HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 12 06 Regular Item D
,.
'''..
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
. 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
/
Community Development Dept.
Planning Division
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
II. D.
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT - 2000
STAFF REPORT:
REQUEST:
For the Local Planning Agency to review and make recommendation on the proposed
Seminole County School Board Interlocal Agreement of2000 to the City Commission
whether the Commission should sign such agreement.
PURPOSE:
The provisions of 163.3177(h)2. F.S. which states in part: ". . .In addition, the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall describe joint processes for collaborative
planning and decisionmaking on population projections and public school siting, the
location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities witl~
countywide significance, including locally unwanted land uses whose nature and identity.
are established in the agreement. Within one (1) year of adopting their Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements, each cOllnty, all the municipalities within that county, the district
school board, and any unit of local government service providers in that county s-hall
establish by interlocal or other formal agreement executed by all affected entities, the
joint processes described in this subparagraph consistent with their adopted
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements.
CHRONOLOGY:
.
On November 24, 2000 the Local Planning Agency reviewed and made
recommendation to the City Commission on large scale comprehensive plan
amendment LG-CPA-4-99 relating to the identification of the land use categories
in which public school facilities are an allowable use and provision of school
siting criteria.
.
On April 24, 2000 the City Commission adopted the Public Schools Facilities
Location large scale comprehensive plan amendment LG-CPA-4-99. DCA issued
its "Notice ofIntent" approving the amendment in June.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
.
The Evaluation & Appraisal Report of the City's Comprehensive Plan makes
reference to "Additional coordination with the Seminole County School Board
will be needed to address siting of schools and ancillary facilities."
.
While the City does have in its Comprehensive Plan Policies 1-6 under
Objective B that refer to coordination and exchange of information on possible
need and siting of public school facilities in the City, it does not address the other
provisions in the proposed interlocal agreement.
.
The following provisions are in the Seminole County School Board lnterlocal
Agreement of2000:
. Location of new elementary, middle, and high schools
. Review process for public elementary, middle, and high schools
. Co-location of public facilities
. Data coordination / population projections
. Location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency
. Siting of facilities with countywide significance
· Conflict resolution
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation:
That the City Commission approve the proposed Seminole County
School Board lnterlocal Agreement of 2000 between the City of Winter Springs
and the School Board of Seminole County, Florida.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Seminole County School Board lnterlocal Agreement - 2000
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OF 2000
THIS SCHOOL BOARD INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OF 2000, herein referred
to as the "Agreement", is made and entered into this day of 2000, by
and among THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida and a body corporate pursuant to Section
230.21, Florida Statutes, whose address is 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard,
. Sanford, Florida 32773-7127; SEMINOLE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, whose address is Seminole County Services Building, 1101 East
First Street, Sanford, Florida 32771; and the CITY OF AL TAMONTE SPRINGS,
a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is 225 Newburyport Avenue,
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701; and the CITY OF CASSELBERRY, a Florida
municipal corporation, whose address is 95 Triplet Lake Drive, Casselberry,
Florida 32707; and the CITY OF LAKE MARY, a Florida municipal corporation,
whose address is 100 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Lake Mary, Florida 32746;
and the CITY OF LONGWOOD, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address
is 175 West Warren Avenue, Longwood, Florida, 32750; and the CITY OF
OVIEDO, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is 400 Alexandria
Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765; and the CITY OF SANFORD, a Florida
municipal corporation, whose address is 300 North Park Avenue, Sanford,
Florida 32771; and the CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a Florida municipal
corporation, whose address is 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs,
Florida 32708, and
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the school board, county and municipal corporations listed
above shall be collectively hereinafter referred to as the "SCHOOL BOARD",
"COUNTY" and CITIES respectively; and
WHEREAS, the SCHOOL BOARD, COUNTY and CITIES (the "parties")
desire to mutually cooperate with each other as most recently and clearly
demonstrated by the parties participation in the "Intergovernmental Planning
Coordination Agreement of 1997", which agreement provides for mutual
notification between and among the parties regarding voluntary annexations,
contractions, density changes, rezonings, special exceptions/conditional uses,
variances, comprehensive plan amendments, public service facility expansions
and contractions: school site land acquisition and proposed school construction
and/or expansion, and all other land use actions which may affect or impact the
parties to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that the
COUNTY and the CITIES adopt comprehensive plans which include
intergovernmental coordination elements for the purpose of, among other factors,
determining coordination processes and procedures with adjacent local
governments; and
WHEREAS, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statues, requIres the
coordination of local comprehensive plans with the comprehensive plans of
adjacent local governments and the plans of school districts and other units of
2
local government providing public services, but not having regulatory authority
over the use of land; and
WHEREAS, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the Seminole
County Comprehensive Plan requires that the COUNTY enter into an interlocal
or other formal agreement with each of the municipalities within the COUNTY,
the SCHOOL BOARD and any unit of local government service providers to
establish joint processes for collaborative planning; and
WHEREAS, . this Agreement clearly articulates generally accepted
principles and guidelines for coordination of the COUNTY'S Comprehensive Plan
with the plans of the SCHOOL BOARD and other units of local government
providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land, with
adjacent CITIES, adjacent counties, the East Central Florida Regional Planning
Council, and with the State Comprehensive Plan, as the case may require and as
such adopted plans or plans in preparation may exist.
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Seminole
County Comprehensive Plan provides for joint processes for collaborative
planning and an interlocal agreement with the SCHOOL BOARD to coordinate
comprehensive plan programs and to ensure consistency between these
programs and school siting issues of multi-jurisdictional concern; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement agree that schools are
cornerstones of effective neighborhood design and a focal point for development
plans and improvements to a community; and
3
WHEREAS, it is beneficial to the public for the parties to this Agreement to
work together in a spirit of harmony and cooperation as evidenced from the past;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 235.193, Florida Statutes., requires the coordination
of planning between School Boards and local governments to ensure that the
construction and opening of public educational facilities are facilitated and
coordinated in time and place with plans for residential development; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized pursuant to the provisions of
Chapters 125, 163, 166~ 230 and 235~ Florida Statutes; the Seminole County
Home Rule Charter; the Charters of the CITIES; and other applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual understandings and
covenants set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1 : RECITALS.
The. above recitals are true and correct and form a material part of this
Agreement upon which the parties have relied.
SECTION 2: PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT.
This Agreement is intended to establish a formal coordination framework for joint
processes for collaborative planning and decision making among the parties to
this Agreement that will, at a minimum, address: (1) the location of new schools;
(2) review process for new schools; (3) co-location of public facilities, such as
parks, libraries, and community centers, with schools to the greatest extent
possible; (4) data coordination; (5) population projections and public school
4
siting; (6) the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency
and siting of facilities with countywide significance, such as parks and
recreational facilities, major roads, and water and sewer facilities, including
locally unwanted land uses whose nature and identity are established in this
Agreement; and (7) a system of conflict resolution over siting issues.
SECTION 3: COLLABORATIVE PLANNING,
(1) Location of New Elementary. Middle and Hiqh Schools. The COUNTY and
the CITIES' Comprehensive Plans shall clearly identify on the respective
Future Land Use Map and within the text of the comprehensive plan, the
future land use designations where public schools are an allowable use.
(2) Review Process for Public Elementary. Middle and HiQh Schools. Adequate
review time shall be provided for analysis and evaluation of land use
proposals by other local governments and the SCHOOL BOARD within the
jurisdictional limits of Seminole County. In an effort to recognize that public
school projects are a high priority in Seminole County, the following
provisions shall be applied to the staff review process for public school
development:
a) The COUNTY and the CITIES shall makE! every effort to expedite the staff
review and processing of public school applications for the purchase of
new sites, construction of new schools, improvements to an existing site
without adding additional capacity, and improvements to an existing site in
which capacity is added, The COUNTY AND CITIES agree to provide a
response to such public school applications after receipt of a written
5
request by the SCHOOL BOARD within ninety (90) days as required by
Chapter 235.193, Florida Statutes, provided that to make such a
determination all information provided in the application is in accordance
with the local jurisdictions' land development code requirements, including
a site plan showing all proposed facilities.
b) The COUNTY and the CITIES shall exempt the SCHOOL BOARD from
the payment of planning and development fees, including but not limited
to, plan amendment fees, zoning and/or site plan fees, special exception
.
fees, right-of-way utilization fees, permit fees, subdivision fees, and vacate
fees, as may be required in the development review process.
c) In the case of a proposed public school site being reviewed for approval
as a special exception use, the appropriate COUNTY or CITY staff shall
initiate a proactive approach to resolve issues with the School Board prior
to the required public hearing in an effort to expedite the review process.
d) The COUNTY and the CITIES shall accept a St. John's River Water
Management District permit for a public school facility to find that drainage
on site is sufficient; if off-site impacts are present, the appropriate
COUNTY or CITY staff shall review as required in the development review
process.
(3) Co-location of Public Facilities. Recognizing that public schools are an
essential component in creating a sense of community, the School Board
shall seek to co-locate public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and
community centers, with schools to the greatest extent possible. The
6
County shall encourage School Board officials to establish or renew
cooperative agreements as may be beneficial to the public at large to jointly
purchase, develop, maintain, or operate specific properties or facilities such
as recreation facilities, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and
emergency shelters.
(4) Data coordination/Population Proiections. All parties shall continue to share
data including population and school enrollment projections, planned public
school site locations, facility timing, and other issues related to the capital
planning of schools and support infrastructure, the location and extension of
public facilities subject to concurrency, and other facility siting to include
locally unwanted land uses, which include but are not limited to such uses
as heavy use industrial parks, landfills, and hazardous waste facilities. All
parties shall also continue to clearly articulate generally accepted principles
and guidelines for coordination of all comprehensive plans with the plans of
the School Board and other units of local govemment providing services but
not having regulatory authority over the use of land, with adjacent
municipalities, adjacent counties, the East Central Florida Regional Planning
Council, and with the State Comprehensive Plan, as the case may require
and as such adopted plans in preparation may exist.
(5) Location and Extension of Public Facilities Subject to Concurrency: All
parties to this agreement will coordinate the planning the location and
extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, including roads, water,
7
sewer, fire, and libraries, to ensure the efficient use of infrastructure and
reduced public costs and to eliminate duplication of service provision.
(6) Sitinq of Facilities with Countywide Siqnificance: All parties to this
agreement shall notify each affected or impacted party when planning for
facilities with countywide significance, such as schools, major roads,
shopping centers, parks, and locally unwanted land uses. If determined that
the proposed facility will affect or impact more than one jurisdiction, all
parties affected or impacted by the proposed facility shall coordinate its
plans and programs to identify appropriate locations and impacts on
services and facilities.
