HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2010
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
May 5, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. April 7, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. TX2010-001 Consideration of an Amendment to the Zoning Code to add “Thrift
Store” as a Permitted Use in a B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning District.
Applicant: Dawn Huffman
Address: Fridley, MN
B. CU2010-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize
Garage at 7406 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Jason & Darcie Kramber
Address: 7406 Spring Lake Road
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. May 19, 2010
B. June 2, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. April 21, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. April 21, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Ken Roberts.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
VR 2010-001; Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6-foot fence in front
of the house line on a corner lot 2
B-1 Uses Expansion Discussion 2
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Approval of Minutes
March 17, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of
the March 17, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 2
____________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
A. VR2010-001 Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6-foot fence in front of
the house line on a corner lot at 5046 Eastwood Road.
Planning Associate Heller stated the homeowner at 5046 Eastwood Road is requesting a variance
to install a 6-foot tall fence in the second front yard of his corner lot. The property is on the
northeast corner of Eastwood Road and County Road H. The City Code requirement for front
yard applies to two sides of the property. This means that corner lots have additional limitations.
The zoning code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential
district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant currently has a 4-foot chain link fence in
this front yard and he wants to replace it with a 6-foot tall wood fence to provide screening from
County Road H. For the City to approve a variance there needs to be demonstrated substantial
hardship. In this applicant’s case, the property is a smaller corner lot. The parcel is only 9,900
square feet and the city code now requires corner lots to be a minimum of 12,500.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Commissioner Schiltgren questioned how many of these variance requests does the city receive?
Planning Associate Heller stated typically there is one a year.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Cramblit. Approving a Variance to
Allow for a Six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of 5046 Eastwood Road; VR2010-001
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Expanding B-1 Zoning Uses
Planning Associate Heller stated this B-1 zoning issue was discussed at the last meeting with the
Planning Commission. Currently, there are only two properties zoned B-1 within Mounds View.
This current issue is a result of someone coming into the City and inquiring about having a thrift
Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 3
____________________________________________________________________________
store in a property zoned B-1. Since then, the individual has made application to the City for a
B-1 zoning text amendment that the Commission will consider at their next meeting. The B-1
zoning has limitations because of the small lot size and space restrictions. She indicated there
were several examples of zoning codes from other cities for the planning commission to review.
She stated the commission can either address the applicants request to add a thrift store to the
B-1 District tonight or discuss adding more uses into the B-1 zoning district and amending the
zoning code all at once. She also suggested adding some of these possible uses as conditional
uses would give the city leverage when considering various uses as the planning commission
would need to review the requests.
Chair Stevenson stated in the example of B-1 zoning from New Brighton he liked the language
that gave the City Council options to use their discretion and felt Mounds View could add some
language similar to this to the City Code.
Community Development Director Roberts stated with this language it gives the City Council
some discretion. By adding this language it would assist with business changing within that
zoning district.
Chair Stevenson asked if there has been an issue with parking at site.
Planning Associate Heller stated she has never seen a parking issue. She added the building is a
neighborhood building and many people walk to the businesses.
Community Development Director Roberts stated with the text amendment being presented at
the next meeting, staff also would propose amendments to address this issue the one time.
Commissioner Cramblit stated he is would like the City to add other uses as conditional uses.
Community Development Director Roberts asked if there were uses that the commission felt
strongly on leaving out of the permitted uses.
Planning Associate Heller stated the example from the City of Fridley has some excluded uses
such as pawn shops and second hand stores. With a thrift store possibly going in there, staff will
have to watch the site carefully.
Chair Stevenson suggested having the second hand store use be permitted by a conditional use.
This gives the city more control of how it is handled.
Planning Associate Heller stated that staff would draft an amended B-1 zoning district and bring
the proposed changes before the commission at their next meeting.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 4
____________________________________________________________________________
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. May 5, 2010
B. May 19, 2010
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:50 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: May 5, 2010
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consider a Zoning Code Text Amendment to Add “Thrift
Store” and Other Types of Businesses as Permitted
Uses in the B-1 Zoning District
Introduction:
Dawn Huffman has applied to the City for a zoning code text amendment to add “thrift
store” as a permitted use in the B-1, Neighborhood Business district. She wants the City
to make this change so she may open a thrift store in the vacant space at 2408 County
Road I.
City staff recently noticed remodeling work occurring in the former laundromat space in the
building at 2408 County Road I. (This property is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business). After
talking to the people working in this space, City staff learned that they planned to open a thrift
store. After reviewing the B-1 zoning code, City staff informed this potential new business
owner, along with the building owner, that the existing B-1 zoning code does not allow thrift
stores. In fact, there are now only five permitted uses in the B-1 zoning district: barbershops,
beauty parlors, convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type), self-service laundromats
and essential services (utility or government uses). The City may allow a daycare center in
the B-1 district with the approval of a conditional use permit. City staff spoke to the thrift
storeowner about this situation, and she has now applied to the City for a zoning code text
amendment for the B-1 zoning district.
Discussion:
According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the B-1 district is as follows:
The purpose of the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, is to provide for the
establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets
which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished.
These centers are to provide services and goods for the surrounding neighborhoods
and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community.
Staff researched what other cities allow in zoning districts that are comparable to Mounds
View’s B-1 district. All seven of the zoning codes from the other cities that staff reviewed allow
several uses in their similar neighborhood business districts. In general, all of the other cities
zoning codes allow service businesses such as medical clinics and offices, along with several
different types of retail in their respective neighborhood or limited business district zoning
districts.
B-1 Zoning Code Text Amendment
Page 2
Both of the B-1 zoned properties in Mounds View are very small – approximately ½ acre in
size, with one building and a parking lot. The small building and lot sizes alone will limit the
type of businesses that would open in these locations. As with many commercial properties in
Mounds View, both of these B-1 properties are directly adjacent to residential land uses.
The property at 2408 County Road I has a building that is about 4,800 square feet and has 21
parking spaces (with room for a few more). The other B-1 zoned property is at 7295 Silver
Lake Road (at corner of County Road H2) and is about 2,200 square feet with 15 parking
spaces. Neither property would probably meet the required number of parking spaces for
most common land uses (see Chapter 1121.13 for parking requirements). Both of these
properties are located on main roads and have access points that are capable of handling
more customer traffic than currently exists.
Based upon the discussion of the Planning Commission on April 21, 2010, staff has
drafted a resolution that recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code that adds more
permitted uses to the B-1 district. The Planning Commission had discussed adding thrift
stores as a conditional use. Staff has instead added thrift stores as a permitted use
because the City has rules that can address issues that may arise from items left outside
the store.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adding more permitted uses to the B-1 Zoning District. The Commission
should review and discuss the list of additional uses proposed for the B-1 District. Staff has
prepared Resolution 924-10 that adds more uses to the B-1 Zoning District for the
Commissions consideration and adoption.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller - Planning Associate
Attachments
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. Resolution 924-10
Zoning Map – B-1 zoned parcels
7295 Silver Lake
2408 Cty Rd
I
Aerial View of B-1 zoned parcels
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 924-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 1112.02 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL
PERMITTED USES TO THE B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, ZONING DISTRICT;
PLANNING CASE TX2010-001
WHEREAS, Dawn Huffman, wants to open a thrift store at 2408 County Road I and has
requested that the City add thrift stores as a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that more types of uses be
added to the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, Chapter 1112.02 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1112.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows:
Chapter 1112.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District:
Barber shops
Beauty parlors
Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type)
Essential services
Laundromat, self-service washing and drying
Thrift or second-hand store
Retail business for local or neighborhood needs subject to the following limits:
- The sale of dry goods, clothing, notions and variety merchandise.
- The sale of books, magazines, newspapers, gifts, jewelry, music, stationery or
office supplies.
Dry cleaning and laundry receiving and pick-up stations (with no cleaning or pressing done
on site)
Florist shop
Candy and ice cream stores (shall not include drive-through and/or window pick-up
services)
Resolution 924-10
Page 2
Tailor shop, dress making, clothing rental store
Professional and service business offices such as accountant, architect, broker, engineer,
attorney, realtor, appraiser, finance agency, insurance agency, investment agency, travel
agency, mortgage company
Medical, dental, chiropractic, counseling or other health-related office or clinic
Repair store that provides services for the repair of home, garden, yard and personal use
appliances, tool or equipment (except for motorized vehicles or gas-powered equipment).
All repair work shall be done inside the building and there shall not be any outdoor sales or
storage.
The City will allow uses similar to those listed above in this section if the proposed use
would not create a nuisance and if the use would not be noxious or hazardous. The City
Council shall review uses that are not clearly similar to those listed in this section for a
determination of compatibility.
WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to add more types of permitted uses in the
B-1, Neighborhood Business, district will further the purpose of the zoning district, would better
serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the
City Code is warranted and justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1112.02 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code to add more permitted uses as defined herein.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of May, 2010.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 5B
Meeting Date: May 5, 2010
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 7406 Spring Lake Road;
Planning Case No. CU2010-001
Introduction:
The applicants, Jason and Darcie Kramber, are requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 7406 Spring Lake Road. The
Kramber’s own this vacant lot and plan to build a new home. The applicants want to build a
3-car garage that has extra storage space with the construction of their new home.
The applicants have submitted new house plans that include a garage that would be larger
than what the City Code allows. The City limites the size of accessory buildings, whether
attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Anything larger
than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the
Kramber’s are proposing with their new house would be 1,020 square feet. The applicants
indicate that they want the extra space for storage.
Requirements:
Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building,
the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet.
Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages
exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with
the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory
building area on the lot.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible
adverse effects of the requested conditional use.
Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,020 square foot garage satisfies
the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code. The proposed house and garage would meet all City setback
requirements.
Kramber CUP Request
May 5, 2010
Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7406 Spring Lake
Road, as low-density residential.
CUP Considerations:
Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address
any potential adverse effects of a conditional use which include, but are not limited to, the
relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation,
the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has
addressed each of these potential adverse effects below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality,
appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The
applicants will be building an entirely new house that would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
The Geographical Area Involved. The home would be located on Spring Lake Road. Since
the garage is a side-load style, it would not be obvious from the street. In this case, the
proposed oversized garage would not be noticeable or out of place in the neighborhood. This
garage should not affect any neighboring properties.
Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense
by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as
the new construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are
a benefit to everyone.
The Character of the Surrounding Area. This portion of Spring Lake Road is entirely
residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages and most have very large
lots – at least a half-acre. This property is 132 feet by 319 feet deep (0.88 acres), so the
oversize garage should not affect any neighbors. The proposed garage would not be out of
character in this area particularly since the garage is a side-load style and the extra square
footage of the garage will not be visible from the street.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,020 square foot
garage that would allow for parking their vehicles inside plus storage space since there are no
other accessory buildings on the property.
Kramber CUP Request
May 5, 2010
Page 3
Recommendation:
City staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit as requested.
1. Resolution 925-10, approving the conditional use pemit is attached if the Commission
chooses this action.
