Planning Commissioners Journal

You Could Use a Break Today!

Try putting together the pieces of six PCJ cover puzzles. Use the links below to open each puzzle. -- may require a Java plug-in to work. Controlling Strip Development Green Infrastructure The Return of Downtown Sustainability Urban Design Which Road Will We Take?

Are Your Transportation Problems Stacking Up?

Take advantage this month of special pricing on our popular collection of articles on transportation planning.

Communities are coming to a better understanding of the critical relationship between zoning, land use, and transportation planning.

This collection of 14 articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal provides an excellent introduction to the transportation planning process, while also covering basic planning issues related to street and sidewalk design.

See what's included in Transportation Planning: Getting Started -- and order at this month's special price.

Yes, We're in Vermont

Some of you may know that our office is located in Burlington, Vermont. While we escaped the flooding in the northwestern corner of the state (we had our own flooding in the Spring), across Vermont dozens of towns, villages, and neighborhoods have been devastated -- as you've undoubtedly seen on the national news.

We received the following email from a business located in the affected area:

"The Vermont Independent Clothing Company in Rochester [Vermont] has created a t-shirt that will help provide funds to support the recovery efforts in Vermont. All of the profits (about $15 per shirt) benefit the Red Cross' efforts to get Vermonters back on their feet. This shirt is now available for PRE-ORDER. It will be printed September 15th. You can see and order it here: http://independentvermontclothing.bigcartel.com/ "

We just ordered the t-shirt. Sounds to us like a good, simple way of helping out. 

Getting Our Arms Around "Externalities"

How do we account for the indirect effects of decisions we make? Is it even possible? by Dave Stauffer; from PCJ #83 (Summer 2011); 1 page Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. -- if you are a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber (or receive the Journal through your planning commission/board), you can download the article at no charge.

Read start of article: Externalities are increasingly in the news these days -- for example, in reports on health care reform and global warming -- though they're seldom identified as externalities. Externalities are the consequences of a transaction or activity that are experienced by those who are not directly involved in the transaction or activity, including future generations. Externalities of smoking include breathing second-hand smoke. An externality of burning fossil fuels is carbon emissions. Within our realm of planning, externalities consist of the costs and benefits -- often unquantifiable -- imposed on a neighborhood or community as an indirect result of land use regulation, permitted or denied development, and other actions under our purview. Externalities can be good as well as bad. A good, or positive, externality of smoking for some people is seeing it as sexy; think about men watching Lauren Bacall light up in films of the 1940s! Entertainment aside, we planning commissioners aid in providing positive externalities, for example, when tourism gets a boost from designation of a historic district, or citizens enjoy the sight and activities of parks and other open space, or we help lessen damage to vehicles and reduce bothersome dust by requiring a developer to pave a previously gravel-surfaced road. Knotty Complications So we planners have been dealing with externalities from the moment we became commissioners -- though few of us realized it. Externalities, by their nature, are tough to discern and weigh in planning decisions. Here are a few of the knottiest complications of externalities we commonly face: -- Externalities can be considered only to the extent they are known. Think of the dozens -- perhaps hundreds? -- of proven and suspected impacts of sprawl development that have been revealed by research of only the past 20 or so years. Objections may be voiced today to proposed "greenfield" exurban retail development, citing negative impacts of pollution and traffic congestion, where prior projects of the same type won approval with unchallenged acclaim for their favorable economic impacts. We are prisoners of our current times and knowledge, and have no choice but to base our decisions on today's best evidence. ... to order full article, use button below.

order & download full article $2.50 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Teardowns: Up With the New and Down With the Old?

The practice of bulldozing modest-size homes and replacing them with "McMansions" has alarmed many planners, neighborhood groups, and preservationists. How can communities respond? by Beth Humstone; from PCJ #83 (Summer 2011); 4 pages -- see other PCJ articles by Beth Humstone Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. -- if you are a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber (or receive the Journal through your planning commission/board), you can download the article at no charge.

Read first part of article [footnotes omitted]: "Up with the new and down with the old!" reads the ad by a Washington, DC realtor promoting teardowns to give the property owner the "best of both worlds -- a new home in an established neighborhood." But this practice of bulldozing older homes to replace them with updated -- and usually substantially larger -- ones is alarming to many planners, neighborhood groups, and preservationists. This so-called "mansionization" trend is dramatically changing the scale of traditional neighborhoods, threatening affordable housing, and altering historic properties -- most often in modest, post-war housing developments that once offered entry-level housing. Even with the cool-down in the housing market, communities in different parts of the country are wrestling with this issue. This is especially true for "first ring" suburbs that are attractive for their proximity to jobs (lower commuting costs) and lower prices (small lots and house in postwar subdivisions) and in scarce waterfront locations. But we can expect that more communities will again face the problem of teardowns once the housing market improves. What better time to plan than now while there's some breathing space? Why Tear Down? Teardowns are not new. In 2002 the National Trust for Historic Preservation cited teardowns as one of the most significant threats facing historic neighborhoods across the country. In 2008 the Trust documented teardowns in more than 500 communities in 40 states. Suburbs within easy commute to jobs and close to shops, services, and public transportation are increasingly popular. However, prospective buyers also want up-to-date homes with large, multistory spaces, multiple bathrooms, energy efficiency and two- or three-car attached garages. If local zoning allows for very large structures, the older ranches, split-levels, and capes found in many suburban neighborhoods will be ripe for teardowns. Teardowns vs. Infill Why are teardowns a problem? After all, infill development is often encouraged as an efficient way for communities to grow because it uses existing utilities and services, helps to prevent sprawl, reduces traffic, and revitalizes depressed neighborhoods. Yet, not every neighborhood is appropriate for new housing that is out-of-scale with the area's existing housing stock. Among the primary concerns with teardowns and mansionization are: -- The replacement by higher-priced homes of housing that is more affordable. -- Destruction of the scale and existing character of a neighborhood. -- Loss of historic resources, including Mid-Century Modern homes. -- Rise in property taxes throughout the neighborhood. -- Environmental impacts, including tree removal, reduction in green space, loss of sunlight, and increased stormwater runoff. -- Disposal of demolition debris. ... bulk of the article then focuses on ways of dealing with teardowns, including a range of planning and regulatory strategies.

