Some called it a swim club. Others called it a water park.
Whatever it’s called, the Boulder Pointe Golf Club and Conference Center’s plans to construct an 11,000-square-foot outdoor swimming pool with all the bells and whistles including water slides and indoor arcade drew plenty of questions and criticisms last week from neighboring residents and the Oxford Twp. Planning Commission.
‘I don’t want it in my backyard,? said Waterstone resident John Brunning, who lives on Franklin Lake Circle. ‘There’s a lot of things to be considered besides money.?
Waterstone residents who live around Boulder Pointe expressed concerns ranging from potential noise and partying teenagers to litter and the effect on property values during a Feb. 28 public hearing to determine whether a special land use will be granted for the proposed swim club/water park.
Ultimately, the planning commission postponed voting on the special land use because of parking and setback issues and the lack of a full site plan showing how this swim club/water park fits in with the 61.42-acre golf course.
The proposed project would be located on an existing grassy area between Boulder Pointe’s parking lot and W. Market St., just east of the clubhouse facility.
One of the biggest issues seemed to be that the meeting agenda labeled the project as a swim club and fitness center (although the public notice published in the Feb. 6 Leader called it a ‘swim club?).
Many at the meeting felt it was really a water park given the proposed water slides, splash pad features, lazy river, not to mention the arcade area (for pinball machines and video games) that’s part of the proposed 4,140-square-foot adjacent building.
‘It doesn’t look like a swimming pool or a fitness club to me,? said Planning Commissioner Jack Curtis. ‘It looks like a water park.?
‘I think we bilked our public into thinking they we’re coming to see a swimming pool and a fitness center and here we are with a water park,? Curtis noted.
‘A pool would bring families who are coming to relax by a pool, swim and enjoy the environment,? said Waterstone resident Jeff Motala, who lives on Eastlake Trail. ‘A water park brings a whole different set of kids who ? and I have two that are under 10 myself ? are great, but they’re loud.?
‘A small, quiet pool is one thing, but a water park is something else,? said Connie Ginste, also from Eastlake Trail.
Pat Conroy, president of Conroy & Associates, Inc., the Rochester Hills firm that’s designing this project for Boulder Pointe, explained the fitness center idea was ‘bounced around? but ultimately his clients decided they didn’t want to operate something year-round.
Conroy clarified that when conceptual plans were submitted for the November 2007 planning commission meeting, they called for a swim club and fitness center. That’s why Boulder Pointe’s ownership pulled it off the agenda and resubmitted it at the January meeting as just a swim club, which they’ve labeled it as ever since.
‘It was never intended to mislead anybody,? he said.
The proposed swim club/water park would only be open from Memorial Day to Labor Day, maybe a week or two after depending on the weather, according to Conroy. Its hours of operation would run concurrent with Daylight Savings Time from about 9 or 10 a.m. until dusk.
Use of the swim club/water park would be limited to the 300 people who will pay an annual membership fee. Memberships would be available to Waterstone residents and residents of the township and other communities.
Conroy explained the reason Boulder Pointe went with an ‘interactive? pool rather than a conventional lap pool is because that’s what the market research dictated.
‘This had more of an attraction to families than a regular swim club,? he said.
‘We probably started off with the dream of building a traditional pool facility and so on,? explained Jim Dewling, of Boulder Pointe, but after extensive research and consulting with a pool expert ‘we found that a good number of the typical traditional pool operations in southeastern Michigan struggle.?
‘That’s why we went in the direction of a little bit more nontraditional type of swim club catering more to the children,? he said. ‘To build a traditional pool operation … just really isn’t economically practical in this environment right now.?
Bill Robertson, who’s serving as the pool consultant for Boulder Pointe’s proposed facility, explained that it’s not a water park.
‘This is more of what we would call a subdivision style swimming pool that we would build in other facilities in other states as well as around Michigan,? he said. ‘Little bit higher end primarily because we can’t take the traditional rectangle, throw it in their backyard and expect people to just come. It just doesn’t work that way anymore.?
‘What we’re seeing here in this plan is what the public tells us they want to see,? Robertson noted. ‘They’re telling us that this is what they want to use and not so much the traditional swimming pool type facility like you’d see associated with most country clubs.?
Robertson said if this were going to be a water park as some called it, the slide would be 35 feet tall ‘so you could see it from the street? and ‘the pool would be about three times the size that you’re looking at right now.?
Water slide platforms incorporated into the project will be below 10 feet, Robertston noted.
Commissioner Todd Bell expressed concern that Boulder Pointe didn’t take into account how the SplashPad ? which Oxford Township Parks and Rec. and local service clubs are raising funds to build at Seymour Lake Twp. Park ? will affect its project.
‘That’s going to be open to the public for free,? Bell said. ‘That’s going to be in direct competition with this. I don’t want to see something built that is going to be run down in a couple years because of lack of funds.?
‘We feel that the commitment here is strong enough that it . . . will probably compete very well with the Oxford Township endeavor,? Dewling said.
As the potential impact on surrounding residential areas, it was noted that the closest property line is 850 feet away.
‘There’s no residential directly abutting it,? said Planning Commission Chair Don Silvester. ‘It’s a ways away.?
Commissioner Kallie Roesner called it ‘one of the best locations? to build a project like this. ‘It’s not right up against the residential,? she said. ‘If you had to pick, that’s one of the less obtrusive spots, yet it’s out in the open, so it can be monitored by the residents (to prevent vandalism).?
Commissioner Tom Berger expressed his concerns about potential noise from the swim club/water park negatively impacting golfers. ‘If it’s too bad then people aren’t even going to want to play golf,? he said.
In the end, it seemed like the biggest issue the planning commission had with the project was parking.
The swim club/water park would require 154 parking spaces ? one space for every two members, plus one space for each of the four employees.
However, township Planner Don Wortman noted, ‘I doubt that at any one time they’re going to have 150 cars there.?
Dewling noted they anticipate many members walking or biking to the swim club.
Boulder Pointe plans to add 66 spaces to its existing parking lot’s 312 spaces, giving it a total of 378 spaces (to be split between the golf course, conference center and swim club) when the township ordinance requires 374.
But the planning commission felt that still wasn’t enough spaces.
Bell argued the existing parking at Boulder Pointe is ‘completely inadequate? for the business it does now. He noted how he’s seen cars parked on the very same grass Boulder Pointe wishes to turn into the swim club.
‘If they can afford to put this in, they can afford to bring up that parking lot to the standards that we approved on the original site plan and pave some (additional land),? he said.
‘I don’t want the neighbors complaining that the parking’s all over their streets and near their driveways because there’s nowhere else to park,? Roesner said.
Dewling noted there were six events at Boulder Pointe last summer where people were forced to park on the grass. ‘That’s a great problem because we’re succeeding as a business in the township when that happens,? he said.
Curtis pointed out that the proposed parking spaces are 9-feet wide (the same as the existing 312 spaces) when township ordinance requires them to be 10-feet wide, so the plan would lose about 37 spaces because of this.