LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Thesis for the Degree of M. U. P. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM G. KWEDER l 962 ...... .3 ':. .‘ I ‘1‘ Vs. ;: ..... ‘ .i y. -' 21i“‘. I 2 1039 ‘nmnmmmmmm a ,1, I 293 0069 mm 33333 L I B R A R 1/ Michigan State University 3' M4 @363; ABSTRACT LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT by William G. Kweder Metropolitan areas and individual communities all over the country are experiencing rapid urbanization into rural areas and the consequent problems of unplanned haphazard growth. Problems of water supply, sewage dis- posal, and storm drainage are but a few of a multitude of community develOpment problems in practically every in- stance. These, however, are extremely important in rela- tion to the provision of healthy, safe, and desirable residential environments. Those responsible for guiding or determining community development need to recognize the effects that natural physical characteristics of land have on residential development, and reflect this recognition through sound development policies and residential devel- Opment controls. This study has been undertaken to: 1) determine what information is available for, and useful in deter- mining the effect of natural physical characteristics of land on the provision of adequate standards for urban residential water, sewer, and drainage utilities; 2) de- termine a method of classification of land utilizing available information applicable to residential develop— ment; and 3) develop minimum lot size requirement guides based on natural conditions and contemporary standards William G. Kweder for health and safety in relation to provision of adequate utilities -- particularly sewage disposal -- for each land classification. An investigation was made of basic "natural condi- tions" exerted by geologic, topographic, soil and water table conditions on residential needs. It was found that characteristics of soil, as included in agricultural con- siderations for soil management practices, readily lends itself to interpretation for residential use evaluation and adaptation. Modern soil surveys include character- istics of drainage, topography, permeability, soil struc- ture and other detailed evaluations for each soil type. Each soil series is assigned a code designation by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, based on its character- istics. Soil types are mapped by code number and slope designation allowing for interpretation for agricultural or urban use considerations. These categories utilize existing soil information and agricultural management requirements as a basis for urban residential considerations. Each soil series has been evaluated on this basis and assigned “penalty points" for each negative characteristic in relation to its affect on water supply and waste disposal systems for residential development. On this basis land may be classified with modern soil surveys. However, slight modifications are necessary in utilizing older soil surveys. Although older soil surveys are not completely adequate, they are William G. Kweder quite useful for community planning purposes and can be updated by soil scientists. The six land classifications develOped in this thesis readily lend themselves to the deve10pment of minimum lot size requirement guides in relation to the provision of none, some, or all facilities for water supply, waste dis— posal and drainage. Based on minimum health standards for urbanizing areas, local desires, and possible design varia- tions, guidelines for community deve10pment policy determi- nation and residential development standards may be devel- oped to meet the specific needs of any particular community. When all factors affecting urban growth patterns are con- sidered, the case for orderly development based on the provision of adequate public water supply, waste diSposal and drainage systems is strengthened. Zoning, subdivision and building regulations and health codes must be considered in relation to the problem of providing healthy, safe, and desirable residential envi- ronments. These additional regulatory factors are not covered in this thesis and may necessitate additional research of them, in relation to natural physical charac- teristics of land as they affect the provision of water supply, waste disposal and drainage, in order to coordinate them with the contents of this thesis. Much information in relation to this is available, but it requires further interpretation and adaptation by those reSponsible for community deve10pment. The contents of this thesis coupled William G. Kweder with the regulatory devices would go far in developing general development policies and guides that would be more realistically effective in producing sounder invest- ments in urban residential developments of a healthy, safe, and desirable character. LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT By William G. Kweder A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1962 ‘ I .. \ ' r ~ . 5“ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In preparing this thesis, I am sincerely grateful to Mr. Robert B. Hotaling, Associate Professor of Urban Plan- ning at Michigan State University, who served as my faculty advisor and freely gave of his time and effort during this project. His guidance and suggestions proved to be tre- mendous aids in the learning process entailed and the formulation of a sound basis for this study. Sincere appreciation is extended to Mr. Glenn D. Bedell, Jackson Area Soil Scientist of the U.S. Soil Con- servation Service, and Mr. Stewart D. Marquis, Asst. Prof. of Urban Planning at Michigan State University, whose time, effort and guidance greatly enhanced the formulation and completion of this thesis. Also thanks are extended to the following individuals and agencies for their help: Mr. Clarence Engberg, Michigan State Soil Scientist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service; Mr. Ivan F. Schneider, Professor of Soil Science, Michigan State University; Mr. Paul R. Giroux, U.S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Branch; Mr. John J. Cosens, Michigan Department of Health; Mr. Edward Drabkowski, Washtenaw County Planning Commission staff; Michigan State Board of Basic Sciences; Calhoun County Health Department; and Meridian Charter Township (lngham County) Zoning and Building Administrator's Office. Special acknowledgement is extended to the Institute For Community Development And Services for their financial ii help through the provision of a Graduate Research Assist- antship, and to my wife, Antoinette, for her encouragement and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................... ii LIST OF TABLES. ................................ vi LIST OF PLATES ................... . ............. vii INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 CHAPTER I. NATURAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT....... 5 Geology Water Table Topography Soils Summary and Conclusions II. PRESENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT..... ....... ..... 17 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal In Relation To Developmental Regulations Adherence To Rule-of-thumb Standards Slope As A Factor In Residential Development Storm Drainage and Floodplain DevelOpment Summary and Conclusions III. RECENT RECOGNITION OF NATURAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND AS AN INFLUENCE ON URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER URBAN DEVELOPMENTS. ....... ......... ........... 34 Macomb County, Michigan U.S. Government Akron, Ohio Baltimore, Maryland Lansing, Michigan Hartford, Connecticut Stark County, Ohio An Earlier Approach Summary and Conclusions iv CHAPTER Page IV. THE BATTLE CREEK AREA STUDY ......... .... 51 Water Supply Agricultural Considerations Mapping Of The Townships Denotation Of Slope Subdivision On Floodplains and Poorly Drained Soils Summary and Conclusions V. CLASSIFICATION OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS... 66 A Method Of Classifying Land For Residential Development Methodology Employed Summary Of Soil Classification Methodology Some Considerations Of Minimum Lot Size Requirements Determination Of Minimum Lot Sizes For Six Land Classifications Summary and Conclusions VI. MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP - A CASE STUDY ........ 82 Physical Information Available Land Classification For Meridian Township Meridian Township Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of 1960 Ingham County Sanitary Code Planning For Future Residential Development In Meridian Township Recommendations and Conclusions VII. CONCLUSIONS ............................. lOO APPENDIXES..................... ..... ............ 108 A. Agricultural Land Capability Classifications B. Primary Land Classifications For Michigan Soils BIBLIOGRAPHY..... ............ ... ........ . ....... ll4 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page 1 Slope Classification 14 2 Suggested Scale Of Minimum Lot Size Requirements 48 3 Soil Management Group Identification Chart 68 4 Classification Of Battle Creek Area Soil Series For Agricultural And Urban Residential Use 69 5 Conversion Factors For Urban Residential Use Rating 70 6 Drainage Weighting 71 7 Possible Primary Ratings For Urban Residential Use 71 8 Urban Weighting For Seriously Detrimental Soil Characteristics 72 9 Slope Rating For Urban Residential Use 72 10 Soil Rating For Urban Residential Use 74 11 Minimum Lot Size Requirements For Land Classification 79 12 Classification Of Soils In Meridian Township For Agricultural And Urban Residential Use 87 13 Meridian Township Required Lot Sizes 9O 14 Ingham County Disposal Area Requirements 93 15 Individual Sewage Disposal Requirements Compared 94 ‘vi PLATE II. III. IV. VI. LIST OF PLATES Page SLOPE POLICY.CO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 28a BEDFORD TOWNSHIP - GENERALIZED SOIL MAP - LAND CLASSIFICATION OVERLAY............... 58 EMMETT TOWNSHIP - GENERALIZED SOIL MAP - LAND CLASSIFICATION OVERLAY..... .......... 59 BATTLE CREEK TOWNSHIP - GENERALIZED SOIL MAP - LAND CLASSIFICATION OVERLAY......... 6O PENNFIELD TOWNSHIP - GENERALIZED SOIL MAP - LAND CLASSIFICATION OVERLAY ........ . 61 MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP - GENERALIZED SOIL MAP - LAND CLASSIFICATION, PROPOSED SEWERAGE' SERVICE AREAS AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING OVERLAYS..... .................... .. 87a vii INTRODUCTION Franklin Thomas in his book "The Environmental Basis Of Society" said "advancing civilization is characterized by a diminishing importance of physical influences and an increasing importance of psychological and cultural factors". Although one may agree in many ways with this statement written in 1925, it behooves one to reflect on the many problems of living which characterize today's urban residential growth into previously rural areas. Builders, government officials, planners, and others are realizing that natural physical characteristics of land have not been accorded sufficient consideration in the development of modern residential subdivisions. Families moving out of older established urban areas assume that services in recently urbanized rural areas will be equivalent to those enjoyed in their old environ- ment. The adequacy of water supply, sewage disposal and storm drainage services is not readily discernable to the eager home buyer. He is told that adequate services exist, therefore he assumes that a septic tank sewage disposal system and/or well for individual water service are equal to the services offered by a municipality. As is too often the case, individual on-lot services are satisfac- tory for only a few years. Often, they break down and the homeowner is faced with both economic and health problems. Should the problem be too great for the indi- vidual to accomodate, he will eventually join with -1- -2- neighbors, who most likely have the same condition, and make demands on the local government to rectify the situation. To date, no adequate substitute for public water and sewer service in urban areas has been developed. Individual facilities are quite often satisfactory on farms and very low density developments, but in sub- divisions the relatively short life and often the failure of individual systems usually means that government action and possibly aid are sought to solve the accumulated and collective problems. The Federal Housing Administration, U.S. Public Health Service, state and local health agencies, urban planners, and many other responsible officials and citizens have become alarmed over the present and potential health hazards that have been and are still being built into urbanizing areas. It is gen- erally financially impossible to provide public water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services to the present diffused, scattered and spotty pattern of urban develop- ment. Therefore, knowledge of land and its ability to support individual facilities or else the conditions under which to require public utility systems is needed in order to develop sound growth policies and residential development controls. Complete control of development through public ownership of all land is not an acceptable solution to the problem in this country, therefore exist- ing legal instruments for development control need to be utilized more extensively and strengthened in order to -3- realize more soundly developed residential areas that will continue to be an asset to the community and the people who reside in them for many years to come. Individuals and groups such as land-owners, devel- opers, subdividers, builders, realtors, financiers, urban planners, government officials and agencies, cham- bers-of-commerce, and others are collectively responsible for encouraging or supervising sound residential develop- ment. In order to provide for sound residential develop- ment in a reasonably acceptable manner, these responsible people should understand those natural physical character- istics of land that affect and result in the standards for the provision of adequate individual or public water supply, sewage disposal, and storm drainage in urban residential areas. They need not be engineers, geologists, hydrologists, or soil scientists in order to understand land conditions, but they should enlist the aid of people in these fields and others and the knowledge that has been compiled by such people to further the policies of sound community development as the natural physical land characteristics affect it. It is the purpose of this paper to determine as much as possible what information in relation to natural physi- cal characteristics of land is available and to determine a method by which such data can be interpreted by those responsible for community development for their use in administering or constructing sound residential develop- ment policies. Included would be development controls or ~- -4- guides for use in those urbanizing areas where a variable combination of public water, sanitary sewerage and storm drainage services are furnished, to be furnished or not furnished at all. From existing physical data it should be possible to develop a land classification scheme which categorizes various characteristics of land in relation to the variety of combinations of public or individual water supply, sewage disposal and storm drainage facili- ties. With such a scheme, further interpretation of existing health standards applied to variable conditions would lend support to the development and establishment of guides for minimum lot size requirements for each classification of land and the residential use of it. CHAPTER I NATURAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In subdividing land for residential use the frame- work is established for a high degree of permanence of development due to the fact that the original design of an area will determine its character for an indefinite period of time. To make changes after the pattern is established is not only prohibitively expensive, but foolhardy and wasteful in the first place, therefore those responsible for sound community development should recognize the relationships of natural physical character- istics of land as they affect residential deve10pment. The most practical and economic way to meet development problems is to provide the necessary guides and controls over land use in order to promote more, if not the most, proper use of land to suit the needs of urban peOple and their many activities carried on in an urban or urbanizing community. Therefore, certain natural factors must be examined for their affect upon urban residential develop- ment. For the purpose of this paper, four general areas of study were chosen for investigation. They are: l) geology; 2) water table; 3) topography; and 4) soils. All of these subjects are interrelated and any one could form the basis of a study in itself. However, each should be considered in relation to the others in any investigation which examines man's use of land. -5- -6- Research of these subjects in relation to urban residential development has shown that soil conditions are the primary area to be considered as a means for evaluating land in order to promote sound residential deve10pment policies and standards. Each of the other three subjects are somewhat secondary, but cannot be entirely omitted, as investigation has shown that they affect soil conditions and residential land use in various ways. Therefore, an examination of each of the four topics was necessary in order to point out what consideration should be given to each. Direct relation- ships that are observed in one geographic region may not be