Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-12 Special Called Meeting of the Planning and Zoning CommissionCity of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Notice is hereby given of a Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission to be held on March 20, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. at City Hall Council Chambers, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas, regarding the items of business according to the agenda listed below: 1. Call to order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Consider approval of January 19, 2012, meeting and February 16, 2012, meeting minutes. 4. La Porte Comprehensive Plan Update A. Comprehensive Planning — Purpose & Methodology of Update B. Discussion of Proposed Project Schedule C. Determination of next steps in reviewing and commenting on Draft Plan 5. Administrative Reports 6. Commission Comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information or existing policy 7. Adjourn A quorum of City Council members may be present and participate in discussions during this meeting; however, no action will be taken by Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of La Porte will provide for reasonable accommodations for persons attending public meetings. To better serve attendees, requests should be received 24 hours prior to the meetings. Please contact Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary, at 281.470.5019. CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the March 20, 2012, agenda of items to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board on the day of 12012. Title: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2012 Members Present: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour, Phillip Hoot, and Lou Ann Martin. Members Absent: Danny Earp, Doretta Finch, and Les Bird. City Staff Present: Assistant City Manager, Traci Leach; Planning Director, Tim Tietjens; City Planner, Masood Malik; City Attorney, Clark Askins; Planning Assistant, Shannon Green; Chief Building Official, Debbie Wilmore. 1. Call to order Meeting called to order by Chairman Hal Lawler at 6:06p.m. Chairman Hal Lawler asked for a roll call of members. Danny Earp, Doretta Finch, and Les Bird were not present. 2. Consider approval of November 17, 2011, meeting minutes. Motion by Richard Warren to approve the minutes of November 17, 2011. Second by Helen LaCour. Motion carried. Ayes: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour. Nays: None. Abstain: Phillip Hoot, and Lou Ann Martin 3. Open a Public Hearing to receive public input on Special Conditional Use Permit #11- 91000007, which has been requested by Billy Coleman of ACT Independent Turbo Services, Inc., on behalf of PPG Inc., property owner for the property described as Pt. TRS 1, 2A, 2, 4, 4A, and 23D, Bayport U/R, Section 1, Richard Pearsall Survey, Abstract No. 625, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The applicant seeks approval of a permit for establishing a turbo machinery repair services facility to be located along Bay Area Boulevard near Spencer Highway within Planned Unit Development (PUD) district Commission Member Follis excused himself from discussion during item #3. Mr. Follis filed an Affidavit providing notice of potential Conflict of Interest with the City Secretary's Office prior to the meeting. Chairman Hal Lawler opened the Public Hearing at 6:11 pm. A. Staff Presentation Masood Malik, City Planner, gave staff's report. The subject property (±40 acres) is owned by PPG Industries, Inc. The tract in question is located near the intersection of Spencer Highway and Bay Area Boulevard. The property is surrounded by General Commercial (GC) use district to the north along Spencer Highway, Bay Area Boulevard to the east, undeveloped tracts to west and south along Bay Area Boulevard. The applicant seeks to develop an industrial complex with three turbo service warehouses, shops, offices, and an administration building. Either side across a pipeline easement running through the property will be incorporated into landscaping and drainage/detention facilities along Bay Area Boulevard. An entrance to the proposed complex is shown along southbound Bay Area Boulevard. Prior to the meeting, Commission members received a handout from David Janda regarding the development of ACT Independent Turbo Services. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Although staff provided four (4) options, staff recommends disapproval of the Special Conditional Use Permit #11-91000007. Commission Member Hoot, asked staff how the property is currently taxed and how many people will be potentially employed. Commission Member Hoot voiced concern with turning down manufacturing jobs. Mr. Hoot stated he would like to see the facility move closer to Fairmont rather than Spencer. Mr. Hoot did not want to see the City loose the potential tax dollars by denying the Special Conditional Use Permit 11-91000007. Commission Members discussed possible truck route and the completion of Sens Road by Harris County. Staff informed the Commission, Harris County has pulled the construction of Sens Road from their budget indefinitely. Tim Tietjens, Planning Director, assured the Commission and applicant; the City would love to have their business within the City of La Porte but would rather see ACT in the Industrial District. Commission Member Warren liked the possibility of jobs but noted the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan should be considered. B. Proponents Willis (Billy) Coleman of ACT Independent