Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreenway Zoningf ----------·----·--------------- AGENlDA Parks and ~'.e c reation Advisory 13oard Regular Meet ing 1 uesday, April 20, .2004, 7 :00 p.m. The EXI T Teen Center 15 2(1 R< ck Prairie Roa1d College Station, Texas -----·----·------- 1. ~:ali to order. 2. Fa rdon .~-· poss ib e <Ktion con cE rning requests for atsence:; of rr eml: e -s. 3. Hear v isito rs. 4 . Di~;cus s i on , con sid eratio n , and p os::;ible approv al of m i-ut es fro n th o~ 'f\/1:1udv1i y Pc r < Fublic Hearing"' !'12 r·~:·1 3, 20(14; from t he Regular !'leeting rv Marc ., 9 (Q(J .. ; ar o, f-c m t he Pr'.)posed TIV :>A R;::g !ona l Park Site Tour "' Apr I 15, 20•)4 . 5. F'r esentation , c i scu :;s i ~J r\ a nd r ossible action reg a rd in ·~ Woocl w2y Pa k pan. 6. Di'.;cussion, cc1ns1 c:e r .:i :io n , arid poss ible action re~a r1j ing pos:it E' Par < _a 11j De dk:atio n request '.; felt': ~Q\b~:_~ ~~~,~~~~ • Hor·se Have 1 Es tates "' Pak Zo 1e 4 <'.;.Y\~s::~~ l~ (No-t,.c1vJ 1 ?.~~·)' 6\~1,~v~~t° • E c~el we i ss Garter s. Ph ase 6-1 1 Park Zone lO·~~V\,~~ ~W>Jf~~~~~ · • W !I iams Creek '.;u l:div isi on "' ?a rk Zon e 14 ~ -tv~~~t¥-~~l.V"() 7 . F'.epcr-t, dis.::ussitJ r , and p ossib le .:iction co nce rni nq -E·q uest for nc-1 r·i 1~q c f lei :k l)t De rothy Mil ler )ark _jo~~g i n g t r·a :k by Rock Prairie PTO. 8 . Di'.>cussion , cc111sicer-.:::ion, and Jossib le action , re~1~r:.J!n g Y .ot·::nti;1 p<: r : a 11..i U "'e ·wa y j o 1r.t pro i9-ct w ith t rw City of Br··yan . .r _:--~·~ \r...r\:zyl1 V\~ (:::\~ ---~~e.. Llw.L-\v1W'L-!AcUC~~nos.c\.~ _:-?\¥~:e·.& d.._~ ~ ~ _ • '\' \t-1\ 1.NJW ~.WV VV\1..{J ,_..,......, 9. Discussion, con sid ~r c;1:io~~ p:-is: i e ac:ti~e g1'foi11~1 Eastc a 1 ~ P.: r·!·: 1v c'.>tE -P ar . 10. Fol 1ow-up repor t n~·;i21 rd i 11 ~1 rern 1T 11endations f:-on Fe xuary 26, 2] ~t. r :i r·I: [ssLes F'.e po1-t to Ci t y ::=-ouncil J 1. F'.e por-t, disc:us~ion , ar,:! possi:J le actio11 n::>ga rding FE es '.;ubcornr1 ittee ,v t~E<i n ;J 12 . F'.e po1-t, discu s ~;i o11, and possi1:ile act ion co 11c:e rni 11~1 Sei:onc! ~!•.ll ltcr P<.r < M211ntena11ce S;:anc!crds. !.3 . F:e pcrt , dis·:::u~;sio r-, .~n d p os s i l:::lc~ action conceni nc tre Ca p it;il ( ·r pro1 2rnc11t F rng ~am: • P::: rk Lan1j Dediccit i·:in PrnJec:t Lis t • Cu1T e111:: Ca ~i i ta l Im xovem e1t F'-oj ec : Li st: • November ;~C103 13c:11d El ect on Project:; ,., .· • / .":11i .. 11f:h ... :• 1(..__•.; ... 1{',L 11,:1 c1c,·1µ n.1r:.1n:; ..,, JC ~" LilL' ... 1v,11/o/J1t• A;·,, 1 . .=q:._.=~: re,· i:;i~,n 1n·~rur ·live·,· .. ''-' ,. '"'' 'L ,,. 1i · u "1.',/1·'f"··-tl1t·''IL'"l;ny lun,1,':;.._11 ... 11c .... ::nr..:.·11:_o;1~J//(97YJ \;l ·JJ1?o rnr:;J '-bo1i./J'> .'J.i; .. 14 . Review, di scuss io n, and possible action concerning Bo ard and Depart n·er'tal ;:J.::ls an d Objectives, and City Cou ncil Strat egic Plan . 15. Cisc:u ssion of ca end:ir, futu1-e rr ee ting dates and po~;sib le agenda items : 11 Pres enta tion by R ::cr-:~at ion, Park and Tourism Sciences De p a rtrn E~nt reg rdi r1g Concept ual pl an fo r Tl•1PA Regional Pa rk rv Ma y 3, 2004 at the 13VC OC; 11 Regu la r meetin ~1 011 Ma y 11 , 2J04 H i. Adourn. Fll.:1 bu1hNr~1 ;5 1vt1cr!lc/Ja1r i1L~~s:::;1.')/e. !-fdndii~JP parking spJces are ava1/ab/;!!. Any 1equest 'br .:;j~n 1nterp·-eUv1i sei•/c e~ nu;£ !.J.'9 11 .i 1.: •. a hou;·~ be'ore £.'1e me< •1111£. ro m,1ke 01r. an9en;ents call (979) 764-351 7 cir (TOD) J -8(;0-7 .J 5-29S'. Outline for Council Workshop on March 271h 1. Overview a. Intro 2. Background a. Greenway Master Plan Adoption b. Vision/Purpose of Greenway c. Identified Goals (Highlights only) 3. Work Plan a. Exploration phase: Feb -March i. History of Program?? (staffing review)?? 11. Development Review Process -UDO ill. Land Acquisition 1v. Parkland Dedication b. Research/Evaluation phase: March -May 1. Strategies for Protection of Greenway 1. Fee Simple Acquisition l<V\ 2. Donation JP_~· :,'c. 3. Zoning J 0 J..\Z,~\C 4. Conservation Easements V· 11. Land Acquisition (to date) [will provide summary of completed, negotiated and pending depending on how far I get in two weeks] ill. Funding (will provide detail on status of funds) 1. Bonds 2. CIP 3. Grants (peripheral review -don't know that I'll have time to research/ find previous grants applied for/ awarded) 1v. Potential partnerships 1. City of Bryan, Texas A&M, etc v. Develop assessment of 1999 Plan for COCS Comp Plan Update 1. Overview of strengths and limitations 2. Recommendations c. Master Plan Update Phase: May-to be determined 1. Develop a 'Corridor' concept by integrating the Greenway Master Plan into the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan -achieving multiple goals - similar v1s1ons 11. Develop scope for Update 1. Recommendation on how to involve stakeholders 2. Timeline 3. Some Issues to A ddress a. Acquisition Methods b. Prioritization Criteria c. Financial Strategies d. Land Management/Stewardship clJ_u_d~y_D~ow~n_s_-_B_ic~y_c_le_l_P_e_de_s_t_ri_a_n_A_c_c_o_m_m_o_d_a_t_io_n_P_o_l_ic~y_S_t_a_te_m_e_n_t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P_a~g:ij] From: To: Date: Subject: Ken Fogle Battle, Lee; Elrod, Kate; Fletcher, Trey; Kee, Jane 7/31/03 11 :23AM Bicycle/Pedestrian Accommodation Policy Statement The more I get into this pedestrian access way stuff, I'm wondering if we need to step away from things a little bit and look at pedestrian (and bicycle) accommodation overall and not just the linkages. In 1999 The Federal Highway Administration developed a recommended accommodation policy (see below) to be used by state and local governments on public sector roadway projects. If we were to do something like this, it would need to have a public sector policy and a private sector (i .e., development) policy. Obviously, this would be more than a Planning and Zoning Commission thing. Am I crazy ... should I move to Oregon or New Zealand? This is a lot more than I planned to get into, but I feel that this is the direction that we're heading whether we do it now or at some point in the future. If this is too large of a step for right now, maybe we could talk about what steps we need to take to get there in a few years. If nothing else, this could make for some great dialogue (but I hope it wouldn't end there). ******* FHWA Recommended Policy Statement Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three conditions are met: bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited b_y_law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right of way or within the same transportation corridor. the cost of establishing bikeways or walkwa s would sivel dis ro ortionate to the need or probable use. xcess1ve y 1sproport1onate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the larger transportation project. where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Guide reqUlres all construction of new public streets" to include sidewalk improvements on both sides, unless the street is a cul-de-sac with four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource constraints. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day, as in States such as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road users in addition to providing a place for bicyclists and pedestrians to operate. Rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists unless there is a minimum clear path of four feet in which a bicycle may safely operate. Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over-and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: planning projects for the long-term. Transportation facilities are long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The design and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in item 1) above should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. For example, a bridge that is likely to remain in place for 50 years, might be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and pedestrian use in anticipation that facilities will be available at either end of the bridge even if that is not currently the case. addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them. Even where bicyclists and pedestrians may not commonly use a particular travel corridor that is being improved or constructed , they will likely need to be able to cross that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of intersections and interchanges shall accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. getting exceptions approved at a senior level. Exceptions for the non-inclusion of bikeways and walkways shall be approved by a senior manager and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines. The design of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians should follow design guidelines and standards that are commonly used, such as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the ITE Recommended Practice " Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities". JJane Ree -Implementation o(Greenways.doc Implementation of Greenways into the Unified Development Code Purpose: Specification of various methodologies to incorporate acquisition of greenway properties into the Unified Development Ordinance. Main points to relate: 1. Greenway issues should be separated from the parkland dedication ordinance and be viewed as primarily flood control and drainage structures. 