(7) Conflict Resolution. Unless otherwise provided in a joint planning
agreement, the parties shall engage in intergovemmental negotiation and
communication, at management levels (Le., between the County Manager,
City Managers, School Superintendent), if any land use matter causes an
intergovernmental dispute to arise. Subsequent to such management
interaction, a party may invoke the provisions of the agreement entitled
"Intergovernmental Agreement on Mediation and Intergovernmental
Coordination", dated July 24, 1995, unless mediation is otherwise
addressed in a joint planning agreement.
SECTION 4. TERMfTERMINATION.
(a) The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of two (2) years, but shall
be automatically renewed for successive one (1) year terms as to all parties
unless a party notifies all other parties that it is opting out of this Agreement in
8
accordance with Subsection (b), in which case the parties shall meet and
determine, no less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of a term, as to
whether the Agreement should continue in effect as to the remaining parties.
(b) If any party wishes to terminate this Agreement as it applies to said party,
notice of such termination shall be given to all other parties no less that one
hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the expiration date of a term.
"
Termination shall be effective one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date
notice is perfected as provided herein,
(c) Termination of this Agreement shall occur as to obligations between
parties for each party entering a joint planning agreement at the time of adoption
of joint planning agreements between these parties.
SECTION 5: COUNTERPARTS,
This Agreement shall be executed in nine (9) counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused their
names to be affixed hereto by the proper officers therein.
9
ATTEST:
Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court
Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners of Seminole County,
Florida. .
As authorized for execution by the Board
. of County Commissioners in their
, 2000, regular meeting.
For the use and reliance of Seminole
County only. Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency.
County Attorney
Date:
ATTEST:
Thelma McPherson, City Clerk
Donna Mcintosh, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Patsy Wainwright, City Clerk
James A Fowler, City Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Carlton D. Henley, Chairman
Date:
CITY OF CASSELBERRY
By:
Bruce Pronovost, Mayor
Date:
CITY OF AL TAMONTE SPRINGS
By:
J. Dudley Bates, Mayor
Date:
10
,
,
ATTEST:
Geraldine D. Zambri, City Clerk
Richard S. Taylor, Jr., City Attorney
ATTEST:
Carol A. Foster, City Clerk
Donna Mcintosh, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Cynthia Bonham, City Clerk
William L. Colbert, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Janet R. Dougherty, City Clerk
William L. Colbert, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, City Clerk
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney
CITY OF LONGWOOD
By: ~ ,.
Paul Lovestrand, Mayor
Date:
CITY OF LAKE MARY
By:
David Mealor, Mayor
Date:
CITY OF OVIEDO
By:
Miriam Bruce, Mayor
Date:
CITY OF SANFORD
BY:
Larry Dale, Mayor
Date:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
By:
Paul Partyka, Mayor
Date:
11
..'.
ATTEST:
SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE
COUNTY
Ned Julian, Jr., Esquire
Director of Legal Services
By: '
Sandra Robinson, Chairman
By:
Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent
1:\old_dp_voI2\cp\projects\speciaJ\jpa\school board - new interlocal.doc
12
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
c
P
M
N N
5 5 /
/ N G
ONE
R
5
L
M
A
/
o
NEWS & INFORMATION FOR CITIZEN PLANNERS
Which Road Will We Take?
P L " N N I N Co C () tv! iv1 I S S I () N I: I~ S J 0 URN "L / N U M B E R 'I 0 / F.-\ L L 2 0 0 0
FROM THE EDITOR
Almost Ten
I. want to share with you a few thoughts
about the Planning CommissionersJoumal as we
near our tenth year of publication. As you may
know, we are a small independent publication-
we're not affiliated with any other bbsiness or
organization. Our mission is to provide the
most useful information possible to "citizen
planners" - primarily members of town, city,
county, and regional planning and zoning
boards - though we're also pleased to hear that
many professional planners read the PC].
We're about the release a publication I think
many planning departments will find especially
useful to provide to new commissioners. Titled
.Welcome to the Commission: A Guide for
New Members," the 40-page publication is
divided into two parts. The first provides a
series of helpful tips for new members, while
the second part looks at how planning commis-
sions fit into the "planning universe." The
Guide includes selected short excerpts from
past PC] articles, with illustrations by Mark
Hughes. See the back page for more details.
As I mentioned, we're also nearing our 10th
anniversary in print. We would like to cele-
brate this milestone by taking across-country
-tour" in our 10th anniversary issue - high-
lighting some of the concerns communities
and their planning commissions are facing, and
how they're being addressed. But we need your
help! Please consider taking the time to be
interviewed over the phone by someone from
our staff later this Fall or Winter. For more on
what's involved, see the note enclosed with this
mailing (only one note is being sent to each
subscribing community) or call our office at:
1-888-475-3328.
Finally, you've probably noticed the "online
comments" accompanying many of the articles
we publish. Over 300 visitors to our Planners-
Web site have signed up to receive, bye-mail,
drafts of articles submitted for publication in
the PC]. There is no obligation to comment on
any article - but the feedback we receive often
results in improvements
to the final article. For
more on this, go to:
www.plannersweb.com
)/.,/~
Wayne M. Senville,
Editor
FEATURES
D Road Design - A Turn Ahead
by Edward I McMahon
Too often new roadways have been designed
to be wider and straighter, without much
consideration being given to the character of
the surrounding community. In recent years,
however, there has been a gradual turn
towards more thoughtful, "context sensitive"
roadway design. Edward T. McMahon looks
at what's behind this change in direction.
m Integrating Land Use
and Transportation
by Whit Blanton
A growing number of communities are recog-
nizing the close relationship between trans-
portation planning decisions and land use. In
these places, transportation planning involves
more than just providing for better mobility.
Transportation planner Whit Blanton reports
on how one metropolitan area has begun to
put land use and transportation in balance.
m Planning Commissioner Perspectives
Planning commissioners from Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Utah and New York offer their
perspectives on what makes for an effective
planning board, and on the role of the chair-
person.
DEPARTMENTS
D The Effective Planning Commissioner
Elaine Cogan looks at how a shopping mall
became the location for a creative planning
event.
m The Planning Commission At Work
Most planning commissioners realize that
all the effort spent on preparing a comprehen-
sive plan will only payoff if the plans policies
and objectives are implemented. Michael
Chandler offers an eight-step process for
helping assure that your plan is brought to
life.
m Ethics & the Planning Commission
Are there any constraints on .when a planning
board member can speak out publicly as an
individual, rather than as a representative of
the board? Greg Dale looks at some political
and ethical considerations.
c
:j
p ~,~.,,'~::,~i~1~;~1~~f.~:.:::~.~f~~
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMllER 40 I FALL 2000
II
THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Getting Out to Where the People Are
We're Having a Public Event at the Shopping
Mall. Won't you Drop by and Tell us What
~Think about the Future oj our Town?
as a sunny Friday. People
. re at their local mall as usual,
shopping, strolling, meeting their
friends and neighbors. Prominent among
the storefronts, in the center of all the
activity, was something new: a display
about Our Town - what it is and what it
might become, depending on the plan-
ning decisions that soon would be made.
Maps and drawings and possible
alternatives in simple text were displayed
attractively. Staff and commissioners
stood nearby to engage onlookers in con-
versation and entice them to participate.
People were invited to stay as long as
they liked - to write their comments on
the displays and handy pads of paper,
talk to planners, fill out questionnaires,
and otherwise participate in a low-key
but important exercise to help determine
their community's future.
Compliments abounded. "No one
ever asked my opinion before!" "Thanks
for coming out to the mall. I never have
time for meetings." "It's great that you'll
be here after work. I'll be back with my
husband." Seniors dropped by and wrote
down their opinions, all the while remi-
niscing about days gone by. Teen rappers
and mall employees were quick to point
out what they liked and did not favor
about the suggested alternatives. A
diverse variety of people was obviously
comfortable and familiar in the mall
environment and willing to participate
when asked.
For the organizers, it was a long,
exhausting yet exhilarating day. We were
at the mall early i.n the morni.ng before it
opened to set up the displays and on our
feet until 7 that evening. At times, we felt
like barkers cajoling people "Just look,"
or "Try it. You might like it." Most people
by Elaine Cogan
did at least take a peek and many stayed
to take advantage of the many non-
adversarial ways to voice their opinions.
Some held intense conversations with
their friends or members of the pla!lning
commission and staff. I
But it was all in a spirit of goodwill
and civility. In that environment, it
would have been unthinkable to behave
otherwise.
From more than 25 years experience
designing and facilitating public partici-
pation processes, it is obvious to me that
the most successful are those where we
go out to the people - not expect them to
come to us. Only the most committed or
zealous citizens will come out to a public
meeting just because the planning board
or staff think it is important. Why the
mall? Because that is where the people
Online Comment
are! I have arranged two events in shop-
ping malls such as described above and
the success has been phenomenal.
If you are not so inclined or ambi-
tious, there are other ways to take your
planning show on the road. Put up mini-
displays at the local library or communi-
ty center, always with opportunities for
the public to comment. Organize a
speakers bureau and make presentations
to your local neighborhood and civic
organizat~ons. Get on the Web. Nearly
every community has a Web site, some
more ambitious and attractive than oth-
ers. Post your information and invite
comments. In all these ways, and more
you probably can think of, you will reach
people who may never otherwise be
involved in civic activity.
Public involvement that truly
engages the hearts and minds of the citi-
zenry in a civil manner is increasingly
difficult to obtain. We all know people
with strong opinions will make their
voices heard at public hearings and other
formal occasions. But what about all
those times it would be valuable to learn
what people think before the controversy
erupts, or perhaps to defuse it entirely in
an environment that encourages dia-
logue and conversation?
Be creative in choosing venues that
encourage such interaction and you will
be well rewarded. With these approach-
es, it is even possible you will avoid
entirely the yelling and polarizing meet-
ings that benefit no one. .
Elaine Cogan, partner
in the Portland, Oregon,
planning and communica-
tions firm of Cogan Owens
Cogan, is (l consultant to
many communities under-
taking strategic planning
or visioning processes. Her
column appears in each
issue oj the PC].
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ FALL 2000
"It's very true that you
have to go out to where the
people are - and when they're there. When
we do charrettes and similar activities in
small towns that don't have malls, I've
found that coupling th~ events with pan-
cake breakfasts or fish fries at the local vol-
unteer fire department usually help get the
folkS out. Food is always a great way to
draw a crowd. ... I also find that if you
have pictures (especially ones taken by
local residents with disposable cameras we
give them), and maps and let folks write
on and/or draw on them, it makes it even
more real for them.
- Jim Segedy, AICp, Muncie, Indiana, Chair,
Small Town & Rural Planning Division, APA
a
FEATURE
Road Design - A Turn Ahead
. your local government
e~been notified that tlie state
highway department is planning
to "improve" a rural scenic road, recon-
figure a congested suburban intersection,
or replace a historic bridge in your com-
munity?
