CRP 553: Land Use Regulations, Spring 2006
Tuesday/Thursday,
Prof. Rolf Pendall / Office: 201 W. Sibley Hall / rjp17@cornell.edu / 255-5561
TA: Chelsey Norton / cmn34@cornell.edu
Office hours: 1:30-3:30 T & 2:10-3:30 W, and by appointment (e-mail me)
Course Objectives
This course allows students to develop creative and informed approaches to the implementation of land-use policy. Its objectives are to:
Course Overview: Sequence and Style
CRP 553 is more a class on the
implementation of land-use policy and plans in the
The class style begins in the first half of the semester with a mix between seminar (discussion) and lectures; the second half of the semester consists of student presentations on their findings about how these instruments are deployed in reality.
This year, the
course will explore the reality of regulation, infrastructure, and open space
protection along a 520-mile stretch of the
·
·
The
·
The Gulfport/Biloxi, MS metro area (
·
The Mobile (AL) metro area (
·
The
Pensacola, FL, metro area (Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties)
These states take varying approaches to land-use planning and regulation. Each student will research one region for the duration of the semester, with opportunities but not requirements to work in teams on some aspects of the research. Class presentations will allow discussions among the class participants about the research results.
Course requirements
First, you must come to class prepared to participate. For most class sessions, I’ve assigned readings and included questions to consider during discussions. If you do the readings with those questions in mind and come prepared to talk about them, you’ll learn more than you would by just reading and listening to a lecture. After a decade of experience teaching this class, I’ve come to the conclusion that you learn more by teaching each other (with my guidance) than by taking notes from my lectures. I am not asking you to prepare papers in advance of class sessions, but I may start doing that if the discussions suggest that a significant number of people aren’t coming to class prepared.
I will not award a passing grade to any student who misses more than one class without an approved excuse. If you anticipate that you will have to miss any classes, please let me know as soon as possible before the class you miss and propose how you will make up missed work. If you have an unexpected absence, please e-mail me as soon as possible after the absence to explain it and propose how you will make up missed work.
Second, each student will complete a series of four assignments that are described more completely in a separate handout and on line at www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/assignments_2006.htm. You will need to start working on these assignments early in the course, even though they do not fall due until after spring break.
Finally, each student will do a final paper of 8 to 10 double-spaced pages that synthesizes lessons you learned about the region you studied. The format for this paper is open. A list of potential topics will be developed during the last week of class, when we will also be thinking about and discussing cross-cutting themes.
Strongly encouraged, but not required: If you have not already done so, join the American Planning Association (APA) at the student-membership rate of $37, plus $5 for the Upstate New York chapter dues. First-year students in the MRP program get one year of free APA membership. Your membership will provide free on-line access to one of the principal required texts of the course, the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. I think you can access the Guidebook without joining but I’m not certain.
Summary of assignments with due dates
|
What |
Due |
% of grade |
|
Assignments |
|
|
|
Local government structure |
2/1, 5PM (e-version), 2/2 (presentation) |
5% 5% |
|
State enabling legislation |
2/16 in class |
10% |
|
Planning and zoning |
3/12, 3/14-3/16 (presentations) |
10% 10% |
|
Subdivision and infrastructure |
4/4, 5PM (e-version) 4/6-4/13 (presentations) |
10% 10% |
|
Open space |
4/16 (e-version) 4/18-4/20 (presentations) |
10% 10% |
|
Synthesis paper |
May 11, 11:30 AM |
10% |
|
Class participation |
Each session |
10% |
Course Materials
Two books are required for the course:
It may seem odd to use a guide to “
Class Sessions and
The readings are all “coded” according to their availability. Here’s what the codes mean:
B a reading in one of the required books
G a reading available through the Campus Gateway
R a reading on reserve in the FAL
W a reading on the Internet
January 24: Overview of the Course
January 26: Comprehensive plans and planning visions
G Kaiser, Edward J. and David R. Godschalk. 1995. “
B Fulton, Chapter 6, pp. 103-125, “The Basic Tools, Part 1: The General Plan.”
G Duany, Andrés and Emily Talen. 2002. “Transect planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68(3): 245-266.
o Question: Are urban containment and the transect appropriate bases for sustainable regions? Is one better than the other?
Helpful (non-required) background readings
· “The local comprehensive plan,” pages 7-54 through 7-68
· “Commentary: The land use element,” pages 7-78 through 7-84
· “Commentary: Monitoring local land markets,” pages 7-92 through 7-95
· “Procedures for plan review, adoption, and implementation,” pages 7-194 (bottom) through 7-198
· “State review and approval procedures,” pages 7-200 through 7-209, including commentary; commentary on page 7-221; commentary on pages 7-225-226
· “Commentary on periodic review…,” pages 7-230 through 7-232
· “Note 7B: Comprehensive planning requirements in state statutes,” pages 7-277 through 7-281, plus table 7-5 at http://www.planning.org/guidebook/pdf/guidebook/table7-5.pdf (look for your state.)