2. Greenways will relate to parkland in terms of linkages and connections. 3. The City of College Station has approximately 2200 acres in 100-year flood plain, 800 acres of that are developable, but it actually translates into 500-600 acres that would be impacted. 4. The City has to be viewed under two separate conditions; the currently developed stream channels in the northern part of the community, and the southern part of the community that is currently being considered for development. The future development areas would also include areas proposed for annexation or located in the ETJ. The City can acquire the greenway in several ways. The following listing details the methods from most stringent to our existing methodology. Most stringent -Watershed-wide Based Flood Elevation (BFE): 100-year floodplain -fully developed watershed land use. Zero Rise through exactions similar to the method used by the City of Allen, Texas and other municipalities within the Rowlett Creek watershed. The base flood elevation (BFE) and floodplain used for design, planning and acquisition is evaluated upon total storm water discharge characteristics that will, through continued urbanization, be generated from a fully developed watershed. The BFE reflects the cumulative effects of full development on the watershed. The City of Allen has a floodplain dedication ordinance that requires the dedication of all primary creeks throughout the city. Dedication is required at the time of final platting. The City views creekways as stormwater channels, that serve a dual purpose of offering open space and trail use. They also require the developer to construct hike/bike trails along the full length of the greenways at no cost to the City. The developers have constructed approximately 10 miles of trails, and charge higher lot fees for all lots across from the trails system. The City believes this is a part of infrastructure development. Furthermore, ifthe fully developed flood conditions keep water within the banks of the creek, the City requires the developer to dedicate enough land outside the floodplain to accommodate the trail; this provides a buffer from creek bank erosion. They also require, where possible, that only single loaded streets be constructed adjacent to greenways. Page 1 I [?ane Kee -Implementation of Greenways.doc This allows for unlimited access in times of floods, and it opens this space up for all to enjoy. No floodpl ain filling is allowed on any of the primary creeks. Zero rise through exactions can be less stringent than the methodology used by the City of Allen which exacts based on ultimate development. The City of College Station currently uses the FEMA floodplain maps and we could continue to use those to avoid the expense of mapping the entire City. Flood plain areas within the City that are currently unmapped would require the developer to provide the information if the development is greater than 5 acres or 50 lots. Moderately stringent control measures would utilize the previously proposed zero rise ordinance language and incorporate the proposed riparian buffer ordinance. This method of protecting the floodplain only allows reclamation if: 1. There is no rise in the 100-year base flood elevation 2. There is no increased flooding to other property 3. There is no increas e in erosive water velocity 4. There is no alteration of undeveloped portions of primary stream channels A proposal and power point presentation were previously prepared and presented detailing this method offloodplain/greenway protection. The riparian (stream) buffer portion of this method would require developers to provide buffers adjacent to stream systems which could be as small as 100 feet or could encompass the entire 100-year floodplain. A proposed buffer ordinance is attached. The least stringent method to acquire and protect floodplains and greenways would be to continue as the City of College Station has. This involves some greenway dedications as new developments are brought into development services for review, and/or the actual purchase of the 100-year floodplain with the use of greenway bond funds. This method could be improved through the requirement of: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF FLOODPLAIN/GREENWAY EXACTIONS 1. The developer would realize savings in stormwater retention/detention structures as the preserved floodplain could accommodate much of this need. We understand that the stormwater detention facility on the Crowley development cost the developer approximately $500,000. 2. The City would realize savings in the operation and maintenance of drainage facilities. 3. The state and federal permitting process for the development community would be streamlined. 4. The City's long term liability may be reduced (i .e. San Antonio example). 5. Implementation of the City's requirements under Phase II of the clean water act would begin. Page 2) DETENTION POND SPECIFICATIONS Prior to acceptance of a detention facility by the City of College Station, the following specifications need to be adhered to: 1. Slopes. Side slopes should range from 20-30%. The least-sloped sides are preferable. 2. Grass cover. Detention ponds must be seeded, sodded or hydromulched. Slopes should be hydro-mulched or sodded. There must be a grass cover of 80% or better prior to acceptance. 3. Tovsoil There must be a minimum of three (3") inches of sandy loam topsoil cover over the L detention pond area, especially the sloped areas. Exposed hard clay areas not acceptable 4. Concrete structures. Concrete valley gutters should be designed for ease of maintenance and be placed on the sides of the pond area vs.the center of the detention pond. All pipes should be grated or covered to prevent children from crawling into. Concrete structures taller than ( 4 ') height need to have railings around them. 5. Trees. A minimum of one (1) tree every thirty-five (35') feet should be existing or planted around the perimeter of the detention pond. Tree size needs to be at least a fifteen-gallon or one to one-half (1-1/2") inch caliper. Bald Cypress trees could be planted in the middle flat areas of the pond. 6. Irrigation. An irrigation system is required for sloped areas to maintain grass cover. Drip irrigation is required on all trees. date project page -----· -·---....... . ___ _______________________ _ _________________ _ __________________________ Ji~~-t)~~ ~=::.i=~-~ ~ s~ ~-: :··:-~:~:-::.::: ----------------------------------___ . __________ Add tti°"".S _ -~~h~ pt Ah ~ s __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ -------------------------------------------------~· .... ----·····---·· ..... . ____________________ _ _____________________________ Wtl_~-~ -___________________________ _ ~~-· ••• ••••• •• ·-••• M :: •••• -~-~-= ...... ·F. 0il<L1t-fo -P_ ~~~ --\'> . -------····--· ·-------------------------------------------· .... ---------------------------. -----·-···· .... ·-....... .. , . ··--··· -------------------------------.--- ______ _.___ . . IJ t2.. -r-:1 ,l..,\--A '. ML ------. ----... . .. ------·--·· ··----·--· -~ --\ J.V-I ----------------... --.. =-~--.... ··•··. .•....•.•••••.•.... ·: ___ Si<Uw~. ·±!