A Proposal

to prepare the

Lookout Mountain
Comprehensive Plan

Presented to the:
City of Lookout Mountain, Georgia
Presented by:
The Walker Collaborative
With:
Third Coast Design Studio
Street Smarts

Revised: May 4, 2009

Contents
Page
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

Team Overview . . . . . . . 1

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

References & Plan Examples . . . . . 7

PROJECT APPROACH

Organization & Responsibilities . . . . . 8

Scope of Services . . . . . . . 8

PROJECT SCHEDULE & COSTS

Project Schedule . . . . . . . 15

Projects Costs . . . . . . . 16

APPENDIX: FIRM INFORMATION

The Walker Collaborative

The Walker Col-

laborative led the
creation of Look-
out Mountain’s
Town Center
Plan. That plan
was based on a
strong public in-
put process,
which enabled
the end product to
gain broad com-
munity support.
 The Walker Collaborative Team

TEAM OVERVIEW
The Walker Collaborative (TWC) is involved in all general areas of community planning, including comprehen-
sive planning, corridor planning, downtown and commercial district planning, and neighborhood planning. TWC
also prepares zoning ordinances and design standards, including form-based codes. Principal Philip Walker,
AICP has led the creation of dozens of plans in various communities throughout the country, in addition to his
experience implementing plans as a city planning director. In 2006 he led the creation of Midway, Georgia’s,
citywide comprehensive plan. To support TWC in the creation of the Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan,
TWC has assembled the optimal team to address all of the key issues in a holistic manner. The proposed
Project Team firms include:

• The Walker Collaborative: Nashville, Tennessee – project management, comprehensive planning, com-
munity visioning
• Third Coast Design Studio: Nashville, Tennessee – land planning, urban design, and landscape design
• Street Smarts: Duluth, Georgia – transportation planning, traffic engineering

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

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
THE FIRMS: SUMMARY, PERSONNEL & EXPERIENCE
The Walker Collaborative
The Walker Collaborative (TWC) is the award-winning planning firm of Philip L. Walker, AICP, who has over
twenty years of experience with community planning in both the public and private sectors. Based in Nashville,
Tennessee, and established in 2002, TWC is founded upon the principle that rarely is any one firm uniquely
qualified for a particular urban planning project. Rather than using a “firm-based” approach, TWC employs a
“person-based” approach. TWC initiates each project by first determining the necessary areas of expertise,
and then identifying the most effective individuals to form the Project Team. Team members are determined by
balancing professional expertise and experience with considerations of geography, professional relationships,
personalities, and planning philosophies. Only by employing this person-based approach can the optimal
Project Team be assembled for any given project. TWC’s 2007 Core City Comprehensive Plan for High Point,
North Carolina, won the Plan of the Year Award for “comprehensive plans for large communities” from the North
Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association.

Philip L. Walker, AICP – Project Manager

Phil Walker’s public sector experience consists of
serving as the Executive Director of the Downtown
Improvement Board for Pensacola, Florida, and the
City Planning Director for Natchez, Mississippi.
Phil’s private sector experience includes Associ-
ate positions with Hintz-Nelessen Associates in
Princeton, New Jersey, and Christopher
Chadbourne and Associates in Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts. He also had his own firm, Commu-
nity Planning & Research, Inc., based in Nashville
T E A M

between 1995 and 1998. During that period he led

the visioning, comprehensive planning and code TWC’s award-winning plan for High Point,
development process for the newly-incorporated North Carolina, proposed eight mixed use centers.

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 1 of 16

The Walker Collaborative Team

Town of Nolensville, Tennesse, located in rural Williamson County. From 1998 to 2002, he served as the
Director of Planning for the Nashville office of Looney Ricks Kiss Architects (LRK). While with LRK he led
a plan for a 50 square mile rural area called the Gray’s Creek Area in western Shelby County, Tennessee.
Since establishing TWC in 2002, Phil has served as the Project Manager for dozens of community planning
projects - ranging from urban to rural contexts - throughout the country. Recent/current projects include: the
Route 17 Corridor Plan for Isle of Wight County, Virginia; the Midway Comprehensive Plan for Midway,
Georgia; and the Lee County Comprehensive Plan for Lee County, Mississippi. Phil has been a member of
the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) since 1989, and he is currently an instructor for the
University of North Alabama where he leads various continuing education classes for professional planners.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in Historic Preservation from Middle Tennessee State University, a master’s
degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Florida, and a master’s degree in Real Estate
Development from Harvard University.

