Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrail Saftey and Economics< ' College Station Greenways Program Recommended Policy and Plan Changes January 2001 Recommendation 1 -Connections Inventory and identify proposed connectors. Locate possible trail opportunities and prioritize for development. Incorporate connectors into the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. Criteria to include social benefit, linkages, transportation corridors, environmental benefit and possible constraints. Recommendation 2 -Conservation Develop conservation goals. Create a database of targeted natural areas, special places, and areas vulnerable to development. Assess the condition of natural areas by looking at composition, structure and function. Expand plan to include protection of natural areas in and around College Station that provide a high degree of ecological integrity. Items to consider will include );;>-open space );;>-recreational opportunities );;>-alternative transportation );;>-storm water management and flood control );;>-air quality );;>-water quality );;>-erosion control );;>-habitat preservation );;>-agricultural and cultural land preservation );;>-interpretation );;>-education Clearly identify the strategies and tools, finance, and policy framework needed for the protection of natural areas as cited in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Develop the methods to provide access to these unique areas as defined in the College Station Recreation, Park and Open Space Plan. Incorporate the Buffer Ordinance and other appropriate Best Management Practices into the City's regulations, as defined by EP A's Storm Water Phase II regulations (to become effective by 2003). Encourage appropriate infill versus sprawl. Encourage the use of cluster or conservation subdivision. Prepare a design manual of alternate development patterns and examples in specific Texas communities that demonstrate a higher economic viability. Recommendation 3 -Easements Develop a standard Greenways Easement to be used as a starting point in discussions with private property owners. The easement should define public access rights, proposed use and purpose as a recreational trail; improvements to be made such as flood protection, restrictions, and term of easement and maintenance. Recommendation 4 -Dedication policy Develop a standard policy for acceptance of property dedications for recreation and open space. Recommendation 5 -Prioritize by threat Reorganize priorities based upon imminent threats. Recommendation 6 -Coordinate with park land dedication ordinance Consider the standardization of Parkland dedication fees with a base Greenway acquisition offer. Recommendation 7 -Identify Specific Parcels Identify undeveloped properties where acqui sition would be desirable as either open space or public green space. Recommendation 8 -Regionalize Create regional awareness and support. Identify regional linkages. Recommendation 9 -Public Education Develop public and neighborhood support for trails and linkages. Publish public education, marketing, and awareness materials. Subjects to include: Creek Care and Riparian Buffers as well as the environmental impacts associated with storm water discharges. Greenways Plan executive summary publication Watershed protection on a regional basis Flood Protection and Water purification Preservation of open space for recreational activities, hiking, biking, birdwatching and viewing wildflowers Preservation of existing farms and ranches Education and research opportunities Economic implications Demonstrate the value of the natural system to the local community. Build coalitions to protect and enhance open space and greenway areas. ... NVI Flooding and Planners By French Wet more M osc peo11lc .trL· hcgi11ning co acccpl char Aot•di11g 1' .1n ace of nacu rc while flood prohle111; .lrL· human creario11s. ( :ommun irics n 11L·ric11cc flo od problem' because we hu111.1m luve used Aoodplai11 lands for o ur purposes wicho ur regard co 11arure's need co use chem periodically 10 'rore and earn· excess srormwacer runoff ,rnd snowmclr. We h,1ve also changed rhc land's surface i11 the watershed, increasi11 g the amou11t ;111d frcquc11cy of runoff and therefore innc:1si11g Lhc Aooding downstream. People an: al>o n:.il izing char, in m.uiv 111scanccs, a11 am:n1pl l<l comrol Aooding i, .111 attempt w comrol n.nure. As nored in .1 previous arti(lc i11 d1i ' newslerrer, "nature bars lase" and has way' co foil rhe best ck- -;igned srrucrures built by humans co keep water off our farms, ciLies, and homes ('" a cure Bars Last': The Policies of Flood- plain Management," Ja nuary/February). While controlling Hooding has irs Ii mies, chere are many more ways co reach our ulcimare objective. whic h is co prevenr o r reduce flood problems. In fan, rhe rerm flood ronrrol is even being replaced in rhe official federal lexicon by flood damage reduction, a recognition chat chere is more rhan one way co deal wich Rood problems. The mosc commo11 alcernarive co Rood conrrol is land-use planning a nd irs re- lared zoning, building, and subdivision regularions rl1Jt limir inappropriate devel- opmenr in Aoodplains and reduce rhe im- pact of warershed developmenr on runoff While these measures are recognized as viral ro keeping things from gercing Highlights 6 Project Review Living Machine Technology as Planning Solution 8 Regulatory Update New Water Monitoring Requireme111s worse, peopl e scill w:rnt us co address Hood problems rhar affect ex isting devel- upmcnr. ·rherc .trL' uthr.:r .tpproachcs, and d1r.:sc are included u11dcr the overall rcrn1 floodplain mrm11gt'111t'11t (i11 so me commu- 11 irics. ;cormwatn 111d1111gc111c111 is used 10 mean che same 1hi11g). T he adjacenr box shows one method of categori zing Aoodplain managem enr measures. They are organized by srracegies, each usually rhe res po nsibili rv of a deparrmenr in ciry or counry government. T his lisr rcAecrs rwo reners rhar are becoming more imporranr in floodplai n ma11agc111cn1 doctrine: I. Managing hum,111 .iccivities co reduce wacer quanrir1· prohlcms sho uld be ricd more closely 10 human acriviries chat affecr wacer quali ty. rrocecring che natural and beneficial functio ns of Rood plains and warers heds can have a direct impact on Rood Rows, and chis develops broade r support for related Aoodplain management measures. 