~ .. if,~~ .. . ... ---------------. -------------------------.. -----------. .'V-Ol{. -h~_?: -~pk~. task list: du. CrJ'rvJ. c::{l~ '· Pedestrian Prioritization Scoring Southbridge, Wilmington JJ crosswalll CtO!liM8ll and CWb CUI rn CIO!l&Willl and P9de&lrian Signal (!] ~. ClRC., P. SI~ Londsc.aplng Sidewalk Conalrucllon Q Slteet~ P•dHtriao Priortty ttatwork 8 Qew lmporlant) 7 8 ---A (more lmP0(1anl) CITY OF COL.LEGE STATION Legend Bike and Pedestrian Facilities -Lane ExistTig • I Lane Proposed -Path Existing • I Path Proposed -Route Existing • I Route Proposed -Lane -Bond 2008 -lane -CIP 2009 -Path· Bond 2008 CS Streets .. COCS Greenway Property -Parks c::::::J Sohools Texas A&M Property Subdrvis10ns/Plats B i cycle and Pedestrian Maste r Plan I I I I I " I I I ) # # ' ••••••••••••,.. I ---------I 0 -.. -I I 0.5 1 Miles i I ----'Y.,,, I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ' ~ ' ... I ... ... -.. l' ,, - I I ~I I .,. I ... I I ~ CITY OF COLI.EGE STATION Legend COCS Greenway Property 0 1 --c:::::J Miles 0.5 • Background • Scope & Project Schedule • Crash Data • Inventory of Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities • Inventory of Greenway Property • Historical Perspective • Bike Plan (1980) • Sidewalk Master Plan (1994) • Greenways Master Plan (1999) • Bikeway & Pedestrian Master Plan (2002) • Goal - • A plan that creates an interconnected system of non-motorized transportation opportunities • Vision/Goals & Objectives • Needs Assessment • Health & Wellness • Environmental • Bicycle & Pedestrian Activity • Safety • Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data B i cycle a n d C rTY OP Crn 1 H.E. STATIO' LAgend Blcyte & Ped Crash Oata (03--08) Nl#Ylber of Recurrancff CSSl!Mls c:J Sd>- i YARROW ST ~ z " Pedestr i an C r ash OR ~ Ii z ii 8 ANDE GLADE ST 0 Data (2003 -2008 ) SOUTHWOOD 01t RIO GRANDE BLVD 0 i ! ... ,, .. 8 .. 0 0 0.5 0 1 ------======:iMiles SHeSIHIS LONCMIRl!OR DECATUR DR • Inventory • Bicycle Facilities • Pedestrian Facilities -Sidewalks • Greenway Network and Trails Bike and Pedestrian Path/Trail Bike Lane rrv OF Cou.E<.E STATION Legend Bike and Pedestrian Facllhle• -Lan•Exi•ing • • LMie PTcpoud -LM'le • Bond 2008 -I.Mi•· CIP 2009 css.- -CCJC$ GfHtlWay PtoS*fy _ ...... c:::::J -· T•nA&MPrCIPtft'J &bctvrtionslPla• • • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ~ > ~0'Z::!ox Dr ~lenhaven Dr €4.Rt. Ruo0 ••••• ER~ •. . •vys • I 0 1 ---c::=:=:::::iMiles 0.5 -; I I I I • • CITY OF COLLH.E STATION Legend Bike and Pedestrian FaclUtles -lan•Eiding -I Un• PrcpoMd -P.et!Existing -I PathPtOf)OM<I -Pllth • Bond 2008 -l.9n• · Band 2008 -LM\• • CIP 2009 css. .... -cocs G'•.-.w•y PfOf*fy -P•ks c::JS<ftool• T•XH A.&M Prop9rty SWclvitlontJ'Plats Bicycle and Pedestrian Mas t er PI an ' ' ' ' ~ : ' ' ' 0 0.5 1 Miles ...,"'>.· "'~-o ~ (7 ' -"'j v _____ , .. , ' ' ' ~ I I ~ I , ' ' ' ' On OF Cot LE<.~ STATION Legend Bike and Pedeetrlan FaclUtl•• -lan•ExittK'SI -I Un• Pl'opoMd -P.tt!E1uG!1"t9 -I P.U.Proposed -Route E11:isdng • I Route PropoHd -P.m-Bond 2008 -1.Me·Bofld2008 -Lene • CIP 2009 CSSlreets -coes er.-.1 PrDPfft.t -P•kt [=:J ........ T9XasAIM Propwty --... Bicycle _,,,.. and ~ Pedestrian Master PI an I I I ) , , ' --------------I I I I I I .. -;j- 0 0.5 1 Miles I 4 , ~ , ' ' -, ____ .... , I i ' I k , , , I , \ ' ; ,~--, ,------· ____ __, ' I ' I ' ' ~ ~ / \ ' ' \ -,. I I I I .. I I ~ Cird ~ Crn OF Co1 tE<;F STATION 0 .. . .. Legend COCS Greenway Property 0 1 --c::::::::J Miles 0.5 rTY OF Cm LEC.F ST.\TIO""I 0 .. • .. .. Master PI an Legend Sidewalk Master Plan -EXISTING -PROPOSED -COCS Greenway Property -Park• L==i Schools Texas A& M Property -SubcUvtstons/Plats 0 1 ........ c:::::=====::iMiles 0.5 • System Recommendations O Bicycle 0 Pedestrian 0 Greenway Network & Trails • Program and Policy Recommendations 0 Education O Policy 0 Signage • Operations and Maintenance 0 Acquisition Methods 0 Costs & Funding • Implementation 0 Prioritization 0 Performance Measures • Citizen Engagement • Community Listening Sessions • Technical Advisory Team • Staff Resource Team • Some key issues to be addressed - • Connectivity & Commuting • Bicycle Facilities -Intersection treatments • Greenways-Acquisition Methods & Maintenance • Creation ofTechnical Advisory Team -Nov 2008 • Citizen Engagement -Listening Sessions • Needs Assessment/Gaps in Service -Feb 2009 • System Recommendations -April 2009 • Draft Report to Council -Aug 2009 • Technical Advisory Team • 8-10 members with expertise in the following areas - • Transportation Planner/Engineer • Recreation • Environmental/Ecological Science • Storm Drainage & Floodplain • Landscape Architect • Rea I Estate • Special Interest: Commuting Bicyclist • Special Interest: Recreation Bicyclist • Special Interest: Recreation Walker/Runner • Needs Assessment • Health & Wellness Issues • Environmental Protection • Bicycle & Pedestrian Activity • Safety • Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data • Level of Service • Unique Community Assets • Carter's Creek Recreation Corridor VENESSA GARZA GREENWAYS PROGRAM MANAGER • Background • Scope & Project Schedule • Crash Data • Inventory of Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilit ies • Inventory of Greenway Property • Historical Perspective • Bike Plan (1980) • Sidewalk Master Plan (1994) • Greenways Master Plan (1999) November 6, 2008 =.=..;..;:;.;.,:.i • Bikeway & Pedestrian Master Plan (2002) • Goal- , A plan that creates an interconnected system of non-motorized transportation opportunities 11/6/2008 e-~ l lM.~ f'NJ--~M t 1 • Vision/Goals & Objectives • NeedsAssessment • Health & Wellness • Environmental • Bicycle & Pedestrian Activity l~~~!!!~~] • Safety • Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data • Inventory • Bicycle Facilities • Pedestrian Facilities -Sidewalks • Greenway Network and Trails 11/6/2008 2 11/6/2008 (JCJ::J'J. .. -ApW~ JS m~ If~ ot hil~J ftreS d-CO g -ftp f2-0X 33 h-\.i/6 3 ·-·~· ·-: ~ 11/6/2008 wVu_d_ /1-vi,1le., L~ ~~ d--ro<? t3CYYV;t I Lt~Y-\'UU~ l0l1Y ~ :;_.i , 4 • System Recommendations O Bicycle 0 Pedestrian 0 Greenway Network & Trails • Program and Policy Recommendations 0 Education O Policy 0 Signage • Operations and Maintenance 0 Acquisition Methods 0 Costs & Funding • Implementation 0 Prioritization 0 Performance Measures • Citizen Engagement Community Listening Sessions • TechnicalAdvisoryTeam • Staff Resource Team • Some key issues to be addressed - Connectivity & Commuting Bicycle Facilities -Intersection treatments Greenways -Acquisition Methods & Maintenance 11/6/2008 5 • Creation ofTechnical Advisory Team -Nov 2008 • Ci tizen Engagement - Listening Se ssions • Needs Assessment/Gaps in Service -Feb 2009 • System Recommendations -April 2009 • Draft Report t o Council -Aug 2009 • Technical Advisory Team 8-10 members with expertise in the following areas - Transportation Planner/Engineer Recreation Environmental/Ecological Science Storm Drainage & Floodplain Landscape Architect Real Estate Special Interest: Commuting Bicyclist Special Interest: Recreation Bicyclist Special Interest: Recreation Walker(Runner 11/6/2008 6 11/6/2008 • Hea lth & Wellness Issues • Environmental Protection • Bicycle & Pedestrian Activity • Safety • Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data • Level of Service • Unique Community Assets • Carter's Creek Recreation Corridor 7 Legend Greenway• Acquisition -pending -pubic Greenways Dedication .pa .. -pendng LJ private LJ pubic City of College Station Greenways Masterplan Update GREENWAYS STATUS October 2003 1,800 900 0 -- • .SHJ1~ A.. -ioR~ cBI+ I/ AfU l.l(r.<..e ' -\;)N11-hci~~ ~ v o fJIUJSt~ lo$~of ~~f,.OV\ •• ,K) oajij. F 5~AtuL~~ . .._ ~. ·-~~ -il\~0(~ A,.,. 11• •• .L ...--·"" rjf -~'\. v S-hrll</ holA ·--.. I v ,..._ -r .., J'UX._ -. ~ t>~h11~i l--<. \nl/~'2.V] ?= '~~--'oe::::: I ,___ date project page _: _________ _ task list: Is5w s ~I C<rvtse12.vo.:htrV\ etA.Sltn~. Ptol-c I . ~P-O~SwtJJ<: [)e?c~ n ~· - ~ (,o~ S ~ Dbje c.:fi ~5 -I f";\ crv-. -ti, /-i CJU.w ::J~s -~ ~ . ---.TV\v~to~ \~ L~s/Rmtis-3~ ..... -. \ S1~4lfl.<; -j~ U~2..D05" ck~ . ... vr"y _5~a.'1IS .. \ -... An~S1S of T.nv~~. r1if4>.._:,~~ ~~A-~e,Aeh. 06(~,~ • .J (./'. (i) ~ tt:it(IJ "'1Al.~ (0Tta.