2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the
Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of
denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the
Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid
an inadvertent approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. House elevation
4. House first floor plan
5. Letter from Applicant
6. Resolution 925-10
Zoning Map
County Road H2
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
Aerial View
Elevations of New Home
First floor plan
Garage
Letter from Applicants
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 925-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,020 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7406 SPRING LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE CU2010-001
WHEREAS, property owners Jason and Darcie Kramber have applied for a
conditional use permit to construct a 1,020 square foot garage; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7406 Spring Lake Road, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 073023230021
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,020 square feet, thus requiring City
approval of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Aerial View
c. New Home Elevation
d. New Home floor plan
e. Staff Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,020 square foot garage satisfies the zoning
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units
and residential property in general.
Resolution 925-10
Page 2
3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the design of the garage
and the character and geography of the surrounding area involved.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood.
5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
oversized garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,020 square foot
garage, with conditions as follows:
1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other
uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning
Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use
permit shall be considered null and void.
2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance
with the existing house.
3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for
which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of
approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been
granted by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of
the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of May, 2010.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kenneth Roberts,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N EWS & I NFORMATION FOR C ITIZEN P LANNERS
Think
Regionally,
Act Locally
When local planning
and zoning decisions
affect more than your
own community.
4
Drafting Clear
Ordinances
Some do’s and don’ts
6
21st Century
Transportation
Planning
Challenges
Bringing people and
places closer together.
8
Planetizen
Update
Web sites of special
interest to citizen
planners.
10
Housing
Choices
How planners can best
address changing
demand in the housing
market. Plus a major
legal development on
where affordable
housing should go.
12
Coping with
Economic
Meltdown
Is there a role for plan-
ning commissioners in
addressing local
economic development?
18
Stop, Look,
Loiter
Taking the time to be
a careful observer.
19
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
www.plannersweb.com
Housing Choices
Some Introductions
Are In Order
I’m pleased and excited to tell you about
several talented individuals joining the Plan-
ning Commissioners Journal as regular contrib-
utors. We’re drawing on planners who have
demonstrated the ability to write well, and on
topics we think you’ll find of interest. You can
read a bit about Beth Humstone, Dave Stauffer,
Wendy Grey, Carolyn Braun, and Gwendolyn
Hallsmith on the facing page. We’ve also post-
ed interviews with each of them on our Plan-
nersWeb blog (use the “What’s New” link in
the left sidebar of our blog to find the inter-
views).
I also want to introduce you to several new
features on the PlannersWeb.
• First, we’ve been regularly posting short
“News, Notes, & Quotes” reports about a wide
range of planning-related stories and web sites
you’ll want to check out. Recently, we’ve
included excerpts from “State of the City”
addresses given by mayors from across the
country (including one who memorably
remarked that his city’s mobility crisis “is no
midnight hallucination after a bad burrito”).
• If you haven’t visited the PlannersWeb
you’ve also been missing our “Friday video
shorts.” We scour the Web to find short (under
ten minute) videos on topics we think both cit-
izen and professional planners will enjoy –
every Friday you’ll find a new video posted.
• We’re also reposting planning historian
Larry Gerckens’ Planning ABC’s. Some of you
may recall this terrific series of short articles, in
which Gerckens covers 26 important planning-
related topics in alphabetical order: from Auto-
mobiles to Zoning. We’ve added hyperlinks to
Gerckens’ articles for those of you looking for
more detail on the people and ideas he refer-
ences.
There’s one more important “introduction”
I’d like to make: you can now join us on three
key social media sites: Facebook, Linkedin,
and Twitter. You’ll find links to connect with us
right under the logo at
the top of our Planners
Web home page: www.
plannersweb.com. ◆
2
Wayne M. Senville,
Editor
Champlain Planning Press, Inc.
P.O. Box 4295, Burlington, VT 05406
Tel: 802-864-9083 • Fax: 802-862-1882
E-mail: pcjoffice@gmail.com
plannersweb.com
Subscription Information
Published 4 times/year. Standard Rate: $67/year. Addition-
al subscriptions mailed to the same address: $12 each/year.
ISSN 1058-5605. Postmaster and Subscribers: Send
address changes to Planning Commissioners Journal, P.O.
Box 4295, Burlington, VT 05406.
Editorial Policy
Articles and columns contained in the Journal do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Journal. The Journal is
copyright protected by Champlain Planning Press 2010.
For permission to reproduce or distribute any portion of the
Journal, contact the Editor. This publication is designed to
provide accurate and authoritative information on the sub-
ject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting
or other professional services. If legal or other expert assis-
tance is required, the services of a competent professional
should be sought.
Editor
Wayne M. Senville
Burlington, Vermont
Manager
Elizabeth M. Krumholz
Burlington, Vermont
PCJ Contributing
Writers
Jim Segedy,FAICP
Lisa Hollingsworth-
Segedy, AICP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Ric Stephens
Beaverton, Oregon
Hannah Twaddell
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gwendolyn Hallsmith
Montpelier, Vermont
Carolyn Braun, AICP
Anoka, Minnesota
Dave Stauffer
Red Lodge, Montana
Beth Humstone
Portland, Maine
Wendy Grey, AICP
Tallahassee, Florida
Assistant Editor
Larry Pflueger
Clearwater, Florida
Editorial
Advisory Board
Larry Frey, AICP
Bradenton, Florida
Lee A. Krohn, AICP
Manchester, Vermont
Ross Moldoff, AICP
Salem, New Hampshire
Christine B. Mueller
Lawrenceburg, Indiana
Irv Schiffman
Chico, California
Barbara Sweet
Hyde Park, New York
Ilene Watson
Kelowna, B.C.
Design
Ned Corbett
Ferrisburgh, Vermont
Cover Illustration
Paul Hoffman
Greenfield, Massachusetts
FROM THE EDITOR CONTENTS
Think Regionally, Act Locally
by Jim Segedy, FAICP, and Lisa Hollingsworth-
Segedy, AICP
Your job as a planning commissioner is to
address your community’s future, but the
decisions you make can have wider impacts.
Drafting Clear Ordinances:
Do’s and Don’ts
by Carolyn Braun, AICP
One of a planner’s most important jobs is draft-
ing clear and understandable ordinances. It’s
also a task on which planning commissioners
can offer valuable assistance.
21st Century Transportation
Planning Challenges
by Hannah Twaddell
As the 21st century dawns, we need to plan for
our cities and towns in ways that bring people
and places closer together and provide more
travel choices.
Planetizen Update
The Editors of Planetizen highlight ten web
sites of special interest to citizen planners.
Housing Choices
Today’s demographic and economic conditions,
along with consumer preferences, are creating
a major shift in housing demand. Recent legal
developments have also put a spotlight on
exclusionary zoning practices. A closer look at
these issues in:
• Future Housing Demand:
Problem or Opportunity
by Beth Humstone
• Planning for Housing
by Wendy Grey, AICP
• Housing: “One-Size-Fits-All”
No Longer Works
by Edward T. McMahon
• No Certification, No Money
by Michael Allen, Esq.
Coping with
Economic Meltdown
by Gwendolyn Hallsmith
How strong is your local economy? Is there a
role for planning commissioners in addressing
local economic development? The first of a
series of columns by Gwendolyn Hallsmith.
Stop, Look, Loiter
by Dave Stauffer
Stop, look, and take the time to observe how
people interact with the built environment.
19
18
8
10
12
6
4
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS
Gwendolyn
Hallsmith is
Director of
Planning &
Community
Development for the City of
Montpelier, Vermont, and
founder of Global Community
Initiatives, a non-profit that
supports municipal sustainable
development initiatives. She’s
also served as a city manager
(Randolph, Vermont) and
regional planning director
(Franklin County, Massachu-
setts).
Hallsmith has written on
social, economic, and
environmental topics, and is
wrapping up her fourth book,
Intentional Cities, Intentional
Economies, to be published by
New Society Publishers.
Dave Stauffer
is a planning
consultant,
freelance writer,
and chairman
of the Yellowstone Business
Partnership. He is also a
former city planner, planning
commission chair, and city
council member in his home
town of Red Lodge, Montana.
Stauffer has previously written
two articles for the PCJ: “Smart
Messages,” in our Fall 2006
issue, and “Emerging Water
Shortages Are No Mirage,”
published in Spring 2004.
Wendy Grey,
AICP, is principal
of Wendy Grey
Land Use
Planning LLC
which works with public,
private, and non-profit clients.
Prior to establishing her own
firm in 2002, Grey spent 20
years in the public sector
dealing with development and
growth management in Florida,
Beth Humstone
has worked as a
planning
consultant on a
wide range of
projects in rural communities
and small towns. She’s an
advisor to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and
former Executive Director of the
Vermont Forum on Sprawl
(now Smart Growth Vermont).
Humstone is also a past member
of the Burlington, Vermont,
Planning Commission, and
former Chair of Vermont’s
Housing & Conservation Trust
Fund Board.
In her “spare time,” Humstone
co-authored Above and Beyond,
Visualizing Change in Small
Towns and Rural Areas, a book
that we highly recommend.
3
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
The public participation process for the new Comprehensive Plan
didn’t gather the constituents Fred was hoping for.
Our Contributing Writers
Published in the PCJ courtesy of Paul Zucker, aka The Management Doctor.
Drawing by Dean Vietor; caption by Joe Adkins. You can see Zucker Systems
publications including their new cartoon book, Mis Management at:
http://zuckersystems.com/public.html
From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:Just wanted to tell you a little
about our new (and old) contributing writers. We think you’ll
benefit from the variety of perspectives these very experienced and
talented planners will bring.
Jim Segedy, FAICP
and Lisa
Hollingsworth-
Segedy, AICP have
written for the
PCJ since 2008.
Jim is the
Director of
Community
Planning for the
Pennsylvania
Environmental Council, and
former head of Ball State
University’s Community Based
Planning program. Lisa is the
Associate Director for River
Restoration for American
Rivers’ Pittsburgh field office.
Before that she spent over ten
years as a circuit-riding planner
for a regional planning
organization outside Atlanta.
Hannah
Twaddell has
reported on
transportation
planning issues
for the PCJ since 2004. She is
a Principal Planner in the
Charlottesville, Virginia, office
of Renaissance Planning
Group, with over 18 years’
planning experience.
Ric Stephens is a
Senior Project
Manager at
Cogan Owens
Cogan in
Portland, Oregon, and Vice-
Chair of the Beaverton,
Oregon, Planning Commission.
Stephens has written for the
PCJ since 2007.
including ten years as Planning
Director for Tallahassee and
Leon County. She’s also reported
on planning issues for the
Florida League of Cities.
Carolyn Braun,
AICP, is Planning
Director for the
City of Anoka,
Minnesota, and
Past President of the Minnesota
Chapter of the American
Planning Association. She holds
a Masters of Public Affairs from
the Hubert H. Humphrey
Institute. Braun has also written
two prior articles for the PCJ:
“What Planners Do,” in our
Summer 2004 issue and
“Planning from Different
Perspectives,” in our Fall 1996
issue.
For more about these
talented planners, see our
interviews posted on
www.PlannersWeb.com.
They will be joining:
heard development per-
mit requests that would
have affected traffic gen-
eration, land use patterns,
and property values of
these concerned non-citi-
zens, elected officials
instructed the commis-
sion to ignore impacts
beyond the city’s border.
It was like placing a brick
wall at the city limit.
As a planning com-
missioner, do you see the “lose/lose” out-
come of this example?
First, the city missed out on hearing
valuable perspectives from people with
authentic connections to the city – and
who were willing to put in the time to
help craft a good zoning ordinance. Sec-
ond, by limiting the scope of the permit
review process, the city set itself up for
abrupt and incompatible land use pat-
terns at its border. Moreover, the city
lessened the county’s interest in receiving
city input concerning development per-
mits for major projects outside the city
limits.
