special committees of the American Institute of Architects; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Society of Landscape Architects; American City Planning Institute and the National Conference on City Planning to confer with the public officials on the form of the bill. There was a distinct demand for setting up a separate plan commission, but when attention was called to the fact that the National Capital Park Commission had no responsibility for administering the parks of the District of Columbia, and that the only executive function which it possessed was that of park purchase, it was agreed by the group that an amendment to the Capital Park Commission Bill, which would add to its personnel and increase its powers, would be the best plan of procedure. It was proposed also to abolish the Highway Commission and transfer its powers to the new Commission.

The bill as it first passed the House of Representatives provides for a commission composed of the Chief of Engineers of the Army; Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia; the Director of the National Park Service; Chief of the Forest Service; the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital; the Chairmen of the District of Columbia Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and "four eminent citizens well qualified and experienced in city planning, one of whom shall be a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia." The Commission will be an unpaid Commission but will be authorized to employ necessary personal services "including a director of planning and other expert city planners such as engineers, architects and landscape architects."

An effort will be made in the Senate to increase the members of the Commission and one or two other slight changes may be proposed, but it is expected that the bill will pass the Senate substantially as it passed the House.

The progress which the bill made in the House is due in large part to the interest and skill of Col. Ernest W. Gibson, who as chairman of the sub-committee, coöperated with Mr. Zihlman to secure the passage of the bill.

If the bill becomes a law, the machinery will be set up for preparing the first comprehensive revision for the Federal City Plan since the L'Enfant plan of 1791 and for preparing the first comprehensive regional plan for the District of Columbia and its environs.

HARLEAN JAMES,

Executive Secretary, American Civic Association.

ZONING IN DULUTH

The City of Duluth, Minnesota, has just taken its first major step in City Planning: it has adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance. A review of our experience may be of interest and possibly of help to others.

Simultaneously with the preparation of the usual data, maps and surveys to show local conditions, the Planning Commission carried on various other zoning activities. First we took up the problem of interim protection for residence districts. Upon advice from various cities, city planning and legal experts, we decided against an Interim Zoning Ordinance. We found another way. In 1915 our state legislature

authorized municipalities to create residence districts under Eminent Domain. This method is of course too rigid and, in the long run, a hindrance to proper city growth. But every cloud has a silver lining, and we found one here. We proposed an amendment to the Building Code, to delay for thirty days the issuance of permits for apartment buildings in blocks where less than twenty-five per cent of the frontage is occupied by apartments, business or industry, and of permits for business and industrial buildings in blocks where less than twenty-five per cent of the frontage is so used; also to notify adjacent property owners of such permit applications. Where the property owners object to the proposed building, they have ample time to file a petition under the 1915 law. A petition signed by fifty per cent of the property owners in any area and filed with the city clerk, automatically stops the issuance of permits for any structures other than one-family or two-family homes, churches or schools. Past experience in Minnesota shows that upwards of two years time elapses between the filing of such application and the completion of condemnation proceedings. It was our thought that the comprehensive zoning ordinance would be adopted in shorter time, and that the city council would then cancel all pending Eminent Domain petitions. This amendment was adopted June 1924. Up to the date of publication of the zoning ordinance, October 26th, 1925, 97 permits were held up by this amendment, thirty-eight petitions for restricted residence districts were filed, and in one case the condemnation proceedings were completed. The greatest benefit from this amendment, however, was realized in the final thirty days elapsing between publication of the zoning ordinance and the date it took effect. The thirty-day-delay provision prevented a last minute rush for permits for non-conforming buildings in Residence and Multiple Dwelling districts.

The matter of publicity developed some very interesting features. We had gathered considerable literature on the benefits of zoning and launched a program of public education. We went to the leading citizens, explained zoning, furnished them literature and asked each to write an article for the newspaper on the relation of zoning to his particular field of activity. As anticipated, only a few articles were written, but the whole group learned a good deal about zoning and developed favorable atmosphere in the various organizations of which they are members. This resulted in invitations for talks and in the endorsement, first of the principle of zoning, and finally of the specific ordinance as proposed.