&~ \ CJ\.ltA, Tu DR-\ ()t{ fl~ O'lt\ C>'l l ~ t~ ~ I~~-Bi 1l1V\~ • I .fl-\ . \ v---.... D~e-st12-t~t\.s -S1clL~ ~s ,WI/"~ -..,-~5 I Irv-~ -/ -""'7 _'7 , Sta.ff Roles and Responsibilities Required f or Successful RMIEDM Technology Implementation A number of individuals must be available to support a records management ('RM') and/or an electronic documents management ('EDM') system throughout part or all of its implementation. The following chart identifies the key roles and responsibilities: Role Responsibilities PROJECT SPONSOR The Project Sponsor should ideally be a member of the organization's Senior Executive. The Project Sponsor's responsibilities include: );;>-Representing the technology initiative within the organization's executive team. );;>-Providing leadership in establishing the need for, and priority of, the technology initiative relative to other organizational projects and/or initiatives. );;>-Authorizing key technology-related elements. PROJECT CONT ACT The Project Contact should ideally be at the director or senior management level (e.g., Director of Information Systems). Responsibilities include the following: );;>-Providing final approval of the technology implementation deliverables. );;>-Approving necessary budget-related items. );;>-Chairing the Steering Committee. PROJECT MANAGER Responsibilities include the following: );;>-Ensuring that all milestones are met. );;>-Reporting on the system implementation to organizational management staff persons. );;>-Reporting on incremental costs. );;>-Monitoring the system implementation plan against results. RECORDS MANAGER The Corporate Records Manager will act as the system champion and will be responsible for business related processes. The responsibilities include the following: );;>-Defining the procedures and policies. );;>-Promoting rollout and use of the RM and/or EDM system. );;>-Working with key contacts in each department (site records coordinators, and department records coordinators), who will act as champions for the system implementation in their respective departments (i.e., Steering Team members). BUSINESS ANALYST I The job of the Business Analyst I Product Specialist is to utilize external business experience EDRM SPECIALIST while analysing internal operations in order to provide appropriate recommendations. This individual will work with the Corporate Records Manager. Responsibilities include the following: );;>-Developing implementation plans. );;>-Assisting in the development of procedures and training documentation. );;>-Supporting the system application during the initial rollout and providing ongoing support during the full course of the rollout. © D. Baker, 2005 ' Role Responsibilities RECORDS ASSIST ANT This staff role entails the following clerical responsibilities: » Performing data entry into the application. » Setting up new electronic folders in accordance with the taxonomy, or corporate classification system. This role may be filled by several individuals, typically secretaries and clerical staff. They also may provide feedback via the Steering Committee. SYSTEM The System Administrator is responsible for supporting the application. Responsibilities ADMINISTRATOR include the following: » Ensuring adequate hardware is in place for current system use and future growth including storage space, memory, processing power, and network communication speed. » Monitoring the system to ensure consistent performance. » Maintaining backups of the system in case of hardware fa ilure or other disasters. » Supporting the system, including making upgrades to the software, assisting with application upgrades, and dealing with troubleshooting issues. NETWORK The Network Administrator will be responsible for supporting the network infrastructure that ADMINISTRATOR the application uses and the client workstations that run the application. The Network Administrators' responsibilities include the following: » Ensuring adequate hardware is in place to ensure both successful activity on the Wide- Area Network ('WAN') and that the amount of space required for the document repositories and application files is available (this includes storage space, processing power, memory, network communication speed on the decentralized application servers and/or document repository servers; and processing power, memory, and network communication speed on the user workstations). » Supporting the network, including assisting in upgrades and distribution of the application, and performing troubleshooting regarding the workstations or network. TECHNICAL ANALYST This individual will be responsible for the following tasks: » Analyzing the system's configuration. » Establishing a taxonomy structure on the system that duplicates the existing corporate taxonomy, or classification schedule. TECHNICAL SUPPORT The role of Technical Support person is to support the application from a technical PERSON standpoint. He/she should be an advanced application user. The responsibilities include the following: » Assisting users with records-related issues pertaining to the application. » Providing support for the end users experiencing problems. » Liasing with the appropriate technical person or with the application vendor in the event of application problems. TRAINER Proper training of the end users will be key to a successful deployment of the application. The Trainer will work with the Records Manager and technical staff. Responsibilities include the following: » Producing easy-to-use training materials. » Providing training seminars to the end users. CHANGE The change from individualized electronic filing systems, with minimal rules and/or guidelines, MANAGEMENT/ to a corporate-wide application in which all paper and/or electronic records will be managed COMMUNICATIONS in the same fashion, represents a dramatic change in records management methodology. A ADVISOR Change Management I Communications Advisor will be responsible for the following: » Providing input on the implementation communication vehicles. » Presenting seminars in change management, as required. © D. Baker, 2005 Role STEERING COMMITTEE AD-HOC TASK FORCE(S) ALL STAFF MEMBERS Responsibilities A Steering Committee will represent departmenUgroup needs. An organization's staff persons' operational priorities may very well clash with the application implementation. The Corporate Records Manager and Project Manager need to effectively communicate the system implementation to all staff, include users' feedback and needs in the planning process, and ensure strong management support to obtain a successful and cost-effective implementation with a minimum of staff disruption. The Steering Committee is expected to meet on a monthly basis during the first year of the implementation and less often in later years. The Steering Committee will include representation from most or all organization departments. Committee team members' responsibilities include the following : ~ Representing their respective department's needs with regard to how the system is implemented. ~ Providing input on the development and approval of related policies and procedures. ~ Providing input into confirming a cost-effective and timely implementation approach, including priority sequence for implementation. ~ Helping to resolve issues (e.g., available resources, timelines, priorities, etc.) that arise as the application is implemented. ~ Act in the role of change agents for the application, to the departments/units that the Steering Committee members represent. As needed, task forces will be created to provide input, make decisions, and offer the perspective of individual business units. With regards to an implementation, task force members' responsibilities would typically include the following : ~ Confirming the implementation priorities. ~ Advising on the training preparation. ~ Assisting with corporate communications. An application implementation will impact all organizational staff members. During implementation, their responsibilities would include the following: ~ Attending at least one system training seminar. ~ Attending communication sessions. ~ Altering records-handling behavior. © D. Baker, 2005 Stats Crash Data (2003-2008) IC.. 7t-4 "' '5' 1 9 5 incidents 4 Fatalities Ped 2004 Wellborn Rd/ Old Main Dr Bike 2006 College Main & University Drive Ped 2005 6 btw Harvey and University Ped 2004 Harvey Mitchell & Raymond Stotzer Parkway Bike 2003 12 2004 15 2005 19 2006 7 2007 22 85 plus 8 (2008) -93 Avg. 17 pedestrian crashes each year Avg. 18 bicyclist crashes each year Bike Ped Facilities 2002 -approximately 25 miles of bike lanes 2008 -approximately .J1 miles of bike lanes ~ U miles difference .33 Lane Proposed -48 miles Paths Existing -14 Miles Path Proposed -44 miles Route Existing -60 miles Route Proposed -50 miles Ped 2003 22 2004 26 2005 13 2006 21 2007 18 90 plus 1 2 (2008) -102 