1985, a one million gallon the system is designed to accommodate expan- above ground storage tank was constructed, sion and addition of new lines. which allowed Saugatuck and Douglas to meet Numerous engineering studies have been normal and fire protection demands. If conducted which discuss various alternatives Saugatuck Township is included in the system, for improvement of utilities. These include using the storage tank is adequate for fire protection Lake Michigan for the municipal water supply for the near future, but additional capacity is and extending public utilities into the Township. needed if service were extended to the southern Proposals must take into consideration the per- portions of the Township. manent population, seasonal population, num- Recent chemical contamination of the ber of daily visitors, and future industrial flow. Douglas municipal water supply has led to an Peak periods for public utilities in the area are overburdening of the City of Saugatuck water more pronounced than in typical communities system, which is presently serving the entire due to the relatively high seasonal and daily network and is working at full capacity; 24 visitor population. hours per day during peak months. This has led to restrictions on non-essential uses such as Water System lawn sprinkling, car and boat washing, and has reduced the minimum reserve needed for fire The reliability of the water system depends protection (600,000 gallons) down to 2/3 of the on water supply sufficient to meet peak de- needed amount. A moratorium has been im- mands, storage capacity to provide fire flows for posed on new development other than one or two sufficient duration, adequate water pressure family dwellings. The pumping capacity of both and distribution system loops. The existing sys- wells has dropped due to depletion (drawdown) tem is deficient with respect to meeting peak of groundwater. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-2 TABLE 6.1 (NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES INVENTORY VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS NAME LOCATION USE SIZE CONDITION VALUE Vacant lot Comer Gravel stor- 28,000 sq. ft. Dry $35,000 Ferry & Cen- age (1/2 acre+) ter Library Mixer & Library 4327 sq.ft. Good $96,000 (Saugatuck- Center Sts. (1 lot-8400 Douglas) sq.ft.) Fire bam Spring & Office, fire 2560 sq.ft. Good $100.000 Center Sts. bam. (1/4 acre- 10,000 SCIA.) DPW bam. Water & Bam 2432 sq.ft. Poor Land is valu- Center Sts. (launch R 3/4 acres- able, river ramp 80,000 frontage & curently sq.ft.) walk be con- closed) verted to park and/or marina Two DPW bam Well housing combined Good $26.000 pumphouses bldgs=360 & pumps sq.ft. (land includes DPW bam) 1/2 vacant Gerber, None 66 sq.ft. Varied street ends South, wide on K. River Fermont, & Lake Randolph, Spencer Land = acres or square feet (Building square feet/acres) TABLE 6. 1A PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/MWROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES VH.LAGE OF DOUGLAS NAME LOCATION USE SIZE CONDITION ACQUISI- FINANCING TION COST SOURCE Allegan 130th & DPW 3700 sq.ft. Fair $55,000- $55,000/land County Rd. Water Sts. bam/Inter- (2.2 acres) total less in- contract Commission urban facil- terurban with F.M.B. bam 1tv share Douglas Ma- Union& Village & 7,000 sq.ft. Poor Free (lease $200,000/loc sonic Lodge Center Sts. Public Hall (8,400 sq.ft., exchange al fund rais- 1 lot) with Ma- ers, histori- sonic) cal monies if available Land = square feet (Building square feet/acres) Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-3 Communications from the Michigan De- The treatment facility was designed for a partment of Public Health have demanded that twenty year planning period through 1998, substantial progress be made towards a solution based on a population tributary of 7,695 and a to the water supply problem in the near future. wastewater flow of 0.75 million gallons per day The Health Department has also questioned the (MGD). The treatment facility is rated at 0.8 usefulness and reliability of both Douglas wells million gallons per day by the Michigan Depart- because well # 1, which is out of use, is contam- ment of Natural Resources (MDNR). The facility inated, and well #2, which is used for emergency was designed for a peak flow of 2 MGD. The purposes only, may become contaminated present average flow is 0.4 MGD. A larger flow through further use. As a result, alternatives for can be accommodated by increasing hours of additional water sources are currently under operation, provided that the lagoons can treat review, with Lake Michigan and the City of the sewage well enough. An engineering study Holland water system being considered the most in 1987 determined that August (maximum day viable options. Engineering studies have indi- was Aug. 14) is the month of peak flow for cated a cost of nearly $4.5 million for construc- wastewater, with 0.598 MGD. Based on the tion of a Lake Michigan water treatment facility study, the treatment facility operated at 75% of which would provide a clean and abundant flow capacity, 55% of BOD capacity, and 30% of source of water. A large service area, formed by suspended solids capacity. Existing effluent including large portions of Saugatuck Town- quality and treatment efficiency was found to be ship, would reduce the per capita cost burden excellent. Increasing the rated capacity of the on users. This facility would be capable of facility to 1.2 MGD with two aerated lagoons pumping 3 million gallons per day, which could would accommodate all three jurisdictions serve the needs of all three communities wen through 2008 and possibly beyond. Pursuing into the future. Ibis, combined with a desire to this option would require detailed preparation retain local control over the water system, of data accompanied by a formal request to the makes using Lake Michigan water the favored DNR from the KLSWA. Further capacity could alternative. be obtained by adding another aerated lagoon, estimated to cost $900,000 in 1987. Sewer System Wastewater treatment is provided at a treat- Storm Sewers ment plant located in Section 10 of Saugatuck There are very few mapped stormwater Township. The facility was constructed by the drains in Douglas. Drainage has not been a City of Saugatuck and the Village of Douglas in significant problem in most developed areas 1980. The treatment system provides biological because of sandy, high permeability soils and and clarification processes for the reduction of lack of large paved areas. Efforts are currently BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and sus- underway to improve stormwater drainage. pended solids, including chemical precipitation for the reduction of phosphorus from fertilizers County Drains and detergents. The plant has two aerated la- There are three County drain districts goons and was designed for incremental addi- which are partially located within Douglas. tion of lagoons to accommodate increased These include the Herring, Jager Crane, and wastewater flow. The facility was designed for Warnock drains. All are located in the extreme heavier BOD loading than other facilities its size, southern part of the Village in order to accommodate a pie factory, and thus may not need more capacity of that type for Gas, Electric and Telephone many years. The discharge is to the Kalamazoo There are no major gas or oil pipelines in River on the north side of Saugatuck. Douglas. Gas service is provided by Michigan The sewer system in Douglas was built Gas Utilities Company and approximate loca- entirely since 1978. Douglas and Saugatuck tions of gas mains are shown on Map 6.4. Elec- merged their facilities in the late 1970's to form tricity in the Village is provided by Consumers the KLSWA. The capacity of the sewer system is Power Company. Telephone service is provided sufficient to meet the needs of Saugatuck and by General Telephone and Electric Co. (GTE). 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 0 the system until 2008. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-4 TRANSPORTATION the Village of Douglas are "Major Street" and "Local Street". These roadways are shown in Transportation facilities within the area in- Map 6.6. Funding is provided to cities and vil- clude streets and roads and a public transpor- lages for street maintenance and construction tation system (Interurban). Douglas is served by based on the number of miles of streets by class, a major Interstate highway (1- 196), which runs within each community. Douglas has 4.34 miles along the eastern edge of the Village, and by a of Major Roads and 10.92 miles of Local Roads State highway (M-89), located three miles to the under Act 5 1 designation. south in Saugatuck Township. Blue Star High- way, part of the Great Lakes Circle Tour, is the Lakeshore Drive other major highway serving the area. The near- Lakeshore Drive provides a scenic link be- est railroad is the Chesapeake and Ohio R_R_, tween areas along the Lake Michigan coast. High which runs north and south one mile east of the water levels on the Great Lakes, combined with Township boundary. Kent County International storms, resulted in powerful wave action which Airport is within 50 miles and is served by 3 undermined sand and clay bluffs along the major airlines, with 126 flights per day. The area shore, causing them to collapse. Because of its is also served by Greyhound Bus Lines. Trans- close proximity to these bluffs, the road has portation facilities are important in stimulating washed out in two places, one in section 20 growth for Douglas and its location is an asset which is impassable, and one south of Douglas for attracting further economic and industrial which has only one lane passable. School buses development. are not allowed to travel on some segments of Streets and Roads the road because of poor and unsafe conditions. The Allegan County Road Commission allocated Streets and roads are classified according $260,000 to test the effects of concrete for ac- to the amount of traffic they carry and the cretion technology along the shoreline. The ero- nature of the traffic. Four common categories sion barrier was installed in two locations and are local streets, collectors, local arterials, and is having a minimal effect on the shoreline. Cost regional arterials. Local streets typically provide estimates for rebuilding Lakeshore Drive are at access to residences, with speeds from 20 to 25 approximately $3.8 million (1988). This would mph (Union St.). Collectors connect local streets involve relocation of portions of the road and to arterials and speeds average 25-35 mph. Implementation of erosion control measures. (Center St.). Local arterials facilitate larger vol- umes of traffic which originates and terminates within the area, with a trip length of ten miles or less and an average speed of 35-45 mph. (Blue TABLE 6.2 Star Hwy.). Regional arterials are typically used EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS for high speed through traffic, and access to the roadway is usually limited (1- 196). Locations of DATE LOCATION VOLUME. collectors, local arterials and regional arterials 4/3/78 Blue Star & 64th 5,319- are shown in Map 6.5. Each class of street has 1959 & 1968 130th E & W of 368 an important function in maintaining the effi- (same count) Blue Star cient flow of traffic and it is essential that ade- July 1987 (2 Blue Star & 129th 10,575 quate transportation facilities exist or can be -dfferent days) 8,256 efficiently provided. 1969 Old Allegan, east 336 Accurate and up-to-date traffic counts are of Blue Star needed in order to make some decisions pertain- 1982 130th & 70th, east 285 ing to priorities for road improvements, monitor- of Lakeshore Dr. ing of flows, evaluating Impacts of proposed new development, and projecting future traffic con- July 1987 North 135th at 7,018 ditions. Table 6.2 shows what very limited infor- Blue Star (north- mation is presently available from the County bound) Road Commission. July 1987 129th at Blue 6,192 PA 5 1 of 195 1 provides for the classification Star (northbound) of all public roads, streets and highways for the October 1985 Center at Blue 10,861 purpose of managing the motor vehicle highway Star fund. The two classifications which pertain to Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-5 Blue Star Highway 37,000 riders. A new maintenance facility in Blue Star Highway serves as a local arterial. Douglas, to be completed in the spring of 1990, Numerous problems inhibit it from performing is being constructed at a cost of $211,000 en- that function effectively. tirely with state and federal funds. It is possible Access to commercial and industrial estab- that the Interurban could be used to shuttle lishments along arterial roads should be con- people to Saugatuck from remote parking facil- trolled by curbing. At present, there is virtually itates and ease the parking burden there. The no controlled access in these areas on Blue Star Interurban is governed by a board consisting of Highway, and wide driveways and open shoul- members from all three communities. ders lead to an elevated risk of accidents. There are no designated pedestrian traffic areas or POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES bike paths (except from the bridge to Center St.), Police causing pedestrians to use the shoulder, un- safely. The roadway needs to have more than The Village maintains its own police depart- two lanes (at least from Center to 130th) or ment, which is housed adjacent to the clearly delineated deceleration and right turn Saugatuck Township hall on Spring Street. The lanes. The shoulders are paved in places and department has one patrol car and three full these are often mistaken for actual lanes, which time police officers. There are also three officers poses a safety hazard and results in the paving on reserve. The police department plans to have deteriorating rapidly since the foundation for two patrol cars by the surnmer of 1990. Police heavy use is not in place. There is no cooperative protection for the Village of Douglas is also maintenance or planning arrangement among provided by the Allegan County Sheriff Depart- the Village, Saugatuck and Saugatuck Town- ment and the Michigan State Police. The State ship for Blue Star Highway and the County Road Police maintains the Saugatuck Team post Commission, yet the roadway needs repairs and north of the Township on 138th Avenue in Lake- resurfacing. town Township. The facility has one lieutenant, Very little useable traffic count information one sergeant, seven troopers and eight patrol is available, except for the intersection with cars. The Allegan County Sheriff Department Center Street, making it difficult to assess where operates a satellite post in Fennvffle. needs are greatest so that improvements can be prioritized. Traffic may be higher in some seg- Fire ments than in others, indicating which speed Saugatuck is included in the Saugatuck limits and whether other traffic control mea- Fire District. This district is managed by a five sures are necessary. member Fire Authority. Saugatuck, Douglas The entrance into Douglas from south Blue and Saugatuck Township each appoint one per- Star Highway does not cause visitors to have a son to the board. These three then appoint two positive first irnpression of the community. other people from the area at large, subject to Over 60% of people responding to the 1988 approval by the three communities involved. The Public Opinion Survey noted that the appear- Saugatuck Fire District has 35 volunteer per- ance of the highway needed improvement. sonnel, including the fire chief. There are two Nearly 76% of Village respondents indicated fire stations, one located in downtown Douglas that the Highway needs Improvements in better (47 W. Center) and another in Saugatuck Town- lane striping, resurfacing, speed limits, traffic ship near the intersection of Blue Star Highway flow and safety, and bike paths. and 134th Avenue. The latter is a new building designed to house six vehicles, offices and a Interurban meeting room with 9,600 square feet. It is lo- The Interurban is the area's public trans- cated adjacent to the existing Maple Street facil- portation system and is funded in part by a 1 ity. mill assessment. The service was started in May The Fire District maintains eight vehicles 1980 as a two year experimental project and was and one vessel: initially funded at 100% by the State. Following -1975 Chevy Pumper the experimental period, some of the cost bur- -1981 International Pumper den was borne by the tri-communities through -1968 International Pumper the 1 mill assessment. The system has four 1959 Ford Pumper buses and in 1988 there were approximately 1949 Seagrave Aerial 1977 GMC Step Van Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-6 * 1985 FWD Tanker TABLE 6.3 * 1985 Karavan Trailer TONS GENERATED PER DAY - Boston V@baler boat with pump BY LAND USE Emergency Services SOURCE QUANT171Y (PER DAY) Ambulance services are provided by the Residential 6.5 Fennville Fire District and by Mercy Hospital in Commercial 2.8 Grand Rapids, dispatched from Holland. The Industrial 1.8 Saugatuck Fire District maintains a first re- Other 0.7 sponder unit with 11 volunteers because of the distance from ambulance services. The first re- Not Collected -0.5 sponder unit appears to average about 10 calls NET TOTAL 11.3 per month. Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan SCHOOLS Douglas is served by the Saugatuck school TABLE 6.4 district. The school system operates two facili- SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION ties. Douglas Elementary School accommodates TYPE POTSW grades K through 6, and Saugatuck High School accommodates grades 7 through 12. In addition Combustible Wastes Percentage to being used for educational purposes, the Paper 44.8 schools also have indoor and outdoor recreation Plastics 9.2 facilities. Enrollment is approximately 550 stu- Wood 3.5 dents. Yard Wastes 4.1 Textiles 4.2 OTHER C0hffdUNrrY FACUX17IES Food Wastes 11.5 There is more than 37 acres of public land Rubber 2.2 in Douglas, most of which is parks (see Chapter Misc. Organics 3.0 7). Other publicly owned facilities are listed in TOTALS 82.5 table 6. 1. Noncombustible Wastes SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Glass 5.3 PA 641 of 1978 requires that every county Ferrous 6.6 prepare both a short term (5 year) and long term (20 years) solid waste management plan. The Aluminum 0.8 plan must be approved by the County Planning Other nonFerrous 0.5 Committee, the County Board of Commissioners Misc. Inorganics 4.3 and by at least 2/3 of the municipalities in the TOTALS 17.5 county. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan -*Proportion of Total Solid Waste dates from 1983 and covers a twenty year plan- Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan ning period. It is presently being updated. The County generates about 220 tons per day of solid waste and has to rely on landfills TABLE6.7 outside of Allegan County. Solid waste removal PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATED in Douglas is handled entirely by prtvate haul- ers. The waste stream from the County, and USE QPE * (LBS. PER DAY) thus from the Village, is expected to increase due Residential 2.9 to population and tourist increases brought about by the area's shoreline, natural attrac- Commercial 5.75 tions, and proximity to Grand Rapids. Industrial 10.6 The Saugatuck area is defined in the Solid Average Overall 4.7 Waste Plan and encompasses Saugatuck Town- 0 Quantity Per Employee ship, Saugatuck and Douglas, as well as small Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan I Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 6-7 portions of the adjoining communities. The - In a developed area where the density of Saugatuck area currently generates 11.3 tons of adjacent houses or water wells could be solid waste per day. In some outlying rural reasonably expected to produce undue po- areas, 5- 100/6 of the residential waste generated tential for groundwater contamination. is disposed of or recycled on site. In urban areas, Due to the presence of wetlands in the approximately 5% of residential waste is being Village (Map 4.4), prime agricultural lands (Map recycled or scattered by individual efforts. The 4. 10), and areas susceptible to groundwater contributors to the solid waste stream by land contamination (Map 4.11), not much is left for use are shown in Table 6.3. potential landfill sites. Furthermore, most of Table 6.4 shows the results of a study con- those sites which may be environmentally suit- ducted by the Northeast Michigan Council of able for landfills have already been developed. Governments (NEMCOG) in the early 1980's. Thus it is not likely that a landfill will be located The study involved counties with both urban in the Village. and rural characteristics, much like the Saugatuck Township, Saugatuck and Douglas area. Solid waste generated has been broken down into specific categories. The numbers probably do not match the actual breakdown of solid waste components in the tri-community area, but give a rough estimate of the compo- nents. Per capita waste generated from various land uses is shown in Table 6.5. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan pro- jects 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 separa- tion 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 pro- duce unduly disturbing or blighting influ- ence with permanent negative effect. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 0 Soo 1600 2400 FFFn7T7-T- Scale 1 1748 ft EHE n C== L I I I __j -F-RD MAP 6.1 Public Facilities Douglas 1)2 Pumphouses 2)Vacant block 3)1/2 Vacant street ends on Kzoo Rvr & Lake 4 & 5)Vacant lot 6)Library 7)Fire District #1 & Fire Barn 8)DPW Barn 9)Saugatuck Township Hall 10)Village Hall II)Dutcher Hall A August1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI N R a Lim 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale V 9060 ft (0 MAP 6.2 WATER SYSTEM Douglas F*-]Water Mains FR-1 Reservoir A Proposed Water Intake & Treatment area Existing Well Locations 0/6 00 August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, M1 @6 Z-1 7 Ain to T-" " I qL W. J vu, F r 0 all stollic.11111... 1W L: U LUWU ,#niii Illifiletim fill -ijog-4 logo go of 1111111FInininnoillim z z -7- z MAP 6.3 SEWER SYSTEM Tri-Community Sewer Lines ..... oil Discharge Line August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids Planning Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI n r 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1 9060 ft AM T -1 ;7 @6 Mir,- ,,a* L m m in FE ---,mrn n J" U MAP 6.4 GAS MAINS Douglas A [;@] Gas Mains August 19M SOURCEMIchigan Gas Utilities company Planning & Zoning Center Inc., Lansing,IVII F2 LRrm HOE MEEEM CEE32 I KWF'R=CCD z rill MAP6.5 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Douglas Regional Arterials -1 Local Streets V F// A e=7r-@ Local ArteNals Fe'l Collectors August 1989 DATA SOURCE: PZC Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI -F7 0 Soo 1600 2400 Scale 1 1748 ft BE LULU HE FEEEIRI Eggs BEE L M:= -LLI I I F- Q MAP6.6 ACT51 ROADS Douglas treet Major S State Trunkline FO @O County Primary August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDOT Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 7-1 Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE P arks, recreation, and open space are essen- two County Commissioners, and five members tial to the quality of life of area residents, appointed by the County Board of Commission- and are an important component of the local ers. The Commission meets on the first Monday tourist economy. They enhance property values, of each month. It sometimes provides financial as well as physical and psychological well-being. assistance for local recreational efforts which Parks and open space define the character of advance the County Recreation Plan. each area community, create the scenic atmo- sphere which stimulates tourism, and provide AREAWEDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES the basis for popular local leisure activities. Recreation needs are regional in nature and Recreation can be separated into four main plans must view local recreational offerings as categories: physical, social, cognitive, and envi- part of a regional recreational system. Local ronmentally related recreation. The former cat- governments, schools, private entrepreneurs, egory focuses on sports and various physical the County, and the State each have a central activities. Social recreation looks at social inter- role in serving local and regional recreational action. Cognitive recreation deals with cultural, needs. educational, creative. and aesthetic activities. Environmentally related recreation requires the natural environment as the setting or focus for ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE activity. Each of these categories in some way Douglas parks are maintained by the relates to the others. Village's Department of Public Works under the Village Council's Parks and Buildings Commit- Physical Recreation tee, which reports to the Village Council. The Intramural athletics are popular for chil- Village is also represented on the Township Park dren and young adults in the area and are and Recreation Commission-an independent offered through the summer recreation pro- governmental entity charged with provision of gram. Activities include softball, baseball, area parks and recreational programs which rocket football, volleyball, bowling and others was created by the Township in November 1970. (see Table 7. 