Relevant Project Experience

Phil Walker has played a key role in the sample projects listed below through The Walker Collaborative.
Projects for which he was the Project Manager have been asterisked (*):

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

• Wilson Comprehensive Plan: Wilson, North Carolina (current)
• Little Rock Preservation Plan: Little Rock, Arkansas (current)
• Clemmons Comprehensive Plan: Clemmons, North Carolina (current)
• Manassas Viewshed Preservation Plan: Prince William County, Virginia (current)*
• Cary Preservation Plan: Cary, North Carolina (current)

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
• Forest Hills Open Space Plan: Forest Hills, Tennessee (2008)
• Northport Downtown & Riverfront Plan, Zoning & Design Standards: Northport, Alabama (2008)*
• Washington Drive District Plan: High Point, North Carolina (2008)*
• Lookout Mountain Town Center Plan: Lookout Mountain, Georgia (2008)*
• Route 17 Corridor Plan: Isle of Wight County, Virginia (2007)
• College Hill Neighborhood Plan: St. Louis, Missouri (2007)*
• High Point Core City Comprehensive Plan: High Point, North Carolina (2007)*
• Chancellorsville Land Use & Transportation Plan: Spotsylvania County, Virginia (2007)
• Pleasant Grove Plan & Consulting: Pleasant Grove, Utah (2006-2007)
• Midway Comprehensive Master Plan: Midway, Georgia (2006)*
• Pinehurst NewCore Area Visioning: Pinehurst, North Carolina (2005)
• Kingsport Visioning, Planning Recommendations & Code Revisions: Kingsport, Tennessee (2005)*
• MidTown Columbus Redevelopment Plan: Columbus, Georgia (2004)

T E A M

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

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 2 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

Third Coast Design Studio

Third Coast Design Studio is a planning, urban design, and architecture firm located in Nashville, Tennessee.
The firm has over twenty years of combined experience pertaining to a wide range of urban design and planning
projects for a variety of clients. Prior to establishing the firm, Principals Keith Covington and Lee Jones led the
Metro Nashville Planning Department’s Urban Design Studio. They gained ten years of experience during this
time, raising the quality of life and standard of living for Metro residents by creating better places for them to
live. Their projects during this time ranged from long-range master plans for thousands of acres in the least-
developed areas of the county to the revitalization of urban city blocks through their form-based codes.

Since starting Third Coast Design Studio, their primary focus has been the creation of walkable neighborhoods.
The firm has worked across the country designing new communities, revitalizing major transportation corridors,
enhancing existing downtowns, and creating new town centers. Their approach to design and planning combines
empirical design principals, community participation, and realistic implementation strategies. The Principals’
individual backgrounds in architecture and landscape architecture provide unique insight into the urban design
problems of today, which are directly linked and dependent on both fields. Primary services include site
master planning, urban design, form-based zoning codes, and design review. Additional services include
landscape design and residential architecture.

Keith Covington, AIA, CNU

Keith Covington is a registered architect
who brings over fifteen years of
professional experience in architecture,
urban design, and planning to Third
Coast Design Studio. Keith earned his

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
Bachelor of Architecture at the
University of Tennessee and his Masters
of Architecture in New Urbanism at
Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-
Zyberk’s program through the University
of Miami in Coral Gables. As a graduate
of these programs, Keith has developed
a unique understanding of traditional
patterns of design from the scale of the
region down to the scale of the building.
Keith applies time-tested principles of
urbanism to all of his projects to achieve
a true sense of community in Working with The Walker
neighborhoods, districts, towns and Collaborative, Third Coast
cities. While he is an accomplished Design Studio created a Con-
architect whose work has been cept Plan for St. Louis’ Col-
published in Southern Living Magazine, lege Hill Neighborhood.
Keith’s primary focus is to create
walkable environments that balance the
needs of the pedestrian with those of the automobile. He has lectured extensively on this subject across the
country. Prior to forming Third Coast Design Studio, Keith was the director of the Metro Nashville Planning
Department’s Urban Design Studio where he helped reinvent Nashville’s approach to planning and coding.

