Part 3: Outreach L I VA B L E C E N T E R S I N I TIAT I V E

Transcription

1 HUDSON BRIDGE CONNECTOR - JONESBORO ROADS ACTIVITY CENTER Part 3: Outreach L I VA B L E C E N T E R S I N I TIAT I V E April 1, 2010

2 This page has been intentionally left blank. 56 Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study

3 Department Store Department Store 198 Park/ Stormwater Retention Public Process The Hudson Bridge-Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center LCI Study utilized a number of public participation tools and techniques to solicit active community involvement between June 2009 and March These include interviews, core team meetings, public notices, a image preference survey, two community charrettes, three public presentations, and a website. Interviews At the beginning of the study, stakeholders were offered the opportunity to participate in individual interviews with representatives of the project team to share their specific vision and recommendations for the area. Interview participants included residents, developers, community leaders, local officials, and representatives of organizations in and around the study area. April 1, 2010 Note: This section provides an overview of public outreach. The Appendix provides more detailed sign-in sheets and meeting minutes. The Core Team To guide the planning process and to facilitate community outreach, a Core Team of key stakeholders was established early in the study process. The Core Team consisted of property owners and developers, elected officials, Henry County and City of Stockbridge staff, GDOT, GRTA, business owners, nearby neighborhood leaders, and other leaders within the community. More than 40 people either expressed interest in the Core Team or were invited to participate. The Core Team was convened five times during the planning process. The following are brief summaries of these meetings. Complete agendas and minutes are available in the Appendix. Core Team Meeting #1 (August 11, 2009): At this meeting the consultants introduced the process to the Core Team, defined the Core Team s role, and answered planning process questions. Core Team Meeting #2 (September 29, 2009: At this meeting the findings of the inventory and analysis were reviewed, comments from Charrette #1 were discussed, design options for the Westside Parkway were considered, and general questions were answered. Core Team Meeting #3 (November 10, 2009): At this meeting preliminary ideas/recommendations from Charrette #2 were discussed and rough sketches for the Transit Village, Jodeco North, and Jodeco South sites were presented for feedback. Core Team Meeting #4 (January 25, 2010): At this meeting draft transportation and land use recommendations were discussed. In addition, refined concept plans and financial models for the Transit Village, Jodeco North, and Jodeco South sites were presented. Rough site concept plans were presented at Core Team Meeting #3 tion Plantation Blvd Plantati Chambers Rd Jodeco Rd Multi-Use Trail Townhouse Assisted Living Multifamily Commercial Hotel Office Mixed-Use Civic Building Parking Deck Open/Civic Space Potential Upper Story Uses Willow Way Pond Dr ut Cir Green Green Mt Olive Rd ve Rd housing, and 15 acres of high-quality open space. The plan includes: - 955,000 sf of retail - 325,000 sf of office space multifamily units assisted living units townhouses, with flexibility for live/work units hotel rooms - 15 acres of high quality open/civic space Gross Residential Density: 6.4 units/acre I-75 Proposed Westside Parkway (Possible alignment) 75 I-75 o Based on Core Team comments, concept plans were revised and finalized Part 3: Outreach 57

4 Core Team Meeting #5 (March 8, 2010): At this meeting final recommendations were discussed and zoning changes reviewed. Public Meetings In addition to the Core Team meetings, five public meetings were held to ensure that all interested parties were given an opportunity to be involved in shaping the community s future. Summaries of these meetings are provided below. Complete agendas and minutes are available in the Appendix. Kickoff Meeting On August 11, 2009, a public meeting was held at the Henry County Administration Building to commence the public portion of the planning effort. The meeting began with an exercise that allowed participants to put red and green dots on an area map to show where they thought negative and positive things were happening. Following this, attendees were introduced to the project team, the LCI program, the planning process, current planning principles, and LCI successes in other communities. As the meeting closed, participants were given an opportunity to visit different stations to share their thoughts on transportation, housing/marketing, land use, and general issues. They were asked to tell the project team what they liked most and least in the study area, as well as specific needs for change. Area stakeholders discuss positive and negative things about the study area at the Kickoff Meeting Charrette #1: Existing Conditions/Visioning Through an evening charrette held at the Community Bible Church on September 22, 2009, the consultant team shared the results of inventory work and the image preference survey with attendees. They then conducted breakout sessions to further define the community s desires on five different topics: vehicular transportation, non-vehicular transportation, the northern portion of the study area, the central portion of the study area, and the southern portion of the study area. Stakeholders discuss the area s future at Charrette #1 Specifically, workshop attendees brainstormed various ideas for each topic, encouraged not to edit their thoughts at this point in the planning effort. At the conclusion of the sessions, a representative for each topic presented the highlights of the ideas discussed. The feedback gathered from this exercise was incorporated into the draft alternatives presented at Charrette #2. Charrette #2: Vision Refinement The second charrette occurred on October 13, 2009, at the Merle Manders Conference Center and focussed on further defining the study area s future. It commenced with a review of land use and transportation ideas from Charrette #1, followed by a presentation of study area growth alternatives: Alternatives showed the relationship between land use and transportation facilities 58 Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study