Each year American communities are
presented with plans to expand or
rebuild streets, roads, and bridges.
Whether the community is rural or sub-
urban, in Eastern Oregon or Northern
Virginia, the explanation is almost
always the same. A road that local people
are accustomed to is said to be deficient.
It does not conform to the latest stan-
dards. It is not wide enough or it has too
many curves. Unless something is done,
motorists will experience delays or
unsafe conditions.
Plans are presented that call for a
road that is straighte~, flatter, and above
all, wider than before. The highway
department calls the project a road
"improvement," but many local citizens
are opposed to the project. Why?
Because conventional road widening and
bridge reconstruction projects often
damage scenery, natural resources, and
by Edward T McMahon
community character for little or no real
benefi t.
The conventional approach to road
design aims to move more traffic faster, at
the expense of everything else. In her
book, The Living City, author Roberta
Gratz tells the story of a small town that
seeks help with repairs to an aging
bridge, only to be told that repairing the
bridge is "not cost efficient." Only by
widening the two-lane bridge to four
lanes would federal funds be available.
Adding two lanes, however, will require
widening and straightening the road that
provides access to the bridge. This will,
in turn, require using adjacent parkland,
cutting down a row of 100-year-old trees,
and demolishing several historic build-
ings. When local residents oppose the
out-of-scale solution they are accused of
opposing progress and are told federal
rules "require" the new wider bridge.
Does this sound familiar? Well it
should because this scenario, in one
form or another, has been repeated
through America. Over-scaled, over-
priced highway projects are imposed,
where smaller, less expensive, equally
useful and more environmentally benign
solutions would do.
While environmentally harmful,
oversized, highway projects are familiar
to us all, the good news is that this all-
too-common way of designing roads and
bridges is being challenged. A growing
number of citizens, planners, and local
officials are demanding that local trans-
portation improvements incorporate
"context-sensitive" highway design (also
known as "place sensitive" or "flexible"
highway design) to preserve community
character and environmental resources.
What's more, federal transportation
legislation now givcs states the flexibility
I' L t\ N N I N G COM MIS S I () N I: i{ S .I U U i{ N ,\ L. I N U ~'1 n "i{ ., 0 / F ..\ L I. 2 lJ 0 0
~
f~~7~.~~
A In Vennont, as in many states, older bridges
which seemed to fit naturally into the landscape
have been replaced by bridges with Jar less char-
acter. Above is a view oj the 329-foot long metal
truss bridge spanning the Lamoille River in West
Milton, alongside its recently built replacement.
There still is a chance the 98-year old bridge may
be preserved Jor use by pedestrians and bicyclists,
.... No such possibility exists in Waterbury,
Vennont, where the 1928 "Smith~ Store" steel
truss bridge carrying US Route 2 over the
Winooski River (opposite page lower left) was
demolished and replaced by a typical highway-
style bridge in the early 1990s (left).
to use their own design standards in
sensitive locations. Federal law also
makes it clear that highway projects
should be developed with respect for
social, environmental, and cultural
resources.
The origin of most state and local
road standards is the publication: A Poli-
cy on Geometric Design of Streets and
Highways, also known as the "Green
Book." This publication by the Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) sets
out recommended designs standards on
all federal aid highway projects. Contro-
versy over design standards often arises
when state highway departments take
the Green Book standards and apply
them in a rigid and unyielding fashion
continued on page 6
WM~;:r,
'.outco
;:~~~?'~
".lC.n-9n,
.I!.t~'i!~'gi{~:::~a,;
z"~"\~:'&~ir agi~~~.~~,~~ '. Half ()f rho
JE~~,yciR.~:~f~)~~~b.~:~ri'~ne~:~f"
__~~gtl1at wqtilq'ilOt'fuiveoccurredif th
': '.' i, .;. As the'SW~~repori:'descIib ;"'." e' . ir.Ni~poJ.lt?n c:O~g~~OI},,:'t~aValla~l~ fr9~1,1l"<~
-.' ,,'
~J~J{~~cy;1r2lhl.lshchour'co~gesti6if~idfiie;' ':;"<Y~h!,de()wnershir{~rid,~~~:~nd (2) change ...,;( ~
~:%~~~~~~~;~he Tn~v~l Rate Indbc:f?{, ':::tF'ibcadon anci.f6~ or'bbth reSidential,:';{
'I ac~r.9:~ 'a 0 "'~!lUost identical.lntereStiIlg~ 'and nonresidential growth." From, Stuck in:. "
, lY' hit~ehl~.:. .~~;puilding areas show slight- Traffic: Coping With Peak Ho;tr TraJfic Con-" ~
Y gher co g'" I '. '
. road_build1W,.,)~~t;lon eve\s than the low gestlOn (Washmgton, D.C.: The Brookings
. g.areas throughout the period," Institution 1994), p. 31.
I' L t\ N N 1 N G COM M ,I S'S ION E R S J 0 URN A L I N U -,I 13 I' I'
. ". , 4 0 I FA L L 2 0 0 0
1"" .
:.:.....
;l:.
..
.;~
',-
~:;'..
~'..~.
A familiar scene: a road being widened.
Road Design..,
continued from page 5
without regard for community or envi-
ronmental impacts.
Federal law says these standards
"can be applied flexibly" and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has
produced an easy-to-read manual that
thoroughly discusses the issue of design
flexibility in federally funded road pro-
jects. This publication, entitled Flexibili-
ty in Highway Design, can be obtained
from the .FHWA. ~Resources p.B.
Context sensitive design is a collabo-
rative, interdisciplinary approachinvol~
ving all stakeholders to ensure that
transportation projects are designed in
harmony with the community and pre-
serve historic, scenic, aesthetic, and
environmental resources - while main-
taining safety and mobility. But until
recently, most communities had to fight
to get anything but the "off the shelf"
design.
Consider one example: bridge rail-
ings. For over a century bridges have
been some of America's greatest engi-
neering and manufacturing achieve-
ments. Bridge railings were often works
of art: metal trusses, concrete balu-
strades, decorative stone, and other var-
ied materials. However, in recent years,
the standard bridge railing - regardless
of the type of bridge or location - has
become a "Jersey Barrier." This has hap-
pened despite the fact that there are
"
.~
.~
I
~:.
l
~
I
J
dozens of approved, crash tested alter-
natives to Jersey barriers.
While maintaining a safe driving
environment is fundamentally impor-
tant to highway design, there are a range
. of legally acceptable solutions to almost
any road design problem. Just consider
two recent projects in Brooklyn, Con-
necticut and Okemos, Michigan.
In Okemos, Michigan, a busy inter-
section at the corner of Marsh and
Hamilton near the local mall was pro-
posed for improvement to eliminate
congestion that sometimes resulted in
thirty vehicles backed up at the red
light. The conventional approach would
have added new lanes to facilitate and
separate left turns from right turns and
through traffic.
Instead, the County Road Commis-
sion constructed a new two lane "round-
about" - a modern, smaller-scale variant
of the old-style traffic circle. Despite a
great deal of initial skepticism, the
roundabout has proven t6 be both popu-
lar and efficient. In place of the traffic
light the roundabout now safely moves
more that 2,000 vehicles per hour with
less delay than the old design. Local res-
idents say they like the roundabout and
the most vocal critic has even changed
his mind. A second larger roundabout
designed for more than 3,500 vehicles
per hour opened to traffic in August
2000 on the Michigan State University
1
t
t.
~
~
':
continued on page B
P l ANN I N G COM MIS S ION E I( S J 0 URN ..\ I. / N U M B E R -\ (1 / F..\ L L 2 () () 0
a
:",:1
;\11 roctively
dcsi.~lled /Jridges.
Iii/(: Willllill,~toll.
De/a wo reS,
Washillgtoll
St reet lJridge
(1110, used to be
" the 1I0rm ill our
, cities and toWIIS.
!. But well-designed
; bridges can still
: be built today, as
.; seen in Hanover,
\, New Hampshire
(be/ow).
!~t4j~1{
J~i\~~;~;~-,:,.{..
OllClnos,
rallen, the chev/olIs 011 the ((,1I11(//"/Olld h(/v( hcCII/owered and seVCIa[ of thc Slgll posts consolidated
I' I. 1\ N N I N (; (() j\.! ,'vI I S S ION E R 5 J 0 L R l\ ..\ L f N U j\1 B [R 4 0 / FA L L2 0 0 0
Ii
t..
Road Design...
continucd from pagc G
campus in East Lansing. Many others are
now being proposed. Editors Note: For
more on the modem roundabout, see "Round-
abouts: What They Are & How They Work"
in PC] #26.
Another example of context sensitive
design is the reconstruction of a; twenty-
three mile segment of U.S. Route 6 in the
Brooklyn, Connecticut, area. The state
Department of Transportation first pro-
posed the construction of a by-pass
. around the Brooklyn town center. When
this idea was rejected, the state DOT next
proposed widening and realigning the
road through the town center. This pro-
posal, in turn, generated considerable
opposition on the part of .town residen~
and officials, in part because it would
destroy portions of the town green, an
historic stone wall, and several large
trees.
Connecticut DOT officials agreed to
take a fresh look at the entire project.
Meetings were held with town leaders,
local residents, and state historic preser-
vation office staff to listen to their con-
~ Online
~ .
v . ',;e"~ ~~:e~c~~~ted cities
and towns have their share of intense traf-
fic problems, county governments have
them too, and solutions seem to be very
cookie cutter in the typical, 'Let's widen,
create more lanes, and put a traffic light
...' approach toward road improvements.
How do we get beyond these typical
approaches? The states may have more
involvement toward design, but my atten-
tion is always grabbed when I read solu-
tion-based information, along with.
methods for creating increased working
dialogue between local governments and
the state agencies (Regional and DOTs)
that are charged with many of our highway
Improvements, since communication is
often the most difficult part of the process.
... Certainly, here in Citrus County, we
could start working more closely with
everyone involved to create more suitable
road improvements."
- Lany Frey, Community Development Man-
ager, Citrus County, Florida
cerns. The end result: the state DOT
agreed to reduce the width or the paved
shoulder in the town, eliminate a pro-
posed passing lane, and change the pro-
posed alignment to save the town green,
historic wall, and large trees. The revised
design achieved the DOT project goals of
reconstructing the road, improving road-
side drainage, and upgrading the guard
rails, while also satisfying local concerns.
Unfortunately, the flexibility shown
by Connecticut's transportation depart-
ment is still the exception rather than the
rule. Many state highway departments
continue to resist community requests
for waivers or flexible application of
AASHTO standards. One big reason is a
fear of legal liability if an accident occurs
on a road not meeting AASHTO design.
guidelines.
According to the Boston-based Con-
servation Law Foundation, this fear is
unwarranted for two basic reasons: First,
"flaws in highway design" are usually
considered within the scope of govern-
mental immunity for planning and dis-
cretionary functions. While the law of
governmental immunity varies from state
to state, as a general rule a lawsuit
against a highway department or public
works office would succeed only if the
design received no review, was obviously
inherently dangerous, or was clearly
made without adequate care.