1). The elementary school has a The Commission has six elected members, and newly expanded playground and Kid's Stuff is staffed by a part-time maintenance person. Park. Playgrounds are also found at River Bluff, Representatives of both Douglas and Saugatuck Township may be elected to the Commission. TABLE 7.1 The Commission completed the Saugatuck - SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan in Feb- ACTIMY 1989 ruary of 1985 and updates the plan periodically. PARnCIPAMS Revision of the plan is currently underway. The City of Saugatuck's parks are main- T-ball for kids 40 tained by the City through its Department of Little League 46 Public Works. Park planning is done by a com- Pony League 19 mittee of three City Council members, who are Slow-pitch softball 10-18 overseen by the City Manager and the full Coun- Fast pitch softball (girls) 27 cil. Megan County prepares and periodically Semi-competitive softball (boys) 15-20 updates a countywide parks and recreation Rocket football 57 plan. County parks are administered by a ten- Swimming: beginner, advanced 66 member County Parks and Recreation Commis- beginner, intermediate. swtm- sion whose members include the Chairs of the mer, basic rescue & advanced County Road Commission, the County Planning lifesaving Corrunission, the County Drain commissioner, Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-2 Sundown, Schultz, and Beery Parks and the discussion of the size, condition, and planned Douglas Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes improvements for selected area parks is shown are offered at the High school. Walking, hiking, in Table 7.3. biking, boating, golfing, swimming, and cross Proposed recreation projects contained in country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by the Saugatuck - Douglas Recreation Plan are a wide range of age groups. listed in Table 7.4. Douglas officials have also proposed the following future recreation im- Social Recreation provement projects: A variety of local clubs and activities provide - Relocate the public service garage located social recreation for people of all ages. Festivals, at Center Street and the Kalamazoo River community education programs, and intramu- and develop the site into a riverfront park. ral sports provide an opportunity to socialize. Install restrooms. Senior citizens activities are organized through - Acquire and develop a park site located the New Day Senior Citizens Club of Douglas, west of Ferry St. in close proximity to the the High School, the Masonic Hall, and various existing residential area. area clubs. - Develop Schultz Park to its fullest potential by: creating a landscaped buffer along I- Cognitive Recreation 196; establishing picnic facilities; install- The tri-community area is rich in cognitive ing restrooms; installing lawn watering recreational pursuits. Festivals, art workshops, equipment; expanding to add more ball local theater, historic districts, an archaeologi- fields and other facilities; and ensuring cal site, summer day camp, and community adequate parking. education programs provide cultural, educa- - Develop a pedestrian/bicycle route from tional, and aesthetic enjoyment. The Saugatuck Schultz Park to the Village's northern Women's Club, Rubenstein Music Club, the boundary which closely follows the water- Oxbow, Douglas Garden Club, and the Douglas front. Art Club are among the local clubs which orga- - Expand the Douglas public beach. nize cultural activities. Table 7.5 includes a schedule of other planned park and open space acquisitions and improve- Environmentally Related Recreation ments in Douglas. Area lakes, the Kalamazoo River, and state and local parks provide area citizens with RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USAGE unique outdoor recreation opportunities. They The 1988 Public Opinion Survey high- provide a location for a variety of outdoor activ- lighted those recreational facilities which resi- ities including boating, fishing, swimming, na- dents feel are inadequate in the tri-community ture study, camping, hiking, cross country area. Table 7.6 lists these by jurisdiction. skiing, and nature walks. These areas also serve the cognitive needs of area citizens and tourists Non-Motorized Traits and Bike Paths by their scenic beauty and relaxing affect. In Residents placed highest priority on addi- fact, the most valued attribute of area water tional bike paths, cross country skiing routes, bodies and open space to Village citizens, as and hiking trails. These needs are currently identified in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey, is served by non-motorized trails in the Oval not physical recreation, but the scenic view they Beach/Mt. Baldhead area. The 1985 Saugatuck provide. - Douglas Parks and Recreation Plan, identified bicycle trails as a high priority and prepared a RECREATION INVENTORY schedule of capital improvements to achieve this Map 7.1 identifies parks and recreational objective. These improvements have not been facilities in the tri-community area. Table 7.2 implemented to date. contains an inventory of outdoor recreation fa- In 1984, the Saugatuck Township Park and cilities in the tri-community area. There are also Recreation Commission developed a list of rec- two eighteen hole and one nine hole golf courses ommended bike paths in the tri-community in the area. This is much higher than typical for area. Those recommended for Douglas are such a small population (the standard is 1 golf shown below in order of priority: course per 50,000 people), and reflects the im- - Center Street from Tara to Lake Shore pact of tourism on local recreational facilities. A Drive. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-3 TABLE 7.2 INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION C CW 9 -4 r_ 'A a 10 4. 11 Iwo.W V. ;,a 00 41 a %C. SLze 14 4lu .0 C ru- C 0 C 0 Lo-cat Ion (acres) A A IL fL,AU -4 iq 0 I.River Bluff 27 x x x 4 x x 2.Sundown .4 x x I 3.Amalanchier 4 x x x 4-Douglas Beach 1.4 x x x x S.H. Beery Field 1.2 x x x x x 6.Schultz Park 20 x x x x x x x x x X_ 7-UnLon St. Launch - X 8-Center St. Launch - x 10.Village Square 2.5 x x 11.Wicks Park .5 x x 12.Willow Park - X* 13.Cook Park .5 x 14..Spear St. Launch - x 15.Mt. Baldhead 51 x x x A x x x 16. Oval Beach 36 x I x 1XI I x X1 I x I x I 17. Tallmage W. ods 60* x x 18. Old "Airport" 154 ix 19. Elementary Sch. 8.6 x x 1 20. High.School x X, 1XI 21. St. Peter's 1XI 22. 63rd St. Launch x I I 23. West Wind KOA 12 x x x X x I x 24. Blue Star iliway Roadside Park x 25. Riverside Park I � Ferry Street from Center to Campbell Road. Blue Star Highway from 129th Ave. to M- � Lake Shore Drive from Campbell Road to 89. the Village limits. Those recommended for Saugatuck are A path on Blue Star Highway from the shown below in order of priority: bridge to St. Peter's Drive, which was the - Park Streets from Campbell to Perryman. Village's first priority, has already been com- - Oval Beach road. pleted. The regional bike path system would con- Those bike paths recommended in order of nect with Saugatucks chain link ferry to afford priority for Saugatuck Township are: bicyclists east/west access. This connection � Lake Shore Drive from 130th Avenue to runs down Holland Street and across Francis M-89. Street to the waterfront and will be served by � Holland Streets from Saugatuck to the Y. inner city streets, without the need for addi- � Old Allegan Road from Blue Star Highway tional right of way. At this juncture, bicyclists x a X X to 60th St. may ride the chain link ferry to Saugatucks eastern border. Once on Saugatuck's eastern Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-4 TABLE 7.3 PARIMAND MVENTORY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS NAME OF PARK LOCA'nON USES SIZE CONDIJION IYPE/YEAR Douglas Beery Field Center & Main baseball, play- pressbox-220 pressbox & wash- None Sts. ground, picnic sq. ft., dugouts- room poor, other- 350 sq.ft., land- wise good 52,000 sq-ft, I acre Douglas Beach Lakeshore Dr. public beach & beach-36,400 Fair None picnic sq.ft. nearly I acre, bathhouse- 280 sq.ft. Schultz 130th & softball, picnic, pavillion-1326 Good Acquisition/'89 Kalamazoo River playground, sq.ft., land- 20 launch ramp acres Union St. Union St. at Kal. launch ramp, 66'xl2O' Good None Launch Ramp River picnic area Saug. Twp. River Bluff Kal. River above hiking, picnic, 27 acres newly installed pad for 1- 196 bridge; ac- boaters stop, na- entry road & pic- dumpster/'89. cess from Old Al- ture study, swing- nic area. New more flowers/89, legan Rd. ing & sandbox dock & picnic toilet improve- shelter ments/ 1990-92 Sundown Lake MI Bluff at picnics, watch- 66'xl5O' Very poor new fence: needs 126th Ave. ing lakes & sun- landscap- sets, scenic ing/1989-1992 turnout Blue Star Blue Star Hwy. picnics, resting 30'x2OO' new flowers; fence work/ 1989, south of Skyline for travelers needs new bol- bollards/ 1989-90 Restaurant lards & fence re- pairs Center St. Park Eastern end of canoe launching. 3 acres Poor additional dock- Center at picnics, scenic ing,public Kalamazoo River viewing restrooms, gazebo Saugatxwk Village Square Butler & Main tennis courts. 2.5 acres Good Streets drinking fountain, playground, benches, restrooms Wicks Park Waterfront be- bandstand, 1/2 acre Good tween Main & boardwalk, approx. Mary Streets benches,fish- ing, restrooms Willow Park Waterfront at viewing area, 132 ft Good Butler & Lucy benches Cook Park Waterfront on picnic tables 132 ft. Good Water Street Boat Ramp Spear Street boat launch 66 ft. Good streetend Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-5 TABLE 7.3 (continued) PARKLANDINVENTORY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS NAME OF PARK LOCATION USES SIZE CONDITION TYPE/YEAR Mt. Baldhead Park Street picnic shelter, ta- 51 acres Good Park bles, restroorris, hiking trads, park- ing, stairway to observation deck on top of dune, two observation decks on river Oval Beach Lake Michigan beach house, con- 36 acres Good new concession Park cession stand, stand & parking, picnic restroorns/ 1990 arr-i. BBQ grills, viewing deck. stairs to beach, observation deck, nature trails Tallmadge current use re- 100 acres Good Woods stricted side, bicyclists could follow Saugatucles pro- large population of Great Blue Herons which posed bike path system down through Douglas have established a rookery in the area. and south out of the Township. Bike path right in accordance with usage, the overwhelm- of way would also extend north to Goshorn Lake ing majority of residents in each jurisdiction along Washington Road, thereby connecting cited preservation of existing waterfront open with Laketown Township. Another future exten- space and increased access to the waterfront as sion could extend the system east along Old their highest waterfront need. Acquisition of Allegan Road into Manlius Township. This is a land and provision of access to Lake Michigan scenic route, although somewhat hilly. was given highest priority for the waterfront by Bicyclists wishing to pass through all three jurisdictions. Open space along Lake Saugatuck and on south through Douglas Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River were also would need additional right of way from Lake given high priority by the majority of respon- Street to the bridge, thereby connecting with the dents in the Village (64-69%). A large number of Douglas bike path network. Douglas in turn respondents also called for additional boat would extend its bike path south on Blue Star launching facilities. Highway to connect with the Township system. Map 7.2 shows this proposed regional bike Parks path network. Respondents were asked how frequently they used various local parks and the over- Waterfront Open Space whelming majority responded "never". Oval A survey of waterfront usage revealed that Beach is used most frequently of the area parks the most popular waterfront activity is viewing. by residents of each jurisdiction. Douglas Beach The second most popular use varied by water- is also frequently used. Wicks, Schultz, and body. Swimming was the primary use of Lake Beery park are more frequently used by Douglas Michigan, powerboating for Lake Kalamazoo and Saugatuck residents, than those in the and Silver Lake (which also is popular for fish- Township. ing), and nature study was the most popular for Despite the low usage of area parks re- Kalamazoo River due to its large connecting flected in the survey, 50% of Village respondents wetlands and wide array of wildlife- including a said that additional parks were a high priority. The survey does not reveal what type of park Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-6 TABLE 7.4 PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS TRI-COAUdUNITY AREA PROPOSED PROJECT LOCA'nON VERY HIGH PRIORITY Willow Park preservation and improvement Downtown Saugatuck on the river Acquire extensive land areas Lake Michigan Shoreline New dug outs - football field Saugatuck High School Renovation of playground equipment Douglas Elementary School Convert weight room to storage & coach's offices Saugatuck High School Remodel Wicks Park restrooms, On river in Saugatuck Acquire land to access to Oxbow Lagoon North of Oval Beach Park HIGH PRIORITY Acquire and improve land for marina and park Douglas riverfront near bridge Boat launching facility City of Saugatuck Develop bicycle trails Entire area Purchase park parcel on hill in Saugatuck Acquire additional land for River Bluff Park Adjacent to River Bluff in Township Construct additional public restrooms, Downtown Saugatuck Clear and develop Moore's Creek Near Amalanchier Park in Saugatuck Town- ship Rehabilitate tennis courts Village Square Park - Saugatuck Update Village Square Park Village Square Park - Saugatuck Expand and improve Howard Schultz Park Village of Douglas Riverside Park equipment & improvements Village of Douglas MEDIUM Expand underground sprinkling system Village Square Park - Saugatuck Acquire land and develop tot lots All areas Develop archery range River Bluff Park - Township Beach House rehabilitation Saugatuck Oval Beach Acquire land for neighborhood park Campbell Road area - Saugatuck & Douglas Construct concession stand Saugatuck High School Athletic Field LOW Teen Recreation Center Downtown Saugatuck Install lighting for tennis courts Schultz Park Develop non-motorized trail Schultz Park Lighting for tennis courts Village Square Park - Saugatuck Construct additional locker rooms Saugatuck High School Source: Saugatuck - Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan, Feb. 1985. (active, passive, neighborhood, waterfront, etc.) cially for parks which specialize in active sports. Village respondents feel is needed. Future rec- This reveals the need to orient recreation plans reation plans could explore this issue. to the recreational needs of older adults. Thus, It is important to note that survey re- bike paths, waterfront open space/access, hik- sponses reflect the usage characteristics of older ing trails, and cross country ski trails should adults. The average age of survey respondents probably receive precedence in future recreation was 54 to 56 years old. As the age of respondents enhancement projects, over more active park increases, park usage tends to decrease- espe- facilities like ball diamonds. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 7-7 Senior Citizens Center RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING Senior citizens in the area have been lobby- In terms of priorities for spending current ing for a senior citizens center to serve the social tax dollars, 42-48% of respondents felt that and recreational needs of the area's elderly pop- parks and recreation are a high priority. Water- ulation. The survey results reflect support for a front improvement was rated high by Village senior center in the Village and Township. Forty- respondents. Senior programs were given low five percent of Village respondents and 53% of local spending priority in all three communities, Township respondents felt that a senior center despite the high average age of respondents. deserved high priority. Only 25% of City resi- Although they would like to have them, dents called for a senior center- surprising, most respondents would not support a commu- given the high proportion of seniors in the City's nity recreation center, a senior center, or a resident population. community pool if it meant an increase in gen- eral property taxes. TABLE 7.5 PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/11"ROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES ACQUISITION IMPROVEMEN17 .NAME LOCATION USE SIZE CONDITION COST ($) FINANCING Esther McSic East side Public open 124,000 sq.fL Marshy 185,000 DNR Land property Union St. - space (portion under Trust Kal. Lake, water) vacant North of Blue Star (Douglas) Ruth McNa- Land locked Park 132,000 Dry NA NA mara property end of Schultz sq.ft. (vacant) Park (Douglas) Vacant Lot Blue Star & Future park land 18,000 Dry 65,000 NA Main St. sq.fL; nearly (Douglas) 1/2 acres Old SE 1/4 Sec- Currently for- 154 acres Saugatuck tion 2 estry manage- Airport (Saugatuck) ment, possible future recre- ation TABLE 7.6 RECREATION NEEDS IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 1988 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY cr1y VILLAGE TOWNSHIP Bike paths (68%) Lake MI open space (70%) Lake MI open space (67%) Hiking trails (62%) Lake Kal. open space (69%) Bike paths (64%) Cross-country ski trails (62%) Bike paths (67%) Lake Kal. open space (62%) Lake MI open space (61%) Kal. River open space (64%) Kal. River open space (62%) Lake Kal. open space (50%) Parks (50%) Cross-country ski trails (60%) Kal. River open space (49%) Boat launching ramps (46%) Boat launching ramps (59%) .Boat launching ramps (45%) Senior Center (45%) Senior Center (53%) Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan I t"Tk AVC. KE 2 17 is 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It BY 8 9 (2:0)., 1 co) "c' ^vc. Scale 1 9060 ft I; z AMPOML ST KAL^M^200 LAM A 15 14 13 Avc KALAMAZO ,D 196 31 20 - 1211T 23 21 1 x % 2 61 lasTN Avr*: 0 29 a 27 25 2 127T. 76 ......... ................ z I may" A@c. 33 34t 35 36 x nKNOW SAUGATUCK TWP. MAP 7.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION SITES Douglas 1) - 25) See Chapter 7, Table 7.2 A 26) West Shore Goff Course 27) Clearbook Goff Course 28) Mi-Ro Golfcourse 29) Center Street August'1989 DATA SOURCE:Saug. - Doug. Parks & Rec. Plan, 1985 Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml 0 8W 16W 2400 Scale 1 1748 ft Ll 0) 0 C= MAP 7.2 ACTUAL & PROPOSED BIKE PATHS Douglas F.o-*]Proposed Bike Paths Actual Bike Path August1989 DATA SOURCE: Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 8-1 Chapter 8 WATERFRONT S augatuck was the first settlement in Allegan and necessary. However, such development County. Its natural protected harbor along must be undertaken carefully to maintain the the Kalamazoo River and proximity to Lake - delicate balance between economic development Michigan gave it a ready means of water trans- and environmental protection. port- essential to the commerce of the day. It is both necessary and possible to manage Throughout its history, land use activities along the waterfront for a variety of purposes. Yet it is the Lake Michigan shoreline and the riverfront always dffficult to manage for multiple uses. have continued to dominate the economic life of Some individuals value land management to the tri-community area. Lumbering, boat build- retain the necessary habitat for birds, fish and ing, basket making, fruit transport, and even wildlife. Others feel it should be managed to large Great Lakes passenger boats have, at dif- maximize surface water use, or for intensive ferent times, relied upon the River connection. waterfront dependent activities like ship build- Tourists have always been attracted to the area, ing or power generation. Based on some of the but tourism is now the number one economic technical data presented below, existing use activity. Today's waterfront activities are don-d- information, citizen opinions, and the goals and nated by tourist and pleasure craft needs, espe- objectives presented at the beginning of this cially sailboats, powerboats, charter fishing Plan, the waterfront in the tri-community area boats and other tourist boats. Consequently, can, and should, be managed to accommodate how the waterfront is used will be of crucial a wide range of land uses and activities. importance to the future of the tri-community This Plan seeks to define a balance between area. competing uses. It places protection of the nat- The primary issues concerning proper fu- ural environment as first and foremost in mak- ture use of the waterfront involve competition ing future land use decisions along the Lake between economic development and environ- Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts. The mental protection. Waterfront lands represent ultimate goal is to minimize disruption of the the highest value lands in the tri-community natural environment so that new development area, and local officials are therefore concerned is in harmony with the environment, rather than about the potential tax base associated with use in conflict with it. Some destruction of the lim- of waterfront lands. In order to finance the ited remaining wetland areas along Lake service needs of local residents, the tri-commu- Kalamazoo is only justified where the public nities must balance taxable and nontaxable benefits of particular projects are very great (e.g. land uses. This presents a dilemma. Although a public marina or additional public access to waterfront lands have high revenue generating the waterfront). potential, a major attraction of both the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts is Watersheds of the Halarruizoo River Rasin their scenic, natural shorelines composed of forested sand dunes and large wetland areas. The Kalamazoo River extends from south of Should these natural areas be greatly damaged Homer in Hillsdale and Jackson Counties to its or destroyed through inappropriate develop- outlet at Lake Michigan in Saugatuck Township ment, then the "goose that laid the golden egg" (see Figure 4. 1). With the exception of lands will be dead. adjoining Lake Michigan (which drain directly It is essential that the natural beauty of the into the Lake) and a small area in the southeast waterfront be maintained along the Lake Mich- comer of Saugatuck Township, all land in the igan shoreline, the Kalamazoo River from the tri-community area is part of the Kalamazoo channel to Saugatuck, and from the Blue Star River Basin. Highway bridge inland. Limited additional de- Eight small watershed areas lie within the velopment along the waterfront on Lake tri-community area and discharge into Lake Kalamazoo and the Douglas side of the bayou Michigan via the Kalamazoo River (see Map 8. 1). east of Blue Star Highway may be both desirable These include Goshom, Peach Orchard, Tan- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-2 nery, Silver and "Cemetery" Creeks, as well as during April. Corresponding estimates for the the Morrison Bayou at the eastern end of the mouth of the Kalamazoo River ranged from 1070 Kalamazoo River as it enters the Township. Most cfS during the surnmer months to 2510 cfs of Douglas and Saugatuck also drain separately during April. into the Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo. The 100 year discharge is estimated at Slopes in the area are generally less than 10 15,400 cfs at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River, percent though locally they may be in excess of and 12,500 cfs at the Fennville gage. 20 percent. Runoff erosion is taking place in the highlands, contributing sediment to back- PRIMARY ECOSYSTEMS swamp areas and Lake Michigan. Monthly (exceedance) flows for the The tri-cormnunity area has three basic Kalamazoo River, based on a 1649 square mile ecosystems, two of which parallel the water- drainage area near Fennvffle (#04 1 OB500, T2n, front. The first ecosystem is comprised of hard- R14W, NE 1/4 See 5), were averaged from mea- woods holding the sand dunes in place along the surements taken between 1929 to 1985 by the Lake Michigan shoreline. These woodlots are Hydrologic Engineering Section, Land and inhabited by small game such as fox squirrels, Water Management Division. MDNR. Estimates rabbits, raccoons, deer, wild turkey, and opos- based on these measurements were then pre- sums. This ecosystem is comprised of fauna pared for the larger drainage area of 2060 square common to most of Michigan, but its balance is miles at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River (T3N, easily upset by the disruption of Its shallow R1 6W, See 4, Saugatuck Township). organic soils. Any ground cover that is damaged Ninety-five percent and fifty percent exceed- or removed should be quickly replaced with ance flows are shown in Table 8. 