order & download full article $4.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $16.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Rebecca Cohen & Keith Wardrip talk about their article: "The Economic & Fiscal Benefits of Affordable Housing"

Note from Planning Commissioners Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

Our Summer issue features an article by Rebecca Cohen and Keith Wardrip, analysts at the Center for Housing Policy in Washington, D.C. Titled, “The Economic & Fiscal Benefits of Affordable Housing,” Cohen and Wardrip report on why affordable housing is not the economic bane that many think it is.

As we usually do before we publish articles in the PCJ, we make a draft available for review. We announce this both here on our PlannersWeb site and on our Linkedin group page.   

We received quite a few comments about Cohen and Wardrip’s article, some of which (given space limitations) are only briefly addressed in the article. I asked the authors if they’d take the time to respond to several of the comments that came in.

After you've their remarks, continue the discussion on our Linkedin group page (scroll down under the Discussions tab till you see the title of this post).

note: if you're a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber, feel free to also download a complimentary pdf of Cohen & Wardrip's article from our Summer issue right now. Not a subscriber, their article can be downloaded for a small fee.

 

---

Dealing With the Fear of Affordable Housing

PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

In one of the comments that came in, one person noted that: “Over the years, in my experience, most problems have arisen not with the affordable housing tools available to jurisdictions, but with the public living in proximity to proposed developments, especially larger-scale ones.” The commenter then went on to highlight the value of holding public meetings near the location of a proposed development, adding that “one of the problems people have with affordable housing projects is that jurisdictions often do a very poor job of public relations with regard to the potential or perceived impacts on neighboring residents. So, it’s very important for the developer and community leaders to do all that they can do to get the local folks on board and calm whatever fears they may have.”

While I know that your article primarily focuses on the economic and fiscal impacts of affordable housing, I’d be curious if you have any thoughts about this comment? Are there ways of combating the fear of affordable housing that too often seems to be present?

Rebecca Cohen & Keith Wardrip:

We completely agree that developers and community leaders should communicate plans for affordable housing -- and, indeed, for any major development -- with neighbors and constituents, ideally starting outreach early in the development process to address concerns and get key stakeholders on board with the proposal.

Community meetings are good opportunities for leaders to educate the public on not only detailed plans for the specific project but also the need for more affordable housing. Neighbors may object to the high-density high-rise complexes that used to typify subsidized housing (who doesn’t?), but fears can be assuaged by explaining that today’s projects are much smaller-scale, well-managed, and designed to blend-in with the community.

We also think it’s important to remind concerned neighbors that many of the people in their community cannot afford market-rate housing. The Center for Housing Policy’s Paycheck to Paycheck suite of materials compares the cost of owning or renting a home in 210 metropolitan areas with the typical salary of a local employee in more than 70 occupations. Paycheck demonstrates the all-too-common disconnect between full-time employment and housing costs, for both owners and renters, for professions that don’t typically come to mind when we think of affordable housing, including school teachers, nurses, and social workers.

Finally, we think that community leaders can make the “equity” argument when discussing affordable housing with constituents. The Center has produced a wealth of resources highlighting the ways in which affordable housing can impact not only a local economy but health and educational outcomes, as well. Other researchers have demonstrated that children who have the opportunity to grow up in stable, high-quality housing, and attend schools with higher-income peers, tend to fare better over time.

Given the positive societal impacts of affordable housing and the inability of working families and older adults to make ends meet in many communities, providing assistance in the form of well-designed, well-maintained housing is the responsibility of an equitable society.

Design & Location Considerations

Wayne Senville:

Another commenter who reviewed your initial draft noted that “While the case for affordable housing may be positive overall, the potential downsides should be mentioned, if only to help communities avoid them.”

From the experience most planning commissioners have had, we know that pretty much any large development can have negatives impacts. In fact, one of the benefits planning commissioners often bring is helping developers find ways of improving their projects and mitigating negative impacts.

In your article you do mention that studies have found that well-designed projects tend to have positive impacts on the value of neighboring properties. From your experience at the Center for Housing Policy, are there any ways of helping ensure that the proposed affordable housing developments are, in fact, well-designed? And are there any other potential downsides for communities to take into account or avoid?

The Economic & Fiscal Benefits of Affordable Housing

A closer look at how well-designed affordable housing programs can generate economic and fiscal benefits to local communities. by Rebecca Cohen and Keith Wardrip; from PCJ #83 (Summer 2011); 4 pages -- you can also read Cohen and Wardrip's replies to several questions about their article. Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. The download also includes a three-page "Worforce Housing Miscellany" prepared by the PCJ Staff, Jon Cecil, and Trisha Riggs (focusing on local efforts to provide workforce housing) -- if you are a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber (or receive the Journal through your planning commission/board), you can download the Cohen & Wardrip article plus the Workforce Housing Miscellany at no charge.