A resumé on publicity work shows the following: forty addresses before professional and civic clubs, five public hearings in various parts of the city under auspices of the Planning Commission, about two hundred newspaper articles on zoning, including thirty-one editorials, in our two leading newspapers.

Another important problem the Planning Commission had to consider was billboard regulation. Duluth already had a billboard ordinance regulating construction features and requiring for location outside the fire limits, the written consent of fifty-one per cent of property owners on each side of the street in the block of proposed location. But various civic clubs demanded complete prohibition of billboards. Acceding to them, the City Council refused a large number of applications and as a result twenty-three court cases are now pending. At a conference

of civic organizations, the billboard interests and the city council, the entire matter was referred to the Planning Commission. The billboard representatives agreed to abide by the regulations in the coming zoning ordinance and requested the Court to hold these twenty-three cases under abeyance. After a national survey of billboard regulation and a conference with billboard representatives we reached the following conclusions: in the zoning ordinance to go no farther than prohibiting them in Residence and Multiple Dwelling districts, but in addition, to recommend an amendment to the present billboard ordinance to further regulate them in the Commercial, Light Industry and Heavy Industry districts. A committee of the Planning Commission has placed before this body the following recommendations,— (a) to prohibit billboards entirely in blocks zoned Commercial, where less than twentyfive per cent of the frontage is used for business or industry; (b) in blocks zoned Commercial, where at least twenty-five per cent of the frontage is used for business or industry, to permit not more than fifty-five feet of billboard length on each side of the street in the block; (c) in a block where the majority of the frontage is used exclusively for dwelling purposes, the consent of the majority of the property owners shall be required, regardless of zoning classification, for billboard location. The billboard representatives have expressed themselves as finding these proposals acceptable. No final action has as yet been taken.

The ordinance forbids obstructions to view on corner lots within 75 feet of the intersection of the street centerlines, except main buildings and retaining walls. No rear dwellings are allowed. Plattors of land who deed park areas to the city are allowed an increased number of families on the rest of the plat equal to the housing possibilities on the deeded area, provided the plan is approved by the city council.

The Board of Appeals provision may be of interest. The Minnesota Enabling Act does not authorize such a board. Our city attorney advised that our Home Rule charter powers are sufficient to validate such a body, and we proceeded on that opinion. At the last moment, it seemed best not to risk attack on this provision, so we made all the findings of the Appeal Board subject to City Council approval but left the organization in the previous form in all other respects. We anticipate an amendment to the state enabling act by the next legislative session, which will give the Board the needed authority. At that time, no material reorganization of the Board will be necessary for proper functioning.

Outstanding features in the passage of the zoning ordinance were the attitude of the Duluth City Council and the work of members of the Planning Commission. The city councilmen are to be most warmly commended for their patience and fairness in listening to all sides of the question, for not permitting themselves to be scared out by the claims and criticism of individuals pleading personal interests, but of keeping the best interests of the public uppermost at all times. The Planning Commission has taken a far more active part in the work here than is usual. Some members gave a great deal of their valuable time in checking the work and in frequent public hearings. Their reward, of course, is the satisfaction of great public benefit realized because of their efforts.

A. B. HORWITZ,

Zoning Engineer, City Planning Department, Duluth.

Conducted by THEODORA KIMBALL HUBBARD

LIST OF PLAN REPORTS, 1925*

Compiled in the Library of the School of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University by Katherine McNamara, Librarian.

(To accompany Annual Survey, see page 87)

ASHEVILLE, N. C. NOLEN, JOHN. Asheville city plan. City Commission, 1925. 48 p. plans.

BIRMINGHAM, ALA. OLMSTED BROTHERS. A system of parks and playgrounds for Birmingham; preliminary report upon the park problems, needs, and opportunities of the city and its immediate surroundings. Park and Recreation Board, 1925. 31 p. photos., folded plans.

BOSTON, MASS. CITY PLANNING BOARD. Eleventh annual report, for the year ending Jan. 31, 1925. 46 p. plans (part folded).

Of particular interest are the studies for the location of health units.

CITY PLANNING BOARD, with the coöperation of The Advisory Committee on Public Improvements. Progress report on proposed intermediate thoroughfare. Dec. 1925. 38 p. plans.

