HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-12-1999 - 2ORANGE COUNTY
BO:: ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 12,1999
Action Agenda
Item #_
SUBJECT: REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —x —No
ATTACHMENT(S):
-GIS Presentation background
- BOCC Goal on Comprehensive Plan
- Memorandum entitled "Comprehensive Plan"
with Attachments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director, Ext. 2592
Gene Bell Comp. Ping. Supr., Ext. 2589
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
-732-8181
Durham
-688-7331
Mebane
-227-2031
Chapel Hill
-967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on land use planning in Orange County and discuss ideas for the
preparation of a new comprehensive plan (with particular emphasis on the land use
element).
VIEW GIS PRESENTATION
BACKGROUND: The Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (as amended) was
adopted in September 1981 with a 20 year planning horizon. Beginning work on a new
plan early in FY 1999 -2000 will allow time to prepare the plan and pursue adoption in the
latter part of 2001. Besides the 20 year time line and changes in existing conditions,
events coalescing in favor of a new plan at this time include: the upcoming Year 2000
Census; the availability of GIS technology to prepare maps and perform spatial analysis;
the completion of the Shaping Orange County's Future initiative; and new leadership in
the Planning Department.
The memorandum entitled "Comprehensive Plan" contains an attachment entitled
"Twentieth Century Land Use Planning." Please pay special attention to item A (The
Development Management Plan) on page 375, item B (The Contemporary Hybrid Plan)
on page 377, and Table 2 (Comparison of Plan Types) on page 381.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan, area plans may be prepared which focus on a portion
of the County such as a township, a watershed or an interstate highway interchange.
h:\complan\pb7-13ab.doc\7-6-99\gb
z'
Likewise, technical information and/or task force reports prepared as part of a plan
element or an area plan may be incorporated as part of the appendix of or as a supplement
to the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information.
h: \complan \pb7- 13ab.doc \7- 6 -99 \gb
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION
ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000
GIS PRESENTATION
October 12, 1999
The primary goals of urban and rural planning are:
A. To encourage development where adequate public services exist, and
B. To discourage development where it is difficult to provide services, and
C. To discourage development where environmental preservation is
warranted.
PRINCIPLES
Several basic planning and local government administration principles can
be employed to shape growth patterns. The comprehensive plan is an
elaboration of the goals, objectives and policies (GOP's) that acts as a guide
for the ensuing implementing land development regulations.
GIS PRESENTATION
The GIS presentation will illustrate the application of the principles noted
below on a county -wide basis. Various public facilities and general
environmental areas (planning attributes are noted on following pages) have
been located on the Orange County map. (To be illustrated at the meeting.)
GROWTH ATTRIBUTE KEY
Concentric and colored distance rings or buffers were added around facilities
and features to illustrate the highest or lowest value to direct or discourage
growth, respectively. Example:
Green The best possible location for development based
on a specific planning attribute
Blue Transition
Yellow Proceed with caution
Orange Transition
Red and White Least potential growth and probable area to
discourage growth based on various environmental
an public service factors.
U
I. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Transportation
• Locate development close to major corridors because:
• 1. Roads are designed for higher capacities,
• 2. Less commuting time and less pollution,
• 3. Less traffic on rural roads.
II. URBAN SERVICES
A. Water and Sewer
• Locate development where public water and sewer systems exist
because:
• 1. Public administration of water and sewer systems are better
alternatives than the environmental challenges of private wells and septic
systems,
• 2. Development can be directed to the urban area where higher
residential densities and non - residential intensities are feasible.
B. Urban Area/Rural Activity Node
• Locate development where urban and rural services and employment are
available.
• 1. Commercial services (food, clothing, etc.)
• 2. Office and Industrial employment centers
• 3. Cultural and recreation centers
• 4. Rural Services at secondary collector roads which reduce travel time
of rural activities.
S
C. Urban and Rural Public Services and Facilities
• Locate development where the provision of public services is safe and
cost effective.
• 1. If development is close to FIRE, EMS and POLICE facilities then
• a) faster the response time, b) less travel miles, c) less cost
• 2. If development is closer to SCHOOLS then
• a) less time for children on buses or travel time for parents, b) more cost
effective for bus transportation, c) more interaction with school and
nearby community.
III. WATERSHED PROTECTION
• Discourage development in critical and protected watersheds because
watersheds support:
• 1. Regional environmental preservation
• 2. Regional water supplies
IV. ENVIRONMENTALIWILDLIFE CORRIDOR
• Discourage development near valuable flora and fauna resources by
• 1. Protecting prime forests and wetlands and stream buffers
• 2. Providing wildlife corridor connectivity.
V. SOIL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM SUITSABILITY
• Discourage non -urban development where soils are inadequate to
support private septic systems
• 1. Potential of environmental health problems are higher.
• 2. Potential of groundwater contamination.
• 3. Potential of failed private septic systems creating high and long term
burden on public fiscal systems.
FY 1999 - 2000
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONMSSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
Enter date this document prepared: 05/06/99
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GOAL STATEMENT: To prepare a new Orange County Comprehensive P1. an.
Goal Initiated/Proposed By; Board .of County Commissioners
Most Recent Version Adopted by BOCC: New Goal
The Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (as amended) was adopted in September 1981 with a 20 year planning
horizon. Beginning work on a new plan early in FY 1999 -2000 will allow time to prepare the plan and pursue adoption in the latter part of 2001.
Besides the 20 year time line, events coalescing in favor of a new plan at this time include: the upcoming Year 2000 Census; the availability of
GIS technology to prepare maps and perform spatial analysis; the completion of the Shaping Orange County's Future initiative; and new
leadership in the Planning Department.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan, area plans may be prepared which focus on a portion of the County such as a township, a watershed or an
interstate highway interchange. Likewise, technical information and/or task force reports prepared as part of a plan element or an area plan may
be incorporated as part of the appendix of or as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan.
Completion of this goal will involve the following commitment of existing and approved staff resources; Planning Director, Comprehensive
Planning Supervisor, Planner II(s) in Comprehensive Planning, Planning GIS Coordinator, and Planning Interns. Extensive coordination with
ERCD, EDC the schools stems, Housing and CD Orange Public Transportation, and municipal jurisdictions will also be required.
g Adraig \pingoal2do65- 25 -99 \gb
J
FY 1999 -2000
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COM MSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
Enter date this document prepared: 6M6/99
W
OBJECTIVE 1— Prepare a new land use element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing,
business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses.
DATE
ADOPTED
TASKS/MILESTONES
TARGET FOR
COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Build planning information base: collect and map data on existing land uses, population, transportation,
utilities, environmental constraints, historical/cultural features, and the local economy; analyze data to
identify trends; and present findings at public meeting to solicit comment and identify key issues.
January 2000
Define goals and objectives to guide planning process: refine issues; analyze preliminary
May 2000
recommendations from SOCF initiative; conduct meetings to define preliminary goals and objectives;
and take recommended goals and objectives to public hearing. .
Prepare draft alternative plans: prepare alternative plans reflecting status quo, low growth, high
growth scenarios; and conduct meetings to present plans and solicit feedback on preferred
October 2000
alternatives .
Prepare recommended draft plan: use comments from meetings, adopted goals and objectives, final
SOCF recommendations, and preliminary 2000 Census data to prepare recommended draft plan; and
February 2001
conduct public hearing on draft plan.
Secure adoption. of plan: conduct Planning Board and other necessary reviewstrecommendations on
draft plan; make revisions as necessary; and bring before BOCC to consider adoption.
June 2001
g Acraig\pingoai2doc \5- 25 -99 \gb
FY 1999 -2000 '
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMVHSSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
FY 1999 -2000 .
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONMSSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
Enter date this document prepared:_ 05/06/99
OBJECTIVE 2b - Maintain transportation program and keep abreast of transportation initiatives in the region and be a leader in transportation
oriented development. Transportation impacts from development are a critical facet that can affect quality of life standards. With increasing
population growth and commuting to labor markets inside and outside the County, transportation alternatives are paramount.
Evaluate the impact of UNC's expansion on traffic issues.
DATE TASKS/MILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Evaluate LTNC's student', teacher and service population. August 1999
Research the commuting times and residence locations for the service population that cannot afford September 1999
near town housing prices.
Extrapolate proposed expansion impacts. October 1999
Develop a transportation plan to support student and service employee movement from transportation November 1999
nodes to urban areas.
gAcraig \p1ngoa12doc \5- 25 -99\gb d
FY 1999 -2000 6
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMVHSSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
Enter date this document prepared: 05/06/99
OBJECTIVE 2d - Maintain transportation program and keep abreast of transportation initiatives in the region and be a leader in transportation
oriented development. Transportation impacts from development are a critical facet that can affect quality of life standards. With increasing
population growth and commuting to labor markets inside and outside the County, transportation alternatives are paramount.
Work with Orange Public Transportation (OPT) Director to. prepare a new Community Transportation Service Plan.
■
Y
ice`
g Acrai&ingoal2doc \5- 25 -99 \g b
OBJECTIVE 4 Assist ERCD in preparation of open space element (Natural Areas Element) which identifies the location and extent of existing
and proposed open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health
and safety. -
g: \craig \p1ngoa12doc \5- 25 -991gb
FY 1999 -2000 10
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
Enter date this document prepared: 05/05/99
OBJECTIVE 6 — Assist the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in updating the economic development element which contains an
analysis of the local economy and projections of future economic activity. The economic development element may also identify existing and
nrMosed sites for new and exvandini businesses and industries, and the facilities needed to serve them.
(q
Orange County Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III
SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan
DATE: ;July 1, 1999
An adopted Board of County Commissioners' goal for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 is the
preparation of a new Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Orange County Land Use
Plan adopted in September 1981 has frequently been referred to as the comprehensive
plan, but it is actually a land classification plan. Amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance in 1988 designated the Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan. In addition to land use, the amendments also
established the following as elements of the comprehensive plan: transportation,
housing, open space, recreation, economic development, and. services and facilities. With
the exception of housing, each of these elements has been addressed to some degree in
the ensuing years though efforts have been somewhat piecemeal and there hasn't been a
consistent thread unifying the various elements. As in the past, land use will continue to
be the dominant element of the comprehensive plan, and will be the main focus of this
report:
Two attachments to this memo will be useful in focusing discussion. First, is a handout
entitled "An Overview of Land Use Planning in Orange County" prepared two years ago
for a community meeting. It captures quite well in two pages the way the County has
approached land use planning over the past 20 years. The second attachment entitled
"Twentieth Century Land Use Planning' was written by UNC professors Edward Kaiser
and David Godschalk and published in the Summer 1995 edition of the Journal of the
American Planning Association.
An Overview of Land Use Planninzin Oran -e Coon
"An Overview of Land Use Planning in Orange County" points out the County's strong
consistency requirement between the adopted land use plan and zoning. A point not
covered is, that for the most part, the only zones currently applied consistent with land
use designations are those of a low - density residential and rural nature, e.g., agricultural
residential (AR), rural residential (R -1), and rural buffer (RB). There is very little
undeveloped land zoned for commercial or high-density residential uses even though
there are areas designated for such in the plan. The County's traditional approach has
been to receive applications for rezoning to such uses and if they are consistent with the
OVAI
IAG2.2
pliarry them through the public hearing/approval process. For Ten and Twenty
Year Transition (residential) Areas this has created some problems. For example, the
underlying assumption on transition is that it is suitable for densities of two to 13
residential units per acre, but no up -front analysis (in the plan) has been done to
determine what density would be most acceptable/desirable/supportable for a given area.
A recent example of this is the Lawrence Park planned development located east of
Lawrence Road between US 70 Business and I -85. The. area is designated Twenty Year
Transition, but the proposed density of three units per acre was strongly opposed by most
residents in the area as too dense." Had there been a tighter range of densities specified
for this area when -the plan was prepared, residents and the developer both would have
had fewer "surprises."