Read start of article:   When communities take a moment to consider their most important assets, the candidates that are often mentioned include high-quality schools, access to parks and open space, a strong job base, a vibrant arts scene, and even a winning sports franchise. How often have you heard an ample supply of affordable housing mentioned as an asset? Instead, conversations about affordable housing usually focus on the cost to taxpayers and rarely take into account the fiscal and economic benefits that accrue when communities encourage the development of affordable homes. As cities and counties across the country try to bring their revenues and expenditures in-line and prioritize how to spend scarce resources, policymakers and planners should understand the benefits of well-designed affordable housing programs. Such programs are important now more than ever, as research demonstrates that housing affordability has worsened significantly in recent years. While the provision of affordable housing involves important social and civic values, our focus in this article is aimed at "clearing the air" about affordable housing's economic and fiscal impacts and highlighting some local strategies for addressing the challenge of providing housing for all. Sidebar, Affordable Housing versus Workforce Housing. Part I: The Economic & Fiscal Benefits of Affordable Housing 1. One-Time and Ongoing Job Creation and Spending: It stands to reason that building or rehabilitating affordable housing creates jobs in the construction field. Research by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that building 100 affordable housing units for families through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program can lead to the creation of more than 120 jobs, on average, during a project's construction phase. Even more importantly, long after the homes are occupied, the ripple effect from residents of these new units can support as many as 30 new jobs in a wide array of industries, including retail, healthcare, and local government. These employment effects are on-par with building comparable market-rate units. 2. Positive Fiscal Impacts for State and Local Governments: When affordable homes are built or rehabbed, the funds flowing to cities and states can be considerable. Revenues can take the form of fees for permitting, zoning, and utilities, or they can reflect sales, income, or property taxes generated by construction-related economic activity. The NAHB estimates that 100 units of affordable housing for families generates the same amount of one-time revenue for jurisdictions as does a comparable market-rate property -- roughly $827,000, on average -- with more than half coming from permit/impact fees and utility user fees. Additionally, research findings summarized in a report by the Center for Housing Policy (CHP) show that the impact of a new affordable housing development on nearby property values is more likely to be neutral or positive than negative. As the CHP report notes, the quality of the properties' design, management, and maintenance are important factors. Moreover, when affordable housing replaces a vacant lot or a dilapidated building, local governments will benefit from increased property tax revenues. Sidebar, Impact of Affordable Housing on Nearby Property Values. One persistent concern raised about affordable housing development is that it will flood local schools with children, increasing the demand for school facilities and educational services. Putting aside the need for our society to provide a solid education to all children, do lower-income households actually have significantly more children than upper-income ones? The answer is no. Today there is only a small difference in the average number of children per household when comparing income levels. The much more important trend, and one that carries across all income levels, is the dramatic reduction in the average number of children per household. ... article continues with sections on: 3. Reducing Foreclosure Risks and Associated Costs 4. Improving Worker and Employer Attraction and Retention 5. Increasing the Buying Power of Residents and Part II: Low- or No-Cost Strategies for Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes 1. Expand Development Opportunities 2. Reduce Red Tape 3. Capitalize on Market Activity 4. Generate Capital 5. Preserve and Recycle Resources

order & download full article, plus the Workforce Housing Miscellany (7 pages total) $5.50 (single copy license)
order & download full article, plus the Workforce Housing Miscellany (7 pages total) $25.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Della Rucker talks about her article: "Why Comprehensive Plans Gather Dust"

From Planning Commissioners Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

Our Summer issue includes a short, but very interesting article by PCJ contributing writer Della Rucker on why some comprehensive plans seem to fall flat after they're adopted. As is our practice, we circulated Della's article to those who have signed up to review draft articles -- and also made it available via our Linkedin group page. We received quite a few comments, several of which raised good points that Della simply didn't have space to address in her published article.

I asked Della if she'd be willing to take the time to expand on what she wrote.

After you've read Della's remarks, continue the discussion on our Linkedin group page (scroll down under the Discussions tab till you see the title of this post).

note: if you're a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber, feel free to also download a complimentary pdf of Della's article from our Summer issue right now. Not a subscriber, Della's article can be downloaded for a small fee.

---

Wayne Senville:

In your column in the Summer issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal you focus on a topic that I’d guess most planning commissioners have wrestled with -- how to make sure their city or town’s comprehensive plan actually gets used and is meaningful to the community.

You describe the kinds of plans that you say typically end up sitting on a shelf gathering dust -- ranging from “the Encyclopedia” plan, which you describe as “covering everything whether it matters or not,” to “the Laundry List” plan, which, as you put it, “presents such a disorganized stream of recommendations that no one knows where to start.”

You then outline some of the elements that you feel are vital if a plan is to be useful: using data to understand the most important issue the community will be facing; having meaningful public participation; setting priorities; and focusing on what’s necessary to get the plan implemented. It’s this part of your article that I’d like to explore further with you. I also want to get your reaction to some of the many comments we received on our Linkedin group page about the first draft of your column.

One of the points you make, as I noted, is the need to have “meaningful public participation.” In your column you say that we have “to do more than let the public spout” and that those participating in the planning process need to have “real-world challenges to grapple with, so that the feedback you get has meaning.” Can you flesh that out a bit?