2. Individual pro perry owners can and should have an impacr on Rood problems. Thev a re rhe ones direcrly affected, and rheir actio ns often make Rood problems worse. Therefore, they should be more involved in rhe solurions. Planners' Role So where do planners fir inco chis pic ture' Are rhey jusr responsible for che few p lan- ning and regulatory measures listed under rhe prevention scra regy' Or do chey have a bigger pare? Ir is rhe author's opinion rhar planners should play a cenrral role in o_ur efforrs co reduce Rood problems. Pla nners are rhe professionals who help e nsure rhar d ecisio ns are rational and char all rhe alrernarives and repercussions are considered . They provide rhe decisio n makers wirh rhe background fa ces, a problem description, alrerna rive solutions, and recommendations. They can prepare a Aoodplain managem enr plan for a river, a neighborhood, a commun ity, or, preferably, an entire watershed. Basic In gredients: Multiobjective Management A pproach l. Keep the effort locally based. The solurions mu>e be ac..:c:prable !O rhe residents, elected officials, and orhers in the area. They must fir wirh ocher local concerns and objecrives. 2 . Understand rhe Rood problem and its relation to the watershed. The problem is nor isolared or limired !O just one st ream or neighborhood. Thinking in cerms of rhe whole warer- shed will reveal more possible solutions, and these solurions will nor cause prob- lems for someo ne else. 3 . Think broadly about possible solutions to reduce the flood problem. There are more ways to do things than conventional wisdom may suggesr. Don'r gee locked inro wanting a Aoodwall or ocher single-purpose project wirhour first checking our che alcernarives. 4. Identify the other community concerns and interests that could affect the Rood problem. Gee people who are interested in chose oth er concerns to meet and rogerher brain- storm che possi ble solutions rhac can reach more rhan one of rheir objectives. 5. Obtain expert advice and assistance from government agencies and private organizations. Find our what financial assistance and expert advice are available. Don't put all the eggs in one basket and wait for rhac big cure-all project that may never be funded. 6. Build a partnership among all the private and public groups and in- divid mµs. More minds and hands mean char bercer ideas will result, people will be more likely co follow through, and rhere will be more bodies to do the work. Ir will help co follow a sysremaric process co develop a M-0-M plan. Pre- paring a wrircen plan helps keep every- one organized, clarifies che solutions, and formalizes everyone's participation. Floodplain Management Activities 1. P1·eventive activities keep flood problems from getting worse. T he use and development of flood prone areas are limited through planning, land acquisition, or regulation. Preventive measures are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/o r code enforcemenr offices. 4. Emergency services measures are taken during a flood to minimize its impact. These measures are the responsibility of city or. county emergency management staff and the owners or operators of major or critical facilities. • Planning and zo ning + Srormwater management + Flood warning • Flood response + Critical faciliries prorection • Health and safety maintenance • Open space preservation • Drainage system maintenance • Floodplain regulations • Dune and beach maintenance 2. P1·operty protection activities are usually unden aken by property owners on a building-by-build ing or parcel basis. They include: 5. Strnctural projects keep floodwaters away from an area with a levee, reservoir, or other fl ood conrro l meas ure. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or mainrained by public works staff. • Reservoirs + Channel modifications • Relocation • Floodproofi ng + Levees/Aoodwall s/seawalls • Beach nou rishment • Acquisition • Sewer backup protection • Diversions • Storm sewers • Bui lding elevation • Insurance 3. Natural resource protection activities preserve or restore natural areas or the natural fu nctio ns of floodplain and watershed areas. They are usually implemented by parks, recreation, or conservation agencies or organizations. 6. Public infonnation activities advise property owners, potential property owners and visitors about the hazards, ways to protect people and property from the hazards, and the natural and beneficial functions of local floodplains. They are usually implemented by a public information office. + Map information + Library • \Xfe dand s prorenion • Outreach projects •Technical assisrance • Best manageme nt practices • Erosion and sediment control • Real estate disclosure • Environmental education Too o ften, Rood plans are prepared by people who focus only on measures wirh which rhey are fam iliar. For example, an engineer's Rood plan often concenrrates on Rood mapping and struccural Rood- conrrol measures; an emergency manager's plan may cover just Rood pre- paredness and response. Planners, because of ch eir experience and orienrarion, can ensure rhar che process considers all strat- egies and measures and rhac rhe right people are involved in