Corridors identified and complete or almost complete Continuous north/ south connections Anderson Street/Longmire Drive/Decatur Drive Welsh Avenue/Victoria Avenue Road projects -Dartmouth Arrington Rd Greenway property Approx CU ael'es 500 A-cN-~ Wolf Pen Creek 1.5 miles Bee Creek 1 mile -Lemon Tree, Bee Creek Park Lick Creek and Lick Creek Park 3 miles Alum Creek - 2 miles Bee Creek - 4 miles Carters Creek - 9 miles c~ Gulf States Easement - 8 miles Lick Creek -2.5 Spring Creek - 3 Wolf Pen Creek Bee Creek Phase 1 -Bid Oct 29th Award Nov 24 (Bridge /Longmire Striping) Construction Jan 09 5 months -wrap up around June Phase 2 May/June TX Dot Review Sidewalks 1 994 Existing -30 miles 2008 Existing -56 miles 26 additional miles in 14 years Other plans Baltimore Maryland -2001 Greensboro, NC -2006 Santa Clara -Non-motorized ·, ;_ 1• I I • · I ' (' I (I \1 \I I ' ' I 'l ' I-' ' I . I I II I I . . I \1 I\ I I~ ; I I I I I !, I .., I I •I •I • F [ :\ T lJ R E "Open Space" Zoning: :·,.) ~:Q'cal officials in most rural and'~~~burbanizing areas have a long-term choice about which many are not fully aware. That is whether to continue implementing "conventional zoning," or whether to refine their existing land-use regulations to ensure the preser- vation of open space through creative de- velopment design. Conventional zoning is essentially a blueprint for development. and development alone. Of course. zo ning normally separates incompatible uses. and it does establish certain standards (such as maximum densities and minimum set - backs). but it typically does little to protect open space or to conserve rural character. The reason many subdivisions consist of nothing more than houselots and stree ts is because zoning and subdivision design standards usually require developers to Pre -Development Rural Village A small village grouped around a few buildings including a fannstead, church and Lown offices fhe 1·ural character is defin ed by th e large open /1dds. WHAT IT Is & WHY IT WoRKs by Ra11clall Arc11d1 provide nothing more. While many ordi- nances contain detailed standards for pave- ment thickness and culvert diameters. ve ry few set any noteworthy standards for th e quantity, quality and configuration of open space to be preserved . Conventional zo ning assigns a dc,-c l- opment designation to every acre of land. generally residential. commercial, or in - dustrial. The only lands which arc nor- mally not designated for development are wetlands and floodplains. Conventional zoning has been accurately described as "planned sprawl." because every square foot of each development parcel is con- verted to front ya rds, back yards, stree ts. sidewalks, or driveways. Period. Noth ing is left over to become open space. in this land-consumptive process. Conventional Development. Under typical large-lot zoning, the village might be developed lilie 1his. Few people realize tha1 their local ordinances mandate this hind of approach. where all open space (except for wellands and fl oodplains) is divided inlo housdots. Here, 1ypica l one acre lots are ~h"wn PLA NN I N G C O MYll 'lS I ONE RS j OLJ RN A L N UMU ER • A BETTER SOLUTION Local officials who are interested in ensuring that their communities will not ultimately become a seamless web of sub- divisions. shopping centers and office or industrial parks now have a practical and effective alternati ve: compulsory open space zoning. Thi:> technique has been Slll._ cessfully implemcmed by a numbn l1i municipalities in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. and by several cou11- ties in Virginia, Washington State and Cali- fornia. In order to avoid disturbing the equity held by existing landowners, open space zoning allows the same overall amount of development that is already permitted The key difference is that this technique re- quires new construction to be located on only a portion -typically half -or the Open Space Dc"clopmenL. Under open space zoning, the agri cultural land is pennanenlly protecled. The development ha s 1he same ove rall density as in the preceding illuslration, but houselots are half an acre i11 size. and F,roupcd LO preserve the farmland . J U LY I Al.GUS T 1992 parcel. The remaining o pen space is per- manently protected under a conservation ,·ascment co-signed by a local conserva- 11011 commission or land trust. and re- ,,1rdcd in the registry of deeds. As "open ~pace zoning" is based upon the technique ,,f .. clustering ... these two terms are used 1n1crch:mgeably throughout the rest of this .lri 1, k . It sho uld also hl.· 11lHed that the l·luster concept ca n be restricted to de- 1.1< IH·d. single-fam ily hP111 l·s. each on its ,1\\ 11 down-sized housclllt, in communi- ties or in specific zoning dis tricts where 1 liis is politically desir;iblc. l n other words. , luster housing is by no means limited to 1ownhouses. apartments. or condomini- ums. as is typical in marw PUDs (planned unit developments) and PRDs (planned · ,·,1dcntial developrnems l l n fact. the clas- ,1, rural vi ll age settlement pan ern is a su- '<Th example of singlc-lamily clustering, times v.ith a central green constitut- e pem1anently preserved open space. CLUSTER D ESIGN The basic p1inc1plc llf cluster develop- ;ncnt is to group ne\,. homes onto part of the d evelopment parcel. so that the re- :11.11ndcr can be presen·<·cl as unbuilt open 'i1.1L·c. The degree to \1·li1ch this accom- 11li ~hes a significant sa\·ing of land, while providing an allractive and comfortable I 11·mg environment. depends largely on the p1ality of the zoning regulati ons and the . \!ll'rtise of the den:ltiprnent designer p;·cferably someone experienced in land- <.1pc architecture). .\!though the comc111 pf clustering is I.Iii ly simple. this "ne\\' .. rorm of develop- llH'llt has raised concerns among some rl·c;idents of rural or suburbanizing areas because it is quite different from the con- 1 cntional, standardized subdivision pat- te rn with which most of us arc very fa mil - 1.1r Interestingly. the conventional suhur- mocle l, co mmon pl;icc in ma n y , <1111i1111n/ ""page(> ·. Large Lot Zoning ~ One of the "solutions" that ' many conventional zoning ordinances use for presumably mai maining open space and rural character is large lot zoning -that is, establishing large, five 10 ten acre, minimum lot sizes in rural zoning districts. Although large lot zoning does reduce the number of homes that can be built, it also spreads out the homes in such a way that none of the remaining land is useable for farming, forestry, or even recreational trails. Houselots become "too large to mow, but too small to plow," and the greater distance bct\\'ccn homes effectively stifles the emergence of any sense of neighborhood. Open Space: What Size and Shape? Unless local regulations require the open space to be at least a certain size with specific minimum dimensions, it can end up being a long narrow fringe abutting rear lot lines and the parcel's outer perimeter. This can be easily avoided by clarifying, in the ordinance, that lots and roads shall not cover more than, say, 50% of the parcel, and that at least half of this open space must be shaped so as to be useable for active recreation or agriculture, for example. Requiring Open Space Design Experience has shown that when clustering and open space preservation are left optional, only a small percentage of developers choose to take advantage of this approach. Most simply continue to do as they have always done: creating checker- boards of house lots and streets. This means that even though the clustering option is in the zoning ordinance, it remains essentially unused. The commu- nity is still left with conventional develop- ment patterns repeated over fields and woodlands. If a community is reluctant to require clustering, it might consider the approach taken by Clallam County, Washington. The County recently revised its zoning from a density of one unit per five acres (which was creating non-functional p I ,\ :-,: :-,: I '-c, ( l l 'vi vi I ~ ~ I <) N I: R S J 0 U R .