Lee Jones
Lee Jones brings seven years of professional experience in urban design, planning, and landscape design
to Third Coast Design Studio. Prior to receiving a degree in Landscape Architecture, Lee initially earned a
T E A M

BA in Political Science, providing him with a versatile set of skills to think critically about public policies and
their consequences. These skills have enabled him to write effective form-based codes for developers and
municipalities, as well as assist clients through cumbersome and lengthy processes and ordinances. With
a background in Landscape Architecture, one of Lee’s key strengths is his ability to inventory and analyze

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 3 of 16

The Walker Collaborative Team

physical site characteristics that may influence site design, whether properties consist of hundreds of
acres or hundreds of square feet. Prior to joining Third Coast Design Studio in late 2006, Lee spent five
years with the Metro Nashville Planning Department serving as director of the department’s Urban Design
Studio in his final year. While with the Planning Department, Lee served as Metro Nashville’s Greenways
Coordinator, drafted amendments to Metro’s Zoning Code, and solved urban design problems within the
city through leading public-participatory design charrettes and writing form-based codes.

Relevant Project Experience

Third Coast Design Studio has participated in the following projects:
New Communities
• The Enclave: Pleasant View, Tennessee
• Woodlane Traditional Neighborhood Development: Eufaula, Alabama
• Evergreen Hills Traditional Neighborhood Development: Nashville, Tennessee
• Triangle Pointe Traditional Neighborhood Development: Nashville, Tennessee
• Pleasant View Village Traditional Neighborhood Development: Pleasant View, Tennessee
Revitalization of Existing Communities
• Fischer Steel Master Plan: Memphis, Tennessee (led by Code Studio)
• Washington Drive District Plan: High Point, North Carolina (led by Walker Collaborative)
• Sheridan Triangle Master Plan: Peoria, Illinois (led by Farnsworth Group)
• Northport Downtown & Riverefront Plan: Northport, Alabama (led by Walker Collaborative)

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
• Natchez Riverfront Concept Plan: Natchez, Mississippi (led by Walker Collaborative)
• Downtown Portales Master Plan: Portales, New Mexico (led by Code Studio)
• College Hill Neighborhood Plan: St. Louis, Missouri (led by Walker Collaborative)
• Heart of Peoria Plan Charrette: Peoria, Illinois (led by Ferrell Madden Associates)
• Broad Avenue Initiative: Memphis, Tennessee (led by Ferrell Madden Associates)
• West End Park Urban Design Overlay: Nashville, Tennessee*
• Bedford Avenue Urban Design Overlay: Nashville, Tennessee*
Development Studies
• Cane Ridge Town Center: Nashville, Tennessee
• Sycamore Landing: Pleasant View, Tennessee
• Capitol West: Nashville, Tennessee
• Chantilly Town Center: Pike Road, Alabama
• Flynn Property Traditional Neighborhood Development: Metamora Illinois
• Coldwater Creek Traditional Neighborhood Development: Summerdale, Alabama
• McLemore Plantation: Pike Road, Alabama
• Waugh Gateway: Pike Road, Alabama
Form-Based Codes
• The Enclave: Pleasant View, Tennessee
• Woodlane Traditional Neighborhood Development: Eufaula, Alabama
• Village of Metamora Traditional Neighborhood Development Code: Metamora, Illinois
• Evergreen Hills Traditional Neighborhood Development: Nashville, Tennessee
T E A M

• Triangle Pointe Traditional Neighborhood Development: Nashville, Tennessee

• Harding Town Center Urban Design Overlay: Nashville, Tennessee*

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

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 4 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

Street Smarts
Street Smarts was founded in early 1990 as a sole proprietorship and incorporated in 1991. The firm provides
service to both the public and private sectors in transportation engineering, civil/site engineering, traffic
engineering, transportation planning, transit analysis, traffic signal design and timing, training, planning and
zoning work, impact studies, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), analysis programs, goods movement,
impact fees, parking studies, roadway and site design, engineering, survey services, subsurface utility
engineering, public involvement and facilitation, computer modeling, data collection, freight planning, parking
studies, landscape planning and design, and geographic information services (GIS). They have served many
hundreds of clients, many on multiple projects, from single site developments to statewide efforts. At present,
the firm has a staff of more than 100 full-time employees. Street Smarts’ Duluth, Georgia, office will be
working with The Walker Collaborative Team on this project for Lookout Mountain.

