public spaces master plan (pops) updates · the site is identified as future parkland in an adopted...
Post on 07-Sep-2018
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AGENDA
Introduction POPS Process & Timeline Focused Topics:
o Land Acquisitiono Level of Service o Athletic Fields: Synthetic Conversion & Lighting o Casual Use Spaces o Natural Resources & Trees
Other Plan Elements o Privately Owned Public Spaceso Fresh Approaches
Q&A Next Steps
2
Win
ter2
015-
16
strategic directions, actions, action steps +
implementation strategy
PUBLIC MEETING SERIES
POPS POPPING UP EVENTS
definitions, strategic direction prioritization PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENTS
present final draft plan
present preliminary recommendations
options forclassification+ LOS standards
vision statement + strategic directions
FOCUS
MEETINGS
STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY
AD
VIS
OR
Y
CO
MM
ITT
EE
EN
GA
GEM
EN
T
AD
VIS
OR
Y
CO
MM
ITT
EE
EN
GA
GEM
EN
T
POPS CHARRETTE
AD
VIS
OR
Y
CO
MM
ITT
EE
EN
GA
GEM
EN
T
land acquisition
strategy
draft plan discussions
draft plan
CO
MM
ISSIO
N
REV
IEW
S
CO
UN
TY
BO
AR
D
AD
OPT
ION
GROUPPUBLIC MEETINGSERIES
Sprin
g/
Sum
mer
201
6
Jul-
Aug
2016
Dec
2016
Feb
2016
Sum
mer
2017
Sum
mer
/Fall
201
8
present vision, discuss + prioritize strategic directions, ask targeted questions to inform actions
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS
Dec
2017
Fall
2018
TIMELINE
WE ARE HERE
3
PUBLIC INPUT (COLLABORATIVE PROCESS)
AdvisoryCommitteeAPSAquaticsBIDs & PartnersBike/PedDog ParksGymnasticsNatural ResourcesUrban ForestrySports
Millennials Seniors TeensGen Xers
Over 90 participants
Public MeetingsFebruary 2016
Stakeholder Interviews
Winter/Spring 2016
Goal: 800Actual: 1,470
Statistically Valid Survey
Winter 2015/2016
POPSPopping UpSummer 2016
Focus GroupsSpring/Summer 2016
CharretteDecember 2016
Public Meetings July 2017
Draft Online
FINAL DRAFT COMING SOON…
Public MeetingsDecember 2018
Land Acquisition Athletic FieldsNatural Resources, Trees & Casual Use Spaces
July-August 2017
4
Work Session W/County Board February 20th 2018
Land Acquisition Athletic FieldsLevel of Service Natural Resources/TreesCasual Use Spaces
POPS AdvisoryCommittee
REVISIONS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT
5
TDR1.1.6. Explore strengthening and expanding the use of the County’s Transfer of Development Rights
policy as a tool to create and consolidate future public space.
Preliminary POPS Draft:
County’s Regulations- Modifications 1.2.10.Review and study possible modifications to the County’s regulations and codes — including zoning and other requirements related to setbacks, lighting, parking, signage, height, and temporary use of public and private property as public space — to allow more flexibility in park planning and respond to high-density contexts.
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
6
Guidance received on the following:• Land Acquisition • Level of Service • Fields: Synthetic Turf & Lighting • Natural Resources & Trees • Casual Use Spaces
Presentation & Video: County Website
LAND ACQUISITION- PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY
8
General support for additional 30 acres of new public space over the next 10 years, as recommended in the POPS draft
Criteria & methodology in the preliminary draft were confusing
Identify funding sources & acquisition mechanisms
Identify priority areas- purpose of the site
Identify potential acquisitions in the document
Be transparent- clarify the process of making decisions to purchase the property
POPS Draft Recommendation: 1.1. Add at least 30 acres of new public space over the next 10 years.
Objective Evaluation Criteria
Part I
Part II
Part III
Alignment with County Adopted Plans
Alignment with General PSMP Priorities
Recreational/LeisurePurpose
Natural Resource Purpose
Historic Resource Purpose
Acquisition Opportunity
REVISED LAND ACQUISITION APPROACHHOW DOES IT WORK?