Walls of this kind can stop communi-
cations in both directions.
4
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
and provides a mechanism for addressing
them – including input from and com-
munication with affected parties outside
your jurisdiction. Your second obligation
is to consider the regional implications of
your plan implementation actions.
In last Fall’s issue of the Planning
Commissioners Journal (PCJ #76), Greg
Dale pointed out two areas which partic-
ularly beg for you as the planning com-
missioner to look beyond your
community’s boundary when making
decisions: (1) systems: natural environ-
mental, transportation, and housing; and
(2) land use impacts on adjacent/nearby
communities, particularly traffic caused
by major retail.
There was a small group of people
who lived just a few hundred feet beyond
the city limits in the unincorporated
county. They wanted to volunteer to
serve on the ad hoc committee that was
assisting the planning commission with
developing the new ordinance. These
individuals had long-standing ties to the
community. The city was where they col-
lected their mail, bought their groceries,
paid their water bill, and attended
church. Their children went to schools
inside the city. However, since they were
not actually voting, tax-paying residents
of the city, their request to join the com-
mittee was turned down.
Later, when the planning commission
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT WORK
Think Regionally, Act Locally
by Jim Segedy, FAICP, and Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy, AICP
H ave you ever been riding
along in your car and been able
to tell exactly when you entered
the city limits by the change in the road
pavement? Have you ever looked at the
streetscape and known right where the
corporate boundary is just by the way
land uses change abruptly? You don’t
need to see the sign to know that you are
in a different place. It is obvious to you
that one community treated their bound-
ary as a hard edge, and where they
adjoined the neighboring community,
there was no thought put into a seamless
appearance of the pavement, or perhaps
even of the physical development.
Each community has its identity –
and that’s very impor-
tant – but no communi-
ty is an island. In
today’s mobile and
global economy, the
decisions that you as a
planning commissioner
will make must recog-
nize the relationships,
impacts, and opportu-
nities of not only your
community, but also
the communities that
surround you. Even in
the days of the compa-
ny town where everyone lived, worked,
shopped, and played in the same place,
people had to share resources with their
neighbors.
Your job as a planning commissioner
is to address your community’s future,
but the decisions you are asked to make
sometimes have impacts beyond your
own city or town. Those decisions can
call for you to think regionally while act-
ing locally.
Your first obligation in preparing to
deal with regional impacts is to ensure
that your community’s comprehensive
plan identifies potential regional issues
What happens at your municipal border?
While Dale’s article focused on ethical
reasons for why a planning commission
should balance the interest of a commu-
nity against the broader region, this is
not just an ethical issue. It is also one of
practicality and common sense.
Walls to Communication
A few years ago, Lisa assisted a city in
undertaking a complete revision of its
zoning ordinance prompted by the
spillover growth coming from the nearby
major metropolitan area. The need for
this new zoning ordinance had been iden-
tified in the city’s comprehensive plan.
How It’s Done
in Georgia
Georgia employs a “devel-
opment of regional impact” (DRI)
approach to regional coordination of land
use decisions.
The DRI process establishes separate
thresholds for developments in urban and
rural areas. Any permit request that
exceeds the appropriate threshold auto-
matically triggers the DRI process, which
provides for review and comment from
surrounding units of governments and
the regional planning council. While
these comments are advisory only, input
from affected neighboring communities
has benefited the development permitting
process.
Georgia also has a formal mediation
process that allows neighboring jurisdic-
tions to negotiate the issues of concern
when development in one community
poses impacts on an adjacent community.
In many ways, this is like the environ-
mental impact process which should be
integral to all comprehensive plans.
Taking Regional Impacts Into Account
Some suggestions for how to think
regionally while acting locally:
• revisit your comprehensive plan to
ensure that you’ve adequately considered
regional issues.
• consider adding a check box to your
development permit review checklist to
specify the type of review or comment
opportunity that your planning commis-
sion needs in order to address the re-
gional implications of proposed local
developments.
• look into allowing for public hearing
input from parties outside of your corpo-
rate boundary.
• work with your counterparts in adjoin-
ing jurisdictions to formulate a system
for sharing the benefits and drawbacks of
development and regional demands, be it
resources or services.
The important thing is to fine-tune
your process so you can avoid those
abrupt, incompatible changes in land use
that, just like changes in pavement, tell
everyone that now they’re in a different
community. ◆
Jim is the Director of Community Planning for the
Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Lisa is the
Associate Director for River Restoration for Amer-
ican Rivers’ Pittsburgh field office. Their respective
positions require them to foster regional thinking
and local action for communities that share natur-
al resources and environmentally sensitive areas.
Coordinating With
Multi-Jurisdictional Bodies
Coordinating your comprehensive
plan with local school districts (which
frequently cross political boundaries)
and shared public services will not only
allow proactive consideration of regional
issues, but can enable plan implemen-
tation to take advantage of economies
of scale.
We can’t over-emphasize the impor-
tance of coordinating your community
plan with the school board, the water
and sewer authority, or any other entity
whose service area impacts your commu-
nity, particularly if it also crosses political
boundaries.
Getting Assistance
As a planning commissioner, where
do you turn for assistance with informa-
tion, data, maps, and analysis to think
regionally and act locally?
Luckily, every state has a system of
regional planning organizations available
to assist you. While their name, scope of
services, and business relationship with
cities and towns will vary from state to
state, they typically offer valuable assis-
tance. Upon your local government’s
request, they can usually provide regional
information on transportation systems,
housing needs and trends, demographics,
economic development, natural and his-
toric resources, infrastructure, environ-
mentally sensitive resources, and other
issues.
Regional planning agencies may also
be able to assist you in public involve-
ment activities and coordination with
other jurisdictions.
Other important resources you can
avail include your state planning agency
and the extension program of your land
grant university. Many universities have
service learning programs through which
planning, architecture, or landscape
architecture students can provide your
community with assistance. Jim and his
students assisted over one hundred com-
munities during his two-decade tenure at
Ball State University. If you’re not sure
how to access these resources, a quick
call to your regional planning agency will
get you started.
5
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
Online Comments:
“It may be a good strategy to consider joint
development and design standards among dif-
ferent jurisdictions to avoid the abrupt transi-
tions mentioned by the authors. Orange
County, Florida, has adopted joint design
standards with three municipalities for West
State Road 50, a major commercial corridor,
to improve the appearance of the corridor and
promote redevelopment and infill develop-
ment, which are goals at the heart of the
County’s planning process. For details, see:
www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/growth/
planning/urban/wsr50.htm.”
– Susan Caswell, AICP, Planning Manager,
Orange County, Florida
“This is an important topic that lies right at
the intersection of psychology, finances, taxes,
land use rights and responsibilities, and
politics. As we all know, environmental,
economic, and other plans and impacts do
not stop at political boundaries; yet laws and
legal responsibilities often do. Then there’s
the human and psychological drama, along
with turf and control issues, involved in
organizations. We’ve had challenges getting
our elementary school, high school, and pub-
lic libraries to have a rational discussion
together about whether to even consider the
idea of sharing space or resources. Ideally,
entities such as regional planning commis-
sions, watershed councils, and similar organi-
zations can help transcend town by town
politics and thinking.”
– Lee A. Krohn, AICP, Planning Director, Town of
Manchester, Vermont
★
6
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
Drafting Clear Ordinances: Do’s and Don’ts
by Carolyn Braun, AICP
Many planners spend a lot of
time interpreting or explaining
ordinances to citizens and those
representing them. Unclear language in
an ordinance provides an opportunity for
both confusion and legal challenges. The
best way to minimize this is by writing
clear, readable ordinances.
TIPS ON DEVELOPING
ORDINANCE CONTENT
1. Be Able to Explain the Need
Elected officials often suggest consid-
eration of an ordinance based on what a
neighboring community has adopted.
Reviewing other community ordinances
can be very helpful. Be cautious, howev-
er, particularly if you are adopting a small
section of that ordinance. Does the ordi-
nance language you are “borrowing”
include terms not defined in your own
ordinance?
Most importantly, be sure the ordi-
nance you are drafting is tailored to meet
your community’s concerns. You should
be able to explain the need for the ordi-
nance. That understanding will also lead
to clearer interpretation and enforce-
ment, and help ensure that your ordi-
nance is legally defensible.
2. Make Sure You Have the Authority
Before you go too far in drafting an
ordinance, make sure you have the
authority to enact it. Does it conform to
state and federal law? Communities can-
not adopt local ordinances that contra-
dict explicit provisions of state or federal
law. For example, in Minnesota there are
specific provisions in state law requiring
communities to allow state licensed resi-
dential facilities.
In some cases, the applicable “field of
law” has been preempted by state law.
For example, a state-adopted building
code may preempt adoption of a local
building code. In such cases, you do not
have the authority to adopt regulations.
Always check with your attorney. Adop-
tion of an ordinance by another commu-
nity does not guarantee that a similar
ordinance will be legally defensible in
yours.
In some instances, state laws and
rules can be adopted by reference, but
there is a question whether any future
amendments to the state law are then
automatically incorporated into your
previously adopted ordinance. One way
to deal with this is to include the phrase
“as may be amended from time to time”
when you adopt an ordinance that refer-
ences a state law or rule.
3. Discuss the Draft
It’s good practice to discuss draft ordi-
nance provisions in a work session (in
most places, these must be noticed and
open to the public). Planning commis-
sioners can offer valuable insights and
assistance, and should be involved in
reviewing the draft. The meaning of the
ordinance should be clear to them, not
just to staff. Planning board members
can also be asked to play devil’s advocate
and thoroughly explore various possible
interpretations of the draft. This extra
time and work often pays off.
If you know of any interested individ-
uals or groups, ask them to participate.
Consider how application of the ordi-
nance will affect them. Are there any
unintended consequences that may
result from adoption of the ordinance?
Get input from your town, city, or
county attorneys’ office as early as possi-
ble. At a minimum they need to review
the draft before it is scheduled for public
hearing.
Finally, if there’s a public hearing
before your local governing body, make
sure the members have been briefed in
advance and given a chance to provide
their feedback.
4. Use a Check List
Create a check list to review each
draft. The check list should include tips
from this article and the procedural
requirements of your ordinance.
5. Proofread, and Proofread Again
After reading several drafts of an ordi-
nance, it becomes difficult to see errors
in typing, numbering, or other items. It
can be very helpful to have someone
proofread who hasn’t been involved in
the drafting.
6. Keep Good Records
While communities often have a wide
range of discretion in adopting local
ordinances, they must also comply with
procedural due process requirements.
Often litigants will allege violations of
due process when they challenge an ordi-
nance.
Documentation of compliance can
reduce the likelihood of such litigation.
It is also very helpful to record minutes
from ordinance discussions that are held
prior to the public hearing. This informa-
tion provides background on the basis
for the ordinance, and should be includ-
ed in the public hearing staff report.
TIPS ON THE MECHANICS OF
DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE
Ordinances – in particular zoning
ordinances – can be lengthy documents.
To improve readability, emphasis should
be placed upon drafting a well-organized
ordinance that uses plain, well-defined
THE BEST WAY TO AVOID THE
TIME AND EXPENSE OF A
LAWSUIT IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT ALL IMPORTANT TERMS
ARE DEFINED AND EVERY
DEFINITION IS CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
language. Such an ordinance will be easi-
er to administer and amend.