necessarily true in another. As in most planning con- siderations, variables are ever present and may influence any given approach by producing a variety of results. Geology It is not the intention of the author to examine the broad implications of geologic history, but rather to investigate this phenomena only in relation to those areas which exhibit primary influence on urban residential deve10pment. In areas where rock formations are exposed, or close to the surface: 1) Location of public water and sewer lines or indi- vidual sewage disposal, water supply and drainage facilities may be seriously affected; and 2) Ledge rock, bedrock, etc. can seriously alter layout and design, not only of utilities, but all -7- man made improvements necessary for the urban use of land. Southern Michigan has been affected by physical surface changes which places emphasis upon historic geology as related to glacial movement, mixing, and deposition of soils, rock, etc. Glacial action in this area has de- posited an overburden that averages 300-400 feet in depth. Therefore, the major geologic considerations relative to residential deve10pment are confined mainly 'to water supply, sewage disposal, and storm drainage. Four areas of concern in this instance should be consid- ered: 1) Most municipal water systems must be drilled to costly depths of 400'-600' to reach the water supply; 2) Ground water in glacial overburden is not usually desirable nor of sufficient quantity for munic- ipal supply; 3) Individual private water systems tap ground water sources which in many areas are subject to con- tamination from polluted surface soil conditions resulting from improper waste disposal systems; and 4) Impermeable and poorly drained (including high water table) soils may require eXpensive drainage systems. Of the four points, the first two are important for their indirect influence on residential deve10pment poli- cies and standards. Deep drilling costs for municipal water supply increase at an increasing rate with depth -8- which eventually forces cities to pay more and more for water or seek supplemental supplies elsewhere. Paul R. Giroux of the U.S. Geological Survey (Ground Water Branch) feels, for instance, that the City of Lansing, due to a dropping water table and increasing demand, will be faced with such a dilemma in the near future. The City's policies may, as a result, change in regard to water service for new residential areas. If builders are faced with the prospect of having only poor quality ground water available in newer areas without public water available, it is conceivable that residential building construction might become undesirable and possibly cease in certain areas where adequate potable water supply is unobtainable. The third and fourth points are important no matter what happens with municipal water sources. The close relationship of the four major natural physical factors in this chapter is apparent here. Topography and soils, as developed through geologic factors, can affect water conditions in such a way that man's misuse of the land can backfire on him. Therefore, in regard to geology it becomes obvious that surface conditions, as related to soils and the prOper drainage of them, become more import- ant in the development of policies and standards for residential development. This does not rule out the advisability of utilizing only partially available geo- logic information for general planning studies, although producirmgincomplete results; but, nevertheless something -9- is better than nothing at all. Geologic information is ordinarily of a general nature due to the fact that geologists usually concern themselves with only the larger geographical areas. Therefore, detailed information for areas such as town- ships is not readily available. "General geologic maps can be utilized for interpreting ground conditions during a planning stage prior to site selection."1 General surveys are often made for large projects such as reservoir location, industrial park sites, etc. To go further than this is not generally economically feasible for residential development because such studies only form a base upon which geologists, engineers, and other specialists may develop more detailed site analyses. As a result, detailed consideration of geology in the deve10pment of residential deve10pment policies and standards becomes secondary because of the general non- availability of adequate information. In addition, those responsible for community deve10pment will find that most information that is available is of a very general nature and does not deal with surface conditions to a great extent. Water Table Basically, there are two areas that should be consid- ered in relation to this topic. 1. for an explanation of the use of geologic maps, see: U.S., Geological Survey, Interpreting Ground Conditions From Geologic Maps, Circular 46 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949), p.1. -10- 1. Water table is directly related to geologic con- siderations for municipal water supply, sewage disposal plants, heavy construction, etc. 2. In relation to residential development, the upper water table (or ground water) becomes important in regard to individual water supply and individual sewage disposal systems, grading, and drainage. Investigation shows that the first receives the greatest attention of geologists, hydrologists, and engineers; and much less attention is given to the second. The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and state geological survey offices are primarily interested in sources of water supply for municipal systems. Knowledge derived from their studies indicates that these people are interested in large geographic regions. This is not conducive to interpretation for small areas in which those responsible for community development would wish to concern themselves by investigating the direct affect of water conditions on residential development. However, an understanding of water considerations where municipal water supply is not available will in many instances provide an insight to general development pat- terns. This phenomenon will be illustrated in Chapter IV - "The Battle Creek Area Study." Water table conditions become very important to urban residential deve10pment considerations as an influence near the surface. This factor is directly related to soils and is also influenced by topography. -11- Topography Topographic considerations have influenced man in his endeavors to utilize land throughout history. Today, modern earth moving equipment has made considerable inroads upon topographic influence, but the fact remains that completely changing the landscape configuration is not always desirable nor economically feasible. Due to economic influences the subdivider when forced to utilize hillside lands becomes more concerned with adapting devel- Opment to slope conditions rather than making wholesale landscape changes. It is here that sound development policies and standards are necessary. Consideration must be given to water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size, and street layout and design in relation to slope. In general, steepness of slope may be categorized and rated in terms of residential develop- ment as follows: 1. Slopes up to 10% are not too serious. 2. Slopes between 10% and 15% require exceptional engineering practices. 3. Slopes over 15% are very serious and are expensive to develop, and drainage and erosion control become very important. Topographic maps provide excellent references in regard to slope, drainage areas, and surface conditions. Although U.S. Geological Survey maps are quite large in scale (consequently small in presentation of detail), -12- they are extremely accurate, which allows for enlargement by reduction of scale without unduly distorting informa- tion. By enlarging U.S.G.S. maps, areas and intensity of slope may be readily measured. The increasing use and availability of aerial photo- graphic mapping by the U.S.G.S. has produced a basis for even more detailed analyses of the earth's surface. Technicians can more accurately define boundaries of soil types, surface features, water conditions, etc., through aerial photo interpretation. Techniques such as this have allowed the soil scientist and others to make great progress in detailed analysis of land surfaces. As a result, contour lines are no longer placed separately upon soil maps, but rather slope conditions are now in- cluded as a characteristic of soil identification. This fact in itself therefore requires topography maps only for auxiliary use. Sella During conception of this study, it was felt that research would show that soils, geology, water table, and topography might be of equal importance in relation to residential deve10pment policies and standards. In- vestigation has shown that soil maps and studies are of utmost importance because they are made with full cog- nizance of geologic, water, and topographic factors. Although soil science has been concerned primarily with agriculture, the use of soil data when properly translated -13- to "urban adaptations" has become increasingly useful to planners, engineers, health agents and others in the past quarter century. Soil scientists, especially in urbanized areas, are now searching for methods by which to utilize this valuable information for urban types of land use as well as for the traditional agricultural uses. U.S. government soil scientists, where time allows, are permitted to conduct studies of non-agricultural soil projects, especially if applicable to urban development. Portions of this study have been made possible as a result of this policy through the help of U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil scientists here in Michigan. The urban planner's interests in many ways parallel those of the soil scientist. The planner is very much interested in surface conditions for residential develop- ment. The soil scientist generally confines his studies to the upper 3-5% feet of the land surface. He considers underlying material not only in relation to the deve10pment and use of soils, but also takes into account all other physical factors and the role that they have in relation to evaluation of existing soil conditions. 'When those responsible for community deve10pment consider the resi- dential portions of it, they are interested in the same general area as the soil scientist, for it is within the upper level of the land surface that most problems of residential deve10pment occur. In determining soil types there are considerations -14- utilized by the soil scientist which make agricultural classifications useful to those responsible for community development. By examining such characteristics as texture, color, slope and erosion, the soil scientist begins to collate factors which can be utilized in relation to residential deve10pment. Of this group, the inclusion of slope characteristics in the numerical code of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for field identification can be useful to all concerned in the determination of residential development policies and standards. Three factors are considered when judging slope. These are: l) steepness; 2) length; and 3) type or pattern. The grouping of slope percentages as utilized in the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's Agricul- tural Classifications is presented in the following Table. Table I: Slope Classification Slope Description Percent of flgpe Field Code* Nearly level 0 - 2 A Gently sloping 2 - 6 B Moderately sloping 6 - 12 C Strongly sloping 12 - 18 D Steep 18 - 25 E Very steep Over 25 F * Letters are preceded by numerical field code in mapping. The National Cooperative Soil Survey has greatly -15- improved soil survey techniques and analyses of soils for various purposes over those of 30-40 years ago. Today, much more detailed information is available for each soil series and soil type. Included now are factors related to drainage conditions such as surface drainage, soil permeability, and internal drainage. Moisture conditions are rated as dry, moist, wet, or saturated. In addition, details on the relation of soil to water table and type location are available. Each soil series now has not only a published general description but further information made available through a scientific analysis of its soil profile. All factors, including those stated in the preceding two paragraphs, can be utilized by those concerned with residential devel- opment in varying degree. The relationships and use of soil data for determining residential development policies and standards will be found in Chapters IV and V. Summary and Conclusions Geology, water table, and topography are all inter- related natural conditions affecting residential develop- ment. Studies presently available of each of these areas for comprehensive planning purposes leaves much to be desired because the usual studies of rock formations, water conditions, and terrain, because of their nature, encompass very large geographical areas and offer very general information. The result is that those responsible -16- for community development are generally limited to regional or broad area considerations in the application of such data to residential development. For more detailed information one will find that soil scientists in their particular studies have compiled a vast and useful store of general and detailed knowledge related to a better understanding of natural conditions and their effect on land classification for residential development. Although soil science has dealt primarily with land and its capability to support agriculture, it is apparent that such knowledge of the natural characteristics of land is becoming available in greater detail or in a form that can be utilized by those responsible for community develop- ment. Both the soil scientist and those other individuals who are interested in surface conditions of the earth's crust should be more aware of the availability of this knowledge. It seems only natural that those responsible for community development should make better use of soil data for determining land use policies and design stand- ards in classifying land for residential development under urbanizing conditions. ‘While the information is available in the language of agriculture, it can be easily trans- lated for use in community planning and development gen- erally, and residential development specifically. This thesis is an effort to accomplish this translation. CHAPTER II PRESENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The current trend in residential subdivision regula- tions being adopted by communities is to spell out standards of design and construction in greater detail. However, some factors lend themselves much more readily to uniform treatment than others. Various standards are defined for residential block size, lot size, water supply, grading, drainage, sewage disposal, street construction, etc. However, certain of these aspects of residential development have become increasingly important for they do not necessarily lend themselves to the same rigid standards in every case due to the influence of the variable natural physical characteristics of the land. In a survey of fringe area problems of 108 cities, done in 1949 by the International City Managers Association, it was found that nearly one-half of the cities had serious problems due to poor quality or the absence of drainage, sewers, or sanitation. In the study, water service problems ranked fourth and health problems seventh in a listing of the most serious and often reported problems.2 The most common method of dealing with problems re- lated to natural physical characteristics of the land is to attempt to control the density of residential develop- ment by setting minimum lot sizes. Water supply and 2. J.C. Bollens, "Fringe Area Conditions And Relations", Public Management, XXXII (March 1950), pp. 51-52. -17- -18.. sewage disposal are most commonly handled in this manner. Storm drainage and deve10pment on slopes and floodplains should also be considered along with these two subjects because they are also directly affected by natural physical characteristics of the land. The interrelationship of these aspects of urban deve10pment is fairly obvious and Should be recognized, but examination of the treatment of each of them, for example, in zoning and subdivision regu- lations, indicates that this is not usually the case. Zoning and subdivision regulations do not ordinarily state the qualifications used in arriving at the standards set forth, but it is obvious that many depend upon a "rule-of- thumb", based on experience, approach. Design standards in zoning and subdivision regulations have been reflecting an increasing concern over problems in relation to the above mentioned aspects of urban devel- Opment because established standards have not necessarily alleviated poor conditions or prevented increasing prob- lems. Generally, while the "rule—of-thumb" approach is predominant, an effort is being made to overcome such shortcomings. Variations of a more scientifically planned approach that require site investigation are becoming in- creasingly popular. In order to evaluate these practices, an examination of zoning and subdivision regulations in regard to design standards was necessary. water Supply And Sewage Disposal In RelatiOn To Develop- mental Regulations In general, large minimum 1ot size requirements in _]_9- zoning ordinances have been defended on the grounds of safety, amenity, and sometimes health; but defense of large minimum lot size requirements in subdivision regu- lations has been usually dependent on health considera- tions. Often, variations