Designation of transition area densities is not a new concept, and was done to a limited
' degree in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan prepared in 1986. Three levels of
transition. were delineated: Carrboro Transition Area I , Suburban Residential/Carrboro
Transition Area I, and Urban Residential. Respective densities for the three transition
categories are one or fewer units per acre, one to five units per acre, and six to 13 units
per acre. In that Chapel Hill and Carrboro zoning was applied to these areas after plan
adoption, a person unfamiliar with the early stages of the plan might not realize that the
concept of transition area densities was dealt with many years ago.
A similar issue is zoning for commercial and manufacturing uses. The adopted plan
designates certain activity nodes for commercial and industrial purposes.. Once again,
however, the base zoning in most of these areas is low density residential meaning that a
person desiring a commercial or industrial zone must go through the rezoning process — a
process that can take from five to six months under average circumstances. The
uncertainty and time - consuming nature of the rezoning process prompted the Planning
Board and Economic Development Commission (EDC) to undertake the designation of
Economic Development Districts (EDD's) in the early 1990s.
The basic premise behind EDDs was that areas suitable for a range of economic
development uses would be identified in the plan; a stringent set of design standards
relative to the districts would be developed; and the areas would be rezoned to EDD.
Afterward, an applicant desiring to undertake a permitted use in an EDD would have only
to submit and gain approval of a site plan from planning staff and not have to go through
the traditional - rezoning process. Three EDD's were adopted in 1994 (I- 85/Buckhom
Road, I40 /01d NC 86, and I -85/US 70), but to date only one use has located in an EDD
(the State Employees' Credit Union) and it had to go through the traditional public
hearing process because of setback/buffer issues.
Twentieth Century Land Use Plannin
The article by Kaiser and Godschalk tracks land use planning thought and practice
through the Twentieth Century, most notably the second half of the century. Using the
"1950s General Plan" as the baseline, they identify four.distinct plan types (land use
design, land classification plan, verbal policy plan, and development management plan)
that emerged over the ensuing decades and their evolution into the "1990s Hybrid
Design-Policy-Management Plan." Please pay special attention to item A (The
h: \complan\20thcent.doc \7- 6 -99 \gb 2
at
Development Management Plan) on page 375, item B (The Contemporary Hybrid Plan)
on page 377, and Table 2 (Comparison of Plan Types) on page 381.
The current Orange County plan most closely fits under the "Land Classification Plan"
heading. The following paragraph from the article summarizes quite well the;features of
the land classification plan;
The land classification plan identifies areas where development will be
encouraged (called urban, transition, or development areas) and areas
where development will be discouraged (open space, rural conservation,
or critical environmental areas). For each designated area, policies about
the type, timing, and density of allowable development, extension of
infrastructure, and development incentives or constraints apply. The
planning principle is to concentrate financial resources, utilities, and
services within a limited, prespecified area suitable for. development, and
to relieve pressure on nondevelopment areas by withholding facilities that
accommodate growth.
This description tracks quite closely with the County's approach. The discussion points
out that the land classification plan "... is less specific about the pattern of land uses
within areas specified for development, which results in a kind of silhouette of urban
form." This too fits the traditional County approach relative to transition areas. Other
than to say they are suitable for urban-scale development with the extension of water and
sewer, nothing is said about the actual density or mix of uses that might ultimately take
place. Delineation of EDDs (and particularly the I-40 %Old NC 86 EDD) was an attempt
to define future development in transition areas at a more specific level and should be the
minimum level of detail for future transition area planning.
Next Steps
The 1990s Hybrid Design- Policy- Management Plan, or some variation thereof, seems to
hold considerable potential as a model to guide Orange County's upcoming planning
effort. Features emphasized in the Hybrid Design- Policy- Management Plan not found in
the current plan include:
• greater detail on areas projected to receive growth;
• greater control on areas to discourage growth;
• stronger link to implementation;
• more responsiveness to short-term changes; and
• stronger link to transportation and capital improvements.
Kaiser and Godschalk cite the General Plan for Loudon County, Virginia as a good
example of "... a county approach to the contemporary hybrid plan." Planning staff has
inquired about obtaining a copy of this plan as a potential model; likewise, research is
underway on planning efforts in other North Carolina jurisdictions that might have
applicability for Orange County. This information will be shared with the Planning
Board as it becomes available.
h: lcomplan\20thcent.docl7- 6 -99\gb 3
23:1
AN OVERVIEW OF LAND USE PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY
The LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is
the official guide for the rational distribution of growth in the County. It is embodied in both map
and text and serves as a policy guide to assist public officials in their day -to -day decision making.
The plan was adopted in 1981 and has been amended at various times since. The purpose of this
short paper is to give an overview of the plan, summarize Joint Planning with Chapel Hill and
Carrboro, and briefly discuss implementation and public participation.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The foundation of the Land Use Element is the county -wide goals and policies, which provide the
written framework to guide future public and private development decisions. The township
components are the key structural element of the plan, i.e., a specific plan for each of
the
County's seven townships. Township components contain most of the land. use planning
information and recommendations in the Land Use Element.
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
One of the fundamental methods used to achieve the stated goals and policies of the Land Use
Element is the design and application of a land classification system. Each category of the system
is designed to accommodate certain uses throughout the County to achieve a desired pattern of
development. There are 22 land use categories in the plan, which can be grouped under the broad
headings of urban, transition, activity node, rural, and conservation.
STRATEGY.
To minimize the energy - inefficient and land consuming pattern of rural sprawl, the Land Use
Element is premised on two basic strategies: activity nodes and in -fill urban development. The
activity node strategy serves to cluster commercial and industrial development at major
intersections throughout the County. Activity nodes are of various sizes and types to
accommodate specified levels of intensity of commercial and industrial activities. The primary
objective of the activity node strategy is the efficient and compact use of land.
ACTIVITY NODE/ IN-FILL URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The activity node strategy cannot be effective without a parallel strategy directed at managing
development trends in the urban and urbanizing areas of the County. Thus, the Land Use Element
incorporates a second development strategy: "in -fill" development. This strategy is premised on.'
the desirability of encouraging development to occur first within the corporate limits of the towns
and then within those areas surrounding the towns which are in transition from rural to urban
development patterns. The major management tool used to accomplish in -fill objectives is a
structured, cooperative planning process between the municipalities of Chapel Bill and Carrboro
and Orange County. This process is governed by the three -party Joint Planning Agreement, first
signed in 1984 and amended several times in the ensuing years.
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
The Joint PlwmingAgreement contains definitions, standards, and procedures specific to the area
in southeastern Orange County known as the Joint Planning Area QPA). This area is in the
County's jurisdiction, but is administered differently than other areas (of County jurisdiction)
zy
'used on the Joint Pkaming Agreement. The application of land use ordinances is governed by
the jointly prepared and adopted JPA Land Use Plan. Amendments to the adopted plan or
agreement have to be considered at a joint public hearing and approved by Chapel Hill, Carrboro,
and Orange County to be effective. The plan is generally based on two land use categories:
Transition. Areas and the Rural Buffer.
TRANSITION AREAS
Transition Areas are future urban growth areas for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Administration of
land use ordinances in these areas was transferred to the towns following adoption (by Orange
County and the respective towns) of municipal zoning plans consistent with the adopted JPA _
Land Use Plan. As long as development in the transition areas is consistent with the adopted
zoning, the County's only involvement is .courtesy review of projects. Proposals for rezoning in
the transition areas (consistent with the plan) require a joint public hearing with the County and
relevant town and joint approval of the new zoning.
RURAL BUFFER
Surrounding the urban areas is the Rural Buffer which contains approximately 38,000 acres and is
defined generally by the . New Hope Creek drainage basin to the north and the University Lake
watershed to the west. The Rural Buffer is projected to remain rural in character, not require
urban services, and annexation is prohibited in this area. The Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district
requires a minimum lot size of two acres for residential development. The University Lake
watershed overlay portion of the RB district permits five lots of a development (occurring on a
parcel existing when the new ordinance was adopted) to be two acres, but requires all additional
lots to be a minimum of five acres. The County administers land use ordinances in the Rural
Buffer with the towns having courtesy review of proposed developments.
LAND USE PLAN EAPLEMENTATION
Plan implementation is accomplished primarily through the application of zoning although a
variety of land use ordinances are available for various aspects of implementation. A key feature
of land use planning in Orange County is the requirement for consistency between the plan
category for an area and application of zoning there. The "Land Use Element Categories -
;toning District Matrix" in Section 4 of the plan identifies the appropriate zone(s) for various land
use categories. If a zone is not compatible with the land use category for an area it cannot be
applied there until such time as the plan is amended to a compatible category. The land use plan
serves as a guide and should not be changed to be reactionary to a zoning request. There are
three reasons for which the plan can be amended: because of changed or changing conditions in a
particular area; to correct an error or omission; or in response to a change in land use policy.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Orange County encourages public participation in the planning process and no decisions on plan
amendments or zoning changes are made until a public hearing is held on the proposal. Quarterly
public hearings are conducted for areas outside the JPA and semi- annual hearings are held for
areas inside the JPA. Plan. amendments and rezoning requests for the same property cannot be
considered simultaneously, but must go through separate hearing cycles. In the second month
following a public hearing, the Planning Board considers testimony given at the hearing and
formulates a recommendation on the proposal for the Board of County Commissioners. The
h\ ccmplam\lupovrva.doc\6- 16 -99\gb 2
25
County Commissioners normally decide on the amendment at their first monthly meeting
following the Planning Board recommendation. Thus, there is a period of approximately two
months between the public hearing and a decision by the County Commissioners.
This short narrative has attempted to highlight the key features of land use planning in Orange
County relative to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Joint
Planning with Chapel Bill and Carrboro, and plan implementation and public participation. A
comprehensive update to the plan and land use element is anticipated in the coming year (Fiscal
Year 1999- 2000).
h:\- omplan\lupovrvu.doc\6- 16 -99 \gb 3
27
Twentieth Century
Land Use Plannin
9
A Stalwart Family Tree
Edward J. Kaiser and David R Godschalk
How a cityt land is used defines its character, its potential for development, the role it can Play
within a regional economy and how it impacts the natural environment
Seattle Planning Commission 1993
During the twentieth century, community physical development
plans have evolved from elite, City Beautiful designs to participa
tory, broad-based strategies . for managing urban change. A review
has evolved from The twentieth desl8n and inearr� lanning into an intricate use plan of land use planning's intellectual and practice history shows the continu-
simple roots in civic ous incorporation of new ideas and techniques. The traditional mapped
combination of design, policy, and land use design has been enriched with innovations from policy plans,
management. Its family tree illustrates land classification plans, and development management plans. Thanks to
how new branches growing from dif- this flexible � i
ado tato local cal governments can use contemporary land
fi:rent disciplinary roots have been in-
tegrated into contemporary hybrid use Pig to build consensus and support decisions on controversial
plans. A source of the vitality of tradi. issues about space, development, and infrastructure. If this evolution per -
tonal land use planning has been its sists, local plans should continue to be mainstays of community develop
ability a to respond ro and incorporate ment policy into the twenty -first century. "
new approaches, including verbal pol-
i plans, growth management Unlike the more rigid, rule- oriented modern architecture contem-
cy P gemenc plans, ,
and land classification plans. Despite porary local planning does not appear destined for deconstruction by a
predictions of its demise, land use postmodern revolution. Though critics of comprehensive physical plan-
planning is still a mainstay of efforts to ning have regularly predicted its demise (Perin 1967, Perloff 1980, Jacobs
manage commueity change, while be.
coming more participatory and elei:- 1992, Friedmann 1993),' the evidence demonstrates that spatial planning
tronically based, and concerned with is alive and well in hundreds of United States communities. A 1994 tabu-
increasingly complex issues. lation found 2,742 local comprehensive plans prepared under state ,
Kaiser, AICP, is a professor and Chair, growth management regulations in twelve states. (See table 1.) This figure
and Godschalk, AICP, is Stephen Bax. of course significantly understates the overall nationwide total, which
ter Professor, in the Department of would include all those plans prepared in the other thirty -eight states
City and Regional Planning at the uni. and in the noncoastal areas of California and North Carolina. It is safe to
varsity of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Coauthors of the fourth edition assume that most, if not all, of these plans contain a mapped land use
of Urban land Use Pknning, they are element? Not only do such plans help decision makers to manage urban
both former editors of this journal. growth and change, they also provide a platform for the formation of
Journal ofdo Awrioon planning community consensus about land use issues, now among the most con-
Amda6on, Vol. 61, No. 3, Summer troversial items on local government agendas.