1. Make it Clear
There are several principles of clear
writing. Writing in the active voice –
using action verbs – is arguably the most
important. The active voice makes it
clear who is to perform the action
required. For example, an ordinance in
passive voice might say “The application
must be approved.” In active voice it
would say “The administrator must
approve the application.”
Here are some other suggestions:
• Use action verbs that are shorter
and more direct. For example, change
“make payment” to “pay” or “is con-
cerned with” to “concerns.”
• Be direct, especially when describ-
ing procedures and lists of duties. For
example, say “Sign all copies.”
• Similarly, convert phrases to simpler
terms. Instead of saying “failed to comply
with,” use the word “violated.” Substi-
tute simple words where possible. For
example, instead of “construct” or “fabri-
cate” use the word “make,” instead of
“initiate” or “commence” use “begin.”
• Short, compact paragraphs work
best. Each paragraph should deal with a
single topic. Lengthy, complex, or tech-
nical provisions should be presented in a
series of related paragraphs. This will
help readers understand the relationship
of the provisions.
• Watch out for commas. The place-
ment of one little comma can sometimes
make a big difference in meaning.1
• Draft your ordinances in the present
tense.
• If you have a choice between writing
either positively or negatively, use
positive language. For example, instead
of saying “The City Manager may not
approve signage in the right-of-way
unless he or she has determined that
there is no public safety impact from
such signage,” use “The City Manager
may approve signage in the right-of-way
when he or she determines that there is
no public safety impact from such
signage.”
• Similarly, avoid negative words or
phrases. For example, don’t say “A pro-
ject will not be approved unless all appli-
cation requirements are met.” Instead,
say “A project will be approved only if
the applicant meets all requirements.”
• Simple illustrations can clarify
terms or concepts – and are found in a
growing number of ordinances. But first
check with your municipal attorney on
whether you can do this. If you include
graphics, make sure they are clear and
legible.
2. Language in an Ordinance Should
be Consistent
Don’t use different words to denote
the same thing just for the sake of varia-
tion. Using different words rather than
repeating the same term simply confuses
the reader and may provide opportuni-
ties for misinterpretation and litigation.
For example, don’t say “Each motor
vehicle owner must register his or her
car.” Instead, say “Each automobile
owner must register his or her auto-
mobile.”
3. Do Your Lists Right
Lists should be clear and use parallel
structure. List each item so that it makes
a complete thought when read with the
introductory text.
If the introductory text is a complete
sentence, end the introduction with a
colon and make each item in the list a
separate sentence. If the introductory
language for the list is an incomplete sen-
tence, end the introduction with a dash
and end each item in the list except the
last item with a semicolon.
After the semicolon in the next to the
last item in the list, write “and” or “or” as
appropriate and end the last item in the
list with a period. Listing in this manner
7
can help avoid problems of ambiguity
caused by the words “and” and “or.”
When using lists it is also helpful to
have the introductory text say “at least
one of the following” or “all of the fol-
lowing.”2
4. Be Considerate
Ordinances should avoid gender-spe-
cific terminology. For example, “drafts-
man” becomes “drafter,” “foreman”
becomes “supervisor,” and so on. In
addition, instead of using phrases such as
“the administrator or his designee,” sub-
stitute “the administrator or the adminis-
trator’s designee.” Similarly, avoid archaic
or potentially offensive terms.
5. Be Careful When Defining Terms
For zoning ordinances in particular,
the best way to avoid the time and
expense of a lawsuit is to make sure that
all important terms are defined and every
definition is clear and unambiguous.
In interpreting zoning ordinances,
courts will attempt to find the plain and
ordinary meaning of the terms. Any
ambiguous language will usually be
interpreted in favor of the landowner.
In Minnesota, the courts have been asked
to interpret undefined terms such as
“lawn and garden center,” “accessory,”
“subordinate,” “incidental,” “main,” and
“structure.”
IT’S WORTH THE WORK
The tips in this article can help you
draft a clear, legally-defensible ordi-
nance. It may seem like a lot of work. It
is. However, taking the extra time as you
draft the ordinance will likely save your
community even more time and
resources when you administer and
enforce it. ◆
Carolyn Braun, AICP, is
Planning Director for the
City of Anoka, Minnesota,
and past President of the
Minnesota Chapter of the
American Planning Associa-
tion. She has written two
prior articles for the PCJ:
“What Planners Do” (Summer 2004) and “Plan-
ning from Different Perspectives” (Fall 1996).
1 I was reminded of this in a comment by planner
Vicky Newson on a draft of this article. As she
explained: “Many times the placement or omission of
a comma can change the interpretation of a code sec-
tion. I always use the example of ‘I have several dress-
es. They are red, green, blue, orange and yellow’
versus ‘I have several dresses. They are red, green,
blue, orange, and yellow.’ In each case it says the same
thing, but how many dresses do I have? In the first
example, the last dress could be an orange and yellow
dress, but in the second example it is clear that they
are two separate dresses.”
2 Thanks to Davis, California, Community Develop-
ment Director Katherine Hess for this suggestion.
8
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
environment, our health, and our eco-
nomic vitality.
As our anxiety about these problems
grows, however, so does our creativity.
We are in a time of fundamental change
that portends both danger and oppor-
tunity.
and regional planners and decision-mak-
ers to redesign existing and new places
so that people can choose to walk, bike,
or use transit for daily trips.
Studies show that improving the
proximity and connectivity of activities
can reduce the overall number of vehicle
trips generated within a
given area by as much as 25
percent.2 This, along with
operational improvements
to improve free-flow move-
ment on local roadways, can
make an important contri-
bution toward reducing the
amount of CO2 generated.
Stormwater runoff is
another important environ-
mental problem exacer-
bated by our automobile-
oriented development pat-
tern. That’s because road-
ways, surface parking lots,
and driveways result in
large amounts of paved, impervious sur-
face which, in turn, can lead to excessive
runoff.
As the EPA’s Lynn Richards noted last
year in an article in the Planning Commis-
sioners Journal, it is important to ask
whether street and road widths in our
communities are sized appropriately
since “over[ly] wide streets will create
excess impervious cover.”3 Richards also
touched on the importance of downsiz-
ing our parking requirements, pointing
out that “parking lots designed for peak
demand periods [create] acres of unused
pavement during the rest of the year.”
FORWARD MOTION
21st Century Transportation Planning Challenges
by Hannah Twaddell
American settlement patterns
have always been strongly in-
fluenced by our transportation
technology. In 18th century America, the
best locations for cities and commerce
were accessible to major rivers and ports.
Few people lived in “backwater” com-
munities. Once you got off the
boat, however, you had to rely
on the power of feet – human
or horse. Within cities, all
activities had to be located
within walking distance of
each other. Suburban growth
extended about as far as one
could go within a day’s ride
from town.
With the advent of steam-
and diesel-powered trains in
the 19th century, people
began venturing away from
the rivers and built new cities
across the landscape. Howev-
er, since foot-power was still the domi-
nant form of local travel, rail towns
retained the compact form of older com-
munities.
The automobile allowed us to spend
the 20th century spreading out in all
directions. Networks of highways and
local roads created opportunities to build
cities virtually anywhere. With the power
of hundreds of horses under the hood,
cars made it possible for people to live
miles away from daily activities such as
work, school, and shopping. No longer
confined to the walkable dimensions of
one-horse towns, we shaped new com-
munities around large street networks
and parking lots.
As the 21st century dawns, the Amer-
ican dream made possible by the remark-
ably fast, flexible mobility of the
automobile has begun to take on night-
marish qualities. It is becoming clear
that our collective dependence upon
the automobile is threatening our natural
“Giant Steamboats at New Orleans,” by Hippolyte Sebron (1853).
1 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2007 (U.S. EPA, 2009).
2 Land Use and Site Design, Traveler Response to
Transportation System Changes – TCRP-95 (Trans-
portation Research Board, 2003).
3 “Managing Stormwater Runoff: A Green Infrastruc-
ture Approach,” PCJ#73 (Winter 2009); available to
order & download at: www.plannersweb.com/wfiles/
w284.html.
Our Natural Environment
A 2009 report by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency indicates that
fossil fuel combustion for transportation
is responsible for a third of America’s CO2
emissions, which are an important ingre-
dient of the “greenhouse gases” associat-
ed with global climate change.1
The three most prominent factors
affecting the transportation sector’s emis-
sions are the fuel economy of vehicles on
the road, the types of fuels used, and the
overall amount of driving by all vehicles,
expressed as vehicle miles traveled
(VMT).
Federal agencies, state governments,
and private sector entrepreneurs are
working on the tasks of making vehicles
more energy-efficient and finding new
sources of fuel. But our success at reduc-
ing VMT depends largely upon our abili-
ty to plan and locate communities in
ways that reduce our need to drive. To
achieve this goal, it is essential for local
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
Our Health
Between 2010 and 2050, the number
of Americans aged 65 and older is
expected to grow from about 40 to 88
million.4 According to Census Bureau
projections, 20 percent of Americans will
fall in this age range by 2050, up from 13
percent today.
The problems that these increasing
numbers of older people will face when
they lose the ability to drive will be much
more than an inconvenience. Without
other travel options available, their
access to everyday activities and essential
services will be sharply curtailed – just
when their needs for social connections
and medical attention increase.
By creating communities where peo-
ple can get around without cars, we can
make a significant difference in the
health and happiness of older adults.
A 2006 study by the Northern Virginia
Transportation Commission found that
“seniors from walkable, mixed-use urban
and town areas are more mobile, taking
20 percent more trips each week than
those from suburban and exurban areas.
They are also less likely to be socially
isolated.”5
Meanwhile, the health of tomorrow’s
working-age adults is already being com-
promised by obesity linked to sedentary
living. According to the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention (CDC), 17
percent of children aged 6-19 (more than
nine million young people) are obese.
That percentage has tripled since 1980.6
A third of our children in this age range
are overweight, a far cry from the CDC’s
goal to reduce this figure to five percent.
The Alliance of Biking & Walking,
with funding from the CDC, has released
a remarkably useful, data-filled report,
Bicycling and Walking in the United
States 2010 Benchmarking.7 The report,
authored by Kristen Steele and Monica
Altmaier, points out that “states where
bicycling and walking levels are lowest
have the highest levels of obesity.” Simi-
lar correlations were also found with two
other major public health concerns,
diabetes and high blood pressure.
Steele and Altmaier note that: “Walk-
ing and bicycling have great potential to
improve public health. In 2001, 41 per-
cent of trips in the U.S. were shorter than
two miles and 28 percent were shorter
than one mile. Since bicycling can
accommodate trips of up to two miles
and most people can walk at least one
mile, there is a lot of hope to use this
form of travel in our communities.”
Forward-thinking communities such
as King County, Washington, are incor-
porating walkability goals and perfor-
mance measures into their comprehen-
sive plans, while other places, like Albert
Lea, Minnesota, are adopting programs
to promote active living. Meanwhile,
more and more communities are adopt-
ing Complete Streets policies, aimed at
designing streets that accommodate not
just cars, but bicyclists and pedestrians.