5 Alternative #1 reflected a continuation of current trends in zoning, development, and transportation investment. It presented a series of single-use pods connected by a dendritic (tree-like) transportation pattern. Pedestrian and bicycle upgrades were included between these pods, but distances between land uses were largely too far for walking to be practical. Alternative #2 introduced discrete pods of mixed-use development to the study area. Within these pods a range of uses and connectivity was provided, but connectivity between individual pods was poor. This said, pedestrian and bicycle upgrades were provided along key corridors. Alternative #3 offered a highly connected and mixed-use framework focussed around walkable, human-scaled centers. More significantly, individual developments were laid out in a way that created a highly connected framework of streets and pedestrian facilities between individual sites, thus providing multiple route options. The public was then given an opportunity to visit various stations to view and comment on the transportation and land use alternatives. They were also given a worksheet to identify things they liked and disliked about each, and provide comments on which alternative they preferred the most. Alternative #3 proposed a highly connected street network Following the meeting, the alternatives and worksheets were also posted on the project website so that those who were unable to attend could still provide comments on the alternatives. These comments, along with the ones received at Charrette #2, where then used to prepare the draft recommendations. Draft Plan Presentation The draft master plan recommendations were presented to the public and the Henry County Board of Commissioners for review and comment on February 16, Because of the relatively short amount of time allotted to the presentation, draft recommendations were also made available on the project website one week in advance, along with an notifying stakeholders that they were posted. Stakeholders review study area alternatives at Charrette #2 Final Plan Presentation The final master plan recommendations were presented to the public and the Henry County Board of Commissioners on March 16, At this meeting, comments on the plan from both the Board and the general public were heard and later incorporated into the finished plan document. The public reviews plans at the Draft Plan Presentation Part 3: Outreach 59

6 Other Meetings and Presentations Supplemental study presentations were also made at various points in the planning process. These include presentations to the Henry County Development Authority Board, the Henry Council for Quality Growth, and the City of Stockbridge. Individual meetings were also held with area stakeholders at various points to discuss specific project concerns and ideas. Communication Tools Recognizing the importance of communication to the public involvement efforts, the planning effort utilized a number of tools to keep stakeholders informed of upcoming meetings and project information. One critical tool was the project website, which provided access to the project maps, meeting presentations, meeting minutes, flyers, and other documents and information pertaining to the study. The website also include an online listserv and Facebook page which were used to keep members updated on the planning process. In addition to the project website, various print media were distributed to inform residents and property owners of upcoming meetings. Two direct mail postcards were sent to each property owner within the study area or 500 feet from it. The first mailing notified them of the charrettes, while the second listed the two plan recommendation meetings. Also, flyers were distributed at area businesses, churches, government buildings, and other high traffic locations to inform the community of upcoming meetings. Public access television was also utilized to notify the public of upcoming public meetings. Some meetings were even broadcast directly to households in Henry County. The website was a valuable tool for distributing information to the public LINKING PEOPLE BRIDGING COMMUNITIES The Henry County Board of Commissioners & Henry County Planning and Zoning Services Division cordially invite you to attend the: Public Kick-Off Meeting Tuesday, August 11, :30 pm 8:30 pm Henry County Administration Building Community Meeting Room 140 Henry Parkway McDonough, GA Help shape the future of the Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative study area! The Henry County Board of Commissioners & Henry County Planning and Zoning Services Division cordially invite you to attend the: Public Kick-Off Meeting for the: Hudson Bridge-Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center LCI Study Huuddssoonn Brri iddggee Rooaadd JJoonneessbboorroo Rooaadd We want to hear from you! Project Website: For more information contact: Caleb Racicot Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh & Associates (404) cracicot@tunspan.com Thousands of flyers and postcards were distributed during the planning process 60 Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study