·\ L , U M 13 E R 5 "f:mnclles") to a minimum of thirty acres. I lo\\'evcr, the original one unit per five acres density remains available if the houselots are downsized so as not to consume more than fifteen to twenty percent of the parcel. Applying this kind of stiff "tleL<Sity penalty" to discourage land- consumptive farmettes may be a far more effective technique than offering meager density bonuses to encourage clustering. a WEST MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP, P ENNSYLVANIA Preserving Their Future West Manchester Township, in south- ccntral Pennsylvania, last year amended its zoning ordinance to require open space development within an undeveloped portion of the township. The area had been zoned for single-family detached residential homes, on half acre or smaller lots. Before amending the ordinance, the township had prepared build-out maps showing what the area might look like if developed under the existing conventional zo ning. These maps vividly showed the potential loss of the existing farmland and open space. The township also mapped out the open space it hoped to preserve to show landowners and developers exactly what was envisioned: interconnected open spaces crossing parcel lines. ,Under the township's open space z~ning provision, a developer first rrepares a sketch plan showing the number of units that could be built under a conventional development pattern. This determines the allowable density that can be used when the project is designed in a clustered manner. According to Jan Dell. Assistant Township Administrator, allow- ing the same density was important to allay the conL~ms of affected landowners. .-\t the same time, preserving views of open space would make developments more attractive to home buyers. One other note, West Manchester's open space zoning requirement only applies to developmems involving more than fifteen acres. For more information, contact Jan Dell at: (7 17) 792-3505. Editor's Note: Manc hes - ter Twp. also made use of th e design manual and video cited in the Resources sidebar 011 page 8. U l.Y I AUGUST 199 2 -, -"Build-Out" ~Maps One of the most understand- able, inexpensive and effective tools for showing local residents and officials the ng-term result of implementing _xisting zoning and subdivision regula- tions is the "build-outn map. This map shows the probable location of new roads and houses which could legally be constructed on the vacant and buildable land remaining within the municipality (or a portion of the municipality). Because so many people assume their town is adequately protected by existing zoning, a build-out map, by graphically showing what might occur, can be a real "eye opener." To ensure accuracy, build- out maps must not project development into areas where natural or regulatory constraints would prevent it. The Center for Rural Massachusetts has available "A Manual of Build-Out Analysis," a step-by-step guide to the preparation of build-out maps. Contact Christine Reid: (413) 545-0153 Enhancing Property Values A recent study by Jeff Lacy at the ....:enter for Rural Massachusetts compar- ing conventional and open space developments in two Massachusetts towns over long periods of lim,e found that the value of homes in open space developments appreciated at a greater rate. The study is available by contacting Christine Reid at: (413) 545-0153. An interesting article by Philip Larsen, "Open Space Thal Sells,'' in the Summer '92 issue of Land Development, the publication of the National Associa- tion of Homebuilders. explores how well-planned open space can enhance a development's market value. N, '--arsen notes: "The key is to view the various open space requirements as opportuni- ties rather than as liabilities. A look al the most successfu l projects in any region will reveal that open space has not been wasted. Projects that feature open space are projects that sell and, al the same time, provide environmental 'lmenities and opportunities for recre- ~on." "Open Space" Zoning (tlll(lllll(d {1<1111 /'''.~ .. .'i growing communities. is actual I)" a pattern that is at odds with the otherwise tradi- tional rural landscape. It looks "at home" only in our sprawling metropolitan post- war suburbs, ,,·here it has become the pre- dominant building paucrn. The purpose of this article is to first briefly explain what l believe arc the major advantages of requiring clustered (open space) development. and then w discuss several of the concerns typically expressed at local meetings where th e open space planning concept has been discussed. THE Ao,· . .\:--TAG ES OF OPEN SPACE D EVELOPMENT The corn·L·ntional approach to devel- opment results in the entire parcel being covered with houselots and subdivision streets. Commu- nities which have had a lot of experience with this type of development ultimately real- ize that. as one parcel after an- other is develo ped. thei r for- merly open landscape evolves into a network of "'wall-to- wall" subdivisio ns)~) "Largr Lot ... p. 5 L..anclm,•m:r~ wht1 ,·ie\\' 1hc1r propnt1· as their ··pensit111 ·· no longer have to dc·- stroy their woods and fields in order to retire with a guaranteed income. as their equity is not diminished. Local govern- ments do not have to raise property ta to finance expensive open space acqui lions, and are not faced with the adminis- trative complexities posed by TOR (trans- fer of development rights) systems. Devel- opers are not placed under unreasonable constraints. and realtors gain a special marketing tool, in that views from the new houses will be guaranteed by conservation easements protecting the open space from future development.)Si ··hi111111c111.~ ·,. (1 WHY REQUIRE CLUSTER D ESIG:--J? Perhaps the most controversial issue surrounding the cluster concept is the sug- The beauty of open space zoning is that it is easy to ad- minister, docs no t penalize the rural landowner. does not Conven tional large-lot zoning development in Middlcrown. RI. take development potential away from the developer. and is extremely effecti,·e in permanently protecting a substantial pro- portion of every development tract. It does not require large public expenditures (to purchase de\'elopment rights). and allows farme rs and others to extract their rightful equity without seeing their entire land holding bulldozed for complete coverage by housclots. This pattern of down-sized houselots and preserved open space offers distinct economic advantages to all parties. Devel- opers can reduce the costs of building roads and. if applicable, water and sewer lines. Local governments save on snowplowing and on periodic road re-sur- facing. And home buyers often pay less because of these cost savings. gestion that this open space approach be made mandatory. The rationale is that there are certain types or irreplaceable natura l resources which are extremely important to protect. Among these may be listed aquifers, riverfront land. fields and pastures. In addition, clustering allows flexibility in layout so that a developn can avoid impacting impow.nt wildli fe habitat areas. such as deeryards. o r scenic features of the rural landscape, such as large rock formations. hill crests. and mature tree- stands. It is a local decision whether to require the cluster approach when devel- opment is proposed on any or all of these resource lands. There are several possible options to mandating open space. One is to rrqu the cluster approach in only certain zo1 PLANN I NG CO MM I SS I ONE R S J OLR'.;..\L '.'.J L\tllE R 5 JULY I A UGUS T 199 2 111g d1stritb. or when ccn;1111 resources arc 11rt·sull . :\nother altc rnati,·c 1s to autho- n!c the planning commission to require it (inly when the developer's conve ntional nlan would destroy or remove more than a · ed percentage of certain listed re- .:s. leaving detenninaiion on a case- hy-case basis. Whatever the choice, it is important -in my view -not to leave it 1t1 the developer to decide whether to opt fnr cl uster development)Sl "Requiring Oprn 'f'<lt°t' /)'"'!:" ··. and c::::J "\Vest .\land1cs1er ... "p. 5 Q UESTIONS A BOUT CLUSTER DEVELOPM ENT: \\·ill le Harmon ize \,\'i t/1 Its Surro und- 111gsJ A concern l often hea r is that cluster lwthing will not blend in wi th a town's rural character. It is true that some cluster developments done in the past have failed rhc related issue of "impact upon sur- rnumling propert y va lu es .. is also often raised. Along any part of the parcel perim- eter where down-sized lots would adjoin standard-sized lots. communities can re- quire buffer strips. Along other edges, this may not be desirable or logical, as lots which border permanently protected open space almost always enjoy higher property values. Indeed, most realtors would attest to the fact that all lots within a well -de- signed cluster development usually gain enhanced value as a result of the protected open space.)) "E11ha11cin,1: ··,.. 