Marsha Anderson Bomar

Marsha Anderson Bomar has over 30 years of experience in transportation planning, traffic engineering,
public involvement, education and training, meeting facilitation, traffic analysis, management and administration
of transportation and traffic engineering projects, master transportation plans and studies, transit systems
planning parking studies and design analyses, freight studies, and general research. Marsha has served
as the Principal-In-Charge and Project Manager for more than 200 traffic impact and transportation master
plan studies, including major data collection and analysis efforts. She has extensive experience in facilitating
public meetings/hearings/probe group charettes. She has also led an effort in transportation modeling
using microcomputer technology (TranPlan, TModel2, QRS-II, TransCad) and is author of a text on the use
of TRANPLAN. Her education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Polytechnic
Institute of Brooklyn (1973), a Master of Science degree in Transportation Planning and Engineering from

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (1975), a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering - Transportation
from Princeton University (1978), and a Master of Arts degree in Civil Engineering from Princeton University
(1979). Her affiliations include: Institute of Transportation Engineers (Fellow), Past International President,
Technical Council Committee Chair, Marble Hensley Individual Activity Award, Transportation Planners and
Goods Movement Councils Chair Transportation Research Board, Member Assorted Committees
Transportation Research Forum (Associate) Women’s Transportation Seminar, Past chapter President and
Board Member American Society of Civil Engineers (Member) Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce
Vision 2020 Panelist 1995 and 1997 Finalist, Small Business Person of the Year Atlanta Business Chronicle
- National Panelist representing the country’s fastest-growing businesses, 2003.

Relevant Project Experience

Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Projects

• Gwinnett Place CID Redevelopment Plan: Duluth, Georgia (2008)
• Georgia DOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program - Public Involvement: Georgia (2009 - 2011)
• Keep Mobile Moving: Mobile, Alabama (2007-present)
• LaGrange, GA Downtown Redevelopment Plan – (1995)
• Norfolk Southern Railway Intermodal Facility, Austell, Georgia – (2006)
• University of Georgia, Athens, GA – Baldwin Street Corridor Traffic Calming (2005)
• ACOG - Cheney Stadium : Atlanta, Georgia (1996)
• BP Oil: Augusta, Georgia (1998)
• Principal Place Development: Atlanta, Georgia (1990-1997)
• Signal Warrant Analyses, Park and Ride Lot location studies: Woodstock, Georgia (1998-2004)
• Intersection Studies, Signal designs throughout Cobb County, Georgia (1992-present)
• Corridor Studies: Fulton County, Georgia (1993-present)
• Corridor Studies, Traffic Studies, Engineering Designs, Gwinnett County, Georgia (1991-present)
T E A M

• Traffic Studies, Signal design, Staff extension: Rockdale County, Georgia (2000-present)

Access and Circulation Studies (1995-present):

• Akers Mill Square Shopping Center, Marietta, GA

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 5 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

• Beaver Ruin Road Business Park, Myrick and Co., Norcross, GA

• Chattahoochee Corners Office Park, Alter Group, Duluth, GA
• Clayton County, GA, Route 138, Waaland Realty
• Emerik Properties, Warehouse, Norcross, GA
• Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Atlanta, GA
• Hedgewood Properties subdivision, Fulton County, GA
• Historic Downtown Duluth, GA
• Hometrust Bank, Duluth, GA
• LaGrange Truck Stop, LaGrange, GA
• McDonald’s Restaurant, Stone Mountain, GA
• Mead Corporation, Stevenson Alabama Paper Mill Expansion
• Principal Place, Rostland-Georgia, Atlanta, GA
• Rockbridge Road, City of Stone Mountain, GA
• Ronald Reagan Parkway, Gwinnett County and City of Snellville, GA
• Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Cooper Carry and Associates, Dunwoody, GA
• Spalding Drive, Gwinnett/Fulton Counties, GA
• West Paces Medical Center, The Palisades, Atlanta, GA
• World Changers Ministries, Old National Highway area, Atlanta, GA

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

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
Street Smarts is providing public
involvement services for the Geor-
gia Department of Transporta-
tion’s Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program.

T E A M

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 6 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

REFERENCES & PLAN EXAMPLES

References
Below are references for four projects of The Walker Col-
laborative (TWC). All but the Wilson, NC, plan were under
the project management of Phil Walker. References for the
Project Team’s sub-consultants can be provided upon re-
quest.