Turbo Services, Inc, spoke in favor of the Special Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Coleman informed the Commission their plan is to expand the company and double their now 80 employees, within five years. Mr. Coleman stated they were not building a truck terminal business. Thomas Norbit, PPG representative, spoke in favor of the Special Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Norbit stated as long as PPG was operating, they would not sell it for residential development. The property in question currently has an Agriculture Exemption. Mr. Coleman stated the City stands to gain revenue in taxes and higher paying jobs. Chuck Rosa of 812 S. Virginia, spoke in favor of all property owners being allowed to do what they want with their property. Mr. Rosa informed the Commission he wanted the Chairman replaced. C. Opponents There were none. D. Proponents Rebuttal There were none. 4. Close Public Hearing. Chairman Hal Lawler closed the public hearing at 7:15pm. Chairman Hal Lawler called for 5 min break at 7:17pm. Chairman Hal Lawler called the meeting back in session at 7:22pm. 5. Consider recommendation to City Council regarding Special Conditional Use Permit Request #11-91000007. Motion by Phillip Hoot to recommend to City Council approval of Special Conditional Use Permit #11-91000007, for establishing a turbo machinery repair services facility to be located along Bay Area Boulevard near Spencer Highway within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Second by Richard Warren. The motion carried. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Ayes: Richard Warren, Helen LaCour. Phillip Hoot, and Lou Ann Martin. Nays: Hal Lawler Abstain: None Masood Malik, City Planner suggested staff return with a draft SCUP at the February 16, 2012, Planning & Zoning Meeting. Commission Member Hoot asked the applicant what their timeline was to move forward. The applicant, Billy Coleman informed Commission he submitted the application 6 days before the November 17, 2011, Planning & Zoning meeting, and due to the holiday there was no December meeting. It was also suggested that in addition to the item being placed on the February City Council meeting , it be place on the February Planning & Zoning Meeting incase Council referred it to Planning & Zoning Commission again. After further discussion, Commission members by consensus, directed staff to forward Special Conditional Use Permit 11-91000007 to City Council for approval with conditions generated by staff. Chairman Hal Lawler requested staff to call a mandatory workshop to further educate Commission Members on the importance of ethics and the basis for decision making. Commission Member Follis responded by saying he was not required to excuse himself from voting on the matter, but rather he chose to refrain from discussion because he personally knows the applicant. Due to the fact staff recommended denial of the SCUP, a draft SCUP was not prepared by staff. Commission Member Hoot requested that in the future, staff be prepared with options in the event the Commission does not vote in accordance with staffs recommendations. 6. Open Workshop to discuss proposed regulations on group care facilities (a/k/a group homes, community homes, residential personal care homes, living centers and assisted living centers) housing three (3) persons or less. Chairman Hal Lawler opened the public hearing at 6:08 pm. B. Staff Presentation Debbie Wilmore, Chief Building Official, provided the Commission with staff's report by recapping the October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011 workshop information and discussions Ms. Wilmore also reminded the Commission that currently under State and Federal laws, group homes are considered "protected" and cannot be excluded in residential zones. Existing city regulations prohibit "group homes" so these regulations need to be updated to prevent conflict with State and Federal laws. The Commission has the opportunity to recommend conditions or criteria as part of the ordinance update. Commission members had no changes and asked staff to bring back as a Public Hearing to the February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Meeting. 7. La Porte Comprehensive Plan Update A. Overview of Chapter 4, Community Mobility & Draft Thoroughfare Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Chapter 3, Infrastructure & Growth Capacity including Public Safety was reviewed at the November 17, 2011, meeting. Chapter 4, Community Mobility and Draft thoroughfare Plan received earlier this month was distributed to other City Department heads for review. Matt Bucchin, of Kendig Keast, gave a power point presentation of Chapter 4 outlining focus area, goals, actions, and initiatives. Chapter 4 (Community Mobility) is a consolidation of transportation and Thoroughfare System of the previous plan chapters. Comments and suggestions will be incorporated to the plan. Next step is submission of Chapter 5 (Economic Development) and Chapter 6 (Implementation) forjoint P&Z and City Council meeting on February 16, 2012. 8. Administrative Reports Masood Malik invited Commission Members to the Northside Neighborhood Update Plan Meeting at the Jennie Riley Center January 24, 2012 at 6:00pm. 9. Commission Comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information of existing policy. Commission Member Hoot informed the Commission he attended the previous Northside Update Meeting and thought it was very good. Commission Member Warren thanked everyone for attending. Mr. Warren felt there was a lot of confusion and in the future asked the Chairman to call for a short recess. 