The Walker Collaborative: ”A Proposal to prepare the Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan”

8/14/2019 The Walker Collaborative: A Proposal to prepare the Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan

1/18

A Proposal

to prepare the

Lookout MountainComprehensive Plan

Presented to the:

City of Lookout Mountain, Georgia

Presented by:

The Walker Collaborative

With:

Third Coast Design StudioStreet Smarts

Revised: May 4, 2009


2/18

Contents Page

TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

Team Overview . . . . . . . 1

The Firms: Summary, Personnel & Experience . . . 1

References & Plan Examples . . . . . 7

PROJECT APPROACH

Organization & Responsibilities . . . . . 8

Scope of Services . . . . . . . 8

PROJECT SCHEDULE & COSTS

Project Schedule . . . . . . . 15

Projects Costs . . . . . . . 16

APPENDIX: FIRM INFORMATION

The Walker Collaborative

The Walker Col-laborative led thecreation of Look-out MountainsTown CenterPlan. That plan

was based on astrong public input process,which enabledthe end product togain broad com-munity support.


3/18

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 1 of 16 TE

A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S

The Walker Collaborative Team

TEAM OVERVIEW

The Walker Collaborative (TWC) is involved in all general areas of community planning, including comprehen-

sive planning, corridor planning, downtown and commercial district planning, and neighborhood planning. TWCalso prepares zoning ordinances and design standards, including form-based codes. Principal Philip Walker,

AICP has led the creation of dozens of plans in various communities throughout the country, in addition to hisexperience implementing plans as a city planning director. In 2006 he led the creation of Midway, Georgias,

citywide comprehensive plan. To support TWC in the creation of the Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan,TWC has assembled the optimal team to address all of the key issues in a holistic manner. The proposedProject Team firms include:

The Walker Collaborative: Nashville, Tennessee project management, comprehensive planning, com-

munity visioning

Third Coast Design Studio: Nashville, Tennessee land planning, urban design, and landscape design

Street Smarts:Duluth, Georgia transportation planning, traffic engineering

It is proposed that The Walker Collaborative serve as the prime contractor with the City, with the proposed sub-consulting firms contracting with The Walker Collaborative.

THE FIRMS: SUMMARY, PERSONNEL & EXPERIENCE

The Walker CollaborativeThe Walker Collaborative (TWC) is the award-winning planning firm of Philip L. Walker, AICP, who has overtwenty years of experience with community planning in both the public and private sectors. Based in Nashville,

Tennessee, and established in 2002, TWC is founded upon the principle that rarely is any one firm uniquelyqualified for a particular urban planning project. Rather than using a firm-based approach, TWC employs a

person-based approach. TWC initiates each project by first determining the necessary areas of expertise,and then identifying the most effective individuals to form the Project Team. Team members are determined by

balancing professional expertise and experience with considerations of geography, professional relationships,personalities, and planning philosophies. Only by employing this person-based approach can the optimalProject Team be assembled for any given project. TWCs 2007 Core City Comprehensive Planfor High Point,

North Carolina, won the Plan of the Year Award for comprehensive plans for large communities from the NorthCarolina Chapter of the American Planning Association.

Philip L. Walker, AICP Project Manager

Phil Walkers public sector experience consists ofserving as the Executive Director of the Downtown

Improvement Board for Pensacola, Florida, and theCity Planning Director for Natchez, Mississippi.

Phils private sector experience includes Associ-ate positions with Hintz-Nelessen Associates inPrinceton, New Jersey, and Christopher

Chadbourne and Associates in Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts. He also had his own firm, Commu-

nity Planning & Research, Inc., based in Nashvillebetween 1995 and 1998. During that period he led

the visioning, comprehensive planning and codedevelopment process for the newly-incorporated

TWCs award-winning plan for High Point,North Carolina, proposed eight mixed use centers.


4/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S


The Walker Collaborative led a community visioning process for Kingsport, Tennessee, that in-cluded computer simulations to show how existing road corridors (left) could develop out (right).