preparing a crue Roodplain management plan. A second reason fo r involving planners is char chey can give the process a much needed long-term oriencation. O ften, a community prepares a Rood plan because ic has just been Rooded. The resulting plan focuses only on recen cly flooded ar- eas and recommends projects that will be funded by disaster assistance programs. Predisaster planning is more productive in che long run, as it encourages the com- munity to look ac the true risk of future flooding, the true potential Rood prob- lem, and the full range of technical and financial assistance programs. T he activities recommended by a Roodplain management plan rake many years to design and implement. To keep up community in terest after rhe water recedes and memories fade, the process muse be formalized and incorporated into 2 che regular ducies of loca l governmenc. Predisasrer plannin g should be a part of che planning office's job description. This would also help ensure due Rood planning is coordinated wi ch , supported by, or even made a pare of com prehensive and issue-speci fie plans, such as land use, capical improvemenr, greenway, and economic developmenr plans. Floodplain managemenr should be an addirional concern of chose who are recommending ocher policies and long-range programs ro che decision makers. Co ncurrencly, che oc her pl ans need co reRecr rhe flood hazard . Flood problems can be reduced more efficiencly if che solutions are inregrared inro ocher programs. Two crends are increas ing rhe imporcance of Rood plain managem ent planni ng: multiobjeccive managemenc and planning requirements for federal programs. T his issue of En vironment & Development updaces these developmencs. Multiobjective Management M ul riobjective management (M-0-M) is a new term for some cried and true praccices . T he basic idea is to get cogecher everyone who has rhe potential to affecc or be affected by rhe Rood problem . le requi res communicacion becween differenc parries and capicalizes on available help from governmenr agencies and privace organizacions. Th e Planner's Role. Under che M-0-M approach, a wriccen plan is only one of che six basic ingredients fo r reducing Rood problems. This is because che scress is on rhe process, nor on a document. The planner is key to borh, bur rhe approach works besc when che planner focuses less on wri cing and more o n building a coalition of residencs, organizarions, and governmenr sraff and develo ping rheir long-cerm suppo rt fo r activities char accomplish m ulciple community objectives. With such a vari ety of inrerests, objec- rives, and po tential measures, rhere is an even greater need for the coordinating role, objective perspeccive, and ratio nal methodology provided by a planner, who can provide order to what would other- wise be a melange of confusing and possi- bly conflicting interests. Status of M-0 -M. T he M-0 -M approach has been refin ed and promoted over rhe past few years under rhe guidance o f an ad hoc group known as rhe "M -0-M Kirchen Cabinet." This group includes represenrarives of profess ional organizations (Association of Scare Floodplain Managers [ASFPM]. rhe Association of State W etland Managers [ASWM]. the National Wetl ands Conservation Alliance, che National Wildlife Federation, ecc.) and federal · agencies (National Park Service, Environmencal Protection Agency [EPA]. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. che Natural Resources Conservation Service, etc.). The M-0-M Kirchen Cabinet meets cwo or chree times a year ro share information on programs and projects. As an ad hoc group, ic has no chair, minutes, or publications. However, each of che member organizations and agencies incorporares M -0-M principles in irs programs and implements ics own version of M-0-M projects. Some of their recent and fucure produces include: • FEMA and che National Park Service have conducted cwo mu_lcicounry wa- tershed M-0-M planning projects in che Dakotas. One produce was a guide- book, A Multi-Objective Planning Pro- cess for Mitigating Natural Hazards. • ASWM will be publishing a guide on using rhe M-0-M approach for we dands and warershed management. • The Park Service has produced a M -0-M Resource Direcrory of over 300 programs on four computer disks. • A guidebook for local officials and citizens on how ro use che M -0 -M approach ro reduce flood losses will be published chis summer by ASFPM wich funding support from EPA. Federal Programs The second crend is che recem recognition and requirement for local plans in several federal programs. Four programs are refining their guidelines for planning, three in FEMA and one in che U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1. FEMA initiated che Community Rating System (CRS) six years ago to provide a flood insurance premium reduction in communities chat implement floodplain management accivicies above and beyond the minimum regulatory requirements of che National Flood Insurance Program. Comprehensive floodplain management planning is one of che 18 accivicies credited by the CRS. 2. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides funding assistance for mitigation projects following a presidentially declared disaster. Its funding authorization and cost share were increased following the Midwest flooding in 1993. While mirigacion projects can be for any recognized natural hazard, most of rhe experience co dace has been for flood micigacion projects, primarily acquiring floodprone propercies and relocating che occupants ro flood-free sires. One of che prerequisites is a flood micigacion plan. 3. In 1994, FEMA was authorized ro create a new Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) using che Narional Flood Insurance Fund ro help pay for projects chat would reduce losses ro insurable buildings. The law requires a flood mitigation plan as a prerequisite for FMAP funds. While program regulations have not been published, FEMA staff wanes a single sec of guidelines for all chree programs' planning requirements. 