B Nelson and Duncan, Chapter 6, pp. 73-93, “Urban Containment.”
· “Commentary: Urban growth areas,” 6-43 through 6-57.
January 31: Implementing plans: Regulate, invest, and secure open space
W Mondale, Ted and William Fulton. 2003. Managing Metropolitan
Growth: Reflections on the Twin Cities Experience.
o
Question: What are the main advantages of the
G Heim, Carol E. 2001. “Leapfrogging, Urban Sprawl, and Growth
Management:
W Morrison Institute. 2000. Hits and Misses: Fast Growth in
Metropolitan
o
Heim’s article about
Helpful (non-required) background readings
·
“The evolution of regional planning in the
G Bollens, Scott A. 1992. “State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives.” JAPA 58:454-466.
February 2: Local
governance and land-use implementation in the
In-class presentations first 45 minutes (quick presentations from each region), then discussion.
B Nelson and Duncan, Preface, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2, pp. xi-xii and 1-36, “Preface,” “The Purposes of Growth Management,” and “State and Regional Growth Management Approaches.”
B Fulton, Chapter 4, pp. 65-78, “The Structure of Planning Decision-Making: Local Governments.”
B Fulton, Chapter 5, pp. 79-101, “The Structure of Planning Decision-Making: Other Players.”
Questions to consider:
o Does local government structure in your county (including both the county itself and municipalities) make it more likely that elected officials there will consider broad regional impacts in their land-use decisions? Where (in which jurisdictions) would you expect the most parochial decisions, and where would you expect the most insular ones?
o Does local government structure in your county (again including all general purpose jurisdictions) make it likely that residents of low-income neighborhoods will have some control over land-use decisions? Under what circumstances and in which jurisdictions would you expect their concerns to be overriden in service to a “greater good”?
o Weigh the costs and benefits of parochialism versus regionalism. What are some features of local plans, regulations, and investment strategies that would help maximize the benefits of both and avoid the pitfalls? Are there any innovations in state law that would help maximize benefits and minimize costs?
Helpful (non-required) background readings
· “Why should local governments plan,” pages 7-5 through 7-18;
· “Organizational structure,” pages 7-30 through 7-31; also skim the enabling-act language from page 7-31 to 7-43, paying special attention to the commentary text (denoted with diamonds at the beginning);
· “Commentary: Neighborhood designation,” pages 7-43 (bottom) through 7-48
February 7: Principles of zoning
B Fulton, Chapter 7, pp. 127-144, “The Basic Tools, Part 2: Zoning.”
· “The evolution of model zoning and subdivision statutes,” pages 8-4 through 8-19
· “General provisions,” page 8-19 through 8-25 (Yes, read the definitions!)
· “Commentary: Gauging regulatory consistency with a local comprehensive plan,” pages 8-33 through 8-35
· “Commentary: Contents of a local zoning ordinance,” pages 8-44 and 8-45
· Section 8-201, Zoning ordinance,” pages 8-50 through 8-55
o In your view, what are the most important characteristics of the built and natural environment to protect with zoning?
o Construct the best argument you can to justify the use of zoning to exclude low-income housing from an entire jurisdiction. Cf: Tiebout, suggested readings list.
o Some people have said that zoning imposes far more costs than it produces benefits (cf.: Ellickson, suggested readings list), and that we should rely instead on private remedies (e.g., covenants, nuisance lawsuits) to the problems zoning prevents. Can zoning be designed to anticipate and reduce the impact of such arguments?
Helpful (non-required) background readings
G Ellickson, Robert C. 1973. Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants,
Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls.
G Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64(5):
416-424. Tiebout’s classic article justifies the use of exclusionary devices
such as zoning as mechanisms to ensure that mobile households can buy houses in
jurisdictions where they find their optimal package of taxes and public
services.
February 9: Making zoning flexible through variances: Guest presentation, Dick Booth
February 14: Making zoning flexible through planned unit development (PUD): Guest presentation, George Frantz
· Commentary and model statute on PUD, pages 8-74 through 8-83
February 16: Subdivisions and site plans: Standards
Assignment 2 due in class.
B Fulton, chapter 8, pp. 145-154, “The Basic Tools, Part 3: The Subdivision Map Act.”
· Commentary and model statute on subdivision ordinances and review, pages 8-57 through 8-68
· Commentary and model statute on site plan review, pages 8-68 through 8-74
· Commentary and model statute on uniform development standards, pages 8-84 through 8-90
· Commentary, development improvements and exactions, pages 8-129 through 8-134; skim state-specific discussion for gist
G Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben-Joseph. 1995. “Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia.” Journal of the American Planning Association 61:65-81.
February 21: Subdivisions and site plans: Review processes and exactions
B Fulton, chapter 8, pp. 145-154, “The Basic Tools, Part 3: The Subdivision Map Act.”
B Fulton, chapter 10, pp. 183-195, “Exactions.”
February 23: Subdivisions and site plans: Growth controls and environmental review
B Fulton, Chapter 9, pp. 155-179, “The
B Fulton, Chapter 11, pp. 197-210, “Traditional Growth Management.”