Town of Nolensville, Tennesse, located in rural Williamson County. From 1998 to 2002, he served as the

Director of Planning for the Nashville office of Looney Ricks Kiss Architects (LRK). While with LRK he leda plan for a 50 square mile rural area called the Grays Creek Area in western Shelby County, Tennessee.Since establishing TWC in 2002, Phil has served as the Project Manager for dozens of community planning

projects - ranging from urban to rural contexts - throughout the country. Recent/current projects include: theRoute 17 Corridor Planfor Isle of Wight County, Virginia; the Midway Comprehensive Planfor Midway,

Georgia; and the Lee County Comprehensive Planfor Lee County, Mississippi. Phil has been a member ofthe American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) since 1989, and he is currently an instructor for the

University of North Alabama where he leads various continuing education classes for professional planners.He holds a bachelor s degree in Historic Preservation from Middle Tennessee State University, a mastersdegree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Florida, and a masters degree in Real Estate

Development from Harvard University.

Relevant Project ExperiencePhil Walker has played a key role in the sample projects listed below through The Walker Collaborative.

Projects for which he was the Project Manager have been asterisked (*):

Lee County Comprehensive Plan:Lee County, Mississippi (current)*

Wilson Comprehensive Plan:Wilson, North Carolina (current)

Little Rock Preservation Plan:Little Rock, Arkansas (current)

Clemmons Comprehensive Plan:Clemmons, North Carolina (current)

Manassas Viewshed Preservation Plan:Prince William County, Virginia (current)*

Cary Preservation Plan:Cary, North Carolina (current)

Forest Hills Open Space Plan:Forest Hills, Tennessee (2008)

Northport Downtown & Riverfront Plan, Zoning & Design Standards:Northport, Alabama (2008)*

Washington Drive District Plan:High Point, North Carolina (2008)*

Lookout Mountain Town Center Plan:Lookout Mountain, Georgia (2008)*

Route 17 Corridor Plan:Isle of Wight County, Virginia (2007)

College Hill Neighborhood Plan:St. Louis, Missouri (2007)*

High Point Core City Comprehensive Plan:High Point, North Carolina (2007)* Chancellorsville Land Use & Transportation Plan:Spotsylvania County, Virginia (2007)

Pleasant Grove Plan & Consulting:Pleasant Grove, Utah (2006-2007)

Midway Comprehensive Master Plan:Midway, Georgia (2006)*

Pinehurst NewCore Area Visioning:Pinehurst, North Carolina (2005)

Kingsport Visioning, Planning Recommendations & Code Revisions:Kingsport, Tennessee (2005)*

MidTown Columbus Redevelopment Plan: Columbus, Georgia (2004)


5/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S

The Walker Collaborative TeamThird Coast Design StudioThird Coast Design Studio is a planning, urban design, and architecture firm located in Nashville, Tennessee.The firm has over twenty years of combined experience pertaining to a wide range of urban design and planning

projects for a variety of clients. Prior to establishing the firm, Principals Keith Covington and Lee Jones led theMetro Nashville Planning Departments Urban Design Studio. They gained ten years of experience during this

time, raising the quality of life and standard of living for Metro residents by creating better places for them to

live. Their projects during this time ranged from long-range master plans for thousands of acres in the least-developed areas of the county to the revitalization of urban city blocks through their form-based codes.

Since starting Third Coast Design Studio, their primary focus has been the creation of walkable neighborhoods.

The firm has worked across the country designing new communities, revitalizing major transportation corridors,enhancing existing downtowns, and creating new town centers. Their approach to design and planning combines

empirical design principals, community participation, and realistic implementation strategies. The Principalsindividual backgrounds in architecture and landscape architecture provide unique insight into the urban design

problems of today, which are directly linked and dependent on both fields. Primary services include sitemaster planning, urban design, form-based zoning codes, and design review. Additional services includelandscape design and residential architecture.

Working with The WalkerCollaborative, Third CoastDesign Studio created a Con-cept Plan for St. Louis Col-lege Hill Neighborhood.

Keith Covington, AIA, CNU

Keith Covington is a registered architectwho brings over fifteen years ofprofessional experience in architecture,

urban design, and planning to ThirdCoast Design Studio. Keith earned his

Bachelor of Architecture at theUniversity of Tennessee and his Masters

of Architecture in New Urbanism atAndres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-

Zyberks program through the Universityof Miami in Coral Gables. As a graduateof these programs, Keith has developed

a unique understanding of traditional

patterns of design from the scale of theregion down to the scale of the building.Keith applies time-tested principles of

urbanism to all of his projects to achievea true sense of community inneighborhoods, districts, towns and

cities. While he is an accomplishedarchitect whose work has been

published in Southern Living Magazine,Keiths primary focus is to create

walkable environments that balance theneeds of the pedestrian with those of the automobile. He has lectured extensively on this subject across thecountry. Prior to forming Third Coast Design Studio, Keith was the director of the Metro Nashville Planning

Departments Urban Design Studio where he helped reinvent Nashvilles approach to planning and coding.