Della Rucker:

One of the biggest sleeper challenges we are facing today is that our traditional public debate model of public involvement isn’t working well and has probably outlived its usefulness.  I think there are at least three reasons for that. 

First, today we have a lot more voices and a wider range of them. Moreover, not everyone can express themselves adequately with the traditional “stand-up-and-make a speech” approach (that is, go up to the podium, and make your comments in three minutes or less). So we get silence from a large part of the population, and often less than ennobling wisdom from the small number who do stand up to speak.

The second reason is that the issues we have to grapple with have become much more complicated because of the interdependencies and interrelationships that we live with in a modern community. You can’t deal with too much complexity, address too many nuances, and acknowledge that there may not be a perfect solution when you are at a podium for a couple of minutes and the situation has been cast as a for-or-against debate.

The third issue is that the ways in which we gain understanding and grapple with decisions are changing -- and, I would argue, need to change ASAP. K-12 educational methods (how teachers are being taught to teach) have largely discarded the lecture as a useful means of building knowledge. Instead, teachers are shifting to methods that engage the students directly in dealing with information and making sense out of it for themselves. This allows students to develop better and more meaningful solutions to the problems they are presented. The more we become used to living in a world rich with information of all types, the more we need to be able to do more than parrot back what we hear. 

What does educational methodology have to do with public participation? I’d argue, everything. What we desperately need is for our citizens to do much more than spout ill-informed NIMBYisms or buy into knee-jerk, simplistic cause-and-effect assumptions. We need to get people reasonably up-to-speed on the issues, and engage them in the search for solutions -- solutions that are realistic and address the complexities and ambiguities of real community life.

The corporate world certainly recognizes this. Companies are putting massive amounts of effort into broadening their employee base to include the widest range of people possible and then creating team environments to work on solving complex challenges. If they’re finding it necessary to use diverse team problem-solving to deal with stuff like getting shampoo into a bottle, how much more do we desperately need real, deep involvement to deal with the massive complexities that make up a community?

One thing that I always feel like I have to say as a follow-up to that idea is that it’s not simply a matter of throwing a bunch of people in a room with a problem and hoping that they’ll figure something out. That’d be foolish. Instead, we who work with communities have to borrow a page from good teachers and good business team managers; we have to carefully create a structure that:

Why Comprehensive Plans Gather Dust

Thoughts on why some comprehensive plans sit on the shelf, while others are quite useful. by Della Rucker, AICP, CEcD; from PCJ #83 (Summer 2011); 1 page -- see also our conversation with Della Rucker about her article. Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. -- if you are a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber (or receive the Journal through your planning commission/board), you can download the article at no charge.

Read first part of article: In my last column (PCJ #82, Spring 2011), I welcomed you to the "tightrope act." I noted that planning commission members often find themselves at center ring, trying to balance the community's economy with its physical and functional needs. Since a comprehensive plan is one of your basic tools for keeping that balance, let's look at some of the issues that prevent them from being useful, and what we can do to make them better. I regularly encounter clients who avoid comprehensive planning, or try to hybridize it with something more "practical." Some have told me that the money spent on comprehensive plans should be used instead to "make something happen." While planning commissioners know better than anyone else how important comprehensive plans are, we have all seen plans that we know will sit on the proverbial shelf, gathering the proverbial dust. The dust-gatherers typically fit four categories: The Encyclopedia. This plan covers everything, whether it matters or not. By volume, these documents are at least 75 percent a catalog of existing conditions. The actual "plan" -- that is, the portion that establishes strategies for the future -- is relegated to a few vague pages in the last chapter. The Kum Ba Yah. This plan's development is dominated by public meetings, focus groups, surveys, etc. Of course, the problem isn't that the plan lacked public feedback, but that it simply repeated the public comments. A Kum Ba Yah plan creates a wish list that ignores real-world constraints, like funding. The wish list becomes The Plan. The Laundry List. This plan presents such a disorganized stream of recommendations that no one knows where to start, or what to do if the first or twentieth recommendation becomes impossible. Result: unusable. Welcome to the shelf. The Pretty Picture, or If You Draw It, It Will Come. This plan features renderings of a Beautiful Place, often preceded by a market analysis that was ignored by the designers and followed by an outline of the zoning that will allow the castle to materialize out of the air. How the Beautiful Place can be constructed in the private market isn't addressed. Each of these plans takes one piece of what a comprehensive plan should contain, and blows it out of proportion. Each fails to account for the complicated nature of the real world, simplifying either the planning process or the act of making recommendations to make it simpler to manage. ... second part of the article focuses on ways of avoiding these kinds of plans.

order & download full article $2.50 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Why We Need to Tell (and Listen to) Stories

In our Summer issue, planner (and PCJ contributing writer) Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy provides a quite interesting look into the benefits of using stories in local planning.

Lisa supplements her Planning Commissioners Journal article by describing (in a short audio) three important lessons she's learned about the use of storytelling.

To listen to Lisa's 9 minute long audio, just click on the icon below.

[If you have any problems with the audio player, you can also access the audio via this link.]

Planning Commissioners Journal subscribers: while you will be receiving your printed copy of our Summer issue within the next two to three weeks, you can also download a complimentary pdf of Lisa's article, "Story as a Planning Tool," right now.

Not a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber: you can download Lisa's article for a small charge (better yet, become a PCJ subscriber!).