are specified in an attempt to prevent certain development problems which result from the influence of highly localized natural physical factors. Very often, the local government not wishing to take on more administrative burdens or costly overhead ends up with the very problems it wished to avoid because of poor planning and development policies in the first place and the lack of sound development controls with proper administration, secondly. The most common source of trouble appears to be standards and policies for water supply and sewage disposal. Some regulations in addition to requiring large mini- mum lot sizes where septic tanks are to be installed, require approval of the site by a health agency. In this case, the health officer is the final authority in deter- mining whether or not a subdivision plat should be approved. Some even allow the health officer to raise the minimum lot size requirements. However, even with requirements for ‘inspection, testing, etc., regulations do not usually specify standards by which the local developmental adminis- trators or health officers may evaluate natural physical characteristics of the land that are often the cause of development problems. Many regulations of the past decade -20- require a standard of 20,000 square feet per lot when public water and sanitary sewers are not provided, and 10,000 square feet per lot when either one or the other is not available. When both public utilities are provided, smaller lot sizes are usually allowed. The utilization of this "rule-of-thumb" standard is a reflection of statements made by the Committee on the Hygiene of Housing of the American Public Health Association. The following standard was meant to be used under good conditions (not defined): "a. When the public water supply is available but private sewage disposal systems are to be located on each lot, four dwellings or less per acre. "b. However, when a private water supply and private sewage disposal system are to be located on each lot, avoidance of contamination may require % acre lots or larger." The Hamilton County, Ohio subdivision regulations of 1948 require a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet where future sewer connections are not possible. Where sewers are constructed, but not yet being used and septic tanks must be used temporarily, the lot area minimum is reduced to 10,000 square feet. The regulations also state that when individual septic tanks are used, "a greater area and frontage may be required by the Planning Commission if, in the opinion of the County Engineer or County Health Commissioner, soil, topography or other conditions indicate 3. David C. Wiggin, Water Supply And Sewage Disposal At Realty Subdivisions, Connecticut Department of Health Bulletin No. 70, 3 (Hartford: March 1956), p.12. -21- the necessity therefor." The subdivision regulations of Johnson City, Tennessee Region as amended in 1946, require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, but in areas where public water is not reasonably accessible or not planned for in the near future, an alternate method of water supply may be allowed with approval of the county health office, but each lot in the subdivision must be at least 15,000 square feet. For sewage disposal the same approach and requirements are stated. However, no stipulation is made if both private facilities must be installed on a lot. The Baltimore County subdivision regulations of 1949 provide for automatic disapproval of any subdivision which contains lots of less than 20,000 square feet if every lot is not connected to a public water main. It is also mandatory that the proposed type of sewage disposal shall be approVed by the county health officer and the chief engineer of the county department of public works. Two standards are set forth for sewage service in relation to the geographic location of the subdivision. When located outside the metropolitan district and facing the prospect of remaining permanently unsewered, each lot must be at least 20,000 square feet in area. Plats may be disapproved by the planning commission if the county health department feels that physical factors would tend to produce public health problems in connection with permanently unsewered occupancy. -22- When a plat is located inside the metropolitan district with public water supply available, two alternatives are offered: 1) arrangement for public sewer service; or 2) installation of individual disposal systems. The second alternative requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, but if the department of public works so rules, the minimum lot size is raised to 20,000 square feet. No qualifications are illustrated to support such action. Even in more recent subdivision regulations the tendency to classify all land according to one standard prevails. Some standards are quite low while others have moved upward. The Saginaw, Michigan subdivision regulations, passed in 1958, require a minimum lot width of 60 feet and minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for any single family resi- dence. No provisions are made for areas without public water service, but if sanitary sewers are not available, the 60 foot minimum lot frontage requirement is retained and the minimum lot area requirement is increased to 10,000 square feet. These requirements also apply to the town- ships (unless local zoning requires larger lots) which contain the City's fringe areas. It is quite evident that little, if any, consideration has been given to natural physical characteristics of the land in drawing up such standards. More stringent requirements can be found in the Delaware County,fPennsylvania subdivision regulationsN,.muo:cmHm mo opppwpmcH cwoaao2d_onp mo amenzow azmcoamabwonpm.hnpcdoo mono use :enhdnsm ca hammpm hope: was owmnamam.hnmpwcmm now mcficceam_pcmq= «noboom .o phenom «coupon .oanmawm>e ma cowpomccoo Meson ceased 0: use» and UQAOHQEo ma hopaflm omen commadmndn 0 page maaeommopm on op possumm we :oapomccoo nope: oaanzm was posse OHHQBQ Avon coca» upcoeohadvon omepozon caanna .uanm» pope: Ame: a hpspacmn op oopmaon manoonfip no: omen 904v use wcaaawm caneeouancoo news no knees» «povooam 0000.0m £000.0N 0000.0N 0000.ma A0200 oaansm a to «among» .Amesa meageam e on wcwmnmsonflp uzoflbnoQSH no xooavop pupae“ pawn oosmndmnsm soaamnm Amado h>mmm 000.0N 000.mH 000.0N 000.0H 00e.4 0ma.m cocoa» .Hosasw to -m a ode» .0Nm use» 050» neez.sefl0 000.0N 000.NH 000.0N 000.0 00N.H 00A accuse eaoa no Esau -mN a veep .0NH mean apaz.0csm mafia osmoa 000.00 000.0 000.0N 000.0 0mm 0ma senses -N a can» .00 pamea to ease onfla 000.0N 000.0 000.00 000.m 0am owe Hoomnmmo .pm .00 o: e no .Ho>wnm no anaconp .N a mafia .00 was» onueoo cmoao ceases» Owensm opmsasm oaagsm +R0 mmuo Am: mo Aaaeaev ease deem ooabhon hope: no oaks ooabpmm hops: mo cake compo uoflpwaaoem no>o no mo opens mmlo «compo .pm.vu cw sopmhm voyadcom A.pm endow» new none» pod eneacfiz_ ommnoznm Ho weed upcoEoquwom ouflm uoq_s:Echzflho mason oopmomwzm «N canoe -49- is still quite general in the treatment of soils. In addition, it appears that Mr. Hoover has decided that a rule-of-thumb maximum is necessary, because in no case do lot size recommendations exceed 20,000 square feet. The figures presented for individual sewage volume per person and leaching requirements are far too low to meet the F needs of present suburbanites. However, the basis for further research in this area is apparent. Unknowingly, the author of this paper has followed some of the same reasoning as Mr. Hoover. However, as will be seen in the i next section, the results are not the same. Summary and ConClusions Various studies of natural physical characteristics of land have been undertaken in the last few years. The majority of studies have been concerned with large land areas by county or regional agencies. Due to such a large-scale approach, the tendency to generalize or even to overgeneralize has made the results useable mainly as a framework for further detailed studies. As yet, little has been done to break down soil characteristics in greater detail so that they might be evaluated for urban use. Mr. Hoover did attempt to devise a table for septic tank use evaluation some years ago, but due to certain assumptions and methods used, it is not valid today. The Federal Housing Agency produced voluminous tables on soil characteristics as related to man's use of land for -50- structures, roads, etc., but practically neglected soil permeability as a characteristic of soil which must be considered wherever public water and/or public sewers are not available. Generally, the studies cited in this section do point out that soil characteristics are important for agricul- tural land use and urban land use. Many of these reports state concern over good agricultural land being urbanized and do wish to guide urban deve10pment. Certain factors are obvious, but classification of soils has proved to be generalized. For policy deve10pment and construction of regulations, this might prove disastrous. More detailed studies are necessary in order to proceed in the develop- ment of a long range program, but methods of utilizing existing data have not been fully developed. Problems of flood control, erosion, septic tank hazards and other detrimental aspects of urbanization have pressed urban planners to recognize these physical prob- lems of urbanization in rural and urban fringe areas. A great deal of information is available, but not always in such form that it may lend itself to easy usage by those responsible for community development. The problem, though recognized, has not yet been solved. CHAPTER IV THE BATTLE CREEK AREA STUDY The Battle CreEk area, for purposes of this paper, is made up of the cities of Battle Creek and Springfield, Michigan and the four townships surrounding them -- Bedford, Pennfield, Battle Creek and Emmett (all in Calhoun County, Michigan). This area is typical of those areas that make up the fringe around a growing city in that urbanization of rural areas is proceeding at a rapid rate. Consequently, various agencies and individuals have become concerned about the direction of development. The tendency of sub- division developments to leapfrog about the countryside has resulted in typical suburban problems of water supply, sewage disposal, increasing taxes, special assessments, and service costs and many other problems inherent in modern suburban development. Water Supply The City of Battle Creek is located on glacial over— burden which requires deep drilled wells in order to supply the municipal water system. At a depth of approx- imately 400 feet, the City has tapped the Saginaw Aquifer (water strata) which is composed of permeable sandstone. The City can be assured of a continual water supply for many years. However, this aquifer traverses only the northern and eastern portions of the city which is the southwestern termination of this cross-state geologic formation. The result is that no immediately available -51- -52- municipal water source is possible in a westerly or southerly direction from Battle Creek. Domestic wells in the latter directions have often been abandoned due to the unsuitability of the water supply that is found in the glacial till. In a way, this might be considered an advantage for the City because through the installation of water systems to serve these areas, better control of deve10pment seems possible. To the north and east of the City, urban growth has codinued but individual water supplies are not always palatable. It appears that the logical approach would be for the City to capitalize on this physical factor and encourage a better type of urban deve10pment by guiding growth through the provision of extensions to a public water supply system. Agricultural Considerations The four townships around Battle Creek have a large number of productive farms which add substantially to the economic base of the area. A great deal of the land in this area is made up of Class I, II, or III agricultural soils, which as classified by the U.S. Department of Agri- culture, is among the nation's most productive farmland. The eight agricultural capability classifications of land areIresented in Appendix A. Competition between farmer and urban developer for good land is not new, but urban sprawl often results from this competition and can be and often is detrimental in many ways to both the farming and urban development -53- operations. Land in agricultural use is often considered by developers as prime land for residential subdivision. In many cases this is true, but too often goodagricul- tural land is not good land for residential subdivisions when individual wells and/or sewage disposal systems must be placed on the same lot. This is very evident in the Battle Creek Area Townships where ten soil series are in the category of good agricultural lands while only one of these soil series has a very good percolation rate and one has a moderate percolation rate. It has been suggested by agricultural authorities that subdivision of the nation's best soils should be limited when the aggregate area is economically important and feasible in an agricultural sense. The state of California, which produces a large amount of foods, is comprised of about 100 million acres of land with only 12.4 million acres rated in classes I, II, or III.25 A great deal of the other 87.6 million acres could be utilized for urban development. Another argument that lends itself to the applica- tion of this principle in the Battle Creek area is the fact that mixed agricultural and residential land use results in very costly services, utilities, etc. 25. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Talks On Rural Zoning, Agricultural Research Service (Washin ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1960 p.63. -54- Nationally, farmlands are being eliminated at the rate of 400,000 acres per yeag6while patterns of urban growth leave unbuilt-upon land spotted throughout the city fringe?7 There are some who argue that the loss of farm- land is not serious, but farmers will continue to farm their land until they are forced to cease operations. Class I farmland accounts for only 10% of this country's total cropland, and only 3.8% of total land, but it pro- duces 20% of our food supplies. About one-half of our class I land is located around our cities. Even with present food surpluses "it is economic nonsense to retire (and destroy) the most productive, rather than the marginal land... Yet the farmer has no choice but to sell when sprawl entraps him."28 The Community Planning Association of Canada in its pamphlet entitled "Sprawl (1957)" aptly summed up the case against the evils of this development for urban and agri- cultural consideration. They described this phenomenon as having four evil effects: 1) sprawl produces badly served communities; 2) it is costly to all concerned; 3) it destroys productive farmland prematurely; and 4) it ensures that eventual development of the areas affected 26. M.M. Gaffney, "Urban Expansion - Will It Ever Stop?", Land - 1958 Yearbook of Agriculture (washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958), 503-522. 27. House and Home, op.cit., pp. 106-113. 28. "The City's Threat to Open Land", Architectural Forum, CVIII (January, 1958) 87-90, 166. -55- will be difficult and inefficient. Mgpping of the Townships The author, while engaged in preliminary planning studies of Calhoun County for the Institute For Community Deve10pment and Services, became concerned with and delved into some of the problems of the areas's urbanization. It was learned that preliminary research had been done in certain physical characteristics of the land in the area, therefore arrangements were made to complete the mapping of soils for the four township area in order to utilize this information for further study. It was felt that detailed soil information could provide the framework upon which to develop a land classification system for those areas which were receiving or about to receive the bulk of urbanization. The four townships were mapped on acetate by Mr. Glenn Bedell, of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service regional office in Jackson, Michigan, at a scale of four inches to the mile by employing four sources of data. These sources were: . l) The U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Soil Survey of Calhoun County, Michigan", published in 1919, was used to supply basic information. 2) Aerial photographs were used to obtain more accuracy in determining physical features and soil series boundaries. 3) Soils information from farms cooperating with the -56- U.S. Soil Conservation Service program were utilized. 