1. These are cover that will hold and prevent sand from blow- flows exceeded 95% or 50% of the time. The ing or rapid wind erosion may occur. Michigan's lowest 95% exceedance flow in Ferinville (nearly most famous ghost town, Singapore, once a drought level) was measured during August at thriving lumber town, lies beneath these shifting 410 cfs, and is estimated to be 520 cfs at the sands near the mouth of the channel. mouth of the Kalamazoo River. The 50% exceed- The second ecosystem is the marsh-wet- ance flow in Ferinville ranged from a low of 860 land ecosystem that covers the area along the cfs during the summer months to 2010 cis Kalamazoo River, Silver Lake and Goshorn Lake, and the connecting tributaries. This area is TABLE 8.1 covered with marsh grasses, low shrubs, poplar KALAMAZOO RIVER trees, spruces, some white pine, and other soft- EXCEEDANCE FLOWS (1929-85) woods. The cover is inhabited by common Mich- MONTHLY AVERAGE igan marsh dwellers such as frogs, turtles, CUBIC FT/SECOND ducks, blackbirds, and snakes. The marsh eco- system is also populated by muskrat, mink, FENNVILLE RIVER MOUTH mallard duck, black duck, teal, wood duck. blue 500/0 95% 500/0 95% heron, Canadian geese, and mute swans. January 1350 710 1690 890 Golden eagle and osprey used to frequent the February 1400 790 1750 990 area. The marsh ecosystem is very sensitive to March 1950 1010 2430 1260 changes in water quality and disruption of veg- April 2010 1040 2510 1300 etation. Great care must be taken to limit silt- ation and disruption to vegetation when working May 1600 830 2000 1040 in this ecosystem. June 1250 630 1560 790 The third ecosystem covers the rest of the July 970 480 1210 600 Township and is predominantly agricul- August 860 410 1070 520 tural/forest with birds and wildlife common to September 860 480 1070 600 this dominant ecosystem in Michigan. October 980 520 1220 650 The entire Saugatuck/ Douglas area is des- Ignated as an area of particular concern by the November 1210 650 1510 810 DNR Areas of particular concern are those hav- December 1300 750 1620 940 ing scarce resources, unusual scenic beauty, @.Hydro of8c Engineering Section, Land and unusual economic value, recreational attrac- W%-te-r soure', ivision, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. tions, or some combination of the above. They are only located in coastal areas. Altering the Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-3 environment in an area of "particular concern" for cold water anadromus fish species (trout and could have a significant impact on the quality of salmon). Kalamazoo Lake and Goshorn Lake are coastal and Great Lakes waters. designated to be protected for recreation (total body contact), and intolerant fish (warm water WATER QUALITY species). These water management objectives are nearly ten years old, but there have been no The Kalamazoo River watershed includes concerted efforts to update them and carry them many types of land uses and the River flows out. A push to revise the Objectives is underway through several large developed urban areas statewide, but it could be years before any action including Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. When it plans are carried out for the Kalamazoo River. reaches the tri-community area, the quality of 1988 Public Opinion Survey results reveal this water is not good. Despite the water quality that citizens in the tri-community area feel that problem, the River from about one-half mile the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and downstream from the Hacklander Public Access Lake is poor to very poor (580/6- 700/6), Lake Mich- Site (in Section 23), has been designated as a igan is rated fair to good (31-50%). and most "wild-scenic river" under Michigan's Natural respondents familiar with the water quality of River Act, Public Act 231 of 1970. Land use Silver Lake felt that it was fair. The majority of restrictions have been imposed to retain its respondents who are familiar with these water natural character within 300 feet of the River's bodies, feel that the water quality of Lake Mich- edge. Igan and Silver Lake has deteriorated slightly in The basic water management goal is the recent years, and Kalamazoo River and elimination of the pollution threat to surface and Kalamazoo Lake has deteriorated slightly to groundwater resources. The Kalamazoo River is greatly. Most respondents who reside in designated by the DNR to be protected for rec- Saugatuck, however, felt that the water quality reation (partial body contact), intolerant fish has stayed about the same. (warm water species), industrial water supply, Basic water quality data on the River ap- agricultural and commercial uses. Downstream pears in Table 8.2 for selected months in 1978, om the Kalamazoo Lake, the river is protected TABLE 8.2 KALANIAZOO RrVER WATER QUALITY FECAL PHOSPHOROUS NrTROGEN SEDIMENTS HEAVY METALS COUFORM TOTAL ORTEO N02 N03 LEAD MERCURY PER 100 ML MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L TONS/DAY MG/L MG/L Fennvffle 1/27/88 - .05 .01 1.4 5 29 - 5/18/88 - .04 <0 1 0.5 26 102 <5 < 1 7/28/88 28 .08 <0 1 0.67 17 30 - 9/21/88 96 .07 .02 0.64 39 202 <5 <. 1 Saugatuck 3/19/86 - .08 .02 1.6 21 161 <5 < 1 6/25/86 200 .11 .02 0.88 13 102 - - 9/11/86 200 .14 .01 0.39 21 103 <5 < 1 Saugatuck 1/10/78 120 .07 NR 1.7 9 27 - <5 5/l/78 - .12 NR 0.34 20 123 20 <5 7/20/78 69 .12 NR 0.54 15 26 10 .5 9/11/78 - .15 NR 0.00 28 72 - - NR - Not Reported Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geologic Survey. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-4 1986, and 1988. The sampling point was moved with private parties at two other sites (see from Saugatuck to Fennville in 1987. This data MNSMP, November 7, 1988, p. 328). reveals an increase in sedimentation and a de- Efforts initiated in the '70's to identify and cline in heavy metals. It also shows an increase require extensive treatment of pollutants prior in fecal coliform (intestinal bacteria) levels to to their dumping into the River will continue to 200/100 ml at the former testing site in slowly Improve the quality of the water. As the Saugatuck- the maximum level permitted nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen are re- under rule 62 of the MDNR Water Resources moved from wastewater entering the River, less Commission General Rules of 1986. Phospho- new plant life will be stimulated and more oxy- rous and certain nitrogen levels have not gen will be available for fish. changed appreciably in the past ten years. One of these efforts is the Michigan Water The Kalamazoo River between Calkins Dam Resources Commission Act, which requires all and Lake Michigan has been designated an Area discharges into the water to have discharge of Concern in the 1988 Michigan Nonpoint permits. In addition, the Federal Water Pollution Source Management Plan (MNSMP), due to con- Control Act established the National Pollutant tamination of fish from PCB's. The primary Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit source of contamination was identified as PCB program. Under these laws, any public or pri- contaminated sediments upstream in the vate facility which will emit any point-source Kalamazoo River and Portage Creek. These sed- discharge into the water must first receive a iments continue to erode. resuspend, and dis- NPDES discharge permit. The permit program solve PCB's into the water colurrm where they sets forth limitations and monitoring require- are transported downstream. ments to protect water quality and meet treat- Due to the presence of PCB's, advisories are ment standards, and establishes strong in effect for consumption of fish caught in the enforcement actions for violations. The Surface Kalamazoo River or Lake Michigan. The advisory Water Quality Division, MDNR, administers warns against any consumption of carp, suck- NPDES permits. NPDES permits issued in the ers, catfish, and largemouth bass taken from the tri-community area are shown on Table 8.3. Kalamazoo River downstream from the Morrow However, sedimentation and nonpoint Pond Dam to Lake Michigan and Portage Creek sources of pollution will remain a problem. In downstream from Monarch Millpond. Limited contrast to pipes that discharge directly into a consumption of other species (no more than one waterbody, nonpoint sources of pollution in- meal per week) is considered safe for all except clude those pollutants that do not originate from nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who a single point- such as fertilizer and pesticide intend to have children, and children age 15 and runoff from farmers fields and petroleum based under. pollutants that wash off parking lots and road- In Lake Michigan limited consumption of ways. The most obvious pollutants are the phys- Lake TYout 20-23", Coho Salmon over 26", ical litter and debris that are carelessly dumped Chinook Salmon 21-32". and Brown TYout up to into the River or Lake and which typically wash 23" is considered safe for all except nursing up along the shore. mothers, pregnant women, women who intend Michigan's 1988 Nonpoint Pollution As- to have children, and children age 15 and under. sessment Report concluded that 99% of Individuals should not consume carp, catfish, Michigan's watersheds have at least one water- or Lake TTout, Brown Trout, or Chinook which body with a non-point source pollution problem. fall outside of the acceptable size for limited In-place contamination and atmospheric depo- consumption. sition were listed as the primary non-point To address the PCB problem, the MNSMP sources of pollution for the Kalamazoo River. has devised a Remedial Action Plan with the goal Stronger efforts to improve water quality of reducing human exposure to acceptable levels will have a positive affect on tourism, recreation, (1: 100,000) and thus reducing fish tissue con- and future growth and development of the tri- centration to a maximum .05 mg/ kg and reduc- community area. All sources of pollution affect ing water column levels to .02 ng/l. Actions water quality, and hence the utility of the water taken to address the problem include: strict resource. While the tri-community area must controls on direct discharges of PCB's; a feasi- rely on outside agencies to enforce pollution bility study of remedial alternatives; funding control laws upstream, some efforts can be un- through State Act 307 to take remedial action at dertaken by Saugatuck. Douglas and three sites: and legal action and negotiations Saugatuck Township to improve water quality Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-5 TABLE 8.3 NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COMMUNITY AREA PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS DISCHARGE LOCATION EXPIRATION DATE Culligan 201 Culver St., processed Kalamazoo Lake 1991 Saugatuck wastewater via storm sewers Kal. Lake Water & 340 Culver St., treated municipal Kalamazoo River 1990 SewerAuthority Saugatuck waste outfall 001 Kalamazoo Lake 6449 Old Allegan 900,000 gal/day Kalamazoo River 1993 Groundwater Rd., Saugatuck purged groundwa- outfall 00 1 Purge TwP. ter, purgable halo- carbons Rich Products 350 Culver St., 12,000 gal/day Kalamazoo River 1990 Saugatuck non-contact cool- via storm sewer Ing water & cooling tower blowdown Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division TABLE 8.4 LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS YEAR LOMIEST EL MONTH HIGHEST EL MONTH DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE FEET A.S.L. FEET A.S.L. IN FEET IN INCHES 1977 578.00 February 578.57 July .57 6.84 1978 578.12 March 579.01 October .89 10.68 1979 578.31 February 580.02 April 1.75 20.52 0 1980 578.92 December 579.77 July .85 10.20 1981 578.51 February 579.43 July .92 11.04 1982 578.17 March 579.02 April .85 10.20 1983 578.85 February 580.08 July 1.25 15.00 1984 579.02 February 580.23 July 1.21 14.52 1985 579.57 February 580.84 June 1.27 15.24 1986 580.36 February 581.62 October 1.26 15.12 1987 578.96 December 580.65 January 1.69 20.28 1988 578.10 December 579.04 May .94 11.28 Source: The Michigan Riparian, May 1989 and prevent further pollution within the tri- The Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake and community area. These will be discussed further Lake Michigan are interconnected. Thus, water later in this Chapter. levels on the River and Lake Kalamazoo are largely dependent on Lake Michigan water lev- LAKE LEVELS els. Consequently, land uses adjoining the wa- terfront should be based on the vagaries of The natural level of the Great Lakes goes fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels. This has through periodic changes that are based pre- not always been done as was evident by exten- dominantly on rainfall and evaporation within sive shore erosion and flooding during the last the entire Great Lakes Basin. Since a century high water period. peak in 1986, Lake Michigan has steadily fallen When water levels are high "no-wake" to its current level of around 578 feet (see Table zones, which are always in effect from the chan- 8.4). nel to Mason Street in Saugatuck, are extended Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-6 to cover all of the Kalamazoo Lake shoreline and require a marina permit if they are rented. Per- parts of the River cast of Blue Star Highway (see mits are issued for a three year period by the Map 8.2). When a "no-wake" speed is in effect, DNR_ On peak summer weekends the number then all motor boats and vessels must limit of boats on the lake could be twice to thrice the speed to a slow no-wake speed when within 100 normal level. This presents one of the most feet of- serious problems jointly facing the trl-commu- � rafts, except for skijumps and ski landing nity area- how to deal with surface water use floats; conflicts. � docks; The Lake has a total surface water area of � launching ramps; 184 acres. Acreage available for recreational � swimmers: boating is dramatically reduced by the dockage � anchored, moored or drifting boats; and which extends into the Lake hundreds of feet � designated no-wake zones. and by the shallow water at the edge to about This means a speed slow enough that the 133 acres. Yet, on summer weekends the River wake or wash of the boat creates a minimum is a constant highway of boats moving in and disturbance. Owners and operators are respon- out of the Lake. Recreational sailing, fishing, sible for damage caused by wakes. swimming, sailboarding and water skiing are limited by all of the motorboat traffic. However, HARBOR during the week, other water surface activities Map 8.3 is the existing harbor map (June can go on without much interference. 1987) distributed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It depicts water rAARINE SAFETY depth for the shoreline along Lake Michigan, The Allegan County Sheriff's Department, and the River through Kalamazoo Lake. Chan- Marine Safety Division, maintains strict control nel depth Is maintained by periodic dredging to of the waterways. The Department has 8 marine a depth of 13 feet to Main Street in Saugatuck. officers. Normally, two officers patrol by boat, (Dredging at the mouth of the channel is to begin but three to four officers patrol during holidays in July 1990 and be completed in the Fall of and special events. Officers patrol in a 27 foot 1990.) The depth then drops to 20-27 feet for the Boston Whaler with two 150 horsepower out- next 500 feet. Between that point and Tower board motors. This boat is equipped for Lake Marine, the water depth is about 7 feet. Most of Michigan rescue, and has a noise meter which the rest of Lake Kalamazoo varies between I and monitors the 86 decibel noise limit. 4 feet in depth with not more than 2 feet being From Memorial Day to Labor Day officers the most common. The Douglas shoreline, east put in 635 hours of patrol duty on Kalamazoo of Blue Star Highway is only 1-2 feet in depth River and Kalamazoo Lake. One hundred and except for a small area running NW-SE from the ten hours were spent patrolling Lake Michigan. center of the bridge and connecting to the Point Most patrols occur between Friday and Sunday, Pleasant Yacht Club. and about half of the Department's budget goes This natural harbor is the principal attrac- to patrolling the Saugatuck area. tion for nautical tourists which flock to the area In the summer of 1989, 189 tickets were during summer months when the marinas are issued on Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo used to capacity. Hundreds rent dockage by the Lake, 11 were issued on Lake Michigan, 276 season. Many live on their boats for weeks on warnings were issued, 10 complaints were re- end. The demand for dockage appears to be ceived, and 6 boating accidents occurred. The greater than the supply, despite the huge num- Department also conducted 378 safety inspec- ber of slips available (see Map 8.4). In 1976 there tions. The most common violations are inade- were 8 marinas with approximately 800 slips. In quate life preservers on board and lack of 1989, there are 26 legally operating marinas current registration. with 966 slips. There are about half dozen ma- The Department notes that slow/no wake, rinas without current permits and these contain and hazardous violations were down in the sum- over 30 more slips. There are also a number of mer of 1989. The most common surface water slips maintained by private residences for their use conflicts identified by the Sheriffs Depart- own personal use. ment include sailboat and motorboat conflicts Marina permits are required for any corn- and complaints over the noise and attitude ofjet mercial activity. so as few as two slips could is Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-7 skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motor- waterfront, but there are few public access sites boats are most common on Saturday. and, except for Shultz Park. these provide little space for transient parking. E23STM LAND USE Existing land use is described in detail in CONFUCTS/PROBLEM Chapter 5. All land uses along the waterfront are At an interjurisdictional meeting on water oriented to the water. The bulk of the waterfront front issues on November 1986, f1ve key issues in the Township from the channel to the City is were identified: developed as single family residential. The City - high water and its impacts and Village waterfronts are predominantly resi- - development and acquisition of public dential and marina. The balance of the water- lands along the waterfront, front, which lies in the Township, is in a natural - limiting the intensity of shoreline develop- state with some areas of residential development ment; (such as along Silver Lake). Many commercial - preserving the scenic character of the establishments (mostly motels and restaurants) shoreline environment retaining visual ac- are also located here. Except for the Broward cess to, of the Boat Company near the channel, there are no * Surface water use conflicts. industrial activities along the waterfront. A Each of these remain important issues as number of small parks are located along the shown in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. FIGURE S. I LDUUGE PLAN @iiope R-2 R@2 R- wetlan 0, k(commercial) ever .4 gree A R wetland 1** d lal lakes LINK r wood t1i lid slope slope all V lakes a 16 14 wetland f lood R 1 rd . hardwocis fain ood s ope AG. AG. sch I 7: .1 Source: Conserve Oakland County's Natural Resources: A Manual for Planning a implementation. Department of Public Works, Oakland County, Mi. September 1980. Village of Douglas Comprehenstve Plan 8-8 High Water tenance across more taxpayers. This would also When Great Lakes water levels are high, make it more feasible to acquire additional park erosion along the Lake Michigan shoreline in- space as needed. Because residents of three creases. The impacts of erosion are clear along jurisdictions would benefit, grant requests Lakeshore Drive, where part of the road has would probably be more favorably reviewed. been washed away. Many high value homes will Public mar1na space is also needed as there be threatened by additional erosion in this area. are only three public access sites along Lake Erosion along the River and Lake Kalamazoo and the River presently, and two are Kalamazoo also increases with higher Lake too far inland for most daily boaters. The third Michigan water levels. Many bulkheads and is a street end in Saugatuck and has no adjacent similar shore protection devices were installed parking. Private marinas provide transient to minimize the effects of the most recent high berthing opportunities, but there is consider- water level. Raising some of the land and struc- able demand for more. By having a facility to tures would be necessary if lake levels remained attract more transient boaters, the three com- high for lengthy periods. On the positive side, munities would be gaining additional tourist the south shore of Lake Kalamazoo becomes income. more attractive to marina development when The three most logical places for such a water levels are high since it is very shallow in facility are: 1) immediately adjacent to the Blue this area. Likewise, when water levels are below Star Highway bridge in Douglas and extending average, some existing dockage is unusable. to the eidsting launch facility adjacent to the Fluctuating lake levels are part of a natural Kewatin; 2) converting the Center Street main- system. The costs and implications of trying to tenance facility in Douglas to a public marina; artificially manage the entire Great Lakes Basin 3) at some distant time (or if the opportunity to maintain even Lake levels is not known, but arose) by replacing the Rich Products office waterfront land use decisions in the tri-commu- building in Saugatuck with a public marina and nity area should be made based on the assump- accompanying parking. Alternatively, if adja- tion that Lake Michigan water levels cannot be cent parking could be secured, the street end artificially maintained. next to Gleasoifs in Saugatuck could be a good public access point. Acquisition and Development While the public opinion survey did not of Public Lands Along the Waterfront reflect overwhelming support for a public ma- Two types of public lands are needed along rim, there appears to be demand for such a the waterfront. One is parkland/open space and facility from persons outside the tri-community the other is a public marina. Existing open space area. Its long term economic benefits may well along the waterfront should be preserved (see justify its cost, especially if state or federal funds Map 8.5). Several street ends provide needed could be secured to help pay for it. relief from structures along the shoreline. These Limiting the Intensity ofDevelopment public open spaces are generally well managed. and efforts should be initiated to ensure that The primary future development of water- they are not lost. Existing parks along the shore- front lands in the City will be redevelopment of line should also be linked together, and with existing parcels. In the Village it will focus on other inland parks, by pedestrian and bicycle further development along the South Shore of paths whenever the opportunity arises (see Fig- Lake Kalamazoo. in both areas it will be critical ure 8. 1). that new development is neither so dense, nor The lack of parkland along the Lake Michi- so high as to block existing public views of the gan shoreline Is most acute for Township resi- waterfront or further 'wall" the Lake with struc- dents, and somewhat less severe for Village tures. Recommendations to prevent this are residents. Outside of purchasing and developing Included in Chapter 10. It will be critical that all new land for parks, the tri-communities should three communities agree to a common approach consider establishing a separate park and rec- to waterfront development. embody that in land reation authority responsible for maintaining all use plans, and then implement those plans. To parks presently owned by the three communi- some extent, uniform densities, setbacks, and ties. The benefit would be providing access to height regulations will be valuable, especially Oval Beach by Village and Township residents around Lake Kalamazoo. and spreading the fiscal responsibility for main- Additional development around Silver Lake needs to remain at a very low density in keeping Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-9 with the septic limitations of the land and the Surface Water Use Coqflicts limited recreational value of this shallow water- Resolution of surface water use conflicts body. The eastern end of the Kalamazoo River will require more planning and a uniform ap- should likewise receive little new development proach to regulation. Most important is estab- in keeping with its Natural River designation. lishing the carrying capacity of Lake Kalamazoo and the River to the channel mouth. Carrying Retaining Visual Access, Aesthetics capacity refers to the physical capacity and and the Character of the Area intrinsic suitability of lands (and water) to ab- As has been emphasized throughout this sorb and support various types of development Plan, the natural beauty of the waterfront has (or use). Such an analysis is typically performed much to do with the attraction of the tri-com- by an inventory of existing surface water use munity area. Local development regulations during weekdays and peak weekends. Data is should be reviewed and revised if necessary, to then examined in terms of the size of the water- insure that new development complements, body and its capacity to assimilate various rather than detracts from this natural beauty. mixes of use. Such an analysis would probably Old vessels should not be permitted to lie reveal some, but not much excess capacity for beached along the shoreline, because this also new boat slips, because any number of boaters detracts from the beauty and character of the can access Kalamazoo Lake from Lake Michi- waterfront. The Kewatin should only be retained gan. if its exterior remains in a good state of repair or Without an analysis of carrying capacity, if it is restored as an historic landmark. the amount of new boat slip development and Several vistas have public values that de- related surface wateruse conflicts are difficult serve protection. These include the entry into to evaluate. Some time or surface zoning could and exit from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo be established in conjunction with the DNR if River, the view from Mount Baldhead, the view desired. For example, water skiing, jet skiing, of Kalamazoo Lake from both ends, and ap- fishing, sailing, etc, could be limited to particu- proaches to the Kalamazoo River Bridge. The lar parts of Lake Kalamazoo or Silver Lake or to public opinion survey strongly supports the pro- particular times of the day. Another option could vision of additional open space along Lake be a harbor patrol paid for by all three govem- Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and dem- mental units. More information is necessary to onstrates that the primary use of the area's establish the need for regulation. If surface water bodies Is viewing. Yet, recent development water use is regulated, each unit of government pressures have led.to overbuilding of condomin- would need to agree to a common regulatory iums along the waterfront, shutting off all public approach. viewing of the lake from existing rights-of-way. Surface water use conflicts will grow more Any future development along the channel acute on Lake Kalamazoo if eidsting dockage is should be set back sufficiently to maintain the extended much further into the Lake. Such broad open views that are presented to boat extensions should not be permitted as the sur- travelers entering or leaving the Kalamazoo face area available for various recreational uses River. The view from the top of Mount Baldhead will be too drastically reduced. Existing no-wake should be improved by careful selective pruning zones should also be more rigorously enforced. of dead or dying trees blocking good views of Saugatuck and Lake Kalamazoo. The curve RECONROENDATIONS TO GUEDE FLTrURE USE going northbound on Blue Star Highway in Douglas just before crossing the bridge is the In seeking to balance economic develop- only good panorama of Kalamazoo Lake. A pub- ment with environmental protection, the con- he turnoff, the acquisition of a scenic easement, cept of carrying capacity should be a major or the concentration of new development on the consideration. If the carrying capacity of land or western portion of those undeveloped lands water is exceeded, then activities cannot be should be initiated to protect that important undertaken without unacceptable impacts on view. In addition, the land adjacent to the west users, the environment, or both. Impacts can side of the bridge in Douglas should be selec- include increased trip times, decreased safety, tively pruned to improve the view to travelers pollution, loss of open space, and many other crossing the bridge (northbound) until a public considerations. The key is prevention of overuse marina could be established there. by limiting intensity of use on adjoining lands and regulating surface water use. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 8-10 Environmental protection must be a lead- spectj urisdiction boundaries. Their future qual- ing principle in making future land use deci- ity and desirability depends on all goverrunental sions along the waterfront. Environmentally units through which they flow playing an active sensitive areas such,as sand dunes, wetlands, and supportive role in protecting and improving high risk erosion areas, floodplains, and key water quality. To advance this goal, the jointly woodlands should be protected from unneces- appointed wateifront committee should be rein- sary destruction. Development should comple- stituted or its responsibilities shifted to the Joint ment rather than destroy these areas and their Planning Committee which helped fashion this values. By doing so the environmental quality of Plan. the air and water will be improved, wildlife hab- Itat will be preserved, scenic values will be pro- tected, and the character of the area will be maintained. Some new intensive shoreline de- velopment will be desirable and necessary, but the balance should not be disproportionately on the side of new tax base as it has been for the past decade. Opportunities to enhance the waterfront should be seized. Parks and open spaces should eventually be linked with other public places. Additional access to the waterfront should be acquired when available, and e--dsting access via street ends and parks should not be lost through neglect or inaction. A new public marina should be constructed if resources are available and the cost could be spread among local citizens and other users (such as through grants or user fees). Visual access from public thoroughfares and walkways should be maintained in all new waterfront development. Protection mechanisms, like the Natural River designation, should be recognized for the ancillary benefits they bring to the community. A local "Friends of the River" organization could be instituted to annually adopt and clean up the shoreline to remove floating debris. other waste, and downed timber that become lodged there. A special effort to maintain the character of Lakeshore Drive along the Lake Michigan shore- line should also be initiated. A comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetlands protection plan should be instituted as part of a broad water quality pro- tection program that is based on the small wa- tersheds that feed the Kalamazoo River Basin. The Soil Conservation Service should be asked to assist in preparing nonpoint pollution guide- lines to help guide farmers in land management practices that help keep the River clean. NEED FOR R4TERGOVERNBEENTAL COOPERATION Each of these recommendations requires a strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation. Watercourses, like the environment, do not re- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan .7 4 WA MR 20 *4 4 L A. IQ 5V 4@41Ariff VY MAP8.1 WATERSHEDS Douglas Fo-*] Kalamazoo River Basin Boundary Z Creeks & Drains A 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 1 O)Saugatuck August1989 DATA SOURCE.Allegan County Drain Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI it "L IF LILT LIJ Jo :j L-113, I Lh J JLJI LJLJ Hu'-- JL- T 5 32 25 ky 1 2716 12 .9 3 32 30 25 37 13 21 14 5 $00 37 73 2& 19 6 0 4 29 25 21 0. 34 37 30 2511 L, 2' -.1 ops, 37 29 20 'o RAI 30 7 231 .99 2 33 c r 7 20 16 13 2 29 25 S, 179 7 41 27 24 19 28 77 32 23 21@12 00 31 IS 2 26 4 12 14 ,@nq nel llm 27 : a be n n 28 2, 2 c:;) wim nom 22 @6 4q, 10 Z*,o' 26 24 22 19 17 1491@ L 26 24 22 gIS 14 13 1466 0 10 4 20 12 10 TR 19 IF 87 'o6 s Is 22 20 17 19 3W- I SAUGA Uc ,q1714 1117 20 13 10 13 Iq1 27- 13 9 taI 6 7 7 Is19 7 3 14 a 5 7 5 3 wd" 3 2 C@ 6 K A A Af@ @LO 0 L A 3 42'391 FIX 0 IIFIIIXCbII ,ky d* 3 2 SAUGATUCK HARBOR DOU A 0 N IF MICHIGAN I.IsAw 6/@ 4 4 SOUNDINGS IN rZVT se-I MAP 8.3 SAUGATUCK HARBOR MAP8.4 MARINAS Douglas 1 . Ship & Shore Motel/Boatel (0) 2. East Shore Harbor Club (64) 3. Pointe Pleasant Yacht Club (14) 4. Sergeant Marina (63) 5. Tower Marina (322) 6. Skippers Cove (12) 7. Water Side Condo (12) 8. Naughtins Marina (37) 9. Saugatuck Yacht Club (16) 10. Deep Harbor Deve, Inc. (46) 11. South Side Marina (24) 12. Casa Loma (11) 13. Gleasons Marina (9) 14. Saugatuck Yacht Co. (81) 15. Walkers Landing (22) 16. Windjammer Condo Association (12) 17. Schippas Marina (10) 18. Singapore Yacht Club (50) 19. West Shore Marine Inc. (S7) 20. Bridges Of Saugatuck (8) 21. Coral Gables (50)) 22. V & L Properties (10) 23. Back Bay Marina (12) 24. Southside Marina (24) Total Number Of Permitted Marina Boat Slips In Area ......... 966 August 1989 DATA SOURCE:DNR Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI LILLL/ A IPIJ M MA @ PA LLL-1/ I I I I 0 R IR H] PA T 7@\ D 99 013 Im cc Im Im a] F 9 R P@[RFF@PPP MAP 8.5 STREET ENDS/ PARKS Douglas Fel Street/Road Ends F-1 Parks A FPA] Public Access 1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Baldhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach August INg DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI See Preceding Map For Information Regarding This Area =3=- n MAP 8.5 A STREET ENDS/ PARKS Douglas F;71 Street/Road Ends F*-] Parks A 1) Shultz Park 2) River Bluff Park 7PA Public Access 3) Sundown Park August1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 9-1 Chapter 9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS G rowth and development trends reflect past 1980 the growth rate slowed to 17% and sur- settlement patterns in a community and rounding Saugatuck Township's growth rate provide a basis for estimating future develop- soared at 40%. Saugatuck's growth rate, on the ment patterns. Growth rates are one aspect of other hand, nearly ground to a halt. These change. These show which areas are growing at changing growth trends reflect the scarcity of a faster rate. Residential construction permits land in the city and the desire for scenic, rural show where most of this residential development living which is attracting many to the Township. is taking place and provide insight into residen- Recent trends, however, suggest that growth in tial preferences. the Village is increasing. Land subdivision trends show the rate at which small lots are created. Rapid land subdi- RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION vision carves up agricultural land and other open spaces for residential use and thus perma- Building permit data reveal development nently transforms the rural character of an area. trends in Douglas since 1980. The Village has inefficient land subdivision takes large amounts attracted much of the area's multiple family of potentially developable land out of use as long housing development. About 46 single family "bowling alley" lots or "flag" lots are created. homes and 73 multiple family units have been Population trends may be used to project constructed in the Village since 1980. Most of future population, which is used to estimate this construction has occurred south of Center future land use needs and settlement patterns Street along Lakeshore Drive; in the northwest in a community. And finally, a "build out" sce- comer of the Township; and north of Westshore nario may be created based upon the vacant or St. and east of Ferry St. (see Map 9. 1). Aside from buildable sites in an area to get an idea what the new construction, the number of additions, ex- area might look like if it were developed accord- tensions, and other improvements was also ing to current zoning and use requirements. A high. more complete discussion of these issues is included below. hHGRATION Migration is a strong component of popula- GROWTH RATES tion growth throughout the County. Allegan Between 1950 and 1970 the Village of County experienced net in-migration of 3.03% Douglas grew more rapidly than either between 1983 and 1987- the eighteenth high- Saugatuck Township or Saugatuck, with a est rate of in-migration in the state. Many of growth rate of 35% (see Table 9. 1). In terms of these immigrants are retirees. Figure 9. 1 reveals actual numbers, the Village's population more migration patterns of senior citizens in the re- than doubled between 1950 and 1980, when it gion over the past three decades. It reveals an reached a total of 948. Then, between 1970 and explosion of retiree migration into Allegan County since 1970. Between 1980 and 1985, the rate of retiree TABLE 9.1 migration into the County continued to climb, RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as a whole. COMMUNrlY 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 Saugatuck 20% 100/0 6% POPERATION PROJECTIONS Saugatuck Twp. 34% 11% 40% Future population for the Village of Douglas Douglas 35% 35% 17% was projected based on the 1970 to 1980 popu- AREAWIDE 29% 16% 22% lation trend, rather than long term trends, due to the recent changes in the rate of population Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 9-2 FIGURE 9.1 KENT OTTAWA -767 -MW4 54 - 1148.@' 247 501 .713 _-457 RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN i412 150 _iLUE&N - f BIRRY EATON -173 -5 -158 12 1-21 -.142 Net Migration of The Population 65+ 1040 132 804 1950-60 1 . . 1960-70 VA@ BUREN KALAMAZOO CALHOUN 1970-80 -13 -447 -1196 284 -1651 1137 1039 - 1729 _-592 CASS ST. LWPH GRA@CH 90,1 130 36 - Y40 85 -33 -125 7 109 580 -181 growth described above. A composite straight- Residential land in the Village is zoned pre- line trend can be projected by applying loga- dominantly for medium density residential de- rithms to determine the ratio of change based velopment (4 to 5 units per acre). If present on the 1970 to 1980 trend. Table 9.2 illustrates trends continue, about 700/6 of the 153 new these results. households will settle in medium density resi- Thus if current trends continue, the tri- dential areas, translating into the conversion of community area can expect about 1800 more 26 acres of land. Only 4 acres would be trans- people in 2010 than in 1980. Sixty-four percent formed into low density residential use, and of this growth is expected to occur in the Town- about 4 acres would be developed at higher ship, with 21% in the Village, and 15% in the densities as apartments or clustered units. This City. Due to its greater availability of land, the would consume 34 acres of the Village's pres- Village will eventually overtake the City in terms ently undeveloped residentially zoned land, of overall population growth, as seen in Figure 9.2. FIGURE 9.2 PROJECTED LAM USE NEEDS: 2010 POPULATION TREND To determine the impact of this population 3.0. SAUGATUCK TWP. growth on residential land use, future popula- P TWP.ONLY tion is translated into new households. This is o T 2.5. SAUGATUCK done by applying the average household size for P H 2.0 DOUGLAS each community to the projected population in U 0 2010 and then subtracting 1980 households. L u S 1.5. The result is an estimated 153 new households A A T N . ... ..... ... in Douglas by 20 10. These results are shown in I D Table 9.3. 0 S 0.5. Future demand for land by these new N households may be estimated by looking at land 0.01 subdivision trends and current settlement pat- 1950 1960 1970 1wo 19W 2@00 2@10 terns or zoned densities. YEAR Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 9-3 leaving an excess of 163 acres. Tables 9.4 to 9.6 The new households are then multiplied by the show this projection of current trends. average household size for that community to derive a population estimate. BUILD OUT SCENARIO Almost 200 acres of land are available for residential development in the Village. Most of The projections shown above are only esti- this land is zoned for 4 to 5 units per acre. Thus, mates based on current trends. Any number of under a build out scenario, the Village could events could alter these trends. For example, the accommodate about 1, 139 new households, or location of a new industry in the Village could 2,779 new residents, bringing the total popula- attract new families into the area. Provision of tion to over 3,700 people (see Table 9.8). sewer and water service in the Township could Douglas also has nearly 50 acres of vacant, intensify the type, density, and rate of growth industrially zoned land- the highest amount in that occurs there. And Saugatucks attraction the tri-community area. Thirty-three acres are as a center for tourism could continue to grow, available for commercial development. fostering greater in-migration of retirees and others searching for an alternative lifestyle. POLICY BUILICATIONS if the Village were developed to its full ca- The future land use plan projects that given pacity, what would It look like? This exercise, current population growth trends, Douglas will called a "build out" scenario, provides an esti- need only about 37 acres of residential land. mate of the buildable capacity of the Village Thus, the Village is far from meeting its capacity under currently zoned densities. Acres were es- for residential development, as well as commer- timated for each community in the tri-commu- cial or industrial use. This wealth of land com- nity area based on vacant or developable land bined with the availability of utilities and (not including existing agricultural areas) by proximity to commercial services make Douglas zoned use and density/minimum lot size. These an ideal site for development of an industrial results are shown in Table 9.7. park and affordable housing. This is significant This information can be translated into a in light of the widely expressed need by both population estimate by first dividing the devel- officials and citizens for additionalJobs, families opable acres by the minimum lot size in that with children (in terms of the shrinking school zoning district to determine the number of enrollments), and affordable housing in the households which could occupy the parcel(s). area. TABLE 9.2 PROJECTED POPULATION 1970-1980 TREND COMMUNnY 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Saugatuck 1,022 1,079 1,163 1,254 1,352 Saugatuck Township 1,254 1,753 2,074 2,454 2,904 Douglas 813 948 1,061 1,187 1,328 AREAWIDE 3,089 3,780 4,298 4,895 5,584 TABLE 9.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS COMMUNny POP. 2010 HH SIZE Hlis 1980 HHs NEW HHs Saugatuck 1,352 2.00 676 537 139 Saugatuck Township 2,904 2.69 1,080 633 447 Douglas 1,328 2.44 544 391 153 AREAWlDE 5,584 2,300 1,561 739 Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 9-4 TABLE 9.4 TABLE 9.5 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE BY DENSITY TYPE COMMUNITY LOW MEDIUM HIGH HOUSEHOLDS COMMUNITY LOW MED. HIGH TOTAL Saugatuck Twp. 80% 100/0 100/0 Saugatuck 56 56 28 139 Saugatuck 40% 40% 20% Douglas 8 107 38 153 Douglas 5% 70% 25% SaugatuckTwp. 358 45 45 447_ AREAWIDE 421 207 111 739 Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE 9.6 TABLE 9.7 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS AVAU.ABLE ACREAGE BY LAND USE TYPE ACREAGE* COMMUNITY LOW MED. HIGH TOTAL ACREAGE Saugatuck 24 14 3 41 COMMUNITY COMM. IND. RES. Douglas 4 26 4 34 Saugatuck 3 0 135 Saugatuck 205 13 10 228 Douglas 33 49 197 TWP. SatoptuckWp. 155 22 5.950 AREAWIDE 234 53 17 303 TOTALACRES 191 71 6,282 *drnes 1.25 (209,6 allowance for rights-of-way) Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE 9.8 POPULATION 2010: BUILD OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT ADDITIONAL AVERAGE ADDITIONAL PRESENT TOTAL COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLDS HH SIZE POPULATION POPULATION POPULA71ON Saugatuck 330 2.00 660 1,079 1,739 Douglas 1,139 2.44 2,779 948 3,727 SaugatuckTWD. 16,413 2.69 44,151 1,753 45,904 AREAWIDE 17,882 47,590 3,780 51,370 In the 1988 Public Opinion Survey, 52.40/6 - protect the environment by prohibiting de- of Village respondents felt that apartments and velopment of dunes and wetlands-, 60.6% felt that detached single-family homes in - additional waterfront condominiums are the $50-$70,000 range are needed now. Yet the not needed (81.4% of Village respondents). majority of respondents (41.8%) opposed lower- The majority of respondents felt that future ing the minimum residential square footage re- conunercial development is most appropriate quirement to make housing more affordable. along Blue Star Highway (66-710/6) and at the However, the existing requirement of 1000 freeway interchanges. Village respondents listed square feet is not excessive. fast food restaurants as their top commercial Other strong preferences of Village citizens land use priority for Blue Star Highway. E. as revealed in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey Center St. In Douglas was the preferred location are: for future neighborhood commercial develop- � maintain the scenic, small town character ment. Priorities for downtown Douglas include of the Village: more businesses oriented to the needs of resi- � no strip commercial development; dents, historic preservation, flowers and land- � small commercial shopping centers off of scaping, a waterfront park, and dressing up major roads; store fronts. � preserve open space along the waterfront: Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 9-5 When asked how underdeveloped water- front lands in Douglas should be used, 8 1% felt that it should be acquired and preserved as open space. Alternatively, 80-90% opposed develop- ing it with condominiums. 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 must be amended to insure consistency with this plan and the comprehen- sive plan of each J urisdiction. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 0 800 16M 2400 0 *0 Scale 1" = 1748 ft (0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 cz:= 0 0 IMAN01M 28 MAP 9.1 RESIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS Douglas Fe-lResidential Construction Permits 1980-1988 L August1989 DATA SOURCE: Douglas Building Permits Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml 10-1 0 Chapter 10 FUTURE LAND USE G ood land use planning is essential to the PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPIXS future quality of life of the tri-community area. Future land use arrangements are difficult Future land use arrangements were deter- to predict and guide to achieve desired results. mined based on compatibility with surrounding A future land use map and plan embodies local land uses, natural capacity of the land for par- land use goals, objectives, and policies and pro- ticular uses, and necessary infrastructure im- vides one land use scenario which a community provements. These land use arrangements can may use as a physical guide. Goals and policies, be refined into timed and sequenced develop- in turn, provide the policy guide for land use and ment areas, once some key decisions concerning development decisions. the provision of sewer and water services are The future land use map accompanying this made. chapter seeks to anticipate community land use The following planning and design princi- needs for 20-30 years (see Map 10.1). These ples are the technical foundation (or rationale) future land use arrangements are based on in support of the proposed land use arrange- information in the preceding chapters which ments graphically depicted on Map 10. 1. Map includes analyses of existing land use, impacts 10. 1 depicts generalized land use, which is par- of area trends, projected future land uses needs tially reflected through mapping of zoning dis- if current trends continue, and the relationship tricts. The planning principles listed above are of land use activities to the natural resource implemented primarily through zoning regula- base. All proposals are Intended to be consistent tions and applied during the site plan review with the goals, objectives, and policies presented process. These principles are consistent with the in Chapter 1 (which were created with substan- goals, objectives, and policies in Chapter 1 and tial public input). should remain the basis for reviewing any sub- Many factors could intervene that would sequent changes to the proposed Future Land require reevaluation of certain arrangements or Use Map. the entire plan. For example, if a large mixed use These planning principles are: development (e.g. 1000 single family units plus - Protection of Public Health and Safety some commercial) were built or if a large single - Conservation of Natural Resources employer would enter the scene (e.g. an auto - Environmental Protection manufacturing facility) then land use arrange- - Minimizing Public Service Costs ments in this plan must be reexamined. - Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting A few key planning and design principles Land Use Needs were used to evaluate alternative land use ar- - Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses rangements. With slightly different trends and (Nuisance Prevention) projections, application of the same principles could lead to different conclusions and different Often a land use decision based on one land use arrangements. However, these differ- principle also advances another. For example, ences would be related to the amount of partic- prevention of filling or construction on flood- ular land uses more than their location or plains protects public health and safety, con- relative relationships to adjoining uses. Like- serves natural resources, protects the wise, there are many areas in which alternative environment, and minimizes public service land use arrangements would be satisfactory costs (especially for relief efforts). It may also providing they remained in keeping with these create a valuable buffer or open space between basic planning principles. Consequently, it is uses and hence help insure compatibility. crucial that this plan be regularly reviewed and updated at least once each five years to insure Protection of Public Health and Safety its continued relevance in planning for future Key situations in which this principle is land use needs. applied include: Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-2 � avoiding construction in areas which pres- 'Ibis also results in compact settlement pat- ent natural hazards. In the Village these terns, prevents sprawl, and is usually favored include areas too close to the Lake Michi- by taxpayers because it results in the lowest gan shoreline at high risk from erosion public service costs both for construction and from coastal wave action; floodplains; sat- maintenance. urated soils and wetlands-, soils not well suited for support of foundations or safe Efficiency and Convenience disposal of septic wastes; and steep slopes. in Meeting Land Use Needs � avoiding construction where an intensive To be efficient in meeting future land use land use activity is not adequately serviced needs, communities must make better use of by all weather public access; existing infrastructure and plan for infrastruc- � avoiding construction in areas with soils ture expansion in a manner which keeps the contaminated by hazardous and/or toxic costs low and does not create huge areas where waste. infrastructure will not be fully used for many years. It also means locating future land uses so Conservation of Natural Resources that travel between activity centers is mini- Failure to consciously protect nonrenew- mized. For example: building schools, neighbor- able natural resources exposes a community to hood commercial activities, day care facilities, unbridled destruction of those resources which fire and police protection, etc. near the residen- are the foundation for an area's character and tial areas they serve. This saves municipal costs quality of life. Conservation of natural resources on initial road construction and future mainte- usually focuses on: land, water, minerals. cer- nance, reduces everyone's gasoline expendi- tain soils (such as prime farmland), wetlands, tures, and conserves fossil fuel