IJ
TWO
LAND USE
PLAN ALTERNATIVES
SAGINAW
COUNTY
SAGINAW COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 1970
PLANNING PROGRAM
A continuing planning program for Saginaw County and its Metropolitan
Area is being undertaken collaboratively by existing Local, State and
Federal agencies. The basic planning process of Organization and Ad¬
ministration, Inventory, Analysis, Projection and Forecast, and Plan
Implementation are the basic elements of this program.
The objective is to promote development decisions that will enhance
the livability and efficiency of the man-made environment; and, pro¬
mote the preservation and conservation of the natural environment.
SAGINAW
COUNTY !
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
IMMISSION
COOPERATING AGENCIES
The preparation of this report was financed in part
through an urban planning grant from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions
of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
SAGINAW COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
ABSTRACT
TITLE:
AUTHOR :
SUBJECT:
DATE:
LOCAL PLAN¬
NING AGENCY:
SOURCE OF
COPIES :
HUD PROJECT
NO:
SERIES NO:
NUMBER OF
PAGES :
ABSTRACT:
Job 405:
TWO ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANS FOR
SAGINAW COUNTY
Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Two alternate land use plans which can
be used individually or as a composite
in a Draft Land Use Plan.
November 1970
Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Washington, D. C.
Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning
Commission (SCMPC)
Michigan P-299°
N,A.
62
It is the purpose of this paper to provide
two alternate land use plans that can be
used individually or as a composite in a
Draft Land Use Plan. The report contains
a summary of background studies, a state¬
ment of goals, two alternatives—an
"urban conglomerate" plan and "urban
centric" plan, and an evaluation of the
plans. The direction to be followed in
developing the Draft Land Use Plan is
recommended.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD i
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES 6
GOALS FOR THE FUTURE 18
THE "URBAN CONGLOMERATE" PLAN 21
THE "URBAN CENTRIC" PLAN 26
PLAN EVALUATION 30
EPILOGUE - THE NEXT STEP 55
APPENDICES 56
FORWARD
FORWARD
The report "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives" prepared by
the Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission in August of
1970, presented five (5) alternate land use plans for evaluation
and comment. These alternate proposals included "Existing Plan
Composite", "Uncontrolled Trend", "Controlled Trend", "Centrali¬
zation", and the "Satellite Plan". A brief description of each
follows :
"Existing Plan Composite": This alternative is a composite of all
previous plans proposed to date. The basic premise being that
each community would have phenominal population increases in many
cases far outstripping any previously experienced growth rate.
The end result of following this premise would be a continuation
of the haphazard leapfrog development pattern we see today. In
many respects this approach is little different than those com¬
munities with no planning. The cost of providing many of the
public services is in both cases often prohibitive.
EXISTING PLAN COMPOSITE
■] INTENSIVE USE AREAS
CZ) DESIGNATED URBANIZING AREAS
«2 NO PLAN AVAILABLE
__ MAJOR ROADS
COUNTY BOUNDRY
"Uncontrolled Trend Plan": This alternative is basically a
laissez-faire policy in regard to future development or really a
i
non-plan uith development taking place and distributing itself in re¬
sponse to market forces. While this approach runs counter to the cur¬
rent trend towards planning, in many cases existing plans strongly re¬
semble this approach, especially in regard to residential development.
UNCONTROLLED TREND PLAN
■I INTENSIVE USE AREAS
m DESIGNATED URBANIZING AREAS
MAJOR ROADS
COUNTY BOUNDRY
Controlled Trend Plan. This alternative provides a recognition of
the basic market forces affecting the location of urban activities
(accessibility, availability of utilities, proximity to existing
development, etc.) and while there will still remain a tendency for
urban sprawl to take place it will be more manageable than if there
were no controls.
1
CONTROLLED TREND PLAN
■ INTENSIVE USE AREAS
O DESIGNATED URBANIZING AREAS
MAJOR ROADS
COUNTY BOUNDRY
ii
Centralization Plan: This alternative calls for a more compact
settlement pattern with higher residential densities than those
utilized today. The major forms of future grouth will be around
the existing urban core with limited development activity taking
place in the existing rural urban centers.
Satellite Plan: This alternative calls for a significant amount
of dispersal of the urdan cores potential population increase to
the outlying rural urban centers with a corresponding dispersal
of employment and service functions. Again, urban sprawl would
be avoided and higher densities maintained.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
In 1790, the year of the first census, only one in every twenty
(20) inhabitants in the United States was classified as urban? in 1960,
seven (7) out of ten (10) were so classified. The 1920 Census marked
the beginning of this country as an urban nation when, for the first
time, over half of this country's population was classified as urban.
This trend is continuing. Not only is there a strong trend of popula¬
tion migration to the urban areas, but the nation's population is
moving to the larger cities in increasing numbers. The metropolitan
areas or SMSA's received about three-fourths (3/4) of che nation's
1
population Increase between 1950 and 1960.
For every decade since the turn of the century, with the excep¬
tion of the depression years, the sheer lack of space for new con¬
struction, obsolescence in housing and industrial plants in the central
cities, and the availability of rapid, cheap methods of communication
and transportation has resulted primarily in the growth of the sub¬
urban fringes rather than the central city. In regions where there
are many SMSA's, as the suburban fringe of one metropolitan area ex¬
pands it often overlaps another, the result being a continuous band
of urban and suburban development sometimes stretching for hundreds
of miles.
There are three, perhaps four, of these major urban regions at
some stage of development within the United States, one of which has
been designated the Great Lakes Megalopolis. In 1960, the population
of the Great Lakes Megalopolis was 22.5 million compared with the
1
SMSA is defined as a county or counties with a central city of
50,000 people or more.
1
37 million people in the Eastern Megalopolis. The Eastern Megalopolis,
although older than any other area of heav/y population concentration,
has a limited grouth potential due to geographic considerations. It
is predicted that uithin thirty (30) years the Great Lakes Megalopolis
o
will actually overtake the Eastern Megalopolis in population. The
Detroit Metropolitan Area lies at the center of this phenomena and
its influence is felt for over 100 miles. The area over uhich Detroit
exerts the predominate influences has been named the Urban Detroit
Area and includes tuenty-five (25) counties in Michigan, nine (9) in
Ohio, and three (3) in Ontario.
The future of the Urban Detroit Area uill depend upon its ability
to continue to function and compete as a manufacturing, trade, and
transportation center, as uell as a major urban area uith high order
service functions.
Similarly, Sagainau County's grouth uill, to a large extent, be
dependant upon its competitive position in relation to the other
counties in the state, especially those uithin the Urban Detroit Region
Table I offers a comparison of population and population increase
for the SMSA's in Michigan from 1950-1960 and 1960-1970. It is easy
to derive an erroneous conclusion through the use of percentages,
therefore, the reader is cautioned to relate the percentage figures
to the actual numerical increase.
In terms of trends, it can be seen that the Detroit SMSA's share
of the total state increase is declining to the benefit of the other
Metropolitan Areas in the state as uell as a number of non-SMSA
counties.
2
"Emergence and Grouth of an Urban Region", The Developing Urban
Detroit Area Research Project; Detroit Edison Co., Uayne State Univer¬
sity, Doxiadis Associates.
2
It can be anticipated that this trend uill continue, i.e., con¬
tinued steady growth in the SMSA's with some spill over into the non-
SNSA counties with good regional access.
4
TABLE I
COMPARATIVE POPULATION INCREASES BY STANDARD
METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
1950-60 % of State % of Outstate 1960-70 % of State % of Outstáte 1970 Pop.
5MSA Increase (1,451,428) (705,265) Increase (954,993) (553.836) (8,778,187
Ann Arbor
37,834
2.61
5,36
57,688
6.04
10.41
230,128
Bay City
18,581
1 .28
2.63
9,586
1.00
1 .73
116,628
Detroit
746,163
51.40
-—
401,157
44.51
4,163,517
Flint
109,482
7.54
15.52
77,793
8.14
14.04
493,402
Grand Rapids
99,863
6.88
14.15
73,796
7.72
13.32
535,702
Oackson
24,069
1.66
3.41
10,428
1.09
1 .88
142,422
Kalamazoo
43,005
2.96
6.09
29,574
3.10
5.33
199,287
Lansing
54,790
3.78
7.76
74,545
7.81
13.45
373,474
Muskegon
28,398
1 .96
4.02
6,134
.64
1,10
156,077
Saqinau
27,237
2.57
5.27
27,035
2,83
4.88
217,787
TOTAL
1.199.422
86.64
64.21
767.736
78.98
66.14
6.428.424
Sources 1960 Census of Population
1970 Census of Population Preliminary Report
5
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES
ECONOMY
The ability of an area to grow is tied almost exclusively to the
attraction of employment opportunities, fin understanding of the exist¬
ing economic characteristics of Saginaw County is, therefore, necessary
before charting the direction of future economic growth.
fi comparison of the percentage of employment distribution by sec¬
tor for the United States, the State of Michigan, and the Saginaw SMSA
(Table II) shows the highly specialized nature of tfie Saginaw Economy.
It should be noted that with the exception of primary metals, trans¬
portation equipment, and food and kindred products; Saginaw has a
lower proportion of its employment in each of the respective categor¬
ies than both the state and the nation. One other exception is in
the non-electrical machinery category, however, even this percentage
is lower than the state of Michigan.