4) Finally, the information was "spot" field checked from various vantage points and information checked in the field for those areas in which the Calhoun County Health Department had made percolation tests. During the process of delineating soil boundaries on the overlays, Mr. Bedell redesignated all soil categories according to the National Cooperative Soil Survey soil identifications practices. The author was then able to take this information from the overlays and compile it as base soil maps that could be used for either agricul- tural or urban considerations. These maps have been photographically reproduced for inclusion in this paper at a scale of one inch to the mile and are illustrated as Plates II, III, IV, and V. Each base map has been titled "Generalized Soil Map" due to the fact that it is impossible to survey every square foot of ground in a short period of time in order to produce a completely accurate map. The end result produced in this case is much more refined than the 1919 soil surveys and definitely more usable. However, it should be kept in mind that those forces that are building up, changing, or destroying the soil are not uniform over large areas of the earth's surface with the result that soils show a corresponding lack of uniformity. Definite -57- characteristics of the soil in a region are the result of a particular combination of conditions. These char- acteristics can be identified and categorized in order to identify a soil type of a particular series. Subdivision activity is proceeding in many areas where the suitability of soils to handle septic tank effluent is questionable. Many soil scientists and others have been working on the possibility of developing a scheme of land classification which would utilize the knowledge of natural characteristics of soils for deter- mining some limitations on the use of land for residential development. Originally, Mr. Bedell developed a basic classifica- tion of six categories of soils which formed the foundation for further research. The author, after consultation with various individuals at Michigan State University, local and state health agencies, and others too numerous to mention, decided that a systematic method could be devised which would utilize Mr. Bedell's six basic categories as the end result in classifications of areas. This method is further explained in the following chapter. Information on the Battle Creek Area townships as illustrated by Plates II, III, IV, and V are supplemented by Table 4. These plates show soil type boundaries with each soil type indicated by a code number according to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's master code desig- nation for soils in Michigan. LA -58- GENERALIZED SOIL MAP f—ww- cutvtn ’00 Indalv NEH-avenge lam. , 7» 0305 Oz 6 0330 water ease with Table 4 __—_.___.__ ——~_—_—— -._. -_ ~ ..vm.n'—__—-_ -_---__._ _ -- .-__-_ - _ - _ BEDFORD TOWNSHIP I CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN QQEEREI IN§ AQENQEIES? SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE.US.OEPT OF AGRICULTURE field work by Glenn BedelI,Areo Sou Senenhst CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY "IDAIIO 3' In“... 0 lives" on..." logo PLATE II O minim ”O 'O 3.50 1"er so A mm «tin can a O a - ‘- I" 'T ' SN~ e,‘ 7,. . -..—HIS; Q I? - ‘nn‘-‘.____.-—‘ 1" ‘H ...I -58- 3 GENERALIZED BEDFORD TOWNSHIP I, SOIL MAP CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN I I cusren I 3“ MILITARY Heisenvrnou I 7 i 7 I ' l "‘39)." __—___-——-_ H SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 3 I, a, “‘qu Field work by Glenn Bedell.Areo Soil Scientist CALHOUN COUNTY CQWERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY I‘EALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR CWHUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mum Iv: VIIIIe-I a lured" one)" IICO PLATE II ..7 --- ...- . . 7 W ’- l ,7 -59- , ‘ GENERALIZED ° - . SOIL MAP .’ PENNFIELD CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP 11 ‘ ' i O ATING A I SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U.SDEPT. OFAGRICULTURE field work by Glenn BedeII,Areo SoII ScIenIIsI CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY I-(ALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PI‘PIlsg LY mm.» 0 he“! Octane: IOIO PLATE III 7-____‘___—7 — w- —' ‘ ,, OHA; mummy; to 'o Io=o moto A eIdsT MIN sea It a O 3 GENERALIZED SOIL MAP WA-Oij—fig -59- PENNFIELD 3”,; ..- ———__. '\ TOWNSHIP CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN _ - fl- _ “--—. L—mb I 7 I 0 mo ‘ Samurai _ -. 7;- _ a- _ , "1 84”» ”° I I _ I" — *‘5 I \ ,/ - 0 7—— - , , \ {M I. \\ I seen I r I é\ o“, 2;: 0/) \3 seo 0 I ~. . \ ; Q3 ' I on. V PINE 717‘ 05E??? L I, I see 3600 ”fly I '.\ I» , . L0 'l '1 ‘_; L. w; 1800 I _ ' I. . 7 IVE I if see — T ‘ — / _ '4‘?” aces see c' \‘2 7,. _ _- ’ seen I y I «:9 at n I) "I", I , “0’" I 7" LII! -, ; — (Q to: '7 t ; \- I; \J 7—4/ ([3) I ...... 0 AA ' «o / 'L/ I .... ..v‘ I " -7' DRI I "I I so: . —— Ll » - - - .. 7.. , ~ 7;. I H __ _,,_ -1 __ r‘ 0 ~.\ 0 ' I I ' 227/ t I I see I «"- ' ' e23 , ' ,. . l I ' W ‘ I IVE “ \" ' \ ‘9» °‘° ‘ :I'm v I 29 ‘9" r , I ~ ; @_ _ o I ... J ' / sun c - I . i ] -_; 4, I30 3 I no I‘ //\-.th « 203 i also y-..__ ." I g. I - -.- ._.——~—7 — ‘ -_,7 - .I I _ _ _ _____--___J I , m I I I DID I I ‘ If O-DR E I '30,/ I I use 6 He 3 L1:— - “ _ ‘ t1 ‘1, ’ '2” I ' I I, ISEJ / net) i I, — —, ~ l 3“ \ // 7’7/’ ‘ ; u “ II I/ I ll 0 l ———r\ O ‘I / I / H‘ - w / omy: / K Lo " I30 :1 sun ; " ' “i“. - __; E; 1, us an 4:; I; o ; ; \ _ ,l. 9 I - I; " 7' m ,4, H/ 3“ , I, ' ... ‘ "5; ' u 7 ,, - .. u TL _ I . x ‘34 I - -' _ I I / / I ' “‘0 \ u D ”-7 0 T” If; 4 3 VI) :1 3.. :1' . 30 I ISO . 9 BATTLE I n I; ,7' 5 i /— i/ x z ;. l“"“ ‘_ “‘ ’J ‘ “*1 _H_\jo\ I/-_- I - ‘7' —_. '39 _ -u I. E; _‘ SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U.S.DEPT. OF AGRIGJLTURE .5 I‘ 5 g ”M FIeId work by Glenn BedeII,Area Soil Scientist CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY HEAIJH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Value I; he“: one." I900 0 fi" b- u- a I ‘ ‘. a r -b0- GENERALIZED SOIL- MAP BATTLE CREEK TOWNSHIP " CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN t GLAs IFICA ATION 9' SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U. S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 3 .,‘ ., ,fim, Field work by Glenn BechI,Aroa SOII SCIenIIsI CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ' 5 CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY i\ W 2 ; i) 6 Irina: a “you! Ocuuv I900 PLATE IV ON 4 Nu um. Tom 4 Q. -, I ____7 - v _ .__._ - __ - —~———-4 HZITCADOHII as ,0 . s O m.- o a O ' _ I» ““1 am 000* p O :9 -60- 3 GENERALIZED BATTLE CREEK TOWNSHIP SOIL MAP CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN I ”If I no 0 I, '3 \_ 54¢ ’ . I " I ‘ fi , x" \j , - - / ”A only: 'IL .JI_ my ‘51 I \ I ‘ “fl " ' . , , V ' s44 ' ’ .I3« 944 ~~ -" 3“.- ' /"/H J 4:5; (#3 u. . IF" <_ .7- , ".LFV J‘ _ I' I|o‘ DEL __ I- “ "- C, 7\‘\ mggflmg Afiugfifi: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U.S.DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 5 I. I, ' Hm, field work by Glenn BodoII.Aroo SOII SCIenIIsI CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ PREPARED .V Immu- 0 lulu Ocular I960 PLATE IV ‘J' ... . -61- EMMETT TOWNSHIP GENERALIZED SOIL MAP CALHOUN COUNTY. MICHIGAN O 3 0 not" Q 4 In... um: Table 4 _——7, ___-.—._——v- ‘- -—____— v-7, __ .w- QOOPERATINQ A§EN§IE§ SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U. SDEPT. OF AGRICULTURE field work by Glenn BodoII,Atoo Sou ScuenIIsI CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY I-EALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PREPARED g7 “Ian 6 undo: out." I960 PLATE V I mu 0 a O .. mu? .m- wm I» O ——’--—- EMMETT TOWNSHIP CALHOUN coum'v. MICHIGAN OIO I0 MILE Q; o— W SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U.S.DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Field work by Glenn Bodoll,Ano Soil ScionIisI CALHOUN COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. E "I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY m mum 0010.0! IDGO PLATE V f62- Overlays have been utilized in this paper in order to illustrate the grouping of various types of soils. according to similar characteristics as they appear on the base maps. These groupings as indicated by six colors are indicative of the rating of soil for urban residential use according to the procedure set forth in the following chapter. As a result, these maps and over- lays can be utilized as a basic planning tool. With the use of this system, land use information and other data, it is conceivable that the Battle Creek Area townships and, in similar fashion, other local governments may better control urbanization of urbanizing areas through their inclusion in sound planning policies and development controls. Denotation of Slope In the older soil series maps, contour lines were often employed, but due to new techniques this is no longer true. Slope and location (lowland, terrace, etc.) are considered as characteristics of soils but slope identification is now employed in field coding during the compilation of modern soil maps. In addition to the digital code, a letter designation (upper case) is used to denote intensity of slope. The standard designation was previously stated in Table 1. These designations were originally conceived for agricultural use but again, they easily lend themselves to urban planning considera- tions. Slopes up to twelve percent are not usually -63- considered as detrimental to residential deve10pment although very flat land creates problems for drainage facilities and sewer lines which must depend upon gravity to produce natural flow. At the other end of the scale some caution becomes necessary due to installation of facilities and utilities which require proper gradients for satisfactory performance. However, this situation has not faced the urbanizing area surrounding Battle Creek because the city and its environs are in a relatively flat area where slopes do not exceed six percent. Slopes exceeding twelve percent (fifteen percent is sometimes used) often create barriers to deve10pment; or if they are built upon, serious consequences may result if proper land development precautions are not taken. Development costs rise rapidly when slopes exceed ten per- cent and provision of public sewer and water is often not economically feasible. Investigation of the Battle Creek area showed that there are considerable areas of steep slopes out from the city, but deve10pment on these slopes, to date, has not been of an urban nature. Subdivision On Floodplains and Poorly Drained Soils The City of Battle Creek, for the most part, is on relatively well drained soils except for two large flood- plains associated with the Battle Creek and Kalamazoo Rivers. It is also interesting to note that the well drained soils also happen to be very poor agricultural land. However, building upon the floodplains in the city has created f1 alleviated at tures -- prism of periodic fl the Battle Cre Had building I‘ the grief and Current I out that offic learned a less evidence of he of minor stree Battle Creek [ Township. 1331 Of land COuld tr01 in the a Prevent the d Putting right PlaCe . The se VL‘ Vldual wells. in floodplail’ 29' BaSic EVelopm; -64- has created flood problems which have only recently been alleviated at considerable cost through public expendi- tures -- primarily by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Because of periodic flooding of urban facilities, the channel of the Battle Creek River had to be straightened and deepened. Had building not been allowed on the floodplain, much of the grief and the recent expense could have been avoided. Current residential growth patterns appear to point out that officials and citizens in the area have not learned a lesson. Land use maps of 1959 bear shocking evidence of new subdivision activity on the floodplains of minor streams as well as on the floodplain of the Battle Creek River. This is especially true in Bedford Township. Ignorance of natural physical characteristics of land could very likely be the reason for lack of con- trol in the area. However, ignorance of nature will not prevent the destruction of property and the expense of putting right what should not have been in the first place. These very same areas are not all served by public sewers and in some, water must be obtained through indi- vidual wells. Drainage conditions are not always poor in floodplains, but in the case of Bedford Township, 29. Basic planning studies of Calhoun County, Michigan are presently being prepared by the Institute For Community Development and Services at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. -65- some subdivisions are traversed by organic soils. This latter consideration is very serious from a health standpoint for it is just about impossible to have a well and septic tank disposal system on a house lot of less than several acres, particularly where organic con- ditions are paramount. Even then, it is difficult to obtain potable water. Summary and Conclusions The Battle Creek Area Study sharply illuminated the need for a method of classifying land not only to guide sound residential deve10pment, but also to protect good agricultural land. This investigation lent itself to the development of the classification scheme (explained in the next chapter) because it is an area in Michigan that is witnessing rapid urbanization of rural areas and has many of the problems that are plaguing city fringe areas all over the nation. Natural physical characteristics of land in the area had not been investigated for the purpose of determining growth policies and/or residential deve10pment controls. The information that has been compiled and the land classification maps have not been made available to offi- cials in the Battle Creek area as yet, but it is the humble opinion of the author that they should prove useful in helping to achieve better patterns and standards in future deve10pment. CHAPTER V CLASSIFICATION OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ANDgng SIZE REQUIREMENTS Natural characteristics of soils are considered by soil scientists for their relation to agricultural use of land, but analyses of these characteristics are also useful in consideration of land for urban residential deve10pment. Such characteristics as slope (explained previously), erosion, color, and texture are all important in judging land. Detailed analyses of color and texture are made through field and laboratory examination while erosion is based upon field observation. Of importance to those responsible for community development is the fact that these analyses are correlated in code form and written form for all soil series which may be obtained from U.S. Soil Conservation Service offices. Each soil series has been assigned a name and master field code designation. A MethodofClassifying Land For ResidentialfiDevelopment With the above information one may refer to Soil Con- servation Service listings in order to obtain agricultural capability classifications. This procedure allows one to readily identify the best agricultural lands in relation to urban development, but more information is desirable if such land is to be used for urban subdivision. However, each soil series is rated for soil management purposes which offers a key to urban residential considerations. -66- -67- The DepartmenUsof Soil Science and Horticulture at Michigan State University have compiled tablegoof ferti- lizer recommendations for soil series in Michigan. It is within the framework of these tables that soil series have been converted, by the author, to urban residential land use considerations. Soil management groups are based upon natural physical characteristics of soil to a depth of 3 to 5.5 feet. They are subdivided into management units on the basis of slope, degree of erosion, surface texture, or stoniness and may be regrouped into Land Capability Classes, Subclasses, or Units. The grouping of soil series into urban residential classes is accomplished by utilizing the coding system of agricultural considerations by a simple mathematical weighting process applied to the characteristics. Table 3 illustrates texture, natural drainage, and surface color. The agricultural classification number indicates relative coarseness of the mineral materials from which the soils were formed; from O for the finest texture or clays, to 5 for the coarsest texture or sands. A small letter following the numbers or capital letters denotes natural drainage under which the soil developed: "a" for well drained, light colored; "b" for imperfectly 30. Departments of Soil Science and Horticulture, Michigan State University, Fertilizer Recommendations FogvMichigan Crops, Copperative Extension Service Bulletin E-159 (East Lansing: June 1959), pp. 43-48. Table 3: Soil Management Group Identification Chart Natural drainage and surface color Imperfectly Texture of the Well drained drained Poorly upper 3 feet of light moderately drained the soil colored dark colored dark colored profile a b C O Clays (over 55%) OCR 1 Clay and silt clays . la* lb* lc* 2 Clay loams or loams 2a* 2b* 2c* 3 Sandy loams 3a* 3b* 3c* 4 Loamy sands or sands with some finer textured layers 4a* 4b* 4c* 5 Sands 5a* 5b* 5c* G Gravelly or stony Ga* Gc* Gc* R Rocky Ra* Rc* Rc* * Soil management group designations. Source: Michigan State University Cooperative Exten- sion Service, "Fertilizer Recommendations for Michigan Crops", Extension Bul. E-159, Ju 59, p.44. -68- Table h: Classification of Battle Creek Area Soil Series For Agricultural and Urban Residential Use Soil Dominant Primary Final series land use rating rating Soil mngmt. . capability for for no. Soil series group class (1) urban urban res. use(2) res. use(3)‘ 010 Organic 3011* MC III 6 6 130 Plainfield 5.0a VII 1 l 203 Coloma ha IV 2 2 218 Oshtemo ha III 2 2 218D Oshtemo (Hilly) ha Iv 2 3 218E Oshtemo (Steep) ha VI 2 h 3th FOX 3a II 3 3 3th Fox (Rolling) 3a III 3 3 31am Fox (Hilly) 3a IV 3 I4 «3th Fox (Steep) 3a VI 3 5 360 ‘Hillside 3a II 3 3 3600 Hillside (Rolling) 3a III 3 3?Ldmmg 360D Hillside (Hilly) 3a IV 3 h) J I150 Miami 2a II II II hSOD Miami (Hilly) 2a IV h S 6&5 Conover 2b I 5 S 671 Brady hb III 3 S 677 Matherton 3b II II 5 823 Gilford he III h 6 8702 Sebewa 3c II 5 6 880 Brookston 20 I 6 6 935 Genessee 3a-L IV 6 6 982 Parma 3/Ra III 6 6 * includes Carlisle, Houghton, and Tanas Soil Series. (1) Soils series are grouped into Land Capability Classes according to degree Of limitations in use, and general suitability for agricultural use as defined in.Appendix.A. Class I soils have few limitations in use and limitations increase with class. (2) An arabic number is used for