R City of
o
Should local governments have the ability to
limit annual building permit issuance? If yes, would you place any safeguards
or limits on that ability? Does the city of
o What are the most significant disadvantages of ballot-box zoning?
February 28: Plans, regulations, and natural hazards (especially floods)
B
G Brody, Samuel D. 2003. Are We Learning to Make Better Plans? A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (2), 191-201.
W City of
o
Brody identifies important differences between
the
o
Brody lays out a long list of actions that a
plan can include to enhance local hazard protection (Appendix A). Assume that
jurisdictions in the
o
Overall, does
o
Is any of the Home Depot site in the Special
Flood Hazard Area? What about Wal-Mart? Wegman's? If any of these uses was in
the SFHA, what did the project sponsor have to do to get them approved?
March 2: Form-based codes
B Fulton, Chapter 18, pp. 307-315, “Urban and Environmental Design.”
G Katz, Peter. 2004. “Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning.” Planning, November 2004, 16-21.
W Geoffrey Ferrell Associates. 2004.
o What are the main objectives of form-based codes? How does they attempt to reach these objectives?
o
Katz’s article starts with a quote from the
always-quotable Andrés Duany: “Just throw your existing zoning in the
garbage.”Based on this article and the
o If you’d apply form-based codes at all, would you do so in all situations, or only in some? How would go about making the transition to doing it in all situations if so, and if only in some, which, and why?
o
What do you like about the
Helpful (non-required) background readings
March 7: Off-site infrastructure: Planning it and bonding it
B Fulton, chapter 19, pp. 319-336, “Infrastructure and Infrastructure Finance.”
B Nelson and Duncan, Chapter 7, pp. 94-111, “Facility Planning, Adequacy, and Timing.”
· “The Capital Improvement Program,” pages 7-253 through 7-257
o What is a bond? What’s the difference between a general obligation bond and a revenue bond?
o Why should voters be able to approve a GO bond? Make as persuasive argument as you can for requiring at least a supermajority (more than 55%, sometimes more than 67%, of voters) for approval of all GO bonds.
o Take a look at the recent history of bond issue elections in a local jurisdiction that’s interesting to you. What were they for? Did they pass?
o
Go to a CIP for a jurisdiction outside your
study area (maybe near where you lived before you lived in
March 9: Off-site infrastructure: Regulating and building it with growth management
· Commentary, development impact fees, pages 8-140 through 8-161
· Commentary, concurrency and adequate public facility controls, pages 166-172
B Nelson and Duncan, Chapter 8, pp. 112-133, “Facility Financing.”
G Sorensen, Andre. 1999. “Land Readjustment, Urban Planning and
Urban Sprawl in the
o Should development impact fees be used to fund school facilities? Why, or why not? What about recreation centers? Which infrastructure systems are the best candidates for impact fees?
o Assume one region relies heavily on property taxes to fund its infrastructure, and another relies on development impact fees. In which region would you expect development to occur at higher densities? Why?
o Which regulatory mechanism is more developer-friendly: Adequate public facilities ordinance, or impact fee? Which one would you be more inclined to recommend to a city council or county?
o Some Japanese planners believed land readjustment would resolve the problems of sprawl. In what respects has LR been successful? In which respects has it been unsuccessful, and why?
March 14: Student reports: Plans, zoning ordinances, maps
March 16: Student reports: Plans, zoning ordinances, maps
March 18-26: Spring Break
March 28: Regional infrastructure, special districts, and regional growth patterns
B Fulton, Chapter 20, pp. 337-352, “Transportation Planning and Financing.”
R
March 30: Open space, part 1: Federal, state, and regional context
B Nelson and Duncan, Chapter 3, pp. 37-55, “
B Nelson and Duncan, Chapter 4, pp. 56-65, “Special-Area Protection.”
April 4: Open space, part 2: Local and private-sector open space programs
G Daniels, Thomas L. 1997. “Where Does Cluster Zoning Fit in Farmland Protection?” Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 129-137.
G Arendt, Randall. 1997. “Basing Cluster Techniques on Development Densities Appropriate to the Area.” Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 137-145.
G Wright, John B. 1994. “Designing and Applying Conservation Easements.” Journal of the American Planning Association 60:380-388.
April 6: Local subdivision regulation and infrastructure planning: Student reports
April 11: Local subdivision regulation and infrastructure planning: Student reports
April 13: Local subdivision regulation and infrastructure planning: Student reports
April 18: Open space and parks: Student reports
April 20: Open space and parks: Student reports
April 25: No class session, APA national
conference,
April 27: Overflow day
May 2 and 4: Synthesis: Discussions on land use regulation and the shape of development
G Landis, John D. 1992. “Do Growth Controls Work?: A New Assessment.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58:489-508.
G Knaap, Gerrit. 1998. “The determinants of residential property values: Implications for metropolitan planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 12(3): 267-282.
µ May 11, 11:30 AM: Final paper due: Synthesis on your case-study region