Lee JonesLee Jones brings seven years of professional experience in urban design, planning, and landscape design

to Third Coast Design Studio. Prior to receiving a degree in Landscape Architecture, Lee initially earned aBA in Political Science, providing him with a versatile set of skills to think critically about public policies andtheir consequences. These skills have enabled him to write effective form-based codes for developers and

municipalities, as well as assist clients through cumbersome and lengthy processes and ordinances. Witha background in Landscape Architecture, one of Lees key strengths is his ability to inventory and analyze


6/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S

The Walker Collaborative Teamphysical site characteristics that may influence site design, whether properties consist of hundreds of

acres or hundreds of square feet. Prior to joining Third Coast Design Studio in late 2006, Lee spent fiveyears with the Metro Nashville Planning Department serving as director of the departments Urban DesignStudio in his final year. While with the Planning Department, Lee served as Metro Nashvilles Greenways

Coordinator, drafted amendments to Metros Zoning Code, and solved urban design problems within thecity through leading public-participatory design charrettes and writing form-based codes.

Relevant Project Experience

Third Coast Design Studio has participated in the following projects:

New Communities

The Enclave:Pleasant View, Tennessee

Woodlane Traditional Neighborhood Development:Eufaula, Alabama

Evergreen Hills Traditional Neighborhood Development:Nashville, Tennessee

Triangle Pointe Traditional Neighborhood Development:Nashville, Tennessee

Pleasant View Village Traditional Neighborhood Development:Pleasant View, Tennessee

Revitalization of Existing Communities

Fischer Steel Master Plan:Memphis, Tennessee (led by Code Studio)

Washington Drive District Plan:High Point, North Carolina (led by Walker Collaborative)

Sheridan Triangle Master Plan:Peoria, Illinois (led by Farnsworth Group)

Northport Downtown & Riverefront Plan:Northport, Alabama (led by Walker Collaborative)

Natchez Riverfront Concept Plan:Natchez, Mississippi (led by Walker Collaborative)

Downtown Portales Master Plan:Portales, New Mexico (led by Code Studio)

College Hill Neighborhood Plan:St. Louis, Missouri (led by Walker Collaborative)

Heart of Peoria Plan Charrette:Peoria, Illinois (led by Ferrell Madden Associates)

Broad Avenue Initiative:Memphis, Tennessee (led by Ferrell Madden Associates)

West End Park Urban Design Overlay:Nashville, Tennessee*

Bedford Avenue Urban Design Overlay:Nashville, Tennessee*

Development Studies

Cane Ridge Town Center:Nashville, Tennessee

Sycamore Landing:Pleasant View, Tennessee

Capitol West:Nashville, Tennessee

Chantilly Town Center:Pike Road, Alabama

Flynn Property Traditional Neighborhood Development:Metamora Illinois

Coldwater Creek Traditional Neighborhood Development:Summerdale, Alabama

McLemore Plantation:Pike Road, Alabama

Waugh Gateway:Pike Road, Alabama

Form-Based Codes

The Enclave:Pleasant View, Tennessee

Woodlane Traditional Neighborhood Development:Eufaula, Alabama

Village of Metamora Traditional Neighborhood Development Code:Metamora, Illinois

Evergreen Hills Traditional Neighborhood Development:Nashville, Tennessee

Triangle Pointe Traditional Neighborhood Development:Nashville, Tennessee

Harding Town Center Urban Design Overlay:Nashville, Tennessee*

An asterisk (*) designates projects completed for previous employers.


7/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S

The Walker Collaborative TeamStreet Smarts

Street Smarts was founded in early 1990 as a sole proprietorship and incorporated in 1991. The firm providesservice to both the public and private sectors in transportation engineering, civil/site engineering, trafficengineering, transportation planning, transit analysis, traffic signal design and timing, training, planning and

zoning work, impact studies, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), analysis programs, goods movement,impact fees, parking studies, roadway and site design, engineering, survey services, subsurface utility

engineering, public involvement and facilitation, computer modeling, data collection, freight planning, parkingstudies, landscape planning and design, and geographic information services (GIS). They have served many

hundreds of clients, many on multiple projects, from single site developments to statewide efforts. At present,the firm has a staff of more than 100 full-time employees. Street Smarts Duluth, Georgia, office will beworking with The Walker Collaborative Team on this project for Lookout Mountain.