Our Economy
Our traditional source of revenue for
transportation – the gas tax – cannot
keep pace with the escalating costs of
maintaining the system we have, let
alone paying for new infrastructure. The
responsibility for transportation funding
has been shifting toward states, localities,
and the private sector.
That said, every local official is keenly
aware that raising a city or county sales
or property tax is even more politically
challenging than raising a state or federal
gas tax. It’s no wonder jurisdictions all
over the country are searching for better
ways to negotiate infrastructure invest-
ments from developers, and that toll
roads are making a comeback.
Nineteenth century transportation
investments, from turnpikes to railways,
were largely private, for-profit ventures,
while the 20th century was the age of
tax-supported “freeways” and transit sys-
tems. The 21st century is likely to bring
about an interesting marriage of the two.
Just as we pay transit fares now, we will
probably pay more roadway tolls and
user fees in the years to come.
SUMMING UP
We’ve entered a dynamic time in the
world of transportation and land use
planning. For many years, engineers and
policy makers have focused on the goal
of increasing the speed with which peo-
ple can move between places. Upon real-
izing that we’re literally driving ourselves
too far apart, we can right the balance by
boosting the importance of two other
goals:
• Bringing people and places closer
together,
• Providing people with more choices
of travel routes and modes between
places.
By working together on designing
communities that offer more flexible
travel choices, we can sustain our com-
munities through the 21st century – and
beyond! ◆
Hannah Twaddell is a Princi-
pal Planner in the Char-
lottesville, Virginia, office of
Renaissance Planning Group.
Her articles on transporta-
tion planning topics appear
regularly in the Planning
Commissioners Journal.
9
4 Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups
and Sex for the United States: 2010 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2008).
5 Jana Lynott, et al., Meeting the Transportation Needs
of Northern Virginia’s Seniors: Recommendations for
Public Transit Systems and Other Mobility Providers
(Northern Virginia Transportation Commission,
2006).
6 Preventing Obesity and Chronic Diseases Through
Good Nutrition and Physical Activity (Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention, 2008).
7 The report is available to download at:
www.peoplepoweredmovement.org.
10
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
on that least sexy of topics,
infrastructure. The “Beyond the
Motor City” episode goes deeper
than most reporting into
Detroit’s woes, and is supple-
mented on the website by addi-
tional interviews and
slideshows.
DATA .GOV
data.gov
The locked doors of the gov-
ernment are now open. This site
contains three separate catalogs
of data and data-based tools for
government information: the
raw data catalog, which includes
a variety of data streams and file
formats, the online tool catalog
of compiled searches and
resources, and the geodata cata-
log of geography-based data
streams. Data.gov is part of the
federal government’s Open Gov-
doesn’t stop at the border. This
well-informed website covers
the range of infrastructure issues
being faced all over the globe –
from high speed rail to highways
to renewable energy.
As global cities lean away from
the private automobile and
towards public transit systems,
The Infrastructurist’s editorial
purview is wonkiness that’s right
on time.
THE “ISTS”
gothamist.com / laist.com
During the internet boom, a
lot of companies were seeking to
create the “go-to” source for
local and “hyper-local” news.
After all, with newspapers dying
and taking far
too long to get
a real web pres-
ence, there was
a real void for
local coverage. A number of
challengers stood up, but the
“Ist” network pulled it off with
style. And, amazingly, they’ve
kept up the promise of timely
coverage of local government
issues, including the goings-on
at the planning department and
city hall.
LAist (the Los Angeles edi-
tion), for one, has done a great
job of reporting the ongoing
fiascos at the planning depart-
ment over the plague of digital
billboards. Granted, among the
Top Websites for
Citizen Planners
Throughout the year, the edi-
tors of Planetizen –
www.planetizen.com – look at
hundreds of planning-related
websites and online publica-
tions. There are many sites out
there that are useful to citizen
planners and concerned citizens.
We’ve gone through all the
newest websites and picked out
just a few of the most valuable
and informative resources, pro-
viding an overview of the must-
see sites for anyone interested in
creating healthy and livable
communities.
ernment Directive, and serves as
a clearinghouse for federal pub-
lic information. It’s also a major
part of the government’s effort to
become more accessible and
transparent. As the potential of
open data and open government
evolve, this site is likely to play
a major role in the way govern-
ment information is shared.
GOOD
good.is
Like its name implies, GOOD
is a magazine focused on the
good things in life. Not luxuries
so much, but more along the
lines of good ideas. It’s a quarter-
ly print magazine that has devel-
oped into a vibrant online
publication. The magazine was
founded in 2006, but over the
course of the last year has taken
on a strong city focus in its edi-
torial work. With
innovative and
well-designed info-
graphics, and a raft
of columns and
articles on design,
neighborhoods, and cities,
GOOD is developing into an
accessible, lay-person friendly
discussion of the best ideas in
city making and community
improvement. Good indeed.
THE INFRASTRUCTURIST
infrastructurist.com
The Infrastructurist may well
be the most comprehensive and
focused
resource for
infrastruc-
ture-related
news in the
United States.
But the story
BLUEPRINT AMERICA
pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/
With Netflix streaming movies
and shows migrating to Hulu,
time in front of the TV set is
becoming increasingly scarce.
Meanwhile, PBS and NPR have
become more relevant than ever,
cranking out high-quality docu-
mentaries that are timely and
topical, and yes, often online.
Blueprint America is a PBS series
Planetizen Update
S PRING: Top Websites FALL:Planning Perspectives
S UMMER:Noteworthy Books W INTER:Top News Stories
11
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
online form broadens that con-
versation. Featuring commen-
taries, academic essays, and
archives dating back to issue
one, Places offers a valuable new
home for thoughtful discussion
and analysis of urbanism and
place.
SEECLICKFIX
seeclickfix.com/citizens
Harnessing the power of the
crowd, SeeClickFix is an easy-
to-use web interface that allows
citizens to identify and report
city reportage are band listings,
random Flickr photos, and
rumors, but the Ists also regular-
ly bring breaking local news that
can leave local newspapers in
the dust.
LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF
LAND POLICY
lincolninst.edu
The Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy is an international
research organization that focus-
es on issues of land use, regula-
tion, and taxation. It also
happens to have a highly useful
website that is thick with
resources and tools, including a
database with everything you’d
ever need to know about the
property tax; a collection of
“visual tools” to communicate
planning concepts; and more
than 700 case studies of colleges
and universities and how they
integrate into urban neighbor-
hoods. While not the flashiest of
websites in terms of design,
there’s a wealth of interesting
research on a variety of land use
issues.
PLACES
places.designobserver.com
Places is the new online home
of Places Journal, the interdisci-
plinary journal of contemporary
architecture, landscape, and
urbanism. Published since 1983,
Places Journal has played a
vibrant and active role in the
urban discourse, and its new
The front
page features
detailed
reportage on
the world’s
transit systems, with insightful
commentary. But deeper in, the
site is an encyclopedia of exist-
ing, under construction, and
planned transit systems.
Freemark is an independent
researcher based in France who
somehow manages to seem like
he is everyplace at once.
WALKSHED
walkshed.org
Walkshed is the brainchild of
software developer Aaron Ogle.
It takes the “walkscore” concept
and puts the controls in your
hands. For exam-
ple, if you hate to
you enter, showing places that
cater most to your particular
needs. So far Ogle has only cov-
ered New York and Philadelphia,
but the model looks highly
promising, and is easy to use.
Try it out to get a feel for how it
works.
Note from PCJ Editor Wayne
Senville. I tried out Walkshed,
using my former Philadelphia
address (307 Pine Street, where I
lived in 1980-81). I invite you to
insert my former address and see
the many nearby bars, restau-
rants, and coffee shops I’ve been
missing! ◆
Top 10
You’ve just seen Planetizen’s
Top 10 Websites of 2009.
How about taking a look
at the Top 10: Books for
Planners; Great Public Spaces;
Green Projects; Endangered
Roadside Places; and much
more? You’ll find a fascinating
variety of Top 10 lists at:
plannersweb.com/top10.html
cook and prefer to avoid grocery
stores (but you find restaurants
and coffee shops essential), you
can weight those search factors
more heavily. Walkshed gener-
ates what’s called a “heatmap”
over the area near the address
problems in their communities –
and track their progress (or lack
thereof). With search capabili-
ties, mapping tools, and problem
trackers, concerned citizens can
keep tabs on the civic problems
in their communities and make
sure their local officials do too.
SeeClickFix is one of the most
promising tools available to
enhance public participation in
government.
THE TRANSPORT POLITIC
thetransportpolitic.com
There are a lot of blogs and
sites covering transit and trans-
portation issues, but Yonah
Freemark has created a news-
page that is a cut above the fray.
12
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
Future Housing Demand:
PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY
by Beth HumstoneHow many times has your
commission heard, “But there’s
no market for that development,”
“People want a big home on one acre,” or
“It’s more affordable to buy a house out
in the country?” In the past it was com-
monly accepted that suburban or fringe
housing on large lots was where most
of the housing market was focused.
But the recent housing foreclosure crisis,
coupled with high unemployment and
rising energy costs, has challenged old
assumptions and dramatically altered
the picture.
Now planners in communities across
the country are increasingly hearing
demands for: more housing close to tran-
sit; walkable neighborhoods; and afford-
able, low-maintenance, energy-efficient
homes. In this chaotic time, how do citi-
zen and professional planners determine
what people really want or need, and
what to plan for?
It is essential that planners under-
stand the market for housing in their
community: what types (and price
ranges) are needed, and in what loca-
tions. Planners must also consider eco-
nomic trends and other factors that
could impact future demand.
Today’s demographic and economic
conditions, along with consumer prefer-
ences, are converging to create a major
shift in housing demand.
Economic forecasts suggest that there
will not be much action on homebuild-
ing for about two years. Many communi-
ties currently have excess housing stock
that very likely will be filled before much
new construction begins. So there is time
to examine residential markets and how
they are changing to avoid housing
shortages, meet community needs, and
revitalize neighborhoods adversely
affected by current economic conditions.
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Two national trends are clear: (1)
decreasing household size, and (2) an
aging population. Once planners focused
their housing plans on providing for cou-
ples with children. Now these house-
holds are a minority.
As Arthur C. Nelson, Director of the
Metropolitan Research Center at the
University of Utah, recently noted:
“Between 1950 and 2000, average house-
hold size decreased from 3.38 to 2.59
[and] will continue to fall to about 2.46
persons by 2030 … Single-person house-
holds will rival households with children
and will be the fastest-growing market
segment.”1 Moreover, as Nelson explains,
“Baby boomers will turn 65 between
2011 and 2029.”
impact on the demand for housing. After
a major expansion in the supply and
demand for owner-occupied housing,
bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures
have left lot after lot of empty houses in
suburban tracts. In some parts of the
country, empty new residential towers
can be found downtown and in the sub-
urbs. In hard hit cities with high unem-
ployment, whole neighborhoods have
been abandoned, leaving existing hous-
ing stock falling into disrepair. Moreover,
new rental projects have stalled as access
to financing has tightened up.
Today’s economic conditions hold
several implications for future housing
demand. For one, in many places new
construction will be put on hold while
demand absorbs the existing supply.
Much of the oversupply of housing
lies in large lots in fringe locations.
According to the American Institute of
Architects, “These were the locations
where large enough parcels of land could
be assembled to generate the volume of
construction required during the hous-
ing boom earlier this decade. However,
when the housing market weakened,
large inventories of unsold homes
remained on the market in these loca-
tions.”3 These sites may be the last to fill
up as builders and developers look else-
where to meet demand.