primary urban residential use rating. Drainage factors in relation to use for septic tank systems received primary consideration in this grouping. (3) An arabic number is used for final urban residential use rating. In addition tO (2), lepe factors and predominance Of dense materials such as loam or organic matter determine the final rating. -69- -70- drained, moderately dark colored; and "c" for poorly drained, dark colored. These factors become important considerations in determining a soil's suitability for septic tank effluent dispersal,storm drainage and the provision of individual wells for domestic water supply. This classification of soil series is illustrated in the table classifying Battle Creek Area soils (Table 4). Methodology Employed Using characteristics of texture and drainage char- acteristics an "urban weighting system" is applied. Urban weights are for the six numerical designations used in soil management groupings and are Obtained by reversing the numerical order that applies to texture. The lower case letters denoting drainage characteristics are weighted as: "a" = l; "b" = 2; and "c" = 3. By com- bining these two urban weights a primary soil series classification for urban residential use may be obtained. These weighting factors are illustrated in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5: Conversion Factors for Urban Residential Use Rating Management group capital letter urban texture of the upper 3 feet or number weight of the soil profile designation clays (over 55%) clay and silty clay clay loams or loams sandy loams loamy sands or sands with some finer textured materials sands Gravelly or stony Rocky chtn .btpnarwa UJCHD PHQLDP‘UI -71- Table 6: Drainage Weighting Management group lower case Urban letter designation weight Description a 1 well drained b 2 imperfectly drained c 3 poorly drained Where soils are made up of one material over another, a fractional symbol is used. The capital letter or number above the line refers to the upper layer, while the lower letter or number refers to the lower layer. For example, 7 5/1 refers to sands over clay and silty clays. / Possible combinations of Michigan soil series are pre- sented in Table 7. These are obtained by simply adding the urban weights which correspond to the series character- istics as listed in Table 3. The resulting number indicates a soil series relative position on the "Primary Rating For Urban Residential Use" scale such as in Table 4. Table 7: Possibie Primary Ratings for Urban Residentiallkua Mngmt.group Primary Mngmt.group Primary Mngmt.group Primary designation rating_ designation rating designation ratingi --- --- 0c 6 la 5 lb 6 lo 6 2a 4 2b 5 2c 6 3a 3 3b 4 3c 5 4a 2 4b 3 4c 4 5a 1 5b 2 5c 3 Ga 1 CC 3 Ge 3 Ra 3 Rc 5 Rc 5 -72- Table 8 illustrates the urban weighting to be assigned a soil series which has certain important characteristics coded in the soil management group designation. These characteristics are indicated by a letter following a dash. For example, Algansee soil series is denoted as 4c-L. The "L" designates this series as a lowland soil, subject to flood. Factors such as these are given penalties in rating the soil for residential deve10pment. Table 8: Urban Weighting For Seriously Detrimental Soil Characteristics Management group letter designation Urban following a dash weight Description M 6 Muck L 6 Lowland soils - subject to flood f 5 fragipan - compact, imper- meable layer in soil profile h 5 subsoils are hardened and cemented Slope considerations must be included as a final additional influence. Only slopes over 12% are included as a serious factor which will be given an urban weight. The slope classification as given in Table 9 is used for this purpose and the relative weights are given. Table 9: Slope Rating For Urban Residential Use Slope designations Urban weight % of slope C l 12-l8 D 2 18-25 E 3 over 25 -73- Summary Of Soil Classification Methodology The use of soil management groups as rated for each soil series lends itself to urban weighting for each characteristic of soils as listed in Tables 5, 6, and 8. In addition to texture, drainage, and seri- ously detrimental soil characteristics, slope factor weights should be included (Table 9). By totalling all the assigned weights for a particular soil series a "Final Rating For Urban Residential Use" will be obtained. The ratings will range from 1 to 6 denoting excellent to not suitable, respectively. In a few cases, penalty points may be greater than six, but this is due to a combination of numerous detrimental charac- teristics. This in no way affects the scale, for these particular cases automatically revert to a rating of 6. The soil rating scale is presented below (Table 10) as it would relate to percolation rates and the suita- bility of the soil for individual sewage disposal systems. Although this is the primary consideration, the addition Of detrimental factors would have the same effect as lowering of percolation rates in deter- mining sewage disposal area needs. _74_ Table 10: Soil RatingiFor Urban Residential Use Numerical designation Description of group_ 1 Soils are generally acceptable for individual sewage disposal systems. Very good percolation rate.* 2 Soils are generally acceptable for individual sewage disposal systems. Have a good percolation rate. 3 Soils have a clay loam layer 10 to 30 inches thick that frequently create problems in individual sewage disposal systems. Other soil hori- zons have varying percolation rates. 4 Soils need careful examination and percolation tests to determine their suitability for individual sewage disposal systems. 5 Soils are frequently not acceptable, but careful examination may locate acceptable areas. 6 Soils generally not acceptable for individual disposal systems. Includes organic soils, soils subject to flood- ing, high water table, or poorly drained mineral soils. * Percolation rate: Time required for water to fall one inch in minutes, see Public Health Service Publication NO. 526, "Manual of Septic Tank Practice", Table 1,116. Soil ratings for all soil series in Michigan have been determined by the author. These ratings have been accom- plished by rating each soil series by the method presented in this section, for its soil management group designation. However, slope characteristics are not included, therefore, this consideration should be made where applicable. These soil ratings may be found in Appendix B. Some Considerations of Minimum Lot Size Requirements Careful consideration must be given to natural physical -75- characteristics of land in determining minimum lot sizes for subdivisions where individual water supply systems and individual sewage disposal systems are to be used. There is no perfect method for accomplishing such a feat as evidence of present lot size ranges indicate. If proper consideration was given to land during the determi- nation of control devices, it is very likely that better residential land use would result. This is especially true where minimum lot sizes must be determined that will accomodate individual sewage disposal systems. Public or community sewers and treatment plants are the most satisfactory method of disposing of sanitary waste. This is true not only from the standpoint of health, but also in relation to economics. ‘When considera- tion is given to the life period of the house in relation to the means of sewage disposal utilized, it is apparent that public sewer connections are less costly.31 After World War II the construction of homes outside of public water and sewer service areas began to increase. Subdivision building has increased at such a rate that public agencies have not been able to provide the services demanded. This uncontrolled growth has resulted in a great dependence on individual sewage disposal systems and individual wells for water supply, although the latter has not been as serious as the former. 31. Housing and Home Finance Agency (Division of Housing Research), Septic Tank Soil Absorption Systems For Dwellings, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954), p.1. -76- The septic tank soil absorption system of sewage disposal has been widely used for suburban dwellingi This system was originally designed for the farm but has been adopted for urban use. The fallacy of urban use of such a method is that on a farm, should the system break down, the farmer has sufficient land in which to duplicate the system; whereas in a subdivision it is unlikely that the homeowner can duplicate his system in another area of his lot. The subdivision dweller, at best, can invest a tremendous amount of money in removal of several thousand cubic feet of saturated soil in order to replace it with a more permeable material. Even then, the homeowner cannot be guaranteed a satisfactory system. The septic tank soil absorption system of sewage dis- posal is considered by many sanitary engineers, public health officials, planners, and Others to offer only a temporary method of sewage disposal. The Ohio Department of Health strongly supports this philosophy, but states that where public sewers are not available, lot sizes must be large enough to accomodate such a system yet not so large that provision of public sewers at a later date will be economically unfeasible?2 This consideration creates a dilemma for those responsible for community deve10pment. In attempting to guide sound residential development, those responsible for community deve10pment must rely upon 32. Ohio Department of Health, Control of Sggitation in Unincorporated Areas (Cleveland: 1958), p.30. -77- three legal tools to guarantee proper lot sizes or to prevent sanitary waste diSposal problems in a subdivision. Zoning, subdivision regulations, and health codes may be based, in part, upon natural physical characteristics of land. In this way, minimum lot sizes may be required. Various public agencies constantly concern themselves with problems of individual water supply and individual sewage disposal. Standards for well location, protection of water supply, well construction, treatment of water, etc. have been devised over the years. By the same token, these same agencies have also devised standards for in- dividual sewage disposal systems which consider protection of water supply, septic tank and leach field construction, location, etc. The author, for purposes of this paper, has relied mainly upon the standards of the: l) U.S. Public Health Service; 2) Housing and Home Finance Agency; and 3) Michi- gan Department of Health. The standards of these agencies are quite similar and have been utilized as a guide for evaluating lot size needs in relation to the author's six land classifications. Certain design criteria have been used to determine lot size minimums although variations by local agencies could conceivably alter the final results. Factors such as minimum lot widths and depths, front, side, and rear yard requirements, and other desired residential design factors could substantially affect the minimum lot areas -78- suggested by the author in Table 11. However, certain minimums related to location of individual facilities should be recognized as standards adhered to by most health agencies. The minimum distance of the septic tank from a house should be 8 feet. The distribution field should not be within: 10 feet<1fa.house or property line; 25 feet of a stream or water body; or 100 feet of a well. A well should not be within 50 feet of a property line and the ground must slope away from the well toward possible sources of contamination. Determination Of Minimum Lot Sizes For Six Land Ciassi- fications Table 11 has been constructed with the preceding in- fluences in mind. Square foot requirements of leaching areas and disposal trench length requirements are based upon accepted standards. These have been evaluated accord- ing to requirements of disposal field design, recognizing factors of soil permeability, lateral lengths, distance between laterals, and minimum distances to lot lines. The results of this approach are summarized under minimum disposal area (column 4). Recognizing the influence of design requirements of local regulations and assuming a minimum lot width of 70 feet with yard requirements of 25 feet front and 10 foot sides; minimum lot sizes have been calculated for homes with public water supply and individual sewage disposal systems (column 5). Local desires for yard oxme pnmfls mOASmwos wnwnmmcflmco mo :owpuoaamad ION- .mpcmeaoao>mp Oman opmAmo owned mom oanmpfism macaw casehmo .pcoemoaobou Heapcoewmmu canes mom oapauusn poz Adv .umdao used no nowpmfipopowuano HwOAmzna Hayseed hp uopm»owv onsaamm OHQAmmOa on our emansou mops Hanoamav amazem AOV .Ovaz mucosa ma cocoa» xoon eonmsho :a cache OHAO hmao MO on: wcflasmm<.AnV .Haon vonpzomflvnd ca EOOAUOQ hep naww o m upcoEonHSUOh EOOAUOQ or» so pommm w m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 AUVO oao.mm oom.ms I ema.mm ooo.mm onooa.aa ooo.a oom.H m ome.mm ooa.wm I ooq.mm oom.aa Accoo:.ma com com : oom.em oom.am - ooa.am ooo.aa ooa.o com oma m oma.mm oom.am I ooa.ma ooo.m ooa.m com om: N oom.aa oom.am a oom.aa ooo.a oom.m oma mam A hammmmuwwmmz haamwmmmOpmz Aopmwommmnsm on“ .wm ca Afikcqcfi commas Noam .9H .d@ genes: Hmaaasaeca spear Hmaefl>aeqa Eta: spa: -mmmaoWMMmm eoapanommmvommmwmawumeqmpm soapamwwwnmaao .pm .w» :A meommfiv owmzmm Hmsea>flvcfi pom woman 90H essfinfi: eaeaca: noapaoaaanmaao acme pom npaosonaawom exam pom essaeaz "Ha oanma -80- requirements, lot width, house design, etc. could sub- stantially change these area requirements, but it is more than likely that lot sizes would increase rather than decrease because of the limited flexibility possible in disposal field location and design. For houses without public water and sewer, severe limitations are necessary. All previous factors Of sewage disposal location and design were considered, plus possible arrangements of both facilities on the same lot. Due to the location of a well on the lot (and assuming all neighboring wells similarly located) a bare minimum lot width of 100 feet is necessary. Assuming some variation in subdivision arrangements of individual facilities, it is apparent that lot widths might vary from 100-170 feet or more. However, the 170 foot figure has been used in conjunction with the 100 foot figure in order to obtain a reasonable lot area range. These ranges are given for lots without public water or public sewer services (column 6). In addition, each range was averaged (column 7) only as a means of determining a reasonably safe guide for lot size requirements of proper- ties in relation to land classifications and having neither 'public sewer or public water services. Summary and Conclusions The method of land classification explained in this section is based on natural physical characteristics of land. Soil information as compiled by soil scientists, -81- recognizes the important considerations of geologic- geographic influences. From such considerations it is possible to classify land into major categories which may be used as an aid in developing sound development policies and urban residential development controls. Soil information for agricultural application Offers a multitude of basic information which can be very useful to those responsible for community deve10pment. By uti- lizing the soil scientist's soil management system, it is possible to convert the information quite readily to ratings for urban residential use. Although there are possible exceptions, it may be stated that any combination of natural physical characteristics of land will lend itself to the six point classification system devised. Minimum lot size requirements may be determined for areas in relation to the need for individual water supply and/or individual sewage disposal. The land classifica- tion system, during its deve10pment, was designed as a means to determine minimum lot size requirements in this regard. The result is that lot size requirements are pre— sented in table form for the various classifications of land. They are meant to be used only as a guide due to local desires, design considerations, special problem areas, and other variables. Therefore, reasonable lot size requirements based upon design considerations and natural physical factors for safe water supply and sanitary sewage disposal provisions do provide a basis for zoning and/or subdivision regulations. CHAPTER VI MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP - A CASE STUDY The deve10pment of the land classification system and minimum lot size requirements tables in this paper were originally designed in regard to information derived in the Battle Creek Area Study. The information for this area was compiled by modern techniques utilizing existing soil maps, aerial photographs, health department tests, "cooperating farm" information, and actual field work by a soil scientist. Therefore, in order to show that older studies for an area could be converted to the same classi- fication and rating system, a case study appeared manda- tory. Meridian Township, Michigan was chosen to illustrate the possible approach that a planner might follow in any given area. The illustration of this case study will further support the contention of the author that existing data on natural physical characteristics of land can be utilized as a means to the provision of sound development policies and sound residential deve10pment controls. Data that is useful to the urban planner exists in many forms, but often such data is by-passed due to the lack of a means of interpreting the information for its planning implications. Meridian Township was chosen as a test case for various reasons. The more important ones are: 1) the township is experiencing rapid urbanization