Marsha Anderson Bomar

Marsha Anderson Bomar has over 30 years of experience in transportation planning, traffic engineering,public involvement, education and training, meeting facilitation, traffic analysis, management and administration

of transportation and traffic engineering projects, master transportation plans and studies, transit systemsplanning parking studies and design analyses, freight studies, and general research. Marsha has servedas the Principal-In-Charge and Project Manager for more than 200 traffic impact and transportation master

plan studies, including major data collection and analysis efforts. She has extensive experience in facilitatingpublic meetings/hearings/probe group charettes. She has also led an effort in transportation modeling

using microcomputer technology (TranPlan, TModel2, QRS-II, TransCad) and is author of a text on the useof TRANPLAN. Her education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Polytechnic

Institute of Brooklyn (1973), a Master of Science degree in Transportation Planning and Engineering fromPolytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (1975), a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering - Transportationfrom Princeton University (1978), and a Master of Arts degree in Civil Engineering from Princeton University

(1979). Her affiliations include: Institute of Transportation Engineers (Fellow), Past International President,Technical Council Committee Chair, Marble Hensley Individual Activity Award, Transportation Planners and

Goods Movement Councils Chair Transportation Research Board, Member Assorted CommitteesTransportation Research Forum (Associate) Womens Transportation Seminar, Past chapter President and

Board Member American Society of Civil Engineers (Member) Gwinnett County Chamber of CommerceVision 2020 Panelist 1995 and 1997 Finalist, Small Business Person of the Year Atlanta Business Chronicle

- National Panelist representing the countrys fastest-growing businesses, 2003.

Relevant Project Experience

Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Projects

Gwinnett Place CID Redevelopment Plan: Duluth, Georgia (2008) Georgia DOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program - Public Involvement: Georgia (2009 - 2011)

Keep Mobile Moving: Mobile, Alabama (2007-present) LaGrange, GA Downtown Redevelopment Plan (1995) Norfolk Southern Railway Intermodal Facility, Austell, Georgia (2006)

University of Georgia, Athens, GA Baldwin Street Corridor Traffic Calming (2005) ACOG - Cheney Stadium : Atlanta, Georgia (1996)

BP Oil: Augusta, Georgia (1998)

Principal Place Development: Atlanta, Georgia (1990-1997) Signal Warrant Analyses, Park and Ride Lot location studies: Woodstock, Georgia (1998-2004) Intersection Studies, Signal designs throughout Cobb County, Georgia (1992-present) Corridor Studies: Fulton County, Georgia (1993-present)

Corridor Studies, Traffic Studies, Engineering Designs, Gwinnett County, Georgia (1991-present) Traffic Studies, Signal design, Staff extension: Rockdale County, Georgia (2000-present)

Access and Circulation Studies (1995-present): Akers Mill Square Shopping Center, Marietta, GA


8/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S


Street Smarts is providing publicinvolvement services for the Geor-gia Department of Transporta-tions Statewide TransportationImprovement Program.

Beaver Ruin Road Business Park, Myrick and Co., Norcross, GA Chattahoochee Corners Office Park, Alter Group, Duluth, GA Clayton County, GA, Route 138, Waaland Realty Emerik Properties, Warehouse, Norcross, GA Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Atlanta, GA Hedgewood Properties subdivision, Fulton County, GA

Historic Downtown Duluth, GA Hometrust Bank, Duluth, GA LaGrange Truck Stop, LaGrange, GA McDonalds Restaurant, Stone Mountain, GA Mead Corporation, Stevenson Alabama Paper Mill Expansion Principal Place, Rostland-Georgia, Atlanta, GA Rockbridge Road, City of Stone Mountain, GA Ronald Reagan Parkway, Gwinnett County and City of Snellville, GA Saint Josephs Hospital, Cooper Carry and Associates, Dunwoody, GA Spalding Drive, Gwinnett/Fulton Counties, GA West Paces Medical Center, The Palisades, Atlanta, GA World Changers Ministries, Old National Highway area, Atlanta, GA

Public Involvement: Clark Avenue Extension: Albany, GA(2006) SR 133 (Valdosta to Moultrie) - (2007-present) Note: Won GPTQ Award in 2007 Sandy Spring Revitalization (2005-2006)


9/18


A

M

QU

A

L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

S


REFERENCES & PLAN EXAMPLES

References

Below are references for four projects of The Walker Col-laborative (TWC). All but the Wilson, NC, plan were under

the project management of Phil Walker. References for theProject Teams sub-consultants can be provided upon re-quest.