9
County Board Consideration
County Board Consideration
1 from Part III
The site is identified within an existing approved park master plan or park framework plan.
The site is identified as future parkland in an adopted comprehensive plan element or
sector, area, or corridor plan.
The site is suggested as future parkland in an existing neighborhood conservation plan.
PART 1: ALIGNMENT WITH COUNTY ADOPTED/ACCEPTED PLANS
10
PUBLIC SPACES IDENTIFIED IN ADOPTED PARK MASTER PLANSEXAMPLE: MOSAIC PARK MASTER PLAN (ADOPTED IN 2009)
11
The site shares its perimeter with an existing public space and is essential to the expansion of an existing public space.
The property is an infill property of an existing park, located on the corner of a park or would serve to “normalize” a park boundary or shape.
The site will allow the creation of new pathway connections to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing park.
PART 2: ALIGNMENT WITH GENERAL PSMP PRIORITIES
13
The site has been identified as one of the sending sites eligible for the transfer of development rights.
The site could be used to create a new park and offers future potential expansion opportunities that would result in a park of at least ¼ acre.
The site is a “generational” or unique opportunity that if not acquired at the point of time of the offer, would not be an opportunity again.
The site has been identified as a defunct private indoor or outdoor recreation facility (e.g., golf courses, swimming pools, community houses, etc.)
The site is located in one of the major planning corridors identified in GLUP, such as, Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson-Davis and Columbia Pike Corridors, or any future identified corridors.
Creation of a new public space:Associated with existing public spaces:
The site could be used to protect or expand a Natural Resource Protection Area.
The site could increase the diversity of habitats for critical species.
PART 3: ALIGNMENT WITH PSMP PRIORITIES/SITE PURPOSE
14
The site could improve connections to trail systems within or beyond the County, includes a segment of a future planned trail, or widen an existing trail.
The site could be designed to support casual, impromptu use or connection with nature.
Recreational/Leisure Purpose (examples):Natural Resources Purpose (examples):
Historic Preservation Purpose (examples):
The site is individually listed on or eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The site is called out for acquisition based on its historical and/ or cultural value by an accepted Neighborhood Conservation Plan.
SITES THAT MEET CRITERIA FROM PART II & IIIEXAMPLE: LANG STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN EXPANSION (ACQUIRED IN FY2015/2016)
Part II: The site shares its perimeter with an existing
public space and is essential to the expansion of an existing public space.
Part III: The site could facilitate adding or expanding
recreational amenities that are needed based on the Level of Service Analysis (e.g., community gardens, courts, etc.)
15
16
WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN POPS?
Acquisition Mechanisms
• Negotiated Purchase & Sale• Dedication in Fee Simple• Deed of Gift• Acquisition of State or Federal
Surplus Real Property• Right of First Offer• Right of First Refusal• Option to Purchase• Life Estate with Reversion to the
County• Acquisition with Restrictive
Covenant• Easement• Partnerships with Non-County
Entities:• Conservation Org and Land Trusts• Development Partners
• Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Acquisition Funding Sources
• Park Bonds• PAYG• Funds from TDR• Developer Contributions• Donations
17
WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN POPS?
Examples: Clarendon & Crystal City Sector Plans
Include a list of potential acquisition sites. Similar lists were included in the 1994 & 2005 Plans.
Example from the 2005 PSMP: Benjamin Banneker ParkAlong the south side of North 18th Street from North Van Buren to North Tuckahoe Street adjacent to existing park land.
Compile all future public spaces identified in the County Board adopted plans
Mapping potential acquisition sites
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
20
GUIDANCE ON LAND ACQUISITION :
County Board supported the proposed approach to Land Acquisition
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
22
Population-Based + Access Standards
Preliminary POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
Based on community feedback, LOS changed from 2045 to 2035. Change
5 min high density10 min low density
Basketball Courts
Community Gardens
Multi-Use Trails
Off-Leash Dog Parks
Playgrounds
10 min high density20 min low density
Diamond Fields
Tennis Courts
Picnic Areas
Rectangular Fields
Volleyball Courts
no access standards
Comm., Rec., and Sports Ctrs.