1995. *American Planning This article looks back at the history of land use planning and for -
Association, Chicago, IL. ward to its future. It shows how planning ideas, growing from turn-of-
APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 199s 1365
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
TABLE 1. Local comprehensive plans in growth - managing states and coastal areas as of 1994
Number of Comprehensive Plans
Compiled from telephone survey of state sourcm
the- century roots, culminated in a midcentury con-
sensus on a general concept —the traditional land use
design plan. That consensus was stretched as planning
branched out to deal with public participation, envi-
ronmental protection, growth management, fiscal re-
sponsibility, and effective implementation under
turbulent conditions. To meet these new challenges,
new types of plans arose: verbal policy plans, land clas-
sification plans, and growth management plans. These
in turn became integrated into today's hySdd compre-
hensive plans, broadening and strengthening the tra-
ditional approach. ,
Future Land use planning will continue to evolve
in certain foreseeable directions, as well as in ways un-
foreseen. Among the foreseeable developments are
even more active participation by interest groups, call-
ing for planners' skills at consensus building and man=
aging conflict; increased use of computers and
electronic media, calling for planners' skills in infor-
mation management and communication; and contin-
uing -concerns over issues -of diversity, sustainability,
and quality of life, calling for planners' ability to ana-
lyze and seek creative solutions to complex and inter-
dependent problems.
The Land Use Planning Family Tree
We liken the evolution of the physical develop-
ment plan to a family tree. The early genealogy is rep-
1 J APA JOURNAL • SUM MM 1995
resented as the roots of the tree (figure 1). The general
plan, constituting consensus practice at midcentury, is
represented by the main trunk. Since the 1970s this
traditional "land use design plan" has been joined by
several branches —the verbal policy plan, the land clas-
sification plan, and the development management
plan. These branches connect to the trunk although
springing from different planning disciplines, in a way
reminiscent of the complex structure of a Ficus tree.
The branches cott)Lbine into the contemporary, hybrid
comprehensive plan integrating design, policy, classi-
fication, and management, represented by the foliage
at the top of the tree.
As We discuss each of these parts of the family tree,
we show how plans respond both to social climate
Changes and to "idea genes" from the literature. We
also draw conclusions about the survival of the tree
and the prospects for new branches in the future.
The focus of the article is the plan prepared by a
local government -a county,. municipality, or urban
region —for the long -term development and use of
the land.9
Roots of the Family Tree: The First
SO Years
New World city plans certainly existed before this
century. They included UEnfant's plan for Washing-
ton, William Penn's plan for Philadelphia, and Gen-
Cities/
State
Towns
Counties
Regions'
Total
Source
California (coastal)
97
7
0
104
Coastal Commission
Florida
377
49
0
426
Department of Community Affairs
Georgia
298
94
0
.392
Department of Community Affairs '
Maine
270
0
0
270
Dept. of Economic and
Community Development
Maryland
1
1
0
2
Planning Office
New Jersey
567
0
0
567
Community Affairs Department
North Carolina (coastal)
70
20
0
90
Division of Coastal Management
Oregon
241
36
1
278
Department of Local Community
Development
_
Rhode Island
39
0
1
40
Department of Planning and
Development
Vermont
235
0
10
245
Department of Housing and
Community Afrairs
Virginia
211
94
0
305
Department of Housing and
Community Development
Washington
23
0
0
23
Office of Growth Management
TOTAL
2429
301.
12
2742
Compiled from telephone survey of state sourcm
the- century roots, culminated in a midcentury con-
sensus on a general concept —the traditional land use
design plan. That consensus was stretched as planning
branched out to deal with public participation, envi-
ronmental protection, growth management, fiscal re-
sponsibility, and effective implementation under
turbulent conditions. To meet these new challenges,
new types of plans arose: verbal policy plans, land clas-
sification plans, and growth management plans. These
in turn became integrated into today's hySdd compre-
hensive plans, broadening and strengthening the tra-
ditional approach. ,
Future Land use planning will continue to evolve
in certain foreseeable directions, as well as in ways un-
foreseen. Among the foreseeable developments are
even more active participation by interest groups, call-
ing for planners' skills at consensus building and man=
aging conflict; increased use of computers and
electronic media, calling for planners' skills in infor-
mation management and communication; and contin-
uing -concerns over issues -of diversity, sustainability,
and quality of life, calling for planners' ability to ana-
lyze and seek creative solutions to complex and inter-
dependent problems.
The Land Use Planning Family Tree
We liken the evolution of the physical develop-
ment plan to a family tree. The early genealogy is rep-
1 J APA JOURNAL • SUM MM 1995
resented as the roots of the tree (figure 1). The general
plan, constituting consensus practice at midcentury, is
represented by the main trunk. Since the 1970s this
traditional "land use design plan" has been joined by
several branches —the verbal policy plan, the land clas-
sification plan, and the development management
plan. These branches connect to the trunk although
springing from different planning disciplines, in a way
reminiscent of the complex structure of a Ficus tree.
The branches cott)Lbine into the contemporary, hybrid
comprehensive plan integrating design, policy, classi-
fication, and management, represented by the foliage
at the top of the tree.
As We discuss each of these parts of the family tree,
we show how plans respond both to social climate
Changes and to "idea genes" from the literature. We
also draw conclusions about the survival of the tree
and the prospects for new branches in the future.
The focus of the article is the plan prepared by a
local government -a county,. municipality, or urban
region —for the long -term development and use of
the land.9
Roots of the Family Tree: The First
SO Years
New World city plans certainly existed before this
century. They included UEnfant's plan for Washing-
ton, William Penn's plan for Philadelphia, and Gen-
CONTEMPORARY DESIGN POLICY MANAGEMENT HYBRID PLANS
LAND USE
DESIGN
MANAGEMENT PLAN
19908 DEVELOPMENT L
vRRB 19808
�' �LICy 1'1.A14 1970s LAND SIFICA,nON PLAN
CL
19608
GENERA
PLAN -
19508
A
Perloff 1980 Chapin 1965 Beaman 1928 AU 1976 Growth Management 1970s,
Fagin 1959 Kent 1964 Planning Enabling Oregon 1973 AU 1976
Meyerson 1956 701 Requirements' - Act 1928 CZMA 1972 Planning Theory 1960s
Walker 1941 1949.1954 Olmsted 1910 McHarg 1969
Bassett 1938 Burnham 1909 Hawaii 1961
FIGURE 1. The family tree of the land use plan
eral Oglethorpe's plan for Savannah.,- These plans, eluding "the general location and extent of new public
however, were blueprints for undeveloped sites, com- improvements ... and in the case of private develop -
missioned by unitary authorities with power to imple- merits, -the general distribution amongst various
ment them unilaterally (Reps 1965). classes of land uses, such as residential, business, and
In this century, perhaps the most influential early industrial uses ... designed for the future, twenty-
city plan was Daniel Burnham's plan for Chicago, five to fifty years" (Black 1968, 352 -3). Together,
published by the Commercial Club of Chicago (a Olmsted and Bettman anticipated the development of
civic, not a government entity) in 1909 (Schlereth -,the midcentury land use plan.
1981). The archetypical plan -as- inspirational- vision, Another early influence, the federal Standard City
it focuses only on design of public spaces as a City Planning Enabling Act of 1928, shaped enabling acts
Beautiful effort. passed by many states. However, the Act left many
The City Beautiful approach was soon broadened planners and public officials confused about the dif-
to a more comprehensive view. At the 1911 National ference between a master plan and a zoning ordinance,
Conference on City Planning, Frederick Law Olmsted, so that hundreds of communities adopted "zoning
Jr., son of the famous landscape architect and in his plane without having created comprehensive plans as
own right one of the fathers of planning, defined a city , the basis for zoning (Black 1968, 353). Because the Act
plan as encompassing all uses of land, private prop - also did not make clear the importance of comprehen-
erty, public sites, and transportation. Alfred Bettman, siveness or define the essential elements of physical de
speaking at the 1928 National Conference of City velopment, no consensus about the essential content
Planning, envisioned the plan as a master design for of the plan existed.
the physical development of the city's territory, in Ten years later, Edward Bassett's book, The Master
APA JOXMNAL- stnrrnM 1995 L36
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID IL GODSMALK
Plan (1938), spelled out the plan's subject matter and
format- supplementing the 1928 Act, and consistent
with it. fie argued that the plan should have seven ele-
ments, all relating to land areas (not buildings) and
capable of being shown on a map: streets, parks, sites
for public buildings, public reservations, routes for
public utilities, pier -head and bulkhead lines (all pub-
lic facilities), and zoning districts for private lands.
Bassett's views were incorporated in many state en-
abling laws (Haas 1955).
The physical plans of the first half of the century
were drawn by and for independent commissions, re-
flecting the profession's roots in the Progressive Re-
form movement, with its distrust of politics. The 1928
Act reinforced that perspective by making the plan
ring commission, not the legislative body,,the princi-
pal client of the plan, and purposely isolating the
commission from politics (Black '1968, 355). Bassett's' `
book reinforced the reliance on An independent com-
mission. He conceived of the plan as a "plastic" map,
kept within the purview of the planning commission,
capable of quick and easy change. The commission,
not the plan, was. intended to be the adviser to the
local legislative body and to city departments (Bas - .
sett 1938).
By the 1940s, both the separation of the planning
function from city government and the plan's focus
on physical development were being challenged. Rob -
ert Walker, in The Planning Function in Local Government,
argued that the "scope of city planning is properly as
broad as the scope of city government" (Walker 1941,
110). The central planning agency might not necessar-
ily do all the planning, but it would coordinate depart-
mental planning in the light of general policy
considerations— creating a comprehensive plan but
one without a physical focus. That idea was not widely
accepted. Walker also argued that the independent
planning commission should be replaced by a depart-
ment or bureau attached to the office of mayor or city
manager (Walker 1941, 177), That argument did take
hold, and by the 1960s planning in most communities
was the responsibility of an agency within local gov-
ernment, though planning boards still advised elected
officials on planning matters!
This evolution of ideas over SO years resulted at
midcentury in a consensus concept of a plan as ' fo-
cused on long -term physical development; this focus
was a legacy of the physical design professions. Plan-
ning staff worked both for the local government exec-
utive officer and with an appointed citizen planning
board, an arrangement that was a legacy of the Pro-
gressive insistence on the public interest as an anti-
dote to governmental corruption. The plan addressed-
368 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
.�O
both public and private uses of the land, but did not
deal in derail with implementation.
The Plan after Midcentury: New
Growth Influences
Local development planning grew rapidly in the
1950s, for several reasons. First, governments had to
contend with the postwar surge of population and ur-
ban growth, as well as a need for the capital invest-
ment in infrastructure and community facilities that
had been postponed during the depression and war
years. Second, municipal legislators and managers be-
came more interested in planning as it shifted from
being the responsibility of an independent commis -
sion to being a function within local government.
Third, and very important, Section 701 of the Housing
Act of. 1954 required local governments to adopt a
long -range general plan in order to qualify for federal
grants for urban renewal, housing, and other pro-
grams, and it also made • money available for such
comprehensive planning.s The 701 program's double-
barrelled combination of requirements and financial
support led to more urban planning in the United
States in the latter half of the 1950's than at any previ-
ous time in history (cited from Scott 1969, in Beal and
Hollander 1979, 159).