4 . The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent billions on flood control A M-0-M Success Story A fter rheir village was flooded in 1979 and again in 1982, Kampsville residenrs and local officials decided rhey wanred ro do so merhing. They knew rhey were nor going ro srop rhe Illinois River from flo oding and chac co build a levee large enough would require che removal of many of che buildings chey wanced co procecc. They knew cheir village of 400 people would noc so lve che problems alone. \'V'hac scarred as a Hood proceccion plan ex panded co encompass ocher objectives, including redevelopment of rhe acquired area, park design, and building a base for courism. The village scarred recreacion ac- civiries, including an annual celebrarion chac brings in hundreds of people. They now view che riverfront as a resource, noc a problem area. Kampsville received over $I million co buy 50 propercies, converr Hooded and {;:{ = IDOT·DWR buyout/lease e = FEMA buyout * = CDAP buyout Therefore, chey began a syscemacic planning process co review alcernacive ways co reduce flood losses. They began by asking for help. The scace floodplain management agency responded wich scaff supporc. During a series of planning meecings, ocher agencies were inviced co explain cheir ideas and how chey could help. le soon became apparent char che ulri- mace solution involved acquiring and relo- cacing che worse hie buildings. This would leave che cown wich a large open area. Folks were also concerned char chey would lose some businesses in che process. In addition co flooding, chey had co consider che future of cheir village and ics economic base. dilapidaced buildings co open space, elevace some buildings chac were nor flooded very deeply, Aoodproof che wacer creacmenc plane, and relocate che fire scacion. A new ferry land- ing and all-weacher access inco cown were also builc. In all, financial assistance was provided by chree scare agencies, cwo federal agencies, and che village's largest employer. AJchough ic cook almost 10 years co plan, fund, and complete, Kampsville's approach paid off during che 1993 Midwest Rood. The cown suffered some damage because Aoodwacers exceeded che I 00-year Rood elevation. Bue che damage was relatively minor compared wich che descruccion done co its neighbors. 3 4 projecrs over che pasc 50 years. Congress has become concerned char rhe federal share should be reduced and used only on rhe mosr worchy projecrs. Various proposals have been reviewed by che Corps, rhe Office of Management and Budger, and congressional oversighc commicrees. All wane a grearer level of local involvement and signs char communicies are doing as much as chey can to help rhemselves before rhe federal governmenr hel ps pay for flood prorecrion. In che adminiscracion's laresc posirion sracemenc, Ass iscanc Secreracy of rhe Army Manin Lancasrer wroce, "Al rho ugh rhe final derails have nor yer been worked our, we anticipare requiring a 50 percent non federal cosr share in che projecc as well as requiring communiries to adopc and implement a comprehensive floodplain management plan as a prerequisire for federal involvement in a Hood damage reducrion projecc." Planning Guidance Whar kind of plan are rhese federal agencies looking for? The CRS credir criceria conscicute rhe only detailed guidance che federal government has issued so far. The sysrem's aurhors wresded with che issue of how to measure local plans and give higher scores to rhe bener ones. No one wanted a federal agency to say wherher the projeccs recommended by a plan were righr or wrong for a c~mmunicy. Afcer much debace, ic was concluded chat CRS recognirion would be based on whecher rhe communiry followed a proper planning process. If a plan followed a generally described seven-seep process, ir would be recognized on a pass-fail basis. Credit points were based on the points given under rhe ocher 17 CRS activities chat were implemented pursuant to the plan. Experience over the first five years of the CRS has shown char this approach has some shortcomings. Fifry-three communities have received credit for general·floodplain management plans, and 113 have been credited for plans that cover their repetitively flooded areas. The laner are required of designated repetirive loss communities in order to participate in the CRS. It appeared that a good number of communities were preparing a document (especially repericive loss plans) jusc for CRS credir and nor for rhe flood-loss reduccion benefics char a good planning process produces. Many plans were prepared by building officials or engineers, che people responsible for NFIP regularions and who were given responsibilicy for CRS coordinarion. Ir seems char many communicies did nor recognize char cheir planning offices mighc have a role in floodplain management planning. Accordingly, chis year rhe C RS planning credir criceria are being subsrancially revised. Beginning wich rhe July 1996 CRSCoordinator's Manual, rhe floodplain management and reperirive loss plan discussions will be combined inro a new acriviry, floodplain management planning, which srresses rhe process rarher rhan a document. I nscead of a review of local plans on a pass-fail basis using general descriprions of rhe seven planning seeps, rhe new CRS credic criceria derail l 0 planning seeps. Credic points are based on how involved rhe planning· process is, wirh che heaviesr emphasis on cirizen parciciparion. A communiry muse receive credic for each of che 10 seeps. A communi cy char opes co do rhe