SPECIAL COMMISSION ON LAYING OUT AND CONSTRUCTING NEW THOROUGHFARE AND THE EXTENSION AND WIDENING OF CERTAIN STREETS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. Final report. Published as supplement to Current Affairs, Boston, Dec. 21, 1925. 17 p. plans.

Commission composed of the chairman of the Division of Metropolitan Planning, the chairman of the Boston City Planning Board, the chairman of the Boston Finance Commission, the chairman of the Transit Department of the City of Boston, and the chairman of the Board of Street Commissioners of the City of Boston.

PARK DEPARTMENT. Special report. 1925. 36 p. photos., plans and perspective (part folded). (Arthur A. Shurtleff, landscape architect.)

Future parks, playgrounds and parkways; Report of Arthur A. Shurtleff, landscape architect, Nov. 1925. 61 p. photos., maps, and plans (part folded), diagrams.

BUFFALO, N. Y. CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. Extract of proposed zoning ordinance for buildings and uses. 1925. 10 p. diagrams.

*This list does not include unpublished reports nor annual reports in course, unless these contain notes for a comprehensive plan or other special matter. On account of their great number, it has been possible to mention only those zoning documents either issued as reports of plan commissions, or describing zoning procedure, with explanations or recommendations additional to the text of the ordinance.

6

CANTON, OHIO. KNOWLES, MORRIS. Preliminary report and program for city planning at Canton, Ohio. The City Planning Commission, Dec. 1924. Published 1925. 44 p. chart, tables.

CHICAGO, ILL., AND REGION. PLAN COMMISSION. The plan of Chicago in 1925: a report to the citizens of Chicago setting forth what has been accomplished by united civic effort during the past fifteen years. Nov. 1, 1925. 53 P. photos., plans, drawings.

Through traffic streets, prepared for the City Council Committee on Efficiency, Economy and Rehabilitation. Dec. 1925. 23 p. plans.

CITY COUNCIL. Various pamphlets concerning local transportation, with plans. Published 1925.

Special message of Honorable William E. Dever, Mayor, concerning Chicago's local transportation problem. Submitted to the City Council, Oct. 22, 1924. 23 p.

Sundry proposals and plans for the development of local transportation facilities in the city of Chicago, including elevated railroads, street railways, passenger subways, motorbus lines. Nov. 1924. (Contains: Chicago Rapid Transit Company's program of proposed extensions of elevated railroad lines, by Samuel Insull. 13 p.; Outline of a plan for a comprehensive system of local transportation, by Henry A. Blair. 6 p.; Proposal of the South Side Street Railway Lines, by Leonard A. Busby. 8 p.; Suggestion of a franchise grant to the Chicago Motor Coach Company, by James G. Condon. 16 p.; Plan for an independent municipal system of rapid transit lines including elevated railroads and subways, by R. F. Kelker, Jr. 52 p.).

Outstanding features and salient provisions of an ordinance providing for a comprehensive municipal local transportation system, by Francis X. Busch. Passed by the City Council, Feb. 27, 1925. (Failed on referendum, Apr. 7, 1925.) 12 p. (Full text of ordinance printed separately. 63 p.)

See also publication of Chicago North West Side Commercial Association entitled: Local transportation in the City of Chicago, by Tomaz F. Deuther.

CHICAGO REGIONAL PLANNING ASSOCIATION. Outline of the regional problems and the purpose; organization scheme; accomplishments to date; treasurer's report for 1925. 17 p. mimeographed.

CINCINNATI, OHIO. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

The official city plan of Cincinnati, Ohio. Adopted by the City Planning Commission, 1925. 276 p. photos., maps and plans (part folded and part colored), cross-sections, diagrams, tables. (Technical Advisory Corporation, consultants.)

CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND METROPOLITAN AREA. GREATER CLEVELAND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. Report on passenger transportation in the Cleveland metropolitan area. 1925. 46 p. map.

NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL. The accident hazards and problems of Cleveland, Ohio. Chicago, The Council, Dec. 1924. 26 p. mimeographed, maps and blue prints, diagrams, tables.