7 3.2 Image Preference Survey A key visioning tool of the Hudson Bridge-Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center LCI Study was the use of an image preference survey (IPS). Using an on-line format accessed via the project website, the public was given the opportunity to score a variety of images for their level of appropriateness for the future of the study area. Categories included Transportation, Pedestrian Experience, Parks & Open Space, Retail & Restaurants, Signs, Mixed-Use, Offices & Employment, Multifamily, Townhouses, and Single-Family. Possible scores ranged from -5 (extremely inappropriate) to +5 (extremely appropriate). A score of 0 indicated no preference. The IPS was available on-line from July 26, 2009, to October 1, 2009, and was taken by 164 people. Demographic information collected during the survey indicated that: 50% of respondents lived in Eagles Landing 11% of lived in the City of Stockbridge (excluding Eagles Landing) 2.4% of lived in Eagles Crest 33.5% of lived somewhere else in Henry County 3% lived outside of Henry County No respondents selected Crown Crossing, Meadowbrook, Morgans Pond, or Sorolla Crossing as their place of residence, although these are close to the study area. Following the survey, the most and least appropriate images were identified by taking the average (mean) score for each image. In addition, agreement between respondents was determined by looking at the standard deviation of different images scores. The following summarizes key findings. The top scoring transportation image, at 3.57, was this tree-lined parkway This image of Atlanta s Freedom Parkway also score well, at 3.05 Transportation Transportation images showed a series of different types of facilities, including roadways, bicycle lanes, golf cart paths, buses, and more. Of these the two highest scoring images were of four-lane parkways featuring ample landscaping and adjacent pedestrian amenities. This supports interview comments that suggested a strong desire for a visually attractive, north-south connector in the study area. Less agreement existed over images of a transit. A photo of a bus servicing a high-quality bus stop, similar to the one planned by GRTA along Patrick Henry Parkway, scored only 0.9, but had a large standard deviation of 4.0, suggesting that some people strongly support bus transit, while others strongly oppose it. Many gave this image a very high score, but just as many gave it a very low score Part 3: Outreach 61

8 Pedestrian Experience Images of the pedestrian experience were provided to assess the public s support for different sidewalk designs, including their relationship to adjacent land uses. Images that scored well were those showing side sidewalks with street trees and landscaping adjacent to the roadway to buffer pedestrians from traffic. More significant, when survey participants were shown the exact same sidewalk facilities, the only difference being the adjacent land uses, the image with pedestrian-oriented buildings along the sidewalk scored higher than did the one of conventional, autooriented land uses. This suggests that sidewalk improvements alone are not enough to create a highly walkable study area - the design of adjacent buildings must also be considered if walking is to truly be encouraged. With adjacent auto-oriented land uses, this image score 3.12 Parks & Open Space The third category of images showed a series of parks and open spaces. The study area currently lacks such facilities, but survey responses suggest a strong desire to increase quality green spaces as the area is developed. To this end, all images of open space scored well. It is of note that the highest scoring image in this category, and also the entire survey, was an image of the town green in Duluth, Georgia. Located in suburban Gwinnett County, Duluth is a community that embarked on an LCI planning process similar to this effort nearly a decade ago. The results have transformed the city s downtown, improved the community s quality of life, and raise the profile of the city across the region. Adjacent sidewalk-oriented buildings raised the score to 3.35 This image of Duluth, GA, was the highest-scoring image in the survey, at Duluth is an LCI community that prepared their master plan nearly ten years ago 62 Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study

9 This photo of the Edgewood Retail District, a pedestrian-friendly big box retail center in Atlanta, score well at The center provides small, pedestrian oriented out parcels along the street, and bigger box stores mid-block Retail & Restaurants Retail and restaurant opportunities within the study area are currently limited to discount big box retailers and accompanying complementary businesses. All are national auto-oriented prototypes that do little to reflect the area s history or create a sense of place. Survey results, however, suggest a strong desire to expand these offerings. Within this category, the highest scoring images were those of businesses that were cohesively planned in a pedestrian-friendly, and visually attractive manner. High scoring images include the village center of the Vickery neighborhood near Cumming, Georgia, along with the Edgewood Retail District in Atlanta. Although the scale and design of these two places are drastically different, both provide quality buildings, a pleasant walking experience, and opportunities for cafe dining. This image of Vickery Village near Cumming scored 3.26 Signs Signs are a necessary, but sometimes overlooked, aspect of every community. After being shown a series of different signs, survey participants rejected conventional, plastic corporate prototype signs geared towards drivers in favor of smaller scaled, pedestrianoriented signs. Of auto-oriented signs, monument-style ones with landscaping also scored well. This suggests a recognition of the need for vehicular visibility that is balanced with aesthetic considerations. Mixed-Use A key element of the LCI program is promoting mixed-use development, both vertically and horizontally, but survey responses suggest a desire to ensure mixed-use development that well These human scaled signs scored well, at 2.84 Part 3: Outreach 63