6 . "Open Space" Mai11 1r11a11ce. Another issue is maintenance of 1 h.: open space cre- ated by clustering. If this space is recre- at iona l (playing fields, jci~ing trails, ten- nis courts), upkeep is typically handled by a homeowners' association, to which ev- eryone is contractually obli- gated to contribute when they purchase their home. Home buyers sign a legally enforce- able agree ment which enables the homeowners' association to collect any unpaid dues. >pt"11 space development in Lower Makefield Townshi p. l'n 111sylvania, where over half of this 43 I acre tract has been :·• ''rn cd as farmland ( 137 acres do nated to a local farlll/a nd If the open space is agri- cultural, there are several op- tions. The agricultural open space can be sold "in fee" to the homeowners' association, which can in tum lease it to local fa rmers. Alternatively, the original farmer can retain ownership ,,fit and sell only his "development rights." I favor the latter option, even if the farm er is planning to re- tire, because he could still sell • '"1) ur as woods and wetla11cls (lOO acres). Hou sclvcs <llC 1ho111 112 acre in si ze. Buyer response has been very fanJrable. "1d1 sales outpacing simila rly priced developments. The ,Jcve loper advertises the project as "a community that will be ;, ., n ·cr surrounded by acres of preserved farm land. open fields 111<1 woodlands." the field to a younger farmer in the neighborhood at an affordable price re0ccti'1g the land's agricultura l value - not iLc; polential building-lot value -thus strengthening the local fa nning economy. 111 harmonize with Lheir surroundings. i{l·rngnizing this potenlial problem, a few . u111111u ni ties are now req uiring that new . luster plans consisl of o nl y detached , ,ingle fam ily homes, each sel on its own, down-sized individual lot, roughly resem- iiling a lraditional village pattern. This also ensures Lhal everyone will have their own ,epa rale yard space, in addition to Lhe L1rgcr "open space" whic h the cluster ap- " · h crea tes. Buffering Farm Operati ons. In order to reduce potemial conflic ts belween new residents and agricultural practices, com- munities are beginning to require that clus- ter lots be separated fro m the prolected fa rmland by a "buffer" slrip . typically 75 to lOO feet wide. Where it is not possible to co111i11ued on page 8 h Open Space ~, Preferences The Livingston County, Michigan, Planning Department surveyed 102 members of planning commissions and township boards in the County to determine local officials' attitudes towards cluster design. One of the questions asked is reprinted below. 75% preferred Figure B, the cluster layout, while 22% preferred Figure A. For further information on the survey, contact Charles Bevelheimer, Assistant Planning Director: (5 17) 546-7555. /11 each of these figures there are 20 homes distributed over 40 acres. Which figure loolis more rural lo you? Figure A or B Figure A • • -.~ I ~:?-· Jli~~;1~~! • I I Figure B Pennanenl Agricul1<<1 "' I -~-;-- -. l I I • l \ ' • i I. I • • I t ~--, P L ANNING CO MM I SS I O ~ERS J O U R i\.-\L NU MBE R 5 J ULY I AUG U S T 19 9 2 • "Open Space" Zoning co11ti11ued from page 7 use existing woodlands for this purpose, officials can require new buff er areas to be thickly planted with a variety of rapidly growing native trees and shrubs. A similar requirement should also be placed on con- ventional subdivisions when they abut working fields, but this is rarely done. Stre~t Standards in Cluster Develop- ments. When cluster developments are designed with privately maintained road systems, planning boards are of ten asked to reduce their normal street construction standards. This has sometimes created sub- standard conditions, and is a practice which communities would be well-advised to resist. If subdivision street construction standards are excessive -as they of ten are -they should be revised for all types of new development, so that street width bears a reasonable relationship to the ex- pected volume of traffic. {Editor's Note: On this point, see Joseph Molinaro's article, "Re- thinking Residential Street s," in the Novem- ber/December 1991 issue of the journal]. Sewerage and Septic Systems. Because of the shorter road system needed to serve lots in a cluster development, substantial savings are possible with respect to the construction of roads, sewers, and water lines. Where sewer service is unavailable, however, people have expressed concerns about siting septic systems on the smaller cluster lots. Recognizing this factor, offi- cials are requiring such houselots to be lo- cated on that part of the parcel where soils are most favorable for leaching fields. The flexibility of cluster design allows this to happen. On the other hand, in a conven- tional subdivision, septic systems are lo- cated wherever the soils manage to pass minimum health requirements, even on marginal soils whose long-term suitability is questionable. In addition, it should be noted that septic systems can be located beyond one's lot lines, on an easement within the protected open space. SUMMING UP: Whether continuous coverage by large-lot subdivisions is more desirable than a mixture of village-sized cluster lots surrounded by permanently protected fields and woodland is a decision for resi- dents and officials in each town. As long as everyone is clear about the ultimate conse- quences of the various deYdopment types which are available to them, these deci- sions can be made on an informed basis. Ra11dall Arwdt is Vice President for Conser- vacio11 Programs with th e Natural Lands Trust in Media, Pennsylvania. Prior to this, Mr. Arendt served as Director of Planning and Research for the Center for Rura l Massachuseus in Amherst. Randall has been in the forefront of those plan- ners who argue that conventional zoni ng has fos- tered a sprawling pallem of development that un- necessarily results in the consumption of large amounts of open space and agricultural land. He has also just completed writing what promises lo be a very useful booh called Rural by Design: Main- taining Small Town Character: It features numer- ous case studies of communities that have success- fully dealt with open space, infill, and commercial development . Publication is scheduled for later this year by the American Plan11i11gAssociation and the Lincoln Institute. Resources: , . e ~ ~~{~;bi~ ;~urce'~ii :. open space development is "Deal~g With Change in the., Connec,ti;ut River Valley: A Design Manual fot Conservation and , .-.... ·-...,_,,. ........ : . ';"·.·, .. ;• .. Devdopine.nt," available for $25 from the Unc~l~ Institute of Land P~licy: csoo) s48-7236. · :';·.·' .· "Rural Design," a 60-minu.te. video or ·ifun:ciau A"i-endt's slide show,. provides a very useful visual iritiO-· <lui:tioil -~·crct.usi~~ ci~ign ~A<l r~1*'i~d topics. It:c~n ·i;e ordered ·fr~~ t!ie' · American Planning Ass~ciatlon:d12) 955-9100. · ;_ · .: .. ·,~~:;r:.:: · · The Effective Planning Commissioner co111i11ued from page J Then, talk it over with others who are not as intimately involved. If they do not think any harm was done, forget it. If everyone agrees you have cause complain, coolly assess all the facts. Was the entire treatment of the issue untrue? Half-true? Or were the facts correct, but the emphasis detrimental? Were names or titles misspelled or comments misquoted) Does the story unfairly damage your repu- tation or that of the agency? 