of rural areas; -82- -83- 2) modern soil maps are not available for the area; and 3) a new zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations were in the process of being prepared in conjunction with a master plan. The latter point is very important for these legal tools have been completed and are now in effect controlling the use of land. Of major concern to the author are the minimum residential lot size require- ments that now exist for each zoning district. It is the intention of the author, due to the findings of this study, to make an analysis of minimum residential lot size re- quirements required by the Meridian Township Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the goals of this section are twofold: l) to show that soils may be classified for urban residen- tial use and minimum lot sizes can be developed from this information - for any area; and 2) to determine whether or not there is a need for further reflection on development policies and standards for residential lot sizes in Meridian Township. Physical Information Available As with most communities, the only soil maps that are currently available are those published (with text) for counties 35-45 years ago. Meridian Township is covered by the Ingham County Soil Survey of 1919, done by the Bureau of Soils of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These surveys were originally intended for agricultural use only. However, this does not rule out their useful— ness today, to those responsible for community development. -84- Land forms and soils do not change rapidly, therefore, great use may be made of the surveys. The major purpose of the new studies of soils by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service is to utilize new techniques for greater accuracy in determining soil series boundaries, minor changes in physical features and to make soil studies more useable. Better coding systems through the National Cooperative Soil Survey make information in one state more readily useable in another state. Slope information is not included as a characteristic of soil series in the older soil surveys, therefore this information had to be compiled by the author from U.S. Geologic Maps of Meridian Township. Actually, slope con- siderations affect very little area within the township and these occur in isolated instances. In general, those areas with lepes over twelve percent will not be consid- ered for development for some time due to the plentiful supply of more level land throughout the township. Never- theless, the consideration of serious slope conditions must be taken into account in the development controls. The availability of soil and slope information for Meridian Township lends itself to easy interpretation for urban residential use considerations in accordance with the procedure developed for this paper. However, a comparison between the Battle Creek Area and Meridian Township is warranted at this point. Although soil con- siderations for agricultural capability should be consid- ered in many communities, Meridian Township does not -85- necessarily fall into this category. Agricultural activity as a major economic consideration degenerated before the township witnessed any great urbanizing influences. Therefore, even though the township has islands of Southern Michigan's best agricultural soil (Conover Loam), intensive agriculture is not conducive to competition with other areas that have great acreages of excellent soils. To consider these islands of good agricultural soils for farming would only create barriers to orderly community growth. It might be desirable to consider some Of these areas for Open space use should they fit into the comprehensive development plan of the township. In regard to geologic conditions in Meridian Township, this area, like the Battle Creek Area, has very much the same history and relationships to surface formations. Public water systems in the Lansing area all tap the Saginaw aquifer. The basic difference between this area and Battle Creek is that Lansing‘area's water table has been receding for many years, which may influence devel— Opment policies due to the high cost of municipal water supplies resulting from deep drilling or future distant surface supply.h Ground water in many areas of Meridian Township is not palatable and in many areas subject to surface contamination due to soil conditions. This is typical for an area with a glacial overburden of 300-400 feet which, of course, will affect deve10pment patterns -86- in relation to the provision of safe palatable water for household use. Land Classification For Meridian Township Table 12 has been compiled according to the method- ology explained previously for land classification. Each soil series name (column 2) follows its field code number (column 1) according to the new state soil mapping legend of Michigan (1960). Soil management groupings (column 3)33 were determined and urban classifications assigned (column 4) with inclusion of slope considerations where applicable. Finally, agricultural capability classes were listed (column 5) only to indicate the contrast between desirable land use for certain soils. Plate VI shows the twenty four different soils found in this township. In addition, eight variations for hilly or steep topography have raised the total to thirty two. This is an unusually large number of categories for so small an area. For purposes of reduction for this paper, the only identification for each area is a soil series code number. Each soil may be readily identified and analized by referring to Table 12 and the appendices. (‘In this way, specific areas may be analized in terms of agriculture or urban residential desirability. To further expedite easy identification of urban 33. Depts. of Soil Science and Horticulture, op.cit. Table 12: Classification of Soils In Meridian Township For Agricultural and Urban Residential Use Soil Urban Dominant series residential land use Soil mngmt. ‘ use capability no. Soil name(1) group class class 010 Carlisle Muck Mc 6 III 011 Rifle Peat Mc-b 6 III 030 Houghton Muck Mc 6 III 070 Kerston Muck Mc-L 6 IV 080 Greenwood Peat Mc 6 VIII 130 Plainfield L.S. 5.0a 1 VII 203 Coloma L.S. 4a 2 IV 203E Coloma L.S.(steep) 4a 4 VII 218 Oshtemo L.S. 4a 2 III 218D Oshtemo L.S.(hilly) 4a 3 VI 242 Ottawa L.F.S. 5/2a 4 IV 248 Berrien L. S. 5/2a 4 IV 253 Boyer L. S. (2) 4a 3 III 253D Boyer L. s. (hilly) 4a 4 VI 253E Boyer L. S. (steep) 4a 5 VII 344 Fox S.L. 3a 3 II 344E Fox S.L.(steep) 3a 5 VI 345 Fox Loam 3a 3 II 360 Hillsdale S.L. 3a 3 II 360D Hillsdale S.L.(steep) 3a' 4 IV 450 Miami Loam 2a 4 II 645 Conover Loam 2b 5 I 672 Brady S. L. 4b 3 III 672E Brady 8. L. (steep) 4b 5 VII 816 Granby S. L. (3) 5c 5 IV 842 Maumee Loam (3) 5c 5 II 880 Brookston Loam 2c 6 I 920 ‘Warsaw Loam (4) 3c-L 6 II 930 Griffin Loam 3c-L 6 II 935 Genessee F.S.L. 3a-L 6 II 960 wallkill Loam 3c-L 6 II 960D Wallkill Loam(hilly) 3c-L 6 IV (1) abbreviations used: S. = Loamy Sand; F. S. = Loamy Fine Sand; .L.= Sandy Loam; .S. L. = Fine Sandy Loam. (2) formerly Bellafontaine Loamy Sand. (3) high water table. (4) formerly Washtenaw Loam. -87- “87¢- MFIRIDI. \\ I‘O\\'_\SIIII' GENERALIZED SOIL MAP SIN GLE -m ZONINGIOMOIO proprosed «mod on“) Zone W RR 40.000 R'AA “.000 RA I0.000 ;'_A-’ ................. PLATE VI j ' PROPOSED SEWERE‘D AREAS UTN TABLE I2 AR WIT—'1 'P’" II MI \ \ AH HI AAH AAH HR ObIcIoOWHMOS YJIMA‘I-BJOVIIP. . , (new buewu become“; , .1? .pc III ”I8 IOiJIIM- one! 000.0% HR 000.6I 'AA'R OO0.0I AR 1V1ERII)I\\ lux. . GENERALIZE L ...- “r-Ir—w —..__ ‘z - __?- ...-.-- ._ LAND cu FICATION ‘ O ' O 5 O C ‘ 03 0 wafer . 4 -------------- -------—- PLATE VI E PROPOSED szweaeo AREAS l P‘ WITH TABLE I: 000.0! II -‘GO.BI A“ t mm Al ...-......3 33-9-- ----.1 3A3 .. use"! use“ I _ _,- _ SI 343a, '-es-:'.“ '87d" MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP GENERALIZED SOIL MAP 4 PLATE VI -88- residential considerations, a map overlay has been prepared showing the six land classifications applicable to various areas in the township. Also, on the same overlay, future "planned" (by the township) sewered areas are outlined. Implications of future development will be further exam- ined in regard to these considerations as part of the analysis of the new zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Meridian Township Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regu- lations of 1960 The township planning commission after several years of diligent effort has succeeded in creating an entirely new pair of deve10pment controls that reflects the poli- cies of the comprehensive deve10pment plan for the town- ship. Great effort was expended in the process of providing such a plan in order to guide development in a sound manner. However, the author in analyzing certain aspects of the legal tools prepared for implementation of the township's goals, does not wish to deride, but only to offer constructive criticism for further con- sideration. Minimum lot sizes, in part, as expressed in zoning ordinances and/or subdivision regulations, are usually a reflection of a community's comprehensive master plan. In preparing the master plan which provides the basis for development controls, many factors must be consid- ered. However, as is too often the case, those responsible -89- for community deve10pment do not place enough emphasis on natural physical characteristics of land which will affect future deve10pment patterns, conditions, etc. The planning commission in Meridian Township has not overlooked this serious consideration and have realized the seriousness of soil conditions in their community. The zoning ordinance lists four single-family resi- dence districts and lot size requirements that are subjeéf to investigation in this study. Section 4.2.1. of the ordinance states that several single-family residential districts with various lot size requirements are necessary to satisfy "a range of preference relative to the char- acter and size of individual properties...". 0f signifi- cance is the explanation immediately following, that recognizes limitations in respect to the lack of municipal water and sewerage service. "In consideration of the excessive cost of extending water and sewerage service to all areas of the Township, the establishment of a zoning district in which spacious lots are required makes it reasonably possible to obtain a continuous supply of safe, potable water on the imme- diate property and to treat sewage by septic tank fol- lowed by the disposal of the effluent on the same property." The section further states that the "RR One-family Rural Residential District" will serve those areas presently without water and sewer service and those 34. Meridian Township (Michigan) Planning Commission, Zonin Ordinance (Meridian Charter Township: October 5, 19505. whiCh ar‘ time to ‘ and prov front wi nately, in this without overlay district been pre Table 13 tricts y ments . Table 1: \ Sectior of zonir mm 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 (1) dis -90- which are not eXpected to have such services for some time to come. This district is of a semi-rural character and provides for minimum requirements of 200 feet lot- front width and 40,000 square feet of area. Unfortu- nately, it is highly questionable whether certain soils in this district can accomodate urban development with or without public water and sewerage services. A third overlay showing only the single family residential zoning districts outside of the "proposed sewered areas" has been prepared for use with Plate VI. In addition, Table 13 lists the four single family residential dis- tricts with their minimum lot width and lot area require: ments. Table 13: Meridian Township Required Lot Sizes Section Zoning map Min. width of Minimum area of zoning desig— lot in ft.at of lot ordinance nation street Line _in sq._ft. 4.2 RR 1 200 40,000 4.3 RAA 90 15,000 4.4 RA 80 10,000 4.5 RB 70 8,000 (1) district with no sewerage and water service and not expected to have such services for some time to come. Section IV.D.l. of the township's 1960 subdivision regulations makes provision for minimum lot sizes by referring to the zoning ordinance. However, the regula- tions (II.B.) do require certain procedures which are intended to require sound residential deve10pment. The township plans fo service regulati must com ing stor the "Sui_ the stan SUpply" A m Planning Subdivis If eithe a subdiv Septic t with the treated If indi. ject to -91.. township engineer must comment upon required preliminary plans for storm drainage, water service and sewerage service if feasible or required under the subdivision regulations. Also, the Ingham County Health Department must comment on the relation of the subdivision to exist- ing storm drains or the need for additional drains plus the "suitability of the land for plat development from the standpoint of sewage disposal, water resources and supply" and other health factors. A measure of protection is afforded here and the planning commission also reserves the right to require subdivision sewer system if feasible (section V.D.7.). If either connection to a public system or provision of a subdivision system is not feasible, then individual septic tank disposal systems are allowed in accordance with the county sanitary code. Provision of water is treated as either public supply or individual well supply. If individual wells are employed, then these too are sub- ject to the county health code. "Ingham County Sanitary Code" This code is concerned primarily with sanitary dis- posal of waste whether publicly operated or private. In addition to construction, materials, types of systems, and location, the code Spells out minimum absorption areas for subsurface disposal systems. This section of the code has been reproduced as Table 14. It should be noted that the minimum absorption area is based upon g33£_bedroc In com} this paper, tithe best for the re:‘ two tables. sizes indic Minimum 10' Provision lated in C Varh in future ZOHing or Wen Writ opment 1: Codes do tlal dew that the QOuld b<| lndiVid -92- Ehggg bedrooms whereas Table 11 is based on Egg bedrooms. In comparing the two area requirements presented in this paper, in Tables 11 and 14 there is some similarity in the best drained and the poorest drained soils, but for the remainder there is little correlation between the two tables. For ease of comparison, the minimum lot sizes indicated by the two tables are compared in Table 15. Minimum lot sizes for Ingham County in relation to the provision of individual lot facilities have been calcu- lated in the same manner as those in Table 11. Planning For Future Residential Deve10pment In Meridian Township Various factors in the township should be considered in future residential proposals. Although the township zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations have been well written, full protection for sound residential devel- opment is questionable. Even though the county health codes do provide some guarantee of sound future residen- tial development in the township, it is also apparent that the Zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations could be strengthened in regard to the provision of individual sewage disposal. Present sewerage service area plans will service less than one-half of the township. When these areas are serviced, individual sewage disposal considerations should no longer affect lot size requirements. However, these areas do contain a great deal of poorly drained Table u2_5 comply wi tion area Soil Coarse Sa Sand Loam Sandy Cla Clay HeaVy Cla * Table 14: Ingham County Disposal Area Requirements "2-5.406 AREA-- Subsurface disposal systems shall comply with the following minimum trench bottom absorp- tion areas: Min. absorption area per single family residence Perc.test time 3 bedrooms Soil per 1" drop or less Coarse Sand or Gravel Less than 5 min. 300 sq.ft. Sand 5-10 min. 450 sq.ft. Loam 11-20 min. 600 sq.ft. Sandy Clay or Clay Loam 21-30 min. 750 sq.ft. Clay 30-45 min. 900 sq.ft. Heavy Clay Over 45 min. Not suitable-- minimum filter bed area: 400 sq.ft. In heavy clay soils where the drop in water level _is over 45 minutes per inch by standard percolation test 0r where ground water or an impervious hardpan is found less than 4' from the ground surface, a filter bed underdrained to an approved outlet, or some other drain- age device approved by the health officer shall be used, or the permit denied. Drainage for systems to serve other than single family residences of three bedrooms or less shall be prescribed by the health officer. Sub- surface disposal systems shall contain at least one (1) lineal foot of tile for every three (3) feet of trench width. Trench excavations exceeding 36" in width at the bottom shall be considered tile beds and shall require 50% more trench bottom absorption area than required for single line trench. (As amended February 27, 1958 —- In effect May 3, 1958)." * Source: Ingham C0,, Mich., "Ingham County Sanitary Code", November 14, 1953 as amended. -93- FHngLf—U m.» aa>gflhxuua~u srw—ur—W —_~r.——\. —-2'Jf\f_.J .F—\ fion-{ys‘uaxu u—wwfbw nIII >~Q93m zoomB ouc>HuQ LCH3 kHQQSm poom3 pagesm Cw more . .uu.:m :H onfim uo~.:HE.um>< Luw3.uu.cm :a psam uoH.:wZ :ofluQMOmbm .CHZ pcmq UmhwaECU mucoEquDUmm HQmOQmHQ mwmkmm Hmnvw>flvca “ma m~nm& Ilium- .mEoonpmn m no pmmmn «a maan .mEooupmn M :0 pmmmn AH manme “muoz mcoaumadoamo mGoHumadono pop Hmuaflm munm Hmswa>neaa mz muam Haze->cha mz .um.am 004 m2 0 omo.mm o-o.wm oom.a- ooo.NN ooa oom- m oom.o~ omo.mm ooo.- oom.a- om“ com a ooo.m~ oom.o~ oo~.a ooo.- coo own m oma.m~ oma.mm ooo.m ooo.w omq ems N oom.om oom.o- oom.a coo.“ oom mum - .oo amewmw -- m-nme .oo am; aH -- m-nme 4--m-nme -- m-QmH now wow .00 EmeGH pmumasoamu pwumHSuHmu ammoamflp mwm3mm .