At the same time, the plan concept was pruned
and shaped by two planning educators. T. J. Kent, Jr.
was a professor at the University of California at
Berkeley, a planning commissioner, and a city council-
man -in the 1950s.. His book, The Urban General Plan
(1964), clarified the policy role of the plan.6 F. Stuart
Chapin, Jr. was a TVA planner and planning director
in Greensboro, NC in the 1940s, before joining the
planning faculty at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in 1949. His contribution was to codify
the methodology of land use planning in the various
editions of his book, Urban Land Use Planning (1957,
1965).'
What should the plan look like? What should it be
about? What is its purpose (besides the cynical pur-
pose of qualifying for federal grants)? The 701 pro-
gram, Kent, and Chapin all offered answers.
The -701" Program Comprehensive Plan
Guidelines
In order to qualify for federal urban renewal aid —
and, later, for other grants -a local government had
to -prepare a general plan that consisted of plans for
physical development, programs for redevelopment,
and administrative and regulatory measures for con-
trolling ' and guiding development. The 701 program
specified what the content of a comprehensive devel-
opment plan should include:
• A land use plan, indicating the locations and
amounts of land to be used for residential, commer-
cial, industrial, transportation, and public purposes
• A plan for circulation facilities
• A plan for public utilities
• A plan for community facilities
T. J. Kent's Urban General Plan
Kent's view of the plan's focus was similar to that
of the 701 guidelines: long -range physical develop-
ment in terms of land use, circulation, and commu-
nity facilities. In addition, the plan might include
sections on civic design and utilities, and special areas,
such as historic preservation or redevelopment area
It covered the entire geographical jurisdiction of the
community, and was in that sense comprehensive. The
plan was a vision of the future, but not a blueprint; a
policy statement, but not a program of action; a for-
mulation of goals, but not schedules, priorities, or cost
estimates. It was to be inspirational, uninhibited by
short -term practical considerations.
Kent (1964, 65 -89) believed the plan should em-
phasize policy, serving the following functions:
• Policy determination —to provide a process by which
a community would debate and decide on its policy
• Policy communication —to inform those concerned -
with development (officials, developers, citizens, the
courts, and others) and educate them about future
possibilities
• Policy effectuation —to serve as a general reference
for officials deciding on specific projects
• Conveyance of advice --to furnish legislators with
the counsel of their advisors in a coherent, unified
form
The format of Kent's proposed plan included a
unified, comprehensive, but general physical design
for the future, covering the whole community and rep-
resented by maps. (See figure 2.) It also contained
goals and policies (generalized guides to conduct, and
the most important ingredients of the plan), as well as
summaries of background 'conditions, trends, issues,
problems, and assumptions. (See figure 3.) So that the
plan would be suitable for public debate, it was to be
a complete, comprehensible document, containing
factual data, assumptions, statements of issues, and
goals, rather than merely conclusions and recommen-
dations. The plan belonged to the legislative body and
was intended to be consulted in decision - making dur-
ing council meetings.
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNIN,
Kent (1964, 25 -6) recommended overall goals for
the plan:
• Improve the physical environment of the commu-.
nity to make it more functional, beautifixl, decent,
healthful, interesting, and efficient
• Promote the overall public interest, rather than the
interests of individuals or special groups within the
community
Effect political and technical coordination in com-
munity development
• Inject long -range considerations into the determina-
tion of short - range actions
• Bring professional and technical knowledge to bear
on the making of political decisions about the physi-
cal development of the community
F .Stuart Chapin, Jr.-Is .Urban Land Use Plan
Chapin's - ideas, though focusing more narrowly
on the land use plan, were consistent with Kent's in
both the 1957 and 1965 editions of Urban Land Use
Planning, a widely used text and reference work for
planners. Chapin's concept of the plan was of agener-
alized, but scaled, design for the future use of land,
covering private land uses and public facilities, includ-
ing the thoroughfare network (Chapin 1957, 275 -7,
378).
Chapin conceived of the land use plan as the first
step in preparing a general or comprehensive plan.
Upon its completion, the land use plan served as a
temporary general guide for decisions, until the
comprehensive plan was developed. Later, the land
use plan would become a cornerstone in the compre-
hensive plan, which also included plans for transpor-
tation, utilities, community facilities, and renewal,
only the general rudiments of which are suggested
in the land use plan (Chapin 1957, 277, 388). Pur-
poses of the plan were to guide government ded
sions on public facilities, zoning, subdivision control,
and urban renewal, and to inform private developers
about the proposed future pattern of urban devel-
opment.
The format of Chapin's land use plan included a
statement of objectives, a description of existing con -
ditions and future needs for space and services, and
finally the mapped proposal for the future develop-
ment of the community, together with a program for
implementing the plan (customarily including zoning,
subdivision control, a housing code, a public works ex-
penditure program, an urban renewal program, and
other regulations and development measures) (Chapin
1957, 280 -3).
APA JOURNAL - SUMMER 1995 1369
FIGURE 2. Example of the land use design map featured in the 19SOs General Plan
Soura: Kent 1991, 111
370 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
BENNIE
°[tea �.p•'v,•., �
!.r:} . #i+,
liz,
41
a IILD�Ef� �ARK=i
�r
L Y:o DC'w 4.
A ALBANY �`
•
mot: ar.'M�°'sv a:•
1 tli• ,,
tR�.(}'al dyke
r•
(�. � H
CA' P(�ANIA�.- °j'rx•.k'�x�.,•;4y:.�t %s.�.rl;.r
go
s. .
i
A
EMERYVILLE
o
OAKLAND'
1958
o s000 Fwt
' - -
THE MASTER PLAN eONS13TS OF THIS
BERKELEY MASTER PLAN
MAP AND THE AMOMMMMS TEXT
BERKELEY PLANNING COMMISSION
(Note: That portion of the plan drawing showing schematic proposals for the development of the
tidelands west of line A-A has been deleted.)
RESIDENTIAL AREAS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Central District
0-30 Persons Per Acre
Commercial Service District
30-50 Persons Per Acre
Community Shopping Center
50-80 Persons Per Acre
Neighborhood Shopping Center
80-150 Persons Per Acre
Special Industrial District
FS Neighborhood Boundary and Number
Industrial District
PUBLIC SCHOOLS RECREATION AREAS CIRCULATION SYSTEM
❑ Existing Existing
Freeway
Proposed A Proposed
Major Thoroughfare
K Kindergarten -Primary ® Viewpoint
Secondary Thoroughfare
E Elementary see** Scenic Drive
Feeder Street
J Junior High ___ Trail
• e • Rapid Transit Route
H Senior High
® Rapid Transit Station
FIGURE 2. Example of the land use design map featured in the 19SOs General Plan
Soura: Kent 1991, 111
370 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
BENNIE
�3
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
THE URBAN GENERAL PLAN
INTRODUCTION: Reasons for G.P.; roles of council, CPC, citizens; historical
background and context of G.P. {s,
SUMMARY OF G.P.: Unified statement including (a) basic policies, (b) major
proposals, and (c) one schematic drawing of the physical design.
BASIC POLICIES
I. CONTEXT OF THE G.P.:
Historical background; facts
geographical and physical trends
factors; social and economic assumptions
factors; major issues, forecasts .
prgblems, and opportunities.
2. SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND URBAN
PHYSICAL- STRUCTURE CONCEPTS:
Value judgments concerning social
objectives; professional judgments
concerning major physical- structure
concepts adopted as basis for G.P. .
3. BASIC POLICIES OF THE G.P.:
Discussion of the basic policies that
the general physical design is intended
to implement.
contents of the
GENERAL PHYSICAL DESIGN
Description of plan proposals in relation
to large -scale G.P. drawing and citywide
drawings of:
1. Working - and - living - These drawings
areas section. must remain general.
2. Community- facilities They are needed
section. because single G.P.
3. Civic - design section. drawing is .too
4.. Circulation section. complex to enable
5. Utilities section. each element
to be clearly seen.
(Plus regional, functional, and district
drawings that are needed to explain G.P.)
. and publication as a
FIGURE 3. Components of the 19SOs -1960s General Plan
Source: Kent 1964, 93
The Typical General Plan of the 1950s and 1960s
Influenced by the 701 program, Kent's policy vi-
sion, and Chapin's methods, the plans of the 1950s
and 1960s were based on a clear and straightforward
concept: The plan's purposes were to determine, com-
municate, and effectuate comprehensive policy for the
private and public physical development and redevel-
opment of the city. The subject matter was long -range
physical development, including private uses of the
land, circulation, and community facilities. The stan-
dard format included a summary . of existing and
emerging conditions and needs; general goals; and a
long -range urban form in map format, accompanied
by consistent development policies. The coverage was
comprehensive, in the sense of addressing both public
and private development and covering the entire plan-
ning jurisdiction, but quite general The tone was typi-
cally neither as "inspirational" as the Burnham plan
for Chicago, nor as action- oriented as today's plans.
Such was the well- defined trunk of the family tree in
the 19SOs and 1960s, in which today's contemporary
plans have much of their origin.
Contemporary Plans: Incorporating
New Branches
Planning concepts and practice have continued to
evolve since midcentury, maturing in the process. By
the 1970s, a number of new ideas had taken root a Re-
ferring back to the family tree in figure 1, we can see a
trunk and several .distinct branches:
' • The land use design, a detailed mapping of future land
use arrangements, is the most direct descendant of
the 19SOs plan. It still constitutes the trunk of the
tree. However, today's version is more likely to be
accompanied by action strategies, also mapped, and
to include extensive policies.
• The land classification plan, a more general map of
growth policy areas rather than a detailed land use
pattern, is now also common, particularly for count -
ies, metropolitan areas, and regions that want to en-
courage urban growth in designated development
areas and to discourage it in conservation or rural
areas. The roots of the land classification plan in-
clude McHarg's Design With Nature (1969), the 1976
APA JOURNAL -stns 1995 1371
EDWARD I KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
American Law Institute (ALI) Model Land Develop-
ment Code, the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act,
and the 1973 Oregon Land Use Law.
- The verbal policy plan de- emphasizes mapped policy or
end -state visions and focuses on verbal action policy
statements, usually quite detailed; sometimes called
a strategic plan, it is rooted in Meyerson's (1956)
middle -range bridge to comprehensive planning,
Fagin's (1959) policies plan, and PerlofFs (1980)
strategies and policies general plan-
- The development management plan lays out a specific
program of actions to guide development, such as a
public investment program, a development code,
and a program to extend infrastructure and services;
and it assumes public sector initiative for influenc-
ing the location, type, and pace of growth. The roots
of the development management.plan are in the en-
vironmental movement, and the movements for
state growth management and.community growth
control (DeGrove 1984), as well as in ideas from
Fagin (1959) and the ALI Code.
We looked for, but could not find, examples of
land use plans that could be termed purely prototypi-
cal "strategic plans," in the sense of Bryson and Eins
weiler (1988). Hence, rather than identifying strategic
planning as a separate branch on the family tree of the
land use plan; we see the influence of strategic plan-
ning showing up across a range of contemporary
plaris. We tend to agree with the planners surveyed by
Kaufman and Jacobs (1988) that strategic planning
differs from good comprehensive planning more in
emphasis (shorter range, more realistically targeted,
more market oriented) than in kind.
The Land Use Design Plan
The land use design plan is the most traditional
of the four prototypes of contemporary plans and is
the most direct descendent of the Kent- Chapin -701
plans of the 1950s and 1960s. It proposes a long - range
future urban form as a pattern of retail, office, indus-
trial, residential, and open spaces, and public land uses
and a circulation system. Today's version, however, in-
corporates environmental processes, and sometimes
agriculture and forestry, under the "open space " cate-
gory of land use. Its land uses often include a "mixed
use category, honoring the neotraditional principle
of closer mingling of residential, employment, and
shopping areas. In addition, it may include a develop-
ment strategy map, which is designed to bring about
the future urban form and to link strategy to the com-
munity's financial capacity to provide infrastructure
and services. The plans and strategies are often orga-
nized around strategic themes or around issues about
372 - APA JouRML ■ SUNIM 1995
31
growth, environment, economic development, trans-
portation, or neighborhood /community scale change.