In addition, with home ownership
out of reach for a growing number of
people, the demand for rental apartments
should increase – especially once
employment improves enough so that
people can move out of housing where
they have doubled up with parents or
friends during tough times.
1 Arthur C. Nelson, “Demographic Outlook,” Urban
Land (Sept. 2009).
2 Richard M. Haughey, The Case for Multifamily Hous-
ing, Second Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2003).
3 AIA Home Design Trends Survey (December 4,
2009).
“IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
PLANNERS UNDERSTAND
THE MARKET FOR HOUSING
IN THEIR COMMUNITY.”
Large homes in outlying locations
may no longer be affordable or practical
for retired people. According to a report
published by the Urban Land Institute,
“Some baby boomers will choose to
downsize to an apartment or condomini-
um after their children leave the ‘nest’...
Multifamily housing allows seniors to
remain in their neighborhoods through
the different stages of their lives without
the hassle of maintaining single-family
housing.”2
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
In recent years the downturn in the
economy has had the most far-reaching
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
CONSUMER PREFERENCES
Along with demographic shifts and
economic conditions, consumer prefer-
ences for housing are changing. Accord-
ing to John Caulfield, writing in Builder
magazine: “The downturn has given
builders time to ponder whether the
homes they build match the demograph-
ic and financial profiles of current and
future customers. Some have adjusted
their house plans and construction prac-
tices to produce smaller, greener, and
less-expensive houses. Builders every-
where are rolling out smaller models to
meet customers’ demands for efficiency
and affordability.”5
The American Institute of Architects’
(AIA) national survey of residential
architects found that consumers want
lower maintenance, durability, and
sustainability. As AIA’s Chief Economist
Kermit Baker notes in summarizing the
survey results: “Rising home energy costs
… have helped to generate interest in
smaller, more energy efficient homes in
locations that were accessible to trans-
portation, commercial activities, and
jobs. Infill development, with smaller
parcels in more developed areas, has
become very attractive.”6
A poll by the National Association of
Realtors and Smart Growth America
taken in 2007 found: “Eight in 10
respondents prefer redeveloping older
urban and suburban areas rather than
build new housing and commercial
development on the edge of existing sub-
urbs. More than half of those surveyed
believe that businesses and homes
should be built closer together to shorten
commutes, limit traffic congestion and
allow residents to walk to stores and
shops instead of using their cars.”7
The demand for energy efficient
housing is expected to increase not only
due to federal tax incentives, but also to
improve affordability and to do the “right
thing” on climate change.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
FOR PLANNERS?
Given these trends, planners should
consider the following steps:
1. Focus on infill development.Infill
development can address trends for
smaller lots and homes in already built
up areas, access to services and public
transportation, and walkability.
2. Enable retrofitting.Retrofitting of
existing buildings, including conversion
of empty single-family homes or vacant
commercial buildings to apartments, can
help to meet the demand for rental hous-
ing that is likely to dramatically increase
as a result of the mortgage crisis. This
may require reexamining your building
code to make sure it doesn’t pose major
impediments.
3. Plan for transit-oriented develop-
ment.To meet the demands of house-
holds for access to public transportation,
shorter commutes, proximity to services,
and rental housing, transit-oriented
development with higher densities and
mixed uses should be planned at major
transit hubs.
4. Review opportunities for urbaniza-
tion of suburb. Many suburban areas
already have access to transit and offer
jobs and services. However, housing is
often not mixed in with these amenities.
To meet the shift in demand for smaller
units, access to services, walkability, and
greater affordability, planners should
consider how to create more urban living
in suburban environments.
5. Raise densities. To improve afford-
ability and offer more housing types,
communities should review their exist-
ing densities and look for opportunities
to raising them where appropriate. See
Beth Humstone, “Getting the Density
You Want,” PCJ #74 (Spring 2009).
6. Allow diverse housing types. Aging
baby boomers, twenty-somethings mov-
ing out of their parents’ houses, and for-
mer homeowners will all contribute to
the demand to diversify the type of hous-
ing offered in a community. Multifamily
housing can take the form of duplexes,
accessory units, townhouses, and apart-
ment structures offering both rental and
ownership opportunities.
7. Promote affordability.Lower-priced
housing can be created through inclu-
sionary zoning provisions and increased
densities. Support for developments with
nonprofit housing developers, local
housing authorities, and community
land trusts will help build in long-term
affordability to housing projects.
8. Reconsider older, abandoned neigh-
borhoods. One of the most difficult issues
facing a planning commissioner is what
to do about neighborhoods experiencing
abandonment and decay. Some are exam-
ining demolition in order to “shrink” the
size of neighborhoods. Others are look-
ing at the potential to rehabilitate hous-
ing for home ownership or rentals where
neighborhoods are fully served by infra-
structure and are near to jobs, transit,
and services. Still others are land banking
– buying and holding land with or with-
out homes on it until such time as the
market improves or new programs for
revitalization can be put in place.
9. Rethink plans for fringe areas. As
fringe housing locations become less
desirable, planners must address how
they will plan for these areas. There will
always be some demand for low-density
single-family housing in most communi-
ties. However, that demand will weaken.
Planners should focus more on the nat-
ural resource values, recreation potential,
and open space priorities in fringe areas.
SUMMING UP
During this economic downturn,
planners should take the time to rethink
the housing plans for their communities.
They need to challenge old assumptions
about the market and develop strategies
that address changing conditions in their
communities and regions. ◆
Over the past 35 years, Beth
Humstone has worked as a
planning consultant on a
wide range of projects in
rural communities and small
towns. She is the author, with
Julie Campoli and Alex
MacLean, of Above and
Beyond, Visualizing Change in Small Towns and
Rural Areas (Planners Press, 2002).
13
5 John Caulfied, “Jump Start: Ten ways to get ahead
of the market’s recovery and put yourself in the com-
petitive lead,” Builder (December 2009).
6 AIA Home Design Trends Survey.
7 Available at:www.smartgrowthamerica.org/nars
gareport2007.html.
Planning for Housing
by Wendy Grey, AICP
H istorically, the purchase of
a house has been the single
largest investment most families
make.
People select a new house
based on criteria such as afford-
ability, whether it is in a good
school district, and whether
they feel comfortable with the
neighbors and neighborhood.
In recent years another factor
was also added to the mix: the
in central cities, many immi-
grants now reside in suburbs
and rural areas.
Age. The most significant
age group in terms of numbers
is the Baby Boomer generation –
born between 1946 and 1964.
Having been the driving force
behind the expansion of subur-
ban living, Boomers were
expected to sell their homes and
relocate to popular retirement
areas.
Gen Xers, born between
1965 and 1980, are now the
prime market for family orient-
ed homes. However, Gen Xers
have had to deal with a higher
cost of living over the past
decade, and have often found
themselves priced out of the
housing market as they’ve tried
to move up the property ladder
– especially as more Boomers
have stayed put.
The crash in the housing
assumption that, almost regard-
less of the choice they made, the
house purchased would increase
in value. With the end of the
housing bubble, this is no
longer the case.
It is important to remember
that there are also broad demo-
graphic patterns that influence
the demand for housing, the
most significant being migra-
tion, immigration, and age.
Migration. We have histori-
cally been a mobile society. We
move to pursue better opportu-
nities. The huge migration to
the Sunbelt over the past 25
years is a recent example of this
pattern.
Immigration. Much of our
population growth is coming
from immigration. Between
2000 and 2007, the immigrant
population grew by 22 percent,
to 38 million.1 While in the past
the majority of immigrants lived
14
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
market and the recession have
affected the anticipated trends in
migration and immigration and
people’s housing options in the
short term. With unemployment
and foreclosures up and mort-
gage lending restricted, people
are not relocating, and the buy-
ing and selling of houses is
down. Immigration has also
slowed.
One key role for planners
and planning commissioners is
to consider strategies that will
help recreate viable neighbor-
hoods for current and future
1 William Frey, et al., Getting Current:
Recent Demographic Trends in Metro-
politan Areas (The Brookings Institu-
tion Metropolitan Policy Program,
2009), p.6
2 See, e.g., V. Gail Easley, FAICP, and
David A. Therique, “Practice Noncon-
formities,” Zoning Practice No. 11
(November 2009), and Dwight H. Mer-
riam, FAICP, “Practice Redevelop-
ment,” Zoning Practice No. 12
(December 2009).
GEN XERS, BORN
BETWEEN 1965
AND 1980, ARE
NOW THE PRIME
MARKET FOR FAMILY
ORIENTED HOMES.
Housing:
“One-Size-Fits-All”
No Longer Works
by Edward T. McMahon
B ack in July, Builder Maga-
zine published an article
titled “Brave New World:
After the Bust, Builders Might
Be Surprised at What Future
Shoppers Will Want,” by John
Caufield, Jenny Sullivan, and
Nigel Maynard.
To gather data for this piece,
the magazine commissioned
American Lives, a California-
based market research firm run
by pollster Brooke Warrick,
to conduct a nationwide study
of prospective homebuyers’
attitudes toward the economy,
home styles, product prefer-
ences, energy efficiency, and
green features. It also examined
changing attitudes in regard to
borhood is more important than
the size of the house. In fact,
more than 50 percent of respon-
dents in the survey said they
were willing to accept a smaller
house “in the neighborhood I
want.”
This does not mean product
is irrelevant, but it does mean
that for many buyers the loca-
tion of the home – the place –
is now more important than the
house itself – the product. …
According to Builder, one
subset of buyers that home-
builders should learn more
about is women. Women have
always played a big role in
homebuying decisions, but
demographic data show that by
2010 households headed by a
woman will number well over
30 million. Shyman Kannan,
vice president and director of
research at Robert Charles Less-
er & Co. (RCLCO), says that
the role of the home and the
imp act of demographic changes
on buyer preferences.
The results are surprising
and they suggest that the types
of new homes that were most
prevalent before the recession
will not satisfy the needs of
tomorrow’s buyers. One reason
for shifting buyer preferences is
the fact that there are so many
different buyer profiles. Tomor-
row’s market is made for the
foreseeable future.
So what do buyers want?
Given that housing prices are
down 30 percent from their
peak – and even more in some
markets – big, flashy houses are
no longer priorities. Buyers are
less likely to think of housing
primarily as an investment and
more likely to think about how
the house will fit their lifestyle.
What is more, for many buy-
ers the character of the neigh-
their surveys have found that
“female respondents have a
strong preference for the city and
are much more likely to choose
what we call ‘safe urbanism.’ ”
According to Kannan, RCLCO
surveys have found that while
“safety is very important” to
female buyers, they also “want to
be able to walk to shopping and
dining.”
Besides safety, another fea-
ture of interest to most buyer
segments including women buy-
ers, baby boomers, and young
FOR MANY BUYERS
THE CHARACTER
OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS
MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE SIZE OF
THE HOUSE.
PERSPECTIVES ON HOUSING
residents. This will involve
reconsidering land use patterns,
particularly in suburban areas,
where the recovery in the hous-
ing market is expected to lag.
Having looked at the most dis-
tressed areas in your communi-
ty, consider what changes in
land use may encourage revital-
ization.