In a comparative analysis of the economy, location coefficients
were developed which were derived by the following formula;
Saginaw County Population U. S. Population
Saginaw County Employment * U. S. Employment
If the coefficient derived was greater than 1.0, it implied that
a portion of the goods and services in that sector were being exported,
conversely, if the coefficient was less than one (1) it meant that a
portion of those goods and services were being imported. Table III
provides a comparison between location coefficients developed for the
Saginaw SMSfi for 1960 and 1967. This table, again, reflects both the
strengths and weaknesses of the County's economy- Uhile the table
points out the strength of the County's manufacturing export base it
also suggests areas where growth should be encouraged to diversify
and strengthen the economy, i.e., in wholesale and retail trade,
setwiceH, government and the financing insurance and real estate
6
TABLE II
1967 EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR FOR THE UNITED STATES,
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND THE SAGINAW SMSA
U.S. Michigan Saginaw County
Distribution Distribution Distribution
Total nonagricultural employment
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Contract construction
4.9%
4.1%
5.2%
Manufacturing
29.4%
38.9%
45.6%
Durable goods
17.3
31.4
40.0
Lumber and wood
.9
.4
.1
Metals
4.1
8.2
15.7
Primary
2.0
3.2
14.0
Fabricated
2.1
5.0
1.7
Machinery - nonelectrical
3.0
6.1
5.8
Transportation equipment
2.9
12.9
15.8
Motor vehicles and equipment
1.2
12.4
15.4
Other transportation
1.7
.5
.4
Other durables
6.4
3.8
2.7
Nondurab le goods
12.1
7.5
5.6
Food and kindred products
2.7
1.9
3.5
Printing and publishing
1.6
1.2
.7
Other nondurab les
7.8
4.4
1.4
Transportation and public utilities
6.5%
4.9%
6.6%
Wholesale and retail trade
20.6%
19.2%
18.9%
Wholesale
5.4
4.4
4.2
Retail
15.2
14.8
14.7
Fire
4.9%
3.6%
2.7%
Services and mining
16.2%
13.4%
10.8%
Government
17.5%
15.9%
10.2%
Local
9.9
10.4
8.6
State and federal
7.6
5.5
1.6
Sources: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics-
Employment and Earnings Statistics for States and Areas, 1939-1967.
7
TABLE III
LOCATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SELECTED SECTORS OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE SAGINAW SMSA FOR 1960-1967
1960
1967
Manufacturing
1.30
1.44
Primary metals
5.73
7.16
Fabricated metals
.58
.833
Machinery- nonelectrical
2.64
1.88
Motor vehicles and equipment
9.50
11.75
Nondu rabies
.37
.42
Food and kindred products
1.11
1.25
Printing and publishing
.40
.40
Transportation, communication, and
public utilities
1.13
.95
Wholesale and retail trade
.88
.85
Finance, insurance, and real estate
.50
.50
Services and mining
.66
.62
Government
.60
.53
Source: Real Estate Research Corporation.
8
sector. Further, diversification in the manufacturing sector is
also indicated.
Primarily on the basis of past grouth trends, total employment
in Saginau County can be expected to increase from 67,700 in 1967 to
104,300 by 1990,3
Several courses of action have been suggested to modify these
trends in order to provide for a more diversified and therefore
more stable economy.4 Included are:
1. The creation of a local development corporation to help
alleviate the shortage in venture capital;
2. The creation of educational programs to up-grade the
entrepreneurial skills of local businessmen;
3. The creation of an industrial development council to
promote the Saginau Area;
4. Maintaining the current trend of providing a diver¬
sified educational program at Saginau Valley College.
5. Improving the recreational and cultural facilities,
and other services necessary to encourage middle
management personnel to locate and stay in the
Saginau Area.
POPULATION
The Saginau SMSA increased by 37,000 persons or 2.4 percent per
year betueen 1950 and 1960. Betueen 1960 and 1967 the Saginau SMSA
increased 28,560 or 1.9 percent per year.
Table IV provides a breakdoun of the components of population
change. While natural increases in the population have declined,
net in-migration since 1960 has increased due to a general rise in
employment opportunities.
7
See Appendix I for Employment Projections by Sector.
^Estimates and Projections of Economic and Demographic Charac-?
teristics, Saginau County, Michigan by Real Estate Research Corpor¬
ation.
9
TABLE IV
COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE IN THE
SAGINAU SMSA, 1950 to 1967
Live Natural Net Total
Births Death Increase In-Miqration Population
1950-1959
49,894 15,302 34,512 2,725 190,752
1M-1967
38,115 14,870 23,24ÏÏ^ 5,314 219,311
Source: U. S. Bureau of Census, 1960 Census of Population and
Michigan Department of Health.
Based upon the comparison of birth and fertility rates for
Saginau and the United States betueen 1950 and 1967, it is expected
that birth and fertility rates in Saginau will be higher than the
United States, but they will be louer than the high rates experienced
betueen 1950 and 1960. Thus, uhile the United States is expected to
grou by 28.6 percent to a 253,000,000 betueen 1967 and 1990, the pop¬
ulation of the SMSA is expected to increase by 42.4 percent to 312,300.
PHYSICAL FEATURES
The physical features of the county uill, to a certain extent,
influence the nature and direction of future grouth.
Perhaps the most influential of the physical features are the
soils. The predominant soil types are clay, clay loams, loams, and
sandy loams over clay. Most of these soils are impermeable and
therefore poorly drained. Uhile fairly uell suited for agriculture,
they are not generally conductive to septic tank development. It is
therefore proposed that uhere public seuer cannot be provided, resi¬
dential grouth at urban densities be prohibited.
The majority of the county is relatively flat uith most of the
relief provided by sandy beach ridges or stream channels. The lack
of significant differences in elevation creates considerable
10
problems in designing sewers and drains. To minimize the public
costs in providing these services it is recommended that, to the
extent possible, urban sprawl be avoided.
The Saginaw River Drainage Basin, the largest in Michigan, drains
over 6,200 square miles or over seven (7) times the area of Saginaw
County. The flat topography, narrow stream channel and low stream
gradient results in the periodic flooding of over 44,455 acres of
land within Saginaw County. A coordinated program of flood control
projects and land use adjustment within the floodplain will be neces¬
sary if future loss of life and property are to be avoided.
The poor water quality of the county's streams, as well as the un
reliability of the flow, make these rivers a poor source for a public
water supply. The ability of the streams to assimilate pollutants,
especially during periods of low flow, are often seriously over taxed
making secondary and tertiary treatment of municipal and industrial
wastes a must.
LAND USE
Table \] indicates there are 54,410 acres or 10.29^ of total
county land area which is already in urban use. The existing land
use pattern (Map I) will provide the basic framework upon which the
future growth will take place.
Assuming the relationship between land use and population re¬
mains the same, one can roughly calculate gross future land use needs
by applying the factors in Table V by anticipated population increase.
Therefore, in order to accommodate the population increase of 92,989
people between 1967 and 1990, Saginaw County will need an additional
967 acres of residential, 623 acres of commercial, 1,153 acres of in¬
dustrial, 1,785 acres of public quasi-public, and 365 acres of land
for transportation.
11
TABLE V
LAND USE IN SAGINAU COUNTY
% of
Developed % of Area Total County Acres per
Land Use Acres _ Developed Surface Area 1,000 Pop.
Residential 22,775.8 41 86 4.31 104.00
Commercial 1,480.8 2.72 .28 6.70
Industrial 2,733.6 5.02 .52 12.40
Public and
Quasi-Public 6,580.5 12.10 1.25 19.20
Transport¬
ai o n 20,839.4 ^ 38.30 3.93 95.10
TOTAL 54,410.1 100.00 10.29 237.40
% of Total
Undeveloped Acres County Surface Area
State and Federal 21,298.4 4.02
Lands
Vacant 26,271.4 4.96
Agricultural 338,098.4 63.86
Uooded 82,736.5 15.64
Dater and Rivers 6,580.9 1.24
TOTAL 474,985.6 89.72
TRANSPORTATION
Land use activities and transportation problems are intricately
interrelated and rarely can one be studied without examining the other
The 1965 Origin and Destination Study quantified the relationship
between land use activities^ i.e., where people worked (manufacturing,
retail-wholesale services and other employment areas) and where
12
1967 LAND USE
people lived in order to establish a mathematical model or simulation
of trip distribution on the major road network.®
The successful development of this model resulted in the ability
to project future trips to various areas based upon the projected dis¬
tribution of future employment and population.
flap 2 graphically portrays the anticipated change in trip gener¬
ation by selected areas based upon the "Controlled Sprawl" configura¬
tion presented in the report "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives".
In addition, the basic deficiencies on the 1965 road network deter¬
mined from a capacity analysis are also indicated.®
Detailed preliminary recommendations, based upon the deficiencies
identified in the "Capacity Analysis" and "Traffic Accident Inventory
and Analysis," have been made for improving the existing networks and
7
will not be included in this report.
The transportation plans developed in this report are based on a
preliminary analysis of the 1990 trip assignment on the committed net¬
work as depicted on flap 3. The committed network being the existing
highway facilities plus those that have been programmed and budgeted
for construction by 1975.
The proposed metropolitan and county-wide arterial grid system
will be defined along with other major arterials and principal col¬
lectors. At this stage, however, no attempts will be made to detail
the traffic network in terms of rights-of-way or pavement widths.
Detail standards will be completed as a component of the Transporta¬
tion Goals Study currently under preparation as a parallel project.
5Saginaw fletropolitan Area Transportation Study, "Trip Distribu¬
tion Analysis", by the flichigan Dept. of State Highways, February 1970
®Saginaw fletropolitan Area Transportation Study, "1965 Network
Capacity Data", by flichigan Department of State Highways.
7
Saginaw Metropolitan Area Transportation Study "Traffic Engi¬
neering Features Analysis" and "Traffic Accident Analysis" by City of
Saginaw Traffic Engineering Dept. and Saginaw County Road Commission.
