Midwestern Consulting

Governor Rick Snyder today signed into law Michigan’s FY 2012 budget.  According to the Detroit Free Press, this is the earliest the budget has been signed since the 1980′s.

The budget was enacted without a provision to finance any new university or community college buildings or renovations.   This is too bad since these types of projects have an employment multiplier effect – many architectural, engineering and construction jobs are created when the state funds these types of projects. 

If the state’s economy turns around, it is possible the legilature will bring up the idea of a higher education spending bill in the fall.  But as of today, architects, engineers and contractors who do business with  Michigan’s community colleges and universities cannot count on any new capital outlay projects.

It appears that the Michigan state House and Senate have agreed on a budget for FY2012 that will exclude spending on capital improvements for community colleges and universities.  Last December, in a last-minute budget gambit, the same body approved planning authorizations for ten university and ten community college projects for FY2011.

Planning authorizations are the first step a university or community college takes in the authorization process for capital outlay projects.  Programing documents and schematic plans are prepared by third-party architects and while the completion of these documents does not guarantee that a project will be built, no capital outlay project can proceed without them.  Final design and construction is typically authorized in an appropriation bill.

As Michigan’s economy lurches towards recovery these planning, design and construction projects, regardless of size, help with jobs that have a large economic multiplier.  One dollar spent on these higher education studies and construction projects means many more dollars of increased economic activity. In short, these are the types of jobs the state of Michigan needs.  And the resulting wonderful new campus buildings serve to encourage students to remain in school and pursue good-paying careers.

We are discouraged that, at this point, no capital outlay projects appear imminent.  We will wait to see if things change in the final hours of this budget process.

An aerial photo of the Lee Road roundabout mess

There has been a lot of discussion lately about “Complete Streets” – streets that accommodate all forms of vehicular and pedestrian transportation. And that creates the problem: putting apparently incompatible forms of transportation in the same space.  The solution often seems to be to subdivide the “shared” street into segments using signage or markings or signals that serve various uses. There goes the basic concept of “shared” use.

Two different approaches to solving potential conflicts are:

A. Provide visual cues and minimize regulatory signage:  Deleting or minimizing signs and symbols in favor of subliminal or visual clues appears to engage people more quickly, partly because they are not sure what they are seeing, and partly because the primitive part of the brain that reads the visual cues is faster that the rational part of the brain.  The colors and shapes of stop signs and yield signs are probably more effective than the lettering.  Commercial examples of symbols that are totally effective without lettering (branding) include the Shell Oil sign and now the Starbucks symbol.

Or,

B. Plaster everything with regulatory signage:  Most of the designs for these streets are full of signs of all descriptions, painted lanes, stripes, arrows, stop bars, flashing lights, and more. Reading and following these signs requires a reaction from our frontal lobes, the rational part of the brain. 

A good example of traffic regulatory markings and signage gone awry is on the roundabouts at the US-23 expressway Lee Road exit between Ann Arbor and Brighton.  Each roundabout has a forest of signs and a carpet of stripes, arrows and what all, and lots of drivers trying to figure out what the signs all mean while avoiding other vehicles whose drivers are doing the same.  To make matters worse, the signage and markings on each roundabout is different.  The roundabout on the west side of the expressway is under Livingston County Road Commission jurisdiction and the one on the east is under Oakland County Road Commission jurisdiction.

In a backwards sort of way, the amount of signage and markings on the Lee Road roundabouts may effectively be about the same as having no signs at all.  The visual cloud of directions can be so overwhelming that drivers ignore everything, shut off their rational brains, and simply go slowly and negotiate positions and directions with the other drivers while using the survival mode in their primitive brains.

An article in the March 2011 American Planning Association Planning magazine by Raymond Heinrich and titled “Traffic Accidents Don’t Just Happen…They’re Caused” provides an interesting take on traffic safety and regulations:  “When it comes to safety, the message is plain:  We are relying on signs, road paint, and the wrong side of our brain for traffic management instead of pattern recognition for vehicle guidance.  We should be learning from neurologists and cognitive psychologists who say that subconscious cues can automatically take road safety up a notch.”

Earl Ophoff, RLA is a registered landscape architect and can be reached at Midwestern Consulting in Ann Arbor, Michigan (734.995.0200).

Will brownfield re-development die if tax incentives are lost?

We are intrigued by Governor Snyder’s recent budget proposals.  He is proposing to eliminate tax credits and incentives and replace them with a 6% corporate tax rate.

Brownfield site re-development means less greenfield development (urban sprawl).  Brownfields are typically in urban areas that already have railroad, roadways, and utilities.   And in general, brownfields are found in more densely populated urban areas – where the workers are.  So the re-development of brownfield sites serves as an important public benefit.

See this article from mlive.com on the possible impacts of lost brownfield tax incentives.

Lev Wood is the editor of this blog and can be reached at Midwestern Consulting (Ann Arbor, MI) – 734.995.0200.

The new Ann Arbor area, height and placement regulations include a new zoning district, R4E/multifamily, that targets parcels that front on “significant transit corridors” as identified in the Master Plan.  These corridors, identified on the map above in blue, (the DDA boundary is shown in red) are:

• Plymouth Road from US-23 to the DDA boundary
• Jackson/Huron Road from I-94 to the DDA boundary
• State Street from I-94 to the DDA boundary
• Washtenaw Boulevard from US-23 to the DDA boundary

 The new R4E zoning regulations include:

• Minimum 580 square feet per unit; maximum 75 dwelling units per acre
• No height limit
• Minimum 14,000 square foot lot area
• Minimum 120 foot lot width
• Minimum 40 percent “usable open space”*
• Minimum 15 foot front yard setback/ maximum 40 feet
• Minimum 10 foot side yard setback**
• Minimum 30 foot rear yard setback***

The intent is to provide higher density residential along major transportation corridors.  The challenge is to achieve 75 dwelling units per acre while providing parking usable open space.

There is no established parking requirement at this point. The Ann Arbor Planning Department has this on their “to do” list and for now defers to the old R4C/D requirement of 1 ½ spaces per unit.   

The challenge for an off-campus student housing project is even greater since each unit may have up to six unrelated adults living in it and parking demand could be much higher. Some form of structured parking is likely to be required.   

Clarifications:

* There is no definition for “Usable open space” so the Planning Department defers to the definition for “Open space”: “The portion of a lot which is devoted to outdoor recreation space, greenery, and space for household activities.  Open space area may include, but shall not be limited to, lawns, landscaping and gardens, wooded areas, sidewalks and walkways, active and passive recreational areas, unenclosed accessory structures used for recreational purposes, permanent or seasonal water surfaces and protected natural areas.  It shall not include area covered by parking lots, driveways, refuse facilities, or enclosed accessory structures.”

**plus 1 foot additional setback for each foot of building height over 30 feet when abutting residentially zoned land; and 3 inches per foot over 35 feet height and 1 ½ inches per foot over 50 feet width

**plus 1 foot additional setback for each foot of building height over 30 feet when abutting residentially zoned land

 Earl Ophoff is a senior project manager and a registered landscape architect at Midwestern Consulting, LLC in Ann Arbor.  Contact Earl at 734.995.0200.