Like the other types of plans in vogue today, the ,
land use design plan reflects recent societal issues, par-
ticularly the environmental crisis, the, infrastructure
crisis, and stresses on local government finance. Con -
temporary planners no longer view environmental
factors as development constraints, but as valuable re-
sources and processes to be conserved. They also may
question assumptions about the desirability and inev-
itability of urban population and economic growth,
particularly as such assumptions stimulate demand
for expensive new roads, sewers, and schools. While
at midcentury plans unquestioningly accommodated
growth, today's plans cast the amount, pace, location,
and costs of growth as policy choices to be determined
in the planning process.
The 1990 Howard County (Maryland) General Plan,
winner of an American Planning Association (APA)
award in 1991 for outstanding comprehensive .plan -
ning, exemplifies contemporary land use design. (See
figure 4.) While clearly a direct descendent of the tradi-
tional general plan, the Howard County plan adds new
types of goals, policies, and planning techniques. To
enhance communication and public understanding, it
is organized strategically around six themes /chapters
(responsible regionalism, preservation of the rural
area, balanced growth, working with nature, commu-
nity enhancement, and phased growth), instead of the
customary plan elements. Along with the traditional
land use design, the plan includes a "policy map"
(strategy map) for each theme and an overall policies
map for the years 2000 and 2010. A planned service
area boundary is used to contain urban growth within
the eastern urbanized part of the county, home to the
well- known. Columbia New Town.10 The plan lays out
specific next steps to, be implemented over the next.
two years, and defines yardsticks for measuring suc-
cess. An extensive public participation process for for-
mulating the plan involved a 32- member General Plan
Task Force, public opinion polling to discover citizen
concerns, circulation of preplan issue papers on devel-
opment impacts, and consideration of six alternative
development scenarios."
The Land Classification Play .
Land classification, or development priorities
mapping, is a proactive effort by government to spec-
ify where and under what conditions growth will oc-
cur. Often, it also regulates the pace or timing of
growth. Land classification addresses environmental
protection by designating "nondevelopment" areas in
especially vulnerable locations. Like the land use de-
sign, the land classification plan is spatially specific
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNINu
FIGURE 4. Howard County, Maryland, General Plan, Land Use 2010
Source: Adapted from Howard County 1990
and map- oriented. However, it is less specific about
the pattern of land uses within areas specified for de-
velopment, which results in a kind of silhouette of ur-
ban form. On the other hand, land. classification is
more specific about development strategy, including
timing. Counties, metropolitan. areas, and regional
planning agencies are more likely than cities to use a
land classification plan.
The land classification plan identifies areas where
development will be encouraged (called urban, tran-
sition, or development areas) and areas where de-
velopment will be discouraged (open space, rural,
conservation, or critical environmental areas). For
each designated area, policies about the type, timing,
and density of allowable development, extension of in-
frastructure, and development incentives or con-
straints apply. The planning principle is to concentrate
financial resources, utilities, and services within a lim-
ited, prespecified area suitable for development, and
to relieve pressure on nondevelopment areas by with-
holding facilities that accommodate growth .12
Ian McHarg's (1969) approach to land planning is
an early example of the land classification concept. He
divides planning regions into three categories: natural
use,. production, and urban. Natural use areas, those
with valuable ecological functions, have the highest
priority. Production areas, which include agriculture,
forestry, and fishing uses, are next in priority. Urban
areas have the lowest priority and are designated after
alldcating the land suitable to the two higher - priority
'uses. McHarg's approach in particular, and land classi-
fication generally, also reflect the emerging environ-
mental consciousness of the 1960s and 1970s.
As early as 1961, Hawaii had incorporated the land
classification approach into its state growth manage -
ment system (Degrove 1984). The development frame-
work plan of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin
Cities Area defined "planning tiers," each intended for a
different type and intensity of development (Reichert
1976). The concepts of the "urban service area, ", first
used in 1958 in Lexington, Kentucky, and the "urban
growth boundary," used throughout Oregon under its
1973 statewide planning act, classify land according to
growth management policy (Abbott, Howe, and Adler
APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995 1373
EDWARD I KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
1994). Typically, the size of an urban growth area is
based on the amount ofland necessary to accommodate
development over a period of ten or twenty years.
Vuion 2005.• A Comprehensive Plan for Forsyth County,
Nortfi Carolina exemplifies the contemporary approach
to land classification plans. The plan, which won hon-
orable mention from APA in 1989, employs a six-
category system of districts, plus a category for activ-
.ity centers. It identifies both short- .and long -range
growth areas (4A and 4B in figure 5). and
applica-
ble to each district are detailed in the plan.
The Verbal Policy Place: Shedding the Maps
The verbal policy. plan focuses on written state-
ments of goals and policy, without mapping specific,
land use patterns or implementation strategy. Some-
times called a policy framework plan, '-ace verbal policy
plan is more easily prepared and flexible than other
types of plans, particularly for incorporating nonphys-
ical development policy (Perloff 1980, 233 -8). Some
claim that such a plan helps the planner to avoid rely-
ing too heavily on maps, which are difficult to keep up
to date with the community's changes in policy (Hol-
lander et al. 1988). The verbal policy plan also avoids
falsely representing general policy as applying to spe-
cific parcels of property. The skeptics, however, claim
that verbal statements in the absence of maps provide
too little spatial specificity to guide implementation
decisions (Reichert 1976).
The verbal policy plan may be used at any level of
government, but is especially common at the state
level, whose scale is unsuited to land use maps. The
plan usually contains goals, facts and projections, and
general policies corresponding to its purposes —to un-
derstand current and emerging conditions and issues,
to identify goals to be pursued and issues to be ad-
dressed, and to formulate general principles of action..
Sometimes communities do a verbal policy plan as an
interim plan or a first step in the-planning process.
Thus, verbal policies are included in most land use de-
sign plans, land classification plans, and development
management plans.
The Calvert County, MD Comprehensive Plan (Calvert
County 1983), winner of a 1985 APA award, exempli-
fies the verbal policy plan. Its policies are concise, easy
to grasp, and grouped in sections corresponding to the
FIGURE S. Example of a land dassQfication plan
Source. Adapted from Forsyth County City- County Planning Board 1988
174 - APA JOURNAL -SUMMER 1995
six divisions of county government responsible for im-
plementation. It remains a policy plan, however, be-
cause it does not specify a program of specific actions
for development management. Though the plan
dearly addresses physical development and discusses
specific spatial areas, it contains no land use map. (See
figure 6 for an illustrative page from the Calvert
County plan.)
The Development Management Plan
The development management plan features a
coordinated program of actions, supported by anal-
37
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNIN j
yses and goals, for specific agencies of local govern-
ment to undertake over a three-to-ten-year period. The
program of actions usually specifies the content, geo-
graphic coverage, timing, assignment of responsibil-
ity, and coordination among the parts. Ideally, the
plan includes most or all of the following compo-
nents: -
• Description of existing and emerging development
conditions, witli particular attention to develop -
ment processes, the political- instirutional context,
and a critical review of the existing systems of devel-
opment management
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Industrial Districts are intended to provide areas in the county which are suitable for
the needs'of industry. They should be located and designed to be compatible with the
surrounding land uses, either due to existing natural features or through the application
of standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Identify general locations for potential industrial uses.
2. Permit retail sales as an accessory use in the Industrial District.
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Single - Family Residential Districts are to be developed and promoted as neighborhoods
free from any land usage which might adversely affect them.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. For new development, require buffering for controlling visual, noise, and
activity impacts between residential and commercial uses.
2. Encourage single - famity residential development to locate in the
designated towns..
3. Allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes as a conditional use in the
'R -f' Residential Zone so long as the design is compatible with the
single - family residential development
4. Allow home occupations (professions and services, but not retail sales)
by permitting the employment of one tuti-time equivalent Individual not
-residing on the premises..
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS `
Multifamily Residential Districts provide for townhouses and multifamily apartment units.
Areas designated in this category are those which are currently served or scheduled to
be served by community or multi -use sewerage and water supply systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Permit multifamily development in the Solomons, Prince Frederick, and
Twin Beach Toms.
2. Require multifamily projects to provide adequate recreational facilities
equipment structures, and play surfaces.
3, Evaluate the feasibility of increasing the dwell[Ing unit density permitted
In the multifamily Residential Zone (R -2).
FIGURE 6. An excerpt from averbal policy plan
Source: Calvert County, Maryland 1983
APA JOURNAL- SUWvM 1995 137S
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
• Statement of goals and/or legislative intent, includ-
ing management- oriented goals
• Program . of actions —the heart of the plan —in-
cluding:
1. Outline of a proposed development code, with:
(a) procedures for reviewing development per-
mits; (b) standards for the type of development,
density, allowable impacts and/or performance
standards; (c) site plan, site engineering, and con -
struction practice requirements; (d) exactions
and impact fee provisions and other incentives /
disincentives; and (e) delineation of districts
where various development standards, proce-
dures, exactions, fees, and incentives apply
2. Program for the expansion of urban infrastruc`
tare and community facilities and their service
areas
3. Capital improvement program
4. Property acquisition program
S. Other components, depending on the commu-
nity situation, for example, a preferential taxa-
tion program, an urban revitalization program
for specific built -up neighborhoods, or a historic
preservation program
•
Official maps, indicating legislative intent, which
may be incorporated into ordinances, with force of
law —among them, goal -form maps (e.g., land classi-
fication plan or land use design); maps of zoning dis-
tricts, overlay districts, and other special areas for
which development types, densities, and other re-
quirements vary; maps of urban services areas; maps
showing scheduled capital improvements; or other
maps related to development management stan-
dards and procedures
The development management plan is a distinct
type, emphasizing a specific course of action, not gen-
eral policy. At its extreme the management plan actu-
ally incorporates implementation measures, so that
the plan becomes part of a regulative ordinance. Al-
though the spatial specifications for regulations and
other implementation measures are included, a land
use map may not be.
One point of origin for development management
plans is Henry Fagin's (1959, 1965) concept of the
"policies plan," whose purpose was to coordinate the
actions of line departments and provide a basis for
evaluating their results, as well as to formulate, com-
municate, and implement policy (the traditional pur-
pose). Such a plan's subject matter was as broad as the
responsibilities of the local government, including but
not limited to physical development. The format in-
cluded a "state of the community" message, a physical
plan, a financial plan, implementation measures, and
376 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
detailed sections- for each department of the gov-
ernment.
A more recent point of origin is A Model Land De-
velopment Code (American Law Institute 1976), in-
tended to replace the 1928 Model Planning Enabling
Act as a model for local planning and development
management. The model plan consciously retains an
emphasis on physical development (unlike Fagin's
broader concept), but stresses a short -term program of
action, rather than a long -term, mapped goal form.
The ALI model plan contains a statement of condi-
dons and problems; objectives, policies, and stan-
dards; and a short -term (from one to five years)
Program of specific public actions. It may also include
land acquisition requirements, displacement impacts,
development regulations, program costs and fund
sources, and environmental, social, and economic con-
sequences. More than other plan types, the develop-
ment management plan: is a "course of action"
initiated by government to control the location and
timing of development.l'
The Sanibel, Florida, Comprehensive Land Use Plan -
(1981) exemplifies the development management
plan. The plan outlines the standards and procedures
of regulations (Le, the means of implementation), as
well as the analyses, goals, and statements of intent
normally presented in a plan. Thus, when the local leg -
islature adopts the plan, it also adopts an ordinance
for its implementation. Plan and implementation are
merged into one instrument, as can be seen in d%e con -
tent of its articles:
Article 1: Preamble: including purposes and objec-
tives, assumptions, coordination with sur-
rounding areas, and implementation
Article 2: Elements of the Plan: Safety, Human Sup-
port Systems, Protection of Natural Envi-
ronmental, Economic and Scenic
Resources, Intergovernmental Coordina-
tion, and Land Use
Article 3: Development Regulations: Definitions,
Maps, Requirements, Permitted Uses, Sub-
divisions, Mobile Home and Recreation Ve-
hides, Flood and Storm Proofing, Site
Preparation, and Environmental Perfor-
mance Standards
Article 4: Administrative Regulations (i.e, proce-
dures): Standards, Short Form Permits, De-
velopment Permits, Completion Permits,
Amendments to the Plan, and Notice,
Hearing and Decision Procedures on
Amendments
Figure 7 shows the Sanibel plan's map of permitted
uses, which is more like a zoning plan than a land use
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
FIGURE 7. Map of permitted uses, Sanibel
Source. • City of Sanibel 1981
design plan, because it shows where regulations apply,
and boundaries are exact.
