In its current form, the plan is 130 pages, and details the vision for the municipality over the next ten years.
The plan is the result of many points of contact with members of the public during the planning process, including public meetings, a public survey, meetings with commission and municipal staff, and other group discussions.
Over the past few months, the municipality has been taking comments from residents and business owners in Mt Lebanon and has held an open hearing on the plan as well. Several members of the public submitted comments via email. Other submitted comments via public record at prior commission meetings.
I’ve been involved with the project from the start, and have had a chance to see it develop over the past several years. Now, having read all the comments and speaking on the topic with many residents, I still think there is work to be done. Specifically, we need to clarify terms in some sections, provide more detail where it is missing, and to include come context in areas where that too is missing or where it gets lost in charts and data.
Keep in mind, comprehensive plans are just a snapshot in time. While many refer to them as living documents – they are not. Just read the 2013 comprehensive plan and you’ll immediately understand all the things that have not changed in the past ten years, or areas that needed attention (read: funding) but didn’t get it. The point is that staff and commission must deal with important issues that come up every day, many which require immediate attention and supersede lofty visions of something that might happen 8 years from now. And while careful planning is always the goal, the commission still needs to work within the parameters of any year’s given budget.
I’ve submitted comments to the commission for editorial consideration on the new comprehensive plan and await the next version of the text. I’m posting the comments I submitted here so they can be seen by the public.
The plan has not yet been finalized, but it will likely completed before the next commission meeting. I’d be curious to hear any additional comments you might have. Feel free to drop them here as a reply.
———————————————-
General Comments
The color choice of this guide is poor. Orange headings on green background pages, light orange on dark orange backs, even black on dark orange backs. These are all design problems that make reading this guide harder for many, and impossible for those with color and accessibility issues. I recommend running this through a contrast and accessibility checker for accessibility improvements that can be made to increase readability.
Page 7 (and throughout) – Font Choices
The main body text seems small. Can we increase the font to make it more readable?
Page 8 and throughout – Fonts and Headings
Lowercase headings – I recognize this is a design choice, but it’s a poor one and it sends a signal to our residents that we don’t care about proper punctuation or communciation. We’re a government, not a design agency. We should properly capitalize headings.
Paste 20 and throughout – Links to References made in Text
We should provide links to references like code pages and chapters, policies, ordinances, etc. This makes these passages infinitely more accessible to residents who want to be informed how things work. If we take time to include the code in the reason behind a passage, then we should make it available to people to read for themselves.
Page 24 – Sustainable Practices
Section 6 encourages a transition to carbon neutrality without necessarily creating a plan, which renders this section as useless and unenforceable as our climate action policy. If we want to commit to this without just paying it lip service, we would include the requirements in the climate action plan. Other cities have already achieved this milestone, the only thing holding us back is our political will to get it done.
Additional Context on Sustainable Practices:
This was one of the top survey responses from residents, but we’re not providing much detail here and I think the text is just paying lip service to climate needs. I recommend you ask your commissioner how many times they voted “No” on anything related to fleet vehicles that require fossil fuels. That’s a trick question – The answer will be zero.
Page 28 – Stormwater and Green Infrastructure
When mentioning the stormwater fee and the projects it has helped fund, it’s important to mention the fund has been helped by grant monies we’ve received as a result of those projects. That should be mentioned here to give people an understanding of the scope of the fund and its impact on the municipality.
We tout gray water abilities, but we are being disingenuous here as we don’t offer any real grey water design plans or primers, and would venture a guess that we’d likely put residents who apply to use gray water designs through hell trying to obtain permits. Instead, we should publish such designs and make them available and easily replicable without permits so people can actually do what we say they should do here.
Additional Context on Green Infrastructure:
I recommend you call your commissioner and demand that they make more design guides available so residents can get permits quicker and do gray water projects. Without them, they will toil in the netherworld of municipal approvals. While strict codes (and adherence to them) are a good thing, it’s not too much of an ask to provide usable information to residents when they do want design recommendations, rather than just pushing them off to read random sections of the building codes, which is the current practice.