Second, the plaintiff who manages to
overcome the presumption of govern-
mental immunity must still prove the
highway department was negligent. Fail-
ing to follow AASHTO guidelines does
not itself constitute negligence - just as
following the guidelines does not neces-
sarily mean the highway department is
not negligent. The guidelines simply rep-
resent general advice to be considered in
the context of all the circumstances of a
particular situation.
In fact, Vermont's transportation
agency has developed its' own road
design standards that are more flexible
than AASHTO's. The state's standards
apply to all roads except those on the
federal interstate highway system or part
of the "National Highway System." like-
wise, the Oregon DOT has taken full
'." .
. ,l'~ ~
".~~}
advantage of flexibility within the Green
. Book when addressing design issues on
the historic Columbia River Highway. In
addition, five other states - Connecticut,
Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and
Utah - are working on a FHWA spon-
sored pilot project to develop context
sensitive highway design standards.
The ultimate goal of context-sensitive
design is to provide transportation facili-
ties that meet the needs of motorists
while also addressing the concerns of the
community that the road passes through.
At onetime in our history we designed
transportation facilities that were beauti-
ful as well as functional, that met the
needs of people as well as motor vehicles,
and that respected local communities.
That time may have come again. .
Edward McMahon is a
land use planner; attorney,
and director of The Con-
servation Funds "Ameri-
can Greenways Program. "
He 'is former president of
Scenic America, a nation-
al non-profit organiza-
tion devoted to protecting
Americas scenic landscapes. McMahon's column
appears regularly in the PC).
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ FALL 2000
II
FEATURE
Integrating Land Use and Transportation
years the transporta tion
profession has emphasized
mobility in the development of
plans, programs, and projects. This
emphasis on mobility - moving people
and goods conveniently and efficiently
between places - has surely increased
our society's productivity and economic
wealth. But it has also fostered the cre-
ation of homogeneous and inaccessible
places, striking in their lack of character,
comfort, and variety. ,
We tend to deal with mobility and liv-
ability as separate, often competing, con-
cepts. The tools of the transportation
planner are geared toward measuring
and providing mobility. While we have
institutionalized measures of traffic con-
gestion (volume-to-capacity, average
travel speed, and vehicle hours of delay),
we have too often ignored measures of
livability and community character -
those factors that determine the quality
of the places we are stnvmg to reach so
quickly. This article looks at the connec-,
tion between land use and transpor-
tation - and how one metropolitan
~~~;;d:.a~~:~:igl~~ I~-'" ,_"i
~ Mobility: The door-to-door experience
to rethink its ap- of traveling throughout an area or cor-
proach to trans- ridor, measured in terms of travel time,
portation planning. comfort, convenience, safety, and cost.
If All Your Tools Measures the ease with which individ-
are Hammers '" uals can move about on various trans-
It has been said I portation modes.
that if all your tools ~
are hammers, then everything begins io-~
look like a nail. Using traditional trans- ,
portation measures based on travel speed _
and delay, urban area transportation .. "-">=~_"'_._'."_ ._, '.',,",,~~ ".
plans and corridor studies emphasize
building new or wider roads, or increas-
ing the efficiency (read: increasing
speed) of existing roads. They are Visine
plans (not Vision plans) - as they seek to
"get the red out" (red meaning severe
by Whit Blanton, AICP
This view of Slate Route 26 near the 1-75 intersection in Gainesville represents the familiar hind of road-
way development planners are increasingly seeking to avoid,
Accessibility: The ease with which
desired activities can be reached from
any particular location by physical
connections
(roads, sidewalks,
buses, etc.), travel
options, and devel-
opment proximity.
The more activities
available within a
given travel time,
the better the
'acceSSibility. Thus,
accessibility is a function of both land-
use patterns and the transportation
system that serves them.
congestlon on most transportation plan-
ning maps) by using measures of speed
to determine needs and project priorities.
Such plans say nothing about the desired
growth pattern or community character
and only incidentally consider impacts
on land use and the quality of the devel-
oped environment. They rarely consider'
how transportation can support land use
objectives to create highly accessible
places with a true choice of travel options.
Too often, quality of life or "livabili-
ty" concerns are only considered as a
reactionary response when neighbor-
hood groups protest a proposed trans-
portation project. Until our planning
processes for land use and transportation
are more closely integrated, we can
expect' more of the same.
PUTTING LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION IN BALANCE.
A growing number of communities
are attempting to fundamentally change
the process so that land use and trans-
portation are better linked, bringing the
concepts of mobility and livable commu-
nities into a single focus. With efforts to
conti,wed on page 10
P LAN N I N C; C (J ~I MIS S ION E R S J 0 URN A L I N U M B E R 4 0 I F,\ L L 2 () () ()
o
Integrating Land Use & Transportation...
COIltilllH:d frol)1 p(lgc 9
create pedestrian- and transit-friendly
streets, redevelop old shopping malls
into mixed-use walkable town centers,
and encourage in-fill residential develop-
ment, communities of all sizes are be&in-
ning to consider transportation and land
use as part of an interrelated;system
in which mobility and livability are in
balance.
The importance of integrating land
use and transportation cannot be over-
stated. Thinking more strategically about
land use-transportation relationships can
lead to: reduced vehicle miles of travel;
improvements in air quality; increased
levels of walking, bicycling and transit
use; economic and community revitaliza-
tion; and the preservation of neighbor-
hood character - not to mention a more
visually appealing landscape.
Transportation's role in creating liv-
able communities requires balancing
mobility - the movement between places
- and accessibility - the ease with which
desired activities can be reached from
any particular location. Good mobility
provides the economic impetus neces-
sary for growth and investment, such as
safe and convenient transportation facili-
ties or services linking residential and
employment centers. Highly accessible
places offer a diversity of development,
with activities in close proximity and
connected with ~ultiple travel paths.
We want good mobility and accessi-
'\
Figure 1. Four land use scenarios were developed and evaluated for the Gainesville MTPO's 2020 Trans-
portation Plan. This picture illustrates the concepts tested as part of selecting a pre felTed land use and
transportation vision for the community.
bility to go together. For this to happen,
communities need to carefully consider
the intended function and purpose of
their roadways, and the impacts they will
have. This is no small task given the wide
range of groups that have an interest in
the transportation network.
gathered in 1998 to set annual funding
priorities, it faced a dilemma: widen SW
20th Avenue, a congested roadway con-
necting a dense concentration of off-
campus student housing to the
University of Florida (as called for in the
existing long range plan), or address the
congestion by promoting alternatives to
the automobile and building an intercon-
nected system of narrower roads to help
create an environment more supportive
of walking and bicycling.
To help resolve the question, th.e
THINKING STRATEGICALLY IN
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
When the Metropolitan Transporta-
tion Planning Organization (MTPO) for
the Gainesville, Florida, Urbanized Area
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ ['ALL 2000
m
Town/Village Centers Concept - Transportation Projects!
-~' .~
.;.....'\' -~
-1) . ;r I r.
-.:-; r . . '11
, ; I .
.,,"-u -::r-j.
\1' ,,'-.: iI, ~
"".". r'}";;
'_2 ' 'J'~
- _-.-1 .','"
.- - -.-
. - ; . ~ --" -. .
( .. '.
, :~
:;",., ,.' t
o. Intermodal centers ': J. :,1 t.,~"
, I" .- Busway ,,~"-.--' "1 rt' :r::.,
f:', ,N"Express bus service".',' '..t I ~ '
,.::::. '~,;. N Bus'Service enhancemen'ts" -;- f.>,'\,".;",
, ~f!'.::~ N, New E'W bus service ". X i' -,'
:" ,,{!:it Feeder bus service . .:,:. \ I
. "I:a Intemal transit circulaoor system
- Park and ride lots
Figure 2. Each land use alternative contained a unique set oj transportation projects designed to sup-
portthe intendedJuture land development objectives. The transportation system that would support the
TownA'illage Centers concept is presented here,
MTPO sponsored a community plan-
ning charette. The charette generated a
vision centered on the concept of creat-
ing a walkable student village. To imple-
ment this vision, charette participants
recommended keeping SW 20th Avenue
at two through lanes, building bicycle
paths and wider sidewalks, funding
increased bus service, interconnecting a
series of smaller streets, and installing
roundabouts (a modern, smaller-scale
variant of the traffic circle) at key inter-
sections. Stronger links between the res-
idential areas and a large (approximately
one million square foot) nearby com-
mercial activity center were also recom-
mended. A Facility Expectatiolls & Guidelilles,
The MTPO commissioners concurred
with the charette's recommendations.
In a rapidly growing community
with an urban area population of
190,000 and the state's largest univer-
sity, MTPO commissioners realized SW
20th Avenue was only one of many con-
troversial transportation projects they
cOllfillued 011 page 12
F +I'ty '0
J)" aCI I ':.' .>f.~::,~
". Exp~ctations'~;;>ie;~;(j
'.' ,,+'" '+'~!''''''Y'''\'':'''''''''~t-'I
"", &' GUI;.aellnes';'~';;,:""','('~''''''''
~:. '. ~.~. "i:". - ..~. .; _.." .'.L' ,--~' ~,,_,~';"J.t ;';,~;';'~.;';;f2i..t..;-......::
.., "'\:'~~~"'~.rrt...~...,,:_~,.., . -,,~~\'~t~.,- ",.,~,~~.,.....~.....,
. ,;:.... ~.;;.~~...~.~.~., .:~Z--f':;'r~ 7 ~':-:.;~;"":~ ',t j,~~':ft~ lr'1:;t,!:!~:....'-~-*t-:,-:''"'' ~
,',', .," GaineSVilleS'SW20ih:iAVe'iiiiekharehe'i7;;;f;"~,
.! " . L'" ,~~~"'~:.'~_~":~~:\':':~:,~l' :~;r.::~:.~,.. * . "~~;:";4"7.'-':.. '';~'.'.;(.ti)~J;;:'';.'.; ~};J::J7~'''':
, .'e~tablish~d{~cili.ty,::~%p~c~t~~)'ns\C~6~~E~d1-f. ;irc'
. L ., _i:" "..' ~~"J..t1/;'!J'>;;'''f'f'f,j.~...:rT-~.t ...." ;';'~'hl_.~~..J:_'~t$'''~I'i-:-':'~'~~:
,', on?the cdricept.f6f'aBwalkab1€:'stUdCht~Vi.I 'j'
,;;;y~~?~~ T~~tt~\f'~:~~)'l~~:~~ifJi{~~lttr;, !;
:;Pfhiticed,tr~ffi~;s"" (l~:~ill~w[ ~
".."",:.::,;"",., .,:."".~,,'r}',~,E "i:':-, ""'~l;io,':"; .)
iAJuffered:from1iil ".~wrtnfs' ....~
:"l"":""r'ii:.,s. !.i' * . d:":,:if:.:t:f::-"l&"'~'''jS&:! ;tW,':,..'ii,t'~{t~ ~::": .1:t~'~~;.~1.;
.,;'''"e~~ibiK~l\f'it1es:''anW}jti:Ua "'-''''''i>:~''" .