10. Adjourn Motion to adjourn by Mark Follis. Second by Phillip Hoot. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:06p.m. Ayes: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour. Phillip Hoot, and Lou Ann Martin. Nays: None Abstain: None Submitted by, Shannon Green Planning Assistant Approved on this day of '2012. Hal Lawler Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 16, 2012 Members Present: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour, Phillip Hoot, Lou Ann Martin, Danny Earp, and Doretta Finch. Members Absent: Les Bird. City Staff Present: Assistant City Manager, Traci Leach; Planning Director, Tim Tietjens; City Planner, Masood Malik; City Attorney, Clark Askins; Planning Assistant, Shannon Green; Chief Building Official, Debbie Wilmore; 1. Call to order Meeting called to order by Chairman Hal Lawler at 6:01 p.m. Tim Tietjens announced items 3, 4, & 5, were placed on the agenda as a contingency that Council would forward the item back to Planning and Zoning Commission. No public hearing was necessary as City Council took action at the February 13, 2012, City Council meeting. Chairman Hal Lawler asked for a roll call of members. Les Bird was not present. 2. Consider approval of January 19, 2012, meeting minutes. Motion by Phillip Hoot to table the January 19, 2011, meeting minutes. Second by Richard Warren. Motion carried. Ayes: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour, Phillip Hoot, Lou Ann Martin, Danny Earp, and Doretta Finch. Nays: None Abstain: None 3. Open a Public Hearing to receive public input on Special Conditional Use Permit #11- 91000007, which has been requested by Billy Coleman of ACT Independent Turbo Services, Inc., on behalf of PPG Inc., property owner for the property described as Pt. TRS 1, 2A, 2, 4, 4A, and 23D, Bayport U/R, Section 1, Richard Pearsall Survey, Abstract No. 625, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The applicant seeks approval of a permit for establishing a turbo machinery repair services facility to be located along Bay Area Boulevard near Spencer Highway within Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. This item was removed from the agenda. 4. Close Public Hearing. No public hearing was held. 5. Consider recommendation to City Council regarding Special Conditional Use Permit Request #11-91000007. The item was withdrawn. 6. Open Public Hearing to receive public input regarding proposed regulations governing operation of Group Care Facilities (a/k/a group homes, community homes, residential personal care homes, living centers and assisted living centers). Chairman Hal Lawler opened the public hearing at 6:24pm. A. Staff Presentation Debbie Wilmore, Chief Building Official, provided a recap of staff's report which included Commission comments from discussions at two workshops (October 20, 2011 & January 19, 2012) as well as the previous public hearing (November 17, 2011). Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 16, 2012 Page 2 of 3 The Commission was reminded that currently under State and Federal laws, group care facilities are considered "protected" and cannot be excluded in residential zones. Existing city regulations prohibit "group care facilities" so these regulations should be updated to prevent conflict with State and Federal laws. The Commission has the opportunity to amend, add or delete regulations or criteria as part of the ordinance update. B. Proponents There were none. C. Opponents Chuck Rosa of 812 S. Virginia, spoke against passing the ordinance. D. Proponents Rebuttal There were none. 7. Close Public Hearing. Chairman Hal Lawler closed the public hearing at 7:14pm. 8. Consider recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 106 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances, for the purpose of enacting regulations governing operation of Group Care Facilities. Motion by Danny Earp to approve with the following amendments; 1. Amend the existing "family" definition to distinguish between individuals taking care of family members and individuals operating a group care facility with residents who are "unrelated" to them. 2. Amend the proposed "group care facilities" definition to include ....unrelated to the proprietor of the dwelling and/or establishment and recovering substance users. 3. Amend proposed Section 106-334 Q) (5) [Special use performance standards; residential] language to include.... unrelated to the proprietor of the dwelling and/or establishment.... 4. Amend the Application for Group Care Facility Registration Certificate: 5. Change proposed annual fee to $25.00. 6. Change Registration Requirement (#5) language shown on the Application for Group Care Facility Registration Certificate to read ....unrelated to the proprietor of the dwelling and/or establishment. Second by Doretta Finch Ayes: Hal Lawler, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour, Phillip Hoot, Lou Ann Martin, Danny Earp, and Doretta Finch. Nays: Richard Warren Abstain: None Chairman Hal Lawler called for 10 min break at 7:58pm. Chairman Hal Lawler called the meeting back in session at 8:14pm. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 16, 2012 Page 3 of 3 9. La Porte Comprehensive Plan Update Tim Tietjens, Planning Director, informed Commission mid to late April is the target date to review and discuss the draft plan. Commission Members voiced concern with moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan Update without more information. Commission requested a workshop to review the update more thoroughly, and discuss edits in the language. Staff will schedule a Special Called Workshop in March, 2012. A. Overview of Chapter 5 & 6, Economic Development & Implementation Matt Bucchin, of Kendig Keast, gave a presentation on Chapter 5 & 6 of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 10. Administrative Reports There were none. 11. Commission Comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information of existing policy. Commission Member Warren thanked everyone for attending. Commission Member Hoot requested unanswered questions and unchallenged directives to be included as part of the minutes. Commission Member Follis requested the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt bylaws. Commission Member Earp requested staff copy Commission Members with a copy of the "Heavy Hall Corridor". Commission Member Martin requested a link via email to the original Comprehensive Plan. 12. Adjourn Motion to adjourn by Richard Warren. Second by Helen LaCour. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:54p.m. Ayes: Hal Lawler, Richard Warren, Mark Follis, Helen LaCour, Phillip Hoot, Lou Ann Martin, Danny Earp, and Doretta Finch. Nays: None Abstain: None Submitted by, Shannon Green Planning Assistant Approved on this day of '2012. Hal Lawler Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission U=� INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Alan M. Efrussy, AICP "Planning is the triumph of logic over dumb luck" - Anonymous as quoted by David L, Pugh, AICP "The best offense is a good defense" -Anonymous as quoted by Alan M. Efrussy, AICP The purpose of this chapter is to describe the importance, purposes and elements of the comprehensive plan. This discussion represents the author's perspective and recognizes that there are a number of ways to prepare a comprehensive plan and that different elements may be included in plans, reflecting the particular orientation or emphasis of the community. What is important is that a community has a comprehensive plan. This author and many cities and planning commission members in Texas are indebted to the authors of chapters regarding the comprehensive plan published by the Educational Foundation, Inc. of the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association, as part of earlier editions of the Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities. The earlier authors were Robert L. Lehr, AICP, planner and former Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Oklahoma, and Robert L. Wegner, Sr., AICP, Professor, School of Urban and Public Affairs, at the University of Texas at Arlington. Definition of a Comprehensive Plan A comprehensive plan can be defined as a long-range plan intended to direct the growth and physical development of a community for a 20 to 30 year or longer period. Ideally, and if feasible, it is appropriate to try to prepare a comprehensive plan for the ultimate development of a community. This will allow for ultimate utility, transportation, and community facilities planning, and therefore can aid in a more time and cost-effective planning and budgeting program. The plan usually includes policies relevant to the development of various physical elements in the community such as transportation, housing, recreation, and public facilities. It provides for the distribution and relationships of various land uses. The plan also serves as a basis for future physical development recommendations. These recommendations are supported by a set of goals and objectives drawn from existing conditions and the desires and aspirations of the citizens. Policies are also established to assist in the achievement of the broader goals. Finally, programs and proposals are selected to fulfill the policies deemed appropriate for the community. T. J. Kent, Jr., a major authority on urban planning, defines the comprehensive plan as a community's official statement of policies regarding desirable future physical development. He states that the plan should be comprehensive in scope, general in nature, and long-range in perspective. The comprehensive plan is the single most important document for managing a community's physical growth because it can (and should) consolidate and coordinate physical planning needs and goals and policies, as well as all the separate community studies that address various aspects of physical development in the city. Further, comprehensive planning, to be effective, has to be an on -going process, involving periodic evaluation and updating, the comprehensive plan document, therefore, is one component of this process. To further aid in its effectiveness, the comprehensive plan has to be based on a shared vision of the community. This vision is constructed through consensus -based planning. It should also be recognized that the planning process itself can be understood as a product. The continuing, on -going nature of contemporary comprehensive planning involves learning, mind/consciousness changing, community building, "healing of wounds", constructing new relations, and setting (and refining) direction. These functions are part of the roles of all who are involved in the preparation, implementation, and updating of the community's comprehensive plan. The Importance of Planning in Our Socie "Most every kind of business undertaking, however trivial, is thoroughly planned out before ever being undertaken. Who would build a structure of any consequence without first having secured the best of plans? Of how much more far-reaching consequence is the planning