supplies for sand dunes, areas supporting an abundance future use. and diversity of wildlife, and unique forested lands. Areas where the land and the water meet Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses are the most important. Indiscriminate land A central objective of land use planning is subdivision frequently reduces the size or alters to locate future land uses so that they are the shape of land, thereby compromising the compatible with one another. This prevents fu- resource value and production potential of those ture nuisance situations between adjacent land lands. These changes also reflect lost opportu- uses, such as loud sounds, ground vibrations, nities- usually higher public service costs and dust, bright lights, restricted air flow, shadows, gradual degradation of an area's tourism poten- odors, traffic, and similar impacts. A few obvious tial. examples of incompatible land uses include fac- tories, drive-in establishments, or auto repair Environmental Protection facilities adjacent to single family homes. With This principle aims at preventing pollution, proper planning, land uses can be tiered to impairment, or destruction of the environment. buffer impacts and orderly development can While there is considerable overlap with natural occur. Examples include: commercial service resource conservation issues, environmental establishments on highway frontage with back- protection measures focus primarily on air and lot wholesale, storage, or office uses abutting a water quality, and the impact of activities where residential area; or single family residential uses the water meets the land. Environmental quality adjacent to park and recreation areas. is best preserved by planning for appropriate land use activities in and near sensitive environ- mental areas, and managing development ac- COAUVIUNrTY CHARACTER cordingly. This usually means insuring When applying the above planning princi- conformance with all applicable federal, state ples to new development proposals, one of the and local environmental regulations. key considerations is compatibility with the character of eidsting development in an area. To Minimizing Public Service Costs describe the character of Douglas, many de- Public service costs may be minimized by scriptive words and phrases come to mind, encouraging new land uses where existing infra- among them: quiet, friendly, clean, small, aes- structure is not used to capacity and where thetically pleasing, bountiful natural assets, expansion can be most economically supplied. and good location. Several Public Opinion Sur- veys in the past three years have revealed the Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-3 following three factors as among the most im- YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT/ portant reasons why people like Douglas: small INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT town atmosphere, quiet town and friendly peo- Historically, Douglas has had very little in- ple, respectively. There is a very strong identift- dustrial development and has been primarily a cation on the part of the residents with the community with residential and commercial de- character of their Village. Douglas can be de- velopment. This situation has reduced the po- scribed as being both a resort, residential and tential for year round employment and has year round residential community which for the made the attraction of new families into Douglas most part has avoided commercial oriented more difficult. The significance of this trend is tourism. Two surveys two years apart indicate that the Village could become even more sea- that this is the way most residents would like it sonal and retirement oriented than it already is. to remain. This in turn would reduce the capacity of exist- ing commercial businesses to operate year DEVELOPMENT round and further hinder the delivery of certain Although Douglas is a small community services such as education. Some new industrial (approximately 2 square miles), over 50 percent development is both needed and desirable. of its land is still undeveloped. This makes the residents sensitive to the quantity and type of BLElVDnVG TRE RESORT AREAS development that could occur there. Without WITH TBE YEAR ROUND COM2VUA= proper land development regulation, the char- There will always be a division within the acter of the community could be significantly community between resort and seasonal areas changed. In a 1986 survey, almost 70 percent of and year-round areas. The recognition of the those responding felt that development in the importance of both and fair representation of Village should be encouraged. Yet, residents both in community decision making will be an overwhelmingly still want the community to re- ongoing challenge in making future land use main like a small village. In residential develop- and infrastructure decisions. Achieving and ment, affordable single-family homes and maintaining a balance will be the key to long apartments were the preferred types, with wa- term success. terfront condos and mobile homes receiving the The mapping of future land use is a logical highest response as not being needed. More extension of the goals and policies stated in this industrial development was supported with 68.9 Plan. A land use is the primary purpose for percent of those responding that it was needed which a parcel of land is occupied. The plan is in a 1986 survey, but fewer than half so indicat- designed to promote orderly development and ing in a 1988 survey. However, the 1988 survey ensure that appropriate areas are available for did reveal that over half of the respondents all classes of land uses anticipated to be needed (56%) favored spending tax dollars to stimulate within the Village during the planning period economic development. The need for more com- (roughly 20 years) and based on existing trends. mercial development and services was also The future land use plan promotes orderly de- clearly indicated with Blue Star Highway and velopment in a number of other ways. Home East Center Street being the preferred locations. owners can invest in their properties with pro- TOURISM tection from the intrusion and congestion of undesirable uses in the neighborhood. Over- A strong tourist oriented character is some- crowding can be avoided. The Village and utility thing that it appears most Douglas residents companies can adequately plan for the services would like to prevent. The increased activity and needed in developing areas and ensure that congestion that go with successful tourism are adequate land has been reserved within the characteristics which are directly opposed to the Village for all necessary uses. existing quiet town atmosphere. This is not an Each of the major classes of future land use anti-tourism sentiment, rather it is one which are described below. Descriptions of various opposes the transformation of the e-xisting char- geographic areas or neighborhoods are also pro- acter of the Village to one dominated by tourism vided to give a greater depth of understanding rather than one where tourists are served as a to the land uses depicted on Map 10. 1. part of other commercW activities in the Village. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-4 and the potential to extend sewer and water DEVELOPbUM AND CONSERVATION AREAS efficiently. However, if speculative market forces The extensive water resources and other proceed unabated, then the future residential natural assets are at the top of the list as the uses will be high cost condominiums occupied reasons why Douglas is such a desirable place by seasonal residents and in contemporary de- in which to live. The actions and policies that signs. A large amount of such development are instituted in the future to protect the natural would be incompatible with the existing charac- environment will be of utmost importance. The ter of the Village. The Public Opinion Survey future land use map for the Village was prepared indicates that 81.4% oppose new condomini- by first identifying conservation areas and then ums along the Douglas waterfront. examining the suitability of remaining lands for If the Saugatuck School District is to sur- various development purposes. vive with the same breadth of programming and Conservation areas include sand dunes, quality it has today, then affordable housing wetlands, floodplains, streams, creeks and oriented to families must be available. In terms drains, the Kalamazoo River, Lake Kalamazoo, of new construction, affordable housing typi- and areas at high risk of erosion along Lake cally means homes of about 1,000- 1,200 square Michigan. These areas present severe limita- feet, on smaller than average lots, and priced at tions for development and are proposed for very not more than $70,000. Some public incentives limited future development in keeping with their or "write-downs" are typically necessary to alter fragility and importance in buffering Lake Mich- one of these basic elements. Some housing igan storms, filtering and storing water during meeting this definition is being built on large lots periods of flooding, draining stormwater from in the rural parts of the Township, but not in land, providing habitat for a wide range of plants any significant quantities. Manufactured hous- and animals, and for their wide ranging open Ing can be built within this price range and if space values. Destroying these resources would properly designed can meet an important local destroy the essential qualities which continue to housing need. There are two mobile home parks attract residents and tourists to the area. in the Village already. However, the Public Opin- These lands should largely be managed to ion Survey revealed nearly 60% of the respon- remain in their natural state. Only when other dents were opposed to new mobile home parks. more Important public purposes demand it. In light of improved quality and design of should these lands be altered or converted to new manufactured homes, especially if con- permit another use. If conserved and wisely structed as double wides with pitched roofs, the used. waterways will present a linked natural Village should investigate encouraging the de- greenbelt system that continues to enhance the velopment of a mobile home subdivision with lot area for years to come. The Village zoning ordi- sizes consistent with other developed parts of nance should be amended to include better the Village. Such a subdivision would not be a conservation of these areas. mobile home park (which may also be needed). Existing state standards for mobile home parks RESMENTIJAL are such that lot sizes are too small to fit with Residential use will continue to be the pre- the character of many communities and local dominant developed land use in the Village. The governments are without authority to require existing residential areas in Douglas provide a that they be any larger. However, by failing to rich and interesting mix of housing sizes, styles provide any place that double wide manufac- and ages. The challenge in the next twenty years tured homes are encouraged to be built, then will be maintaining the older housing stock and the market for such homes can usually only be ensuring that the growing ranks of part-time satisfied in new mobile home parks. residents and absentee owners does not result A unique opportunity exists for the area in housing deterioration. Equally important will communities to take the initiative in providing be efforts to blend new development with the affordable housing. If plans proceed to acquire older character of ejdsting land uses. Douglas the property known as the Jager property, for a has considerable potential for new housing de- new water intake plant, then part of the parcel velopment and has the greatest opportunity of could also be used for affordable housing. A the three jurisdictions to encourage the con- design competition or specially hired site plan struction of affordable housing, due to available could be arranged to provide for affordable land that is suited for basement construction housing in this area. The site plan would be required to tier houses by size and type to blend Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-5 with existing homes along Lake Shore Drive. The better design, and less environmental impact), treatment plant could be buffered from the res- industrial parks require a large short-term in- idential area and the land costs paid back vestment in land and public services. Therefore, through development. it is crucial that studies be conducted to insure New residential construction in the village that the park could be competitive with others should be encouraged on soils suitable for base- in the area. The Michigan Department of Com- ments and served with public sewer and water. merce maintains an inventory of industrial parks through the Statewide Site Network. only certified industrial parks will be included on this COBUdERCIAL list, and thereby be able to effectively compete There will be three primary comr-nercial cen- for new industries. To be certified, industrial ters within the tri-community area. Downtown parks must be at least 40 acres, a site plan for Saugatuck will continue to serve as the major the park must be approved, soil borings must center for commercial tourist activities. This be conducted, infrastructure must be com- should be encouraged. pleted, utilities must be installed 300 feet into The shopping area in Douglas along Blue the park, and protective covenants must be Star and extending down to the freeway inter- established. change should be encouraged to continue to (re)develop with a primary focus on local com- mercial services and a secondary focus on high- AGRICULTURE way related uses near the interchange. This area While agricultural activities used to play a needs curbs and gutters and right turn lanes. significant role in land use in the Village, except The buildings, parking and signage on many for the MSU research facility such is no longer properties are poorly designed, so any opportu- the case. In light of ample agricultural acreage nity to improve design, safety, and function in the Township and the limited availability of should be seized. Additional tourist-oriented re- public sewer and water, It is more appropriate tail businesses should be discouraged in this that lands which might otherwise be suited for area, and instead redirected to downtown agricultural use in the OViHage, be used for more Saugatuck and the original Douglas Village Cen- intensive structural uses, such as single family ter. However, additional restaurant, motel and housing. The raising of farm animals within the related services would not be inappropriate pro- Village is also not appropriate in light of the vided the market was adequate to support them. nuisance problems they raise (noise, odors, in- General business uses like shoe stores, banks, sects, waste disposal, etc.) for present and fu- hardware stores, etc., should be encouraged in ture residential use. the general business area in Douglas and not in interchange areas. ENTRYPORM There are three major entry points into the INDUSTRIAL Village of Douglas. (See Map 10.2). They are: The location of the Haworth facility in Doug- - from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo las is not the best use of that property in the long River via Lake Kalamazoo run (which is commercial). However, it is a - from I-Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo well-maintained local company which is a major River Bridge employer, and without a public effort to relocate -from 1- 196 at Blue Star Highway Oust it in comparable facilities elsewhere, this plan south of 129th Street) encourages its continuance. At the same time, At the present time, the entries from Lake the small industrial area south of the mobile Michigan and over the Kalamazoo River provide home park on the east side of Blue Star should an aesthetic and inviting entry into the Village. continue to be developed for light industrial The entry from the south along Blue Star High- activities and should be expanded to the east way is not as good. The public opinion surveys and south, and possibly to the west across Blue also reflected citizen concern about the appear- Star as well. ance of properties along Blue Star Highway. The Industrial parks are an excellent way to situation is further harmed by signs along 1- 196 manage future industrial growth. Although they which fail to inform southbound travelers at exit have broad, long-term public benefits (including # 41 that they can access Douglas (only lower service costs, fewer nuisance Impacts, Saugatuck is mentioned) or along southbound Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-6 1- 196 at exit # 36 which tell travelers that they Development under the Planned Unit De- can access Ganges, but not Saugatuck and velopment (PUD) concept should be encouraged Douglas. for this area. Through PUD, development flexi- First impressions are very important in the bility in design and housing density is allowed tourism industry. Attractive entryways help en- to achieve maximum open space. This concept tice tourists into the community and leave a also encourages innovative and imaginative de- positive impression to encourage future visits. sign and efficiency In providing public services. The entry points represent the community and The use of PUD in this area offers the specific should reflect those qualities which make the advantage that the recreational land and envi- area special. Fortunately, these design problems ronmentally sensitive areas can be integrated are easily overcome, and with only minimum into the development plan and their preserva- public investment. A special joint effort to de- tion enhanced. The PUD concept allows build- velop alternatives for Improving the entry points ings, to be clustered through mixtures of housing into all three communities should be initiated. types such as detached houses, townhouses, In addition, new land developments in these and apartments. This mixture of housing types areas (or changes to existing ones) need to be creates fine housing opportunities for house- carefully reviewed to insure that changes en- holds and families of all age groups. hance (and do not further detract from) the positive image and character that should exist Ferry/Blue Star to 129th in these areas. This planning area is presently character- ized by a golf course, a couple of conunercial F=JRE LAND USE BY AREA activities, a multiple family use and an indus- Following are brief geographic descriptions trial concern, along with a lot of vacant and of future land use. These descriptions use the underdeveloped property. Future land use in same planning areas depicted on Map 5.3. this area could arguably be encouraged to go several different ways. The golf course property Lake Shore - Resort Residential Area could remain as such or be converted to single family or multiple family residential use in a This area should continue to be used for I compatible way. Additional commercial use or density single family homes along the lakeshoorwe expansion of the Haworth facility could occur in keeping with the size and quality of homes north of the existing plant. However, such ex- presently there. It is anticipated that seasonal pansion, if it occurred should be carefully scru- vacation homes will continue to be the dominant tinized and restricted to prevent unnecessary use. Density will vary within this area, but a impacts on adjoining residential uses to the minimum lot size of 8,400 feet should be main- north. Over time this area should be encouraged tained. to develop for multiple family use. The proposed water intake facility, if con- South of 130th on the west side of Blue Star structed in this part of the Village, should be could be developed for commercial on the Blue designed to be compatible with the character Star frontage and medium to high density resi- and quality of eidsting homes, and include ex- dential behind it in order to be compatible with tensive insulation and buffering techniques to the Township future land use plan. However, it eliminate (to the maximum practical extent) any would also not be inappropriate for the indus- noise Impacts on adjacent homes. trial area on this side of the road to expand to the quarter section line in compliment to the Campbell Road & West Center Street industrial area under development on the east Additional single family homes in subdivi- side of Blue Star. The likelihood of this occurring sions can be compatibly developed behind exist- Is not great however, due to significant soil ing homes along Lake Shore Drive between limitations in this area. Center and Golf View Drive by extending public The small residential area that is land- sewer and water in this area. An effort should locked from the rest of the Township should be be made to maintain existing densities or tier annexed into the Village at the first opportunity. the density of new homes so that no sudden density change occurs. Areas south of the golf course (on both sides of 130th) are similarly suited for residential development. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-7 South of East 130th and This area should be encouraged to develop East of South Blue Star in clusters of general business activity in small There are presently two existing mobile commercial complexes with shared parking fa- home parks and the emerging light industrial cilities. The parking should be off of the street park in this area. The residential activity should and gained via much better defined access. be encouraged to expand east to the pond. Curb, gutter and sidewalks should be provided Typical development in this area could include through this area. The properties extending mobile home parks, duplexes, and garden style down West Center Street to Ferry Street could apartments not to exceed three habitable sto- be commercially developed, but should be less ries. This area is suited for higher density activ- intensively used than the properties along Blue ity because of its location along major arterial Star. They should also be designed to blend with roads which can accommodate the heavier traf- the character of residences in the area. fic flow. It can also act as a buffer use between This entire area deserves more refined single-family residential development to the study than this plan is able to undertake at this north and the light industrial area to the south. time. A lot-by-lot corridor analysis and access Individual multiple-family uses should be de- redesign plan should be prepared. Significant signed with a landscaped buffer or open space improvement to both the aesthetic quality and where abutting single family residential uses. function of this area could be accomplished if a The area south to the Village limits should special plan for the corridor were prepared. be used for light industrial activity. Light indus- trial development that will provide year round East 130th Street employment and thereby contribute to and sta- This area has significant potential for new bilize an existing economy that suffers some- residential development west of Schultz Park. As what from seasonal business, should be long as the wetlands and floodplain along Tan- targeted to locate in this area. The location ner Creek are respected, very interesting subdi- chosen for this area was based on its access to visions or planned unit development could the Blue Star Highway (U.S. 31) and its close occur. No lots should be allowed to be estab- proximity to the interchange for 1- 196. lished that are unbuildable under existing DNR For industrial uses locating in this area, it or Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations is recommended that an industrial park design and local zoning. The area that backs up to the concept be used. An effort to insure quality Village Center should either be buffered by the design of the fronts of such buildings, with deep existing woods or an effort should be made to landscaped setbacks, minimal signage and no insure compatibility in structure type between front yard parking should be initiated to both new residences in this area and the existing improve and enhance this major entrance into character of Village Center homes. This area is the Village. not well suited for either commercial or indus- trial development. Blue Star Commercial Area Eventual housing unit density for this area This area is intended to provide opportuni- will be only slightly lower than in the Village ties for a full range of commercial uses. Grocery, Center Residential neighborhood. The recom- hardware, clothing, pharmaceutical, hairdress- mended average density for these areas is two ing, bank and similar businesses should char- to three dwelling units per net acre with a acterize this area. It is not an appropriate minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet. Linear location for boat and vehicle storage or similar form residential development along 130th warehousing activities. Office development should be prohibited. would also be acceptable in this area. Larger merchandisers should be encouraged to locate Village Center Residential here because there is opportunity for smaller This area represents the older more estab- retail outlets or service establishments to locate lished neighborhoods immediately surrounding in the Village Center Commercial area and also the Village Center Commercial (downtown). because the highway can better accommodate Housing in this area for the most part is archi- the larger volume of traffic that is generated by tecturally similar with most homes being built larger retail stores. No industrial uses should be pre- 1950. Housing density generally ranges be- allowed in this area. tween one and three units per net acre. It is also within this area where homes offering