'~fdf;~t:\~~~i.i1~'':i.~!'~t~{~;,.
,'., . .-. . T.
:>'1'11'"< "';
.The SW 20tl{'AVen~e a~ed1i';;cluJes i/a~~l)'.""; ,~
'_ " .'. ........':.". . ,.::;:.~,:;.~. '.. :~:..Il:t\l1.,.;-' .,..... . . -;~. .s;.
developed off~campus stu(ie'itt hOUsing-41'ea:'~',.' 5';" ~
'.:i~~t;1;g~~~~.%t;;~~~:~i~fn~&~~~~.''',f;:.i
'Co(lcems a1J,out}raffic co!!gestlOlrmt.!I,/;l.~~,.i~:'Y;, ;
.~'~~f;;:%c~dl~jv~~:J:4~W;jJ~gfi~~,~:~jLI
,'smes oj interconnected coUfctor:roQds:'ana r;;:f::~;~;S:,il
,i~~~~b~~l)&~h~\~lnol~ '
I~'i
'i~:'
~J
f.~)~;
~t:,,~.-!..
~~.I'
I,'.:.~..,.
......!y,,-.
;~~~
.~:::~ j,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 40 I FALL 2000
m
. .
{;::<:;'"
Integrating land Use & Transportation...
cont illunl from p(l~C II
would face. Emboldened by the out-
come of the SW 20th Avenue process,
and recognizing the need to update the
metropolitan area's long-range trans-
portation plan, the commissioners
decided to develop a strategic vision
plan for transportation and land use.
This planning effort would examine
alternative land use patterns and hous-
ing options, and consider transpo~tation
. as a strategy for a new kind of i'nvest-
ment in community-building, particu-
larly in economiCally disadvantaged
areas of the county.
Work on the "Strategic Vision Long
Range Transportation Plan" for the
Gainesville MTPO is nearing comple-
tion. Unlike traditional long-range
transportation plans, in which a fixed
forecast of population and employment
is developed and alternative transporta-
tion system improvements are evaluat-
ed, the heart of the new plan is the
development and evaluation of urban
form alternatives. Each of these alterna-
tive development patterns, in order to be
implemented, would require a different
set of transportation investments.
Before taking a look at the urban
form alternatives, however, let me back
up for a moment to touch on the start of
the long range planning study. [n public
workshops held throughout the county,
participants were asked to identify the
top five issues or problems facing the
region's transportation system. Interest-
ingly, among all the workshops and
responses from the public traffic conges-
tion was a relatively minor complaint.
"The worry many people have," one
workshop participant explained, "is that
Alachua County will, if it continues on
its pattern of growth, one day resemble
sprawling places like Broward County
or Pinellas County in South Florida -
ugly, congested, polluted, and high in
crime." The majority of the comments
related to unsafe streets for walking and
bicycling, a lack of street connectivity,
infrequent or nonexistent bus service,
and complaints about suburban sprawl
limiting travel choices.
When you think about it, these are
fundamentally land use problems.
Addressing them requires a concerted
land use-transportation strategy - not
the traditional method of developing a
plan to widen roads because a 20-year
traffic projection says the road will
become congested.
THE URBAN FORM ALTERNATIVES
The urban form alternatives being
evaluated in Gainesville represent differ-
ent approaches to devdopment. Each is
supported by a unique mix of trans-
portation strategies, with differing levels
and characteristics of transit service,
bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and
roadway projects. Figure 1 p.lO shows
the four urban alternatives being consid-
ered. To briefly summarize each of the
four:
1. Westward Growth Concept - Would
support the future growth and develop-
ment of Gainesville and Alachua County
through a regional transportation sys-
tem that improves mobility and connec-
tivity throughout Alachua County,
reduces automobile congestion, and
maintains a highway-oriented trans-
portation network within a primarily
low density, Single-family residential
environment.
2. Compact Area Concept - Would
create a high quality walking, bicycling,
and transit-supportive environment
with a focus on reinvestment in the tra-
ditional core area of Gainesville and the
towns of AIachua County. Reflects a
greater mix of land uses and increased
density of development. Proposed trans-
portation projects would include reduc-
ing the number of travel lanes on certain
roads to create a more pedestrian-orient-
ed environment, enhancing bus service,
developing on- and off-road trails, and
constructing a dedicated lane for transit
vehicles.
J. Town/Village Centers Concept -
Would focus the region's transportation
system on connecting a limited number
of intensively developed, mixed use cen-
ters of activity located throughout the
County and on maintaining the charac-
ter of existing towns and neighborhood
:j
;
:~
.~
'::
;,
~
:1
.;'
P LAN N I N G COM MIS S ION E I( S .J 0 U I( N {\ L / ~,U M B E R ., 0 / F ,\ L L 2 0 0 0
.~ .'. .
m
Sketches were prepared Jrom photographs oj existing places in the community to illustrate how the land use concepts might change the Jace oj development in
the Gainesville area. This shows a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use center adjacent to the University oj Florida and a single-Jamily residential neighborhood.
villages. Projects would include express
bus service .linking the region, strategic
road expansion projects, and dedicated
lanes for buses - which might eventually
become a passenger rail corridor. See
Figure 2 p.ll
4. Radial Development Concept -
Would create a multi-modal transporta-
tion system serving highly developed,
mixed use centers located.along major
linear corridors linking outlying commu-
nities 'with the University of Florida cam-
pus and downtown Gainesville - while
preserving open space, agricultural
lands, and lower-density residential areas
located outside the corridors. The
emphasis of transportation projects
would be on high-capacity bus and rail
service into the University and down-
town area'. .
As part of the planning process, each
urban form alternative was evaluated
using both traditional and non-tradition-
al methods. For example, traditional
computer-based travel models were used
to assess each alternative's impact on
regional travel patterns and on the effec-
tiveness of transportation system strate-
gies. Along less traditional lines, bicycle
and pedestrian levels of service were con-
sidered, as well as regional and local
accessibility, transit service quality, and
the proximity of jobs to housing.
)Sl PC/fonnallcc Mcasurcs.
After considering the four urban
form concepts, the MTPO voted unani-
mously to adopt a hybrid that takes ele-
ments of the compact, radial, and
town/village center alternatives and
melds them into a long range land
use/transportation plan for the urbanized
area. Called the "Livable Community
Reinvestment Plan," it focuses on:
1. re-iiwesting in the traditional core
areas of Gainesville and the towns of
Alachua County to develop walkable
downtown centers;
2. connecting a limited number of highly
developed mixed-use centers, and
3. providing a high level of premium transit
service in the linear Archer Road corridor.
The Livable Community Reinvest-
ment Plan also seeks to: increase travel
choices by developing better walking,
bicycling and transit environments;
maintain the character of existing towns,
neighborhoods, and village centers; and
preserve agricult~ral lands, natural areas
and op~n space outside of highly devel-
oped areas.
Since the city-county Metropolitan
Planning Organization is composed of all
five elected Alachua County Commis-
sioners and all rive elected Gainesville
City Commissioners, the plan should
have the strong potential to guide city
and county land use policies and devel-
opment regulations.
SUMMING Up:
Properly integrating land use and
transportation requires a clear vision and
policy framework developed through
active citizen participation. Commu-
nities must more broadly define the
objectives of the transportation system
and how its performance is measured.
We have to remove ourselves from the
single-minded notion that transportation
planning"s sole focus is on how to move
the maximum number of cars with the
minimum delay. If this remains the focus,
transportation planning and land use
planning will remain disconnected -
with citizens wondering why their com-
munity's development goals seem so hard
to achieve. .
Whit Blanton, AlCp, is
vice president oj Renais-
sance Planning Group, an
Orlando, Florida-based
policy analysis and {rans-
portation planning consult-
ingjinll which assisted the
Gainesville-Alachua Coun-
ty MTPO with its recent
planning efforts. He also serves as Chair oj
the American Planning Associations Transporta-
tion Planning Division. Blanlon would be glad to
answer any questions about the Gainesville-
A/ac!llla County project; he ((III be reached al:
wblan{on@citiest!wlworll.COIll. or at: 407.893-
8175.
','.' l'
\il'., :"} .:
:. . 'I .
..,,.-;.::~l..'.
~A;~;~:~t,~,Tt.::.'::;~:":
P LAN N I N G COM MIS 5 ION E R S J 0 U I~ N ,\ I. / N U t-I JJ E R .J 0 / F..\ L L
20 (1 0
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT WORK
Bringing the Plan to' Life
excitement that accompa-
m s the adoption of a compre-
hensive plan is very real. Indeed,
it is not uncommon for a planning com-
mission to celebrate once the plan has
been officially adopted. After all, a quality
comprehensive plan does not materialize
overnight. A solid plan is the by-product
of study, analysis, and reflection. Accord-
ingly, the decision to adopt a comprehen-
sive plan generates a feeling of closure on
the part of the planning commission as
well as the community.
The adoption of a comprehensive
plan, however, should not be viewed as an
act of closure. Instead, the decision to
adopt should be viewed as the initial step
in the plan implementation process.
It is essential to remember that a com-
prehensive plan will not effectuate change
if it is afforded trophy status and placed
on the proverbial office shelf. If a plan is
going to make a difference in the life of a
community it must be used and followed.
The balance of this column will highlight
by Michael Chandler
an eight step process a planning commis-
sion can use to bring the comprehensive
plan to life.
Step One: Involve the Public - and the
Governing Body. Management experts tell
us that organizational change is less:trau-
matic if the people affected by the change
are involved in planning the change.
Because planning involves change, it is
crucial that the public be included not
just in developing the plan's goals and
objectives, but in focusing on how they
will be implemented. Members of the
public must be challenged to see the con-
nection between the "dreaming" phase of
the planning process and the "doing"
phase of plan implementation.
As I've stressed in past columns, it is
also critically important for the planning
commission to keep the governing body
informed and involved. A plan Simply
cannot be implemented without the gov-
erning body's continued strong support.
Step Two: Convey a Message. Our plans
must convey a message the public will
connect with. Products sell because peo-
~ Online
. Comments:
"A comprehensive plan is a bud-
get, and like any budget must be reviewed and
altered as needed. The final step in any com-
prehensive plan must be a schedule for routine
periodic review and triggers for review neces-
sitated by non-routine economic events."