14
SAGINAW METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Traffic Volumes Exceed Road Capacity
Traffic Volumes Within 85% of Road Capacity
1965 Vehicle Trips Generated by Selected Locations
1990 Vehicle Trips Generated by Selected Locations
Vehicle Trips per Day (Scale in Thonsands)
1990 TRIP DESIRE ASSIGNMENT OK THE COMMITTED NETWORK
Most rail-motor vehicle conflicts on the major road network will
be resolved with projects that are either on the drawing boards or
are underway. Anticipated traffic volumes, however, would indicate
the need for a grade separation at Bay and possibly one at Shattuck.
This is especially true if there is any significant increase in train
movements, which is almost certain with industrial promotion in the
Freeland area. Itshould also be anticipated that there will also be
a need for a grade separation on the major east-west and possibly
north-south routes serving Tri-City Airport.
At the present time, a major physical problem associated with
air transportation is ground access. This problem can be expected to
become even more critical over time. In addition to the access prob¬
lem, there are several other problems which are expected to becou.e
critical within the planning period.
The first problem is the need to control the nature and direction
of growth around the airports, especially Tri-City. The second prob¬
lem which is related and partly a cause of the first is the neeu for
airport expansion within the planning period. Based upon Airport
Operation Forecast the ability of the present airport facilities,
both runway and terminal will be exceeded sometime between 1985 and
1990.8
8Saginaw Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, "Airport Plan"
by Hudgins, Thompson, Ball and Associates, Incorporated.
17
GOALS FOR THE FUTURE
GOALS
The following provides a general summary of suggested physical
development goals upon which the tuo (2) alternate plans have been
developed. The tuo (2) reports, "Issues Analysis" and "Goals and
Objectives" uill provide more specific parameters for plan evaluation.
SOCIAL FABRIC
The primary social goal is to protect individuals from physical
danger and infringement of rights, and to guarantee access to the
necessities of life as uell as promote a sense of stewardship of
public wealth and to provide for the widest range of opportunities
for the enrichment of life for all citizens. Maintenance of safety
and the provision of cultural opportunities are key objectives.
RESIDENTIAL
The major residential development goal is to provide a wide
choice and adequate supDly of housing in safe, healthful, and blight-
free residential neighborhoods. Design and planning innovation are
key environmental objectives for residential development.
COMMERCIAL
The principal commercial development goal is to provide an ade¬
quate supply of goods and services at accessible and attractive sites
which are in harmony with the surrounding land uses and the transpor¬
tation system. The establishment of a functional system of commercial
use clusters represents a key development objective.
INDUSTRIAL
The principal industrial development goal is to attract and pro¬
mote a diversified and balanced industrial base, with an efficient
18
and harmonious distribution of industrial facilities throughout the
County. This is necessary to achieve an expanded and stable County
economy with industrial diversification as a key growth objective.
□PEN SPACE AMD RECREATION
The primary goal for open space and recreation is to enhance the
social, economic, natural, and aesthetic development of the Saginaw
County environment, to establish a harmonious relationship between
the natural landscape and man's use of the land, and to promote and
provide for open space lands of an appropriate character and scale to
meet the neighborhood, community, metropolitan, and regional open
space and recreation needs of Saginaw County. Immediate land ac¬
quisition and long-term development are vital objectives.
TRANSPORTATION
The primary goal for the transportation system is to provide a
balanced intermodel transportation system, including traffic ways,
airports, urban public transportation, railway and water to maximize
the capacities of existing travel modes and to develop a coordinated
land use pattern and transportation network. The correlation of
transportation (local, regional, and state) with land development is
a key objective.
UTILITIES
The primary goal for utilities is to provide adequate and effic¬
ient water, sewer, drainage, telephone, power and solid waste facil¬
ities in order to serve the public's health, safety and convenience^
and at the same time to provide the maximum protection to the natural
environment. Coordinated planning and capital expenditures for
facilities on a feasible basis is a vital objective.
19
HOUSING
The primary goal for housing is to provide a quality supply of
housing in a sufficient quantity to offer a variety of type, sty.le?
and size of duellings as well as a choice in living environments for
all income levels, family sizes and age groups. A housing construc¬
tion program that uill fit the level of demand is a key development
objective.
NATURAL RESOURCES
The primary goal is to promote the best use of natural resources
while protecting the natural environment and conserving needed and
useful natural resources for their own value.
20
'"'URBAN CONGLOMERATE" PLAN
CONGLOMERATE PLAN
AGRICULTURAL
an urban planning
provisions of
SAGINAW COURTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
THE "URBAN CONGLOMERATE" PLAN
The following land use plan has been entitled, The "Urban
Conglomerate" Planj Conglomerate meaning to collect or form into a
mass or meaningful whole. This plan is a combination and refinement
of the "Controlled Trend"' and "Satellite Plans" presented in the re¬
port "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives".
LAND USE STRATEGY
The overall growth strategy is to achieve a more equitable bal¬
ance between rural-urban, suburban and urban growth. Intensive uses,
i.e., commercial, industrial, and medium to high density residential
will be encouraged to cluster in areas with a high degree of access¬
ibility .
Recognizing the likelihood that public funds for slum clearance
and redevelopment will never be sufficient to meet the demand within
the planning period it is assumed that this process will be used only
when no other alternative is available. Instead of major public re¬
newal, it is proposed that land use policies, urban design efforts,
public improvement programs, housing, and code enforcement programs
be designed to encourage rehabilitation and redevelopment efforts
by private individuals and the business community.
Floodplains ; It is proposed that the floodplains of the county'
streams be restricted to open space uses. The filling in or construe
tion of structures within these areas will be prohibited.
Agricultural ; It is proposed that 331 ,425 acres of rural land
be set aside for basically open space uses, i.e., farming, forestry,
conservation, and recreation, etc. Minimum lot size allowed would be
two (2) acres. In addition, it is proposed that another 44,620 acres
on the fringes of the developing urban areas be set aside for pri¬
marily agricultural uses although a feu other selected uses uill also
be alloyed. Minimum lot size alloyed in this area uould be one acre.
Residential; Moderate and high density residential areas uill
be encouraged adjacent to compatible commercial, industrial, and open
space or recreational areas. In addition, multiple family housing
uill be encouraged at intersections uhere commercial development is
not necessarily desirable but higher land values dictate a more inten¬
sive use than single family. Density uould vary from 4.2 to 20 units
per acre in the suburban areas to a maximum of 40 units per acre in
the core urban areas.
Existing single family residential areas should be stabilized
and upgraded through housing and building code enforcement programs.
The interjection of duplex and multi-family housing in basically
single family areas uill be discouraged except as provided in a plan¬
ned unit development. Future single family residential areas should
be laid out on the neighborhood principal uith reasonable provisions
for recreational and educational facilities and protection from in¬
trusion by excessive traffic volume.' . Residential densities uould
vary from 2.7 to 3.8 units per acre
An area of transition should be designated uhich uill define
those areas expected to experience the greatest pressure for urban
grouth during the planning period. This area uould also establish
the ultimate boundary for seuer extension and therefore urban growth
during the planning period. Ljhile this boundary cannot be considered
inflexible, changes should be based upon documentation of actual need.
Residential densities alloyed in this district uould vary from 2.1 to
2.7 units per acre.
23
Commercial ; It is proposed that strip commercial dev/elopment be
discouraged as much as possible. Uhen it cannot be avoided the strips
should be broken up into more uniform commercial districts such as
office, community retail, etc. The creation of commercial centers of
appropriate functional levels at key intersections and areas of high
accessibility will be encouraged. Common access lanes, parking areas,
and similar designs would be encouraged.
Industrial ; Industry will be encouraged to take place in medium
to large industrial zones. Spot zoning for industrial uses will be
discouraged. Attempts to increase and diversify the industrial base
should be made by the creation and active promotion of a number of
large industrial centers. These centers would be developed on a co¬
ordinated basis with the expansion of the various airports and the
south belt freeway serving as important focal points.
TRANSPORTATION
The transportation element features a County Metro Arterial Grid
Network supplemented by secondary arterials and a collector system.
The most unique feature is the development and use of the southbelt
freeway to increase the accessibility of the southern and western
parts of the County to the rest of the Urban Detroit Region. The
allignment of this facility is anticipated to be of prime importance
in improving the distribution of employment opportunities in the
county.
Considerable discussion resulted from the allignment shown in
the initial plan proposals. The basic suggestion at the local level
was that the road be constructed in some of the poorer agricultural
areas running east and west between Birch Run and Clio entering
Saginaw County at the northeast corner of Maple Grove Township and
proceeding west and then heading north toward St. Charles at Chesaninç
24
This alternate location is indicated by a dashed line on the "Urban
Conglomerate Plan" Proposal.
Th8 creation of a major industrial corridor in the Freeland Area
indicates a need for a rail-highway grade separation at Bay, Shattuck,
and Tittabawassee Roads.
The air facilities presented in the proposal reflect the pro¬
posals of the Saginaw fletropolitan Area Transportation Study "Airport
Plan". An additional facility to serve the Hemlock-Merrill Area has
also been indicated although the future need of this facility has
not been documented to date.
Utilities ; A Utilities Plan is being prepared as a parallel
study and will be included in the Draft Land Use Plan following this
report.
25
U R B ft M CENTRIC"' PLAN
CENTRIC PLAN
Rural Agri.
Agrie.
Low Density Trans.
Low Density Res.
Med Density
High Density
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood
Community &
General
v
»,»/ ■»
'H*-?'»'
4 » 4- !4.' 1 ''
Office Bus.
Heavy Ind.