Wilson Comprehensive Plan (current)

Denise Boswell, PhD - Senior Planner
City of Wilson
PO Box 10
City of Wilson, North Carolina 27894
(252) 399-2214

Northport Downtown & Riverfront Plan (2008)

Katherine Ennis, AICP – Director of City Planning
City of Northport
PO Box 569
Northport, AL 35476
(205) 469-4243

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S
High Point Core City Comprehensive Plan (2007)
Lee Burnette, AICP – Director of City Planning
City of High Point
211 South Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27261
(336) 883-3328

Midway Comprehensive Plan (2006)

Don Emmons – Mayor
City of Midway
10490 E. Oglethorp Hwy.
Midway, Georgia 31320
(912) 884-3344

Plan Examples
Below are website links to recently-completed plans led by
The Walker Collaborative. Several additional TWC plans
can be found on the websites of other local governments.
• Northport Riverfront & Downtown Plan - Northport, Alabama
(2008) - http://www.cityofnorthport.com/Defaultasp?ID
=190&pg=Planning+Zoning+and+Community+Department
TWC’s award-winning plan for
• Core City Comprehensive Plan - High Point, North Caro- Northport, AL, evolved from a concept
T E A M

lina (2007) - http://www.high-point.net/plan/corecity.cfm plan (top), to a district plan, to physi-

• Midway Comprehensive Plan - Midway, Georgia (2006) - cal plans, to renderings (bottom).
http://historicmidway.com/downloads/MasterPlan.pdf

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehenisve Plan Page 7 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

ORGANIZATION & RESPONSIBILITIES

Organization
The Walker Collaborative (TWC) shall serve as the lead firm with the other firms serving as sub-consultants.
Thus, the City would contract directly with TWC and TWC would, in turn, contract with the sub-consultant
firms. Similarly, TWC’s Phil Walker would be the City’s primary point of contact. However, depending upon
the nature of the issue, there will likely be direct contact between City officials and the sub-consultants as
well. Below is a graphic of this proposed organizational structure.

City of Lookout Mountain

The Walker Collaborative

Third Coast Design Studio Street Smarts

Responsibilities
This planning project will require a strong partnership between City officials and the consultants. Responsibili-
ties for both parties will be as follows:

A P P R O A C H
City of Lookout Mountain
The scope of services described below is contingent upon the City taking care of all logistical facets of the
project (scheduling meetings, recruiting public participants, scheduling meeting facilities, mailing out notices,
etc.). The City, working through Walker County, will also provide all GIS mapping data to the Consultants, as
well as other available relevant data. The City will also provide, to the extent available, the expertise of the
relevant City officials regarding issues such as infrastructure, utilities, and land use law.

Project Team
The Consultants will be responsible for all other activities typically associated with the preparation of a com-
prehensive plan, including leading all meetings, collecting and analyzing data, preparing the draft and final plan
document, and preparing PowerPoint presentations.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The ultimate methodology decided upon to create this plan will depend on the specific preferences of the City.
P R O J E C T

However, until more detailed discussions can occur, the following four components are suggested for consid-
eration by the City for the scope of services:

Task 1.0: Analysis & Visioning

Task 2.0: Charrette & Alternative Growth Scenarios
Task 3.0: Preparation of Draft Comprehensive Plan
Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & Revisions

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 8 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

Below is a summary of each task.

SUMMARY
Task 1.0: Analysis & Visioning
This initial task will serve as the research and diagnostic phase Task 1.0 Analysis & Visioning
on which the balance of the work will rely. The Project Team
will perform the sub-tasks described below over a two (2) day Task 1.1: Collect & Review
trip to Lookout Mountain, as well as through work conducted Background Information
prior to and following this trip (Note: not all Project Team mem-
bers will need to spend the full two days in Lookout Moun- Task 1.2: Project Initiation
tain): Meeting & Study Area Tour

Task 1.1 Collect & Review Background Information Task 1.3: Physical Analysis
Prior to making the initial trip to Lookout Mountain, the Project
Team will review key information provided by the City to gain Task 1.4: Socio-Economic
insights into the project’s overall context. Such information Analysis
will include, but not be limited to: development regulations,
relevant studies and plans (including the current Comprehen- Task 1.5: Stakeholder Focus
sive Plan), economic and demographic data, real estate mar- Group Meetings
ket information, traffic data, existing conditions maps (topog-
raphy, land uses, roads, etc.), and aerial photo maps. Some Task 1.6: Public “Kick-Off”
of this information will be in the form of GIS mapping provided Meeting & Vision Survey
by Walker County. Information will be provided only to the
extent that it is available, as it is recognized that not all infor- Task 1.7: Draft Goals &
mation listed above will be available. The Project Team will Objectives
not be responsible for conducting survey work to gather data.