and building of a city? Not one individual is concerned nor one generation, but generations to come will pay very dearly for our mistakes of today. It is an easy matter, for several reasons, to begin correcting our past mistakes right now. For changes become more costly in ratio to the increase in area and population.. Then, too, a thing so easily accomplished if done in time may, if neglected become quite impossible to alter later on in anyway, thereby becoming a nuisance or great inconvenience in after years. We should certainly be broad enough to plan for the next as well as our own generation. For only a little forethought now may save untold expense later, besides adding greatly to the comfort of the present." These words, written to the McKinney (Texas) Courier -Gazette newspaper by Miss Bessie Heard in 1916 concerning the need for a "definite city plan" for McKinney, Texas, are as true today as the day they were written. Cities may have developed sound planning documents in the past. These plans may have served those cities well, directing the growth and development of the community. However, times and physical, social, economic and environmental conditions change. What was a sound and rational decision concerning future development five or ten years ago, based on available information at the time, may not be a desirable solution today. A fundamental purpose, therefore, of the comprehensive plan is to re-evaluate past planning efforts based on current conditions in the community and its environs, and to project a desirable direction for future growth and development of the city: its vision, if you will. A comprehensive plan is a valuable growth -management and development tool for communities regardless of their size -- whether a four -hundred population village or an eight million population metropolis. The Purpose and Use of a Comprehensive Plan Purpose of the Plan - The comprehensive plan should be used as a guide for public decisions which affect the physical development and maintenance of the municipality. For example, the plan may be used as a basis for: 1. Development of detailed physical plans for sub -areas of the municipality; 2. Analysis of subdivision regulations, zoning standards and maps, and other implementation tools; 3. The location and design of thoroughfares and implementation of other major transportation facilities and programs; 4. Identification of areas to be served with utility development or extensions; 5. The acquisition and development of sites for community facilities; 6. The acquisition and protection of major open space; 7. Provision of a framework by which short-range plans (zoning requests, subdivision review, site plan analysis), and day-to-day decisions can be evaluated with regard to their long-range benefit to the community; and, & Preparation of zoning regulations so that they can be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Use Of The Plan - The maps and figures which describe the recommended locations of various land uses and facilities should not be assumed to be the entirety of the plan. They are only one component of the comprehensive plan. Their primary role is to show how policies and standards are to be applied to the actual physical form of the community. Recognize, however, that commitment of citizens to planning is fundamental to the implementation of the recommendations made by maps, figures, and other components in of the plan. Keeping in mind the welfare of the total community in the decision -making process, a user of the comprehensive plan is encouraged to consider the following procedural steps: Step 1: Refer to the future land use plan text and map to ensure over-all consistency of pending decisions with the plan; Step 2: Refer to the other elements of the plan (i.e., residential, commercial, transportation, etc.) for appropriate goals, objectives, and policies; Step 3: Refer to related plans, technical information and/or individualized characteristics of the issue under study; Step 4: Assess the public interests, the technical nature and/or time constraint of the issue under study; and, Step 5: Evaluate information and take appropriate planning and decision -making action. Used in this manner, the community's comprehensive plan will aid in implementing a sound growth -management program. A Note on the Types of American Ci Plans There are many varieties of comprehensive plans. For purposes of this chapter, however, plans for American cities can essentially be characterized by three types: • A Physical Plan: 1. In some cases, characterized by a future land use plan map only; 2, A plan report (or separate plan components) addressing thoroughfares, open space, utilities, and land use mainly; 3. Typically have no goals or objectives; 4. Typical of U.S. plans in the late 1920's through the 1960's (although, of course, there were exceptions); 5. Generally exemplified through the U.S. Department of HUD "701" requirements of 1954; 5. Advantages: At least provides some basis for the management of future physical development of the city; and, 7. Disadvantages: Lacks the depth, stability, and flexibility of land use decisions afforded by goals and objectives. A Policy Plan: 1. Contains only policy discussions, with no future land use plan; 2. Characterized many plans during the 1970's through the mid- 1980's. A type of this management style is reflected in the "management by objectives (MBO)" approach which was practiced by business, industry, and government during this period, and continues to be a management practice favored by some; 