Hiking Trails
Indoor and Outdoor Pools
Natural Lands
Nature Centers
Skate Parks
Small Game Courts
Spraygrounds
Tracks
LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACH
23
Population-Based + Access Standards Only Population-Based Standards
LEVEL OF SERVICE – POPULATION BASED STANDARDS APPROACH
24
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
25
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
26
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
27
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
28
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH
29
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
benchmarking
Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA St. Paul, MN
national averages
statistically valid survey
Recommended Standard
220,500232,700
244,800256,000
266,300278,100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
+25%
Forecasted population growth
current inventory
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
POPULATION-BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE (CURRENT POPS DRAFT)
30
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
BasketballCourts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 2 2
Community Gardens 31,651 37,205 30,000 Medium 30,000 1 1 0 2
Multi-use Trails 4,577 N/A 2,500 High 3,300 19 7 7 33 (miles)
Off-leash Dog Parks 27,695 59,426 40,000 Medium 25,000 1 1 1 3
Playgrounds 1,758 3,101 3,500 Medium 3,000 0 0 0 0
Diamond Fields 5,153 4,107 6,000 Low 6,000 0 0 2 2
TennisCourts 2,408 3,768 4,000 Medium 3,000 0 0 0 0
PicnicAreas 4,924 N/A 6,000 Medium 5,000 0 4 5 9
RectangularFields 4,180 3,643 6,000 Medium 4,200 0 6 5 11
Volleyball Courts 22,156 N/A 12,000 Low 20,000 2 1 1 4
POPULATION-BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE (CURRENT POPS DRAFT)
31
Population Based Standards Incremental Needs
Example Current LOS
Bench-marking
National Average Survey Recommended
standard Current 2025 2035 Totalby 2035
Comm., Rec., and
Sports Centers
0.57 N/A 0.74 Medium 0.57 0 39,333 37,443 76,776 (sq. ft.)
Hiking Trails 15,242 N/A 10,000 High 10,000 8 2 3 13 (miles)
Indoor & Outdoor
Pools55,390 N/A 40,000 High 40,000 2 1 0 3
Natural Lands 197 N/A 333 High 200 0 96 108 204
(acres)
Nature Centers 73,853 110,900 50,000 Medium 75,000 0 1 0 1
Skate Parks 221,560 118,851 40,000 Low 120,000 1 1 0 2
Small Game Courts 15,826 N/A 6,000 Low 8,000 14 3 3 20
Spraygrounds 44,312 N/A 45,000 Medium 45,000 0 1 0 1
Outdoor Tracks 73,853 N/A 45,000 N/A 35,000 4 0 1 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE- PLANNING TOOL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT
Population-Based + Access Standards
POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.
Walking Biking
Transit Driving
Example: Access to basketball courts
most need (limited access)
least need (best access)
Access Ranking
potentialareas of focus
32
6.1.1. Conduct a public space needs assessment, including a statistically valid survey and level of service analysis, at least every 5 years.
33
CURRENT POPS DRAFT – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
34
GUIDANCE ON LEVEL OF SERVICE:
County Board re-affirmed the approach to Level of Service
Additional actions: develop 2 case studies & include notes to help illustrate the recommended LOS
FIELDS: SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTS IN POPS DRAFTPUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY
Field Conversion
support & disagreement separate synthetic turf from lighting create criteria for field conversion develop a list of priority candidates for conversion
36
Field Lighting
impact of lights on surrounding residential properties separate synthetic turf from lighting develop a list of priority candidates for conversion develop clear lighting standards
PLANNING CONTEXT
In 2002, the first full synthetic field was installed at Gunston Park.
In 2003, a citizen/staff Synthetic Grass Working Group submitted their recommendations regarding conversion of athletic fields from natural grass to synthetic grass.
As a result of this report, several fields were identified as candidates for synthetic surfacing, and some of them were converted.
In the County adopted 2005 Public Spaces Master Plan, the first guidelines for synthetic conversion were developed.