1. Find areas that can be
rezoned to a higher density. This
can help reduce construction
and energy costs for future
development. If your code
requires a minimum house size,
perhaps that requirement can be
eliminated or modified to pro-
vide more flexibility. Higher
density can also help promote
the use of transit.
2. Allow granny flats or
accessory units. These units
can support extended families
or create a rentable space for
homeowners.
Conversely, if younger fami-
lies are likely to repopulate the
area, are facilities available to
meet their needs? Are there suf-
ficient recreational areas and
locations for day care centers?
5. Identify land that can be
acquired or traded that will create
greenways and usable open space.
In many subdivisions, the only
open spaces are “left over”
pieces of land. The strategic
acquisition of some lots can cre-
ate connected open space that
forms a greenway or neighbor-
hood park to enhance the neigh-
borhood’s quality of life.
6. Eliminate barriers to rede-
velopment. Consider adopting
tools that will allow for reinvest-
ment in existing properties.
This might include more relaxed
approaches to non-conforming
uses or techniques to allow the
redevelopment of properties
that are constrained by current
3. Make sure home occupa-
tions are allowed and appropriate-
ly regulated.While it is
important to protect neighbor-
hoods from the potentially
intrusive impacts of businesses
operated from a home, there are
ways to adequately protect
neighbors while allowing for
home based businesses.
4. See that community plans
encourage the provision of ser-
vices to support the neighborhood.
If it is desirable to encourage
older residents to retire and stay
in place, evaluate whether your
codes allow uses that will sup-
port that population. Are there
plans to provide the necessary
services and infrastructure (e.g.,
is there adequate street lighting
and signage)? Do you allow for
nursing homes and assisted liv-
ing facilities? Does your trans-
portation plan address the
mobility needs of seniors?
15
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
zoning standards.2
While we don’t know exactly
how and when the current
economic crisis will end, we do
know that those communities
that have planned for the future
will be in the best position to
recover and provide their resi-
dents with the choices they
want. ◆
Wendy Grey, AICP,
is principal of
Wendy Grey Land
Use Planning LLC.
Prior to establishing
her own firm in
2002, Grey spent 20 years in the
public sector dealing with
development and growth issues in
Florida, including 10 years as
Planning Director for Tallahassee
and Leon County.
couples is energy efficiency.
According to the Builder /Ameri-
can Lives study, any where from
80 to 95 percent of respondents
now see energy-saving HVAC
systems, windows, lighting, and
water fixtures as “very impor-
tant” or “essential” to their
homes.
This makes one thing cer-
tain: the market for green ener-
gy-efficient homes is going to
grow. What is more, a majority
of those polled said they would
be willing to pay between
$2,000 and $5,000 more to
include an energy-saving feature
in their home, so long as they
could recoup their investment
in a few years.
The current recession is a
time to rethink growth and to
redesign housing to meet the
diverse needs of America’s grow-
ing population. In the future,
there is likely to be a greater
variety of housing types
designed for different buyer seg-
ments. Smaller, greener options
are likely to grow in popularity
as are infill housing options.
Even in the suburbs, walka-
bility and a greater variety of
housing products will likely
become the norm. One thing all
the surveys make clear: the old
one-size-fits-all model no longer
works. ◆
Edward T.
McMahon is a
Senior Resident
Fellow at the
Urban Land
Institute. He has
also authored more than 20 articles
for the Planning Commissioners
Journal. The above is excerpted
from McMahon’s “How Will
Housing Evolve,” in the Nov./Dec.
2009 issue of Urban Land.
Taking a Closer
Look Reprint Sets
Housing: Opening the Door
Many communities are
struggling to provide the
kinds of housing their
residents need and can afford.
How do we meet diverse
housing needs? How can
planners best deal with
controversial housing
developments? These articles
will help you to better
understand and plan for
challenging housing-related issues. For the
detailed contents and to order, go to: www.pcj.typepad.com
(right hand sidebar).
This is just one of our attractively bound Taking a Closer
Look reprint collections. Other sets include: Basic Planning
Tools; Ethics; Planning Law; Transportation; Downtowns;
Smart Growth; and Design & Aesthetics.
Taking a Closer Look
A PLANNING CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
R
S
J
O
U
R
N
A
L
SPECIAL COLLE
C
T
I
O
N
www.plannersweb.com
PLANNING
COMMISSIONE
R
S
REPRIN
T
S
16
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
PLANNING LAW PRIMER
No Certification, No Money:
THE REVIVAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS IN HUD FUNDING PROGRAMS
by Michael Allen, Esq.Editor’s Note: This short article provides an
“early warning” alert on an important housing
issue that may well affect your community.
I hope you’ll plow through the acronyms and
some of the legal background, as it’s a topic
worth becoming familiar with.
Since the late 1960s, states and
municipalities receiving federal
housing and community devel-
opment funds – under the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG),
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME),
and similar programs – have been
required to certify that they will comply
with federal civil right laws. Many have
done so without understanding what is
required by these certifications, assum-
ing that the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) would
not challenge their validity.
Until recently, this assumption was
largely correct, as HUD rarely questioned
recipients on these issues and virtually
never terminated or threatened to termi-
nate funding. HUD simply did not press
recipients to comply with their civil
rights fair housing certifications. Conse-
quently, from 1995 through 2009, hun-
dreds of recipients bowed to NIMBY
pressures,1 ignored their certifications,
and spent billions of dollars in federal
funds to segregate affordable housing by
placing most of it in already disadvan-
taged neighborhoods or communities.
In just the past year, however, this sit-
uation has begun to rapidly change – the
result of a ground-breaking lawsuit
against Westchester County, New York2 –
and the Obama Administration’s interest
in reviving civil rights enforcement.
Under emerging HUD guidelines and a
stepped-up agency enforcement policy,
recipients of federal housing funds will
be required to take a hard look at imped-
iments to fair housing choice in their
jurisdictions and propose robust actions
to overcome them.
This new environment will have a
dramatic impact on communities across
the country, whether they are one of the
1200+ “entitlement jurisdictions” receiv-
ing federal funds directly from HUD, or
small cities or rural counties whose fed-
eral funds are channeled through a state
community development agency.3
Civil Rights
To be eligible for CDBG and related
funds, state and local governments must
certify that they will comply with a range
of federal civil rights laws4 and “affir-
matively further fair housing.” Since at
least 1995, this last obligation, some-
times referred to as “AFFH,” has required
recipients to conduct an Analysis of
Impediments (AI), in which they identify
and analyze impediments to fair housing
choice within their jurisdictions, and
outline appropriate actions to overcome
those impediments. HUD also requires
recipients to maintain records support-
ing the analysis and the actions taken to
overcome impediments.
HUD requires state and local govern-
ments to use their AIs to list impedi-
ments experienced by members of all
seven protected classes,5 whether caused
by intentional discrimination or by poli-
cies and practices that have a harsher
effect on members of a protected class
than on those not in a protected class.
Recipients, in their AI, must make an
honest assessment of their own zoning,
land use, building, and other ordinances
that may decrease housing choice, and
must design approaches that will coun-
teract those negative effects. An AI is also
required to look at impediments caused
by private sector actors, including steer-
ing in the sales and rental markets, dis-
criminatory lending practices, insurance
redlining, and similar practices.
While recipients are encouraged to
provide affordable housing, HUD makes
clear that doing so does not fully satisfy
the obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing, where the focus is on eliminat-
ing discrimination on the basis of pro-
tected class and expanding housing
opportunity regardless of income.
Westchester County Goes Astray
Westchester County ignored HUD
regulations and guidance. County offi-
cials had Census and other data showing
that cities, towns, and villages in Westch-
ester were dramatically segregated,6 and
1 See, e.g., Michael Allen, “Why Not in Our Back
Yard?” PCJ #45 (Winter 2002).
2 United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center v.
Westchester County, New York, Case No. 06-cv-2860,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (settled in August 2009). Pleadings, legal mem-
oranda, court decisions, and other materials on the
case are available at: www.antibiaslaw.com/wfc
3 Because a significant portion of funds made avail-
able to communities through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) are pro-
grammed through the CDBG program, even “non-
entitlement” jurisdictions and those that have never
applied for funds from state CDBG or HOME pools
will likely have to sign civil rights certifications prior
to receiving ARRA funds.
4 These include, but are not limited to, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; the Fair
Housing Act; and Section 109 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974.
5 The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
familial status, and disability. People protected by
RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL
HOUSING FUNDS WILL BE
REQUIRED TO TAKE A HARD
LOOK AT IMPEDIMENTS TO
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
knew that nearly three-quarters of coun-
ty-funded affordable housing was being
built in racially-segregated, African-
American neighborhoods.
Despite this the county’s AIs in 1996,
2000, and 2004 made absolutely no men-
tion of that segregation or of race-based
impediments to fair housing choice.
Moreover, even though the County’s own
appointed Housing Opportunities Com-
mission had identified intense opposi-
tion to affordable housing in the whitest
communities and the failure of 20
municipalities to build a single unit of
affordable housing pursuant to the
County’s affordable housing “allocation
plan,” the AIs failed to mention these
impediments.
The Anti-Discrimination Center of
New York began an investigation of
Westchester County’s civil rights perfor-
mance in 2005, requesting records to
establish whether the County had truth-
fully made certifications of AFFH com-
pliance. Document discovery in a
subsequent lawsuit brought under the
False Claims Act revealed the nearly
complete absence of supporting records.
As the then-County Executive testified at
his deposition, he never read the AFFH
certifications requiring his signature, and
“signed whatever [he had] to sign to get
the money from HUD.”
On February 24, 2009, a federal judge
concluded that more than 1,000 of the
County’s AFFH certifications – those in
the annual applications and those implic-
itly made each time the County request-
ed payment from the federal government
based on annual written certifications –
were false. Finding that HUD’s 1995 Fair
Housing Planning Guide7 was persuasive
authority, the court instructed the Coun-
ty (and other recipients) that the AFFH
certifications were “not mere boiler-
plate,” but were material and substantive
requirements that are required for receipt
of federal funds.
Within a few weeks of the court’s rul-
ing, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and
Deputy Secretary Ron Sims were person-
ally engaged in settlement negotiations
with the county. Those efforts, combined
with a temporary cutoff of funds to the
county, culminated in a $62.5 million
settlement on August 10, 2009, requiring
the county to develop 750 units of
affordable housing in the whitest towns
and villages in Westchester, and to affir-
matively market them to people of color.
In addition, the settlement requires the
county to conduct a new AI and to con-
sider all fair housing impediments.
Speaking not just to Westchester
County, but also to the state and munici-
pal recipients of HUD funds across the
country, Sims noted that the agency
would begin to “hold people’s feet to the
fire” on civil rights certifications.8
Scattering the Seeds of Westchester
While HUD has announced it will
publish a proposed regulation toughen-
ing AFFH substantive and procedural
requirements later this year, the agency
has already become active in reviewing
recipients’ certifications and perfor-
mance. The most notable instances
involve St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana; the
State of Texas; and the City of Joliet, Illi-
nois. All three involve litigation or
administrative complaints by grassroots
advocates, alleging discrimination on the
basis of race or national origin, and the
failure to identify and analyze impedi-
ments experienced by people in those
protected classes.
• In Louisiana, HUD threatened to
withhold hurricane recovery funds to
rebuild a hospital because St. Bernard
had adopted a series of racially discrimi-
natory ordinances with respect to multi-
family housing.