PUBLIC
Public & Quasi - Public
OPEN SPACE
Floodplain & Other Open Space
•: ^ ■ \.u_ i :•'»7
\
!^«S|
PlppSf
jSo -S v.«'« r-is
»S䮫#
iWSf&äiJrh
Scale in 100 feet
The preparation of the map was financed in part through an urban planning
grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions of
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
THE "URBAN CENTRIC" PLAN
The fallowing land use plan has been entitled, "The Urban Centric
Plan"; Centric jwe&fiiTiig located in or near a center, concentrated about
or directed to a center; and/or relating to a nerve center. This plan
is basically a combination and refinement of the Centralization and
Controlled Trend Plan presented in "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives'
and is oriented towards the urbanized metropolitan area as its name
suggests.
LAND USE STRATEGY
The overall growth strategy is to protect the rural portions of
the county from the pressures of urbanization. Like the "Urban Con¬
glomerate" Plan this plan encourages the clustering of intensive uses
in areas with a high degree of accessibility.
It is anticipated the renewal and redevelopment efforts will be
undertaken primarily by the private sector with public support through
land use policies, public improvements, and housing and/or code en¬
forcement programs.
Land use policies are more restrictive than the Conglomerate Plan
forcing a more compact settlement pattern and minimizing the sprawl
effect.
Flo od plain s : It is proposed that the floodplains of the county's
streams be restricted to open space uses. The filling in or construc¬
tion of structures within these areas will be prohibited.
Agricultural ; It is proposed that 402,150 acres of rural land
be set aside for basically open space uses such as farming, forestry,
conservation, recreation, etc. There will be only one (1) agricultur¬
al designation and the minimum lot size required will be two (2) acres,
26
Residential; Moderate and feigh density residential development
again will be encouraged to take place adjacent to commercial and in¬
dustrial areas or in areas with a high degree of accessibility»
where commercial growth is not desired. The number of dwelling
units per acre will remain the same (6.5 or 20 units per acre in the
suburban areas to a maximum of 40 units per acre in the city).
Existing single family residential areas will be stabilized and
upgraded through housing and building code enforcement programs and
selected public improvements. Intrusion of multiple family units in
basically single family areas will be discouraged. Future single
family residential areas will be laid out on the neighborhood prin¬
ciple with reasonable provisions for recreational and educational
facilities and protection from intrusion by excessive traffic volumes.
Dwelling unit densities would vary from 2.7 to 3.3 units per acre
depending on the availability of public sewers.
An area of transition will be designated, delineating those
areas which can be expected tot become urban during the planning per¬
iod, The proposed boundary is more truly reflective of the actual
need for urban land during the planning period and minimizes the a-
mount of sprawl which will take place as well as'the over-extension
of public utilities. Residential densitien- would vary from 2.1 to 2.7
units per acre.
Commercial ; It is proposed that a functional system of commer-
cial clusters be established and that whenever possible strip commer¬
cial growth will be avoided.
Industrial ; Industrial growth will be encouraged to take place
primarily in a few large industrial zones within the metropolitan
area. An attempt will be made to counter balance the industrial
growth on the east side with new industrial growth to the west.
28
Transportation ; The transportation plan features a County-Metro
Arterial Grid Network, supplemented by secondary arterials and prin¬
cipal collectors. The most notable feature of the road network is
the decrease in the number of roads included as secondary arterials
or principal collectors within the rural areas. In addition, a more
northerly location of the southbelt expressway will limit the degree
of access to the southern and western portions of the county, thereby
minimizing the facilities potential as a stimulus to urban growth in
those areas.
The comments generated from the initial plan proposals in regard
to the State Street extension indicate that running this road through
the Dow Corning property could have sufficient detrimental effects to
the production process to make the extension through that property
economically prohibitive. One alternative to that alignment is in¬
dicated by the dashed lines.
The location of extensive industrial activities in the Freeland
Area indicated there will be a need for a rail-highway grade separa¬
tion at Bay, Tittabauasseeand -Shattuck Roads.
The airport proposals indicate expansion proposals at Tri-City
and Saginaw Municipal with the remaining airports maintaining their
current status.
29
PLAN EVALUATION
PLAN EVALUATION
The following evaluation evaluation is provided for each plan in
light of the proposed goals outlined briefly in this report and more
specifically the Goals and Objectives presented in the reports "Issues
Analysis; "Goals and Objectives", and "Transportation Goals, Object¬
ives and Evaluation Criteria."
For each major heading; Residential, Commercial9 Industrial,
Open Space and Recreation, Transportation, Utilities, Housing, and
Natural Resources, an overall Goal uill be offered. In addition, a
set of Proposed Objectives uill be presented in order to offer a basis
for evaluating the two plan proposals in this report. Each alterna¬
tive uill be rated on a scale of one (1) to four (4) (one being the
least favorable and four the most favorable score) as they are viewed
in regard to meeting these objectives.
It should be noted that the ratings will generally be high for
both alternatives because these are two of the more desirable altern¬
atives. The ratings are also relative, therefore, rarely will they
be the same for each alternative. In addition, many of the goals
tend to be contradictory in that to pursue one to an extreme would
negate the satisfactory achievement of another. For an example, the
goal of "choice of location" for housing if followed to the ultimate
would be contradictory to the goal of "economy".
Finally, a Policy Recommendation will be made in regard to future
courses of action.
NOTE ; Many goals cannot be related specifically to a plan configura¬
tion but require a positive program to be achieved. Those goals that
fall in this category will be given a "NA" Not Applicable in the rat¬
ing column. Future and parallel studies now in progress will detail
an action program to achieve these objectives. It should be pointed
out that the two plan proposals have been rated for most goals that
can be associated even indirectly if there is a tendency for one al¬
ternative to increase the likelihood of achieving a goal over the
other alternatives.
30
Residential and Houaino Goals;
To provide a uide choice and adequate supply of housing in safe,
healthful, and blight-free residential neighborhoods.
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
1. To maintain the structural integrity of the 2 3
existing housing stock.
2. To enhance the range of housing choice, both 3 3
in terms of type, location, and price range
for all people in the county.
3. To adequately provide for the lou and moderate 3 4
income, as well as elderly housing needs for
the urbanizing townships, as well as rural
villages and cities in Saginaw County.
4. To lessen the concentration of low income and 4 3
moderate housing in a limited and restricted
geographical area.
5. To reduce existing ghetto areas and avoid the 4 3
creation of new ones.
6. To increase the price range of available housing. 3 3
7. To benefit from and give support to a future 2 4
county-wide transit system.
8. To provide a large number of housing facilities 3 4
within walking distance of employment and shop¬
ping .
9. To make use of the large utility systems serving 3 4
the employment centers.
10. To increase the number of residents with access 3 3
to parks and other natural amenities.
11. To produce residential areas that possess visual 3 4
diversity and interest.
12. To allow for social and economic diversity- 3 3
13. To preserve special terrain features as common 3 4
open spaces.
14. To encourage developers to build in large 3 4
increments, using innovative construction
methods.
15. To construct an appropriate mixture of resi- 3 4
dential types.
31
:i
rt
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Alternative
Proposed Objectives Conglomérate
To insure protection of the public health and 3
uelfare in areas not serviced by public sever
and uater, and to reduce the public service costs
incurred with a scattered random pattern of
residential development.
To establish and further the functional and 2
visual distinction betueen the urban and rural
environment.
To eliminate a scattered isolated pattern of 2
subdivision development in areas designated as
agricultural or lou density zones.
To provide a long-range solution for the develop- 2
ment of a semi-rural living environment in the
county area.
To contribute to sound long-range planning and 3
programming of utilities and transportation.
To maintain the basic quality and integrity of 2
the physical environment of selected rural
areas in the county.
To practice economy in the installation of 3
utilities.
To reduce ground erosion and damage to streets, 2
curbs, and gutters.
To eliminate, wherever possible, the double 2
expense of replacing on-site facilities uith
central systems.
To prevent pollution of soil and ground uater. 3
To help bring about the residential develop- 3
ment pattern to be depicted in the over-all
development plan.
To provide for a consistency and uniformity in 4
the residential development pattern betueen
local governmental units.
To further innovation in land development con- 4
cepts and subdivision design.
To promote and further the distinction of 3
future utility service districts for the
county as a uhole.
To encourage the adoption of neu building l\IA
materials and cost saving construction
techniques.
32
Alternative Rating
Proposed Qb.iectives Conglomerate Centric
31. To provide the local governmental units with 2 4
an increased control over residential develop¬
ment activity.
32. To provide a continuous monitoring of the NA NA
County's housing supply and housing needs.
The residential development pattern depicted in the tu/o plan al¬
ternatives in many respects are vary similar, i.e., residential types
are distributed in a like manner and in many cases are the same. The
tu/o differ basically in terms of amount of land devoted to residential
use. The "Conglomerate Plan" offers the maximum degree of choice in
terms of housing location and density patterns, hou/ever, it does this
at the expense of economy.
Costs for providing urban services will naturally be higher in
the Conglomerate Plan because of the larger area to be served.
It is recommended that in the final plan proposal the basic resi¬
dential land use pattern shoun in the centric plan be utilized as
the dominent characteristic. Recognizing the inherent pressures for
some development to take place in close proximity to the urbanizing
area it is also recommended that the tuo agricultural districts be
maintained to offer some relief u/ith out imposing excessive burdens
on municipal services or endangering the public health.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Commercial Goal;
To provide an adequate supply of goods and services at access¬
ible and attractive sites uhich are in harmony uith the surrounding
land uses and the transportation system.
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives _ Conglomerate Centric
To offer varied development sites suitable 4 4
for a variety of commercial establishments
in order to increase the supply and diversity
of goods and services available to the vari¬
ous portions of the county.
To increase the efficiency of the commercial 3 4
development activities.
To reduce public costs in providing public 3 4
services and utilities to commercial areas.
To provide identity and focus for complement- 3 4
ary activities.
To increase the compatibility of commercial 3 4
service areas to the other land use activities.