10 This image of downtown Smyrna scored the highest in the mixed-use category, at 3.05 designed and pedestrian friendly. To this end, the highest scoring mixed-use image was of downtown Smyrna, Georgia. The image showed two and three story traditionally-styled brick and clapboard buildings containing shops, housing, and offices. More significantly, it included green space and landscaping that minimized the visual impact of the higher density development. Less agreement existed over images of modern architectural styles or high rises. While some people scored these images very high, an equal number scored them very low. This suggests strong disagreement over whether or not more intensive urban buildings forms and styles are appropriate for this part of Henry County. Offices & Employment In recent years the areas along Patrick Henry Parkway have seen the development of several new office buildings. Creating additional future office and employment options is a key goal of the LCI study and Henry County s economic development initiatives. Survey results suggest that corporate offices would be appropriate for the study area (1.31) The image preference survey suggest a desire for multi-story Class A office buildings rather than single-story warehousing or lower grade office uses. Images of buildings clad in brick or clapboard scored well, while those of large, all glass boxes scored poorly. Multifamily The study area currently has few residential options other than singlefamily houses, even though the IPS suggests a desire for more residential options, provided that they are well-built buildings. The highest scoring images showed buildings with porches, stoops, and interesting facades. The least appropriate images were those conventional, suburban multifamily housing complexes with large front parking areas and little landscaping. The highest scoring multifamily image was this building, at Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study

11 Townhouse in Suwanee, Georgia, another LCI community, scored the highest of the category, at This relatively low score suggest that townhouses, along with other residential uses, should not be the primary future land use Townhouses As the county s population ages and residents choose to downsize from their single-family houses, townhouse are expected to become an increasingly popular housing option, especially in and near activity centers. However, survey results suggest that the conventional approach to cookie-cutter townhouses that provide higher density living, but without the amenities that make it desirable (including parks, sidewalks, and a true town environment) are inappropriate for the future of the study area. Townhouse images that scored well in the survey all included traditionally designed facades featuring front porches, stoops, and small landscaped yards. These homes fronted on tree-lined sidewalks, and alluded to a setting that was truly walkable. Parking was provided, but to the rear of buildings so as to not disrupt the pedestrian-oriented building front. This image of monotonous townhouses with frontal garages scored poorly, at Single-Family As the study area develops there were probably be very few options for single-family housing; generally low scores for single-family images attest to this. However, the survey does suggest that if any are provided, they should feature the same architectural quality and human-scaled design desired in townhouses, including porches, stoops, traditional architecture, and tree-lined sidewalks. General Findings The images selected as most appropriate represent places from around the nation. Regardless of origin, all share several things in common. Most notable is that all represent a traditional-town environment; survey participants rejected images of center cities and suburban areas equally. Furthermore, all shared a common respect for the pedestrian, landscaping, and human-scaled buildings. At 1.86, this was the highest scoring single-family house image Part 3: Outreach 65

12 Results suggest that the residents, businesses, and property owners in and around the study area are yearning for a place that is different from what has been offered in the county in recent decades, and that the area may be opportunity to implement a new growth model. While the county has done a fantastic job providing good roads, quality single-family housing, jobs, and other amenities, survey results suggest that study area is an opportunity to also provide something different. Namely, it could become a high quality, mixeduse environment featuring a range of housing, shopping, open space and employment options, all within a pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive, and landscaped setting. In this way the county would respond to coming demographic changes, while doing so in a way that protects existing neighborhoods from commercial, residential, and traffic encroachment. Nowhere in the county has the quality, pedestrian-friendly setting shown in this image, which scored Hudson Bridge - Jonesboro Roads Connector Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative Study