A P P R O A C H
Task 1.2 Project Initiation Meeting & Study Area Tour
This meeting between the Project Team, City officials, and other appropriate parties will fine-tune the project
details and allow the Project Team to gain additional insights from the City. The team will also obtain any
available information not previously provided by the City up to this point. The study area “wind shield tour” will
be led by City officials, with subsequent follow-up work by the Project Team as part of Task 1.3.

Task 1.3 Physical Analysis

As part of the initial fieldwork for the project, the Project Team will document and evaluate the study area’s
general physical characteristics by reviewing maps, making field notes, and photographing key issues related
to the study area and plan. Based upon that field work and existing data, the Project Team will conduct an
evaluation of the study area’s existing conditions, with an emphasis on:
• Existing environmental constraints (wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, etc.)
• Existing land uses, densities and development forms
• Specific areas and their potential for enhancement and/or redevelopment
• Roads, trails, and other transportation facilities
• Existing and potential public spaces, parks, recreation facilities, and greenways
P R O J E C T

• Community facilities
• Utilities and infrastructure
• Historic resources
• Housing
• Industries and commercial areas

Task 1.4 Socio-Economic Analysis

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

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 9 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

• Economics
• Housing
• Other related issues
Much of this data may come from US Census data.

Task 1.5 Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings

The City will identify key stakeholders who can provide useful information and perspectives on the various
issues affecting the study area. Up to five (5) meetings with various stakeholder groups will be led by key
members of the consulting Project Team, with each meeting including up to approximately ten (10) individuals
having a common interest in the study area. Each meeting will last roughly one (1) hour, and examples of
potential stakeholder groups include the following:
• Residents and neighborhood groups
• Property owners and real estate professionals
• Business owners/operators and economic development representatives
• Special interest groups (historic preservationists, environmentalists, cyclists, etc.)
• City representatives (elected officials, commission members and department heads) and other public
officials (county, regional, etc.)

Task 1.6 Public “Kick-Off” Meeting & Vision Survey

Prior to the Task 1.0 trip to Lookout Mountain, the Project Team will develop a draft version of a Vision Survey
using PowerPoint software. The Vision Survey is a tool used to gauge visually-based community preferences
related to a variety of physical planning issues that will be addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Examples
of issues to be tested include residential densities, residential development character, commercial develop-
ment character, roads, and public facilities. The survey will feature a “forced choice” methodology in which
participants view four images per screen representing the same topic and choose their preferred image. There
will also be opportunities for respondents to indicate why they made their choices. The draft survey will be

A P P R O A C H
prepared well ahead of time so the City can review it and suggest changes prior to the Task 1.0 trip to Lookout
Mountain. This survey will be administered by the Project Team during the Task 1.6 meeting. Participants will
be provided with a survey form to fill out during the meeting (written by the Project Team and printed by the
City), and the results will be tabulated by the City. The Project Team will later evaluate the tabulated results
and include them in the Comprehensive Plan document, as well as incorporate the results into the plan’s
ideas. The City may choose additional means to administer the survey beyond the single public meeting,
such as on the City’s website or as hard-copies that are distributed and returned to the City.
Although the exact agenda for the public “kick-off” meeting will be determined with input from City, this
interactive forum conducted on the first evening of the two-day trip might feature the following components:
• Introduction of City representatives and Project Team members
• Explanation of the project process and objectives
• Identification of the community’s challenges and opportunities
• Identification of model communities/places
• Vision Survey

Task 1.7: Goals & Objectives

P R O J E C T

Following the Task 1.0 trip to Lookout Mountain, and based upon all of the work completed to date, including
the results of the Task 1.0 community visioning, the Project Team will prepare the first draft of a set of goals
and objectives for the City to review for necessary revisions. Intended to serve as a foundation for the subse-
quent comprehensive plan, they will address the following issues:

• Natural and historic resources

• Land uses and development
• Transportation
• Community facilities, utilities and infrastructure

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 10 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

• Economic development
• Open space and recreational facilities

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

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

Task 1.0 Deliverables: Background Research Materials (existing conditions maps, etc.)
PowerPoint Presentation - Task 1.6 Meeting
Vision Survey in PowerPoint format
Goals & Objectives

Lookout Mountain’s recently

completed greenway traversing
the future Town Center is yet
another amenity that the City
worked hard to accomplish.