To provide a primary commercial focal point 3 3
uith non-commercial metropolitan facilities
uhich provides individuality and identity and
offers a superior choice of goods and services
to Saginau County.
To effectively utilize and develop the other 2 4
older core commercial centers uithin the metro¬
politan area, and the commercial areas located
in the rural communities of the county.
To give identity, individuality and focus in 3 4
existing and developing urban areas and to
establish a series of commercial centers in
the outer portions of the county to provide a
community focus.
To provide modern shopping facilities for 3 4
older established portions of Saginau County.
To conserve the existing investment made in 34
the older commercial centers.
To aid in reneual and attraction of investment 3 4
money for improving other kinds of development.
34
;i
ü_t
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Proposed Objectives
Alternative
Conglomerate
To provide for diversification of the local-
regional economy.
To increase commercial employment.
To integrate commercial facilities with the
transportation circulation system.
To reduce the traffic conflict among users.
To diminish the traffic interference gener¬
ated by strip commercial development activ¬
ities in order to maintain the traffic flou
and volume capacity of major arterial streets
and highways.
To improve the functional and aesthetic
quality of commercial design.
To make commercial facilities more adaptable
to changes in merchandisings transportations
and general technology.
To develop complementary functions and visual
relationships among adjacent uses.
To increase accessibility among complementary
uses.
To allow complementary uses and commercial
activities to reinforce one another.
To provide for daily shopping needs within
five (5) minutes driving time and easy walk¬
ing distance of residences in built-up parts
of the County.
To separate frequent convenience type shopping
trips from the regional and metropolitan
oriented commercial shopping areas.
To separate operations geared primarily to
serve the motoring public which involves
heavy automobile movements and a large amount
of surface parking from the conventional com¬
mercial center operations.
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
35
Vi"tú úwü pian alternatives treat commercial activity in much the
same way. However, just as the conglomerate will increase the tendency
of residential sprawl, it uill also increase the tendency towards
commercial sprawl. Additionally, the Centric Plan provides a greater
focus on the existing commercial centers, especially in the rural
villages and cities.
It is recommended that the basic commercial pattern of the Cen¬
tric Plan be utilized in the final plan formulation as the dominent
characteristic.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O
1
Industrial Goal;
To attract and promote a diversified and balanced industrial base,
uith an efficient and harmonious distribution of industrial facilities
throughout the County.
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
To encourage a diversified and balanced in- 4 4
dustrial base promoting the effective use of
the county's human and natural resources in
order to create an expanding, yet stable
economy.
To encourage the efficient and harmonious 4 2
distribution of industrial facilities and
employment in both the urban and rural
portions of the county.
To provide for all types of industries 3 2
uith planned, improved, and strategic
sites uithin the existing and proposed
pattern of transportation and land use.
To provide industrial districts in a size 4 3
range adequate for planning and sharing
of facilities.
To provide a reasonable reserve of land for 4 3
future industrial development and expansion.
To minimize industrial land-development costs. 4 3
To protect the capital investments of occupant 4 4
industries from uncontrolled development.
To provide a more efficient industrial en- 3 4
vironment by providing ready access to shop¬
ping and commercial facilities.
To serve as a potential customer for com- 4 4
mercial, retail, and service functions.
To increase the choice of space and location 4 3
for the small industrial and quasi-industrial
firms that can operate most efficiently uith¬
in commercial or business centers.
To more effectively utilize available floor 3 4
space in commercial districts uhich otheruise
cannot or uill not be used for commercial
activities.
37
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
12. To increase possibilities of economical develop- 3 4
ment of mass transit by increasing close-in em¬
ployment .
13. To locate industrial parks and districts at 44
sites of cross-directional movement for better
collection and distribution of goods and ser¬
vices as uell as the movement of employees.
14. To increase the amount of land available for 2 3
industrial development uithin the built-up
sections of the urban area.
15. To put as much land as possible in the 2 4
deteriorating built-up industrial districts
into maximum productive use, which is com¬
patible with the adjacent land uses.
16. To protect the health and welfare of resi- 3 4
dents of Saginaw County by providing guide¬
lines and controls for improving and main¬
taining high standards of industrial develop¬
ment and operation within the County in terms
of soil, air, and water ,, , .
pollution.
17. To minimize industrial blight and the blight- 3 4
ing effects of industries on their neighbors,
18. To make the management of metropolitan in- 3 4
dustrial development and key industry related
issues more effective by providing a unified
plan direction.
19. To provide a continuous monitoring of the l\IA NA
efforts to achieve the county's industrial
goals by the participating individuals, cor¬
porations, and agencies.
The basic difference between the two alternatives is basically
one of quantity, the Centric Plan showing fewer industrial sites.
It is recommended that the final plan generally reflect the in¬
dustrial pattern of the Centric Alternative. The basic premise for
industrial designation being good access to metro and regional arter-
ials and the need to provide industrial employment opportunities in
the direction of the population growth. Locally, there is a need to
38
key public activities on those larger sites with the best industrial
potential and to avoid watering down promotional efforts with the
shotgun approach. The major problem to be faced, especially in the
northern and western part of the metropolitan area will be the pro¬
vision of utilities to make those sites truly competitive.
39
Open Space and Recreation Goal ;
To enhance the social, economic, natural, and aesthetic develop¬
ment of the Saginaw County environment, to establish a harmonious
relationship between the natural landscape and man's use of the land,
and to promote and provide for open space lands of an appropriate
character and scale to meet the neighborhood, community, metropolitan
and regional open space and recreation needs of Saginaw County.
Proposed Objectives
Alternative Rating
Conglomerate Centric
1. To insure adequate recreational facilities for
the citizens of Saginaw County.
2» To enhance the over-all aesthetic and environ¬
mental framework of the County by establishing
a clear differentiation between urban and rural
and by providing for the open space and recrea¬
tional needs of Saginaw County.
3. To preserve features and artifacts of signifi¬
cance in the county's history and culture and
also to preserve wildlife, scenic areas and
other natural resources.
4. To provide for the fullest possible benefit to
be made of the county's rivers and streams.
5. To improve the county's public image and the
pride of its residents by exposing its scenic
resources to public view.
6. To provide a means of improving the county's
desirability as a place in which to live,
thereby increasing its competitive economic
position in attracting new industry and com¬
merce.
7. To increase the benefit from both roadway con¬
struction and county scenic qualities by
making coordinated use of both.
8. To minimize pressures for inappropriate
development in floodplain and agricultural
areas.
40
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives _ Conglomerate Centric
9. To prevent potential public liability which 4 4
may be incurred if extensive urban develop¬
ment activities were to take place within
floodplain areas.
10. To preserve the integrity of the agricul- 3 4
tural resource base of the county and to
maintain the open space character of agri¬
cultural areas as a scenic resource.
11. To ensure that property taxes do not penalize NA NA
the private owners of lands needed for and
committed to use as public open space.
12. To avoid imposing utility system costs on open 3 4
space or park lands.
13. To minimize the blighting effects of utility 3 4
lines on open spaces.
14. To establish cohesive and well defined ser- 4 4
vice areas for an over-all county wide rec¬
reation system.
15. To provide convenient access to at least one 4 4
metropolitan-level day-use recreation facility
for every person in the Saginaw County.
16. To obtain close-in sites which, although more 3 4
expensive, will be used more than sites farther
from population concentrations. Increasing
the benefits received per private and public
dollars spent on recreation.
17. To provide the needed recreation space within 3 4
areas that will become urbanized during trio
next 10 to 30 years before it is taken for
other uses and before land costs rise to full
urban value.
18. To achieve a balance between developed and NA NA
total land area and a balance between the
funding of facilities and their use so that
facilities are neither over-developed and
under-utilized nor over-utilized and under¬
developed .
19. To ensure that the county's recreation system NA NA
includes those facilities that cannot other¬
wise be practically provided.
41
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
20. To make the most effective use of those natural 3 4
resources having a metropolitan use potential.
21. To provide a variety of day-use outdoor recrea- 3 4
tion facilities to fill the needs of as large
a proportion of potential users as possible,
including those who would engage in the most
popular activities as defined by the U. S.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreations
Most Popular Recreation Activities
Walking for pleasure
Swimming
Driving for pleasure
Playing outdoor sports
Bicycling
Horseback Riding
Note; Based on a 1965
door Recreation
Watching outdoor sports
Boating
Nature Walks
Hunting
Camping
Picnicing
Fishing
Water Skiing
Hiking
Sightseeing
national survey by the U. S. Bureau of Out-
The recreation facilities in the two alternatives are basically
the same. However, in terms of minimizing the sprawl pattern and
offering a definate break between urban and rural the Centric Altern¬
ative is infinitely superior.
It is felt that the Centric Plan would be more acceptable locally
if a more gradual break is provided between the urbanizing and the
truly rural area. Therefore, the residential pattern utilized in
the final plan will be the Centric Configuration with both agricul¬
tural districts utilized.
42
Utilities Goal;
To provide adequate and efficient water, sewer, drainage, tele¬
phone, power and solid waste facilities in order to serve the public's
health, safety, and convenience and at the same time to provide the
maximum protection to the natural environment.
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
1. To remove threats to public health or safety. 3 4
2. To maintain or improve the quality of the 3 4
environment ¿
3. To lessen the conflict between aesthetic values 4 4
and service needs.
4. To reduce the general level of air and water 3 4
pollution.
5. To lessen the potential conflict among service 2 3
facilities and adjacent land-users.
6. To prevent the pollution of soil and ground 3 4
water by on-site sewage disposal in urban areas.
7. To eliminate the double expense of replacing 2 4
on-site sewer and water facilities with central
systems.
8. To allocate resources to achieve maximum economy 3 4
and efficiency of service.