Page 30-33 0 Design Choice
Orange heading text on a green background is atrocious and does not provide enough contrast for good readability.
Page 36 – Comments on Density
“Gentle” should be defined in text. it’s not a common term outside of those in planning and development.
Also, I do not agree with the boutique overlay concept in residential areas. At least not until we look at zoning overall and holistically, and even then, we need more standardized and enforceable rules around parking and signage. If not done properly, such an overlay would be a disaster. Also, overlays were mentioned as something the assistant planner wanted to get away from, a complaint that was made in prior zoning conversations – that we had too many of these already and too many non conforming uses. The inclusion of this does not jive with arguments made by the planner previously and should be resolved here or removed.
Additional Context on Density:
This was not submitted as a written comment, but I have made this comment verbally during public meetings and to anyone with whom I’ve spoken on the issue of density or zoning: It is my belief that adding density for density’s sake is a very bad idea. Rather, it’s my opinion that we should incentivize density in areas that already call for it. For example, uptown areas allow maximum building heights of 80+ feet, but only currently have 2 stories in most locations. Those areas are already zoned for more density, but we do nothing to encourage those owners to build that density into their existing structures. Those areas have access to rail, parking structures, etc – and density in these areas makes sense. Blindly adding “density” that is out of character with residential areas does not make sense.
Page 38 – Changes to Zoning in Commercial Districts
Item #2 is a bad idea. Which zoning rules might be standard in a much more dense environment like a city, but it would alter the character of the design of neighborhoods In Mt Lebanon, and cause issues with surrounding residents. Secondarily, these kinds of changes should not be made in a vacuum, rather they need to be considered with a more holistic review of zoning.
Additional Context on Commercial Districts:
Overlays are a bad idea. Period. It’s natural that zoning changes over time. We’re more than overdue for a more holistic review of our zoning at which time we can take up the possibility of altering requirements uptown. But I would never recommend an overlay here, nor would I recommend changing the lot characteristics we currently have in place for setbacks. That would alter the character of our business districts in a negative way. The commission needs to really read this section and understand that impacts of this potential change. I voted no on the R3 zoning change to allow multiple buildings on a lot because it was giving developers the ability to tap into density that specific lots were not able to achieve through their normal characteristics. I fear this commercial district recommendation would similarly alter our business districts by allowing the creation of monstrous properties with oversized footprints that put even more strain on areas with already existing parking issues. It will also present problems when future road and sidewalk work needs to be done.
Page 39 – Copyediting
Seems to be an errant comma in item #3.
Page 43 – 46 – Design Choice
Orange and light red text on green back is hard to read.
page 48 – Fonts and Headings
Text here looks small and sparse on page.
Page 51 – Design Choice
First showing of orange background on right side of page with agenda items for that section. The colors used are terrible and hard to see. The circles dont line up with the text. Some circles run into other circles. Also, the different colors make one think it could be a legend and they’re looking for where those colors might be present in pages that follow. This page looks like a third grader designed it. And it repeats throughout the next few sections and gets worse. We could do better.
Page 63 – Place Brand
The overall purpose of the place brand should be up front and center, rather than buried on the pages that follow. Also, we need to make clear the value of a place brand to the residents, not just list of a set of tasks to complete for the place brand. There were many questions that arose from that conversation / discussion session on place brand, and I dont recall the commission being in overwhelming support of the need for it, or authorizing it to be created. Perhaps this should be removed altogether.
Page 72, and throughout – Design Choice
There area few blank pages. Can these be removed in the digital versions/pdfs of the guide? That’s standard practice for non-printed books that are made with empty pages for binders and facing page designs.
Page 73 – Design Choice
Same design color scheme issues I mentioned earlier.
Page 74 – Design Choice
Picture of person on bike. Can we use a picture that’s not blurry?
Page 76 – Copyediting
First paragraph, the word “however” suggests the two ideas are at odds with each other. They are not. I suggest using the word “still” in its place. We are walkable, but people still want more walkability.
Page 77 – Data
Graph at the bottom of the page there is a legend with numbers but no explanation for what those numbers represent. One should be added.