Today, the County has 15 existing synthetic fields. 3 field conversions are planned at: Gunston Park (2018), Wilson School (2022), Long Bridge Park field #2.
The current Adopted FY 2017 – FY 2026 Capital Improvement Plan calls for 4 synthetic turf fields conversions (locations: TBD).
SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD PROGRAM
37
Reduces weather related cancellations Reduces maintenance and utility costs (water) Improves quality of fields (consistency of playing surface) Allows year-round use Increases durability
SYNTHETIC TURF- BENEFITS
38
FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA-PREVIOUS EFFORTS
39
2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group
CRITERIA TO APPLY TO SPECIFIC FIELDS:
Size of Field Existing Condition of Turf Current Field Uses Field Lighting Currently Available Restroom Facilities (Year-round, Seasonal, Portable) Currently Available Off-Street Parking Currently Available Site Amenities (Water fountains, paths to Field, Spectator Capacity or Shelters) Currently Available Impact to the Environment is Minimal (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, Tree Master Plan) Impact of Increased Use on the Immediate Community is Minimal Likelihood of Support for Increased Usage Potential for Supporting Multiple Uses Potential for Conflict Between Uses Projected Lifespan of Field Likelihood that Field will Relocate/Realign as Part of an Upcoming Master Plan/Redevelopment is Minimal Potential for Financial Partners
CRITERIA TO APPLY TO THE OVERALL PRIORITIES:
Geographic Balance Support for Multiple Sports Youth – Adult Balance Scholastic – Recreational Balance
40
2005 Public Spaces Master Plan Recommendations
FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA-PREVIOUS EFFORTS
Convert a minimum of one natural grass field per year to synthetic grass based on the analysis and recommendations of the 2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group.
All synthetic grass conversions should have existing lighting or a plan for installing “dark sky” lighting as a part of the synthetic grass installation.
Continue to explore new technologies and practices for managing and maintaining natural grass athletic fields.
41
2017 Williamsburg Field Site Evaluation Workgroup Report
Lighting should be part of the original master planning for the field
State of development of the area
Topography of the surrounding area
Physical features of the site which may mitigate light spill
Presence of existing lighting in the immediate area
Proximity of homes
Environment Impacts
FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA-PREVIOUS EFFORTS
Started with: o 2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group Report o 2005 PSMPo 2017 Williamsburg Field Site Evaluation Workgroup Report
Grouped into: o General o Site Amenities & Investment o Environmental Context o Location & Context
FIELDS-DRAFT SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTS CONVERSION CRITERIA
42
POPS: CRITERIA FOR SYNTHETIC CONVERSION & LIGHTS
POPS goals: develop transparent process to identify potential sites for synthetic field conversions & lights
establish objective + measurable criteria o Develop a set of criteria for new synthetic turf conversion that can be objectively applied to
all fieldso Develop a set of criteria for siting of new field lighting
o Develop a set of lighting standards
Develop a list of priority candidates for conversion to synthetic & lights
43
PROPOSED REVISED APPROACH
Run All Fields Through
Synthetic Conversion
Criteria
Select Top Candidates for
Synthetic Conversion
Develop a list of Priorities for
Synthetic Conversion
Proposed Synthetic Turf Conversion Process:
Run All Fields Through
Lighting Criteria
Select Top Candidates for Installation of
Lights
Develop a list of Priorities for
Field Lights
Proposed Field Lighting Process:
Run All Fields Through
Synthetic Conversion
Criteria
Run Top Candidates for
Synthetic Conversion
Through New Field Lighting Siting Criteria
Develop a list of Priorities for
Synthetic Conversion &
Lighting
Process Presented at the Meeting in December :
45
Feedback Result: Separate synthetic conversion from lighting
Preliminary POPS Draft- All new synthetic turf fields and synthetic field conversions will include lighting. Change
1.2.9. Add lighting to synthetic fields and other multi-use fields, according to field lighting guidelines. (POPS Draft)
All new synthetic turf fields and synthetic field conversions will include lighting. (p. 216 in POPS Draft)
FIELDS-SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTING-PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE POPS DRAFT
46
Removed
Based on community feedback, LOS changed from 2045 to 2035. By 2045, we would need additional 16 rectangular and 6 diamond fields. By 2035, we will need additional 11 rectangular and 2 diamond fields.