The Contemporary - Hybrid
Plan: Integrating Design, Policy,
and Management
The rationality of practice has integrated the use-
ful parts of each of the separate prototypes reviewed
here into contemporary. hybrid plans that not only
map and classify land use in both specific and general
ways, but also propose policies and management mea-
sures. For example, Gresham, Oregon (1980) com-
bined land use design (specifying residential,
commercial, and industrial areas, and community
facilities and public lands) with an overlay of land clas-
sification districts (developed, developing, rural, and
conservation), and also included standards and proce-
dures for issuing development permits (i.e., a develop-
ment code). Prepared with. considerable participation
by citizens and interest grups, such plans usually re-
flect animated political debates about the costs and
benefits of land use alternatives.
The states that manage growth have created new
land use governance systems whose influence has
broadened the conceptual arsenals of local planners.
DeGrove (1992, 161) identifies the common elements
of these systems:
• consistency— intergovernmentally and internally
(i.e., between plan and regulations)
• concurrency— between infrastructure and new de-
velopment
• compactness —of new growth, to limit urban sprawl
• affordability—of new housing
• economic development, or "managing to grow"
• sustainability-of natural systems
DeGrove attributes the changes in planning under
growth management systems to new hard -nosed con -
cerns for measurable implementation and realistic
funding mechanisms. For example, Florida local gov-
ernments must adopt detailed capital improvement
programs as part of their comprehensive plans, and
substantial state grants may be withheld if their plans
do not meet consistency and concurrenry requ. -
ments.
Another important influence on contemporary
plans is the renewed attention to community design.
The neotraditional and transit- oriented design move -
ments have inspired a number of proposals for• mixed-
use villages in land use plans (Calthorpe 1993; . Duany
and Plater- Zyberk 1991).
"A JoURML- sUMMHR 1995 377
T �
FIGURE 7. Map of permitted uses, Sanibel
Source. • City of Sanibel 1981
design plan, because it shows where regulations apply,
and boundaries are exact.
The Contemporary - Hybrid
Plan: Integrating Design, Policy,
and Management
The rationality of practice has integrated the use-
ful parts of each of the separate prototypes reviewed
here into contemporary. hybrid plans that not only
map and classify land use in both specific and general
ways, but also propose policies and management mea-
sures. For example, Gresham, Oregon (1980) com-
bined land use design (specifying residential,
commercial, and industrial areas, and community
facilities and public lands) with an overlay of land clas-
sification districts (developed, developing, rural, and
conservation), and also included standards and proce-
dures for issuing development permits (i.e., a develop-
ment code). Prepared with. considerable participation
by citizens and interest grups, such plans usually re-
flect animated political debates about the costs and
benefits of land use alternatives.
The states that manage growth have created new
land use governance systems whose influence has
broadened the conceptual arsenals of local planners.
DeGrove (1992, 161) identifies the common elements
of these systems:
• consistency— intergovernmentally and internally
(i.e., between plan and regulations)
• concurrency— between infrastructure and new de-
velopment
• compactness —of new growth, to limit urban sprawl
• affordability—of new housing
• economic development, or "managing to grow"
• sustainability-of natural systems
DeGrove attributes the changes in planning under
growth management systems to new hard -nosed con -
cerns for measurable implementation and realistic
funding mechanisms. For example, Florida local gov-
ernments must adopt detailed capital improvement
programs as part of their comprehensive plans, and
substantial state grants may be withheld if their plans
do not meet consistency and concurrenry requ. -
ments.
Another important influence on contemporary
plans is the renewed attention to community design.
The neotraditional and transit- oriented design move -
ments have inspired a number of proposals for• mixed-
use villages in land use plans (Calthorpe 1993; . Duany
and Plater- Zyberk 1991).
"A JoURML- sUMMHR 1995 377
L�� 1
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R GODSCHAIX
Toward a Sustainable Seattle: A Plan for Managing
Growth (1994) exemplifies a city approach to the con-
temporary hybrid plan. Submitted as the Mayor's rec-
ommended comprehensive plan, it attempted to
muster political support for its proposals. Three core
values — social equity, environmental stewardship, and
economic security and opportunity— underlie the
plan's overall goal of sustainability. This goal is to be
achieved by integrating plans for land use and trans -
portation, healthy and affordable housing, and careful
capital investment in a civic compact based on a
shared vision. Citywide population and job growth
targets, midway between growth ` completely by re-
gional sprawl and growth completely by infill, are set
forth within a 20 -year time frame. The plan is de-
signed to meet the requirements. of the Washington
State Growth Management Act.
The land use element designates urban center vil-
lages, hub urban villages, residential urban villages,
neighborhood villages, and manufacturing/industrial
centers, each with specific design guidelines (figure 8).
The city's capacity for growth is identified, and then
allocated according to the urban village strategy. Fu-
ture development-is directed to mixed -use neighbor-
hoods, some of which are already established; existing
single - family areas are protected. Growth is shaped to
build community, promote pedestrian and transit use,
protect natural amenities and existing residential and
employment areas, and ensure diversity of people and
activities. Detailed land use policies carry out the plan.
Loudoun County Cbowa and Changer. General Plan
(1991), which won APA's 1994 award for comprehen-
sive planning in small jurisdictions, exemplifies a
county approach to the contemporary hybrid plan. Its
goals are grouped into three categories:
1. Natural and cultural resources goals seek to protect
fragile. resources by limiting development or mitt-
gating disturbances, while at the same time not un-
duly diminishing land values.
2. Growth management goals seek to accommodate
and manage the county's fair share of regional
growth, guiding development into the urbanized
eastern part of the county or existing . western
towns and their urban growth areas, and conserv-
ing agriculture and open space. areas in the west.
(See figure 9.)
3. Community design goals seek to concentrate
growth in compact, urban nodes to create mixed -
use communities with strong visual identities,
human -scale street networks, and a range of hous-
ing and employment opportunities utilizing neo-
traditional design concepts (illustrated in figure 9).
Three time horizons are addressed: the "ultimate"
vision through 2040, the 20 year, long -range devel-
378 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
opment pattern; and the five -year, short- range de-
velopment pattern. The plan uses the concept of
community character areas as an organizing frame-
work for land use management. Policies are proposed
for the overall county, as well as for the eastern urban
growth areas, town urban growth areas, rural areas,
and existing rural village areas. Implementation tools
include capital facility and transportation proffers by
developers, density transfers, community design
guidelines, annexation guidelines, and an action
schedule of next steps.
Summary of the Contemporary
Situation
Since midcentury, the nature of the plan has
shifted from an elitist, inspirational, long -range vision
that was based on fiscally innocent implementation
advice, to a framework for community consensus on
future growth that is supported by fiscally grounded
actions to manage change.ls Subject matter has ex-
panded to include the natural as well as the built envi-
ronment. Format has shifted from simple . poliry
statements and a single large -scale map of future land
use, circulation, and community facilities, to a more
complex combination of text, data, maps, and time ta-
bles. In a number of states, plans are required by state
law, and their content is specified by state agencies
(Bollens 1993). Table 2 compares the general plan of
the 1950s -1960s with the four contemporary proto-
type plans and the new 1990s hybrid design -policy-
management plan, which combines aspects of the pro-
totype plans.
Today's prototype land use design continues to
emphasize long -range urban form for land uses, com-
munity facilities, . and transportation systems as
shown by a map; but the design is also expressed in
general policies. Land use design is still a common
form of development plan, especially in municipal-
ities.16
The land classification plan also still emphasizes
mapping, but of development policy rather than
policy about a pattern of urban land uses. Land clas-
sification is more specific about development manage-
ment and environmental protection, but less specific
about transportation, community facilities, and the
internal arrangement of. the future urban form.
County and regional governments are more likely
than are municipalities to use land classification plans.
The verbal policies plan eschews the spatial speci-
ficity of land use design and land classification plans
and focuses less on physical development issues. It is
more suited to regions and states, or may serve as an
interim plan for a city or county while another type
of plan is being prepared.
A
NIORTHGATE
0 NIFISITY
DiSTRICT
SIATILF
WER
FIRST HILL
Cl"PiTOL NIL
aTr
1
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
~ l
J
1
Phase I
Baetera Urban Growth Area
Town Urbaa Growth Arew
■Phase H
Phase III
❑ Rural area
• Mdsting rural village
FIGURE 9. . Neotradidonal community schematic and generalized policy planning areas,
Loudoun County, Virginia General Plan
Source. Planning 60, 3: 10 (1994)
380 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
TABLE 2. Comparison of plan types
1950s
General
Features of Plans Plan
Land Use Maps
Nature of Recommendations
Time Horizon
Link to Implementation
Public Participation
Capital Improvements
Land Use /Tr4nsportation
Linkage
Environmental Protection
Social Policy Linkage
X13
TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
Contemporary Prototype Plans
1990s Hybrid
Land Development Design - Policy.
Land Use Classification Verbal Management Management
Design. Plan Policy Plan Plan Plan
Detailed Detailed General . No By growth areas General and
area specific
General Land use Growth Variety of Specific Policy and
community policies & locations & community management actions
goals
objectives
incentives
policies
actions
Long range
Long range
Long range
Intermediate
Short range
Short and long
range
range
Very weak.
Weak to
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Moderate to
moderate
Strong
Pro-forma
Active
Moderate
Moderate
Active
Active
Advisory
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Required
Recommended
to required
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Varies
Strong
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Varies
Varies
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate to
Weak
Moderate
strong
The development management plan represents
the greatest shift from the traditional land use plan.
It embodies a short -to- intermediate -range program of
governmental actions for ongoing growth manage-
ment rather than for long -range comprehensive
Planning
In pracace, these four types of plans are not mutu-
ally exclusive. Communities often combine aspects of
them into a hybrid general plan that has policy sec -
dons covering environmental /social /economic/hous-
mg/infrastructure concerns, land classification maps
defining spatial.growth policy, land use design maps
specifying locations of particular land uses, and devel-
opment management programs laying out standards
and procedures for guiding and paying for growth. Re-
gardless of the type of plan used, the most progressive
planning programs today regard the plan as but one
part of a coordinated growth management program,
rather than, as in the 19SOs, the main planning prod-
uct. Such :a program incorporates a capital improve-
ment program, land use controls, small area plans,
functional plans, and other devices, as well as a gen-
eral plan -17
The Enduring Land Use Family
Tree and Its Future Branches .
For the first SO years of this century, planning re-
sponded to concerns about progressive governmental
reform, the City Beautiful, and the "City Efficient"
Plans were advisory, specifying a future urban form,
and were developed by and for an independent com-
mission. By midcentury this type of plan, growing out
of the design tradition, had become widespread in lo-
cal practice. During the 19SOs and 1960s the 701 pro-
gram, T.J. Kent, and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. further
articulated the plan's content and methodology. Over
the last 30 years,.environmental and infrastructure is-
sues have pushed planning toward growth manage-
ment. As citizen activists and interest groups have
taken more of a role, land use politics have become
more heated. Planning theorists, too, have questioned
the midcentury approach to planning, and have pro-
posed changes in focus, process, subject matter, and
format, sometimes challenging even the core idea of
rational planning. As a result, practice has changed,
though not to a. monolithic extent and without en-
drely abandoning the traditional concept of a plan. In-
stead, at least four distinct types of plans have evolved,
all descending more or less from the mid- century
model, but advocating very different concepts of what
a plan should be. With a kind of self - correcting com-
mon sense, the plans of the 1990s have subsequently
incorporated the useful parts of each of these proto-
types to create today's hybrid design/policy/manage-
ment plans.