Page 81 – Complete Streets Policy
We mention a policy. We should link to that policy so people can read the entire thing and get the context for the recommendation here in the comp plan.
Page 87 – Design Choice
Same design color scheme issues I mentioned earlier.
Page 87 – 106 – Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation were the #1 response from survey. This section should be first in the comp plan, not next to last.
Additional Context on Parks and Recreation:
This is a standard service offered by municipalities and the #1 most requested and referenced item by all residents. How it got buried on page 87 is a mystery to me, and in my opinion, a disservice to the community. This information should be up front and center and reflective of its importance to our residents.
Page 107 – Design Choice
Same design color scheme issues I mentioned earlier.
Page 114 – Budget and Services that “Break Even”
Item #1 needs more context. Technically, that statement is false. By code, we must deliver a balanced budget, therefore “all services” must be break even. I think they spirit of what we’re trying to say here is that not every individual service we provide, or that we charge a fee for, has to be a net positive to the municipality, or even to cover the cost of the expense. Let’s write what we mean and give it more context so people can understand it.
Item #3 on this page has already been explored. We went through the cost exercise on this already and it didn’t pencil? Do we need to do it again? I dont believe the economics of this have changed any, and with staff complaining they have so little time to do anything else, is it something we need to invest more time and energy into?
Page 115 – Waste Fee
Item 3B – this was already done. I’d remove it from the plan.
Item 4 (fee-based service programs) is not something we’ve discussed at length. We discussed having that conversation at a later time, and the need to dive into it a bit deeper, but we did not discuss other things that might be fees and we should be careful about this language here. I’d recommend removing this item altogether until it can be discussed further by the commission. Also, the example here is a ridiculous one. Charging a fee for emergency repairs to a tree that the municipality maintains. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. if the municipality maintained the trees properly, it’s likely emergency repairs would never need to be done. And even if they were needed, they’re our responsibility, we should not be charging fees to expedite service on something we’re already responsible for. I’m not sure who put this in here, but this line of thinking is alarming and a very dangerous slope to go down.
page 116 – Planning
Recreation and parks update/plan should be #1 on the list, not on the bottom of the list. it was the top response from the survey yet it’s treated as an afterthought. That’s not right and it suggests that the staff and commission are not listening to what the residents are clearly telling us is important to them.
Page 119 – Design Choice
Same design color scheme issues I mentioned earlier.
Page 124 – Zoning Updates
Mentions that zoning updates should be done at the time of the comp plan. The zoning updates were not funded in 2024, which means they wont get done until at least 2025. that’s in the grid on the pages above. The staff did not fight for the zoning update to be done at all, and are claiming they’re too busy to do it internally. That means the zoning update WILL NOT get done with the comp plan. We should call this out or remove this section.
Anything else is not giving the whole truth and context to residents.
Additional Context on Zoning Updates:
A zoning update has been called for by many residents in the past two years. I’ve also called it for it several times. Most of the commission do not care about zoning. They want to delegate that to staff, which is a terrible idea. Just look to the recent zoning change with R3 and you’ll understand why. Further, this section is not telling the whole truth. It’s telling you what we should do – zoning updates. And “if” those zoning updates were to be done a great time to do them is in conjunction with the comp plan. In fact, that very line has been parroted by the planner, manager, and several commissioners. What no is telling you is that the zoning update was not funded, which means it wont get done. So they’re saying we need zoning updates, and those updates “should” be done with the comp plan, but since it wasn’t funded we’re not gonna do the zoning updates. This is the exact situation I warned of when we started discussing zoning updates 2 years ago. I recommend you call your commissioner and demand they perform a holistic zoning analysis and update, and to do that with a reputable zoning consultant and in injunction with the comprehensive plan. It is that important and in my opinion, will have more impact on the future of this municipality than anything else in the plan.
Thanks for reading this discussion. If you have comments I’d love to hear them. Drop them in a reply here or call me on my cell! And if you agree with them, make sure to call or write your commissioner and ask them to make the same edits! The more commissioners who agree the more likely the edits are to be made.
Responses