Bayshore Corridor Strategy Phase I Summary Report + May 2014

Transcription

1 Phase I Summary Report + May 2014 Information on the process is posted at masterplan.grandtraverse.org (click on the BCS logo) Prepared by: Grand Traverse County Planning & Development Department 400 Boardman Avenue Traverse City, MI

2 CONTENTS Summary 3 Identified Values and Issues 4 Drafted Strategies 6 Community Resource Partners Refined Drafted Strategies 9 Validated Strategies 10 Segment 1 Map (Cherry Bend Rd South Twp Limits) 12 Segment 2 Map (Union St North City Limits) 13 Segment 3 Map (Fair St Union St) 14 Segment 4 Map (Avenue B Fair St) 15 Segment 5 Map (Three Mile Rd Airport Access Rd) 16 Segment 6 Map (East Line of East Bay Township Three Mile Rd) 17 Segment 7(a) Map (West Twp Limits East M-72) 18 Segment 7(b) Map (West Twp Limits East M-72) 19 Input from Grand Vision Natural Resources Network 20 2

3 Summary May 2014 The Bayshore Corridor Strategy is a collaborative planning effort for the ten-mile long Grand Traverse Bay shore corridor (US-31, M-72, M-37, M-22) linking the communities of Acme, East Bay, Traverse City and Elmwood. This process joins planning commissions together with others to develop a common approach to the improvement of the entire corridor, a critical part of the region s landscape and transportation system. BACKGROUND Over the last several years, communities along the southern shore of the Grand Traverse Bay have been planning improvements to their respect bayfronts. New master plans and sub-area plans were developed that identified many common issues and provided similar approaches to address those issues. The Grand Traverse County Planning & Development Department saw an opportunity to coordinate these community planning efforts and recognize this area as a single corridor. Such coordination would improve efficacy in implementation of the plans and ultimately provide results with a cohesive identity for the corridor. With the working title of Bayshore Corridor Strategy, the Department, along with local facilitator Tina Allen, led 5-meeting process to recognize the corridor of development from Acme to Greilickville as an opportunity to create a unified approach for its improvement. The four planning commissions from Acme Township, East Bay Township, City of Traverse City, and Elmwood Township, with focus on their plans and representative of community values, were engaged to lead this process. This type of collaboration empowers planning commissions to collectively address issues that cross community boundaries. PROCESS Identified Values and Issues. On September 25, 2013, a meeting of members from all four planning commissions was held to develop the values and issues related to the corridor (see attachment A). Drafted Strategies. On October 22, 2013, a meeting of community partners drafted strategies to enhance the values and address the issues developed by the planning commissioners (see attachment B). Meeting with All Planning Commissions. In November, 2013, staff attended a planning commission meeting of each of the four communities to provide an update on the process and, more importantly, ensure all planning commissioners had opportunity to be engaged in the process. Community Resource Partners Refined Drafted Strategies. On January 14, 2014, community partners reconvened to further refine the strategies after input from the November meetings. Validated Strategies. On March 26, 2014, a meeting of planning commissioners and staff planners from the four communities validated the drafted strategies and spent time highlighting desired improvements to the corridor on aerial maps. There are seven maps covering the 10-mile long corridor from Acme to Greilickville. Many of the desired improvements are based on local master plans and sub areas plans from the communities. This was the final meeting of a five meeting process to start the Bayshore Corridor Strategy and concluded phase I. NEXT STEPS For the next phase, work will start to advance the validated strategies. These strategies can be summarized as (1) identification of transportation improvements (i.e., crosswalks, bike lanes, etc.) for the corridor; (2) development of common zoning standards for the corridor; and, (3) development of a branding and wayfinding (identity) strategy for the corridor. I will be providing a report to the elected bodies from the four communities over the coming months. 3

4 Identified Values and Issues From meeting of Planning Commissioners on September 25, 2013 CORRIDOR VALUES Natural Environment: Beauty of the Bay Water Quality Responsible growth while protecting the environment Open spaces / Parklands / Farmlands / Viewsheds Nature, wildlife, birds Recreation: Significant public access to the water (beaches & boating) Parkland with green spaces, trees, beaches, playgrounds, picnic areas (safe) Open spaces for community use Multi-faceted uses with diversity of access; for those with disabilities, walkable, bikable, boats, beaches, swimming, picnics, playgrounds Low Impact Development: Balanced/Connected business, residential, and recreational opportunities Built environment that can add value and enhance the environment Unique and Diverse businesses/shopping that build economic value of the area Buildings that look like they belong on a waterfront and leave space for bay views Controlled visual clutter CORRIDOR ISSUES Natural Environment: Stormwater management and infrastructure Invasive species in the water and on land Septic system inspections. Is it all sewered? Current built environment takes away from the natural Recreation: When more parkland there s less tax base need to find way to balance the two Lack of pedestrian access to parks Low Impact Development: Existing built environment takes away from natural beauty Old non-conforming developments Parking lots/ Shared access Balance of open space and commercial developments. Many of the buildings are owned by corporations with pre-determined designs that are hard to get by. Can we require more greenways? Old infrastructure Businesses on each side of highway corridor 4