3. Advantages: Provides broad -based guidelines for physical growth; 4. Disadvantages: A. Does not graphically depict land use locations, and therefore does not visually discern land use compatibility and spatial relationships, the physical form of the community, or urban design opportunities; B. Makes it difficult to prepare master thoroughfare plans, since the plan cannot accurately portray where land uses and/or densities will be and therefore cannot efficiently predict traffic generation or needed thoroughfare rights -of -way. C. Difficult to prepare the city's zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, since these should be based on fixture land use plans; D. Difficult to locate residential areas in relationship to community facilities, schools, parks, commercial and industrial areas; and, E. Difficult to prepare capital improvement programs that can be linked to growth -staging of land uses. F. Difficult to prepare long-range utility plans, since such utility plans are best made in conjunction with existing land use and future land use plans with associated densities and configurations. Combination Physical Plan with Goals and Obiectives: 1. Characterized many plans from the mid- 1970's through the present; 2. Contains goals and policies plus a future land use plan, supportive reaps and illustrations, and text describing past conditions with directions for future actions or visions of the city; 3. Advantages: A. Provides a technical and policy basis for land use decisions and locations; B. Provides depth to decisions regarding physical development of the community; and, C. Provides the opportunity for consistency of plan implementation through several generations of planning staff, planning and zoning commissions, and city councils. D. Provides a more defensible basis for establishing zoning districts and their supportive requirements. d. Disadvantages: There appear to be few, if any, disadvantages to this type of plan. Some criticisms have been that some social -oriented issues such as education and certain welfare programs are not typically addressed. However, this can be remedied if communities undertake these special studies as components or special -function studies based on the physical -orientation of the comprehensive plan. Other Types of City Planning Programs - There are other kinds ofplanning programs and theories. Examples include, but are not limited to: continuous city planning (M. Branch, 1960's), delphi method (1970's); value constitutions (1970's); visioning (1980's); strategic planning (1970's and into the present); and others. Broader discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter. This author believes the combination physical plan with goals and objectives outlined above is the most productive for comprehensive plans. Elements of a Comprehensive Plan -There are several ways to organize and format the comprehensive plan document. What is important is to ensure that the major components of the physical development of the community are evaluated in conjunction with the goals and policies of the city. Text should be supported with necessary illustrative material. The following outline suggests an organization that will serve to address the major physical development needs in a community: Section 1: Base Studies 1, Introduction A. Historical influences B. Relationship to the community's previous planning studies Comprehensive plans should be related to previous community planning activities, so the planning process remains continuous and evolutionary 2. Framework of the city A. Regional 3. Environmental Factors A. Drainage B. Soils, slopes, elevation C. Floodplains and other water bodies D. Vegetative and wildlife resources 4. Economic Development, Population, and Social Characteristics A. Economic base B. Historical population by age and sex, and other demographic characteristics 5. Existing Land Use A. Categorize each major class of land use by location and acreage (1) Residential, commercial, industrial, public (including unique uses such as military installations,etc.), and parks, recreation and open space (2) Prepare map showing location of types of land uses 6. Transportation A. . Transportation systems and modes (1) Motor vehicle (a) Automobile (b) Trucking/Goods Movement (and routing) (2) Rail (a) Freight (b) Passenger (3) Air (passenger and cargo) (4) Mass transportation (a) Fixed guideway (light or heavy rail, commuter rail, people mover, etc.) (b) Bus (c) Dial -a -ride (d) Van pooling (5) Hike/bike/jogging trails system (6) Major thoroughfare system (a) Local streets (b) Collectors (c) Arterials (d) Freeways and expressways 7. Parks, recreation and open space A, Neighborhood parks B. Community parks C. Regional parks D. Golf courses E. Other open space/recreational amenities (either public or private) 8. Schools A. Elementary B. Junior High C. Senior High D. College and University E. Parochial or private F. Other (public and/or private) G. Enrollment vs. school capacity Housing A. Age of structures B. Own6r/renter occupied C. Number of dwelling units by type D. Housing condition E. Neighborhood revitalization opportunities 10. Community Facilities A. Municipal buildings B. Police C. Fire D. Library 11. Utility System A. Water B. Sanitary sewer C. Storm sewer D. Solid waste E. Natural gas, telephone, electric, cable T.V. 12. Community physical needs, problems, and opportunities (to be translated into goals, objectives, and policies) Section 2: Goals Oblectives and Policies I. Definition of goals, objectives and policies 2. Potential conflict in application