>HpGH paw ammoamap mmemm .>Hp:H paw .um .Uw coHumon zaadsm umumB mum>Hua LDHB zaaasm Hmumz oaansa ma mono lawmmao .um.vm ca mNHm uoH.cHE.um>< £ua3.um.vm CH muam uoH.st :oHuQHOmnw .GHZ pang pmummEou muamEmuasvwm ammoamao mwm3mm HmDpH>HpGH "ma manmh soils wh Organic unlikel}' extensiv provided not be f land for logical Sides of section Ano Proposed Which Se basis ur Certain areas tc which st the PlaI require ..95- soils which may be hazardous for building purposes. Organic soils such as muck and peat would appear to be unlikely candidates for house lots. Perhaps, where extensive areas of such soil or similar soils exist, provided the application of engineering measures would not be feasible, it might be more feasible to zone the land for very large lots or some form of open use. A logical candidate for such action may be found on both sides of the section line separating section #5 and section #6. Another factor that should not be overlooked in the proposed sewered areas is the time element involved in which septic tank systems must be utilized on a temporary basis until public service can be provided. There are certain areas which would require extensive leaching areas to accomodate individual sewage diSposal systems which should raise minimum lot size requirements. Here the planning commission should exercise its mandate to require subdivision sewer systems. This might be handled in the manner suggested in the Baltimore Study?5 If such systems are not feasible, then lot area requirements may have to be raised or permission to subdivide refused. Areas outside of the proposed sewerage service areas as mentioned previously, contain large areas which are not desirable for urban residential development. Those 35. Baltimore Regional Planning Council Committee, op.cit., pp. 4-8. -95- areas which fall into the author's classification 5 might be satisfactory with the present minimum lot size requirements if they do not have public water and sewer- age service. However, those that are in classificationéi are highly questionable even with 40,000 square foot lots. These areas should be seriously considered as re-. serve or estate areas, rather than semi-urban residential. .Even in the future, with urban services there are soil conditions which may prohibit urban deve10pment of a large amount of acreage. In regard to the areas outside of the proposed sewerage service areas, there is another very important consideration that should not be overlooked. There are some areas that need not be zoned quite so rigidly. Soils such as Coloma Loamy Sand can support a well and septic tank system on a one-half acre lot. This observ- ation is made only to point out the variation in conditions within one zoned area and has no reference to the master planning principals which established the zone. But factors such as this do warrant consideration. A final consideration that should not be overlooked is that of lepe. As mentioned earlier, Meridian Town- ship does not have a great amount of area in slopes greater than twelve percent. Although these areas are not large they may be found in various locations within the township boundaries. Actually, they may serve as future barriers to deve10pment. Where the steeper slopes -97- are within proposed sewerage service areas, the instal- lation of public water and sewer lines may not be feasible In that case, larger lots will be needed to handle the inherent problems of provision of individual water supply and individual sewage disposal systems on the same lot. The same problems will be found in the present rural residential (zoned) districts. Recommendations and Conclusions Meridian Township has an excellent existing legal framework in which to mold the growth of the community with sound policies. However, the township should not place as much emphasis on the county health codes (which require lower standards than more recent codes) in order to guarantee healthy environments, but should, after thorough considerations of existing natural physical characteristics of land, incorporate stronger guarantees for sound residential development into their legal tools. The present subdivision regulations do not allow building on floodplains. Therefore, it seems logical and reasonable to prevent the building of homes on land that is not suited to urban deve10pment. By classifying such lands under an estate or-open space zone, potential purchasers who often do not understand site considera- tions would be protected. By the same token, the town- ship would be protecting itself from the burden of providing public utilities to these areas at a later date and attempting to abate problems, nuisances, or blighted a develop ii A po lot sizes in certai district. Conditioz regulati lot 5128 of the 1 Minimum tions b reducti than tq SUbdiv« urban not he lots Y Plann. from be re SOUU< are qUit -98.. blighted areas that should not have been allowed to develop in the first place. A possible approach to the provision of minimum lot sizes would be to state what is considered desirable in certain districts, including estate or open space districts in the zoning ordinance after a review of conditions in the township. These new districts and regulations should be set up so that restrictions on lot size, due to known natural physical characteristics of the land, will compliment the subdivision regulations. Minimum lot size requirements in the subdivision regula- tions based upon soil types and lepe would allow for a reduction in minimum lot size requirements, but not less than the zoning district requires, upon proof by the subdivider that smaller lots would be satisfactory for urban residential use. In this way the township would not have to determine in advance what size residential lots must be for every parcel of land. Actually, the planning commission would do this in a general fashion from generalized soil maps, but every acre of land cannot be readily examined, therefore more generalized require- ments subject to change would provide a vehicle for sound development. The new legal tools in effect in Meridian Township are far superior than those recently discarded and are quite superior to most township laws. However, a critical analysis and adjustment is warranted in View of natural physica area ha than mo the zon regulat rapid u the bet A townshi Commisg trolled lot 812 SEWerag mendous adjuStn anticiF A Varig thiS Va -99- physical characteristics of land in this township. This area has a greater variety of problem-producing soils than most communities which will make the adjustment of the zoning ordinances (and zoning map) and subdivision regulations no easy task. The township is experiencing rapid urbanization, therefore the sooner this is done, the better. A large amount of information is available for this township which has helped the Meridian Township Planning Commission to determine their present policies of con- trolled urban deve10pment. The 40,000 square footnfimfimumi lot size requirement for areas outside the proposed sewerage service areas is reasonable in view of the tre- mendous soil problems existing in these areas. However, adjustment to conditions that are even more serious than anticipated by this foresighted commission is warranted. A variation of lot size requirements may be warranted if this variation would serve the anticipated goals set forth in the townshipfiscomprehensive development plan. Additional information might be obtained through modern soil mapping techniques and testing of the various soils in the township in line with their proposed use. This would require the services of personnel trained in sanitary engineering, and soil science. However, what information is available will serve as a framework for developing sound residential areas in Meridian Township. This the need to recogn tics of l izing are raphy, ar exert vat develOpm. and appl and urbg further It Scienti the prc Storm ( thrEe Systen The it has 0: bUt i Evalu urbar Soil: reQO fact CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS This thesis was originally conceived to point out the need for those responsible for community development to recognize the affect of natural physical characteris- tics of land on urban residential development in urban- izing areas. Factors such as soils, water table, topog- raphy, and geology are all interrelated, therefore all exert varying influence on certain aspects of community deve10pment. However, the need to obtain, interpret, and apply available information to deve10pment policies and urban residential development controls required further investigation. It was found that information compiled by soil scientists readily lends itself to considerations for the provision of water supply, sewerage service, and storm drainage facilities in urbanizing areas. These three utilities, whether public or private individual systems, are affected by surface conditions of the land. The information compiled by soil scientists and others has ordinarily been devoted to the field of agriculture, but investigation for agricultural use in most instances evaluates many land characteristics that also affect urban residential deve10pment. The relationship of soils to geology, topography, and water conditions are recognized, therefore a means of interpreting these factors in relation to urban residential deve10pment -lOO- -101- was needed. Interpretation of agricultural soil management requirements produced a scale of evaluation in relation to the provision of individual water supply and individual sewage disposal systems for urban resi- dential use. Individual water supply and individual sewage dis- posal systems are not the most desirable methods of providing potable water and sanitary sewer services to urban residences. However, due to the expansion of urban residential development into areas without public services or too distant from existing public facilities to make connections feasible, those responsible for community development must consider two alternatives: 1) to allow urban residential deve10pment only where such services can be provided by public or community systems; and 2) to allow urban residential deve10pment beyond the reach of such services with sound development policies and development controls. A combination of the two approaches may be feasible as long as full recogni- tion is given natural physical characteristics of land as they affect urban residential deve10pment. A system of land classification which utilizes existing physical data in respect to the provision of residential sanitary services is feasible for urban planning consideration. Available data in various forms can be analysed and interpreted by those responsible for community deve10pment to form a basis for sound land -102- planning. Existing soil and slope data offer a wealth of information in relation to the needs of urban residen- tial use. The six land classifications developed from soil and slope data in this paper point out the need for urban management practices applicable to various soil series in relation to their natural characteristics. Natural physical characteristics of land are prone to changes brought about by nature or man. Many interrela- tionships of physical influences exist from area to area, therefore careful consideration must be given to those influences which play greater or lesser roles in a given locale. However, the land classification system as presented can serve as a guide for the deve10pment of urban residential deve10pment policies and design stand- ards. Individual lot size requirements may be generally determined for each classification of land, but a need exists for more detailed field studies of soil types in relation to urban planning considerations. This is espe- cially true for soils that are rated in classes 5 and 6. Existing soil maps, due to human limitations, do not necesssarily_show the detail that is desirable for urban analyses. The role of the soil scientist and sanitary engineer in relation to community development is evident. Therefore, more reliance on these people for guidance in determining deve10pment policies and urban residential deve10pment controls is warranted. -lO3- Those responsible for community deve10pment should recognize the implications of soil conditions which make urban residential deve10pment undesirable. Large areas of land that are highly prized for agricultural use and can compete effectively with other agricultural areas should be seriously considered as permanent or at least as semi-permanent open space. Quite often, good agri- cultural land is not necessarily well suited to urban residential deve10pment. The older soil surveys do not necessarily indicate agricultural capabilities of soils due to the fact that slope information is not included as a characteristic of each soil. Therefore, it becomes quite difficult to denote which land is best suited for agriculture. For this purpose the aid of a soil scientist must be sought and the contributions of agriculture to the economic base of an area must be considered. However, modern soil surveys such as those utilized in this paper for the Battle Creek area, lend themselves to interpretation by those responsible for community development. In this case, slope conditions are included as a characteristic of each soil and help to determine its agricultural capability. Due to physical limitations, the U.S. Soil Conserva- tion Service will be unable to provide modern soil maps for large areas of the country for many years. Although modern soil information supplied by new techniques is -lO4- very desirable for community planning purposes, those responsible for community deve10pment in many cases must rely on older available data. Therefore, these people should make maximum use of available data and request the aid of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to help pinpoint problem areas. With such an arrangement, a system of land classification which recognizes the in- fluences of all natural physical characterisitcs of land in relation to urban residential development policies and controls is quite feasible. There is a definite need for more research that would examine the effect of slope on residential devel- opment. Many fine residential areas have been built on hillsides, but it is difficult for those responsible for community deve10pment to determine what restrictions should be applied to those areas that cannot be served with public sanitary services. Although southern Michigan is not faced with difficult slope conditions, many urban areas throughout the country may be faced with various hazards through development of certain slopes. How serious these hazards might be remains a question that has not yet been resolved. Although storm drainage systems, as a consideration of urban residential development, have been cited in this paper, they too have a great dependence on natural physi- cal characteristics of land. The subject must be con- sidered by those responsible for community deve10pment, -105- but due to two considerations, treatment within the scope of this paper has been necessarily superficial. It is the opinion of the author that: l) the analysis of storm drainage conditions is a highly technical engineering consideration which is rapidly producing grave problems for many communities due to a lack of research in relation to urban land use; and 2) modern engineering techniques are being utilized to combat problems of surface runoff. Consideration of these fac- tors is beyond the range of the author's abilities, therefore superficial treatment is warranted. In communities undergoing urbanizing influences, various factors must be considered, evaluated, and coor- dinated in relation to urban residential deve10pment. It is the responsibility of various local officials to determine what the best course of action may be for the community as a whole. It must be determined who shall provide the high capitalization cost of urban services in relation to the individual dwelling; the subdivider who passes the cost on to the homebuyer in the purchase price of the home, or the community which requires dis- tribution of the cost to all taxpayers when future improvements must be made. When capital costs are placed on the original pur— chase price of a home, they are included in a 20-30 year mortgage which the homebuyer considers as part of the cost of his home; but when capital costs must be -106- distributed through the tax program, a community is kept in constant turmoil over increasing tax rates. By pro- viding necessary utilities in subdivisions during con- struction, original costs are held to a minimum and the community is not saddled with future tax burdens to alleviate conditions that should not have been allowed to materialize in the first place. Such a procedure is possible only if sound deve10p- ment policies and deve10pment controls are instituted by those officials who are responsible for community deve10pment. These peOple and others in a nonofficial capacity must recognize the influence of natural physi- cal characteristics of land and their affect on urban residential development. As land use changes from rural to urban use, the transition period must be marked by sound policies of capitalization by requiring necessary improvements to provide sound residential areas that will remain an asset rather than a burden to the entire com- munity for years to come. This is possible only if those responsible for community development recognize their true responsibilities in regard to urban residential development. Planned orderly growth must replace our present urban Sprawl by requiring urban standards in all areas subject to urbanization. By requiring large lots in