|
in larger metropolitan areas it will
<br />include transit-supportive development.
<br /> Site Design and Development. A
<br />number of improvements to the
<br />pedestrian realm and streetscape
<br />that can encourage physical activity
<br />can be accompiished through site
<br />plan review or design review. These
<br />measures protect people from traffic
<br />and inclement weather and provide
<br />safe, wellqi§hted routes and gather-
<br />lng ¢laces. They include:
<br />
<br />· requiring or encouraging ground-
<br /> floor retail uses and awnings,
<br /> especially along transit routes;
<br /> · prohibiting blank ,,vails;
<br />
<br />· including street trees, landscapin§.
<br />
<br /> and street Furniture:
<br />· locating parking to the side or rear
<br /> of commercial buildings; and
<br />
<br />J minimizing the amount of surface
<br />
<br /> parking overall.
<br />
<br /> Public Facility Siting. Unlike the
<br />four points above, planners may par-
<br />ticipate in local decision making on
<br />the location and design of pubiic
<br />buildings and facilities, including
<br />schools, libraries, and parks, but
<br />rarely do the,/have direct control over
<br />the process. Many school districts are
<br />not required to consider Local plans or
<br />development regulations when siting
<br />a new school. This has resulted in
<br />many new, iarge sprawling schools
<br />being constructed on the urban fringe
<br />while smaller, nei§hborhood-[eve[
<br />schools are closed. OnLy in the ins/
<br />few years have policy makers outside
<br />the school district begun ~p look at
<br />the impacts of school-siting decisions
<br />on sprawl, transportation, health, and
<br />educational quality.
<br />
<br />SURVEY, OF PLANNERS
<br />
<br />In Spring 2oo3, APA surveyed ~,ooo
<br />planner~ t.o determine the barriers that
<br />exist ,'o incorporating health goals in
<br />comprehensive and functional plans
<br />and land-development regulations as
<br />welt as [he extent Lo which planners
<br />and planning agencies are already
<br />addressing health ,goals.
<br />
<br /> The lar§est barrier, according to 4o percent of the respon-
<br />dents, was that physical activity is not regarded as a planning
<br />issue. The second-highest reported barrier (reportedLy 28 percent)
<br />was that physical activity is an assumed,, not a stated, goa't. Like
<br />
<br />~' 6O
<br />
<br />Smart Growth PrincipLe
<br />
<br /> Mixed U~e
<br />
<br /> Open space set asides
<br /> '
<br /> Bike/pedestrian trails
<br /> I 46
<br /> Smart growth plans, ordinances f '..' 5~ .~,~
<br />
<br /> Transit-supportive densities , i ,
<br />
<br />Street connectivity plan
<br />Grnund.floor retail
<br />Traditional neighborhood devetopmen~ i~
<br />
<br /> ?g of Respondents (N=I,O80~ 96% indicated one or more)
<br />
<br />To a large extent ] To some extent ~ Not at all '3
<br />
<br />most local government agencies
<br />planning departments are perpetu-
<br />ally faced with limited resources to
<br />tackle complex work programs and
<br />responsibilities. In that vein, t3 per-
<br />cent of respondents said the barrier
<br />to incorporating physicat activity
<br />was that it would detract from other
<br />departmental priorities.
<br />
<br /> As mentioned above, many of
<br />the planning ~ools implemented
<br />under a smart growth p.~.an are
<br />directly supportive of go%Is to
<br />increase physical activity.
<br />Specifically, smart growth seeks to
<br />encourage compact design, walka-
<br />hie neighborhoods, and the cre-
<br />ation of more transportation
<br />options. We asked respondents ~o
<br />indicate which of the ten smart
<br />growth principles (as promulgated
<br />by the U.S. EP~ Office of Smart
<br />Growth) have been implemented in
<br />their community since t998 (Figure
<br />t]. At 76 percent, provision for
<br />mixed-use development scored the
<br />highest, followed by open space
<br />preservation at 63 percent. In fact,
<br />with ~he exception of the certainty
<br />principle (that is, providing clear
<br />rules and time(fries For develop-
<br />ment review), around hall: of all
<br />respondents indicated that all the
<br />principles had been implemented
<br />to some degree since ~998.
<br />Together, the implementation of
<br />numerous smart growth principles
<br />and measures will provide a solid
<br />foundation for expanding commu-
<br />nity planning and design to
<br />address the goal of increasing
<br />pi~ysicat activity.
<br /> We asked respondents to indi-
<br />cate the specific measures their
<br />jurisdiction had implemented to
<br />support walkability and physical
<br />activity. Recognizing that mom/
<br />reforms take place incrementally, we
<br />asked respondents to tell us
<br />whether the actions had been imple-
<br />mented to a targe extent, to some
<br />extent, or not at all (Figure 2). Again,
<br />mixed-use development ,,vas the
<br />
<br /> ZONING PRACTICE 06.04
<br />146 A.~,,C^N PLANNING ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />
<br />
|