between goals, objectives, and policies 3. Issues, opportunities, and problems related to the physical development of the community A. Community's values B. Uniqueness C. Connective opportunities D. Potential application of new planning concepts 4. Goals, objectives and policies should be prepared for each of the major elements in Base Studies, as well as for plan implementation 5. The Future Land Use Plan (see Section 3 following) should graphically reflect as many goals as possible 6. Growth strategies for annexations, utility extension, redevelopment, revitalization, etc. Section 3: The Future flan 1. Urban design standards and criteria 2. Future community facilities requirements 3. Future school plan map 4. Future parks, recreation and open space plan map A. Joint school/park facilities by type B. Open space plan C. Coordination with other cities, county, and/or regional open space systems facilities 5. Utility system plan map 6. Transportation system plan A. Use components described under Transportation. in Section 1: Base Studies B. Integrate, where feasible, the community's multi -modal transportation system C. Integrate, where feasible, subregional and/or adjacent city or county multi - modal transportation systems 7. Future land use plan map A. This is the most important graphic in the comprehensive plan B. The future land use plan map should reflect all the major land use categories (1) This map should be a generalized plan illustrating patterns of land use density, location, configuration, and relationships of the various land use categories, configuration, and relationships of the various land use categories (2) An example set of land use categories (legend) would be as follows: (i) Private Use Of Land (a) Residential (b) Estate (0.5 to 1.5 dwelling units/acre) (c) Low density (3.5 dwelling units/acre) (d) Medium density (6.0 to 12.0 dwelling units/acre) (e) High density (12+ dwelling units/acre) (1) recommended location (2) generalized location (as applicable) (ii) Commercial (a) Retail/community (b) Office and/or office park (c) General commercial (d) Regional shopping center (iii) Industrial (a) Light industry and office -research (b) Heavy industry (iv) Agricultural rural and open space (a) Public Use Of Land (i) Schools --existing and proposed (1) elementary (2) junior high (3) senior high (4) other (ii) Other uses (iii) Parks --existing and proposed (1) Neighborhood (2) Community (3) Regional (4) Other (iv) Floodplain (c) Master Thoroughfare Plan (i) Major thoroughfares (ii) Local street (iii) Collector (iv) Arterial (v) Freeway and expressway C. As much as possible, the future land use plan should be a graphic representation of the goals, objectives, and policies. A Note on Graphics in the Comprehensive Plan - As the city's population is informed and involved through the comprehensive planning process in establishing and implementing their shared vision of the future, the plan's goals and objectives as well as other plan recommendations will aid in achieving that vision. That vision will be strongly enhanced through the incorporation of effective "visionary graphics" in the plan document. As. opposed to technical maps, site plans, charts, etc., visionary graphics can be free -hand sketches, photos, paintings, or renderings that indicate, for example: (a) how a street can be transformed into a landscaped thoroughfare that ties various land uses together; (b) how a park could look as it relates to surrounding neighborhoods; (c) howvarious heights of structures, in conjunction with other urban design elements, can frame a major thoroughfare (or freeway) and translate it into an attractive setting; and (d) how a commercial corridor can be translated into an attractive streetscape, with a positive relationship to surrounding residential areas, buffered with landscaping materials. These are only several examples, of course. Those preparing the comprehensive plan should determine the level of acceptance and/or change, regarding visionary graphics, that can be comfortably accommodated by the planning commission, city council, and general public. Through this process, a consensus can be established regarding "how the community should look". Then, through implementation tools, like the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and development reviews, this vision can be createdin reality. In summary, "visionary graphics" can capture the public's imagination and aid in understanding complex proposals and concepts. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. Plan Implementation lementation A criticism that is sometimes made regarding the comprehensive plan is: "Hey, its no good; why it just sits on the shelf and gathers dust". This criticism is sometimes justified. H a plan just "sits on the shelf' it is because it has not been implemented. This sometimes occurs because the planning staff/consultants (or others) who prepared the plan did not adequately involve and inform the citizens, planning commission and/or city council regarding plan implementation. Another reason for non -implementation is lack of linkage of the long-range comprehensive plan to day-to-day planning decisions carried out by the staff, the planning and zoning commission, and/or the council. Yet another reason for "gathering dust" is the failure to consistently keep the long-range physical vision of the community before municipal officials, the development community, and the general public. These pitfalls maybe avoided by discussing within the comprehensive plan document those elements that comprise the