- Neill E McDonald, MAl, Member, Savannah-
Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Com-
mission, Savannah, Georgia
"A good, concise article. I especially liked
the timeline idea - to be sure to get things
done. As an example, our old master plan is
being redone. In it are items that still haven't
been accomplished, because no one ever read
it (except me and a handful of others). It's
amusing to see some of these same requests
coming up for the new plan, knowing they
were ignored before."
- Christine Mueller, Dearborn Counly, Indiana
"An important question to consider is
whether your Comprehensive plan is capable
of being implemented. You would be surprised
at the number of statements in many Compre-
hensive plans that lack clarity or definitiveness
and are therefore virtually impossible to imple-
ment."
- Ilene Watson, Planner, Regional District of
Central Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia
In our small community in Maine we do
not have any professional staff. Our Compre-
hensive Plan Review Committee will be dis-
bandedwhen the plan is approved by the
town. We have decided to include an action
step that creates a three member oversight
committee. That committee will advocate for
action on the plan with all town committees
and selectmen. The committee will also be a
link between the present comp plan commit-
tee and the future review committee, which
will convene in five years."
- Carol Adams, Dresden, Maine
pIe associate value with the purchase.
This marketing truism also applies to
community planning. To be successful,
comprehensive plans must convey, in a
clear and direct manner, how the future
will be different if they are followed.
Step Three: Commitment to Outcomes. A
shortcoming common to many plans is the
lack of a focused commitment on produc-
ing the outcomes set out in the plan. Too
often a planning commission will assume
the good things chronicled in the plan will
happen simply because they are good. This
assumption must be avoided. The "pre_
ferred future" described in the plan will
not happen without a commitment to plan
implementation - including a commit-
ment to provide the staff and financial
resources needed to carry out the plan.
Step Four: Develop an Implementation
Schedule. It has been said that a journey of
1,000 miles begins with the first step. A
similar mindset needs to guide the plan
implementation process. For example, if
your plan features a twenty year planning
horizon and several hundred operational
objectives and strategies, the planning
commission must prioritize them. A
multi-faceted strategy, one that features
short as well as long-term action plans, is
preferable to a strategy that attempts to do
everything at once.
Step Five: Assign Implementation
Responsibilities. Knowing when a plan
component or objective will come into
play implies knowing who will be respon-
sible for implementing it. The best way to
accomplish this is by assigning specific
implementation responsibilities to partic-
ular departments of the town, city, or
county government. Each department can
then be held accountable for what it is
charged with implementing.
Assighing responsibilities has two
other benefits. First, departments will be
able to see how they fit into the "big pic-
ture" - and how their role contributes to
the community's future. Second, when
I
I
\
l
f
i!
}i
~ :
ti
11
r~
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ FALL 2000
m
departments know that they will be called
to account for their assigned responsibili-
ties, they will be more inclined III carry
them out in a timely manner.
Step Six: Establish a Time/inc. This is a
logical byproduct of the preceding two
steps. A reasonable timeframe needs to be
established for each phase of the plan
implementation process. A plan f~aturing
hundreds of strategies and policies cannot
be implemented in a single year. Instead, a
multi-year implementation cycle will be
required. By assigning a timeline to each
phase of the implementation schedule,
the planning commission, governing
body, and members of the public, will
know when each component of the plan
should be completed.
Step Seven: Link the Plan with the Bud-
get. Linking the plan with the multi-year
capital program and annual operating
budget is another way to assure plan
implementation. One way to achieve this
outcome is to calculate the costs associat-
ed with the various objectives and strate-
gies referenced in the plan. Where
appropriate, these costs should be includ-
ed in either the capital or the operating
budget. As management expert Peter
Druckeris fond of saying, the real value of
a plan' can be measured by an organiza-
tion's willingness to back it with money.
):). The Capital Improvement Program
Step Eight: Document the Differcncc. A
final step involves documenting the differ-
ence the plan is making on behalf of the
community. Taking the time to inventory
the various impacts the plan is generating,
and then sharing this information with
the community, puts accountability into
the planning process. Most importantly,
it also lets the public know that the plan
is being used - and that all the time
that went into developing the plan was
well spent. .
Michael Chandler is
Professor & Community
Planning Extension Special-
ist at Virginia Tech in
31achsburg, VA. Chandler
also conducts planning
commissioner training pro-
grams across the country,
1II1C1 ;s a frequent speaher at
worl/shops. His column appears in each issue of the
PC).
: '~'I
. .?~ ~:.
re
. .-.~,~,?~
nfif'r
~ .~~.,c
~i~~1~~i . '10;;:,)., 'bf~i'l;',.. /,'0: ;,)c.]: ,,;:t~~~s:~-"; er.:6F ea
.:{ri'.: 'I' ,rm;. ,'ih~-'uestiBii'of'a-",":e.,."'...,. nt . ~.-,-<..".rx"_"-" ).U,.'..,.':s...'.:....,h.:.:.a.'... i.},'...,,,.'.~.>..=>:.'~""l~.~~,.rr,-=. ....,.",...!: ." "".' ;-'=.""H;iA"".';
. '_?'-.t".I? f,-:i,I~'''.,.;.~'+Si',~'''.!J.""l . "1~,",'3~"'~:7~!,;'..{'O:f~'-!t~.... ,,":_ _ - """'~' ~~,..:>;e.;Ii~_llti?.e,~"IJ.~ ~~
~',~i:;?,o( a'~ro~jl:'G:'gve..cap;p.~_.~~~~~4 :.' :al1p.,!allyprepare.s~~i~~C, ; "{':):
...'..J.lj7.i'i.;.<.'.)~~~,;b-?.;.:'t:':j)~..\,.:.:.;',~;r:.f.1:.,-:..r~''~"'~ ,~.,,,:..,-;:-. "'<';:-"_,' '. ".~~~<i1\.:" ;:;:~~~,:;" ::'~:;i$t~~:;~:~~'>>.~!4 !CH
"'t"'"n6'~~;~_CQt'e.(l'" orie~~(jr":z.e!c5, n'!:)er. QfP.1ance .,J: . ana: then- forwaras'lt1tO.~
,;it. has jje~ri.riieasui~d~ Even on that~'6iie~a
. .;:. ' -:1.: ,i "' :.: .r;..' _ - , 'if. :':-:,';:' .
.' ;". COmrl:l;llllitycan test andevaluate}~a~opt-
. .. cd plii~n{rtgpolicies:Dev~Iopingp;9.!l~yis
. ,:;;'an in~:kac(art. However, by consi~l~~:tiy'
.:,;. emph~iiirlg quantitative parari1eW~s', if
'/, wjll.~e....~...~er to evaluate the succe;;fof the
'\7.: plan~'t a ;l~ter time. Countable cn~e.r.ia:{i.e.,;('>' . rO':Vidin" assisci.nctt6~ilie'ollifirmun(.
J~~:d~::fb~::,;::~;~::~f~:r~;~f~~::f~~~~1i!ii~~"i3'?~3!
,. ~;tlle~a~hi~vement of sllch intangIbles as' ,.:I;,:iri~'ii to see'tlult\yi.7y,;~r~~i~i:r"
~i~ 'i:"r~::?"":"'- -.J ~'~1:"':-""<;; . ,'(C::.' _ ':";,:'. < 'i:.:..;_;t..,~j>P'!::!~:q".1-;:;.v.:.t'>
'6inmun' ~i "livability, n "sa fen '~e~g~~b.~r~ '. ';:9:~~,t,~;:and;~~;~();~ormance
",.i
: ,', -.::. ... ':<":~
'" -,.",~ . . "';. .
,.; r.s";.:
"\#" .
:.:.........
. .:.,.....
'. :..~~~~~' .~":'
..-......-.
J." '"
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40 / FALL 2000
';',':; Catherine Avon Hilton, AICp, is dSenior~':
.,.::.:::Planner with the Tri-County RegiqncilPlaf!niTlg....
;'.: Commission in Peoria, Illinois.. ',/'
rEI
ETHICS & THE PLANNINC COMMISSION
Making Your Opinion Known
Aticipation in public affairs
~~ngaging in civic di~course
are well-established traditions in
our democracy. As a planning commis-
sion member you are probably interested
in a wide range of public policy issues
and often would like for your individual
voice to be heard beyond the planning
commission chambers. However, are
there ethical constraints to how you
can make your opinion known as an
individual?
Consider this hypothetical situation:
a proposed development project is heard
by your Planning Commission on several
zoning and site plan approval issues. The
Planning Commission ultimately recom-
mends approval of the project to City
Council (in your state, the governing
body makes the final decision after
receiving the planning commission rec-
ommendation). You were in the minority,
having voted against the project because
you believed its parking layout failed to
conform to certain design criteria in the
zoning ordinance.
As part of the proposal, the applicants
are also requesting certain tax abate-
ments. Under your ordinance decisions
on tax abatements are not considered by
the Planning Commission, and are with-
in the sole review of the Council. As an
individual, you oppose the use of tax
abatements to encourage development.
However, this was not a factor in your
vote as a planning commissioner.
When the project comes before your
Council, you decide to appear as an indi-
vidual and voice your opposition to the
tax abatements. You also urge the council
to require the developer to revise the pro-
posed parking layout. You are surprised,
however, when a City Council member
becomes upset that you are appearing
before the council to voice an opinion
about the project. The council mem-
ber tells you that your testimony is
by C. Grego,y Dale, Alep
inappropriate since you have already had
your say in the process as a Planning
Commission member. As a new planning
commissioner you are confused and per-
plexed by this reaction.
Is the city councilor right? Was it
inappropriate for you to testify - or did
you have the right to express your views?
"THE RIGHT THING TO Do"
By the way of background, as I have
indicated in many previous columns,
you have a responsibility as a public offi-
cial to protect the integrity of your office.
The bond of trust between the planning
commission and the community is para-
mount, as is protecting your credibility
as a planning commission member. Hav-
ing said this, does this mean you have
"forfeited" your right to express your
opinion as an individual outside of the
context of planning commission meet-
ings?
As a general principle, I believe it is
important to make a distinction between
the question of whether or not you "have
the right" to engage in certain activities,
and the question of whether it is "the
right thing to do." Certainly, you have
the right to engage in a wide range of
activities, even though your conduct may
not necessarily be the right thing to do
under the circLlmstances. In the hypo-
the tical situation I posed, what is the
right thing to do?
Let me offer some thoughts to help
work through this question.
A starting point is to consider
whether your comments are related to an
issue that comes within the purview of
the Planning Commission. If your
remarks are unrelated to planning mat-
ters, you should feel comfortable in
speaking out as an individual.
For example, the way in which your
local government handles a labor issue in
the Police Department is a public policy
issue on which you may have a strong
opinion. Voicing that opinion to your
governing body is completely appropri-
ate, and should not raise any concerns.
Similarly in the hypothetical posed, since
the Planning Commission has no say in
tax abatement decisions (please note,
this is only for purposes of the hypothet-
ical - there very well may be planning
commissions that do have a role in this!)
you should be able to speak before the
City Council on this issue!