potential Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-8 for historic preservation can be found. The area character restored. The upstairs could be prop- also has some development potential. This de- erly rehabilitated into offices for municipal use, velopment could occur in three ways: 1) existing or leased to local professionals. vacant lots could be developed, 2) the second lot The Village office space is too small and of a double lot could be sold off and developed, should be expanded into the area being vacated and 3) existing housing stock could be improved by the fire equipment. A conference room is and expanded. badly needed. Second floor space above existing Recommendations for this area are as fol- commercial establishments should be made lows: available for residential use provided that all � Maintain an average density of three or building code requirements are met. four dwelling units per net acre while maintaining a minimum lot size of 7,920 Harborftont feet. This area is well suited for a combination of � All new housing development should be multiple-family residential, commercial and re- required to hook into the Village water and creational uses. Because of its high values stem- sewer system. ming from its waterfront location, development � All new development should be encouraged should be restricted to a specific blend of uses to maintain a similar architectural theme and design to preserve and enhance its unique with e--dsting housing in the area. character in the community. � Housing rehabilitation and historic preser- Recommendations for this area are as fol- vation efforts should be focused on this lows: area. 1. Multiple-family development should be clus- Strong efforts will be necessary to retain the tered on the western portion and on the charm and ambiance of the old Village Center. southern one-quarter of this area. It should A housing code enforcement program should be be limited in height so as to not block the lake considered to insure the safety and habitability view by backlot properties. It should be of the old homes in the area. An inventory, tucked into the hill as much as possible and maintenance and replanting program for the designed to enhance the natural setting aging trees should be initiated. Sidewalk re- rather than detract from it. pairs, replacement and installation are badly needed in some blocks. No nonresidential activ- 2. A bonus system should be considered that ity should be permitted outside of the Village would allow higher than normal densities on Center Commercial area, except perhaps along certain areas of a site in exchange for retain- the water-front, and then only if compatible with ing an increased amount of open space as adjacent uses. Expansion and improvement of common space or for general public use on public land along the waterfront here should be other areas of the site. initiated whenever possible. Ultimately a pedes- 3. A pedestrian/bike path available for public trian and/or bikepath connecting the Village use should be developed in close proximity to Center with Schultz Park along the waterfront the waterfront. This path could be developed should be considered. in conjunction with the already eidsting pri- Village Center Commercial vate road or be placed right along the water- front. This is the original commercial area of the Village. While it no longer performs many of the 4. Use of the Planned Unit Development concept functions that it once did, it still plays a valuable should be encouraged for this area. role and should be maintained. The several 5. Boat cradle storage would be more appropri- vacant lots should be developed for new com- ately located elsewhere. mercial. Small retail and service establishments such as restaurants, specialty shops, barber 6. The private road presently servicing the shops, bakeries, government and other small Harborfront should be improved and dedi- offices are appropriate here. New buildings cated to the Village. should be of a style that is compatible with existing structures in the area. 7. A parking lot for cars and trailers adequate to The exterior of the Township Hall should be meet the needs of marina users should be better maintained and the Lodge (Town Hall) constructed so as to blend into the natural should be acquired by the Village and its historic land form as much as feasible. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 10-9 8. Any recreational use which is not disruptive to the residential community along the Harborfront should be allowed. 9. The eastern end should remain free of any structures tall enough to block the view of the Lake from Blue Star Highway. The old platted but never developed public streets north of the Kewatin should be improved to the width of the right-of-way and utilized to establish a public parking and viewing area to take ad- vantage of this, the single best view of Lake Kalamazoo. The parking area should provide for auto and trailer space. The Spencer Street end at the waterfront should be improved to establish a public boat launching area. A small amount of additional land may need to be acquired to permit adequate vehicular access and viewing. 10. Additional marina development, if any, should be restricted to the west end and middle portion of the property, not extend into the Lake any further than the existing dock line and be served by more than one point of access. Whether additional dockage should be developed will be dependent upon an analysis of dockage on Lake Kalamazoo at the time of the proposal, and in consideration of the factors discussed in Chapter Eight - Waterfront. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan MAP10.1 FUTURELANDUSE Douglas Low Density Residential Village Center Commercial Village Center Residential Industrial Resort Residential Floodplain/Wetland EM r------- Planned Residential -1 Ml, "Recreation Harborf ront Blue Star HighwayCommercial August 1989 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI Village of Douglas FUTURE LAND USE 0 700 1400 2100 Scale 1 1438' ......... ............... . ......... ...... .. .. ...... .. . .. .. . .... .... .. ................... ............... ..... ................... I; !!,V . .... .. .. .. ..................... ............ i L 7 75@ .. EL ....... MINNOW ..... ........ -'-@l .............. ....................... ... ........... . . ........ M ................ .............. M. ................ .............. ... ..................... ............ . . . . . . . . . ................... ............... ......................... ... ............... .................. ............ ........... .. .......... . ........ ----------- A 0 800 1600 2400 Scale 1" 1748 ft SHEN EEF E H] 9 1111 H E E1flE[1H9 2@R@EM FLr-- Z771F C= 'E MAP 10.2 ENTRY POINTS Douglas PC Entry Points @--] Minor Entry Points ecic August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI Chapter 11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION B y itself this plan has no legal regulatory orce 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 implemen- tation of this plm are the zoning ordinance and subdivision control regulations. These regula- tory instruments are described in the next chap- ter. However, effective integration of this Plan will also require an ongoing commitment to intergovernmental cooperation with Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township. In particular, the Joint Plan prepared concurrently with this one should be implemented as steadfastly and also kept current with comprehensive reviews at least once each f1ve years. It will also be very important to make every effort to keep Saugatuck and Saugatuck Town- ship officials Informed of proposed changes to this Plan or any of its regulatory instruments (such as zonftW and to encourage their input prior to such a change being made. Likewise, those jurisdictions should be encouraged to re- ciprocate with proposals and an opportunity for review by the Village of Douglas prior to action on any change which may impact on the Village. A copy of this Plan and any amendments to it will be filed with the clerk of each of these jurisdictions, as well as with the County Clerk. the County Planning Commission. the County Economic Growth Alliance. the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and Depart- ment of Natural Resources. Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional public services such as police and possibly pub- lic works should be continued where mutually beneficial. Likewise, efforts to convert the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority into a truly independent authority should be contin- ued. This would take it outside of political IrWu- ence in day-to-day administration. Likewise, at some point, additional consid- eration should be given to consolidation of all governmental services into a single unit of gov- ernment. A formal analysis of costs and benefits of consolidation may reveal the benefit of this alternative. See the additional thoughts in this regard in Chapter 12. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-1 Chapter 12 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION MMARY MqZMWAMON TWLS sary). Unused escrowed dollars would be re- turned. Relationship to Zoning The Village of Douglas has a zoning ordi- Relationship To Plans)Zoning nance adopted pursuant to the City-Village Zon- In AcUacent Jurisdictions ing Act, PA 207 of 192 1. The intent of that The land use proposals in this plan were ordinance is to regulate the use of land to pro- carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring com- vide for orderly growth and development and patibility with those of Saugatuck and allow the integration of land uses without creat- Saugatuck Township. Equal care should be ing nuisances. The zoning ordinance defines taken in the future to seek and receive comment land use districts and regulates height, bulk, on proposals that are on or near a border from use, area of lot to be covered, and open space to an adjoining jurisdiction. Failure to do so will be preserved within each district. only insure future conflict over adjacent land Because the Zoning Enabling Act requires uses, or the provision of new public services. the zoning ordinance be based upon a Plan and this Plan, prepared by the Planning Commis- Relationship to Subdivision Regulations sion, has been prepared to guide future land use The Village of Douglas adopted subdivision decisions, the zoning ordinance should be re- regulations Dec. 7, 1987. The enabling legisla- vised to reflect this Plan's new goals, policies, tion that permits the enactment of such regulA- and future land use proposals. However, the tions is Public Act 288 of 1967, also known as zoning district map and the future land use map the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. This Act (10. 1) will not be identical. The zoning map allows a community to set requirements and typically reflects e--dsting land use (where it is design standards for streets, blocks, lots, curbs, desirable to continue it) and small areas zoned sidewalks, open spaces, easements, public util- for more intensive use then at present. The ities, and other associated subdivision improve- future land use map reflects land use arrange- ments. With the implementation of a ments at some future time. (See Section 10. 10, subdivision ordinance there is added assurance p. 245-250, h9chigan Zoning & Planning. 3rd that development will occur in an orderly man- Ed., by Clan Crawford, ICLE, Ann Arbor, 1988). ner. The Village of Douglas should consider The Village should continue to maintain a amending the subdivision and zoning regula- formal site plan review process. Through this tions to prohibit the establishment of lots which process applicants, in order to obtain zoning would be unbuildable under existing state or approval, must submit plans which clearly indi- local regulations (such as lots which are wholly cate how their development proposals will within a protected wetland). change and affect both the parcel of land being developed as well as surrounding properties. It Relationship to Capital Improvements is recommended that all commercial and indus- In its basic form, a CIP is a complete list of trial development, as well as all subdivisions, all proposed public improvements planned for a multiple family housing, planned unit develop- 6 year period (the time span may vary), including ments, and other development requiring more costs, sources of funding, location, and priority. than five (5) parking spaces, undergo site plan The CIP outlines the projects that will replace or review. improve eidsting facilities, or that will be neces- In addition, the zoning ordinance and fee sary to serve current and projected land use structures should be amended to permit the development within a community. Village to require developers of new commercial Advanced planning for public works and industrial uses and all proposed multi-fam- through the use of a CIP assures more effective ily developments to pay into an escrow fund to and economical capital expenditures. as well as be used for payment of professional review fees the provision of public works in a timely man- by engineers, planners and attorneys (if neces- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-2 ner. The use of capital improvements program- Community Development ming can be an effective tool for Implementing Block Grant Program the comprehensive plan by giving priority to The Community Development Block Grant those projects which have been identified in the program was authorized under Title I of the Plan as being most Important to the future Housing and Community Development Act of development and well being of the community. 1974. The Act had the effect of combining sev- The Village Planning Commission should de- eral federal categorical grants such as Urban velop a formal capital improvement program. Renewal and Model Cities into one. Grants under the program must principally benefit low Land Use& Iqfrastructure Policies and moderate income families. A strong effort will be necessary to coordi- In Michigan there are two categories of eli- nate future capital improvement decisions and gible applicants: entitlement and non-entitle- land use policies with adjoining units of govern- ment. Entitlement communities, by meeting ment. As a result, proposed policy changes specific eligibility criteria, are given grant funds should be circulated for cornment early. Like- outright without having to compete for them. wise, proposed capital improvement programs Non-entitlement applicants must compete for should be prepared with adequate time for re- grant funds by applying through the Michigan view and comment by the adjoining jurisdic- Small Cities Community Development Block tions. Grant Program. The Village of Douglas is not an entitlement community. Therefore, it must Community Participation And Education apply through the Small Cities Program. In order to gain the support, acceptance, Operation of the Michigan CDBG Program and input of area residents for future planning, is the responsibility of the Michigan Department ongoing efforts should be continued to provide of Commerce with central program administra- information to them, and involve them in the tion by the Department's Office of Federal Grant planning process. The importance of their role Management (OFGM). The Department of Com- in that process should be emphasized. Public merce has entered into an agreement with the acceptance will make the implementation of Michigan State Housing Development Authority plans much easier and public input makes (MSHDA) assigning administrative responsibili- plans better and more responsive to local needs. ties for the housing component of the program. In the housing area, samples of grant eligi- SPECLAL AREA & FW&NCING TECMWQUES ble activities include: - Home Improvement Programs Building and Property - Rental Rehabilitation Programs Maintenance Codes - Weatherization and Energy Conservation BOCA (Building Officials and Code Admin- - Home Repair for the Elderly istrators International, Inc.) is the basic building - Public Improvement in conjunction with code adopted by the Village to regulate construc- targeted housing activity (limited to 25 per- tion methods and materials. The adoption and cent of grant request) enforcement of a building code is important in - Housing Related Services maintaining safe, high quality housing and in - Housing for the Homeless. minimizing deteriorating housing conditions which contribute to blight within neighbor- The maximum grant amount is $250,000. hoods. This should be continued. By applying and obtaining a Small Cities Block The Village should consider adopting a Grant, the Village alone, or in concert with basic property maintenance code to regulate Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township could es- blighting influences which result from failure to tablish a housing rehabilitation program which properly maintain property and structures. A would help preserve housing throughout the standard code such as the BOCA Basic Housing area. - Property Maintenance Code or a locally devel- The CDBG program also has the following oped code could be adopted. categories of assistance: Base Industrial Loan program helps finan- cially viable businesses needing financial assistance for growth, modernization, or expansion. Limit $750,000). Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-3 Commercial Retail Loan program is for A DDA, with municipality approval, may commercial. services, tourism, and other create a "tax increment financing plan" in non-residential projects; and minority which it devotes projected increases in fu- owned and retail projects in distressed ture tax revenues from increased assessed communities. Limit $400,000. valuation in the project area - "captured � Public Infrastructure Assistance program assessed value" - for repayment of debts funds public improvements for the location incurred in making selected public im- and expansion of public infrastructures. provements. Revenue bonds are issued in Limit $750,000. anticipation of future revenue. � Downtown Development program provides financing to assist businesses In the rede- Michigan State Housing Development velopment of the downtown area. Limit Authority (MSBDA) Programs $500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure To help preserve Michigan's older existing improvement. housing, Public Act 130 was passed in 1977 to � Communities in Transition program funds allow MSHDA to begin a home improvement community development activities, such loan program that offers reduced interest rates as public sewer and water systems, parks, to eligible low and moderate income families. bridges, roads, and comprehensive rede- MSHDA has created the Home Improvement, velopment planning. Limit $400,000. Neighborhood Improvement and Cornmunity � Emergency Community Assistance pro- Home Improvement Programs (HIP/NIP/CHIP). gram funds communities experiencing an To get a loan, residents should apply to one of imminent and urgent threat to public the banks, savings and loans, or credit unions health, safety, or welfare which occurred that take part in HIP/NIP/CHIP. within 90 days of application, Limit: $500,000. Land and Water Conservation Fund Downtown Development Authority - Act The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant program was authorized by Public 197 of 1975 Law 88-578, effective January 1, 1965. The This Act permits a city, village, or township purpose of the program is to provide federal to establish a nonprofit development corpora- funds for acquisition and development of facili- tion called a Downtown Development Authority ties for outdoor recreation. The LWCF Program (DDA) with broad powers, including those of is administered jointly by the National Park taxation and bonding, to focus on revitalization Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the and development within established "down- Michigan Department of Natural Resources. town" boundaries. All political subdivisions of the state, in- The Act gives an authority broad powers cluding school districts, are eligible to partici- with regard to the planning and development of pate in the program. Eligible projects include: the downtown district. It may engage in down- 1. Acquisition of land for outdoor recre- town planning, promote housing and public ation, including additions to existing parks, facility developments, and economic develop- forest lands, or wildlife areas. ment projects. Operating revenues may be raised through public and private contributions 2. Development including. but not limited or through properties the DDA may control. to such facilities as: picnic areas, beaches, With the approval of the municipal governing boating access, fishing and hunting facili- body, an ad valorem tax may be levied on real ties, winter sports areas, playgrounds, and tangible personal property within the down- balffields, tennis courts, and trails. town district. Capital financing may be raised in a number of ways: For development grants, the applicant must � A DDA may issue revenue bonds. These have title to the site in question. The minimum with municipality approval, may be se- grant allowable is $10,000 and the maximum cured by "the full faith and credit" of the grant allowable is $250,000. municipality. For all grant proposals, the amount of the � A DDA can request the municipality to grant cannot exceed more than 50 percent of the borrow money and issue notes in anticipa- total project cost. tion of collected taxes. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-4 Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund TABLE 12.1 The Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund RECREATION FACILITIES & THEIR MINI- Act of 1976 (Public Act 204) was passed by the MUM NUMBER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO Michigan Legislature and signed by the Gover- ACHIEVE AW41MUM POINTS nor on July 23 1976. This Act created the Mich- igan Land Trust Fund. The purpose of the RECREATION FACILIJY MINIMUM SIZE program was to provide a source of funds for Bicycle TYall 1 mile public acquisition of recreational lands. Funds accrued from the sale of oil, gas and mineral Playground 3 pes. of play leases and royalties from oil, gas, and mineral equipment extractions on state lands. Swimming Beach 50 feet On November 6, 1984, Michigan residents Boat Launch 5 parking spaces cast their vote in favor of Proposal B. This con- Campground 10 campsites stitutional amendment created the Michigan Non-motorized Trail 1/2 mile Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) and Cross-country Ski requires that oil, gas, and other mineral lease and royalty payments be placed into the Fund, Hiking with proceeds used to acquire land or rights in Nature land for recreation uses or for protection of the Horse land because of its environmental importance or Fishing Access 50 feet its scenic beauty, and to develop public recre- Fishing Piers 1 ation facilities. The Michigan Legislature passed Nature Area 10 acres the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Act of 1985 (Public Act 101) to implement the NOTE: Points am not to be awarded separately for cross-country 0i trails, nature trails, And hfldng amendment. The MNRTF officially replaced the trails. These trails are to be considered as one f&ility. Michigan Land Trust Fund on October 1, 1985. Source: DNR, Michigan's 1987-88 Recreation Ac- Any individual, group, organization, or unit tion Program Guidebook. of government may submit a land acquisition proposal, but only units of government can take cluding school districts) in acquiring land or title to and manage the land. Only units of rights to land for recreational uses, protecting government can submit development proposals. land because of its environmental Importance or All proposals for local grants must include a scenic beauty, and developing public recrea- local match of at least 25 percent of the total tional facilities. project cost. There is no minimum or maximum Any individual, group, organization, or unit for acquisition projects; for development pro- of government may submit a land acquisition jects, the minimum funding request is $15,000, proposal, but only units of government may take the maximum is $750,000. title to and manage the land. Only units of government may submit development propos- Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund als. All proposals for local grants must include The Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund a local match of at least 25 percent of the total Act of 1976 (Public Act 204) was passed by the project cost. There is no minimum or maximum Michigan Legislature and signed by the Gover- for acquisition projects; for development pro- nor on July 23 1976. This Act created the Mich- jects, the minimum funding request is $15,000, igan Land Trust Fund. The program provided the maximum is $375,000. funds for public acquisition of recreational lands through the sale of oil, gas. and mineral leases Costal Zone Management Fund and royalties from oil, gas, and mineral extrac- The Land & Water Management Division of tions on state lands. the Department of Natural Resources offers On November 6, 1984, Michigan residents grants for the purpose of planning, designing, cast their vote in favor of Proposal B. This con- and carrying out low-cost projects to improve stitutional amendment created the Michigan Great Lakes shorelines and connecting water- Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF), Public ways. Act 101 of 1985, which officially replaced the Michigan Land Trust Fund on October 1, 1985. MNRTF assists state and local governments (in- Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-5 The Recreation Bond Fund Recreation Improvement Fund The Recreation Bond Fund draws from The Recreation Improvement Fund was cre- bonds approved by voters in 1988. It calls for ated from State fuel tax revenue. About money to be spent on DNR and local recreation $750,000 per year is being targeted for develop- facilities in four categories: ment of non-motorized trails (hiking, bicycle, Recreation Infrastructure: such as cross-country, and nature trails). No application ballfields, tennis courts, beaches and other forms or criteria have yet been prepared, but the shoreline areas, boat launches, trails, picnic Recreation Division is encouraging local govern- areas, historic structures, playgrounds, roads, ments to submit proposals based on local deter- parking, restrooms, etc., which are not less than mination of need, location, and financing. 