Wilson Comprehensive Plan (current)Denise Boswell, PhD - Senior Planner

City of WilsonPO Box 10

City of Wilson, North Carolina 27894(252) 399-2214

Northport Downtown & Riverfront Plan (2008)

Katherine Ennis, AICP Director of City PlanningCity of NorthportPO Box 569Northport, AL 35476

(205) 469-4243

High Point Core City Comprehensive Plan (2007)

Lee Burnette, AICP Director of City PlanningCity of High Point

211 South Hamilton StreetHigh Point, NC 27261

(336) 883-3328

Midway Comprehensive Plan (2006)

Don Emmons MayorCity of Midway10490 E. Oglethorp Hwy.

Midway, Georgia 31320(912) 884-3344

Plan Examples

Below are website links to recently-completed plans led byThe Walker Collaborative. Several additional TWC plans

can be found on the websites of other local governments.

Northport Riverfront & Downtown Plan- Northport, Alabama

(2008) - http://www.cityofnorthport.com/Defaultasp?ID=190&pg=Planning+Zoning+and+Community+Department

Core City Comprehensive Plan- High Point, North Caro-

lina (2007) - http://www.high-point.net/plan/corecity.cfm

Midway Comprehensive Plan- Midway, Georgia (2006) -

http://historicmidway.com/downloads/MasterPlan.pdf

TWCs award-winning plan forNorthport, AL, evolved from a conceptplan (top), to a district plan, to physi-cal plans, to renderings (bottom).


10/18


11/18

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 9 of 16 PR

O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

The Walker Collaborative TeamBelow is a summary of each task.

Task 1.0: Analysis & VisioningThis initial task will serve as the research and diagnostic phase

on which the balance of the work will rely. The Project Team

will perform the sub-tasks described below over a two (2) daytrip to Lookout Mountain, as well as through work conductedprior to and following this trip (Note: not all Project Team mem-bers will need to spend the full two days in Lookout Moun-

tain):

Task 1.1 Collect & Review Background InformationPrior to making the initial trip to Lookout Mountain, the Project

Team will review key information provided by the City to gaininsights into the projects overall context. Such information

will include, but not be limited to: development regulations,relevant studies and plans (including the current Comprehen-sive Plan), economic and demographic data, real estate mar-

ket information, traffic data, existing conditions maps (topog-raphy, land uses, roads, etc.), and aerial photo maps. Some

of this information will be in the form of GIS mapping providedby Walker County. Information will be provided only to the

extent that it is available, as it is recognized that not all infor-mation listed above will be available. The Project Team willnot be responsible for conducting survey work to gather data.

SUMMARY

Task 1.0 Analysis & Visioning

Task 1.1: Collect & ReviewBackground Information

Task 1.2: Project InitiationMeeting & Study Area Tour

Task 1.3: Physical Analysis

Task 1.4: Socio-EconomicAnalysis

Task 1.5: Stakeholder Focus

Group Meetings

Task 1.6: Public Kick-Off

Meeting & Vision Survey

Task 1.7: Draft Goals &Objectives

Task 1.2 Project Initiation Meeting & Study Area TourThis meeting between the Project Team, City officials, and other appropriate parties will fine-tune the projectdetails and allow the Project Team to gain additional insights from the City. The team will also obtain any

available information not previously provided by the City up to this point. The study area wind shield tour will

be led by City officials, with subsequent follow-up work by the Project Team as part of Task 1.3.

Task 1.3 Physical Analysis

As part of the initial fieldwork for the project, the Project Team will document and evaluate the study areasgeneral physical characteristics by reviewing maps, making field notes, and photographing key issues relatedto the study area and plan. Based upon that field work and existing data, the Project Team will conduct an

evaluation of the study areas existing conditions, with an emphasis on:

Existing environmental constraints (wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, etc.)

Existing land uses, densities and development forms Specific areas and their potential for enhancement and/or redevelopment

Roads, trails, and other transportation facilities Existing and potential public spaces, parks, recreation facilities, and greenways

Community facilities Utilities and infrastructure Historic resources

Housing Industries and commercial areas

Task 1.4 Socio-Economic Analysis

The Project Team will analyze data relevant to the following issues:

Demographics


12/18


O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

The Walker Collaborative Team Economics

Housing Other related issues

Much of this data may come from US Census data.

