|
are fairly consistent. Clearly the use of drones,
<br />which we discuss below, has not yet spread
<br />widely into planning practice. We were some-
<br />what surprised that there are places where the
<br />reports do not contain graphics of information
<br />obtained through site visits, such as field notes
<br />on a base map. Similarly, graphic outputs of
<br />computer-aided design programs lagged some-
<br />what, although they are certainly being used by
<br />consultants in the preparation of subdivisions,
<br />planned unit developments, and site plans.
<br />WHAT PLANNERS TOLD US
<br />Our respondents told us the addition of digi-
<br />tal graphics to planning reports has been a
<br />gradual phenomenon since the 1990s. Com-
<br />mon software packages and applications in-
<br />clude ArcGIS, SketchUp, Adobe Creative Suite,
<br />Pictometry (an oblique aerial image -capture
<br />process that produces imagery showing the
<br />fronts and sides of buildings and locations on
<br />the ground, which can be used to measure the
<br />heights of buildings), Adobe Illustrator, Micro-
<br />soft Word and
<br />PowerPoint (where the graphics in the staff re-
<br />port are reproduced on the PowerPoint slides),
<br />and the snipping tool in Windows, which allows
<br />the user to clip graphics from the Internet and
<br />elsewhere and later insert them into the report.
<br />"The snipping tool is the greatest invention,"
<br />contended Michael Blackford, AICP, deputy di-
<br />rector for planning and development for Gahan-
<br />na, Ohio, "because it can easily grab applicant
<br />graphics to include in the staff report."
<br />Once the report is prepared, planning
<br />staffs convert it from Word into a PDF, and it
<br />is posted on the local government's website
<br />where it can be viewed and downloaded. (Au-
<br />thors' note: One difficulty with Word is that
<br />PDF files must first be converted to image files
<br />like JPEGs and then imported into the Word
<br />document.) Planners commonly employ Google
<br />Earth to show the site under consideration,
<br />although some respondents pointed out that
<br />there is a delay between the time the satellite
<br />imagery is taken—up to two years—and the
<br />time it is incorporated into Google Earth.
<br />All of this has dramatically sped up the
<br />process by which staff reports are prepared.
<br />"Under the old predigital period," said Harry
<br />Rado, the supervising drafter and GIS analyst
<br />for Fairfax County, Virginia, "we would make far
<br />fewer graphics, and they were much more ex-
<br />pensive to make. What we used to do in three
<br />weeks now takes only three hours or so."
<br />There are certain graphics that are com-
<br />mon to staff reports, including location maps,
<br />excerpts of zoning maps, site plans, photo-
<br />graphs, and preliminary and final subdivisions.
<br />Depending on the nature of the land -use
<br />decision, said Melanie Tylke, a land -use and
<br />environmental planner for San Diego County,
<br />California, other graphics may be incorporated.
<br />"If a project might have environmental conse-
<br />quences, the staff will generate maps showing
<br />environmentally sensitive areas," she -said.
<br />"If there are aesthetic impacts, the staff will
<br />require that the applicant submit a simulation
<br />of the building and the site." (Authors' note:
<br />This could take the form ofa static image in the
<br />staff report, although it could take also be an
<br />interactive "fly -through" simulation as part of a
<br />presentation).
<br />Jan Yeckes, the planning division manager
<br />for Arapahoe County, Colorado, said that the
<br />county is now requiring applicants to submit
<br />electronic copies of their applications, "unless
<br />there is some reason the applicant can't do
<br />so." In that case, the planning staff works with
<br />the applicants "to make these documents elec-
<br />tronically available if possible. This makes it
<br />easier for the staff to pull from the application
<br />and to consolidate the information presented
<br />to the elected officials."
<br />A champion of the use of drones is Ric
<br />Stephens, principal for Stephens Planning &
<br />Design in Beaverton, Oregon, who teaches a
<br />course in drones at Portland State University.
<br />Stephens used a drone in 2014 to assist the
<br />city's planning commission in preparing a com-
<br />munity plan. Beaverton wanted to find sites
<br />that "were ideal spots to locate a commercial
<br />intersection" and would be zoned as such.
<br />The use of the drone and its camera allowed
<br />Stephens to photograph an intersection at a
<br />tow altitude for a potential commercial site only
<br />a few hours before the planning commission
<br />meeting (Figure 9).
<br />Stephens believes that drones have many
<br />advantages over aerial or satellite photogra-
<br />phy. "Drones only cdst around $1,200 and can
<br />be used over and over. You will pay between
<br />$600 to $1,200 for aerial photography. With a
<br />drone, you get low altitude and high-resolution
<br />images."
<br />Brian Slough, AICP, a principal with Clarke
<br />Caton Hintz in Trenton, New Jersey, and his
<br />colleagues produce staff reports for municipal
<br />clients that identify, typically on site plans and
<br />subdivisions, missing or inconsistent informa-
<br />tion from the applicant. (Site plan review is a
<br />major activity of planning boards in the state.)
<br />"Sometimes you get applications that are so
<br />incomplete that you have to make a point of
<br />that." Slaugh and others in his firm write direct-
<br />ly on the site plan so that the planning board
<br />can see graphically where the problems are or
<br />where improvements can be made (see below).
<br />City councils, planning commissions, and
<br />boards of zoning appeals profit from these
<br />new technologies. Our respondents told us
<br />that digital graphics focused the attention of
<br />elected and appointed officials on the land -
<br />use decision itself. "Time is better used during
<br />[planning commission] meetings because the
<br />reports are available before the meeting. They
<br />have time to review the graphics, which explain
<br />the text more, and so they spend less time ask-
<br />ing questions and more time discussing the
<br />decision that has to be made," said Jan Yeckes.
<br />EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL GRAPHICS
<br />IN STAFF REPORTS
<br />The following are examples of digital graphics
<br />in staff reports. These reports were prepared
<br />by consulting planners at Clarke Caton Hintz,
<br />an architecture, planning, and landscape archi-
<br />tecture firm based in Trenton, New Jersey. We
<br />selected them because of their clear and in-
<br />novative use of graphics. All graphics date from
<br />reports written in 2014.
<br />A common technique is to superimpose
<br />site boundaries over aerial and satellite photos.
<br />Figure 1 is part ofa review ofa preliminary
<br />site plan to convert an existing warehouse
<br />space in Branchburg, New Jersey, into office
<br />space and expand the parking area. The report
<br />was prepared by Michael Sullivan, AICP, and
<br />Kendra Lelie, AICP.
<br />Figures 2-5 are a series of photos and
<br />graphics related to a site plan review of the
<br />Ryland Inn located in Readington Township,
<br />New Jersey, where the applicant is proposing to
<br />expand the existing building to accommodate
<br />three new banquet rooms and restaurant space.
<br />In addition, a new hotel is planned.
<br />The planners' review was critical of the
<br />site plan because it was missinga significant
<br />amount of information, including major dis-
<br />crepancies between the planting plan and the
<br />site plan, building footprints not matching, and
<br />differences in the location offences and walls.
<br />Consequently, to make their point clear, they
<br />produced a "Map of Discrepancies" (Figure 5)
<br />that was keyed to a numbered narrative that
<br />indicated the precise nature of the problems.
<br />Figures 6 and 7 are an aerial photo and a
<br />photo simulation fora proposed indoor sports
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 1.16
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I Paye 3
<br />
|