5 Identified Values and Issues (continued) From meeting of Planning Commissioners on September 25, 2013 CORRIDOR VALUES Unique Destination/Placemaking: Place where people want to stop and stay Attractive corridor with recreation, beaches, trails Vibrant businesses, recreation, green areas, trees: more than just the bay; a place for people to use it all Safe and available to all One road name/identity for entire corridor Easily navigated (Wayfinding) Walkable, bikable, boatable, safe Transportation and Access: Ability to use the road corridor to simply travel safely across town in a reasonable timeframe Ability to travel slowly through the road corridor to take advantage of water and parkland views Walkable, accessible corridor from one side of the road to the other Safe pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks with similar looks at usable intervals, including disability access Access to water/recreation Transportation-all types & access Options for east-west travel across the urban area CORRIDOR ISSUES Unique Destination/Placemaking: Need to use tools already available-joint planning, development districts, etc Understanding that some want to travel through quickly (lack of other east west options) and others want to go slowly and enjoy it Lack of uniform vision among communities (need to share assets and not form barriers) Lack of continuity of corridor Name of street Balancing festivals and events Seasonal issues Transportation and Access: MDOT has control of road design, curb cuts, speed limits, traffic flow, road conditions, pedestrian crossings; not local units Lack of continuity of corridor-need consistency with crosswalks, sidewalks, wayfinding so road users have predictability Right of way and landowner issues Understanding some want to travel through quickly (lack of other east west options) and others want to go slowly and enjoy it Capacity issue for motorists/traffic Access conflicts/management o Motorists mindsets o Lack of safe/well placed pedestrian crossing to provide access to recreation/ businesses on both sides of the road (can t get from hotels to restaurants, etc) Lack of east-west through traffic options No balance of the modes of transportation (no sidewalks, no safe bike options, etc) 5

6 Drafted Strategies From meeting of Resource Partners and Planning Commissioners on October 22, 2013 Natural Environment Strategies: Public/Private Collaboration: Local resource agencies and local units start the conversations on working together to solve these issues Treat every stream crossing as an opportunity to improve water quality (Bio-detention basins)- MDOT Mandatory inspections and pumping of septic systems Undersized infrastructure/stormwater management Reduce invasive species-existing network of agencies to work with Protect wildlife corridors over/under roads Local Unit Jurisdiction: Include environmental preservation technique with shoreline projects; don t over-engineerrefer to Michigan Recreation and Parks Association and Heart of the Lakes Encourage natural filtration with redevelopment-implement landscaping plans using natural vegetation, regulate groundwater Protect existing trees; provide character Utilize impervious surface limitations Create sustainable funding for protection/preservation-local millages, special assessment districts, endowment funds Recreation Strategies: Public/Private Collaboration: Better unloading areas for marinas & parks (including ADA improvements) Find solution for off-site parking along lakeshore-shuttle system from cross-street parking areas to marinas & parks? Consistent signage that directs people to parks, parking, unloading areas (including tunnel), connections No need for more boat launches Create overall, connected sense of place Coordinate 8.5 miles of tribal land Local Unit Jurisdiction: Understanding that properties that may come off tax rolls, but have greater overall economic impact than money lost (City of TC)-install parking meters for the volleyball court parking to increase turnover. 6