Task 1.5 Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings

The City will identify key stakeholders who can provide useful information and perspectives on the variousissues affecting the study area. Up to five (5) meetings with various stakeholder groups will be led by keymembers of the consulting Project Team, with each meeting including up to approximately ten (10) individualshaving a common interest in the study area. Each meeting will last roughly one (1) hour, and examples of

potential stakeholder groups include the following:

Residents and neighborhood groups

Property owners and real estate professionals Business owners/operators and economic development representatives

Special interest groups (historic preservationists, environmentalists, cyclists, etc.) City representatives (elected officials, commission members and department heads) and other public

officials (county, regional, etc.)

Task 1.6 Public Kick-Off Meeting & Vision SurveyPrior to the Task 1.0 trip to Lookout Mountain, the Project Team will develop a draft version of a Vision Surveyusing PowerPoint software. The Vision Survey is a tool used to gauge visually-based community preferences

related to a variety of physical planning issues that will be addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Examplesof issues to be tested include residential densities, residential development character, commercial develop-

ment character, roads, and public facilities. The survey will feature a forced choice methodology in whichparticipants view four images per screen representing the same topic and choose their preferred image. Therewill also be opportunities for respondents to indicate why they made their choices. The draft survey will beprepared well ahead of time so the City can review it and suggest changes prior to the Task 1.0 trip to LookoutMountain. This survey will be administered by the Project Team during the Task 1.6 meeting. Participants will

be provided with a survey form to fill out during the meeting (written by the Project Team and printed by theCity), and the results will be tabulated by the City. The Project Team will later evaluate the tabulated results

and include them in the Comprehensive Plan document, as well as incorporate the results into the plansideas. The City may choose additional means to administer the survey beyond the single public meeting,

such as on the Citys website or as hard-copies that are distributed and returned to the City.

Although the exact agenda for the public kick-off meeting will be determined with input from City, thisinteractive forum conducted on the first evening of the two-day trip might feature the following components:

Introduction of City representatives and Project Team members Explanation of the project process and objectives

Identification of the communitys challenges and opportunities Identification of model communities/places

Vision Survey

Task 1.7: Goals & Objectives

Following the Task 1.0 trip to Lookout Mountain, and based upon all of the work completed to date, includingthe results of the Task 1.0 community visioning, the Project Team will prepare the first draft of a set of goals

and objectives for the City to review for necessary revisions. Intended to serve as a foundation for the subse-quent comprehensive plan, they will address the following issues:

Natural and historic resources

Land uses and development

Transportation

Community facilities, utilities and infrastructure


13/18


O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

The Walker Collaborative Team Economic development

Open space and recreational facilities

These draft goals and objectives will be revised based upon feedback from the City prior to the Task 2.0Charrette trip, and reviewed with the public during that trip for their validation prior to being finalized.

Task 1.0 Trips: One (1) 2-day Trip

Task 1.0 Deliverables: Background Research Materials (existing conditions maps, etc.)

PowerPoint Presentation - Task 1.6 MeetingVision Survey in PowerPoint format

Goals & Objectives

Task 2.0: Charrette & Alternative Growth ScenariosAlthough the proposed overall project methodology has been

designed to encourage strong public input throughout the lifeof this project, Task 2.0 offers the single greatest opportunity

for meaningful hands-on involvement of key stakeholders. Acharrette is an intensive brain-storming process used by plan-ners and designers to create planning concepts within a lim-

ited amount of time. The purpose of the charrette process isto provide a forum for key stakeholders to achieve a consen-

sus on the future of the study area. The most tangible out-come of the charrette will be the creation of Alternative Growth

Scenarios for consideration as the basis for the ultimate plan.This three (3) day task will require strong teamwork between

the Project Team and the City, as the City is expected to re-cruit and schedule all public participants with the guidance ofthe Project Team. Although the specific components of the

charrette can be fine-tuned later based upon the Citys input,the following sub-tasks should be considered:

SUMMARY

Task 2.0 Charrette &Alternative Growth Scenarios

Task 2.1: Follow-Up Field Work

Task 2.2: Planning Workshop

Task 2.3: Alternative Growth

Scenarios Preparation

Task 2.4: Alternative Growth

Scenarios Presentation

Task 2.1 Follow-Up Field Work (Day 1: morning & afternoon)

This task will give Project Team members another opportunity prior to the evening Planning Workshop to buildon previous impressions of the study area gained during Task 1.0. In particular, examples of land use anddevelopment features in the City that work and dont work will be identified. Also, any field information not

previously obtained, but since recognized as necessary, can be gathered as part of this task.