9. To reduce damage to streets, curbs, and gutters 3 4
and the erosion of the ground, thereby reducing
the cost of public improvements installation
and maintenance.
10. To evaluate and balance both the current and 3 4
anticipated needs of area residents.
11. To provide less disruptive, more effective 3 4
utility systems by calculating the economic
and social side effects of specific develop¬
ment proposals.
12. To serve existing development. 4 4
13. To provide service to all parts of the county 3 3
that need or will need public systems.
43
Proposed Objectives
Alternative Rating
Conglomerate Centric
14. To reinforce land use proposals with
utility policies to help guide and
shape future development in accordance
with local and county objectives.
15. To avoid the expense of providing cen¬
tral seuer and uater service to areas
where physical features result in ex¬
cessive costs for central utilities.
16. To permit, in areas with suitable soil and
ground water supply, semi-rural housing on
lots ranging from 40,000 to 80,000 square
feet or larger.
17. To reduce the dangers of above-ground
wired poles and pipes.
18. To minimize distruptions of service normally
caused by rain, wind, sleet, ice, or fire.
19. To improve the quality and desirability of
the countyls environment.
20. To establish urbanization effectiveness,
timely response, and economic efficiency in
expanding service.
21. To provide an equitable distribution of
costs and benefits.
22. To eliminate the disparities of accessibility,
availability and costs of solid waste disposal
facilities between urban and rural parts of
the county.
23. To make more effective and efficient use of
existing solid waste disposal facilities and
sites.
24. To reduce,whenever possible, local operating
costs associated with the operation of solid
waste disposal sites and facilities.
25. To uniformly provide for compliance with
applicable state legislation governing the
operation of solid waste disposal sites.
NA
4
NA
3
3
3
3
NA
4
NA
4
4
4
4
Although utility plans have not been developed as yet, there are
several points worthy of mention in regard to the provision of
44
utilities and the tuo plan configurations. The first point is that
the minimization of residential sprawl will reduce the cost of utili¬
ties. The second point being that if utilities are not to be provided
this should be reflected in larger lot sizes. Finally, suburban or
urban lot sizes should only be allowed where extensions from an exist¬
ing or proposed system are feasible and within an area which is truly
reflective of the particular areas growth potential so that provision
of utilities is economically feasible.
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O
1
Natural Resources Goal;
To promote the best use of this county's natural resources while
protecting the natural environment and conserving needed and useful
natural resources for their own value.
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
To maintain or improve the county's competitive 3 4
economic position by preserving a clean, safe,
and healthful environment.
To maintain and improve the quality of air ue 3 4
breath through the reduction and/or elimina¬
tion of polluting emissions into the atmos¬
phere.
To protect ground water supplies for those who 3 4
must continue to use this source of water.
To protect the county's surface water from pol- 3 4
lution so that this valuable resource can be
used for municipio water supplies in case of
emergencies and for agricultural, industrial,
commercial, and recreational purposes.
To reduce the possibility of floods and pro- 4 4
vide for the necessary recharge of the ground
water system by preserving natural ponding
areas.
To preserve the floodplains as open space. 4 4
To minimize the potential health and safety 4 4
threats as well as property damage by pre¬
serving the streams capacity to carry ex¬
cessive run-off.
To reduce the public subsidy, including the 4 4
cost of levees and flood rescue, that is ex¬
pended on those areas periodically covered
by flood waters.
To provide for the dual use of land for recrea- 3 3
tion and protection.
To conserve wildlife and natural areas. 3 4
To minimize the conversion of sub-marginal 3 4
land for urban development.
46
Proposed Objectives
Alternative Rating
Conglomerate Centric
12. To provide as much of the open space system 2 2
as possible on land of lou cost.
13. To avoid polluting ground or surface waters 3 4
from surface run-off.
14. To provide for the future treatment of part 3 4
of the run-off water if this becomes neces¬
sary to maintain water quality of the streams
in urban and urbanizing areas.
The Centric Plan, by reducing the amount of land that is avail¬
able to urban use will minimize the conflicts with the natural
environment provided an appropriate urban design principals are
followed.
47
Transportation Goal;
To develop an efficient intermodel transportation system uhich
offers equality of access to urban opportunity provides urban develop¬
ment options, congestion relief, and enhances the sociological, en¬
vironmental and aesthetic value.
Proposed
ROADS
actives
Alternative Rating
Conglomerate Centric
1 o To provide accessibility by the total popula¬
tion to major and secondary generators such
as the Central Business District, major em¬
ployment centers, major shopping facilities
and institutional functions as well as inter¬
model transport terminals.
2. To provide direct service to the above.
3. To provide a primary and secondary arterial
grid system for existing and predicted cor¬
ridors having trip length and travel density
characteristics indicative of state-uide,
regional, or metro-uide travel, or those
characteristics indicative of support to pri¬
mary arterials and lesser mobility needs.
4. To provide a collector street system for the
collection and distribution of trips to and
from arterials.
5. To provide service uhich minimizes indirection
of travel and travel time and offers rapid
travel within arterial corridors.
6. To minimize vehicle accidents and fatalities.
7. To foster pedestrian safety and minimize
existing and potential pedestrian-vehicle
accidents.
8. To improve street lighting at high density
travel locations.
9. To improve traffic informational and direction¬
al signs.
3
4
3
l\IA
IMA
l\IA
3
4
4
IMA
NA
NA
48
10.
11.
12.
13.
14,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
im
tr:
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
NA
4
2
2
4
4
Alternative
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate
To minimize existing and potential congestion 3
through metro-wide traffic management systems
and improved advance right-of-uay preserva¬
tion or acquisition.
To minimize barriers to movement on the arte- 3
rial grid system from shipping and railway
activities„
To minimize congestion on the road network 4
due to inadequate off-street parking, es¬
pecially at major traffic generators.
To preserve the public investment in the 3
existing arterial system, and to promote
a reduction in maintenance and user costs.
To increase urban development options by 4
increasing the accessibility of open land
with prime development potential.
To discourage urban sprawl and foster the 3
preservation of prime agricultural land
and other open space lands.
To foster the concentration of development 3
along arterials and corridors in an organ¬
ized pattern.
To compliment the "Urban Public Transporta- 3
tion" and "Aviation" systems.
To enhance regional accessibility and pro- 4
mote a viable metro-economy.
To foster efficiency in the movement of NA
goods through trucking route designation.
To reduce travel on local residential 3
streets and to promote cohesive neighbor¬
hoods .
To minimize the dislocation of residences 3
and businesses.
To minimize the adverse affects of inten- 2
sive use facilities and corridors.
To preserve sites and facilities of historic 4
value.
To enhance the view of, and from, the highway 3
facilities.
49
Proposed Objectives
25, To achieve a system of scenic routes and im¬
prove the accessibility to recreation areas,
26. To minimize the harmful effects of pollution
associated not only with motor vehicles but
also the construction and maintenance of the
roadway as well.
Alternative Rating
Conglomerate Centric
NA
NA
The transportation system as depicted in the Centric Plan offers
the most economical system in relation to the plan proposal, however,
as the changes are made in the land use pattern, the proposal will
have to be modified. This alignment of the southbelt expressway does
not really serve the metro area as a major urban expressway and to
provide the alignment to do so would result in the defeat of its
intended function as a major north-south state through route. It is
therefore recommended to use the second alternate alignment in the
Conglomerate Plan which will provide a stimulus to growth in the
outlying urban centers and hopefully foster a more equitable distri¬
bution of employment opportunities. Initially, it appears that the
second alternative alignment of the State Street extension or some
modification of that alignment might be more appropriate.
Both systems do reflect a defined functional classification
system with primary and secondary arterial grid networks.
50
filternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1. Not only to provide direct service to the 2 4
central business district, hospitals, ed¬
ucational institutions and other major
generators, but also to provide service
tu the secondary generators.
2. To provide a minimum of coverage for all 2 4
citizens,
3. To minimize walking distance, waiting time, 2 4
and transfers.
4. To maintain minimum spacing between transit NA NA
stops.
5. To provide rapid transit service on existing 3 4
corridor routes and those where total pre¬
dicted or actual demand exceeds 1,000 passen¬
ger trips a day.
6. To provide a local distribution system of 34
transit terminals.
7. To provide congestion relief on the highway 3 4
system in those corridors where there are
limited capacities.
8. To increase the efficiency of street utili- 2 3
zation through reserved lanes for transit or
multi-passenger automobiles where feasible.
9. To increase mobility within the central busi- 4 4
ness district.
10. To increase growth in underdeveloped areas. 1 4
11. To reduce urban sprawl. 2 4
12. To encourage a concentration of development 2 4
along specific corridors.
13. To promote expanded choice of housing for 2 4
those dependent on transit service.
14. To offer inc reased potential for redevelop- 2 4
ment of core areas.
15. To maintain a low fare structure for those NA NA
dependent upon public transportation.
51
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives
16.
To reduce direct city subsidization of
public transit.
NA
MA
17.
To reduce city cost of providing additional
parking in the central business district.
MA
MA
18.
To increase the economic viability of the
central business district.
2
4
19.
To preserve public investment in the exist¬
ing system.
2
4
20.
To increase mobility and access opportunities
for the elderly, the socially disadvantaged
and the school age groups which are dependent
upon transit service.
2
4
21 .
To reduce maintenance cost of transit fleet.
MA
MA
22.
To maintain the newest equipment possible
providing the maximum facility for entrances
and exits.
MA
MA
23.
To minimize discomfort due to fuel odors and
fumes.
MA
MA
24.
To maximize riding comfort.
MA
MA
25.
To maximize riding and loading availability.
MA
MA
26.
To maximize metro-regional management system
capabilities.
MA
MA
27.