 

Inviting Them In: Using Story as a Planning Tool

Storytelling is the universal human language. We think in story. We form our attitudes about the world around us in story. A primer on how story can be used in community planning. by Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy, AICP; from PCJ #83 (Summer 2011); 2 pages -- we recommend that you also listen to Lisa discuss three lessons she learned about using story. Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. -- if you are a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber (or receive the Journal through your planning commission/board), you can download the article at no charge.

Read start of article: In the early '90s, I was working with an urban-rural fringe community that was in the path of growth. The community recognized their need for a new zoning ordinance that would promote their small-town identity while still accommodating new development. I had reviewed all the data, analyzed land use patterns and calculated various ratios of land use categories to create development scenarios. I provided neat handouts and colorful maps. But the project was going frustratingly nowhere. Despite all the facts, the analyses, and carefully-drawn scenarios, we were all at loggerheads. The project deadline was looming, the budget was growing thin, and from all appearances, we were still a long way from the new ordinance. The data simply weren't telling the story the community needed to hear. The facts DON'T speak for themselves. Planners are trained as scientists, taught to emphasize statistics, inventories, trends, analyses, and projections. Our job is to help ensure that community decisions are rational, and the link between current conditions and future solutions is logically defensible. But the facts alone don't provide what planning staff and planning commissioners need to do their jobs effectively -- to compellingly communicate the issues to the public, and to draw citizens into meaningful involvement that translates into dynamic results. More often than not, we put the facts out there and then become frustrated when the converts don't flock to our camp. In doing so, we have overlooked our most powerful communication tool: story. Story is the universal human language. We think in story. We form our attitudes about the world around us in story. We use the stories we tell ourselves to justify our opinions. And before we can influence others' opinions about an issue or propel them to action, we need to tell compelling stories that make the facts accessible to them. When you are considering how to move a new comprehensive plan or a new zoning ordinance from inception to completion, you may be thinking, "We don't have time to tell stories. We already have too many meetings and they always last too long." Taking the time to tell and hear stories is the key for effective information-gathering, consensus-building, and community-strengthening. ... article continues with look at how stories can be used in planning.

order & download full article $3.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $12.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Start Your Summer With Major Savings:

What better time than now for some big savings? Receive four of our "Taking a Close" reprint booklets -- including more than 50 articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal -- plus our beautifully illustrated canvas tote bag, at a substantial discount this month only. The booklets included in this special offer:

Downtowns & Town Centers	Food, Farmland & Open Space
Green Essentials	Design & Aesthetics

Receive a package containing all four of the Taking a Closer Look booklets listed above -- including more than 50 articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal -- plus this terrific canvas tote bag illustrated by Paul Hoffman. Our regular pricing for these items: $94.00 for the four booklets, plus $21.00 for the tote bag, plus shipping. For July only, receive the four booklets and the tote bag for just $59.95 (plus $5.00 flat shipping regardless of the number of packages ordered). To view the detailed table of contents of each of the four Taking a Closer Look booklets, use the links above or click on the images. But you need to return to this page if you want to order all four booklets and the tote bag at this month's special price. Note: because of the substantial savings on this special, no additional Planning Comm'rs Journal subscriber discount is available. Local governments -- if you need an invoice, order by phone: 802-864-9083.

Inviting Them In -- Draft Article for Your Review

Note from Planning Comm'rs Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

This article is no longer available for review. We usually post draft articles on our web site for about two weeks to allow for comment. This article will be published in our Summer 2011 issue, due out at the end of July. Want to be sure you don't miss any draft articles while they're available for review? Simply sign up to receive them by email.

 

The Value of Debriefing

How debriefing meetings can help planning commissions work more effectively. by Jim Segedy, FAICP, and Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy, AICP; from PCJ #82 (Spring 2011); 2 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post.

Read excerpt from start of article: Many years ago, Lisa was on the planning staff of a regional planning agency. The morning after the initial public meeting for a joint county-municipal comprehensive plan, the planning director called an impromptu staff meeting. "What worked well?" was her first question. She made notes of our responses on a flip chart using a fat blue marker. After five minutes, she moved to, "What didn't work well?" In another five minutes, she asked, "What would you like us to do differently for the next public meeting?" In 15 minutes, we had a list that summarized our experiences and gave us direction. This simple debriefing process was a valuable technique that empowered Lisa and her fellow staff members to recognize success, recount their frustrations, and agree on new approaches for future work. Jim's experience with debriefing was somewhat different. When he was on the local planning commission, near the end of each meeting, everyone would look at their watch. One person would move to adjourn, there would be a second, and before the gavel hit the desk we were all outta there. Woe be to anyone who got between the members and the door. At the next meeting it was the same, and nothing ever got any better. The process of planning commission decision-making requires as much attention as does the decisions themselves. Following up on the meetings and the issues raised is critical -- and in the long-run makes for more efficient and effective meetings. Who knows, with enough debriefing and adjusting, those meetings may even finish early! Debriefing is a technique of "reflective learning" that can be applied one-on-one or in a group setting. It is frequently used in military, medical, and emergency response situations, where participants use role-playing and simulations of potential events to prepare for circumstances in which decisions affecting life and death must be made quickly. Debriefing enables participants to emotionally process the event and analyze the decisions they made (and their outcomes). This facilitates learning, improving how people respond to future situations. Debriefing is not critique. An important distinction between the two is the flow of information. In a debriefing, all parties are allowed equal time to give and receive information. This differs from a critique, which is generally a one-way flow of information (as when an instructor provides an evaluation of a student's project). Another important distinction of debriefing is that it is not just a "gripe session." Debriefing relies on a specific structure of: (1) recounting events -- the what's and the why's, (2) dealing with emotions and feelings, (3) analyzing decisions and outcomes, and (4)thoughtfully reflecting and focusing on future situations or practices. ... the full article is available to order & download immediately below. Jim Segedy is the Director of Community Planning for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council and a co-author of The Small Town Planning Handbook. He is also a member of the Edgewood Borough Planning Commission and the Swissvale Business Development Advisory Committee. Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy is Associate Director for River Restoration for American Rivers' Western Pennsylvania Field Office, and a former Planning Director for a Regional Planning Commission near Atlanta. For a list of the Segedys' previous articles published in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

