Urban Planning Test 2

• Physically covers an entire community or municipality
• long term (10-20 yrs)
• a guide for development
• may be adopted by local resolution or ordinance

to promote the health, safety, and public welfare of the community

• Research Phase (data gathering and forecasting)
• Clarification of goals and objectives
• Plan Formulation
• Plan Implementation
• Review and Revision

• population forecast
• Land Use Inventory
• Sociological/historical studies
• electronic mapping
• traffic flow
• infrastructure studies
• soil studies/evaluation
• fiscal studies

• Establish goals
• Gain public support
• Provide facts and lay out options
• Synthesize data/ public forum results
• Present a SWOT analysis

• Seen as an instrument to provide security against unwanted development and legal challenge
• Role of state/substates of government to make market forces more efficient – to facilitate the production of market info
• A legitimate exercise of police powers

The inherent power of a sovereign government to legislate for the health, general welfare and safety of the community; derived by the state constitution

1916 New York Zoning Ordiance

• Lacked a planning component
• Did not provide for future needs
• Early concern with zoning districts

• City divided into three districts: Residential, Commercial, Mixed
• Included five different height districts (Expressed in multiples of street widths)
• Included five overlay districts (Specified ground coverage requirements)

• Instrumental in ushering in a new era of federal responsibility
• Gave states/cities a model for creating Z.O.
• Positioned govt as the cooperative state that engaged in the scientific study of facts, collection of data, the estblshment of clearinghouses and the standardization of industrial parts and plans
• Provided a procedural process to state and local govts and a defensible framework for hard to define limits of police power

• Grant of Power
• Districts
• Conformity w/ the comprehensive plan
• Public hearing mandate
• Process for amendments/public protests
• Creation of zoning commissions on hearings
• Creation of Board of Adjustments that hears appeals
• Authzd local authorities to enforce SSZEA through creation of z.o.

754

• Provided for city planning
• Includes procedures for adopting the master plan (must give public notice)
• Sets forth orgtzn of planning commissions
• Covered 6 subjects

• Org of power and planning commissions (to create a master plan)
• Content of master plan (general design of city’s development)
• Provisions for adoption of master street plan
• Prov for apprvl of public improvements by plan commission
• Control of private subdivision land
• Prov for establishment of regional plng commission and regional plan

Ensures that development takes place in a systematic, coordinated and intelligently controlled manner

• Court put its seal of approval on zoning as legitimate PP of local govt
• Govt enactments have presumption of validity
• Allowed munis to prohibit uses that were not exclusively nuisances

• Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of zoning
• Challenge from Ambler: Z.O. not enacted for public purpose; claimed arbitrary and capricious
• Court to distinguish b/n what was legitimate use of PP and if Euclid Village could create residual uses excluded them

Ladue v. Horn (1986)

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas-(1974)

• Substantive– is the z.o. or reg legitimate? I.e., Does it serve a public purpose?
• Procedural– Are all parties provided with due process and equal protection under the law?

Every muni in a state designated growth area has an obligation to provide low/mod housing: cannot exclude certain classes

Eminent Domain

• Berman v. Parker – 1954
• Kelo v. New London – 2005

• Fed influence over community and economic dev expanded after WWII
• Federal govt can impose federal/legislative requirements
• Can require citizens participation

public capital investment and land use controls

• CIP is usually 5years in scope
• Provides a schedule of bonds or payment schemes
• CIP promotes coordination of various cap projects

• Guaranteed by “full faith and credit” of the muni govt
• Voter approval required
• Often issued under strict limits that vary from state to state

• Usually not obligations of the muni or state govt
• Voter approval required
• Backed by a claim on revenues the facility is expected to generate, i.e., toll roads, stadiums, etc. (a revenue producing project)

• Control the manner that a block of land may be converted to building lots
• Requires that a plat be submitted and approved
• Must be compatible w/ master plan
• Will stipulate improvements (Dedications, easements; Payments in lieu of dedications)

• Usually written by a consultant or planning agency
• Must be adopted by the legislative body
• Zoning is not takings, but it can be disputed as a taking

• Map/including specific zones
• Text/specifies what may be constructed in each zone

• Advocated density
• Critical of excessive separation of uses
• Did not advocate single-use streets
• Proposed a greater “mix” of uses, i.e., mixed use development
• Suggested that mix of use promotes safety and “eyes on the street”

• Emphasis on physical form of development
• More flexible about permitted uses
• Originates in a community “visioning” process
• Heavily pictorial
• Will specify minimum heights, setback, ingress, egress, aesthetic details
• Less restrictive concerning permitted uses
• Works best where there is available land for dev, (i.e., a new subdivision)