Choosing the Right Subarea Planning Approach

Nebraska communities often face similar questions when focusing attention on a specific area, such as a downtown, a key corridor, or a strategic site.  

Community leaders want to know how to get the ball rolling in the right direction to produce a successful outcome. Planners need to ask what type of strategy will deliver the best value to the community while positioning the plan for implementation.   

When faced with these critical questions, never forget that using the right tool for the job applies to more than carpentry and auto repair. 

This article outlines three common approaches to subarea planning, their strengths, and their trade-offs. It also offers concrete steps to help think through and select the right tools for your community. 

Subarea Focus Embedded in a Comprehensive Plan

This approach develops a focused chapter or section within an updated citywide comprehensive plan that highlights one or more priority areas (e.g., downtown, riverfront, innovation district). It’s important to emphasize consistent policy and coordination with the broad vision of the comprehensive plan rather than focus on exhaustive subarea detail.

Consider this approach when the community is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and wants to elevate key areas without commissioning standalone small-area plans. It’s also an option when budgets or schedules preclude deep, area-specific work.

Typical deliverables:

• an area vision statement

• high-level framework maps

• policy and zoning direction

• limited graphics and visualizations

• Near-term priorities for studies and capital programming

Strengths:

• efficient and cost-effective

• integrates subarea priorities with citywide goals, capital planning, and development review

• useful for setting direction and sequencing follow-up studies

Trade-offs:

• limited depth of information within the subarea

• public engagement is typically broader and packaged within the comprehensive plan

• general engagement may yield fewer sitespecific insights such as transportation assessments, utility impacts, and a sense of community support

• too many focal areas can overshadow other elements of the plan or stretch the comprehensive planning effort thin, limiting fidelity of the recommendations/directions for incorporating a subarea

• combined area-specific community engagement and city-wide engagement can confuse messaging and intent

Small-Area Plan

This approach develops a city‑led plan focused on a specific district, neighborhood, downtown, or corridor. This effort creates a shared vision, land use/urban design, transportation, and infrastructure direction for the area’s evolution. The plan should identify catalyst projects, near‑term implementation actions (both regulatory and capital), and funding/partnership strategies. 

Consider this approach when the area’s role in the city is evolving (e.g., reinvestment, infill, corridor retrofits, or disinvestment is occurring). Or when the area is otherwise losing the ability to draw residents, businesses, and investment. Subarea plans are typically needed when the area requires a deeper level of engagement, analysis, or regulatory and infrastructure changes than a citywide plan can provide. 

Note that small-area plans are often driven, funded, and led by entities other than the city. These entities may include a downtown association, homeowners’ association, or community coalition. The outside entity can spur action but may also create misalignment with citywide initiatives if the plan is executed poorly. 

Typical deliverables: 

• market snapshot, land use, and zoning recommendations 

• concept framework and street/streetscape typologies 

• site and catalyst concepts 

• transportation and infrastructure analysis and programming 

• a roadmap to implementation 

Strengths: 

• a clear vision for the area 

• deep community input 

• Involvement of specific community groups 

• tailored solutions 

• clear capital and policy roadmap 

• strong alignment with city goals if scoped and executed well 

Trade-offs: 

• requires dedicated funding and/or staff time 

• will not address citywide issues beyond the study area 

• may misalign with citywide planning 

• risks potential engagement burnout if multiple plans occur within a short period 

Master-Planned Site

This approach involves a site‑specific plan – often initiated by a developer or owner – for a defined tract such as an industrial park, greenfield subdivision, or planned unit development (PUD).  

This approach should advance development of the site to a level that supports entitlements and investment, including subdivision, zoning, land use designation and its fit (yard and bulk standards); detailed engineering feasibility; access and circulation; and utilities, phasing, and parcel programming. 

Consider this approach when there is a motivated sponsor, and/or a need for actionable, site‑level detail to secure development approvals and financing. Additionally, the opportunity should have a clear alignment with an adopted comprehensive plan, small-area plan, or existing zoning.  

Typical deliverables: 

• development program (land use mix and density) 

• architectural (mass, scale, and form) 

• site layout and engineering concepts 

• street and block plan 

• lotting, utility, and drainage strategy 

• transportation impact and access assessment, cost and phasing plan 

• entitlement path 

• area marketing material 

Strengths: 

• very detailed and implementation‑ready 

• clear path through entitlements 

• quick movement when market conditions align 

Trade-offs:

• may underrepresent broader community goals without city guidance or strong alignment with the comprehensive plan 

• engagement often limited 

• risks misalignment with comprehensive plan or corridor vision if pursued in isolation 

Common Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)

1. Stretching the comprehensive plan too far. Limit the number of focus areas and be transparent about the level of detail. 

2. Skipping engagement in site plans. Even if led by a sponsor, make sure to include outreach touchpoints to reduce entitlement risk and future friction. 

3. Creating a vision without implementation. Pair recommendations with funding, phasing, and lead responsibility. Schedule action check-ins at six months, one year, and two years.  

4. Misaligning with policy. Confirm consistency and alignment with the comprehensive plan and zoning. It this isn’t possible, consider parallel policy updates. 

5. Under‑scoping infrastructure. Coordinate early with utilities and stormwater authorities to avoid late‑stage redesigns and cost escalations. 

The Right Plan For the Right Time

Don’t lock into the idea that everything needs to be done at once. When in doubt, stage the work. Set the direction (but not the details) in a comprehensive plan, then dive deeper with a standalone small-area plan or a site‑specific plan as the opportunity emerges. 

That way, when opportunity surfaces, you’ll be ready to match the right planning approach to the right need in your community. 

Choosing the Right Sub-area Planning Approach

Kyle McLaughlin is a senior planner at Olsson. If you’d like to learn more, reach Kyle at [email protected]  

/