• In Texas, HUD rejected the state’s
plan to spend $1.7 billion in disaster
recovery money, in part because its
seven-year old AI did not comply with
federal requirements.
• In Illinois, HUD has taken enforce-
ment action against the City of Joliet
because the city allegedly used its eminent
domain power in a discriminatory fashion
to shut down affordable housing inhabit-
ed almost exclusively by low-income,
African-American single mothers.
What It All Means for Municipal
Planning
Planning professionals and planning
commissioners across the country will
increasingly be called upon to inform
and guide their communities through the
HUD-required planning processes. Com-
munities whose planning departments
and commissions are already immersed
in conversations about addressing local
housing issues will have a head start in
developing robust AIs. Those with little
experience in assessing the civil rights
impacts of zoning, land use, building,
and funding functions may have to bring
in outside consultants to help develop
compliant AIs.
One AI worth taking a look at – espe-
cially for those in small or mid-sized
municipalities – is that of the City of
Naperville, Illinois (a Chicago suburb),
winner of an Illinois APA 2009 Best Prac-
tices Award.9
Planners would also do well – even
before HUD’s new regulations are in
place – to dust off their copy of the HUD
Fair Housing Planning Guide and review
its roadmap on how to conduct an AI.10
The Guide includes valuable suggestions
on data sources and community involve-
ment strategies. ◆
Michael Allen, Esq. is a part-
ner in the civil rights law
firm, Relman & Dane, PLLC,
which engages in litigation
and consulting throughout
the country, principally in the
areas of fair housing and fair
lending. Allen was the firm’s
lead attorney in United States ex rel. Anti-
Discrimination Center v. Westchester County and
has a similar role in the State of Texas matter
noted in this article.
17
these provisions are often colloquially referred to as
the “protected classes.”
6 The County’s own data showed that 24 of these
municipalities had African-American populations of
3 percent or less, and that others had block groups
that were almost entirely African-American.
7 Available at: www.nls.gov/offices/fheo/images/
fhpg.pdf
8 As reported by Peter Abelbome in The New York
Times, “Integration Faces a New Test in the Suburbs,”
(August 22, 2009).
9 Available at: www.planningcommunications.
com/ai/naperville_ai_2007.pdf or www.naperville.
il.us/emplibrary/Boards_and_Commissions/fhacanaly
sisofimpediments.pdf
10 See footnote 7 for download location.
18
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
Coping with Economic Meltdown
by Gwendolyn Hallsmith
You are sitting in a public hear-
ing about the zoning changes
you have been preparing for the
past year, fighting a sense of despair and
futility. More projects have been aban-
doned than have been started. Money is
tight – at least one of the cancelled pro-
jects lost its financing at the last minute.
More than ever, it feels as if the title
“Planning Commissioner” doesn’t reflect
your role – shouldn’t planners be able to
offer a path forward, even through dark
times?
The local economic development
authority has been working as hard as
they can to attract new businesses. They
spend money, even in the downturn, on
trips to distant places to try and find the
next big new enterprise to bring to town.
They often return empty-handed. The
economy elsewhere suffers the same
sluggishness as here at home they say.
Maybe when things pick up they’ll have
better luck.
Is this search for external investment
the best strategy for strengthening the
local economy? Consider this:
1. The vast majority of new jobs are
created by small and medium sized
firms, not large employers.1
2. New markets, jobs, capital, tech-
nology, and economic expansion are gen-
erated when cities start to produce goods
and services that were previously provid-
ed by distant exporters.
3. Start-up, innovative, entrepreneur-
ial enterprises are on the increase in the
21st Century, while the large manufac-
turers that dominated the economies of
the 19th and 20th Centuries are declin-
ing.
4. Local long-term wealth creation
and economic security are dependent on
local ownership of productive capacity;
simply receiving wages for employment
while the profits are exported to distant
corporate centers robs the local economy
of the capital it needs to succeed.
5. An over-reliance on export-led
development can undermine the long-
term economic health of a community.
More attention needs to be paid to local
needs and markets. Similarly, communi-
ties that develop local exchange systems
and reduce reliance on the national cur-
rency will also enhance long-term local
wealth creation.
6. Companies that are locally owned
are much more sensitive to community
needs and environmental conditions,
and can lessen a city or town’s vulnerabil-
ity to job losses when economic down-
turns occur.
If the solution to your economic
problems can be solved through local
action, then perhaps there is more of a
role for planning commissioners than
you have been taking. If the traditional
strategy of attracting direct investment
from outside the community leads to a
dead end, mobilizing local resources for
local economic renewal will test the abil-
ity of local leaders to create conditions
where new local enterprises can take root
and succeed. It requires tenacity, flexibil-
ity, open-mindedness, and a willingness
to take risks and try new things. It also
requires understanding some basic
points about economics.
How do you build real wealth? How
does the local economic system work?
Are there policies and practices you can
introduce as a leader that will either fos-
ter wealth creation or block it? The term
“economic system” is used so frequently
that we often lose sight of its meaning.
Systems have certain characteristics, and
by understanding more about how they
work we gain valuable insights into how
to improve our local economy.
All local economies run on four main
sources of energy – money, water, food,
and energy itself – oil, gas, solar, wind,
etc. If you consider the health of your
local economy, you need to regularly take
the vital signs of these critical flows.
• Do you take steps to prevent money
from flowing out of your local economy?
• Do you have enough water for all
your needs, or do you need to import it
from other regions?
•Do you produce enough food and
energy for people and the economy, or
does most of what you consume come
from distant places?
One way to start to build real local
wealth is to understand all the outflows,
and to try and start producing locally
whatever you are buying from other
places. Gathering the data, identifying
the most promising strategies and alter-
natives, setting priorities, all of these
activities are exactly what planning com-
missioners do best. ◆
Gwendolyn Hallsmith is
Director of Planning & Com-
munity Development for the
City of Montpelier, Vermont.
In our Summer issue, Hall-
smith will continue with a
look at steps communities
can take to put together a
local economic development plan.
1 The first study that documented this fact was David
Birch’s The Job Generation Process (M.I.T. Program on
Neighborhood and Regional Change, 1979). This was
followed by “Tracking Job Growth in Private Indus-
try,” by Richard Greene of the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, published in the September 1982 Monthly Labor
Review (available online at: www.bls.gov/
opub/mlr/1982/09/art1exc.htm). For readers interest-
ed in learning more about the importance of local
economies, please take a look at Jane Jacobs’ land-
mark book, Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
COMPANIES THAT ARE
LOCALLY OWNED ARE
MUCH MORE SENSITIVE
TO COMMUNITY NEEDS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 78 / SPRING 2010
19
1. Weather and climate. How people
cope – or, more importantly, are unable to
cope – with the weather and sun can ben-
eficially inform such code requirements as
those dealing with maximum permitted
building height and setbacks, landscap-
ing, and the composition and design of
streets.
But the loiterer need not be concerned
immediately with these matters. He or she
does better by simply observing – noting,
for example, that those walking on a win-
ter’s morning on the east side of north-
south streets are having trouble with icy
patches. Or that a gutter along the
exposed side of a corner building with
zero side setback can’t handle runoff dur-
ing a downpour.
2. Getting around. If you regularly read
the PCJ, you need no introduction to
the intensifying conflicts between those
driving cars versus those riding bicycles,
or between almost any two other means of
conveyance. The observant loiterer who
locates at a busy intersection during rush
hour or at midday will get a good educa-
tion (and possibly learn some new four-
letter words).
Less dramatically, but likely more pro-
ductively, the loiterer may have an experi-
ence that prompts the thought – as
happened in my town – to change traffic
patterns at a high-conflict location. This
insight by one of our planning commis-
sioners ultimately led to the city taking
steps to change an awkward half-block
long diagonal street bisecting our arts dis-
trict from two-way vehicle traffic to one-
way traffic on one lane with new diagonal
parking where the other lane had been.
3. The stroller’s experience.Seemingly
minor details can be important. By taking
the time, for example, to observe how
people use the sidewalks downtown, you
may gain a better feel for the dynamics of
how people experience and interact with
their immediate environment.
Are sidewalks wide enough that pedes-
trians aren’t running into each other like
Dr. Suess’s north and south-going Zax?
Obstructions such as benches, bike racks,
merchandise display racks, planters, and
street lights can be a good thing – if
they’re used, provide visual variety, and
aren’t continually being run into by
passersby. The goal for planners is a street
scene that imparts a feeling of energy
but stops short of being chaotic.
The practical value of loitering for
commissioners consists largely of helping
us to see daily outdoor life in new ways.
And although this activity won’t often
spur new law or regulation, such an out-
come isn’t out of the question.
In my city, for example, it was a com-
missioner’s mid-winter loitering that
contributed to an amended rule requiring
merchants to keep sidewalks clear of
snow, not just for the length of their street
frontage, but also extending to cross
streets for shops on corner lots.
Results like these could give loitering a
good name. ◆
Dave Stauffer is a freelance
writer and chairman of the
Yellowstone Business Part-
nership. He is also a former
city planner, planning com-
mission chair, and city coun-
cil member in his home town
of Red Lodge, Montana.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
Stop, Look, Loiter
by Dave Stauffer
Use of the word ‘loitering’ is
usually pejorative. The Merriam-
Webster dictionary says loitering
is “to remain in an area for no obvious
reason.” Wikipedia says it means “to
stand idly, to stop numerous times, or to
delay and procrastinate.”
So it would seem that the person who
loiters isn’t industrious, nor accomplish-
ing anything of benefit to him or herself,
let alone contributing to the common
good.
I contend that the pejorative sense of
loitering isn’t always accurate; that, in
fact, loitering done in a way I describe
below – by planning commissioners, no
less – can benefit the person doing the loi-
tering and the community. This can hap-
pen when loitering is defined as careful
observation, specifically, of people inter-
acting with the built environment.
The modern pioneer of this activity
was William H. (Holly) Whyte, who from
1969 till his death in 1999 used detailed
visual analysis to learn how people actual-
ly use public spaces. His studies revealed,
for example, that people will create their
own paths between two points, if the con-
structed path is found wanting in any way.
They’ll find their own ways to follow the
sun in winter and avoid it in summer.
They’ll find ways to be observed when
they seek attention and be inconspicuous
when they don’t.1
For newly appointed commissioners,
loitering can be a revelation and a great
introduction to serving on the commis-
sion. For veteran commissioners, loitering
offers a way to stay (literally) grounded.
For all commissioners, there are benefits
to taking the time to slow down and
observe for yourself whether people living
and working in your community are
enjoying or having problems with their
surroundings.
What might be learned by loitering?
A good many observations can be classi-
fied under a few broad headings:
OBSERVE FOR YOURSELF
WHETHER PEOPLE ARE
ENJOYING OR HAVING
PROBLEMS WITH THEIR
SURROUNDINGS.
1 More on William H. Whyte, including a short video
from his “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces”
video, is posted on the PlannersWeb at: www.plan-
nersweb.com/whyte.html.
Quick access to
order & renew PCJ
subscriptions and
other publications.
Free online guides.
Monthly specials.
Resources to
supplement the PCJ.
Follow our blog
postings on planning
& land use issues.
Easily locate, order,
& download articles
published in the PCJ.VisitusatPlannersWeb.comVideo content –
including short
planning-related
videos every Friday.
Join us on Facebook,
Linkedin, and Twitter.