Replaced with
Removed
Change
There are different ways we can meet the estimated need: Create a new field Any combination of converting existing fields to synthetic and/or adding lights Create a multi-use field
1.2.8. Convert an additional 12 existing rectangular fields and 4 existing diamond fields to synthetic turf as funding is available. (POPS Draft)
SYNTHETIC CONVERSION CRITERIA SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN DECEMBER
general support for the criteria
support for the minimum field size requirement
support for taking into consideration existing amenities
environmental context should include impact on natural resources
community fields: support & disagreement
consider location and neighborhood context
concern that adopted plans could be outdated
47
General 1. Does the field meet the minimum size requirement: 35,000 SqFt for rectangular &
diamond & 65,000 SqFt for combination fields? Examples: Rectangular Field: Barcroft Park (Field #5) Diamond Field: Barcroft Park (Field #1) Combination Field: Jamestown Back Field
2. Has the field been identified as a synthetic field in a County Board adopted plan? 3. The site has not been identified for school or public facility expansion?
PROPOSED SYNTHETIC TURF CONVERSION CRITERIA-WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE CONVERTED TO SYNTHETIC?
48
Note: Asterisk (*) Indicates new criteria developed after the December 6, 2017 public meeting at Navy League Building.
PROPOSED SYNTHETIC FIELDS CONVERSION CRITERIA
49
Site Amenities & Investment
4. Is the field already lit?5. Are there existing or planned in the CIP year-round restroom facilities with public access during the times of the field use?
6. Are there existing, or planned in the CIP, ADA accessible pathways to the field?
7. Does the financial (cost sharing) partnership with APS or another partner exist?
8. Is the field used for scholastic sports programs?
9. Is the field used for physical education classes during school day/year? (*)
10. Does the field provide benefits for both youth and adult sports leagues? (*)
Criterion presented in December- removedIs this a community field?
PROPOSED SYNTHETIC FIELDS CONVERSION CRITERIA/STANDARDS
50
Environmental Context11. Is the estimated disturbance to the trees and tree roots associated with synthetic turf installation minimized?
Location & Context 12. Is the field located in an area identified in the POPS access analysis (LOS) as areas where access gaps exist for this type of amenity?
New standard
Standard: If the estimated disturbance from field installation is within 100 feet of a documented, significant natural resource feature, the project will go through the Rapid Environment Impact Review (REIR) process to determine any impact on the natural feature.
11. Does any edge of the proposed field renovation intersect with the dripline of existing trees or woodlands? (*)Note: If the proposed project meets enough criteria to move forward, a more detailed tree evaluation would be completed to determine all possible impacts.
Criterion presented in December- removed
Extends the number of hours of play (lighting is critical to achieve this) Allows more benefits to the community
FIELD LIGHTING- BENEFITS
51
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Grass Field Synthetic Field
Hours of Play Per Field Type
No Lights Lights
No Lights Lights Grass 700 900Synthetic 1,400 2,100+
FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA/STANDARDS SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN DECEMBER
separate synthetic turf from lighting
disagreement with the 25ft distance from residential properties (too short or too limiting)
disagreement on community field- increase in usability, but big investment
include glare control
illumination should be balanced between sport standards and needs of the community
consider proximity to residential areas
concern that adopted plans could be outdated, but support for transparency
52
FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?
53
General
1. Does the field meet the minimum size requirement? (35,000 SqFt for rectangular &
diamond & 65,000 SqFt for combination fields) (*)
2. Has the field been identified as a lighted field in a County Board adopted plan?
3. The site has not been identified for school or public facility expansion? (*)
Is this a community field? Criterion presented in December- removed
FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?
54
Site Amenities & Investment 5. Are there existing or planned in the CIP year-round restroom facilities with public access during the times of the field use? (*)
6. Does the field support both diamond and rectangular sports? (*)
7. Does the field provide benefits for both youth and adult sports leagues? (*)
8. Does the financial (cost sharing) partnership with APS or another partner exist? (*)
9. Is the field used for scholastic sports programs? (*)
Is the field already synthetic? Criterion presented in December- removed
FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?