15 years old-, Waterfront recreation: such as fishing Local Facility Development Grants piers, boardwalks, boat launches, marinas, am- These grants come from a number of fund- phitheaters, landscaping, and shoreline stabili- ing sources and are available for planning, de- zation; sign, or development of local recreational Community recreation: playgrounds, facilities. The Village of Douglas received sportsfields, community centers, senior centers, $11,000 through this program in FY 1987-88 for fishing sites, and trails for the handicapped; improvement of its boat launch site on Tourism-enhancing recreation: including Kalamazoo Lake. campgrounds, boating facilities. historical sites, recreational conversion of abandoned rights-of- Land Acquisition Grants way, and fishing access. Land acquisition grants are available for In its statewide inventory of recreational projects aimed at open space preservation: park facilities, the DNR has identified Allegan County creation or expansion*, acquisition of environ- as deficient in a number of recreational facilities. mental resources such as sand dunes, woodlots, Those relevant for the tri-commuriity area in- or wetland areas; waterfront access sites; aad clude deficiencies in bicycle trails, fishing ac- many other land acquisition projects intended cess, fishing piers, boat launches, for (passive or active) recreational purposes. campgrounds, nature areas, hiking trails, na- ture trails, cross country ski trails, picnic areas, Watenvays Fund and playgrounds. Allegan County communities The Waterways Division of the Department with proposals for such projects will get funding of Natural Resources offers grants for the pur- priority over similar projects proposed in non- pose of developing public boating facilities. The deficient countle5. Table 12. 1 includes the min- emphasis is on creating boat access sites and imum number or size of selected recreation supporting facilities. facilities to be considered toward bond funding, Grant requests may not exceed $750,000 Road Funds and may not be less than $15,000. Applicants In 1987, three acts were passed to provide must match bond funds with 25% of the total a new source of revenue for cities, villages,and project cost, not including other state grants or county road commissions. The Transportation legislative appropriations. Bond money will only Economic Development Fund (Act 231 of 1987, be allocated to projects on sites controlled by as amended), the Road Construction and Im- public agencies. In the tourism category, prior- provement Act (Act 233 of 1987), and the Local ities are given to projects which: create new and Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act innovative recreation-related tourism attrac- (Act 237 of 1987, as amended). The acts will be tions; involve partnerships between the public in effect forfiveyears, when theywillbe reviewed and private sector; and projects for which feasi- for continuation by the legislature. bility studies have been conducted which dem- The Local Road Improvements and Opera- onstrate local, regional, and statewide economic tion Revenue Act authorizes county road com- benefits. JApplications and further information missions to impose a vehicle registration fee and maybe obtained from: DNR, Recreation Services use these funds for road improvements. This Act Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909 has had little utility, however, because the fee (517) 335-3043.1 must be approved by a public vote. Michigan voters in 3 counties rejected proposed fees in the November 1988 election. Many counties chose Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-6 not to even put it on the ballot, fearing the same rowed plus interest must be repaid from result. general tax revenues. The Road Construction and Improvement 2. Revenue Bonds - require that the princi- Act (Act 233) provides funding through the pal amount borrowed plus interest be re- transportation economic development fund only paid through revenues produced from the to rural counties (less than 400,000 population) public works project the bonds were used with a national lakeshore, national park, or in to finance (often a water or sewer system). which 34% or more of the land is commercial forest land. Then a portion of the remaining 3. Special Assessment Bonds - require that funds are available for use for county, city, and the principal amount borrowed plus inter- village street improvements. est be repaid through special assessments The Transportation Economic Development on the property owners in a special assess- Fund allocates money for the purposes of bring- ment district for whatever public purpose ing county roads to all season highway stan- the property owners have agreed (by peti- dards. This is important because heavy trucks tion or voting) to be assessed. can only travel regularly on all season roads. The Transportation Economic Development Act also offers counties, cities, and villages the TAX INC30TIVES opportunity to compete for additional funding The state law permitting communities to on special projects with economic development provide property tax incentives for industrial objectives. This competitive grant is awarded by development is Act 198. This Act allows a com- the State Highway Comniission. Qualified proj- munity to provide tax abatements as an incen- ect categories are listed below: tive for industrial firms which want to renovate (a) Economic development road projects in existing or build new facilities. any of the following targeted industries. agriculture or food processing; tourism; for- ADDMONAL RECOMMENDATIONS estry; high technology research; manufac- turing; office centers solely occupied by the Other Planning & Economic owner or not less than 50,000 square feet Development Assistance occupying more than 3 acres of land. The Village Planning Commission should (b) Projects that result in the addition of maintain regular communication with the county roads or city or village streets to the County Planning Comniission, with the West state trunk line system. Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and with the Allegan County Community Growth (c) Projects for reducing congestion on Alliance. These organizations should be encour- county primary and city major streets aged to continue their County and region-wide within urban counties. planning and economic development efforts and to share relevant materials with the Village. (d) Projects for development within rural Likewise a copy of this Plan should be forwarded counties on county rural primary roads or to each of these agencies when adopted. major streets within incorporated villages and cities with a population of less than Pro-Business Alliance 5.000. One way to strengthen Douglas's economic development potential is to establish a pro-busi- PUBLIC WORKS PMqMCING ness exchange in Village government (or jointly In addition to using general fund monies, it with Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township) mod- is often necessary for a community to bond to elled after the Michigan Bell Business Retention raise sufficient funds for implementing substan- and Expansion Program. (Douglas is not eligible tial public improvements. Bonding offers a for participation in the Michigan Bell Business method of financing for improvements such as Retention and Expansion program because it is water and sewer lines, street construction, side- not in a Michigan Bell service area.) A pro-busi- walks, and public parking facilities. Common ness exchange creates an atmosphere of coop- municipal bond types include: eration which benefits both the business and 1. General Obligation Bonds - full faith and the community. credit pledges, the principal amount bor- The role of a pro-business exchange is to is assist existing businesses in finding solutions Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-7 for their problems (i.e. inadequate parking, ex- and careful analysis than has been possible to pansion or relocation needs, etc.) and help make date. A lot by lot analysis with an emphasis on new businesses feel welcome. The exchange traffic flow, ingress, egress, bicycle use, pedes- would work with area businesses to determine trian access, parking, shared access, signs, land their needs and appoint an ombudsman to in- use, and the potential Impact and appropriate form new businesses of local services and con- timing for the extension of sewer and water tacts. Businesses are often not aware of the should be initiated. The first and most impor- services available to them or who to contact for tant step will be the collection of data on traffic more information. Abrochure could be prepared flow and traffic generation by road segment. which identifies who to contact for information on zoning, construction, planning, utilities, and Public Open Space Acquisition taxation. The brochure could also identify per- Programs to acquire public open space mit fees, tax and utility rates, and transporta- along the water should be initiated. One option tion, delivery, freight, health, and financial is to create a local nonprofit land conservancy. services available in the area. There are several very effective ones operating in Michigan. Priority should be given to building a Poverty trust fund for acquisition and maintenance or The changing economy, higher health care tying into eidsting ones by the Nature Conser- costs, higher literacy and skills requirements for vancy and similar organizations. employees, and inflation have seriously hurt the nation's poor, including the elderly on fixed Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority incomes. Social security benefits are the only Once the Township joins as a full member retirement income for about two-thirds of all of the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer &WaterAuthority, American retirees, and an estimated one million it should be modified so that it is a more inde- Michigan residents have no private or public pendent operating authority and not under the health insurance. control of the legislative bodies of the three The poor are often overlooked in community jurisdictions. This would distance it from polit- development efforts, yet they are the group most ical influences in day to day administration. in need of public assistance. Over eleven percent Efforts are presently underway to evaluate the of the Village's residents were living below the potential for doing so. poverty level in 1980. That's an annual income of less than $3,778 for those under 65, and One Jurisdiction $3,479 for those 65 and over. The benefits of merging the three commu- The Village should continue to monitor the nities into one jurisdiction far outweigh the number of people in poverty through the census detriments if the long term future of the area is counts and work with local churches and non- considered. However, past efforts to do so have profit groups to assist them through food drives, been met with failure and the citizen opinion temporary shelters, or other needed services. survey still reflects an evenly divided electorate. Collection of 7Yqffic Count Data Yet, no systematic analysis of the issue consid- ering all aspects (planning, development con- A more detailed analysis of street and road trol, cost, revenues, taxes, economic needs should be undertaken. However, doing so development, short versus long term, impact on is limited by the lack of any systematic and community character, etc.) have ever been per- recent traffic count information. The tri-corrunu- formed. Such an analysis should be done to nity jurisdictions would greatly benefit from more clearly lay out and analyze the issues. It jointly purchasing the necessary equipment and should be undertaken by the three communities undertaking specific traffic counts on a regular together, but could also be done by an outside basis. The cost and training associated with this group, such as the business community or a is minimal compared to the benefit. taxpayers organization. Blue Star Highway Corridor Study Periodic Updating and Revisions Blue Star Highway from the Kalamazoo As these additional studies are undertaken River south to the freeway exit has the potential the plan should be updated to reflect the new to grow haphazardly under existing zoning reg- information. At a minimum the Plan should be ulations. As a result it deserves a more thorough Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 12-8 comprehensively reviewed and updated at least once every five years. Managing Growth and Change The key to successfully managing future growth and community change is integrating planning into day-to-day decision making and establishing a continuing planning process. The only way to get out of a reactionary mode (or crisis decision making) is by planning and in- suring the tools available to meet a broad range of issues are current and at hand. For that reason it will be especially important that the recommendations of this Plan be implemented as the opportunity presents itself (or revised as circumstances dictate). Many new tools may be made available to local governments over the next few years to manage the growth and change process. It will be a challenge to Village officials to pick from among the new tools, those that will provide greater choice over local destiny and quality of life. Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan REFERENCES Listed below are some of the key reports, studies, plans, and data sources which were used as references in the preparation of this plarL Other data sources are referenced throughout the plan. DEMOGRAPHICS U.S. Census, Current Population Reports, East North Central 1986 Population and 1985 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places, Series P-26, No. 86-ENC-SC (also referencedfor economic data). U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980- Summary Tape File 3A (microfiche) for Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and Allegan County. HISTORY Joe Armstrong and John Pahl, River & Lake: A Sesquicentennial History OF Allegan County, 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. 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, Rocliford Map Publishers, Inc., 1987- 1989. Saugatuck Township Plat Book, Township Treasurer's Office, Saugatuck, Township. RECREATION A Parks and Recreation Plan for Allegan County, Michigan, prepared for Allegan County by Williams & Works, Inc., 1986. Saugatuck-Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan. prepared by the tri-community area Parks and Recreation Commission, with the assistance of the Saugatuck Public School District, February 1985. SOLM WAS17E Allegan County Solid Waste Plan, prepared for the Allegan County Board of Commissioners and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Allegan County Planning Commission, P-k 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 Conunission, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Detroit, Michigan. LITIIXIIES A Feasibility Study on the Utilization of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir. Saugatuck- Douglas Water System, prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland Engineering, Inc., January 18, 1983. Facilities Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976. Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., March, 1988. Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommenda- tions, Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., July 1, 1987. Village of Saugatuck Streets and Public Utilities Condition Report, May 1984. Waterworks Reliability Study for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc., March 1987. ZONING City of Saugatuck Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. Saugatuck Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. Village of Douglas Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. 0 APPENDIX B Demographic, Economic, and Housing Data 0 0 A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Age Cohorts (Raw Data) Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- under 1 13 23 25 61 1496 1-2 15 11 26 52 2560 3-4 21 17 56 94 2544 5 3 19 24 46 1289 6 11 6 29 46 1332 7-9 30 36 20 86 4274 10-13 47 59 106 212 5989 14 6 14 47 67 1522 15 17 15 23 55 1642 16 18 23 32 73 1758 17 15 18 34 67 1666 18 19 14 4 37 1392 19 13 16 51 80 1403 20 24 22 34 80 1402 21 14 18 21 53 1230 22-24 50 60 78 188 4267 25-29 106 84 107 297 6706 30-34 92 72 166 330 6503 35-44 101 106 142 349 9306 45-54 136 82 265 483 7820 55-59 59 48 108 215 3927 60-61 21 17 8 46 1172 62-64 27 30 75 132 1882 65-74 138 85 110 333 5151 75-84 57 49 104 210 2555 85+ 26 4 17 47 767 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 15. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654. 2. Age Cohorts (Aggregated and Percent Comparisons) Age Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-4 49 (4.5) 51 (5.4) 107 (6.3) 207 (5.5) 6,600 (8.1) 5-14 97 (9.0) 134 (14.1) 226 (13.2) 457 (12.2) 14,406 (17.7) 15-24 170 (15.8) 186 (19.6) 277 (16.2) 633 (16.9) 14,760 (18.1) 25-34 198 (18.4) 156 (16.5) 273 (15.9) 627 (16.8) 13,209 (16.2) 35-44 101 (9.4) 106 (11.2) 142 (8.3) 349 (9.3) 9,306 (11.4) 45-54 136 (12.6) 82 (8.6) 265 (15.5) 483 (12.9) 7,820 (9.6) 55-64 107 (9.9) 95 (10.0) 191 (11.2) 393 (10.5) 6,981 (8.6) 65+ 221 (20.5) 138 (14.6) 231 (13.5) 590 (15.8) 8,473 (10.4) Source:-(same-as-above,-1960-and-1980) ----------------------------------------- 3. Change in Age Cohorts from 1960-1980 - Tri-Community Area Age 1960 M/F 1960 1980 M/F 1980 Change 1960-80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-4 121/140 261 (9.8) 113/94 207 (5.5) -20.7% 5-14 274/249 523 (19.6) 233/224 457 (12.2) -12.6% 15-24 133/146 279 (10.5) 325/308 633 (16.9) 126.9% 25-34 129/139 268 (10.1) 337/290 627 (16.8) 134.0% 35-44 170/166 336 (12.6) 170/179 349 (9.3) 3.9% 45-54 142/147 289 (10.9) 239/244 483 (12.9) 67.1% 55-64 115/163 278 (10.4) 192/201 393 (10.5) 41.4% 65+ 196/232 428 (16.1) 231/359 590 (15.8) 37.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980). 4. Place of Birth Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp.* Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan 615 (56.9) 577 (60.9) 990 (57.8) 2182 (58.3) 63,771 (78.2) Another State 422 (39.1) 320 (33.8) 598 (34.9) 1340 (35.8) 15,934 (19.5) Born Abroad 5 (0.4) 2 (0.2) 7 (0.2) 227 (0.3) Foreign Born 37 (3.4) 49 (4.4) 124 (7.2) 210 (5.6) 1,623 (2.0) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Some individuals not accounted for. Source: (same as above), item 33. 5. Place of Residence - 1975 (Persons 5 years old and over) Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Same House 503 (48.6) 423 (47.9) 984 (59.5) 1910 (53.4) 44,575 (59.3) Same County 187 (18.0) 156 (17.6) 144 (8.7) 487 (13.6) 15,428 (20.5) Another County 228 (22.0) 198 (22.4) 244 (14.7) 670 (18.7) 10,923 (14.5) Another State 117 (11.3) 103 (11.6) 280 (16.9) 500 (14.0) 3,962 (5.2) Abroad 8 (0.9) 8 (0.2) 241 (0.3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above), item 34. 6. Household Characteristics Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total HHs 537 391 633 1561 27,282 Ave. HH size 2.00 2.44 2.69 2.39 2.95 2 parent fam. 219 222 411 852 19,520 Female HH head 41 31 28 100 1,911 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above), items 10 and 20 7. Marital Status Saugatuck Saug Twp Douglas -------------------------------------------------------- Single 262 (28.1%) 325 (23.9%) 177 (23.2%) Married 467 (50.1%) 849 (62.5%) 449 (58.8%) Separated 25 (2.7%) 28 (2.1%) 16 (2.1%) Widowed 107 (11.5%) 75 (5.5%) 66 (8.7%) Divorced 72 (7.7%) 82 (6.0%) 55 (7.2%) -------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above), item 26. B. HOUSING STOCK 1. Structure Type Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total units 772 529 850 2,151 31,864 Year Round Units 569 406 734 1,709 28,985 1 in Structure 385 290 636 1,311 23,190 2 in Structure 49 20 32 101 1,001 3 and 4 in Struct 68 16 - 84 583 5 or more 60 40 - 100 1,199 Mobile Homes 7 40 66 113 3,012 Vacant, Seasonal, & Migratory 203 123 116 442 2,879 1 in Structure 150 108 106 364 2,250 2 in Structure 6 11 5 22 51 3-4 in Structure 18 4 - 22 57 5 or more 29 - 29 153 Mobile Home/Trailer - 5 5 368 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 102/103. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654 2. Year Structure Built - Year Round Units Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1975-80 36 (6.3) 22 (5.5) 72 (9.8) 130 (7.6) 3568 (12.3) 1970-74 19 (3.3) 46 (11.3) 116 (15.8) 181 (10.6) 4326 (14.9) 1960-69 51 (9.0) 81 (19.9) 133 (18.1) 265 (15.5) 4458 (15.4) 1950-59 73 (12.8) 32 (7.9) 99 (13.5) 204 (11.9) 3647 (12.6) 1940-49 56 (9.8) 36 (8.9) 68 (9.3) 160 (9.4) 2507 (8.6) Pre 1940 334 (58.7) 189 (46.5) 246 (33.5) 769 (45.0) 10479 (36.2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 Source: (same as above), item 109. 3. Occupancy Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Units 772 529 850 2,151 31,864 Owner occupied 334 (43.2) 27-1 (51.2) S31 (62.4) 1,136 (52.8) 22,271 (69.8) Renter occupied 205 (26.5) 117 (22.1) 117 (13.7) 439 (20.4) 4,961 (15.5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: (same as above), item 97. C. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Type of Employment Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Private Wage/Salary 402 (73.5) 333 (76.9) 492 (71.4) 1227 (73.5) 26697 (78.5) Federal Gov. 7 (1.3) 1 (0.2) 11 (1.6) 19 (1.1) 308 (0.9) State Gov. 21 (3.8) 25 (5.8) 2 (0.3) 67 (4.0) 775 (2.3) Local Gov. 49 (9.0) 33 (7.6) 56 (8.1) 138 (12.0) 3022 (8.9) Self Employed 68 (12.4) 40 (9.2) 92 (13.4) 200 (12.0) 2977 (8.7) Unpaid Family Worke 1 (0.2) 17 (2.5) 18 (1.0) 246 (0.7) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: (same as above), item 67. 2. Real Property SEV - 1988 Saugatuck Twp/Douglas Area County County (% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 21,167,486 43,730,725 64,898,211 604,509,215 66.2 Commercial 10,677,205 9,402,800 20,080,005 101,799,772 11.1 Industrial 779,150 1,126,200 1,905,350 50,272,956 5.5 Agricultural N/C 2,661,790 2,661,790 153,232,546 16.8 Developmental N/C 430,733 430,733 3,251,687 0.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, 1988. Lansing, MI, tel. 517-373-1091. 3. Total Annual Real Property SEV 1980-88 Yea r Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp.* Saug. Twp.** Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1980 13,709,600 10,560,200 18,482,350 42,752,150 42,752,150 1981 15,682,000 11,723,580 21,042,164 48,447,744 48,447,744 1982 18,314,033 13,341,647 23,287,428 54,943,108 54,943,108 1983 20,855,000 15,101,800 25,691,300 61,648,100 61,648,100 1984 25,831,436 16,848,894 27,155,345 69,835,675 69,835,675 1985 27,382,650 18,756,700 28,922,650 47,679,350 75,062,000 1986 29,737,980 20,321,283 30,023,509 50,344,792 80,082,772 1987 32,727,560 21,957,626 32,464,745 54,422,371 87,149,931 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ not including Villages. including Saugatuck and Douglas through 1984 and Douglas only after 1984. Source: Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, 1988. Lansing, MI, tel. 517-373-1091 4. Annual Average Employment -Tri-Community Area Year Ave. Emp. ------------------------------- 1980 1,491 1981 1,527 1982 1,555 1983 1,613 1984 1,695 1985 1,656 1986 1,175 1987 2,461 1988 2,550 1989 2,700 ------------------------------- Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Field Analysis Unit. Detroit, Michigan, tel. 313-876-5427. 5. Persons in Poverty by Age Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Less than 55 67 77 83 227 5181 55-59 3 6 - 9 281 60-64 8 - - 8 206 65+ 15 24 39 78 1127 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 93. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654. 0 APPENDIX C Public Opinion Survey Responses 0 0 VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS PAUL HARRIS: ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTUR RRSPOHSE RATE WE SENT 550 SURVEYS FROM OAKLAND UNIVERSITY USING THE MAIL LABELS FROM THE VILLAGE. WE RECEIVED (as of 11/29/88) 257 SURVEYS FROM THIS MAILING, PRODUCING A RESPONSE RATE OF 46.7 PERCENT. IN ADDITION, WE RECEIVED 30 RENTER SURVEYS WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED BY THE VILLAGE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEYS USED IN THE FORTHCOMING ANALYSES IS: 2B7. -------------- COMMUNITY VALUES Q.1: Importance of things people look for in a community. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED 1 & 2 = NOT IMPORTANT, 4 & 5 = IMPORTANT, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT small town atmosphere 9.8% 84.6% quiet town 9.2% 87.9% friendly people 7.1% 86.9% attractive/beutiful surroundings 4.9% 85.7% good place to raise children 31.6% 57.3% traditional values 24.3% 57.1% religious opportunities 34.9% 43.1% freedom to be myself 5.6% 79.0% chance to get involved in local org's 29.0% 41.3% low crime rate 4.9% 90.3% good school system 24.6% 61.7% low tax rates 10.4% 65.4% close to larger cities 16.4% 59.9% convenient shopping opportunities 17.9% 50.6% availability of good housing 25.5% 62.2% family in the area 43.6% 52.2% job in area 42.9% 44.1% water based recreation nearby 13.5% 61.2% not industrialized 27.2% 53.6% Q.2: How has the community changed. PERCENT CHECKED better place to live 24.6% stayed about the same 56.6% worse place to live 18.9% Q.3: As the area grows and chanes, which best describes Douglas. 