order & download full article $3.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $12.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

The End of the Strip?

Why the era of strip commercial development may be nearing an end. by Edward McMahon; from PCJ #82 (Spring 2011); 4 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. For more on dealing with commercial strips, see Ross Moldoff's Controlling Strip Development.

Read excerpt from start of article: Two Best Buy stores. The old paradigm: single use, only accessible by car. The new paradigm: mixed uses also accessible by transit or on foot. For more than 50 years retailers have favored the commercial strip: a linear pattern of retail businesses strung along major roadways, characterized by massive parking lots, a plethora of big signs, box-like buildings, and a total dependence on automobiles for access and circulation. For years urban planners and public officials have tried to contain, control, and improve the strip. Now they are getting some help from an unexpected quarter: consumers and the marketplace. Today the era of strip development is coming to an end. Evolving consumer behavior, changing demographics, high priced gasoline, internet shopping, the economy, and other factors are all combining to create a new paradigm for commercial development. Commercial strips are not going to disappear overnight, but it is becoming increasingly clear that strip retail is retail for the last century. The future belongs to town centers, main streets, and mixed-use development. Among the reasons for this transformation: 1. We're Overbuilt on the Strip From 1960 to 2000 there was an almost ten-fold increase in U.S. retail space, from 4 to 38 square feet per person. For many years retail space was growing 5 to 6 times faster than retail sales. Most of this space came in the form of discount superstores on the suburban strip. The recession made clear that we have too much retail. Strip centers are now littered with vacant stores. By some estimates, there is currently over one billion square feet of vacant retail space. Much of this space is going to have to re-purposed or demolished. In fact, one retail analyst estimates that we need to demolish 300 million square feet of retail space. On the other hand, the only places left with more spending power than stores to spend it in are our cities. 2. Retail is Rediscovering the City In 2010, Target announced plans to remodel the century-old Carson Pirie Scott department store in Chicago. This landmark building designed by architect Louis Sullivan will be just one of a number of new, so-called big box retailers planned for urban neighborhoods. Similarly, in late 2010, Wal-Mart announced plans to open its first ever stores in Washington, D.C. To make the four new stores fit an urban environment, the company has agreed to consider an array of layouts, designs, and parking arrangements, a reflection of the chain's willingness to adapt its prototype to enter lucrative urban markets. The D.C. store planned for New Jersey Avenue illustrates Wal-Mart's new approach to store design. The company plans a store of 75,000 to 80,000 square feet (much smaller than usual) on the ground floor of a five story mixed-use building featuring 315 apartments, underground parking, and space for smaller retail stores. Home Depot already has a new urban store in Toronto with 90 units of housing on top. At the same time that Wal-Mart, Target, and other big box stores are planning dozens of new urban stores in cities all over America, as many as 400 former Wal-Mart stores and other big boxes sit vacant on commercial strips across the country. Most analysts agree that cities and urban neighborhoods are the new land of opportunity for retail. ... McMahon's article then continues with sections on: 3. The Suburbs are Being Redesigned 4. Traffic Congestion, Fuel Prices, and Poor Design are Hurting the Strip 5. The Economy is Restructuring the Retail Landscape 6. Consumers Favor Walkability and Places With Character 7. E-Commerce and New Technologies Mean Fewer and Smaller Stores plus: Where Do We Go From Here? -- what can planning commissions do to help reshape the strip; some recommendations culled from leading experts. ... the full article is available to order & download immediately below.

order & download full article $4.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $16.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Wendy Grey Talks About Her PCJ Article on the Relationship Between Plans & Implementing Regulations

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville. Our just published Spring issue features an article by PCJ contributing writer (and long-time Florida planner) Wendy Grey about a topic that virtually every planning commissioner will face -- the relationship of the local comprehensive plan and implementing regulations, such as zoning ordinances.

I asked Wendy some questions to further explore what she covers in her article.

Wayne Senville: In your article in our Spring issue ("The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations: Putting Words Into Action"') you focus on ways of making the comprehensive plan and local land development regulations work better together. But in some communities, plans seem of distinctly secondary importance to land use regulations, since it's the regulations that have direct consequences for developers, businesses, and residents. This can be frustrating to members of local planning commissions, especially if they've invested a lot of time on working on the comp plan.

Are there suggestions you have for how comp plans can become more valuable in actually shaping land use policy and not just sit there on the proverbial shelf?

Wendy Grey: Since the land development regulations are intended to implement the plan, it is probably not practical, or helpful, to have every land use decision tied directly back to the comprehensive plan. But there are instances when relying on the plan can benefit the decision making process and remind folks why the plan is there.