Lookout Mountains recentlycompleted greenway traversingthe future Town Center is yetanother amenity that the Cityworked hard to accomplish.


14/18


O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

The Walker Collaborative TeamTask 2.2 Planning Workshop (Day 1: evening)Prior to Task 2.0, the City will recruit approximately 50 to 60 participants to be involved in the Planning

Workshop. Participants should be stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of community interests. TheProject Team, City officials, and Planning Workshop participants will gather at the charrette facility (to be

determined) and achieve the following steps over a roughly two-hour period:

Workshop OrientationThe Project Team will present the following items:

Workshop Purpose & Overview

Background Research Findings Results of the Public Input to Date / Goals & Objectives

Workshop Ground Rules

Planning SessionThe specific method used to engage the stakeholder participants in the concept planning process will bedetermined later based upon input from the City. There are a variety of techniques that might be used.

Among them is the approach of splitting participants into teams of roughly ten (10) members each, andeach team creating its own concept plan by applying colored markers to base maps. Another is to simi-

larly break participants up into teams, but to ask a series of questions that will build consensus, rather thanactually creating a plan. Other techniques will also be considered with the City.

Workshop Team Presentations & Wrap-Up

Following the completion of the Planning Session, the Workshop Teams will reassemble into a singlegroup and one or more members of each team will briefly present their plans and/or ideas. After eachpresentation, there will be time for questions and comments. Following the Workshop Team presenta-

tions, the Project Team consultants will conclude the evening by identifying common elements betweenthe various ideas, and suggest how those ideas might be combined to form the basis for the Alternative

Growth Scenarios as a prelude to the ultimate Comprehensive Plan.

Task 2.3 Alternative Growth Scenarios Preparation (Day 2 through Day 3)Based upon the Task 1.0 analysis and visioning, the goals and objectives, and the results of the Day 1

Planning Workshop, the Project Team will develop the Alternative Growth Scenarios. Two (2) or three (3)scenarios will be developed, and one will be a build-out scenario based upon existing zoning and developmenttrends. Each scenario will include an illustrated plan map, graphics (primarily photographs), and concise

descriptive text. Each will address key considerations for the study area, such as:

Land uses

Development densities and character Transportation

Community facilities Economic development

At some point during this task, the Project Team will meet with key City representatives to receive feedback

on the work accomplished up to this point of Task 2.0. This meeting either give the Project Team a greenlight to proceed down the proposed path, or a red light to reconsider the direction the Team is headed. It willlikely occur as a working lunch meeting on Day 2.

Task 2.4 Alternative Growth Scenarios Presentation (Day 3: evening)

Similar to the Task 1.6 public kick-off meeting, this meeting will be widely-publicized to encourage a strongturn-out. This evening meeting will include the following key components:

Opening Comments & Project Approach

Overview of Existing Conditions


15/18


O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H


Task 3.0 Preparation of Draft Comprehensive PlanBased upon the research and analysis, public input, and goal

setting conducted during the first two tasks of the project, aswell as the Alternative Growth Scenarios, the draft Compre-

hensive Plan will be prepared. The plans contents will meetor exceed the requirements of the Georgia Department of Com-

munity Affairs Chapter 110-12-1 Standards and Proceduresfor Local Comprehensive Planning. The following plan outlineis proposed:

Task 3.1 Introduction

This section would reference and summarize the backgroundwork that led up to the actual planning process. In particular it

would summarize:

Plan Purpose & Scope Project Approach

Existing Conditions Analysis Public Input Results / Goals & Objectives

Alternative Growth Scenarios Preferred Growth Scenario

SUMMARY

Task 3.0 Preparation of DraftComprehensive Plan

Task 3.1: Introduction

Task 3.2: Plan Elements

Task 3.3: ImplementationStrategy

Task 3.2 Plan Elements

The following individual elements would comprise this main section of the plan:

Land Uses categories, locations, and mixing of uses

Development densities/intensities, parking location, and development character Transportation streets (street type map, design profile by type, interconnectivity strategies, etc.),

pedestrian access, cycling, traffic calming

Parks & Recreation park types, locations, recreation facilities, greenways Public Facilities, Utilities & Infrastructure buildings, sewer, water, power, telecommunications

Natural & Cultural Resources open space, wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, steep slopes, historicresources

Neighborhoods & Housing neighborhood improvement strategies, housing types and locations Economic Development business development, tourism

Although the plan may be comprised of distinct elements by topic, it will recognize the intertwined nature ofthe various issues in a holistic and comprehensive manner.