To return to our analogy of the plan's family tree:
Roots for the physical development plan became well
APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995 L1.11
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R GODSCHALK
established during the first half of this century. By
1950, a sturdy trunk concept had developed. Since
then, new roots and branches have appeared —land
classification plans, verbal policy plans, and develop-
ment management plans. Meanwhile development of
the main trunk of the tree —the land use design —has
continued. Fortunately, the basic gene pool has been
able to combine with new genes in order to survive
as a more complex organism —the 1990s design -policy-
management hybrid plan. The present family tree of
planning reflects both its heredity and its envi-
ronment.
The next ;generation of physical development
Plans also should mature and adapt without abandon-
ing their heritage. We expect that by the year 2000;
plans will be more participatory,' more eletctronically
based, and concerned with increasingly complex is-
sues. An increase in participation seems certain, bol-
stered by interest groups' as well as governments' use
of expert systems and computer' databases. A touch
broader consideration of alternative plans and scenar-
ios, as well as a more flexible and responsive process of
plan amendment, will become possible. These changes
will call upon planners to use new skills of consensus
building and conflict management, as more groups ar-
ticulate their positions on planning matters, and gov-
ernment plans and interest group plans compete, each
backed by experts (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).
With the advent of the "information highway,"
plans are more likely to be drafted, communicated,
and debated through electronic networks and virtual
reality images. The appearance of plans on CD ROM
and cable networks will allow more popular access and
input, and better understanding of plans' three -
dimensional consequences. It will be more important
than ever for planners to compile information accu-
rately and ensure it is fairly communicated. They will
need to compile, analyze, and manage complex data-
bases, as well as to translate abstract data into under -
standable impacts and images.
Plans will continue to be affected by dominant is-
sues of the times: aging infrastructure and limited
public capital, central city decline and suburban
growth, ethnic and racial diversity, economic and envi-
ronmental sustainability, global competition and
interdependence, and land use /transportation /air
quality spillovers. Many of these are unresolved issues
from the last thirty years,_ now grown more complex
and interrelated. Some are addressed by new programs
like the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) and HUD's Empowerment Zones and En=
terprise Communities. To cope with others, planners
must develop new concepts and create new tech-
niques.
382 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
4µ.
One of the most troubling new issues is an at-
tempt by conservative politicians (see the Private Prop-
erty Protection Act of 1995 passed by the U.S. House
of Representatives) and "wise use" (Jacobs 1995)
groups to reverse the precedence of the public interest
over individual private property rights. These groups
challenge the use of federal, state, and local regula-
tions to implement land use plans and protect envi-
ronmental resources when the result is any reduction
in "the economic value of affected private property.
Should their challenge succeed and become widely
adopted in federal and state law, growth management
plans based on regulations could become toothless.
Serious thinking by land use lawyers and planners
would be urgently needed to create workable new im-
plementation techniques, setting in motion yet an-
other.planning evolution.
We are optimistic, however, about the future of
land use planning. Like democracy, it is not a perfect
institution but works better than its alternatives. Be-
cause land use planning has adapted effectively to this
century's turbulence and become stronger in the pro-
cess, we believe that the twenty -first century will see
it continuing as a mainstay of strategies to manage
community change.
AUTHORS' NOTE
We appreciate the constructive comments on earlier drafts
of this article by a number of colleagues, especially Alan
Black, Linda Dalton, and Kern Lowery, and by the journal's
reviewers and editors. Matthew Goebel conducted the sur-
vey of comprehensive plans in growth- managing states.
NOTES
1. Each critic puts forth his or her own alternative to com-
prehensive physical planning. Some make radical rec-
ommendations, such as doing away with the mapped
land -use general plan (Perloff 1980, 233 -4) or even with
long -range planning for Euclidean space based on
straight and parallel lines and angles of plane triangles
(Friedmann 1993, 482). However, the principles embod-
ied in their solutions tend to turn up in land use plan-
ning practice over time. Thus, we find that some
comprehensive plans, such as Sanibel's, include land use
regulations as recommended by Perin (1967, 337). Per -
lofFs (1980) call for policy planning has been heeded by-
nearly all contemporary plans, though not to the exclu-
sion of land use maps. Actually, no one could have fore-
seen in 1980 the extent to which GIS has tied policy
analysis to land use mapping, suitability studies, sketch
planning, and scenario development (Harris and Batty
1993). Friedmann (1993) calls for planning that is
normative, innovative, political, aw sactive, and based
on social learning. Arguably, all of these qualities may
be found in leading edge examples of contemporary
land use planning. Jacobs (1992) sees land use planning
as a modernist conception challenged by postmodern
phenomena, including a populist citizen movement, a
redefinition of private property rights, and growing
computer literary. Again, these factors affect land use
planning without rendering it obsolete.
2. In growth- managing states, regulations for local com-
prehensive plans typically specify the content of the
land use elements. For example, Florida's 9J -5 rules re-
quire maps of existing and proposed land use in all local
plans prepared in that state. Not only, are local plans
mandatory in Florida, but also they must include realis-
tic capital improvement programs, be adopted by the
governing body, and be revised every five years. There
is evidence that stare planning mandates improve the
quality of local plans (Berke and French, 1994).
3. The land use plan typically is one element of a compre-
hensive or general plan, which also includes other ele-
ments, such as transportation, community facilities,
and economic development. We acknowledge that these:,
are related to land use decisions, but here we limit our
attention to land use.,
4. In the late 1940s more than SO percent of all planning
directors in dries with populations over 25,000 were
still appointed by planning commissions. The commis -,
sion was the client for .the plan, and therefore the plan
was not seen as something tied closely to implemenra-
tion. By 1971 only. 18 percent of planning directors were
appointed by such commissions, most being appointed
instead by chief executives, and working directly in the
executive branch (sometimes working for the planning
commission as a second boss) (reported in Brooks,
1988). It was only natural that planning became more
closely linked to decision making, and the role of plans
was increasingly seen as more closely linked to decisions
and implementation.
S. Through the end of 1964, the 701 program had allo-
cated $79 million in grants for planning in 4,462 locali-
ties (cited in Black 1968). By its peak, 1971 through
1975, the program was allocating approximately $100
million a year. At its rescindment in 1981, the program
had appropriated over $1 billion to comprehensive plan-
ning (Feiss 1985, 182).
6. Kent's book was later summarized by Alan Black, who
worked originally with Kent, in a chapter on the "The
Comprehensive Plan" in the 1968 edition of Principles
and Practice of Urban Planning (the planner's "big green
bible "), which summarizes the state of the art of plan-
ning practice in the 1960s (Black 1968). In testimony to
the staying power of Kent's concept of the plan, the
book was republished in 1991, virtually unchanged.
7. Chapin's ideas, like those of Kent, had staying power.
However, to keep pace with advances in methodology,
his book appeared in a third edition in 1979 and in a
fourth edition in 1995 (Chapin and Kaiser 1979; Kaiser,
Godschalk, and Chapin 1995).
8. A late 1970s survey, "The State of the Art in Local Plan-
ning," looked at 27 communities nominated by con -
suliing firms and HUD staff as having 'especially
�s
TWEN71ETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
interesting or effective master plans" (Fishman 1978,
appendix to chapter 5). Examples of our prototypes in-
cluded Philadelphia (land use design), Boulder and Pe-
taluma (growth management. plan), Cleveland and
Dallas (policies plan). The report looked at a number
of distinguishing plan features, including whether they
were top down or bottom up, the physical versus social
nature of their goals, the inclusion of maps, the pro -
cesses for plan preparation and revision, implements
don strategies, and citizen participation approaches.
9. Social issues, such as segregation, unemployment,
crime, and community disintegration, are primarily ad-
dressed through the housing and economic develop -
ment elements of comprehensive plans, although there
are linkages to land use through neighborhood plans,
community facility programs, and public investment
strategies.
10. In this respect, the Howard County Plan also has some
similarities to the prototype land classification plan.
11. For an account of the politics behind the plan (the plan
was adopted but the county executive and planning di-
rector lost their positions) and an assessment of the les-
sons of the planning process, see Avin and Mennitto
(1992):
12. Classification plans usually include more than just the
two basic types of districts— development and nondevel
opment. For example, the urban area might be divided
into a "developed" area, consisting of the built -up cen-
tral city and older suburbs, and a "transition" area,
which is undeveloped or only partially developed at the
time of the plan. The transition area might be divided
into districts to be developed earlier (e.g, first 10 years)
and districts to be developed later (e.g., years 10 -20). A
"rural" area might be divided into agricultural districts
with a policy of long -range commitment to agricultural
and forest uses, and less critical rural districts that
could become urban transition in the future. "Environ-
mentally critical" area might be divided into areas with
specific critical environmental processes, _e.g, wetlands
being designated as separate from water supply water-
sheds, with each having its 'own policies and develop -
ment standards.
13. Adapted. from plans for Breckenridge, Colorado, 1977,
1987, Gresham, Oregon, 1980; Sam�bel, Florida, 1981;
' and Hardin County, Kentucky, 1985; see also Fagin
1959, 1965; American Law Institute 1976.
14. The idea of plan as course of action originated in the
1960s as planning theory incorporated notions from
policy analysis and business administration into the ra.-
donal planning model, broadening the design concept
of a plan. These new concepts stressed means as much
as ends, and shifted the role of government from facili-
tating private development to proactive guidance of
growth.
15, codification of the action requirements of land use
Plans can be found in the regulations implementing the
Florida and Oregon growth management gets. Florida
requires the provision of infrastructure "concurrently"
with future. development (DeGrove 1992,16 -7). Oregon
APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995 1383
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R GODSCHALK
requires that communities delineate and enforce urban
growth boundaries (Howe 1993).
16. See, for example, the Cleveland Civic Vrsion 2000 Citywide
Plan (Cleveland City Planning" Commission 1991), suc-
cessor to Cleveland's o&- described 1975 Policy Planning
Report:
17. Growth management programs are related to the no-
tion of the urban development guidance system, intro-
duced by Chapin (1963). His concept featured the
general plan as the organizing element, backed_by an
"urban development policies instrument," a public
works program (to be followed up with a more derailed
capital improvements program), an urban development
code (unifying most development regulations), and a
civic education/participation program.
REFERENCES
Abbott, Carl, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler. 1994. Planning the
Oregon Way: A 7kvnty Year Evaluation. Corvallis, OR: Ore-
gon State University Press.
American Law. Institute (ALI). 1976. A Model Land DevekT-
meet Code. Washington, DC: The American Law Institute.
Avin, Uri, and Donna Mennitto.1992. Howard County Gen -
eral Plan: The Politics of Growth Management. American
Institute of Certified Planners, Planners' Casebook (Wm-
ter): 1 -8.
Bassett, Edward M. 1938. The Master Plan. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Beal, Frank, and Elizabeth Holland= 1979. City Develop -
nlent Plans. In The Practice of Local Government Planning,
edited by Frank S. So, Israel Stollman, Frank Beal, and
David S. Arnold. Washington, DC: International City
Management Association, in cooperation with the Amen-
can Planning Association.
Berke, Philip, and Steven P. French. 1994. The Influence of
State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality. Journal of
Planning Education and Research 13: 237 -50.
Black, Alan. 1968. The Comprehensive Plan. In Principles and
Practke of Urban Planning, edited by William L Goodman
and Eric C. Freund. Washington, DC: International City
Managers' Association, 349 -78.
Bollens, Scott A. 1993. Restructuring Land Use Governance.