As a Planning Commission member
you do not give up your ability to speak
out on a range of civic issues. You should
be careful, however, in how you do so.
You should make it clear that you are not
speaking as a Planning Commission
member, but as an interested citizen.
Even so, do not be surprised if some peo-
ple believe you are using the "mantle" of
the Planning Commission to give your
comments greater impact than those
1 This would clearly be the case if you were speaking
about tax abatement policy in general. However, since
you are raising the issue with respect to a specific pro-
ject your commission reviewed you are edging closer
to an area which might be inappropriate for you to
comment ?n. Much depends on the norms of your
community, as I will discuss in the balance of the arti-
cle. However; I would find it unusual for a communi-
ty to consider it inappropriate for a planning
commissioner to be able to speak out before the gov-
erning body on an issue that was not before the com-
mission for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ FALL 2000
':"
from an "average citizen."
But what about the second part of the
hypothetical, where you addressed the
council about a site plan issue that was
considered by the Planning Commission,
and on which you were in the minority?
Was it appropriate for you to address the
Council about this?
COMMUNITY NORMS
OF ApPROPRIATE CONDUCT
Your first step should be to consult
with your Commission's legal counsel.
There may be instances in some states
where it is not appropriate to engage
in this activity, particularly when your
commission acts in a "quasi judicial"
capacity.
If there are no legal restrictions, 1
would suggest you need to consider the
"norms" of your community. In many
communities, when a planning commis-
sioner is involved in review of a project it
would be considered inappropriate for
that commissioner to tiy to have a "sec-
ond bite at the apple" by going before the
governing body to argue for another out-
come.
Remember, the planning commission
should expresses its opinion in written
findings and recommendations that the
governing body receives. When a com-
missioner in the minority feels strongly,
the appropriate place to make note of
this would be in a minority or dissenting
statement attached to the commission's
decision or included in the minutes. A
judicial analogy is helpful. In those states
where planning commissions make final
decisions subject only to court review,
the court will ordinarily not allow a dis-
senting commissioner to appear in court
to testify and argue that the commission's
decision was wrong.
There are other communities, howev-
er, where the norm may be that it is
acceptable for planning commission
members - including those who disagreed
with the majority decision - to appear
before the governing body to explain their
position. This is often the case in smaller
counties, cities, or towns where a plan-
ning commission's written decision is cur-
sory in nature, without a detailed
explanation for its recommendation.
But even in some communities where
the planning commis.sion does provide
the governing body with a well-reasoned
wrillen recommendation, the community
norm may be that it is acceptable for plan-
ning commissioners to come. before the
governing body to voice their opinion.
And then there are the communities
where the norms are unclear, or have
never been articulated. That's where
most of the problems - and hard feelings
- will arise.
In any case, should you choose to
come before the governing body to voice
your opinion, you should expect that
some may view your efforts as an abuse
of your authority.
BEING PROACTIVE
As with many of the issues I have
addressed in this column over the past
ten years, the best approach is to be
proactive - that is, to know how to han-
dle anticipated situations before they
occur. Your planning commission may
find it helpful to discuss in a work ses-
sion how minority views can be
expressed - coming up with guidelines
for what is appropriate. Better yet, bring
up the subject at a work session between
commissioners and governing body
members. Both bodies can then reach an
understanding of what will, or will not,
be considered appropriate, thereby clari-
fying the community's norms.' Having
the ground rules spelled out in advance
will not only avoid hard feelings in the
future, but make it easier for new (or
potential) commissioners to know what
is expected.
Let me be clear: in highlighting the
role of a community's norms of acceptable
conduct, I am not approaching this from
the standpoint of your legal right.s. If you
have a question about whether there are
legal restrictions against certain behavior,
please consult your planning commission
attorney or other legal counsel.
If your desire to speak out on an issue
ultimately conOicts with the norms of
your community, you will need to bal-
2 A joint session might also consider the converse
question not covered in this article: are there times
when it is inappropriate for a governing body member
to testify before the planning commission on a matter?
ance the effect your action will have on
the credibility and integrity of the plan-
ning commission against the importance
of your expressing personal views on the
issue. In balancing these, remember that
when you accept appointment as a plan-
ning commissioner you are accepting
responsibility associated with being a
public official - and being part of a body
which needs to work together on a vari-
ety of important matters. .
C. Gregory Dale is a
Principal with the plan-
ning and zoning firm of
McBride Dale Clarion in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Dale
manages planning projects
and conducts training for
planning officials through-
outthe country. He is also a
former President of the Ohio Chapter of the Amer-
ican planning Association.
Taking a Closer
Look: Ethics
.~~"''''':''';'_'''ll,-.
PLANNING
~
.
.,.....L ,........".... I""'" ....... ..."".,...
is a collection of Greg Dale's "Ethics
& the Planning Commission" .
columns from the past nine years.
It includes articles on conflicts of in-
terest, ex-parte contacts, bias, accept-
ing gifts, and many other concerns.
Now available for $14.00 ($12.60
for PC] subscribers). Either call our
office at: 1-888-475-3328 (toll-free)
or order from the PlannersWeb:
www.planncrswcb.com
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 40/ FALL 2000
from an "average citizen."
But what about the second part of the
hypothetical, where you addressed the
council about a site plan issue that was
considered by the Planning Commission,
and on which you were in the minority?
Was it appropriate for you to address the
Council about this?
But even in some communities where
the planning commission does provide
the governing body with a well-reasoned
written recommendation, the community
norm may be that it is acceptable for plan-
ning commissioners to come before the
governing body to voice their opinion.
And then there are the communities
where the norms are unclear, or have
never been articulated. That's where
most of the problems - and hard feelings
- will arise.
In any case, should you choose to
come before the governing body to voice
your opinion, you should expect that
some may view your efforts as an abuse
of your authority.
COMMUNITY NORMS
OF ApPROPRIATE CONDUCT
Your first step should be to consult
with your Commission's legal counsel.
There may be instances in some states
where it is not appropriate to engage
in this activity, particularly when your
commission acts in a "quasi judicial"
capacity.
If there are no legal restrictions, I
would suggest you need to consider the As with many of the issues I have
"norms" of your community. In many addressed in this column over the past
communities, when a planning com mis- ten years, the best approach is to be
sioner is involved in review of a project it proactive - that is, to know how to han-
would be considered inappropriate for die anticipated situations before they
that commissioner to try to have a "sec- occur. Your planning commission may
ond bite at the apple" by going before the find it helpful to discuss in a work ses-
governing body to argue for another out- sion how minority views can be
come. expressed - coming up with guidelines
Remember, the planning commission for what is appropriate. Better yet, bring
should expresses its opinion in written up the subject at a work session between
findings and recommendations that the commissioners and governing body
governing body receives. When a com- members. Both bodies can then reach an
missioner in the minority feels strongly, understanding of what will, or will not,
the appropriate place to make note of be considered appropriate, thereby clari-
this would be in a minority or dissenting fying the community's norms.1 Having
statement attached to the commission's the ground rules spelled out in advance
decision or included in the minutes. A will not only avoid hard feelings in the
judicial analogy is helpfuL In those states future, but make it easier for new (or
where planning commissions make final potential) commissioners to know what
decisions subject only to court review, is expected.
the court will ordinarily not allow a dis- Let me be clear: in highlighting the
senting commissioner to appear in court role of a community's notms of acceptable'
to testify and argue that the commission's conduct, I am not approaching this from
decision was wrong. f
the standpoint of your legal rights. I you
There are other communities howev- .
h b h' have a questIOn about whether there are
r where t e norm may e t at it is I . . . . .
e , 1 fl' '. egaI restnctIOns agamst certam behaVIOr,
ceptab e or P anmng commiSSiOn I .'
ac _ includin those who disagreed p ease consult your planning commission
members g .. anorney or other legal counsel .
. h h . majority deCISion - 10 appear tr d' .
Wit t e.;., . bod to lain their your cslre to speak out on an issue
before thego.~~~!fg,.::,.~ c.ase~ smaller . uhl,!,atcly conflicts with the norms of
position.1JI~...~i.~f~~i'!~':{A''!' hUe. plan'- .,.~~r5~!n.T:u~~ly. you will need to bal-
counties;. c~ti~~~~s~r~:~..~~..dh!;~J~}!:~~.,~,:conNd" Ihe convene
ning commlSSlO}l. """;'&"~'liil",,~""" . '\dciAilCd~; ''''''''~''u"""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'''.~,!l"klc: arc lhen: lima
:,'>n:Wiili()ut.\{~;':: ~. .... .rorilp.;.~toc>.";Mcmba
Sory in natur~;>"""JJllil;'~<cty:;;'i'!";?\'''''~:' .~. .,~....,,.,.,.;......,.,..., ..... .~"K.'. . ,,:.,., '.
. "".Y.'!>". .. CIUIa-.auJ..,..,,, .
explanation fod~r'" . """".,.
BEING PROACTIVE
ance the effect your action will have on
the credibility and integrity of the plan-
ning commission against the importance
of your expressing personal views on the
issue. In balancing these, remember that
when you accept appointment as a plan-
ning commissioner you are accepting
responsibility associated with being a
public official - and being part of a body
which needs to work together on a vari-
ety of important matters. .
C. Gregory Dale is a
Principal with the plan-
ning and zoning Jirm oj
McBride Dale Clarion in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Dale
manages planning projects
. and conducts training Jor
planning oJficials through-
out the country. He is also a
Jormer President oj the Ohio Chapter oj the Amer-
ican planning Association.
Taking a Closer
Look: Ethics
~
...:~...~_u;"'_.__ 4"~-""-~-
------ .-~-
Pt^NN'NG
~
.
. ... ~... ~ ." ~....,..... ., ,.. ,.. ~., ....,.. (".., < ....-
........."
is a collection of Greg Dales "Ethics
Est the Planning Commission"
columns from the past nine years.
It includes articles on conOicts of in-
terest, ex-parte contacts, bias, accept-
ing gifts, and many other concerns.
Now available for $14.00 ($12.60
for PCj- subscribers). Either call our
office at: 1-888-475-3328 (toll-free)
or order from the PlannersWeb:
-.planncrs'W~b.com
----
FEATURE
Planning Commissioner Perspectives
THE MOST IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTES OF A STRONG
PLANNING COMMISSION
Diversity; Outreach;
Constructive
Recommendations
by Monica Craven
From my perspective, the
three most important charac-
teristics of an effective planning
commission are: 0) a variety of exper-
tise among commissioners, (2) suc-
cessful community outreach, and (3)
the ability to formulate constructive
recommendations to the govern-
ing body.
An effective planning commission is
composed of members with different
backgrounds and expertise. A commis-
sion too heavy in anyone profession, be it
lawyer, architect, planner, developer,
economist, or anyone point of view -
preservationist, environmentalist, pro-
development, anti-development - only
limits the effectiveness of the commission.