plan implementation program. Again, implementation is one element in the on -going comprehensive planning process. The comprehensive plan should contain recommendations for the utilization of land and resources as they relate to the future development of the community. The plan provides the community with a reference framework for undertaking and evaluating development projects in regard to long-range goals. It also provides short-range guidelines for reviewing proposals for site plans, rezonings, and proposed subdivisions of land. The plan will be useful only to the extent that it is implemented. Implementation will occur as various actions are taken by the municipality and other public agencies, developers, business, industry, and private citizens. These action steps can include voluntary public compliance with the plan proposals, coordination by the planning and zoning commission ofplans and proposals made by other levels of government with the recommendations in the plan, and municipal actions taken in regard to site plans, requests for rezonings, and new subdivision proposals. Many communities already have the tools available that are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. For example, many cities have adopted and are enforcing zoning and subdivision regulation ordinances. These will help eliminate many of the problems related to future development by giving local governing officials the proper instruments of control necessary to ensure orderly growth, It is especially important to provide adequate regulations for the unincorporated areas within the planning area, since these areas are oftentimes intended to be ultimately annexed. Currently in Texas, municipal zoning does not extend beyond city limits; however, subdivision regulations can be enforced within the city=s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ET7). Other mechanisms available to a community to implement its comprehensive plan are described in the following paragraphs. Public Acceptance by Citizens Because public acceptance of the comprehensive plan is important, public involvement in plan preparation is essential. Citizens who make individual investment decisions concerning future development must believe that the plan offers sound recommendations for growth issues and, therefore, assures them of both suitable return on and protection for their investment. This assurance will encourage voluntary compliance with the plan. Nevertheless, strong civic leadership, both inside and outside local government, is needed on a continuing basis to publicize the plan, emphasize its value, and encourage its acceptance as a guide to sound community development. Actions by the Planning and Zoning Commission - The community's planning and zoning commission is an advisory body to the city council, and one of the commission's prime responsibilities is to develop plans for the future of the community. A major element in fulfilling this responsibility should be participation in development of the comprehensive plan. The commission should participate with citizens from all parts of the community in a series of public meetings set up for this purpose. It cannot be assumed that agencies or individuals (developers, businesspeople, etc.) will always desire to make their individual plans conform to the community's comprehensive plan. Planning and zoning commissions have authority to review zoning proposals and make recommendations to the city council for their approval or disapproval, and planning commissioners should work to assure that subdivision plats are in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Adoption and Review of the Comprehensive PIan by ,the City Council - It is recommended that, after public hearings and recommendation by the planning commission, the council should adopt the comprehensive plan. After adoption, the plan should be consistently used by both the commission and the city council as an important reference guide in their decisions regarding future rezonings, subdivisions, site plans, capital expenditures, and other decisions related to the physical growth and development of the community. Updating the Plan - To keep the plan viable, it should be reviewed periodically as new information becomes available. Major reviews of the plan should typically occur every three to five years, with minor revisions being made annually or as necessary. The scope and extent of plan revisions, of course, depends on the rate and trends of growth, the availability of new data, and other changes which might have an effect on the viability of the plan. w 0 C-i 0 a) 0 0 N �O L n a W N_ W w a) w 0 C-i O a 2 m 0 0 m �o n a q > w m g 0 ® D § : O w D- V) E $ // o )\2\ \ 0 E 3 E \ 7 / £•\ 2 g/ 0 /�/�J/C,5 V) � J E'E 2 \ & ? ° e x § g ° ° ° ( ° 9 E / / ®� h } Q —D / / o 0 Q— D- V 2 E 0// g/ 6§/\ 2 C3 ��o:T- E���D0 / / / r CS 9 4 4 a 0 E D-o E E 0 e E O'i e e@ J . i o //////Gc/\fƒƒ/3 @ @ E = * * * * * * * * * * * * E /./ 6\ ,,02 /I §/\/ /*0 0'( V �// D � '\U V)3 [ / E E •* E- E E 'i / /\ //ƒ / // /$II I I /$ sI sI � /O /O f % h % % \ \ \ \ \ D- D- w 0 C-i O a 0 � m 0 0 m �o n a q > w m 0 g ® § 10 ƒ m c / f e 'o ) a $ \ / ) \DLUgf / / § / / / * /E DOc§g e ///// E J� / E / o 0 / 0 o E / § / •9 U 0 0 E D.- 3- 2E§§°/ :on E o/ © e p•[•o =) E) o / o / o/E © @ ® / / = c f / D- 2 C3 \fƒƒ3/Q£f//\ i 2/% J _* @ o * * * * * * * * * / 0 E 2 /: / IL <' D/ \ ./ 0 \ 0E/ \/ / e \ G -C g 0 © § o 0 / E 2 2 V) V) 4 D 2 / / E / / E ƒ • E § f / $ \ / /\//ƒIL / / O ƒD / E 0 j \\. U // // IL / °} = // //= E = ; aO aO T6U . 2•. )§, / c / / \ / // \' / / / / D