55
Environmental Context
Standard: If the estimated disturbance from light installation is within 100 feet of a documented, significant natural resource feature, the project will go through the Rapid Environment Impact Review (REIR) process to determine any impact on the natural feature.
10. Does the proposed light locations impact more than three healthy native trees over 12 inches, either through directly impacting their dripline or would require removal for access or disturbance? (*)Note: If the proposed project meets enough criteria to move forward, a more detailed tree evaluation would be completed to determine all possible impacts.
New standard
Location & Context 11. Is the field located in an area identified in the POPS access analysis (LOS) as areas where access gaps exist for this type of amenity? (*)
FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)
56
A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.
B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously review and update these standards.
C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses other than residential.
D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.
New Lighting- Standards:
Illuminance Levels Foot Candles
Recreational Fields:- Rectangular- Diamond
30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield
High School, College & Stadium Fields - Rectangular - Diamond
50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield
If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.
FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)
57
A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.
B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously review and update these standards.
C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses other than residential.
D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.
New Lighting- Standards:
Illuminance Levels Foot Candles
Recreational Fields:- Rectangular- Diamond
30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield
High School, College & Stadium Fields - Rectangular - Diamond
50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield
If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.
(1ft candle was included in the POPS draft)
FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)
58
A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.
B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously review and update these standards.
C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses other than residential.
D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.
New Lighting- Standards:
Illuminance Levels Foot Candles
Recreational Fields:- Rectangular- Diamond
30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield
High School, College & Stadium Fields - Rectangular - Diamond
50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield
If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.
(1ft candle was included in the POPS draft)
Draft Standard Presented in December-removed:
A minimum of 25 feet shall exist between the edge of the field and the property line of the
adjacent, residential properties.
FIELD LIGHTING-POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
59
Glare and Spill Reduction Techniques
- Shielding- Dimming controls- Wattage- Mounting height- Aiming angles
Design Techniques - Planting- Other physical buffers
Operational Techniques - Curfews- Limiting special events- Staff presence- No use of amplification- Seasonally-adjusted hours
County Board Approved Community Agreements and Standing Committees
- Formal Memoranda of Agreements with civic associations or partner organizations- Regular meetings
Summary of Feedback: Overall support for the draft measures Positive experience with MOAs, but they need additional enforcement Keep up with new technologies to increase light control
FIELD TURF & LIGHTING INSTALLATION –TECHNIQUES FOR TREE PRESERVATION
60
Fencing and signage, to reduce damage to roots and compaction of soil
Root pruning, to reduce mechanical damage from construction, outside of fenced area
Air spading to find roots and avoid damage
Root protection matting, where no excavation is occurring
Root growth hormone, applied after damage, to encourage root regrowth
Field design
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
61
GUIDANCE ON ATHLETIC FIELDS-SYNTHETIC CONVERSION & LIGHTING :
County Board supported the proposed major changes to the approach to synthetic field conversion and field lighting relative to the Preliminary POPS Draft
CASUAL USE SPACES
POPS Draft:1.3 Ensure access to spaces that are intentionally designed to support casual, impromptu use and connection with nature.
63
Big Walnut ParkGlebe Park Long Bridge Park
Definition: Space that supports casual, impromptu use, including relaxation, reflection, informal activities, or connection with nature. May be generally available or only available at designated times.
WHAT TYPES OF SPACES SUPPORT CASUAL USE?
64
Casual Use Spaces Include:some available always, some at times
• open lawn with/without seating• grill/picnic areas (including shelters)• accessible forested areas• accessible landscaped areas• multi-use trails• plazas• esplanades• fields with community use• amphitheaters• schoolgrounds
Casual Use Spaces Do Not Include:
• multi-use, paved courts• community gardens• parking lots• spraygrounds• batting cages, dugouts• indoor or outdoor pools• permit only fields• skateparks• playgrounds• disc golf• outdoor tracks
CASUAL USE SPACES- PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY
Casual Use Spaces Overall positive feedback on the recognition of this type of open space Definition differences (What to include: fields, natural resources, always or
partially available, etc.?) How to measure? - Mapping & Level of Service How to design? - What amenities to include?