An ideal planning commission has a blend
of backgrounds and interests that reflect
the variety of opinions in the community
as a whole.
An effective planning commission
reaches out to the community and does
not limit its interaction with the commu-
nity to a single public hearing. With the
help of the planning staff, the planning
commission can organize and participate
in outreach efforts such as public forums
and walking tours, to name a few. Com-
munity input into a proposed project
before the public hearing can also lead the
developer to improve the project. By
involving the community early in the
process, the effective planning commis-
sion also lays the groundwork not only for
more relevant public testimony, but for a
more cohesive discussion of the issues
among the commission itself.
The third characteristic of an effective
Editors Note: In the last issue of the PIQ/~-
ning Commissioners Journal you heard six
planning board members offer some
advice to new members. In this issue,
three more planning commissioners
speah to the question of what
!
makes for an effective planning
board. We asked them to dis-
cuss what they felt were
the two or three most
important attributes of a
strong planning commis-
sion. The final short essay, by
Teresa Levitch, looks at the role
of the commissions chairperson.
~ We hope to run addition-
al perspectives from planning
commissioners in future issues of the PC]. I
hope some of you will consider sharing
what you've learned with your "colleagues"
across the country. Please call or e-mail
our office (1-888-475-3328, toll free;
pcj@together. net), and we can discuss
what's involved in submitting a short essay.
planning commission is its ability to
give constructive recommendations
to the governing body. A planning
commission that merely rubber ~".
stamps the recommendation ,.X ~:".'
of the planning staff, or is not .&~: ~;' ': 1,.
well educated on the iSSUeS"S;#" ~ .: ~~
at hand, is not in a position '.f.... ,'#~
to make a recommendation .
that will be of any use to elected
officials. However, a planning com-
mission that has done its home-
work throughout the process can
discuss the issues knowledgeably.
After public testimony has been
given, it can hone in on the rele-
vant outstanding concerns, discuss each
separately and thoroughly and, after all
issues have been aired, consider a detailed
motion that includes all aspects of the
project. The effective planning commis-
sion concludes the public hearing not just
with a yea or nay vote but with specific
recommendations that will give the elect-
ed body a framework for its own delibera-
tions.
Monica Craven has been a member of the
Arlington County, Virginia, Planning Commission
since 1994 and chaired the Commission in 1999.
She serves on the Commissions Long-Range Plan-
ning Committee, Site Plan Review Subcommittee,
and chairs the Zoning Ordinance Review Commit-
tee. In her "other life" she is Administrative Assis-
tant to the Superintendent of Schools for the
Catholic Diocese of Arlington.
Knowledge; Willingness
to Listen; Objectivity
by Carl EW Kahn
Three important characteristics of an
effective planning commission are: (1) a
working knowledge of local zoning ordi-
nances in relation to the local history and
the comprehensive plan; (2) a willingness
to listen to the public without compro-
mising local planning principles; and (3)
the ability to be objective in making plan-
ning decisions.
These characteristics are not totally
mutually exclusive, but represent dif-
ferent facets of how an effective plan-
ning commission does its job.
First of all, planning
commissioners must know
the community's guiding
laws - its zoning ordi-
nances. Such knowledge can-
not be merely a memorization
of the ordinances. Rather, it
must involve understanding the
ordinances in the context of
what the community has been and
become; what has contributed
to its success; and what has pre-
vented inappropriate growth and
development.
The second characteristic of an effec-
tive planning commission is a willingness
to listen with sensitivity to the public.
Neither the planning commission nor the
i
i
~:,
t
;~
t
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 40 I FALL 2000
!it)
community's zoning ordinances came into
being or operate in an isolated, sterile, or
ideal environment. Despite a working
knowledge of the ordinances (and per-
haps an inclination therefore to issue deci-
sions as Zeus would from Mount
Olympus), the planning commission
members need to know the perspectives
of the citizens who live in the midst of the
situation the decision would affect.
The third impo,rtant characteristic of
an.effective planning commis-
sion is in some ways the obverse
of the first. It is the planning
commissions ability to be objec-
tive in making decisions, remain-
ing faithful to local ordinances
and plans, despite public pressure
. to decide a matter in a particular way.
The effective planning commission
needs to be aware of such pressures,
but not be swayed by them in mak-
ing a decision.
Carl EW Kohn is a member of the Carroll Val-
ley, Pennsylvania, Planning Commission, and a
retired United Methodist pastor. He also serves on
the Planning Commissioners Journals Editorial
Advisory Board.
Working Relationships;
Community Education;
Ethics
by Jim Harris
An effective planning commission
must enjoy an internal harmony in order
to work with other groups such as elected
officials and professional planners, and
ensure good communication between its
members. The commission should work
together. Organizations which experience
internal conflicts seldom perform well,
and are less likely to unify their energies
towards meeting their goals.
In addition to maintaining good inter-
nal communication, the commission must
have gbOd working relationships with
other organizations in the community.
The most important group the commis-
sion deals with is the city council or other
legislative body. It is important also to
work effectively with other governmental
organizations and agencies such as school
boards, highway departments, federal
agencies, and even other planning com-
missions. A commission must interact
----------
wi t h ci tizens a ncl special in terest groups
to assure that planning is consistent with
community needs and desires.
A planningcoJ11mission should also
take the responsibility to educate the
community. Citizens cannot be expected
10 be familiar with zoning ordinances
and planning matters, but the planning
commission, through the use of public
hearings, public meetings, and joint
work sessions can effectively com-
municate and educate the public.
Public hearings and meetings
allow two-way communi-
cation between the commis-
sion and the community.
The result should pave the
way for improved possibilities
for public support.
Last, but not least, establish
good integrity and a code of ethics
and abide by them. For example,
avoid conflicts of interest and
refuse gifts and favors from anyone if
they are offered. You should also avoid
political activity in which your position as
a planning commissioner may bring influ-
ence. As a planning commissioner you
hold an important position of public
responsibility.
Jim Han"is is a planning commissioner for the
City of North Ogden, Utah. He Jormerly worhed
as an engineer and master planner, and now oper-
ates his own photography and graphic design.
business.
THE ROLE OF THE
COMMISSION'S
CHAIRPERSON
Chairing the Board
by Teresa Levitch
Being appointed the chairperson
of a town planning or zoning board
means that you have a different
responsibility than just attending
meetings. As the chairperson, your
new responsibilities include
making the community feel they
are a part of the process, communicating
with the other town boards, and educat-
ing the public about the planning process.
Many people who attend town plan-
ning or zoning board meetings do not
know the process of a public meeting. You
... ...
have a duty to make sure the meeting is
planned in an efficient and democratic
manner. Many people attending the meet-
ing may not know the proper way or time
to address the board. The chairperson
should have a detailed, well-prepared
agenda and follow it. It is helpful to the
public to have extra copies of the agenda
available, especially at controversial pub-
lic hearings. The chairperson is responsi-
ble for maintaining order. This means
enforcing the rules so the board can work
in the most expedient and impartial man-
ner. Reading a guide to Robert's Rules will
provide you with an outline to follow.
Communication with members of
other town boards is another important
job of the chairperson. One way to do this
is to request copies of each board's min-
utes. You should also have a copy of your
board's minutes sent to the other boards.
This will help ensure that everyone is
aware of the principal issues facing the
town.
The chairperson should also seek
assistance from other organizations when
the planning or zoning board needs some
help in doing its job. In my town in
upstate New York there are a variety of
groups we can draw on, including the
Board of Health, the County Planning
Board, the State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, the Coopera-
tive Extension Service, our State
Association of Towns, and the
New York Planning Federation.
Organizations like these can
provide useful information on
a range of issues, as well as
training opportunities to help
board members in their role.
Chairing your board or
commission is an exciting ven-
ture. You will have an important
role in the community's devel-
opment and land use decision
making process. The decisions
.. you' make and your ability to
~ communicate with members
of your own and other boards make being
the chairperson a challenging job.
Teresa Levitch is Chairperson oj the Zoning
,Board of Appeals in the Town oj Union Vale, locat-
ed in Dutchess County, New Yorh. She lives in a
Hamlet Zone with her husband and two daughters.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 40 I FALL 2000
m
r.
-------
"
WelCOlllC to the
COInInission!
A Guide for
New Members
In conversations we've had with
Planning Commissioners Journal
subscribers, we've heard many plan-
ning directors and long-time com-
missioners express the desire for a
publication that could be handed to
new planning ;. ,.~....,......:.........__.. .
board members L 10 Tips for New Commissioners:
to give them a .~.
h d" 1. Listen!
U ea start on:}
2. Do Your
the role they're Homework
stepping into.
We've tried to
meet this need
with our newest
publication:
Welcome to the
3. Be Polite...
And Patient
4. Ask Questions
5. Avoid "Ex-Parte"
Contacts
6. Educate Yourself
Commission! -
A Guidefor New
Members.
The first half of
the Guide is orga-
nized around 10 key
"tips for new mem-
bers." The second
half introduces new
The Guide for New Members is
40 pages long and incorporates
carefully selected excerpts from past
PC] articles and columns. Illustra-
tions by cartoonist Mark Hughes
help highlight points made in the
text. At the
encl of the
Guide you'll
also find an
annotated
reading list
noting books
of particular
interest to
7. Recognize
Conflicts of
Interest
8. Attend... And
Contribute
. 9. Be Independent
&: Informed
10. Make A
Difference
new commis-
slOners.
We believe
the Guide for New
Members is a publi-
cation you'll want to
provide to new
members. Ordering
information can be
found inside your
mailing envelope.
In case you don't
have the order form,
simply call our
toll free number,
1-888-475-3328, or e-mail us at:
pcj@together.net
The Planning Universe:
-f
. The Planning Commission
. Citizens
· The Local Governing Body
. Planning Staff
. The Law (and Lawyers)
· Developers &: Builders
· The Media
commissioners to
some of the most
important players in
the planning universe'
- starting with a look at the role of
the planning commission itself.
. Nearby Communities
Order collections of article
reprints from back issues
of the PC] focusing on:
. Sprmy/'~if6'ilai?1:andswpe
/.,.;"1.7 ......
· 01;1' fjanging Society
ning Law Primer
ign & Aesthetics
nsportation Planning
· E: 'cs & the Planning
\
COI,~ssion
· New Dtv~ent
Traditional Pat
· Green Infrastructure
Each attractively bound collec-
tion contains between twelve and
fifteen articles related to the topic.
For details or to order contact the
Planning Commissioners Journal at:
Phone: (888) 475-3328
Fax: (802) 862-1882
E-mail: pcj@together.net
www.planncrswcb.com
In Coming Issues of the
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS
r LAN N I N G COM MIS S ION E I( S .J 0 URN A L / N U M I3 E R 4
m