1= small village, 2= bedroom community, 3= Holland suburb, 4= Small city 1 2 3 4 community as is 93.7% 3.7% 1.1% 1.5% community as would like it to be 76.8% 6.7% 3.4% 13.1% community as think it will be 37.9% 23.1% 15.2% 23.9% Q.4: How would you rate the communites on the following. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED 1 & 2 = POOR, 4 & 5 = EXCELLENT, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED POOR EXCELLENT business climate 33.2% 30.2% churches 5.4% 72.1% community events 21.6% 45.9% entertainment 47.2% 25.1% general appearance 18.5% 67.2% housing 33.3% 33.4% jobs 47.4% 9.5% location 2.2% 88.5% medical care 48.9% 31.0% recreation 13.2% 74.6% restaurants 15.3% 61.1% Q.4: cont POOR EXCELLENT roads 28.1% 39.5% schools 13.5% 64.0% senior citizen services 20.8% 52.3% shopping 33.6% 38.7% social services 35.4% 10.6% taxes 61.4% 13.9% Q6: Problems faced by the communities, how important are they to you. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2 = NOT A PROBLEM, 4 & 5 A PROBLEM, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED NOT A PROBLEM A PROBLEM violent crime 80.2% 7.2% property crime 51.3% 29.3% vandalism 39.4% 26.4% teens w/ nothying to do 13.6% 69.5% drugs 8.2% 59.6% alcohol 6.7% 68.2% unemployment 28.5% 29.4% new job opportunities 21.5% 49.6% housing shortages 27.9% 42.0% public recreation 63.0% 18.3% too much development 50.0% 35.5% not enough development 52.5% 28.2% lack of health care... 19.1% 70.0% trafic safety 51.9% 22.3% parking daowntown Saug. 23.0% 67.2% skateboards/bikes downtown Saug. 47.3% 23.4% run down property 42.9% 32.6% litter downtown area 64.5% 49.8% litter along blue star Hwy 57.1% 20.3% appearance of businesses along Blue 39.4% 49.6% congestion at oval beach 39.6% 15.9% quality oval beach facilities 45.5% 15.4% access to waterbodies 61.3% 22.7% local schools 49.8% 18.1% Village gov't services 41.7% 22.0% county gov't services 34.4% 26.7% leadership elected officials 28.5% 39.0% Inadequate taxes 59.6% 68.7% inadequate local planning 49.8% 31.7% inadequate local development 42.6% 31.3% erosion & flooding 39.7% 40.1% contamination drinking water 14.6% 77.4% water quality 13.1% 74.2% wetlands 23.2% 53.9% sand dunes 23.0% 57.4% other env. destruction 26.0% 35.2% inad. senior programs 49.6% 18.6% erosion along Lakeshore Dr. 11.1% 81.0% inad water supply 29.5% 57.8% inad. sewer service 59.7q% 22.5% snowmobiling on public roads 47.8% 26.3% 8 Where do you go most often for the following things. 1= Saugatuck, 2= Holland, 3= close to work, 4= better service 5= more choice, 6= lower cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 appliances 23.O% 6.0% 1.2% 6.7% 6.3% auto/truck sales 3.5% 67.3% 6.7% 1.2% 10.6% 10.6% auto /truck services 20.3% 57.0% 7.2% 6.4% 6.O% 2.8% bakery goods 84.4% 7.4% 1.1% 1.50% 3.3% 2.2% banking 86.O% 4.9% 5.7% 2.3% 4.4% 1.1% beautician/barber 68.3% 21.0% 5.7% 1.5% 2.3% 1.1% books 41.8% 42.2% 1.64% 4.4% 12. 1 % 2.3% car wash 47.4% 42.7% 5.52% 1.2% 1.6% I.2% clothing 10.5% 53.l% 3.5% I.2% 27. 1 % 4.7% day care 55.4% 37.O% 7.60% 0.0% 0.00% 6O.6O% dept.store 3.5% 70.7% 4.2% 0.0% 20. 1 % 1.5% dry cleaners 63.7% 24. 1 % 5.7% 4.0% 1.2% 1.2% family restaurants 75.O% 17.5% 2.2% 1.5% 2.6% 1.2% f ancy restaurants 45.4% 34A% 2.4% 4.O% 1.6% 2.4% f ast f ood 6.3% 82.4% 3.4% 6O.0% 3.4% 4.6% flower shop 68.6% 15.5% 1.3% 0O.O% 6O.O% 2.3% furniture 26.6% 42.6% 4.3% 1.2% 23.4% 2.0% 328R groceries 61.7% 30.6% 2.6% 6O.6% 1.1% 4.5% hardware 74.2% 15.7% 1.5% 4O.O% 0.0% 48.6% laundromat 91.6% 4.5% 1.7% 0.0% 4O.4% 2.2% lawn& garden supplies 48.4% 43.5% 3.6% 1.6% 1.2% 2.O% lumber 76.0% 14.9% 3.7% 1.70% 0O.6% 2.9% medical services 68.6% 45.5% 4.0% 4.9% 6.4% 1.0% movies 1.3% 80.6% 2.6% 1.3% 14.1% 0O.0O% pharmacy 74.4% 18.6% 4.0% 0O.0O% I.2% 2.7% sporting goods 13.2% 62.6% 4.7% 8O.4% 8.5% I.I% Q 10- Approve or disapprove of future commercial development. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 & 5 = APPROVE, 3 = HAS BEEN 0OMMITTED DISAPPROVE APPROVE in small shopping centers 14.0% 72.8% in one large shopping center 50.4% 34.6% in downtown Saug. 50.6% 27.3% in downtown Douglas 50.2% 38.0% in scattered commercial areas 42.1% 38.O% in strip commercial areas 46.7% 42.2% nowhere 61.5% 20.3% _0. 11: Where should now commercial development occur. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED 1 & 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 & 5 = APPROVE, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED DISAPPROVE APPROVE Along North Blue Star Hwy. 27.O% 65.7% Along South Blue Star Hwy. 22.0% 70.8% Along Butler St. in Saugatuck 63.6% 21.6% along Water St. in Saugatuck 61.3% 23.5% along Lake St. In Saugatuck 63.6% 17.5% along M-2149649 outside o8T Fennvillie 36.5% 38.5% at freeway Interchanges 17.9% 65.0% 12- Where should new neighborhood commercial development occur. ( I= strongly disapprove, 5= strongly approve) NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2 = DISAPPROVE, 4 & 5 = APPROVE, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED DISAPPROVE APPROVE along Main St. in Douglas 40.7% 34.7% along E. Center St. in Douglas 30.8% 54.O% along W. Center St. in Douglas 37.1% 42.0% along 130th Aye. in Douglas 51.3% 26.6% Q.13: What are your priorities for Douglas downtown. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2 = LOW PRIORITY, 4& 5 HIGH PRIOTIRY, 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED LOW HIGH Additional public restrooms 56.7% 32.5% benches for pedestrians 46.0% 37.8% control truck traffic 50.4% 28.O% dress up store fronts 26.1% 60.5% flowers & landscape 21.1% 61.3% historic preservation 21.O% 62.3% resident oriented businesses 17.6% 68.O% More parking 37.5% 23.6% tourist oriented businesses 45.O% 26.6% new lighting 47.1% 22.1% Offices 45.4% 25.3X reduce car traffic 73.9% 4.O% restaurants 45.8% 29.2% shopping 32.7% 49.2% waterfront retail businesses 53.6% 34.9% waterfront wholesale business 70.8% 17.3% waterfront boat services 50.0% 25.8% waterfront park 30.7% 61.0% Q. 14: Does the area need more industrial development. (1= strongly disagree to S= strongly agree) 1= 20.7X, 2= 14.7X, 3= 11.62, 4-- 19.5%, 5= 36.4% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 0.15: What type of residential development is needed in douglas. 6-needed now, 2= needed later, 3= not needed, 4-- don't know) I 2 3 4 apartments 52.4% I4.0% 21.0% 12.4% attached single-family homes 37.4% 13.0% 20.9% 20.7% detached single-family homes(50-70) 60.6% I1.6% 14.1% 13.7% detached single-family homes(70+) 19.9% 14.2% 36.2% 29.7% waterfront condos 6.1% 5.7% 81.4% 6.9% low income housing 39.8% 9.1% 31.5% 19.7% mobile homes 10.2% 5.3% 58.8% 25.7% seniors housing 21.4% 24.1% 27.2% 27.2% country estates 16.O% 12.3% 38.7% 32.9% Q.16: Would you favor lowering the min. square footage to make housing more affordable. (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) I = 41.8%, 2 = 6.6%, 3 = 11.7%, 4 = 13.9%, 5 = 26.O% Q17: New housing should be built at a density that... I =higher then, 2= 1 ower then, 3= same as, 4= uncertain) 1 2 3 4 along the Saug. waterfront of Kal. 3.0% 65.3% 21.3% 10.4% on the hill in Saugatuck 2.9% 20.0% 65.2% 11.9% in downtown Saugatuck 4.3% 62.3% 20.8% 12.6% in downtown Douglas 15.7% 36.4% 35.5% 12.6% along the shore of Lk. MI 14.9% 19.9% 48.8% 16.4% as the agr. areas of Saug. twp. 42.6% 10.3% 26.5% 20.6% RECREATION Q.18- Type of additional recreational facilities are needed in the Douglas area. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2 = LOW PRIORITY, 4& 5 HIGH PRIORITY, 3 WAS OMITTED LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY basketball courts 35.9% 29.7% bike paths 20.O% 66.5% boat launching ramps 32.4% 45.6% camping 51.9% 21.6% community center 25.2% 44.7% cross country ski trails 36.2% 43.8% fitness center 37.7% 39.2% golf course 65.7% 15.1% biking trails 39.6% 33.l% horseback trails 57.3% 11.6% ice rink 33.6% 39.7% Lk. front open space(Lk. MI) 16.2% 69.6% Lk. front open space(Lk.Kal) 17.2% 69.0% public Marinas 38.2% 32.8% private marinas 52.5% 7.8% movie theater 28.5% 38.4% neighborhood playgrounds 33.6% 33.6% parks 30. 1 % 49.8% picnic areas 26.9% 37.O% raquetball courts 48.5% 14.2% riverfront open space(Kal river) 15.5% 64.4% senior citizen center 25.7% 45.2% shuffle board 48.2% 12.5% softball fields 54.7% 19.4% swimming pool(s) 38.2% 40.2% tennis courts 51.O% 28.6% WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT & SURFACE WATER QUALITY- Q,19. Which of the following best desribe our use (s) of near water bodies. VALUES REPRESENT THE PERCENT CHECKED) Description KR KL LM SL viewing 71.4% 70.0% 82.6% 18.1% swimming 2.4% 2.4% 58.2% 4.9% sunbathing 11.5% 6.3% 54.7% 3.5% fishing (Boat) 23.7% 11.5% 27.2% 1O.8% fishinG(shore) 21.6% 9.1% 11.5% 8.0% nature-study 31.7% 16.O% 33.8% 20.6% sailing 7.3% 18.8% 30.3% 2.1% windsurfing 1.O% 5.2% 10.5% 1.O% waterskiing 8.4% 13.9% 17.4% 11.5% 0. 19: cont KR KL LM SL powerboating 31.0% 36.6% 39.4% 23.7% scuba diving 0.0% 1.0% 7.3% 2.1% waterfowl hunt. 9.8% 3.1% 1.0% 5.6% ice fishing 3.8% 3.1% 3.1% 8.0% ice skating 8.4% 8.4% 1.0% 2.1% cross country ski. 4.5% 4.2% 10.1% 5.6% snowmobiling 0.0% 2.1% 3.1% 3.5% iceboating 1.4% 3.1% 1.0% 2.1% other ----- ----- ----- ----- I dont use it 13.6% 9.8% 7.7% 35.9% 0.20: Which term best describes your opinion of the present water quality of the following water bodies. KR KL LM SL very good 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% good 4.8% 3.8% 26.1% 7.2% fair 15.1% 19.2% 35.3% 15.9% poor 26.8% 26.3% 19.1% 23.5% very poor 43.4% 40.2% 5.5% 15.9% don't know 9.9% 10.5% 6.6% 37.5% 0.21: Based on your experience in recent years the water quality of the following water bodies has. KR KL LM SL improved greatly 7.5% 7.7% 4.1% 0.4% improved slighty 26.2% 25.7% 19.1% 18.5% stayed the same 18.7% 18.0% 21.0% 14.0% deteriorated slightly 15.4% 16.9% 32.6% 4.5% deteriorated greatly 18.4% 18.8% 12.7% 20.6% dont't know 13.9% 13.0% 10.5% 42.O% 0.22: Indication of feeling about the adeuacy of the following facilities on each water body. KR KL LM SL DESCRIPTI0N INAD ADO INAD ADO INAD ADO INAD ADO boat launch 29.6 42.6 31.0 37.9 50.0 15.0 32.9 12.7 boat slips(r) 27.3 38.2 24.4 46.0 35.1 22.5 29.6 13.2 boat slips(c) 4.7 56.8 6.6 56.9 25.8 27.8 18.3 29.7 marinas 6.5 57.9 12.9 64.6 22.8 39.0 13.3 20.2 swim.beaches 52.6 17.9 49.4 18.8 36.7 46.0 26.0 13.0 boat service 16.3 34.5 12.6 57.0 28.7 20.7 18.7 16.8 pumpout facil. 22.8 22.9 16.1 43.2 33.7 13.4 21.8 14.3 fish cleaning 16.5 26.0 11.7 28.7 29.9 12.7 17.1 11.6 camp grouds 45.3 15.7 39.6 19.6 46.5 13.2 38.1 10.2 parks 46.6 23.1 46.2 18.0 36.9 34.0 30.6 10.0 public rest. 52.3 16.8 42.4 18.7 36.8 20.9 32.5 10.0 other public 36.0 9.2 34.0 21.7 43.3 7.1 45.5 4.2 des. boat mor 31.8 20.2 35.8 21.4 31.3 12.3 21.0 10.2 des. no wake 24.6 41.7 25.0 50.0 19.7 34.5 27.8 26.2 0.23: Should the village actively cooperate in the construction of an areawide marina. (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) 1=39.4%, 2= 3.O%, 3= 23.4%, 4= 14.9%, 5= 19.3% _Q.24. Should the village actiyelg seek to find alternatives for low cost access by village residenf's to additional Lake Michigan beach f aci I i ti eS-. (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) 1= 23.6%, 2= 4.9%, 3= 21.7%, 4= 25.1%, 5= 24.7% Q .25.- How should underdeveloped waterfront lands be used in Douglas. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2= DISAGREE, 4 & 5= AGREE, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED DIPAGREE AGREE public aquisition to leave open I 1.2X 80.9% devel op f or resi dent i al sub.s 69.8% 14.92 develop I story condos 81.7% 11.0% develop 2 story condos 81.52 13.0 develop 3 story condos 90.3% 6.2X develop marinas 63.8% 20.4% mixed use... 47.9% 31.5X OTHER LAND USE QUESTIONS Q.26: What are your pri ori ti es f or 81 us Star Hi ghway. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4& 5= HIGH PRIORITY, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIQRITY better lig@ting 45.5% 36.8% uniform sign controls 28.7% 50.6% improve traffic flow 29.3% 47.6% add a center turn lane 30.5% 48.4% install public sewer 32.5% 36.2% install public water 30.0% 37.4% improve drainage 28.4% 29.2% improve appearance 16.6% 75.7% create commercial strip 35.8% 32.92 more tourist orientated bus. 41.0% 27.9% more shopping 33.4% 44.6% more industry 37.5% 42.0% more personal services 29.2% 36.3% more auto services 38.7% 38.7X more off ices 42.3% 25.5% fast food rest.s 37.2% 50.2X drive thru businesses 44.2% 30.0% no changes 49.7X 2B.IX better lane striping 34.8% 48.7% bresurfacing 23. 1 X 65AX uniform speed limit 27.8% 59.02 bike both 27.1% 60.2% more trees 22.7% 61.02 _QIL- Which, if any, of the followin t es of "home occupationso do you i Ap favor being permitted in res gen ially zoned areas. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2= OPPOSE, 4 & 5= FAVOR, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED OPPOSE FAVOR bed & breakfast 21.6% 65.9X hai rdressers/barbers 43.7% 33.9X music lessons 13.OX 76.5X 0.27: cont. OPPOSE FAVOR dance lessons 18.0% 66.0% accounting/tax prep. 19.1% 66.4% law offices 41.0% 40.1% medical offices 37.9% 37.9% adult foster care 30.7% 41.1% day care 27.0% 36.9% "avon", "amway" 40.0% 42.4X typing services 16.2% 69.7% dressmaking/alt. 11.2% 71.2% ceramics 50.2% 25.3% clothing boutiques 74.2% 14.5% bakery. 72.5% 20.4% pizzaria 79.3% 11.7% small engine repair 71.3% 19.5% antique sales 48.1% 16.6% ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What limitations, if any, should be imposed on development in each of the following areas. (1= no new development, 2= very low density, 3= moderate density) (4= No special regulation) 1 2 3 4 forested sand dunes 76.7% 13.6% 4.7% 5.0% open sand dunes 78.6% 10.5% 4.7% 6.2% wetlands & swamps adj. 71.6% 5.8% 12.8% 8.6% wetlands & swamps in. 62.3% 15.6% 12.1% 10.1% along the Kal. river 26.81 39.7% 28.0% 5.4% along Kal. lake 23.2% 31.1% 39.0% 6.7% along Lk. MI 22.2% 35.8% 37.0% 5.1% along Silver Lk. 20.6% 36.4% 38.6% 4.4% PUBLIC SERVICES 0,29: How would you rate the following local public services. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED I & 2= POOR, 4 & 5= EXCELLENT, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED POOR GOOD ambulance 26.3% 30.1% animal control 62.1% 16.4% building inspections 33.8% 28.7% fire protection 9.7% 64.5% first responder unit 11.7% 64.3% Inturban bus 12.9% 75.4% land use planning 43.1% 19.7% library 9.7% 69.8% other village hall services 12.6% 48.1% parking in downtown 25.7% 43.3% park maintainace 18.6% 52.7% playground equip. 17.4% 57.9% police protection 5.2% 69.7% property assessment 74.0% 4.4% public boat launching 41.3% 28.2% schools K-6 9.5% 65.7% schools 7-12 16.6% 59.4% schools- community ad. 19.3% 51.3% sewer service 14.7% 45.3% 0.29 cont POOR GOOD snow removal 13.8% 62.4% storm drainage 28.6% 35.1% street lighting 23.1% 45.0% street maintainance 22.9% 44.6% street resurfacing 33.2% 24.7% water service 25.2% 41.6% waterfront maintanance 38.3% 17.9% zoning enforcement 41.1% 17.4% 0.30.- What are your priorities for how the village spends your tax dollars. NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED 1 & 2= LOW PRIORITY, 4 & 5= HIGH PRIORITY, 3= HAS BEEN OMITTED LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY preventing crime 15.1% 72.7% enforcing ordinances 18.62 47.8% traffic enforcement 23.2% 37.2% fire protection 4.5% 86.8% ambulance service 9.5% 74.2% water supply 7.0% 83.4% sewer service 10.5% 66.8% street repair 10.4% 71.3% park & recreation 22.6% 45.3% improve parking downtown 51.0% 19.2% senior programs 36.9% 38.0% improve village appearance 22.2% 49.2% planning for future 10.5% 65.7% waterfront improvement 17.9% 54.5% interurban bus service 21.8 56.6% economic development 17.4% 56.1% _0.31: If it meant an increase in general property taxes, which of the following services do you think Douglas should increase or add. CHECKED police protection 12.9% fire protection 18.1 better St. maintenance 24.0% more parking 10.1% better water quality 59.9% better sidewalk 18.5% sidewalk snow removal 15.O% new street lighting 10.5% More flowers& trees 24.4% community rec. center 24.4% seniors center 19.5% industrial park 15.7% drainage control 17.8 trash collection 25.4% combined maint. garage 17.4% economic development 23.0% 24hr. medical service 41.8% community pool 25.8% Q.32: Which of the following statements is closet to your position on government services and property taxes. CHECKED Nice to have better services, but... 58.4% I would like better government services,... 15.7% Local government tries to do to much,... 16.9% Other 9.0% Q.33: How frequently do you use the followin services. (I= never, 2= less than 1 time/month 3= one time/month) (4= one time/week, 5= more often) 1 2 3 4 5 recycling center 79.4% 6.7% 9.1% 3.6% 1.2% interurban bus service 46.7% 25.4% 7.7% 2.6% 17.6% river bluff park 58.6% 31.3% 5.5% 3.5% 1.2% Saug.-Doug. district library 36.4% 23.5% 15.1% 17.6% 7.4% oval beach 38.8% 33.1% 11.5% 6.9% 9.6% Douglas beach 43.3% 34.1% 10.0% 9.2% 3.4% sun down park 79.0% 15.6% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% shultz park 41.4% 35.6% 12.3% 7.3% 3.4% Saug. Dunes St. Park 61.5% 24.1% 9.7% 2.3% 2.3% beery field 59.4% 19.5% 13.4% 5.4% 2.3% wicks park 66.5% 18.1% 11.5% 1.5% 2.3% other parks out of area 56.8% 28.4% 10.2% 3.O% 1.7% village hall services 36.0% 38.3% 21.7% 1.2% 2.8% Q.34: How important a priority is it to you for the Township to improve the exterior appearance of the Township Hall. (1=low priority to 5= high priority) 1 = 32.6%, 2 = 25.7%, 3 = 21.0%, 4 = 10.9%, 5 = 9.8% Q.35 Place a check before each of the follwing Village boards/commissions at which you have attended a meeting in the last 2 years. CHECKED Village council 44.6% planning commision 37.6% zoning board of appeals 12.5% board of review(taxes) 15.7% school board 4.2% Saug twp fire district 5.9% interurban trans.system 16.4% Kai. Lk. water & Sewer Auth. 10.1% Saug. twp. Park & Rec. Comm. 5.6% Q.36: How responsive do you feel these parts of local government are to Douglas citizens. (1= not very responsive to 5= very responsive) NOTE: ORIGINAL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED 1 & 2= NOT VERY RESPONSIVE 3 & 4= VERY RESPONSIVE 3 = HAS BEEN OMITTED NOT VERY RESPONSIVE VERY RESPONSIVE Village council. 22.4% 48.8% planning commision 25.6% 41.0% Zoning board of appeals 29.8% 19.1% 0.36: NOT VERY RESPONSIVE VERY RESPONSIVE board of review(taxes) 59.0% 12.8% school board 21.1% 37.3% Saug twp fire district 21.0% 56.9% interurban trans. system 16.7% 53.74% Kal Lk. water& Sewer Auth. 30.0% 46.60% Saug. twp, Park & Rec. Comm. 14.2% 40.10% 037: Should the Village adopt a policy of consolidating services with other governmental units. yes 68.2% no 11.70% uncertain 20.1% 0.38: If yes, what services should be consolidated. NOTE: THESE VALUES CORRESPOND TO THE PERCENT WHO ANSWERED "YES" ABOVE CHECKED Sewer 53.0% water 54.7% strorm water 34.1% police 47.4% street & roads 44.6% parks & summer Rec. 43.9% planning 38.3% zoning 32.8% building permits 28.2% village manager 24.O% Comb. interurban vehical maint. 51.2% 0.39: Should the City of Saugatuck, the village of douglas, and the Township of Saugatuck consolidate into a single unit of government. yes= 47.5%, no= 52.5% 0.40: Are you a registerd voter. yes= 87.68%, no= 12.4% 0.41: How many years have you resided in the Village of Douglas. CHECKED less than I 3.2% 1 - 5 18.8% 5 - 10 22.3% 10 - 20 23.4% more than 20 32.3% 0.42: How many more years do you think you will stay in the Douglas area. CHECKED less than one 2.2% 1 - 3 2.2% 4 - 10 20.5% more than 10 yrs. 75.O% Q.43: How many months of each year do you typically reside in the Douglas area. 73.5% responded that length of stay is 12 months 11.8% responded that length of stay is less then 6 months Q.44: Please check each of the following that apply to you. CHECKED residential property owner 78.4% renter 17.1% own or manage a business in area 21.3% Q.45: Which of the following best represents where you live. CHECKED on the dunes/bluff along Lk. Ml 16.8% on the dunes along Kalamazoo Lk 1.1% elsewhere along Kalamazoo Lake 1.1% along Kalamazoo River 0.4% along Silver lake 0.0% elswhere along the Kal. river 0.0% on hill in Saug. 1.1% else. in Saug. 2.2% near downtown Doug. 41.0% else. in Doug. 34.0% in erg. area of Saug. Twp. 2.2% else. in Saug. tp. 0.0% Q.46: What is the highest level of education you have finished. CHECKED less than high school 5.7% high school graduate 19.9% some college 30.6% associate's or technical degree 3.2% college graduate 21.0% graduate or professional degree 19.6% Q.47: Please provide the following information abouteach person that normally lives in your household. AYERAGE AGE OF RESPONDENTS 55.06 SEX OF RESPONDENTS male 62.5% female 37.5% PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED 61.4% COMMUNITY Douglas 51.0% City of Saugatuck 13.5% Saugatuck Twp. 0.0% Holland 6.7% other 27.4% PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RETIRED 38.0% 0 APPENDIX D Soil Types - Tri-Community Area 0 0 SOIL ITPES - TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 0 LIMITATIONS FOR LIMITATIONS FOR SOIL TYPE SEPTIC TANK DWELLINGS WITH AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER ABSORPTION FIELDS BASEMENTS CATEGORY A - SANDY, RAPID PERMEABILITY, LOW WATER TA13LE Chelsea loamy fine sand, 0-6% 44B SE4 SL Chelsea loamy fine sand, 6-12% 44C SE4 MD1 Chelsea loamy fine sand, 12-18% 44D SE1, SE4 SE1 Chelsea loamy fine sand, 18-30% 44E SE1, SE4 SE1 Oakville fine sand, 0-6% 10B SE4 SL Oakville fine sand, 6-18% 10C SE4 MD1 Oakville fine sand, 18-45% 10E SE1, SE4 SE1 Oakville fine sand, loamy substratum, 0-6% 53B SE3, SE5, SE4 SL Urban land - Oakville complex, 0-6% 72B SL SE4 CATEGORY B - SANDY, RAPED PERMEABILITY, HIGH WATER TABLE Brady sandy loam, 0-3% 19A SE3 SE3 Covert sand, 04% 57A SE3, SE4 MD3 Matherton loam, 0-3% 22A SE3, SE4 SE3 Metea loamy fine sand, 1-6% 27B SE4, SE5 SL Metea loamy fine sand, 6-12% 27C SE4, SE5 MD1 Morocco fine sand, 0-3% 70A SE3, SE4 SE3 Morocco-Newton complex, 0-3% 15B SE3, SE4 SE3 Pipestone sand, 0-4% 26A SE3, SE4 SE3 Thetford loamy fine sand, 04% 51A SE3 SE3 Tedrow fine sand,04% 49A SE3, SE4 SE3 CATEGORY C - WET, HEAVY, SLOW PERMEABILITY Blount silt loam, 14% 41B SE3, SE5 SE3 Capac loam, 0-6% 16B SE3, SE5 SE3 Capac-Wixom complex, 14% 21B SE3, SE5 SE3 Glynwood clay loam, 1-6% 8B SE5, SE3 MD3, MD2 Glynwood clay loam, 6-12% 8C SE5, SE3 MD1, MD2, MD3 Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0-3% 33A SE3 SE3 Marlette loam, 6-12% 14C SE5 MD1 Marlette loam, 12-18% 14D SE1, SE5 SEI Marlette loam, 18-35% 14E SE1, SE5 SE1 Marlette-Capac loams, 1-6% 75B SE3, SE5 SL Metamora sandy loam, 14% 42B SE5, SE3 SE3 Rimer loamy sand, 04% 28A SE3, SE5 SE3 Seward loamy fine sand, 1-6% 60B SE5, SE3 SL Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan LIMITATIONS FOR LIMITATIONS FOR SOIL TYPE SEPTIC TANK DWELLINGS WITH AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER ABSORPTION FIELDS BASEMENTS CATEGORY D - VERY WET SOILS, ORGANICS, FLOODPIAINS Adrian muck 6 SE6, SE4 SE6, SE10 Algansee loamy sand, protected, 0-3% 73A SE3, SE4 SE8, SE3 Aquents and Histosols, ponded 50 Belleville loamy sand 48 SE6, SE5 SE6 Brookston loam 17 SE6 SE6 Belleville-Brookston complex 64 SE6, SE5 SE6 Cohoctah silt loam, 29 SE3, SE8 SE8, SE3 Cohoctah silt loam, protected 65 SE6 SE8, SE6 Colwood silt loam 30 SE6 SE6 Corunna sandy loam 36 SE6, SE5 SE6 Dune land and beaches 4 Glendora loamy sand 2 SE6,SE3,SE4 SE8,SE3 Glendora loamy sand, protected 74 SE6,SE4 SE8,SE6 Granby sandy loam 39 SE6,SE4 SE6 Houghton muck 5 SE6,SE5 SE6,SE10 Martisco muck 67 SE8, SE6, SE5 SE8,SE6 Napolean muck 47 SE6 SE6,SE10 Newton mucky fine sand 69 SE6,SE4 SE6 Palms muck 7 SE11,SE6 SE6,SE10 Pewamo silt loam 45 SE5,SE6 SE6 Sebewa loam 23 SE4,SE6 SE6 Sloan silt loam 62 SE8,SE3,SE5 SE8,SE3 CATEGORY E - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 6-12% 12C MD1 MD2, MD1 Ockley loam, 12-18% 12D SE1 SE1 Ockley loam, 18-30% 12E SE1 SE1 Riddles loam, 6-12% 63C MD1 MD1, MD2 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 6-12% 31C MD1 MD1 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 12-18% 31D SE1 SE1 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 18-35% 31E SE1 SE1 CATEGORY F - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 1-6% 12B SL MD2 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 0-6% 11B SL SL Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 6-12% 11C MD1 MD1 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 12-18% 11D SE1 SE1 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 18-35% 11E SE1 SE1 Riddles loam, 1-6% 63B SL MD2 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 2-6% 31B SL SL Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan UNCIASSIFEED SOIELS Aquents, sandy and loamy 34 Pits 18 Udipsamments 66 KEY FOR LIMITATION CODES SEVERE LIMITATIONS: SE1 SLOPE SE2 SHRINK-SWELL SE3 WETNESS SE4 POOR FILTER SE5 PERCS SLOWLY SE6 PONDING SE7 CUTBANKSCAVE SE8 FLOODING SE9 EXCESSIVE HUMUS SE10 LOW STRENGTH SE11 SUBSIDES MODERATE LIMITATIONS: MD1 SLOPE MD2 SHRINK-SWELL MD3 WETNESS SLIGHT LIMITATIONS: SL SLIGHT LIMITATIONS Village of Douglas Comprehensive Plan N sse 10 weer loc STA 538 66 538 14E 5 SA 3A 29 57A log 3 75 33A 72 wcrtor 33 JA 2 72 As2 278 728 3 73 50 319 3 27 319 es log 2 i0e 31C 728 AAS 6 429 539 A-48 75A 50 5 too Ain 428 56 Ila 66 72 75 318 279 1 278 19A 6 109 449 29 As 25A 278 Ila 4AB *9A 5 4AB Ila lion wcftor ISO Ila 2 log 26 iis 5 A48 5 5 448 5 5 w 27 278 i6s 10 28 27 3 30 26A 109 28A AID A2 53 49A 10 29LA 210 ZSA Al 49 5 153 AID 57A 108 io 26A 26A 49A 10 49A 57A 10 10 21 10 26A to 3A A 3 wr 8 DOUGLAS SOIL TYPES NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14110019 0 0 0 0