Journal of PlanningLiterature 7,3: 211 -26.
Breckenridge, Town of, Comprehensive Planning Program
1977. Land Use Guidance System. Breckenridge, CO: The
Harris St. Group.
Breckenridge, Town of. 1987. Land Use Guidelines Brecken-
ridge, CO: Department of Community Development..
Brooks, Michael P. 1988. Four Critical Junctures in the His-
tory of the Urban Planning Profession: An Exercise in
Hindsight. Journal of the American Planning Association
54,2:241-8.
Bryson, John M, and Robert C. Einsweiler, eds. 1988. Strate-
gic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners Chicago:
Planners Press.
Calthorpe, Peter 1993. The Next American Metropolis.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
3"j- APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995
WAA
Calvert County, MD. 1983. Comprehensive Plan, Calvert County,
Maryland. Prince Frederick, MD: Calvert County.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. 1957. Urban Land Use Planning. New
York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. 1963. Taking Stock of Techniques for
Shaping Urban Growth. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 29,2: 76 -87.
Chapin, R Stuart, Jr 1965. Urban Land Use Planning. 2d edi-
tion. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr, and Edward j. Kaiser. 1979. Urban Land
Use Planning. 3d edition. Urbana, IL: The University of Illi-
nois Press.
Cleveland City Planning Commission. 1975. Policy Planning
"Report: Cleveland, OH: Cleveland City Planning Corn-
n.
Cleveland City Planning Commission. 1991. Cleveland Civic
Vision 2000 Citywide Plan. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland City
Planning Commission
DeGrove, John M. 1984. Land, Growth and Politics: Washing . ton, DC: Planners Press.
DeGrove, John M. 1992. Planning and Growth Management in "
the States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk.1991. Towns and
TowwAlaking Principles. New York Rizzoli International
Publications.
Fagin, Henry. 1959. Organizing and Carrying Out Planning
Activities Within. Urban Government. Journal of the:Ameri-
can Institute ofPlanners 25,3: 109 -14.
Fagin, Henry. 1965. The Policy Plan: Instrumentality for a Com-
munity Dialogue. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute of Local Gov-
ernment, Graduate School of Public and International
Affairs, University of Pittsburgh.
Feiss, Carl. 1985. The Foundations of Federal Planning As-
sistance. Journal of the American Planning Association 51,2:
175 -89.
Fishman, Richard P, ed. 1978. Housing for All Under Law. New
Directions m Housing, Land Use and Planning Law. Cam-
bridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
Forsyth County City- County Planning Board. 1988. Vision
200S A Comprehensive Plan for Forsyth County, N, orth. Caro-
Una, Winston Salem, NC: Forsyth County.
Friedmann, John. 1993. Toward a Non - Euclidean Mode of
Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 59,4:
482 -S.
Gresham Planning Division. 1980. Gresham Community Devel-
opment Plan. Gresham, OR. Gresham Planning Division
Gurwitt, Rob. 1994. War Over Urban Villages. Governing 8,2:
50 -6.
Haar, Charles M. 1955. The Content of the General Plan: A
Glance at History. Journal of the American Institute of Plan-
ners 21,2 -3: 66 -70.
Hardin County, Kentucky. 1985. Development Guidance Sys-
tem. Elizabethtown, KY: Hardin County Planning and De-
velopment Commission
Harris, Britton, and Michael Batty. 1993. Locational Models,
Geographic Information and Planning Support Systems.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 12,3: 184 -98.
Hollander, Elizabeth, Leslie S. Pollock, Jeffry D. Reckinger,
and Frank Beal. 1988. General Development Plans. In The
Practice of Local Government Planning, 2d edition, edited by
Frank S. So and Judith Getzels. Washington, DC: ICMA
Training Institute, International City Management Asso-
ciation.
Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. 1990.
The 1990 General Plan ... a six point plan for the future. Elli-
cott City, MD: Howard County Department of Planning
and Zoning.
Howe, Deborah A. 1993. Growth Management in Oregon.
In Growth Management: The Planning Cballmge of the 1990,
edited by jay M. Stein. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.
Jacobs, Harvey M. 1992. Exposing and Reframing the Un-
spoken Assumptions of Land Use Planning. A Postmod-
ern View. Paper presented at. the Annual Meeting of the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Colum-
bus, OH.
Jacobs, Harvey M. 1995. The Anti - Environmental `Wise use
Movement in America. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 47,
2:3-8.
Kaiser, Edward J., David R. Godschalk, and F. Stuart Chapin,
Jr. 1995. Urban Land Use Planning. 4th edition. Urbana, IL:
The University of Illinois Press.
Kaufman, Jerome L., and Harvey M. Jacobs. 1988. A Public
Planning Perspective. on Strategic Planning. In Strategic
Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners, edited by
John Bryson and Robert Einsweiler. Chicago: Planners
Press.
Kent, T. J., Jr.199L The Urban General Plan. San Francisco, CA:
Chandler Publishing Company, 1964. Reprint, Chicago:.
APA Planners Press.
Loudoun County General Plan. 1994. Planning 60,3
(March): 10 -11.
Loudoun County Planning Commission. 1991. Loudoun
County General Plan: Cboues and Changes Loudoun County,
VA: Loudoun County Planning Commission.
IWENZIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Nat-
ural History Press.
Meyerson, Martin. 1956. Building the Middle -Range Bridge
for Comprehensive Planning. Journal of the American Insti-
tute of Planners 22,2: 58 -64.
Perrin, Constance. 1967. The Noiseless Secession from the
Comprehensive Plan. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 33,S: 336 -47.
Perloff, Harvey S. 1980. Planning the Post - Industrial City. Wash-
ington, DC: Planners Press.
Reichert, Peggy A. 1976. Growth Management in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area: The Development Framework Planning Pro-
cast Saint Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council of the Twin
Cities Area
Reps; John. 1965. Tfie Making of Urban America: A History of
City Planning in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sanibel, City of. 1981. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Sanibel,
Florida: City of Sanibel
Schlereth, Thomas J. 1981. Burnham's Plan and Moody s
Manual. Journal of the American Planning Association 47,1:
70 -82:
Scott, Mellier G. 1969. American City Planning Since 1890.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Seattle Planning Department. 1993.. A Citizen's Guide to the
Draft Comprehensive Plan. Toward a Sustainable Seattle: Seat-
tle's Plan for Managing Growth Seattle, WA: Seattle Plan-
ning Department.
Seattle Planning Department. 1994. The Mayor's Recom-
mended Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle. Se-
attle, WA: Seattle Planning Department. '
Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking
the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes
New York: Basic Books.
Walker, Robert 1941. Tile Planning Function in Urban Govern-
ment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
APA JOURNAL a SUMMER 1995 138S
IN.TERGOUERNMENY
COORDINATION
mic
A
El
MA MEM1011111
IlAfFM�
di 7i-
...HOUSING:,,.
lip
CONSERVATION
it
.,-RECREATION.
AND �, i, i 1 i--� 1 I
OPEN SPACE
I V`o
IJ
CAPITAL,
,R0VE...,.:' INFRASTRUG
ENTTURE 4
•leaI we] A1111a[@lot(:40avi :11!1=
LA]Vn
Of the or' jNE E ft
age CO MENT
"t3' Comprehensive PIS
�0"^�+Q� �D1►b'►'�mnmyw
rs
rc �er
year Transitio Year Tra n
nsition
ral ReSent,
ural Buff AOricultur
�
Resource ai Residential
urce Protection Areas
Municipal
Jurisdictions
Public InferestAreas
l�►
Water SuppiYWafe�he
� ds
Watershed
Critica, Areas
Activity Nodes
Rural Commune
Rural Net � Node
dhborhood Node
■
Rural industrial Node
■
Commercial Node
commercial /industrial No
Economic DeVe10 de
M Orange Co /Ch pmenf
Joint Planning l H111 /ca�vro
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 12,1999
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GIS PRESENTATION OF "GOOP" PLANNING MODEL
Introduction: The "GOOP" (Growth Optimum Overlay Plan) model was developed by the Orange
County Planning staff. The intent of the basic model was to visualize a growth model using GIS.
Planning theory and public facility attributes in Orange County were the basis of the map. Various layers
of information were created and values were assigned to buffers (linear areas of a particular width)
depending on the relative proximity of the service.
The highest value of 5 was assigned to an area where growth would be acceptable because a specific
attribute, such as a major transportation corridor, was located within 2 miles. The value decreases as
distance increases. The majority of model attributes (i.e. transportation, urban, public and non - public
services) illustrate where growth should be directed.
The second part of the model illustrates where growth should not occur such as watersheds, wildlife
corridors and poor soils. In this case, low values were assigned to these areas so the model, when
averaging all the attributes, would reflect the lowered growth value and therefore the relative sensitivity of
developing in that area. Zoning layers were not added since they are a secondary construct of a mix of
variables.
The final product of this model can be to reflect patterns of land use intensity and location including
environmental constraints. The model also notes the relative efficiency of providing services to different
areas. The model can serve as a preliminary growth plan on which to develop a land use element and
implementing zoning regulations. A thorough analysis of the various urban growth areas will be an
important aspect of the master plan.
WEIGHT PLANNING ATTRIBUTE
.20 I. TRANSPORTATION LAYER
5 — within 2 miles of I- 40/1 -85
4 — within 4 miles of I- 40/1 -85
3 — within 6 miles of I- 40/1 -85
2 — within 8 miles of I- 40/1 -85
1 -1 mile of NC54, NC86, NC57, NC157, NC49, US70
0 — Remainder
II. URBAN SERVICE LAYER
.20 A. WATER AND SEWER
5 — Within Existing and proposed Service Area
4-
3—
2-
1-
0 — Remainder
Note: Differentiation between existing and proposed infrastructure was not available at this time in GIS
format but would be a good determinant to promote the efficient use of existing facilities before
utility extension are considered.
gAcraig \bocc- gis \10- 12 -99 \dg
Classification methods
You can explore your data by applying the different classification techniques found in the
Graduated Color and Graduated Symbol Legend Editors or by typing in your own classes. The
purpose of classification is twofold: to make the process of reading and understanding a map
easier and to show something about the area you're mapping that is not self- evident. Try each of
the classification types and see if any interesting spatial patterns appear.
ArcView provides six classification methods to display data:
Natural Breaks
This is the default classification method in ArcView. This method identifies breakpoints between
classes using a statistical formula ( Jenk's optimization). This method is rather complex, but
basically the Jenk's method minimizes the sum of the variance within each of the classes. Natural
Breaks finds groupings and patterns inherent in your data.
Quantile
In the quantile classification method, each class contains the same number of features. Quantile
classes are perhaps the easiest to understand, but they can be misleading. Population counts (as
opposed to density or percentage), for example, are usually not suitable for quantile classification
because only a few places are highly populated. You can overcome this distortion by increasing
the number of classes. Imagine the difference, for example, if five classes are used in the chart
instead of three. Quantiles are best suited for data that is linearly distributed; in other words, data
that does not have disproportionate numbers of features with similar values.
Equal Area
This method classifies polygon features by finding breakpoints so that the total area of the
polygons in each class is the approximately the same. (ArcView determines the total area of the
features that have valid data values.) Classes determined with the equal area method are typically
very similar to Quantile classes when the sizes of all the features are roughly the same. Equal Area
will differ from Quantile if the features are of vastly different areas.
Equal Interval
The equal interval method divides the range of attribute values into equal sized sub - ranges. Then
the features are classified based on those sub - ranges.
Standard Deviations
When you classify data using the standard deviations method, ArcView finds the mean value and
then places class breaks above and below the mean at intervals of either 1/4, 1/2, or 1 standard
deviations until all the data values are contained within the classes. ArcView will aggregate any
values that are beyond three standard deviations from the mean into two classes, greater than
three standard deviations above the mean (" > 3 Std Dev. ") and less than three standard
deviations below the mean V< -3 Std. Dev. "►.
0 Related topics