areas without public water and sanitary services and/or smaller lots with community facilities or "dead" -lO7- facilities, then it is conceivable that urban growth pat- terns can be controlled by encouraging building closer to central areas due to high land deve10pment costs in out- lying areas. Such policies may be readily defended through recognition of natural physical characteristics of land in relation to the provision of healthy urban residential environments. The methods of utilizing available information as set forth in this thesis may serve as a guide for further investigation of the affect of natural physical character- istics of land on urban residential development policies and standards. However, it is conceivable that the utili- zation of this data may help to determine further courses of action, but it must be realized that more detailed re- search is needed in relation to this data. In any given locality considerable research may be necessary due to special problems associated with soils, lepe, bedrock conditions, etc. Therefore, the material presented in this thesis should serve as a framework within which a locality's special problems may determine modifications in the application of this data and/or point out the need for specific research in this respect. Such information can help to prevent repetition of various problems of residential development that are influenced by natural physical characteristics of land and today are plaguing those responsible for sound community deve10pment. APPENDIX A AGRICULTURAL LAND CAPABILITY gAssgs "Best suited for cropland Class I--This is very good productive farm land that can be cultivated safely with ordinary good farming meth- ods. It will grow all locally adapted crops. It is nearly level, easy to till and not droughty. It holds water well and has good natural fertility. It is practi- cally free from hazards. Erosion is not a problem and the soil is easily drained. It can be maintained with ordinary good farming practices such as crop rotations, fertilizer, and lime when needed. Class II--This is good land that can be cultivated safely if simple measures are taken to overcome some par- ticular handicap such as erosion or low organic matter. It may be steep enough so that runoff water carries soil. It may tend to be a little droughty. Some Class II land may be a little wet and require drainage. Usually the drainage is easily installed, but maintaining the drain- age system may present some problems. Water may move slowly through the soil. Any of these conditions either limits the use of the land or requires special attention to such conservation practices as contouring, protective cover crops, application of organic matter, and simple water management. Class III--This is moderately good land. Most crops grow well, but the soil needs a lot of protection and care. Its use is more limited than Class II because of one or more particular physical features. Several kinds of land fit in Class III. Some is so steep that it requires intensive erosion control meas- ures when used for row crops. Poor drainage may placeiJ: into Class III if the necessary drainage is hard to main- tain. Droughty land may also be included since it is apt to suffer from wind erosion. These problems must be overcome or combatted year after year if the land is used for field crops. Class IV——This land may grow an occasional row crop with very careful management. Row crops should not be grown more often than once in five or six years. Class IV land is often too steep or irregular and badly eroded to cultivate. Or it may be too dry for dependable crOp production. Class IV land may be wet, making it very hard to install and maintain drainage. It should be used mainly for hay and small grain crops. -lO8- -lO9- "Best suited for permanent vegetation Class V--This land is nearly level and not subject to erosion, but it isn't suited for cultivation because of permanent wetness or stoniness. Drainage of this class is not practical because of cost or no outlet. There is little limitation to its use for pasture or forestry. Class VI--Land in this class is best adapted to growing grass or trees. Its use for grazing is somewhat limited by steep or very irregular slopes, shallow soils stoniness, dry condition, or excessive wetness. There is little limitation for forestry and recreation. Class VII--This land is best suited for forestry recreation, though some Class VII fields can be grazed with careful management. Limitations to grazing in- clude steep slopes, droughtiness, and severe past ero- sion. It may be necessary to scalp spots rather than plow furrows before you plant trees. Class VIII--This land is not suited for cultiva- tion, pasture or woods. Leatherleaf bogs and rock 6 outcrop areas are typical of this class in.Michigan. 36. Cooperative Extension Service, A Guide for Land Judgingiin Michigan, Michigan State University Extension Bulletin #326 (East Lansing: Revised June 1960), pp. 18-20. APPENDIX B PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SOILS Soil Pri- Soil Pri- man- mary man- mary Soil series age- soil Soil series age- soil men lass men class group”; (2) group“) (2) Abscota....... 4a-L 6 Brimley....... 3b 4 Adolph........ 3c 5 Bronson....... 4a 2 Adrian........ M/4c 6 Brookston..... 2c 6 Ahmeek........ 3a 3 Bruce......... 3c 5 Alcona........ 3a 3 Brule......... 3c-L 6 Algansee...... 4c-L 6 Burleigh...... 4c 4 Alger......... 3a 3 Burt.......... 3/Rc 6 Allendale..... 4/lb 6 Butternut..... 2c 6 Allouez....... Ga 1 Alpena........ Ga 1 Cadmus........ 3/2a 4 Amasa......... 3a 3 Cain.......... M/mc 6 Angelica...... 2c 6 Capac......... 2b 5 Antrim........ 4a 2 Carbondale.... Mc 6 Arenac........ 5/2b 5 Carlisle...... Mc 6 Au Gres....... 5b 2 Casco......... 4a 2 Au Train...... 5a-h 3 Celina........ 2a 4 Ceresco....... 3c-L 6 Bach.......... 3c 5 Champion...... 3a 3 Bannister..... 4/2c 5 Channing...... 5b-h 5 Baraga........ Ga 1 Charity....... lc 6 Barker........ 2a 4 Chatham....... 3a 3 Bark River.... 2a 4 Cheneaux...... 4b 3 Barry......... 3c 5 Chesaning..... 4/2b 5 Belding....... 3/2b 5 Cohoctah...... 3c-L 6 Bellefontaine. 3a 3 Coldwater..... 3b 4 Bentley....... 4a 2 Coloma........ 4a 2 Bergland,,,,., 1c 6 COIWOOd....... 3C 5 Berrien....... 5/2a 4 Conover....... 2b 5 Berville...... 3/2c 6 Constantine... 4a 2 Bibon......... 5/2a 4 Coral......... 3b 4 Blount........ 2b 5 Coventryon.... 3a 3 Blue Lake..... 4a 2 Crosby........ 2b 5 Bohemian...... 23 4 Croswell...... 5.08 1 Bono.......... lc 6 Crystal Falls. Ra 4 Bowers........ 2b 5 Boyer......... 43 2 Danby......... 2c-L 6 Brady......... 4b 3 Dawson........ Mc 6 Brant......... 4/2a 4 Deer Park..... 5.3a l Breckenridge.. 3/2c 6 Deford........ 4c 4 Brevort....... 4/2c 6 Detour........ CC 3 Bridgman...... 5.3a 1 Diana......... CC 3 (l) Modifying symbols used after a dash in soil manage- ment groups. (2) weight assignments for class designation do not in- Clude consideration of slope or high water table . -llO- APPENDIX B -- Continued PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SOILS Soil Pri- Soil Pri- man- mary man- mary Soil series age- soil Soil series age- soil ment class ment(Dclass groupl) (2) group (2) Dighton....... 2a Greenwood..... Mc Dillon........ 5c Griffin....... 3c-L Dowagiac...... 3a Guelph........ 2a Dresden....... 3a Hagener....... 5.0a Hartwick...... 5.0a Hessel........ Gc Hettinger..... 2c Hiawatha...... 5.0a Hibbing....... 2a Hillsdale..... 3a Hodunk........ 3a Houghton...... Mc Hoytville..... lc Dryden........ 3a Duel.......... 4/Ra East Lake..... 5.0a Eastport...... 5.3a Ebay.......... M/mc Echo.......... 5.0a Edmore........ 4c Edwards....... M/mC Eel........... 3a-L Elmdale....... 3a Huron......... la Elo........... 2a Emmert........ Ga Ingalls....... 4b Emmet......... 3a Ionia......... 3a Ensley........ 3c Iosco......... 4/2b Epoufette..... 4c Iron River.... 3a Essexville.... 4/2c Isabella...... 2a Ewen-cocoon... 38-1.. Jeddo......... 2C Fabius........ 4b Johnswood..... Ga Fox........... 3a Freesoil...... 3a Kalamazoo..... 3a Froberg....... la Kalkaska.-.... 5.0a Fulton........ lb Karlin........ 4a Kawkawlin..... 2b Gaastra....... 3b Kendallville.. 3/2a Gagetown.-.... 2a Kent.......... la Gay......-.... 3c Kerston....... Mc-L Genesee....... 3a-L Keweenaw...... 4a Gilchrist..... 4a Kibbie........ 3b Gilford....... 4c Kinross....... 5c Gladwin....... 4b Kiva.......... 4a Glendora...... 4c-L Kokomo........ 2c Gogebic....... 3a Granby........ 5c Lacota........ 3c Graycalm...... 5.0a Lake Linden... 2a r-Ir—Iwmow-DNOMD-L‘ mmwww mo-mer-Ibwoo-Dr—onr-‘H bwwww-L‘ ODU‘ owabNoxmmer-dw HO‘ DUIUILDCJ moxoxwwbHowaH -l-\O\O\ Grayling....r. 5.7a Landes........ 3a-L (l) Modifying symbols used after a dash in soil manage- ment groups. CD weight assignments for class designation do not in- clude consideration of slope or high water table. -111- PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SOILS APPENDIX B -- Continued Soil Pri- Soil Pri- man- mary man- mary Soil series age- soil Soil series age- soil ment(Dclass mentu)class group (2) group (22 Lapeer........ 3a Nester........ 2a Lease......... M/lc Newaygo ..... .. 3a Leelanau...... 4a Newton........ 3a Lenawee....... 2c Nunica........ 2a Linwood....... M/3c Locke......... 3b Oakville...... 5.0a London........ 2b Ockley........ 2a Longlois ...... 2a Ocqueoc....... 4a Longrie....... 3/Ra Ogden......... M/lc Lorenzo....... 4a Ogemaw........ 5b-h Lupton........ Mc Ogontz........ 3/2c Omega......... 5.7a Mackinac...... 2b Onaway........ 2a Macomb........ 3/2b Onota......... 3/Ra Mancelona..... 4a Ontonagon..... la Oshtemo....... 4a Otisco........ 4b Ottawa........ Ottokee....... 5.0a Manistee...... 4/2a Marenisco..... 4a Markey........ M/4c Marlette...... 2a Matherton..... 3b Maumee........ 5c McBride....... 3a McGregor...... 3b Palms......... PalOOOOOOOOOOO 3b Parkhill...... 2c Melita........ 5/2a Parma......... 3/Ra Menominee..... 4/2a Paulding...... 0c Metamora...... 3/2b Pelkie........ 3c-L Metea......... 3/2a Pence......... 4a Miami......... 2a Perrin........ 4a Mink.......... M/mc Perth......... lb Montcalm...... 4a Peshekee...... Ra Moran......... 3/Ra Pewamo........ 2c Morley........ 2a Pickford...... 1c Morocco....... 5b Pinconning.... 4/lc Moye.......... 4b Plainfield.... 5.0a Munising...... 3a Pleine........ 3c Munuscong..... 3/lc Posen......... 3a Mussey........ 4c Randville..... 4a Richter....... 3b Rifle......... Mc-b Rimer......... 3/1b Nappanee...... lb Negaunee...... 3/Ra Nekoosa.. 5.0a I-‘J-‘O‘ PO‘WWND-PNO‘b-Pm-Db-DWWDDDNbNU‘IUI O‘N-P-PUIDWGNO‘UO C‘O‘J—‘N WMHao‘C‘PO‘NNGO‘PO‘A-DU l-‘DWNLn-P-Dr-‘ONUIO‘N-DH DUOUO-P (l) Modifying symbols used after a dash in soil manage- ment groups. (2) Weight assignments for class designation do not in- clude consideration of lepe or high water table. -112- APPENDIX B -- Continued PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SOILS Soil Pri- Soil Pri- man- mary man- .mary Soil series age- soil Soil series age- soil ment(Dclass mentcnclass ,group (2) group (2) Rodman........ Ga Tappan........ 2c Rollin........ M/mc Tawas......... M/4c Ronald........ 3c Tedrow........ 5b Roscommon..... 5c Thackery...... 2a Roselawn...... 5.3a Thomas........ 2c Rousseau...... 4a Tobico........ 5c Rubicon....... 5.3a Toledo........ 1c Rudyard....... lb Tolfree....... 2c Ruse.......... 3/Rc Tonkey........ 3c Traunik....... 5b Traverse...... 3b Trenary....... 2a Trout Lake.... 5b-h Tula.......... 3b Tuscola....... 2a Twining....... 2b Tyre-00000.00. A/Rb Saganing...... 4c Sanilac....... 3b Saranac....... 2c-L Satago........ 3/Rc Sauble........ 5.3a Saugatuck..... 5b-h Saverine...... 3/2b Sebewa........ 3c Selkirk....... lb Seward........ 3/2a Shelldrake.... 5.3a Ubly.......... 3/2a Vilas......... 5.3a Shoals........ 3c-L Volinia....... 3a Sigma......... 4b Sims.......... 2c Wainola....... 4b Sisson........ 2a Waiska........ Ga Skanee........ 3b Wakefield..... 2a Sleeth........ 2b Sloan......... 3c-L Spalding...... Mc-a Spartan....... 5.0a Spinks........ 4a Stambaugh..... 3a wallace....... 5a-h Wallkill...... 3c-L Warners....... M/mc Warsaw........ 3a wasepi........ 4b Washtenaw..... 3c-L St. Clair..... la Watton........ 2a St. Ignace.... Ra wauseon....... 3/lc Strongs....... 5.0a Wea........... 2a Summerville... Ra Weare......... 5.0a Sumner........ 4a Westland...... 2c Sunfield...... 3a Whittemore.... 2c Superior...... la Willette...... M/lc Winegars...... 4b Wisner........ 2c 0“ U'IUJNDH-PU‘ICONI—‘O‘C‘UIb-l-‘O‘WCDHbO‘UKfiLflI—‘OO‘-I-\-|-\ O‘C‘t—‘Nr—‘LAJUIO‘H O‘WO‘O‘O‘F‘DO‘bO‘WWO‘O‘LflKfiD-‘w WI" 4-\ MM-PPM-DDNMOO‘WG-DNOO‘ Tahquamenon... MC (1) Modifying symbols used after a dash in soil manage- ment groups. (2) Weight assignments for class designation do not in- clude consideration of slope or high water table. -ll3- BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Beuscher, J. H. Land Use Controls. Madison: College Typing Co., 1956. Federal Housing Administration. Engineering 8011 Classification For Residential Deve10pment. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1959. Public Health Service. Manual Of Septic Tank Practice. Publication No. 526. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1959. Soils And Men. (Yearbook Of Agriculture, U.S. Department Of Agriculture). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938. Whyte, G. F. et a1. Changes In Urban Occupance of Flood Plains In The United States. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1958. Articles & Periodicals Bollens, J. C. Frin e Area Conditions And Relations. Public Management; XXXII (3), March 1950: 50-54. The City's Threat To Open Land. Arch. Forum, MVIII (1): January 1958: 87-90, 166. Garvey, W. B. Are Cities Gobbling Up Our Farmland? Chemurg Digest XIV (9) September 1955: 16-17, 19. Hoover, Robert C. Land Planning For Sanitary Drainage and Water Supply In Suburban And Open Country Subdivisions. American Institute Of Planners Journal XVII (1), Winter 1951: 29-37. How To Get Better Land For Less And How To Use Good Land Better. House and Home XVIII (2), August 1960: 97-1645. American Society of Planning Officials. Installation Of Physical Improvements As Required In Subdivision Regulations. Planning Advisory Service No. 38, May 1952. -1l4- -115- . Hillside Deve10pment, Planning Advisory Service No. 126, September 1959. . Minimum Requirements For Lot And Building Size. Planning Advisory Service No. 37, April 1952. Whyte, William H. Jr. Securing Open Space For Urban America: Conservation Easements. Urban Land Institute Technical Bul. 36 (December) 1959. Wiggin, David C. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal At Realty Subdivisions. Connecticut Health Bulletin No. 3-564M (March) 1956. Reports, Booklets,iand Pamphlets Agricultural Research Service - Farm Economic Research Division. Talks On Rural Zoning. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ‘Washington: Government Printing Office 1960. Baltimore Regional Planning Council (Committee). Sewage Problems Connected With Land Development. Baltimore: Maryland State Planning Commission, August 1958. Community Planning Association of Canada. Sprawl. Ottawa: August 1957. Cooperative Extension Service (Mich.). A Guide For Land Judginggln Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University Extension Bul. 326, June 1960. Esser, George H. Jr. Greensboro Suburban Analysis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Institute of Government, 1956. Giroux, Paul R. Summary Of Ground Water Conditions In Michigan - 1958. Lansing: Michigan Department Of Conservation, Geological Survey Division, 1960. Hill, David E. and Shearin, Arthur E. Soils And Urban Development In Hartford County. New Haven: Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 209, February 1960. ' Housing and Home Finance Agency. Septic Tank Soil Absorption Systems For Dwelling_. Construction Aid 5. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, February 1954. -ll6- Joint Committee On Rural Sanitation - U.S. Department Of Health, Education And Welfare. Individual Water Supply Systems. Publication No. 24. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1954. Lansing TriQCounty Regional Planning Commission. Functional Organization of the Lansing Tri-County Region. Lansing: 1959. Macomb County (Michigan) Planning Commission. Drainage Characteristics Of Generalized Soil Type Areas In Macomb County.. Mount Clemens: April 1960. Marin County (California Planning Commission. Tiburon Peninsula. I. San Rafael: 1956. National Research Council. Individual Household Aerobic Sewage Treatment Plants. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Publication No. 586, February'1958 Ohio Department of Health. Control of Sanitation In Unincorporated Areas. Cleveland: 1958. Siegel, Shirley Adamson. The Law Of Open Space. New York: Regional Plan Association, Inc. January 1960. Soil Science And Horticulture, Departments of. Michigan State University. Fertilizer Recommendations For Michigan Crops. East Lansing: Cooperative Exten- sion Service Bul. E-159, June 1959. Stark County (Ohio) Regional Planning Commission, Physical Geography. A PlanningDimension, Canton: November 1960. TrizCounty Regional Planning Commission (Ohio). Ph sbal Geography Of The Tri: CountypArea. Akron: March 1958. U.S. Geological Survey. InterpretinggGround Conditions From Geologic Maps. Circular 46, Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office 1949. Veatch, J. 0. Agricultural Land Classification And Land Types of Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1933. Washtenaw County (Michigan) Planning Commission. A Guide For Subdivision Of Land. Ann Arbor. Watson, D.D. Subdivision Controlln California. Sacramento: California Senate Journal Reprint, March 11, 1953. I ' .0033 w "l 11117 1117111111111 '11 1“