Summary of Public Input Results

Review of Goals & Objectives

Presentation of the Alternative Growth Scenarios

Discussion with the Public

The majority of meeting time will be dedicated to the Alternative Growth Scenarios, as opposed to the back-ground information. Because of the importance of public interaction, a generous amount of time will also beprovided for an open discussion. It is anticipated that some members of the Project Team will not need to

attend the full three days of the charrette.

Task 2.0 Trips: One (1) 3-day Trip

Task 2.0 Deliverables: Alternative Growth Scenarios

PowerPoint Presentation


16/18


O

J

E

C

T

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

The Walker Collaborative TeamTask 3.3 Implementation Strategy

In order for the plan elements described in Task 3.2 to be realized, specific strategies will be provided. Forexample, needed changes to zoning, subdivision regulations, and building/development standards will be

addressed here. Similarly, public infrastructure investments may be required for plan implementation tosucceed. This plan section will address priority levels and responsible parties, but will not include costestimates.

Task 3.0 Trips: N/A

Task 3.0 Deliverable: Draft Plan document

Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & RevisionsFollowing sufficient time for review of the draft by the City, the Project Team will present the Draft Plan to the

public. Based upon a review of the Draft Plan by the City and input from the public presentation, as well as thesubmission from the City to the Project Team of a single red-lined composite of all comments, the ProjectTeam will revise the plan into a final document.

Task 4.0 Trips: One (1) 1-day Trip (draft plan presentation)

Task 4.0 Deliverable: Final Plan document (both Word and PDF versions)

Additional ServicesThis proposal has taken a conservative approach in providing the City with necessary project components

while keeping the budget at a reasonable level for the City. However, should the City desire, additionalservices could be provided. Below is a list of potential services that could occur as part of this comprehensive

planning project or subsequently:

Additional meetings with City officials and others

Evaluation of fiscal implications of the plan

Cost estimates and funding strategies for plan implementation Public policy revisions (zoning, subdivision regulations, development standards)

Rock City is an impor-tant tourist destina-tion for the region thatdraws thousands of visi-tors to Lookout Moun-tain each year. TheCitys Comprehensive

Plan should address theissue of balancing tour-ism with a high qual-ity of life for local resi-dents.


17/18


O

J

E

C

T

S

C

H

E

D

U

L

E

&

F

E

E

S


PROJECT SCHEDULE

One of Lookout Mountainsmost treasured characteristicsis its natural and rustic feel- its strong sense of place. Anyfuture plans for the commu-nity must prioritize that as-pect as a key value to protectand reinforce.

In accordance with the Citys goal of a tight time-frame for this project, a four-month schedule is proposed,as follows:

Scope of Services Time-Frame

Task Weeks

Task 1.0: Analysis & Visioning 1-5

Task 2.0: Charrette & Alternative Growth Scenarios 6

Task 3.0: Preparation of Draft Plan 7-12

Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & Revisions 13-16

TOTAL 16 weeks (4 months)

For this aggressive schedule to be followed, City officials must be prepared to review draft plan sectionsand provide feedback to the Project Team in a prompt manner.


18/18


O

J

E

C

T

S

C

H

E

D

U

L

E

&

F

E

E

S


PROJECT COSTS

It must be emphasized that the proposed budget below is based upon a very specific scope of services andcan be easily adjusted depending upon the Citys available resources and planning needs.

Scope of Services Costs

Task Fees Expenses Total

Task 1.0: Analysis & Visioning $14,376 $1,050 $15,425

Task 2.0: Charrette & Alt. Growth Scenarios $15,200 $2,000 $17,200

Task 3.0: Preparation of Draft Plan $14,210 $100 $14,310

Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & Revisions $7,920 $450 $8,370

TOTAL $51,305 $3,600 $54,905

The Walker Collaborative: ”A Proposal to prepare the Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan”

Documents