minimum in each seep or prepare a plan char covers only ics repericive loss areas will receive fewer poincs rhan one char rakes a more comprehensive approach. Conclusion Mulciple measures to reduce flood problems, the M-0-M approach, and several federal programs all point to an increased need for coordination and consensus building in reducing flood problems. Opportunities are rising and new guidance is being published to help communities try new ways to cackle old problems. Flooding is too important to be left to the engineers, emergency managers, or building officials. Planners are needed to ensure a comprehensive response to flood problems chat uses all effective measures, has the public's support, is coordinated with other communiry objectives, and maximizes access to available resources. We can hope that planners will hear this call. French Wetmore is president of French & Associates, Ltd., a floodplain management consultingfirm in Park Forest, Illinois. Facts in Brief Outdoor Recreation and Trail Use 1. Most people participate in outdoor recreation activities close to home. According to The 1998 Texas A&M University Survey, 35% of Texans participate in outdoor recreation activities close to home on a regular basis (at least once a month). In contrast, only 11 % of Texans participate in outdoor recreation activities away from home on a regular basis. 2. Trail activities are among the most frequently pursued activities close to home. The 1998 Texas A&M University Survey asked respondents to list three outdoor recreation activities in which they participated within their commuruties. Walking, hiking, bicycling, and running/jogging were among the 12 most frequently pursued activities close to home. Most Frequently Pursued % of Texans Activities Close to Home Participating Fishing ......................................................................... 19.3 Walking ........................................................................ 13.2 Going to the park ......................................................... 10. 9 Hiking ............................................................................ 9.2 Camping ......................................................................... 7.7 Hunting .......................................................................... 6. 8 Bicycling ........................................................................ 6.4 Boating .......................................................................... 6.1 Swimming ...................................................................... 5.6 Picnicking ....................................................................... 5. 0 Running/jogging ............................................................. 3. 9 Baseball .......................................................................... 3.4 3. Texans believe that trails are among the most important recreation facilities needed close to home. This finding comes from a study conducted at Texas A&M (Recreation in Texas: The 1993 Citizen Survey). Top Ten Recreation Areas and Facilities Needed in One's Community % Bicycle trails ................................................................. 31 . 4 Walking/jogging trails ................................................... 28 .5 Nature trails ................................................................. 22.8 Swimming pools ........................................................... 21 .2 Playground areas .......................................................... 20.4 Hiking trails .................................................................. 20.0 Picnic tables/areas ........................................................ 17.2 Developed campsites .................................................... 15. 7 Basketball Courts ......................................................... 15.4 Natural area parks ........................................................ 15.4 ... Issues and potential remedies involved with Greenways in College Station Issue: Flooding Damage Remedies: 1. Zero-rise rule 2. "T" intersection 3. Tie back to Parks Ordinance for vegetation protection 4. No lots backing up to creeks/greenways 5. All residential lots drain to the street 6. Restrict development in 100-yr. floodplain 7. Expand drainage easement requirements 8. Restrict valley storage loss Issue: Vegetation Protection Remedies: 1. Park Ordinance -Arlington 2. Soil bioengineering -"soft techniques" Issue: Maintenance/Security Remedies: 1. Subdivision layout 2. Easement width dedication Issue: Acquisition Remedies: 1. Dedication a. Arlington Linear Park Ordinance · 2. Purchase a. CIP b. Grants Issue: Privately -held land Remedies: 1. Establish maintenance levels 2. Pedestrian access a. Public access easements tJD UKce., : kellw ~ p M ~ l1M. 0pl¥l 5f::ttLt- ~-ev p~ Open Space/Greenbelt Parks Keller's predominant natural open space asscl is Big Bear Creek and its associated flood plain and LrihuLaries. The greenbelt park should he protected and enhanced to provide Keller rcsidenL<; with needed flooding protection, recreational opportunities, and open space Lo enhance the City's quality or lire. Currenlly, there arc over 600 acres in the floodplain of Big Bear Creek. Clearly, this is more acreage than the City or Keller needs or can afford to develop and maintain for active recreational use. Still, it will be important to prolecl areas or the l1oodplain which arc nol developed for park use. Many areas along the creek have excellent stands of mature Lrees which should be protected by the design or improvements, whether on public or private land. Pecans, Elms, Plums, Oaks, and other tree species native to Keller can be found along Big Bear Creek. From field inspection of the creek, it is evident that the area between the existing