A P P R O A C H
Task 2.0: Charrette & Alternative Growth Scenarios
Although the proposed overall project methodology has been
designed to encourage strong public input throughout the life SUMMARY
of this project, Task 2.0 offers the single greatest opportunity
for meaningful “hands-on” involvement of key stakeholders. A Task 2.0 Charrette &
“charrette” is an intensive brain-storming process used by plan- Alternative Growth Scenarios
ners and designers to create planning concepts within a lim-
ited amount of time. The purpose of the charrette process is Task 2.1: Follow-Up Field Work
to provide a forum for key stakeholders to achieve a consen-
sus on the future of the study area. The most tangible out- Task 2.2: Planning Workshop
come of the charrette will be the creation of Alternative Growth
Scenarios for consideration as the basis for the ultimate plan. Task 2.3: Alternative Growth
This three (3) day task will require strong teamwork between Scenarios Preparation
the Project Team and the City, as the City is expected to re-
cruit and schedule all public participants with the guidance of Task 2.4: Alternative Growth
the Project Team. Although the specific components of the Scenarios Presentation
P R O J E C T

charrette can be fine-tuned later based upon the City’s input,

the following sub-tasks should be considered:

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

This task will give Project Team members another opportunity prior to the evening Planning Workshop to build
on previous impressions of the study area gained during Task 1.0. In particular, examples of land use and
development features in the City that “work” and “don’t work” will be identified. Also, any field information not
previously obtained, but since recognized as necessary, can be gathered as part of this task.

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 11 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

Task 2.2 Planning Workshop (Day 1: evening)

Prior to Task 2.0, the City will recruit approximately 50 to 60 participants to be involved in the Planning
Workshop. Participants should be stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of community interests. The
Project Team, City officials, and Planning Workshop participants will gather at the charrette facility (to be
determined) and achieve the following steps over a roughly two-hour period:

Workshop Orientation
The Project Team will present the following items:
• Workshop Purpose & Overview
• Background Research Findings
• Results of the Public Input to Date / Goals & Objectives
• Workshop “Ground Rules”

Planning Session
The specific method used to engage the stakeholder participants in the concept planning process will be
determined later based upon input from the City. There are a variety of techniques that might be used.
Among them is the approach of splitting participants into teams of roughly ten (10) members each, and
each team creating its own concept plan by applying colored markers to base maps. Another is to simi-
larly break participants up into teams, but to ask a series of questions that will build consensus, rather than
actually creating a plan. Other techniques will also be considered with the City.

Workshop Team Presentations & Wrap-Up

Following the completion of the Planning Session, the Workshop Teams will reassemble into a single
group and one or more members of each team will briefly present their plans and/or ideas. After each
presentation, there will be time for questions and comments. Following the Workshop Team presenta-
tions, the Project Team consultants will conclude the evening by identifying common elements between
the various ideas, and suggest how those ideas might be combined to form the basis for the Alternative

A P P R O A C H
Growth Scenarios as a prelude to the ultimate Comprehensive Plan.

Task 2.3 Alternative Growth Scenarios Preparation (Day 2 through Day 3)

Based upon the Task 1.0 analysis and visioning, the goals and objectives, and the results of the Day 1
Planning Workshop, the Project Team will develop the Alternative Growth Scenarios. Two (2) or three (3)
scenarios will be developed, and one will be a build-out scenario based upon existing zoning and development
trends. Each scenario will include an illustrated plan map, graphics (primarily photographs), and concise
descriptive text. Each will address key considerations for the study area, such as:

• Land uses
• Development densities and character
• Transportation
• Community facilities
• Economic development

At some point during this task, the Project Team will meet with key City representatives to receive feedback
P R O J E C T

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

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

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

• Opening Comments & Project Approach

• Overview of Existing Conditions

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 12 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

• Summary of Public Input Results

• Review of Goals & Objectives
• Presentation of the Alternative Growth Scenarios
• Discussion with the Public