65Mapping Challenges-Barcroft Park Example
66
CASUAL USE SPACES- PROPOSED APPROACH
• Working with the POPS Advisory Committee to better define this term
• Highlight the need for this type of spaces as a priority
• Develop design characteristics
• Access standards (If these spaces can be inventoried): use access standards to determine where access to casual use spaces is lacking
• Perform access analysis for these spaces (if they can be mapped)
• Explore developing standards
Short Term (Include in the POPS document)
Long Term (Implementation item after POPS adoption)
How the PSMP Supports Enhancing and Creating Casual Use Spaces?
Benjamin Banneker Park Framework Plan adopted by the County Board in December 2017
What Are We Already Doing to Plan for Casual Use Spaces?
Short Bridge Park Master Plan adopted by the County Board in January 2018
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
67
GUIDANCE ON CASUAL USE SPACES:
County Board supported the proposed two-step approach: As part of the POPS document:
- acknowledge the importance of casual use spaces as an element of the public space system - develop definition and design characteristics
Implementation Phase (post-POPS adoption):- study access and explore development of standards
NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY
Natural Resources Support for the Natural Resource Management Plan Update Impact of population growth & development on sensitive natural resources Access vs. impact of use Balance of recreation and resource protection Secure funding for protection, expansion & maintenance Land acquisition: prioritize expansion/protection of natural resources
Trees Support for the Urban Forest Master Plan Update Impact of development Loss of tree canopy & removal of mature trees Secure funding for tree protection and expansion Land acquisition: prioritize expansion/protection of trees
69
NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PROPOSED APPROACH
Update the Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) & Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) after POPS completion
70
Revise the POPS draft by strengthening recommendations on natural resources & trees
Update these plans (NRMP & UFMP) as one joint process which will review in more details specific policies related to natural resources and trees
NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PROPOSED APPROACH
Revise the POPS draft by strengthening recommendations on natural resources & trees & balancing what is more appropriate to be included in UFMP & NRMP
Impact of private development to be studied in the UFMP
Add data from the Tree Canopy Study in the final POPS document
71
Examples:
• 1.6. Ensure high-quality visual and physical access to the Potomac River, Four Mile Run, and their tributaries.
• 3.3. Protect, restore, and expand natural resources, particularly in riparian corridors along County waterways.
• 1.6. Ensure high-quality visual and physical access to the Potomac River, Four Mile Run, and their tributaries, while improving the tree canopy, native vegetation, and other natural resources along waterways.
• 3.3. Protect, restore, and expand natural resources, particularly in riparian corridors along County waterways.
• Make 3.3. a priority action.
• Add new: “Improve processes for earlier review of public projects, to minimize impact on tree canopy and natural resources”
Current POPS Draft Proposed Changes
72
GUIDANCE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND TREES:
County Board supported the following proposed approach: As part of the POPS process:
- strengthen recommendations on natural resources and trees in the POPS document
After the completion of the POPS process:- update the Urban Forest Master Plan and Natural Resource Management Plan as one joint process which will review in more details specific policies related to natural resources and trees
FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD
VALUES AND CHALLENGES
75
Challenges: Public vs Private Spaces
• Who can use them? • Who's in charge of them?• Do private spaces feel less “public”?
Lack of complete inventory Lack of consistent signage Lack of guiding design principles
What are Privately Owned Public Spaces? Accessible to public Typically built as a tradeoff Supplement publicly owned spaces Provide opportunities for activity & interaction Provide respite from noise & hardscape in urban areas
RELATION TO POPS
76
1.2.18Develop Design Guidelines
1.2.19.Amend standard conditions of site plan approvals to improve signage
1.2.20Complete a database & interactive map
ANATOMY OF SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC SPACES
78
1. Programmed activity area
2. Landscaping provides shade & protection
3. Active uses along perimeter of open space provide visual surveillance
4. Defined pedestrian paths
5. Casual use area
Jamison Square Park, Portland, OR
GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES & DESIGN ELEMENTS
80
• Planning and Layout• Access and Circulation• User Comfort• Landscape• Amenities• Signage• Functionality
Paley Park, NYC
NOT ALL SPACES ARE CREATED EQUAL
81
• Plazas• Courtyards• Gardens• Walkways/ Mid-
Block Pedestrian Connections
• Landscaped Setbacks/ Wide Sidewalks
• Interior Pedestrian Connections or Atriums
PLANNING & LAYOUT
82
Size• Large enough to provide amenities and a meaningful
space for users.