Bear Creek Park and the extension or F.M. 1938 is of partic_ular value as an important environmental resource. The City of Keller completed a conceptual master plan of the Big Bear Creek Greenbelt in 1989. A grant from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and bond funds are now funding the first phase of construction. The Linear Park begins at the western city limits and extends lo Keller-Smithfield Road in this first phase development. Three general treatments of this greenbelt area are: 1) Semi-Developed Open Space, 2) Undeveloped Open Space, and 3) Access Points/Activity Nodes. Semi-develo[Jed open space consists of areas which are accessible to the public either on fool, bicycle, or horseback. Lillie development beyond a trail system is anticipated. As the name implies, undeveloped open space are areas left undeveloped within the greenbelt. Areas of steep slope, or areas with dense woodland vegetation should be protected under this classification. If the natural wooded areas are developable, incentives should be provided lo developers to protect these areas. Finally, access points/activity nodes are more developed sections of the greenbelt which provide access to the trail system and necessary support facilities. To direct the overall development of the greenbelt park. follow the Conceptual Master Plan. This plan contains an assessment of specific recreational opportunities and constraints along Big Bear Creek. This analysis evaluates floodplain conditions, topography, vegetative cover, soils, and access to determine appropriate locations for planned recreational facilities. The plan identifies areas in and adjacent to the floodplain for ac4uisition and park development. 24 Linear Parks Linear parks connect residential neig h- borhoods to schools, libraries , recreation centers, swimming pools, athletic fiel ds and other park facilities. Linear parks are an integral part of the overall park system, and are especially important in linking residents to neighborho od parks. Lin ear parks provide safe acc ess to neighbor- hood parks , increase available op en sp ace, and enhance the visual character of neighborhood service areas . Wh en combined with th e City's system of sidewalks and bicycl e ro utes, the lin ear park system will be readily available to Plano residents. The City's Bicycle Transp ortation Pl an establishes bicycle routes along collector streets serving Pian o's residential nei ghborhoods. Linear parks include floodplain lands along creek corridors and major utility easements. Linear parks provide breaks in the urban development pattern , con- serve ecologically unique areas along creeks , and provide long stretches of open space well suited for recreational trails . They also provide practical alterna- tives for land that would otherwise go unu sed . Additional land, outside of the floodplain, should be acquired along creek corridors where possible to en- hance the usability of linear parks for rec reational purposes. The size, location and distribution of lin- ear parks are not based on particular standards. The linear park system has been developed through the aggressive acquisition of available floodplain land and utility easements. 10/25.93 9-6 Community Park s Community parks are typically 25 or more acres in size and serve several neighbor- hoods with both active an d passive rec- reational fac ilities. They may contain in- tense recreational facilities such as ath- letic complexes , swimming pools and recreation centers which are not provided by neig hborhoo d park s. Community parks may also contain large passive open space areas suited to recreational trails an d picnic areas beyond what is typically available in a neighborhood park. Th ey provide vis ual breaks in Piano's urban setting , part icularly when located along major thoroughfares. Many community parks are contiguous to linear parks, and this effectively connects them wi th residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood park fac ilities may also be provided within a community park to serve a specific neighborhood service area. Citywide Open Space Preserves Citywide open space preserves have po- tential for a wide range of uses. They serve active and passive recreational needs and provide for cultural activities as well. However, since part of the role of these parks is to preserve ecologically unique areas and to provide places to identify with and understand nature, in- tensive uses such as museums, civic centers, special event fa cilities , swim- ming po ols and lighted athletic facilities must be carefully integrated into these open space parks. Extensive study is needed , particularly in the Rowlett Creek corridor, to identify ecologically sensitive areas and prepare plans to ensure their preservation. COCS Comprehensive Plan GOALS/OBJECTIVES regarding Bike/Pedestrian issues 2.07 -Transportation Goals and Objectives Goal #1 -College Station should balance the development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient and safe movement of people and goods to, from and within the community while continuing to protect the integrity of neighborhoods. Objective 1.3 -College Station should continue to develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle movement between neighborhoods, schools, parks, retail/office areas, and the University. Goal # 2 -College Station should continue to ensure the development, maintenance and operation of a safe, efficient and effective transportation system to serve the City. Objective #2.4 -College Station should continue to provide a system of bikeways and walkways throughout the City and provide incentives for the use of non-motorized transport. The City should also continue to revise and update its Citywide Bikeway Master Plan. Objective #2.6 -College Station should encourage the provision of a fiscally responsible transit system which gives consideration to journey-to-work trips, the needs of trans~ ~e~e~~ persons, and opportunities for inter-modal transfer. ~~., Goal # 4 -College Station should develop a street and parking systemthich ensures economically healthy cultural, histories, civic, and commercial areas. Objective 4.1 -College Station should provide adequate and strategically located parking to serve business, government, and cultural activities in existing areas and in the proposed Civic Center area as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. ' Objective 4.2 -College Station should provide for physical and operational improvements to the street system which enhance the orderly, safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrians to, through, and within existing businesses and cultural areas and the proposed Civic Center area as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal #5 -College Station should provide for the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists within College Station. Objective 5.1 -College Station should continue to encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. Objective 5.2 -College Station should continue to encourage that new developments be designed to minimize cut-through traffic, especially in residential neighborhoods and pedestrian areas, such as Eastgate/College Hills, the East Bypass neighborhoods, and Southside. Objective 5.3 -College Station should continue to provide sidewalk access in all residential areas, and maintain the existing sidewalk network. Objective 5.4 -College Station should adopt street design standards and parking policies which are "bicycle-friendly". Objective 5.5 -College Station should continue to provide bikeways between residential areas, parks, schools, the University, and retail/employment centers. program budget. She followed with an explanation of the proposed Greenways Conservation Master Plan Update which she, Scott Shafer, Nanette Manhart and Jane Kee had begun. Ms. Downs covered each section of the program update. She reported that a meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2003 to receive public input regarding the Update. She also recommended changing the title from The Greenways Plan to the Conservation Plan. Ms. Downs briefly explained the inception of the Greenways Plan as a flood control program, adding that sometimes streams have been disturbed and the habitat value is not known. Connectivity issues have been addressed through other plans but still, other issues remain. It is important that land is acquired as it becomes available. Operations and maintenance has not been addressed and is an issue with both the Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Departments. If the City takes the Army's Conservation areas, maintenance will eeded. This project is proposed for mitigation. Ms. Downs also pointed· o _; the status of the implementation program and the accomplishments thu , r. Chairman Nitti Is interjected . hat several times plans have been reviewed and the developer didn~ have usabl a d for the Parks Board. Further, the fact that land was accepted ti . n't mean land needed was obtained. He questioned the Parks Board's options In regarc;is :!, accepting fees in lieu of land dedication and if the developer has the Optio ~·choose to pay the fee rather than dedicate land. Ms. Kee stated that th~'P.arks Board, and not the developer, decides to accept money in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Beachy added that parks may have some greenway but that not all greenways are parks. Ms. Downs pointed out that some connectivity is being created in some areas but many people do not want their greenway areas open to the public. Parks Board Member Warner added that in some instances where the Parks Board voted to accept land thinking that connectivity would result, proved to be an assumption, as the connectivity did not come to fruition. Ms. Downs encouraged the Parks Board to consider the whole and not one particular piece of property when mapping out connectivity. Chairman Shafer asked if the floodwater impact was known. Ms. Downs stated that the City is negotiating with some developers regarding storm water needs. She added that velocity control must be conducted. She pointed out that more water is being held in greenways than before a development begins. This will kill the trees and could take as much as 50-100 years for the habitat to correct itself. P&Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 4 of 7 From: To: Date: Subject: This looks good. Mark Smith Judy Downs 1 /18/01 10:32AM Re: Greenways Acquisition Criteria I do think that we need to address maintenance of areas developed for stormwater detention. We should have something that says that if the area is a detention area, there must be a maintenance agreement with an HOA unless it is a City initiated regional facility (in that case, the City would maintain it). Also, at least two of the following should be met. 1. The property provides connection to other open protected or open space lands. 2. The property is important for the movement of wildlife between habitat and/or for the conservation of native vegetation. 3. The property has the potential to offer alternative non-motorized routes for the movement of people. 4. The property creates and enhances the aesthetics/scenery and quality of life that define the community. 5. The property can contribute to the conservation of listed species or species of concern. 6. The conservation of this property offers economic benefits to the community. 