To achieve short-range and long-range coordin¬
ated system planning.
MA
MA
a
CO
CM
To achieve a flexible funded rapid transit
program reflective of management and facility
needs.
MA
MA
29.
To reduce noise and air pollution.
MA
MA
Uhile the objectives of raaas transit do not relate specifically
to the two alternatives directly, they do indirectly. Like any other
public service, mass transit cannot be efficiently provided in a
sprawl situation. Therefore, the Centric offers the best configura¬
tion to encourage the use of mass transit, and thereby itself be re¬
inforced.
52
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
AIR
1.
To achieve a coordinated county-regional air¬
port system with the development of a regional
air traffic "hub53 facility and the development
of a separate primary airport for "general
aviation",,
4
4
2.
To provide for the development of secondary
"general aviation" facilities.
4
4
3.
To promote long-term transportation changes
for access between cities of intermediate
distance with vertical and short take-off
landing aircraft.
NA
NA
4.
To maximize convenient parking.
4
4
5.
To maximize terminal amenities.
NA
NA
6.
To provide and maintain commercial air passenger
related services and facilities.
4
4
7.
To provide and maintain air traffic related
services and facilities.
4
4
8.
To minimize air facility congestion.
4
4
9.
To minimize user congestion.
4
4
10.
To improve advance land acquisition and open
land preservation.
3
4
11.
To improve existing regional "hub" facility
capability.
4
4
12.
To improve existing "general aviation"
facility capability.
4
4
13.
To meet future demands.
4
4
14.
To preserve public investment in existing
system.
3
4
15.
To protect air space from obstructions.
4
4
16.
To prevent air communication interruption.
4
4
17.
To provide airport and environs land develop¬
ment control.
3
4
18.
To provided regional "hub" accessibility for
total population.
4
3
53
Alternative Rating
Proposed Objectives Conglomerate Centric
19.
To provide appropriate accessibility to
general aviation facilities.
3
2
20.
To achieve expanded development of avia¬
tion capability for commodities trans¬
portation.
NA
NA
21 .
To increase economic viability of the region.
4
4
22.
To minimize user cost.
NA
NA
23.
To establish economic development opportunities.
4
3
24.
To increase national-international mobility.
4
4
25.
To increase regional mobility.
4
4
26.
To offer expanded business and industrial
site locations with required services.
4
3
27.
To reduce urban sprawl.
NA
NA
28.
To minimize adverse effects of noise and air
pollution.
4
4
29.
To implement environmental land use controls.
3
4
30.
To enhance opportunities of open lands as
conservation and recreation areas.
4
4
31 .
To enhance beautification of airport facilities.
4
4
32.
To enhance mobility for cultural and recrea¬
tional accessibility.
4
4
33.
To achieve flexible and funded air programs
reflective of local needs.
NA
NA
34.
To achieve County Airport Commission for
development of general aviation facilities
and promotion of regional "hub" facility.
NA
NA
35.
To achieve recognition of airport facilities
within appropriate State and Federal agency
plans.
NA
NA
26.
To achieve complete 3 county regional support
for operation of regional "hub" facility.
NA
NA
54
THE NEXT STEP
EPILOGUE
Baaed upon the preceeding evaluation the "Centric" configuration
comes closest to fulfilling the greatest number of objectives pre¬
sented in this report. Therefore, the draft of the Final Land Use
Plan will of prepared utilizing the Centric configuration as the
dominant characteristic. Changes uill be made to this configuration
based on the review and comments generated from the study of this
report as well as the results of parallel studies currently in pro¬
gress .
It is noted that many of the objectives presented in this report
had a "NA" (Not Applicable) designation with regard to the two plan
configurations. In additon, a great many other related only indirect¬
ly to the land use configurations. These objectives can only be
achieved through a number of action programs. The direction these
programs should take will be detailed in parallel studies now in
process or those to be undertaken in the near future.
55
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
BY SECTOR (TWO-DIGIT S. I. C. ) IN THE SAGINAW SMSA TO 1990 *+
(Thousands)
1958
1960
1963
1967
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Total nonagricultural employment
: 51.3
55.4
56.8
67.7
72.5
81.0
90. 3
98.1
104.3
share
100.0«
100. 0*
100. 0%
100.0*
100. 0*
100.0«
100. 0«
100.0%
100.0*
Contract construction
■
2.5
2.6
2.6
3. S
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
share
4.9«
4. 7*
4. 6*
5. 2*
4.1%
4. 3«
4.4*
4.6«
4. 7%
Manufacturing
21.8
24.4
25.4
30.9
34.6
38. 3
42. 2
45.0
47.0
share
42. 3«
44.0*
44. 8«
45. 6«
47. 7*
47.3«
46.7«
45.9«
45.0«
Durable goods
18. 7
21.5
22.3
27. 1
30.6
34. 3
38.1
40. 8
42.7
share
36. 5«
38. 8*
39. 3*
40.0«
42. 2*
42. 3*
42.2«
41, S*
40.9*
Lumber and wood
. 1
. 1
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
.2
.2
. 3
share
. 2«
. 2«
.4*
. 1«
. 1%
. 1«
. 2«
.2*
.3«
Metals
7.2
8.2
8.6
10.6
11.9
13.6
IS. 3
16.4
17.0
share
14.0«
14. 8*
15. 2*
15. 7*
16.4*
16. 8*
16.9*
16.7*
16.3*
Primary
6.5
7.5
7.9
9.5
10.8
12.5
14.0
15.0
15.6
share
12.7?«
13.5*
13.9«
14.0*
14.9*
15.4«
15.5*
15. 3«
14.9*
Fabricated
. 7
.7
.8
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1.2
1. 3
1.3
share
1.4«
1. 3*
1.4«
1.6«
1.5*
1.4*
1.3*
1. 3%
1.2«
Machinery - nonelectrical
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4. 1
4. 1
4.2
share
7. 8%
7. 4«
7.1*
5. 8*
5. 5%
4.9*
4.5«
4. 2%
4.0*
Transportation equipment
6.1
7.7
8. 1
10.7
12.7
14.6
16.5
18.0
19.0
share
11.7*
13.9*
14. 3*
15. 8*
17. 5*
18.0«
18.3*
18. 3*
18. 2*
Motor vehicles and equipment
5.8
7.4
7.8
10.4
12.4
14.3
16. 1
17.6
18.6
share
11. 3*
13.4*
13. 8*
15.4«
17. 1*
17. 7«
17. 8«
17.9*
17.8«
Other transportation
. 3
.3
.3
.3
. 3
.3
.4
.4
.4
share
.4*
.5*
.5*
.4*
.4*
.4«
.4«
.4*
.4*
Other durables
1.4
.1.4
1.4
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
share
2. 7*
2. 5«
2. 5«
2.7*
2. 6*
2.5*
2. 2*
2.1*
2.1«
Nondurable goods
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4. 1
4.2
4.3
share
5. 8«
5.2*
5. 3%
5. 6*
5. 5*
4.9*
4. S*
4. 3*
4.1*
Food and kindred products
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
share
4.3«
3. 8«
3.5*
3. 5«
3.4*
3.0*
2.7«
2. 5*
2. 5%
Printing and publishing
.4
.4
.4
.5
.6
.6
.7
.7
. 7
share
. 8«
.7*
.7*
.7«
. 8«
.7*
.7*
.7*
.7*
Other nondurables
.4
.4
. 6
.9
.9
.9
.9
1.0
1.0
share
. 8*
.7*
1. 1%
1.3*
1.2*
1. 1*
.9«
1.0«
1.0%
Transportation and public utilities
4.7
4.8
3.8
4. S
4.6
4.7
4. 8
4.9
5.0
share
9.2«
8. 7*
6.7*
6.6*
6. 3*
5. 8*
5.3*
5.0*
4. 8*
Wholesale and retail trade
10.2
10.7
11.0
12.8
13.7
15.7
18.0
19.5
21.0
share
19.9«
19.3«
19.4*
18.9«
18.9*
19.4*
19.9«
19. 8*
20.1*
Wholesale
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.9
3. 1
3. 3
3.5
3.8
share
5.1*
4.9«
4.6*
4.1*
4.0*
3.8*
3.6«
3.6*
3. 6*
Retail
7.6
8.0
8.3
10.0
10. 8
12.6
14. 7
16.0
17.2
share
14. 8*
14.4*
14.6*
14. 7*
14.9*
15.5*
16.3*
16.3*
16.5*
Fire
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.7
3.2
4.7
5.3
share
2.5*
2.7*
2.6*
2.7«
' 2.8«
3.3«
3.5*
4.8*
5.0*
Services and mining
5.6
5.9
6.4
7.3
7.5'
8.0
8.7
9. 1
9.6
share
10.9*
10.6*
11.3*
10.8*
10.3*
9. 8*
9.6«
9.2*
9.2*
Government
5.2
5.5
6.1
6.9
7. 1
8. 1
9.4
10.4
11.4
share
10. 1*
9.9«
10.8*
10.2«
9. 7«
10.0«
10.4*
10.6*
10.9«
Local
4. 3
4.5
4.9
5.8
5.9
6.6
7.6
8.2
8.8
share
8.4*
8.1«
8. 6*
8.6*
8.1«
8. 1«
8.4*
8.4«
8.4*
State and federal
.9
1.0
1. 2
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.6
share
1.8*
1. 8«
2. 1*
1.6«
1.6*
1.9*
2.0*
2.2*
2.5*
* Does not include self-employed, household workers and unpaid family workers.
+ Estimates for 1967 are monthly averages.
Sources: Real Estate Research Corporation, Economic and Land Absorption Study, Community Renewal Program, Saginaw
Michigan. Table 9, Page 50, October, 1964; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Employment and Earnings Statistics for States and Areas. 1939-67, Bulletin No. 1370-S, August, 1968.