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

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

Task 2.0 Deliverables: Alternative Growth Scenarios
PowerPoint Presentation

Task 3.0 Preparation of Draft Comprehensive Plan

Based upon the research and analysis, public input, and goal
setting conducted during the first two tasks of the project, as
SUMMARY
well as the Alternative Growth Scenarios, the draft Compre-
hensive Plan will be prepared. The plan’s contents will meet
Task 3.0 Preparation of Draft
or exceed the requirements of the Georgia Department of Com-
Comprehensive Plan
munity Affairs’ Chapter 110-12-1 “Standards and Procedures
for Local Comprehensive Planning.” The following plan outline
Task 3.1: Introduction
is proposed:
Task 3.2: Plan Elements
Task 3.1 Introduction

A P P R O A C H
This section would reference and summarize the background
Task 3.3: Implementation
work that led up to the actual planning process. In particular it
Strategy
would summarize:
• Plan Purpose & Scope
• Project Approach
• Existing Conditions Analysis
• Public Input Results / Goals & Objectives
• Alternative Growth Scenarios
• Preferred Growth Scenario

Task 3.2 Plan Elements

The following individual elements would comprise this main section of the plan:
• Land Uses – categories, locations, and mixing of uses
• Development – densities/intensities, parking location, and development character
• Transportation – streets (street type map, design profile by type, interconnectivity strategies, etc.),
P R O J E C T
pedestrian access, cycling, traffic calming
• Parks & Recreation – park types, locations, recreation facilities, greenways
• Public Facilities, Utilities & Infrastructure – buildings, sewer, water, power, telecommunications
• Natural & Cultural Resources – open space, wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, steep slopes, historic
resources
• Neighborhoods & Housing – neighborhood improvement strategies, housing types and locations
• Economic Development – business development, tourism

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

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 13 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

Task 3.3 Implementation Strategy

In order for the plan elements described in Task 3.2 to be realized, specific strategies will be provided. For
example, needed changes to zoning, subdivision regulations, and building/development standards will be
addressed here. Similarly, public infrastructure investments may be required for plan implementation to
succeed. This plan section will address priority levels and responsible parties, but will not include cost
estimates.

Task 3.0 Trips: N/A

Task 3.0 Deliverable: Draft Plan document

Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & Revisions

Following sufficient time for review of the draft by the City, the Project Team will present the Draft Plan to the
public. Based upon a review of the Draft Plan by the City and input from the public presentation, as well as the
submission from the City to the Project Team of a single “red-lined” composite of all comments, the Project
Team will revise the plan into a final document.

Task 4.0 Trips: One (1) 1-day Trip (draft plan presentation)
Task 4.0 Deliverable: Final Plan document (both Word and PDF versions)

Additional Services
This proposal has taken a conservative approach in providing the City with necessary project components
while keeping the budget at a reasonable level for the City. However, should the City desire, additional
services could be provided. Below is a list of potential services that could occur as part of this comprehensive
planning project or subsequently:

A P P R O A C H
• Additional meetings with City officials and others
• Evaluation of fiscal implications of the plan
• Cost estimates and funding strategies for plan implementation
• Public policy revisions (zoning, subdivision regulations, development standards)

Rock City is an impor-

tant tourist destina-
tion for the region that
draws thousands of visi-
tors to Lookout Moun-
tain each year. The
City’s Comprehensive
P R O J E C T

Plan should address the

issue of balancing tour-
ism with a high qual-
ity of life for local resi-
dents.

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 14 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

PROJECT SCHEDULE
In accordance with the City’s goal of a tight time-frame for this project, a four-month schedule is proposed,
as follows:

Scope of Services Time-Frame

Task Weeks

Task 1.0: Analysis & Visioning 1-5

Task 2.0: Charrette & Alternative Growth Scenarios 6

F E E S
Task 3.0: Preparation of Draft Plan 7-12

Task 4.0: Plan Presentation & Revisions 13-16

TOTAL 16 weeks (4 months)

For this aggressive schedule to be followed, City officials must be prepared to review draft plan sections

&
and provide feedback to the Project Team in a prompt manner.

S C H E D U L E
One of Lookout Mountain’s
most treasured characteristics
is its natural and rustic feel
- its strong sense of place. Any
future plans for the commu-
nity must prioritize that as-
pect as a key value to protect
and reinforce. P R O J E C T

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 15 of 16

 The Walker Collaborative Team

PROJECT COSTS
It must be emphasized that the proposed budget below is based upon a very specific scope of services and
can be easily adjusted depending upon the City’s available resources and planning needs.

Scope of Services Costs

Task Fees Expenses Total

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

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

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

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

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

S C H E D U L E
P R O J E C T

Proposal: Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan Page 16 of 16