Take rezonings as an example. Often, rezoning decisions revolve around whether the adjoining property owners object to the request. From a long range planning perspective, rezonings tie back directly to the future land use map, which depicts the desired relationships of land uses to each other. In reviewing rezoning requests, a significant part of the planning commission’s analysis should be based on whether the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, not just whether or not there are objections from neighbors.

Another way to keep the plan relevant is to spend some time reviewing it. Consider having an agenda item every few months that reviews some key objectives of the plan and how they are (or are not) being achieved. Based on these discussions, the planning commission may wish to recommend changes either to the plan or the regulations.

Wayne Senville: In many places, comprehensive plans seem replete with words like “may,” or “to the extent possible,” or “should consider,” instead of outlining what “shall” be done. In your article you discuss the difference between prescriptive plans (where language in the plan can almost be copied and pasted into land use regulations) and plans that build in more flexibility. How do planners and planning commissioners determine which approach would work best in their community’s comp plan?

Wendy Grey: The plan may have both types of policies, depending on the result you want to achieve. In the article, I use the example of comprehensive plan policies intended to promote downtown redevelopment. The plan could contain policies that specify exactly how tall buildings should be, the size of ground floor windows, and sidewalks widths. But that regulatory approach won’t necessarily encourage redevelopment and may actually impede reinvestment. In this example, the intent of the policy, as a guide to developing regulations, is more relevant than the specific standard. So, the plan directs the City to develop codes that address design features to create a safe and welcoming environment, but does not specify the precise standards.

On the other hand, prescriptive language is appropriate when the community value is very explicit. I recently reviewed major changes to the comprehensive plan in a coastal county in Florida. Many of the proposed changes moved the more regulatory language to the land development code. When it came to building heights along the coast, however, it was quickly decided that the four story height limit in the plan would not be removed. The control of building heights along the coast was such a strong community value that it was retained in as a requirement in the comprehensive plan, and, subsequently, the land development code.

Wayne Senville: It has often seemed to me that local zoning regulations face issues not addressed in the comprehensive plan, or not addressed very clearly, especially once the plan is five or ten years old. Zoning regulations then seem to be based more on ad hoc considerations or policy preferences of the governing body. What you almost end up with is the regulations leading the plan. Are there any ways of dealing with this?

The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations: Putting Words Into Action

Strategies for improving how your planning and regulatory documents work together. by Wendy Grey, AICP; from PCJ #82 (Spring 2011); 4 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. See also our interview with Wendy Grey about this article

Read excerpt from start of article: In this article, we'll explore the relationship between the comprehensive plan and its implementing regulations and some strategies for improving how these documents work together. We'll also discuss the local planning process as a "feedback loop" -- that is, the need for the plan and regulations to be refined and improved on a regular basis as a result of practical experience and ongoing evaluation. The Comprehensive Plan 1. Sections of the Plan As its name implies, the comprehensive plan is the broadest document guiding development. The plan typically contains sections (sometimes called "elements") that address the major subjects influencing the community's development. The sections will generally include land use, transportation, environmental resource protection, infrastructure, housing, and economic development. Other sections may include sustainability, historic preservation, community character, and public safety (e.g., disaster preparedness). Taken together, the sections of the plan should provide a picture of what the community will look like at the end of the selected planning horizon. Some plans contain a vision statement or pictures that provide a succinct summary of what the comprehensive plan is intending to achieve. The benefit of such an overview is that it shows how the key objectives within each section fit together to achieve the community vision. 2. "Mini" Comprehensive Plans While the comprehensive plan addresses the community as a whole, some planning departments also prepare plans that apply only to a specific geographic area. These "mini" comprehensive plans (often called "special area" plans) are usually prepared in response to a condition or need within an area that is not adequately addressed by the comprehensive plan. Consider a city that has recently annexed a large amount of vacant land under single ownership. The city wants to encourage the use of innovative planning techniques such as transit-oriented development, but there are policies throughout the comprehensive plan that impede this. The city does not want to make wholesale changes to the plan since current policies work well for the rest of the city, which is largely built out. In this situation, a more focused mini plan that applies only to the newly annexed area would likely be a good solution. Similar to special area plans are neighborhood and district plans. A neighborhood plan addresses the needs of a particular neighborhood and typically is adopted either to protect its existing character or promote sensitive revitalization. A district plan usually addresses a commercial area or several neighborhoods and has the same purpose as a neighborhood plan. Since the conditions that the plan addresses are unique to the area in question, it is appropriate to have a set of policies that apply only to it. 3. Providing a Vision for the Community's Future The comprehensive plan is the overarching policy document for the community. It should establish a long-term vision, set priorities, and provide direction for how the vision will be achieved. While the plan should be specific enough to accomplish these objectives, it should not be so detailed that it needs frequent amending. If the plan is constantly being revised, it can devalue the perception of the plan as the guide to the long-term development of the community. Let's take some examples. ... article then continues, and in Part II covers: Translating the Comprehensive Plan Into Implementing Regulations: 1. The Plan as a Policy Document; 2. Consistency Between the Plan and the Implementing Regulations; 3. Going Beyond the Planning Department; and 4. Keeping the Plan's Overall Objectives in Mind. Part III of the article covers: The Feedback Loop: 1. What Does the Data Show; 2. Evaluating Approved Projects; and 3. Looking at Your Development Review Process.

order & download full article $4.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $16.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

What Size Is Your Street?

