City Guide Subject To Periodic Review, Change

(Editor's note: This is the seventh in a 10-part series on the meaning of comprehensive planning and its application to Ann Arbor. Based primarily on the book, "The Urban General Plan" by T. J. Kent, this series is sponsored as a public service by The Ann Arbor News, Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Huron Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects articles have been prepared by Roger D. Clemence, an associate member of the chapter, and Robert D. Carpenter, county planning director and associate member. Article six reviewed the legislative uses of the general plan At this time we turn to the accommodation of new developments and problems in the plan. One of the criticisms frequently used against the idea of an urban general plan is the belie that it lacks adjustability to anticipated future development T. J. Kent discusses this aspect in considerable detail in his book. the general plan's usefulness in policy determination operates at several points in time, specifically during: 1) Preparation, consideration, and initial adoptioti of the general plan; 2) Annual review and amendment of the plan; 3) Major reconsideration of the entire plan every 10 years; and 4) Consideration of day-to-day physical development matters which call for review of general, long-range policies. Many city planners w o u 1 d amiliar with the major development issues confrontiting the community. Also, they should recognize t h a t controversies precipitated during the preparation of the plan have been resolved through the democratie process and that future decisión making should find its base in the adopted statement of physical development policies. The plan may be amended, but only when amending can take place within a framework consistent with the spirit of the main document. i order to achievo the degree of lamttiarity, confidente and commitment required by menVbtrs of the council, Kent suggests that there should be an extended period of debate and education between the firs presentation of the general piar in its tentative form and fina adoption by the council in r vised form. During this periöc the council should study the pro posed plan thoroghly, devote work sessions í0 it, and conduc formal hearings on its content o proposed plan also should be distributed at this time to all private, civic, and govern mental grotips active in com munity affairs. Tho council in this way is able to learn the reactions of its constituents anc can adjust policies where nee essary prior to official adoption of the general plan. Two points are critical here. First, the council should be sure the plan is fully reviewed, de. bated, and ultimately stated in a form which can engender solid community support. Second, the cotincil s h o u 1 d adopt the general plan as a formal expression of unified policy, thereby tnakJng clear to the community that tliis plan does in fact represent the official policies of the council. If the previous method is used in the initial plan-adoption, the council and the community should have a firm policy base for physical planning decisions. In this context, amendments may be made but they will not be made lightiy. T. J. Kent believes that al ough membership on the city council rhanges each year,. the general plan ohould express a accurately as possible the poli cies of the current council Freshmen councilmen should become aware of the policies wuiKed out by their predecessors since they may be required to act as soon as they take o'ffice on proposals that will either implement or go counter to the policies of the general plan. The general plan should be designed as an instrument to give policy continuity and at the same time to allow for a political turnover in the council. If the plan hinders the exercise of legitímate power, it can expect to be, and indeed should be, ignored. The second major event that Kent has formulated in his time sequence is that of annual review and amendment. This is a formal procedure that is igned to encourage the counciiB o keep the plan up to date.l t requircs that the council look! over the plan once a year tol decide whether any of the long-1 range policies should be modi-1 ied in light of physical-develop- ment activities of the previousl welve months. It also serves tol efresh the memories of the re-j urning councilmen on the Prl visions of the plan and to in-j form any newcomers of thel plan's contents. Properly done, i the annual review and amend-l ment procedure also helps place I the controversial issues of the preceding year in proper perspective and encourages the leaders of the council to look ahead to the major plan implementation requirements of the coming year. From Mr. Kent's viewpoint, the annual review procedure should take place just prior to the yearly reformulation by the council of its capital improvements program. A major portion of .every municipal budget is concerned with capita! improvernents. Since the general plan is designed to serve as council's policy guide on all major questions of physical development, the city council should, once the annual review procedure is understcrod, find it extremely valuable to review the plan once each year several weeks prior to action on the budget. Such a review procedure brings about a natural focus on :iucstions of physical development policy befare the council tnembers make decisions on : a p i t a 1 improvement allocaions. The timing of. the" annual review also places the general ilan in a challenging, practical :ontext. It compels the director Df city planning, the city planning commisb. „ d the cit administrator to reSia.... , r. clarify the main ideas of u.. n u In addition, the annual reIvitw requires that the councd rèïJrt its authority in an of basic policy, an area whicli bears on significant controversies and conflicting ideas that ultimately will come bef ore the council for final decisión. Thirdly, in nis progression of amendment procedures, T. J. Kent holds that at least every 10 years there should also bè a thorough reconsideration of the entire general plan. This effort should be comparable to that undertaken at the time of the original preparation of the plan. Much staff study will be required and all the background data and forecasts should be brought up to date. Again, there should be a lengthy period of ommunity debate and educaion before the revised plan is inally acted upan by the counil. This thorough reconsideraion is n e e d e d because the hanges occuring over a long )eriod will not be merely the um of the changes from year o year. Some long-range trends re not discernible in the issues which arise from day-to-day, or ven at annual review time Lastly, in addition to annual nd decennial reviews of the general plan, Mr. Kent would provide for amendments to be made at any time the council deerns appropriate .When a major physical development issue comes before the council for decisión, members of the council must study and réstate the general plan policies that apply to the issue at hand and retrace the thinking that led to the policies. If the policies are reaffirmed, no change in the general plan is needed, but if they are changed, then the general plan should be amended. The councilmen, the city planning commissioners, and th director of planning cannot pos sibly anticípate all the implica ïons erf the policie? and proosals inherent in che general )lan at the tip e it is first dopted. A cert-iin inability to nticipate is i-navoidable. Thus f it becomes clear later that ertain policies of the plan are roducing results that were ot d e s i r e d. these policies hould be changed. It should be ciear, then, that art of the strength of the urban ;eneral plan lies in its ability to djust to change. It must also 3e remembered that this adaptability does not imply weakness n the structure of the document or the lack of commitment to ts main premises. On the conrary, it is an expression of conidence in the council's unswerving mativation to realize widely-supported physical development goals. As long as all plan amendments are geared to the best interests of the population, the urban general plan will serve the community as an invaluable, comprehensive directive for all physical development decisions. Next: Zoning is not planning. (Reprints of the entire series of articles will be availaWe vpon written request of Huro Vailey Chapter A. I. A.; Tnt Onice Box 338, Ann Arbor, ich.) _ TajnctnRemosFcríucarpenoclp in the life of tbe urban gen ' eral plan is that of initial poJity determination. When the plan is first adopted, it should represent as accvrately as possible the policies of the city council. If this is the case, the legislators sliivild be committed to the plan and höüld be ready to move forwarl in carrying out its 'propoials They should be