1f you answer yes to most or all of these, first contact the reporter. Perhaps she or he misunderstood and is willing to print or air a correction. If you find no satisfaction there, proceed to the editors or managers. They probably will back the re- porter, unless it is a case of outright, prov- able lies, but they may be receptive to print- ing a guest editorial or a letter, or giving you rebuttal time on the air. Oftentimes it is more effective to have sympathetic citi- zens rather than elected or appointed offi- cials carry the message. Above all, do not bum any bridges. Take care of the incident as best you c and move on. You need the media, a they need you. By constantly trying, y can nurture a symbiotic relationship that benefits all. Elaine Cogan's column regularly appears in the journal. Ms. Cogan under· stands the needs of the me- dia, having wrillen a column for the Oregonian newspa- per in Portland for fift een years. She has also produced and hosted a public affairs talh radio show, and appeared as a television com· mentator. From the other side of the fence, as th e former Chair of the Pore land Development Com · mission, she understands the dynamics that public agencies undergo when they present their views tv the public. PLANNING CO MMI SS I ONE RS JOURNAL NUMBER 5 JULY I AUGU ST 1992 II 5. Steps Involved in Designing Conservation Subdivisions: A Straightforward ,-, roach Step Four: Drawing in the Lot Lines The fourth and final step is the easiest-once the conservation areas have been delineated, the house sites located, and the road alignments determined. At this point in the design process, draw- ing in the lot lines is usually little more than a formality (one that is unnecessary in condominium developments where all land is jointly owned). Clearly the most significant aspects of a develop- ment, from the viewpoint of future residents, are ·how their houses relate to the open space, to each other, and to the street. Lot lines are the least important element in the development de- sign process, yet they and the street pattern are typically the first items to be set down on paper. Maintaining livability on the somewhat smaller lots needed in conservation subdivisions does not pose much of a design prob- lem in zoning districts where the normal required lot size is one or two acres. The challenge increases as density rises and lot sizes become more compact. As mentioned above in the subsection de- scribing Step Two, lot lines in high-density single-family develop- ments can be drawn fairly close to side walls with few or no win- dows, enabling larger and more usable side yards to be provided on the opposite side of the house. This approach can be taken fur- ther by building on one of the side lot lines ("zero-lot line" con- struction), and these lot lines can follow zig-zag patterns (so-called "Z-lots"). The issue of appropriate lot depth is related directly to the pres- ence or absence of open space along rear lot lines. When conser- vation land is located immediately behind them, there is good jus- tification for shortening proposed houselots since the open space visually extends the perceived depth of backyards. · Therefore, a logical argument can be made to reduce both the width and depth of lots where houses are located off-center (i.e., closer to one side line, thereby maximizing one side yard) and where lots abut conservation areas behind them. In developments with public sewerage or with private central treatment facilities ., (such as "spray irrigation"), where zoning densities allow one dwelling per 20,000 square feet of land, 75% open space can be achieved by designing houselots of 5,000 square feet. These smaller, village-scale lots are often deemed to be more desirable than conventional half-acre lots by several distinct groups of po- tential homebuyers-such as empty-nesters, young couples, and single parents with a child or two-who want some private out- door living space but who also wish to minimize their yard main- tenance responsibilities. These lots are especially popular when they back up to protected open space, which psychologically en- larges the dimensions of the actual lot. Architects, landscape architects, and site designers have for '-, .. many years recognized that the most efficient use of a houselot oc- curs when the house is located "off-center and up front." Equal side yards generally produce two functionally useless areas on lots narrower than 80 feet, and front yards are practically useless in any case because they are almost always within the public view. '> ~~· Unless homes are located along heavily travelled streets with con- siderable traffic noise, there is little need for deep front setbacks to provide buffering. Placing homes where front porches or stoops are within conversational distance of side'walks helps create con- ditions for friendlier neighborhoods, where passersby can ex- change pleasantries with porch-sitters on weekend afternoons or summer evenings. The illustrations in Appendix C, "Detailed Houselot Designs at Higher Net Densities," show how houses, driveways, garages, and livable backyards could be accommodated even on the smallest lot size recommended in this handbook for single-family detached houses (in Site C, where base zoning is two dwellings per acre and where lots of between 5 000 and 6 000 I I . square feet could be utilized to conserve three-quarters of the site J as open space). Note: The above sequence of steps may be modified in situa- tions where a more formal, "neo-traditional,11 or village-type layout ... ,, 48 is desired. In such cases Step Two becomes the location of streets and squares, followed by the location of house sites. Whereas the relationship between homes and open space is of the greatest im- portance in conservation subdivisions, the relationship between buildings, streets, and squares is the dominant design considera- tion in the neo-traditional approach to site design. Both design ap- CONSERVATION DESIGN FOR Sl IISIONS proaches place more emphasis on the designation of public open space and on the provision of sidewalks, footpaths, and tr.ails-in an effort to foster a pedestrian-friendly community atmosphere- compared with conventional suburban "cookie-cutter" layouts of- fering just houselots and streets. Appendix C DETAILE D HOUSELOT DESIGNS AT HIGHER N E T DENSITIE S 0 10 20 40 FEET ~ This sketch shows how single-family detached homes could be located on the most compact lots recommended in this handbook in a man- ner that would provide private outdoor areas in backyards buffered along their side lot lines by trees, shrubs, and garden fences. Front eleva- tions and floor plans for th e three houses in the layout at left are shown in Appendix D, along with a number of other examples. On some of the homes designed for particularly narrow lots, windows are minimized or absent on one of the side walls to maximize privacy between homes. The open space abutting their rear lot lines psy- chologically extends these properties through long views across the conservation land. 139 ) ( I '--' e rt ~· ·P a 0 .P . ·' .· - - --Fence. edge of private yard ~ Brick, s8fpentine wai c. · e · B Bedroom o Dining Room F Foyer G Garage -a · p K Kitchen L Living Room s Study .e rt As shown in the layout above, single-family detached homes containing 2,100 square feet and having one-and two-car garages can be located on 50-foot frontages in an attractive and workable fashion, when they back up to open space. Privacy issues are dealt with by limiting the number of side-wall windows and by separating backyards with wooden fencing and curving brick walls. A special design feature of this layout is the siting of end units at a 70-degree angle from the road, so that end units in neighboring groups fa ce each other across 70 feet of green space. This door-to-door distance is similar to that of homes facing each other on opposite sides of the street and is based on measurements taken in small villages and hamlets in the surrounding rural district.) This building pattern can be seen in the successful "Deerfield Knoll" development in Willistown Tuwnship, Chester County, Pennsylvania (shown in the photograph on the facing page). s p -a .. d> 0 10 20 30 40 Feet r-......-.....i Single-family homes grouped around a pond at Deerfield Knoll illustrate the physical relationships of the houses shown on the site plan on the preceding page. Garages are located quite close together (6 to 10 feet apart), and windowless endwalls on the other sides of the houses are between 12 and 18 feet apart. An end unit, just to the right of the center, is set at an angle to the road and faces another end- unit about 70 feet away (both can be seen reflected in the pond). 141 .-\not her \'i<'w of the h omes ,1t l)r.r:di,:ld Knoll . taken l"rom thr. front y;ird of onr. of thr. housc~s <ir.ross tlH' strcc:t The ;t\Tl«Ig!' ,,·id1h nl' tllf':--<· lwusc:lors is "i:=i lc·C't. whic.h 1s sul'lir:ic:nt 10 <1c:r:om111r1d;11r· <'.tr:h ~'>-l•><ll ,,·1clt-ho11:--" 1,·i1 !1 'li ' 'l'(l 111"· < .11· g<1r.I'!<' l·:11 d 111111:--'<Jill<' '''ilh l\\'O-< .11 g.11.1gc:s. 1\ll IH>ll11':--co11- 1.1111 .!, ii)() :--qlldlT It'('("' tlCHli.'!J.if (', Ill .iddit1c111 ltl tlw1r l1ill 11.1.,('lllf'lll