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: We're pleased that over the coming year we'll be exchanging monthly blog postings with our partner, Project for Public Spaces.

---

Right-Sizing the Street: Not Just for the DOT Anymore
by Staff from Project for Public Spaces

It used to be that only transportation professionals decided how wide a street should be. Not anymore. Communities of all shapes and sizes are beginning to play a larger part in determining the design and network of their street system.

This new, active role helps ensure that transportation projects contribute to broad community outcomes, including local social, economic, and environmental well-being.

One primary way in which communities are playing an active role in the planning process is through grassroots efforts to “right-size” local streets. These right-sizing efforts take the form of low-cost experiments that are intended to demonstrate potential benefits of place-based transportation and informing long-term decision-making.

What is Right-Sizing?

Right-sizing is a technique to re-design streets to make them context sensitive. Through right-sizing, streets can be transformed so they are safer, sustainable, and more functional from a mobility and a community perspective.

For more detail on some examples of right-sizing techniques, read this recent post on Safer, More Livable Streets through Bike Lanes, featuring PPS Transportation Initiatives Director, Gary Toth.

Community-led and Action-Oriented Approaches to Right Sizing

When it comes to right-sizing a street, there are several approaches that range in cost, time commitment, and impact. Of all these approaches, community-led and action-oriented tactics are consistently lighter, quicker, and cheaper than traditional, capital-heavy alternatives.

Around the country, and with a little help from organizations such as PPS, The Street Plans Collaborative, and Go Oak Cliff, community members are realizing that the network of streets permeating their neighborhoods are not sacrosanct territory, but are public space that they can play an active role in planning and shaping.

Our Spring Issue: Putting Words Into Action

Several articles from our Spring issue can now be individually ordered & downloaded; click on the article titles below for details and to order.

Download a pdf for $16.75 or Order a print copy for delivery by mail for $15.75, plus postage

Contents of our Spring 2011 issue:
	Our Cover Story: The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations by Wendy Grey, AICP Putting words into action. Strategies for improving how your planning and regulatory documents work together.
The Value of Debriefing by Jim Segedy, Ph.D., FAICP, and Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy, AICP The five or ten minutes it takes to "debrief" a commission meeting can yield valuable ideas for improving future meetings.
	The End of the Strip by Edward T. McMahon The changing nature of retail may signal we're nearing the end of the era of strip commercial development.
A Question of Scale by Beth Humstone Demographic changes raise questions about what scale of development best fits neighborhoods and commercial districts.
	Charting an Economic Course by Gwendolyn Hallsmith If your local economy were a ship and you were preparing for a voyage, what would you need?
Welcome to the Tightrope Act by Della Rucker, AICP, CEcD It's vital that planning commissioners bring an economic perspective to planning -- and vice-versa -- though that can feel like balancing on a tightrope.
	Lighter, Cheaper, Quicker by Staff from Project for Public Spaces Some of the best public spaces have grown out of quick, cheap, incremental improvements.
Don't Take It Personally by Ric Stephens Four rules to help ensure all citizens know they will receive a fair and impartial hearing before the planning commission.
	Planning Sees "CW" Turned On Its Head by Dave Stauffer In city planning "conventional wisdom" has quite often been proven wrong.

In the "Center Ring" With New PCJ Contributing Writer Della Rucker

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Della Rucker is planner with an extensive background in economic development. She's also a talented writer. We're pleased that Della will be joining the Planning Commissioners Journal as a regular contributing writer. I recently asked Della several questions both about her first column for the PCJ, included in our just published Spring issue.

Wayne: In our Spring issue we're running your first column. It's titled "Welcome to the Tightrope Act." In it you say that planning commissioners "stand in the center ring" and need to balance market forces and community needs. I think many people would think of planning commissioners as focusing pretty much on developing the local comprehensive plan and reviewing development proposals -- not dealing with local economic concerns. Why do you take a broader view?

Della: The reason why I emphasized that approach comes from both my experience in what works best to make communities successful for the long run -- and the practical matters that I have observed over many years of sitting in planning commission meetings!

First, the big picture part: We have to start thinking of our communities less like sets of separate systems, and more like an ecosystem, where all of the parts directly impact each other. The land use decisions that a planning commission makes, and the physical and functional character they promote, don’t just impact what the place looks like -- they also impact how people feel about the community, whether they believe that the community is a worthwhile investment, and whether they have confidence in the community’s future. 

Similarly, when other agencies make decisions -- whether transportation, park and recreation departments, neighborhood and downtown nonprofits, school districts -- those decisions have a direct impact on the issues that are supposed to be the planning commission’s main responsibility.

We know all that in our guts, but the systems we are given to work with pretend that these issues are separate, and they often keep us from acting on that gut understanding. Since planning, by its nature, is a bit more, shall I say, omnivorous that some of the other systems, like engineering or recreation, the planning commission often becomes the place where the impacts that one decision has on other elements of the community most fully come out.

The second reason why I say that is simple observation: every planning commission in the country finds itself in that center ring sooner or later, trying to manage a whole range of impacts, and often without a whole lot of useful tools. And planning commissions often get the blame for the unintended and unexpected impacts of what other parts of the local government or other community organizations do. That’s why the article is titled “Welcome to the Tightrope Act” -- like it or not, as a planning commissioner, you’re part of the circus!

Wayne: In what sort of ways can planners and planning commissions better address their community's long-term economic needs?