Configuration• Main area should be regular in shape (square,
rectangular).• Minor areas can be irregular in shape- these could be
niches or transition zones.
Visibility• Clear sight lines into and throughout for safety• Site lighting • Visual surveillance- eyes on the street
ACCESS & CIRCULATION
84
Accessibility• Should be accessible for all users integrating
Universal Design Principles for all ages and abilities.
Access Points & Paths• Should have a minimum of two public entry/exit
points.• Avoid dead-ends and areas of entrapment.• Provide clear paths through site and to adjacent
building entrances.
Elevation• Locate public spaces on same level as adjoining
sidewalk.• Minor changes in elevation should remain open &
inviting from adjacent spaces.
USER COMFORT
86
Shade• Shade from buildings, trees, or other structures should be provided in
areas with high solar exposure.• Sun/shadow studies should be done in the design phase to determine
positive or negative impacts.
Lighting • Adequate lighting should be provided to create a welcoming and safe
place.• Avoid light pollution at night and utilize full cut-off lights or timers
where possible.• Utilize directional, path lighting to light circulation paths or ground
plane lighting can help animate the space at night.
Wind, Noise- provide protection from unwanted external noises
LANDSCAPE
88
Striking the right balance of hardscape & softscape
Softscape• Trees• Planting Beds• Stormwater Management/ Green • Infrastructure• Lawns• Gardens• Raised planters/ potted plants
Hardscape• Paving• Other materials
AMENITIES- SEATING
Seating• A variety of seating types should
be offered throughout catering to different uses, age groups, and abilities.
90
FUNCTIONALITY
94
The Avenue, Washington DC
The landscape can have multiple layers of functionality to support various uses: Ecological/Ecosystem Services
Green Infrastructure Solutions
Social Interaction & Wellness
Physical and Mental Wellness
Randall Children’s Hospital Portland, OR
Uptown Streetscape, Normal IL
Warren Park Dallas, TX
Lewis-Davis Park, Memphis TN
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
95
• Develop design principles• Include specific action steps & action
plan (signage, inventory, responsible parties, timeframes, etc.)
Short Term (Include in the POPS document)
• Complete inventory • Review & revise existing policies,
regulations, processes (signage, site plan conditions, etc.)
Long Term (Implementation items after POPS
adoption)
Example from Singapore: Good Practice Guidelines for privately Owned Public S (P )
Dog Parks Dog Runs
Size 10,000+ ft2 2,000-7,500 ft2
Hours (unlighted) Sunrise-1/2 hr after sunset N/A
Hours (lighted) Sunrise-10:00pm
Layout Separate small/large dog areas
Lighting Recommended
Location On public property On public or private property
Sponsorship Required – with formal agreement Recommended
Standard AmenitiesFencing, double gates, water source (for dogs), shade, benches, signage, trash
and recycling receptacles, dog waste receptacles
Water source (for humans), visual screens if needed, information board
Resource Protection Areas All new dog parks and dog runs shall be developed outside of RPA.
FRESH APPROACH- DOG PARK & RUN STANDARDS
97
Change
FRESH APPROACH- TRAIL LOOPS
2.1. Expand Arlington’s network of connected multi-use trails.
2.1.1. Complete an “inner loop” of protected routes that connects the Custis, Four Mile Run, Arlington Boulevard, and Mount Vernon Trails.
98
2.1.2. Complete an “outer loop” of protected routes that connects the Four Mile Run, Mount Vernon, and Zachary Taylor Trails.
Preliminary POPS Draft:
top related