56
APPENDIX II
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
19701
2
Revised
1970
1970-19901
Increase
19901
Revised'
1990
Saginau County
224,900
217,787
87,400
312,300
305,187
Albee Tup.
2,141
2,252
292
2,433
2,544
Birch Run Tup*
4,300
4,650
900
5,200
5,550
Blumfield Tup.
1 ,900
1 ,847
800
2,700
2,647
Brady Tup.*
1 ,759
1 ,936
412
2,171
2,348
Brant Tup.
1 ,300
1 ,362
600
1 ,900
1 ,962
Bridgeport Tup.
11 ,900
12,752
8,100
20,000
20,852
Buena Vista Tup.
15,500
13,670
4,500
20,000
18,170
Carrollton Tup.
8,300
8,526
4,700
13,000
13,226
Chapin Tup.
796
849
246
1 ,038
1 ,095
Chesaning Tup.*
5,000
5,262
1 ,700
6,700
6,962
Frankenmuth Tup.*
4,600
4,691
4,200
8,800
8,891
Fremont Tup.
1 ,459
1 ,462
889
2,348
2,351
Barnes Tup.
1 ,900
1 ,990
1 ,100
3,000
3,090
Donesfield Tup.*
2,100
1 ,991
900
2,000
1 ,891
Kochville Tup.
2,300
2,379
8,100
10,400
10,479
Lakefield Tup.
841
788
211
1 ,052
999
Maple Grove Tup.
2,459
2,523
608
3,067
3,131
Footnotes ;
''population Estimate from "Estimates and Projections of Economic and Dem¬
ographic Characteristics, Saginau County Michigan", by Real Estate Re¬
search Corporation, November, 1969.
^Preliminary 1970 Census Reports.
3This is an adjusted 1990 projection based upon the preliminary 1970
census added to the Real Estate Research population increase of
1970-1990.
Includes the village or city.
57
APPENDIX II
POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
(continued)
19701
?
Revised
1970
1970-19901
Increase
19901
Revise
1990
Marion Tup.
649
670
142
791
812
Richland Tup.
3,300
3,499
3,200
6,500
6,699
Saginau Tup.
24,100
27,115
15,900
40,000
43 ,015
Saginau City
101,000
90,603
9,500
110,500
100,103
St. Charles Tup.*
3,800
3,743
2,400
6,200
6,143
Spaulding Tup.
3,000
3,387
1 ,000
4,000
4,387
Suan Creek Tup.
2,100
1 ,959
2,500
4,600
4,459
Taymouth Tup.
3,100
3,198
1 ,100
4,200
4,298
Thomas Tup.
8,000
8,503
8 ,000
16,000
16,503
Tittabauassee Tup.
4,900
4,009
3,600
8 ,500
7,609
Ziluaukee Tup.*
2,400
2,171
1 ,800
4,200
3,971
58
APPENDIX III
SAGINAU COUNTY LAND USE
1970
1990
Residential
23,628
29,679
Commercial
1 ,603
2,040
Industrial
2,964
3,848
Recreational
14,673
15,933
Transportation
22,736
29,619
Public
4,234
5,958
Undeveloped
462,325
445,086
TOTAL
532,163
532,163
Source; Estimates and Projections of Economic & Demographic
Characteristics, Saginaw County, Michigan, by Real
Estate Research Corporation, November, 1969.
59
APPENDIX IV
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
PUBLISHED REPORTS s
1. "1965 Origin and Destination Study Internal Address Summary Sample
Data", Michigan Department of State Highways.
2. "1965 Origin and Destination Study Single Zone Trip Table by Mode",
Michigan Department of State Highways.
3. "1965 Origin and Destination Study Single Zone Trip Table by Pur¬
pose", Michigan Department of State Highways.
4. "1965 Origin and Destination Study Trip Generation Analysis",
Michigan Department of State Highways.
5. "Saginaw 1965 Network Capacity Data", Michigan Department of State
Highways.
6. "1965 Trip Distribution Analysis", Michigan Department of State
Highways.
7. "1965 Travel Time and Delay Study", Michigan Department of State
Highways.
8. "Saginaw Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Factual Data Report",
Michigan Department of State Highways.
9. "Saginaw Metropolitan Area Transportation Study 1990 Trip Tables
based on Controlled Trend Land Use Plan", Michigan Department of
State Highways.
10. "Saginaw County Comprehensive Planning Program Study Design", Barton-
Aschman Associates, Incorporated.
11. "Estimates and Projections of Economic and Demographic Characteristics
Saginaw County Michigan", Real Estate Research Corporation, November
1969.
12. "Saginaw County Land Use Analysis" November 1969, Saginaw County
Metropolitan Planning Commission.
13. "Issues Analysis", January 1970, Saginaw County Metropolitan Plan¬
ning Commission.
14. "Goals and Objectives", March 1970, Saginaw County Metropolitan
Planning Commission,
15. "Physical Features Study", September 1967, Saginaw County Metro¬
politan Planning Commission.
16. "Air Terminal Inventory", October 1969, Hudgins, Thompson, Ball, and
Associates.
60
APPENDIX IV
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (continued)
PUBLISHED REPORTS;
17. "Air Terminal Analysis", October 1969, Hudgins, Thompson, Ball and
Associates.
1B. "Airport Plan", October 1969, by Hudgins, Thompson, Ball, and
Associates.
19. "Parcel Data Information System General Design," October 1969, by
Control Data Corporation.
20. "Saginau County Open Space Plan", Nov/ember 1969, Saginaw County
Metropolitan Planning Commission.
21. "Statement of Goals and Objectives for the National Transportation
Planning Study", November 1970, Saginau County Metropolitan Planning
Commission.
22. "Traffic Accident Inventory and Analysis", April 1970, Traffic
Engineering Division, City of Saginau,
23. "Traffic Accident Analysis", March 1970, Saginau County Road Com¬
mission.
24. "Traffic Engineering Features Analysis", April 1970, Traffic
Engineering Division, City of Saginau.
25. "Traffic Engineering Features Study", April 1970, Saginau County
Road Commission.
26. "Terminal Transfer Study Truck-Rail-Uater", February 1970, Saginau
County Metropolitan Planning Commission.
27. "Central Business District Parking Inventory and Analysis", March
1970, Traffic Engineering Division, City of Saginau. '
28. "Attitude Survey Toward County Issues", Duly 1969, Saginau County
Metropolitan Planning Commission.
29. "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives 1967-1990", August 1970, Saginau
County Metropolitan Planning Commission.
30. "Refuse Disposal in Saginau County", November 1966, Saginau County
Metropolitan Planning Commission.
31. "Solid Uaste Management", Oune 1970, Saginau County Metropolitan
Planning Commission.
32. "Environment-Health and Conservation Management", October 1970,
Saginau County Metropolitan Planning Commission.
61
APPENDIX IV
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (continued)
33. "Saginau Attitude Survey", November 1968, Michigan Department of
State Highways,
34. "Interim Zoning and Subdivision Control", Duly 1969, Saginau County
Metropolitan Planning Commission.
35. "A Rating System of Soil Capabilities for Saginau County", duly
1969, Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission,
UNPUBLISHED PROGRAM ELEMENTS
1. Aerial Photography and Mapping, April 1967.
2. Land Value Analysis, December 1969.
3. Historic Growth Analysis, December 1969
4. Utilities Inventroy, Oul^t 1969.
5. Laws, Ordinances and Financial Inventory and Analysis, November
1969.
6. Distribution of Variables for Controlled Trend Plan, May 1970.
62
SAGINAW METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMITTEES
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Martin R. Cramton, Or, - Chairman
Robert S. Boatman
Keith Bushneil
Charles C. Carroll, Or.
Harold Cooper
Steven Dones
Sere E. Meredith
Damas Ruhl
Howard G. Sheltraw
R. A. Trebilcock
Everet Young
POLICY COMMITTEE
Ualerian Nowaczyk - Acting Chairman
Alfred Arnold
Norman Bell
Samuel F. Cryderman
Dames Ederer
Elmer Frahm
Dohn Illikman
Gerald Kabobel
Uilbert R. Keinath
Harry Krashen
Warren C. Light
Bruce McDonough
George L. Olson
Michael D. Plesko
Thomas Schwannecke
Dames D. Summerfield
Fred VanHaaren
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Donald D. Albosta
0. L. Barr
Harry W. Browne
Alphonse D. Bunchek
Marie Davis
William D. Ferguson
Elmer F. Frahm
Audra E. Francis
R. Lee Gilbert
Paul L. Gustafson
Ralph K. Iwen
Benjamin D. Marxer
Ernest R. Miller
Frank D. Paskiewicz
Robert Pressprich
Wilford H. Root
Dohn M. Ryan
Louis C. Schwinger
Martin Wardin
Hubert Wendling
Dames P. Wilson.
SAGINflU COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COHMISSION
Charles H. Stevens, Chairman
Grant Van Buskirk, Vice Chairman
James Collison
Robert Denison
Elmer Frahm
Ronald Heinlein
H. C. Hoggins (Rev.)
Robert Loomis
Chris Peterson
Julios Sutto
Daniel Toshach
STAFF
Martin R. Cramton, Jr.,
PCP, Reg. No. 148
Richard Nellett
Director
Senior Planner
Howard Kundinger
Gary Caíame
Armand Armstrong
Mike Mikalajski
Vito DeFrancesco*
Marceline Ferris
Vicki Korbein
John Ruthig*
Sally Schnell*
John Kiley*
(Vacant)*
Associate Planner
Research Planner
Planning Technician
Draftsman
Draftsman
Principal Clerk
Senior Clerk
Student Helper
Student Helper
Student Helper
Student Helper
*Part-time