7. The property provides appropriate recreational or education opportunities. The idea here is that a "greenway" should provide benefits in addition to that of a drainage facility. A detention area is, by its nature, responsible floodplain management and promotes public health and safety. Detention areas are rarely left in a "natural" condition and I don't want to allow for developers to do the same old thing and claim that they are doing greenways. In fact the more I think about it, I feel that we should apply this same requirement to any greenway that contains "improved" drainage facilities. College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. >>>Judy Downs 1/18/01 8:45:14 AM>>> Mark, After our conversation yesterday concerning the Sun Meadow Subdivision, I decided to piCk up the selection criteria again. I used the sample provided by San Marcos and adjusted it for College Station. Other than that, it is basically their policy. We might want to adjust it to discuss the stormwater holding and maintenance issues better. Can we just develop an internal policy for staff use, or does it have to become something more formal? Judy College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. CC: Spencer Thompson; Sshafer@rpts.tamu.edu Pa e 1 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GREENWAYS AND OPEN SPACE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT EVALUATION QUESTIONS Requests for acquisition will be reviewed by Staff. The proposed land acquisition will be evaluated using the Property Profile/Preliminary Evaluation form, utilizing any and all resources available. Additional questions or issues may be considered during the evaluation process if determined appropriate by Staff. Primary Criteria: Water Resources: a) Does the land contain water resources and water resource habitats? b) Do the water resources found on this site have high quality water and habitat? Free from contaminants)? c) Is the site free from adjacent development impacts such as drainage or detention pond requirements? Riparian Corridor a) Does the waterway contain water year-round, and does it encompass the 100 year flood plain? b) Does the vegetation in the corridor consist of native species? Broad diversity? c) Will the land protect a sufficient amount of riparian area to positively impact the areas not protected, particularly those down stream from the site? d) Does the corridor contain significant or indicator plant and animal species? e) Will the corridor support multiple purposes such as storm water management, greenway, wildlife, etc.? f) To what extent will development of adjacent property affect the corridor? Open Space Linkages and Trail Connections a) Is the linkage significant to provide access to trails, parks, or open space? Has it been identified in planning documents? b) Will the linkage provide access to a significant number ofresidents and improve quality of life in neighborhoods, as well as provide an alternative transportation route? c) Is the linkage in danger ofbeing lost if not pursued? d) Is it reasonably feasible to acquire the linkage or trail through the development process? e) Is the land suitable for trail construction? f) Does the land adjacent to the open space or trail connection effect the proposed recreational experience in a positive manner? Free from public safety concerns? g) Will the linkage or connection serve more than one purpose such as wildlife corridor, view corridor, transportation, recreation? Passive recreational and educational opportunities a) Is there an opportunity for multiple uses? (i.e. trails, picnic tables, educational opportunities, fishing, wildlife viewing, etc.) b) Is the land easil y accessible to a large population? c) Are there opportunities for interpretative and/or educational signage? Wildlife habitat/corridor a) Are there any endangered species known to exist? Any threatened species?· b) Is there a wide diversity of wildlife present? c) Is the land of sufficient size to provide stand-alone habitat to support the known species? d) Does the land provide a corridor for movement of wildlife from one habitat to another? e) Will development of the site negativeiy impact wildlife: Scenic Quality a) Is the land visible from a maj or arterial? A local collector? A rural road? b) Does the land provide wide vistas? c) Is the land, and adjacent land, free from visual distractions or intrusions such as utility sites, power lines, etc.? Ecosystem Preservation a) Does the land contain a unique or rare ecosystem or rare vegetation? b) What type(s) of ecosystems are present? c) Does this land, when considered with any adjacent conservation land, have the size and resources necessary to sustain the ecosystem? d) Is the ecosystem free from detrimental factors such as insect, disease, and/or weed problems? Economic Benefits to the Community a) Will acquisition of this parcel protect the floodplain and prevent future flooding problems? b) Are long term maintenance and upkeep costs relatively low? c) What, if any, special management considerations will be required to protect the resource? d) Are there existing Capital Improvement Program projects planned or impacting the resource? e) What is the economic value to the improvement of the quality of life for the citizens? , Feasibility Criteria: Land/Easement Rights Available a) is the property available from a willing landowner? Favorable Terms and Conditions a) Is the land owner in a position to offer favorable terms or conditions for conservation? Accessible to the Public a) Does adjacent land use provide opportunity for public access? b) Will this land provide access to adjacent public land to which access does not now exist or is problematic? c) Are the uses of the other adjacent lands compatible with this land as open space? d) Will this land significantly enhance the public benefit and use of adjacent park or open space?