7 Drafted Strategies (continued) From meeting of Resource Partners and Planning Commissioners on October 22, 2013 Low Impact Development Strategies: Public/Private Collaboration: Lower travel speeds to allow travelers to absorb surroundings and more likely to stop at a business Local Unit Jurisdiction: Develop zoning regulations that: Provide for sidewalks Reuse development options/mixed uses Maintain/protect view corridors of bay, especially at street ends Smaller footprint buildings by requiring multi-floor buildings (impervious surface limits) Height bonus for buildings that have a residential component Allow multi-level parking for multi-story buildings Require taller, slender buildings vs. low, horizontal buildings Fewer driveways with architectural or vegetative buffer to parking areas Build to lines or consistent setbacks Limits on exterior lighting intensity Minimize glow boxes for signs Design requirements including lighting standards, sign restrictions, parking space reductions should have quick administrative reviews. A common corridor-wide overlay district for all the local units would provide consistency Design requirements Unique Destination/Placemaking Strategies: Public/Private Collaboration: Create one name for corridor: Bayshore Parkway or Ave? Strategic pedestrian plan Establish new state law that pedestrians have right-of-way in marked crosswalks Use consultant to develop signs and wayfaring design Plan for infrastructure Festivals-identify high and low impact and determine plan, develop better crosswalk plan Joint applications for funding that include all 4 units for any of these strategies will substantially leverage the applications. Local Unit Jurisdiction: Create corridor overlay zoning for all 4 municipalities or agreement on consistent standards for: o Setbacks o Lighting o Landscape o Sidewalks (pedestrian connectivity) o Wayfinding 7

8 Drafted Strategies (continued) From meeting of Resource Partners and Planning Commissioners on October 22, 2013 Transportation/Access Strategies: Public/Private Collaboration: Comprehensive access management study-analyze points of access that are redundant or have conflicts (MDOT, TALUS, Road Commissions) Consistent pedestrian crossings (look & profile) with clear, distinctive identifications o Locate more trailhead parking networked with pedestrian crossings (TALUS) o Encourage bikes to use TART o Publish information/education in hotels, restaurants, web to explain crossing system and where to cross o Mid-point crossings? o Work with legislators to require vehicles to stop at crossings o Look at ITE/CNU Walkable urban thoroughfare guidelines Corridor-wide signage (MDOT, Road Commissions) Define/improve signalization at confluence of trails, roads, sidewalks-consistent wayfinding Accommodation for traffic elsewhere-need regional traffic assessment (TALUS) o A Hartman-Hammond connection would not be much impact on this corridor o South Airport through to Four Mile? o Grid system of local roads instead of 1 big connector o Look at traffic flow vs accidents Strengthen mass transit alternatives o Road designs to include pull-out areas for bus stops o Acquire necessary land/easements Enhance traffic flow through coordination of traffic signals and speed adjustments (MDOT, Road Commissions, State Police) Provide education to all drivers about road rules such as turn/no-turn lanes, pavement striping, traffic signage Request legislative relief from uniform standards to have more opportunities to develop solutions Catalog potential resources and where they are available-talus/foundations Local Unit Jurisdiction: MOU from all 4 local units with longview of projects to be completed through joint efforts to apply for strategic local funding Master Plans need to link to transportation issues -MDOT and BATA need to be involved upfront Accommodation for mass transit in site plans with standards for bus stop facilities, inclusion of pull-out areas; especially in mixed use and larger developments Require sidewalks on both sides of the road that are parallel for access to crosswalks Willingness to implement access management best practices resulting from study 8

9 Community Resource Partners Refined Drafted Strategies From meeting of Community Resource Partners on January 14, 2014 Public/Private Collaboration: 1. Have the discussion with MDOT about what can be done to strategically plan for pedestrian crossings, including parallel sidewalks, medians and bus pull outs, before the project is completed next summer; then use that same model all along the corridor. GT County Planning will bring the planning staff from each of the 4 local units to review the existing road corridor through the use of aerial maps, a consolidation of all of the units corridor plans, and discussed strategies from these past meetings. They will identify common design elements that will impact road transportation related issues with the intention of passing on these design elements to MDOT. A draft will be presented to the Grand Vision Natural Environment Networking group for their review. 2. Create and identify funding for a complete wayfinding plan that includes recreation and commercial access points; Create a consistent road name for the full corridor that would brand it as a unique place. Local Unit Jurisdiction: GT County Planning will reach out to local partners to identify funding opportunities to formulate a concept plan for the branding and wayfaring plans for the corridor. The original Unique Destination/Placemaking discussion group will be reconvened to provide further direction. 1. Develop long-range list of possible zoning changes (lighting, landscaping, sidewalks, bus stop lanes, shared access most support) that could be adopted as part of a corridor overlay for PCs to be able to prioritize those that may be more easily approved at the top of the list and those that need more research, education, and public input further down the list. GT County Planning will bring the planning staff from each of the 4 local units together to review each of the Master Plans, Corridor Plans, and Zoning Ordinances to find the zoning issues that would be most likely to be agreed upon as part of a corridor overlay district in each jurisdiction and to rank other issues as to project priority and possible agreement. Those issues that are most likely to be agreed upon will be presented to the PC members at a meeting on March 26 th by the staff members of all jurisdictions in preparation for further collaboration in the future. 9

10 Validated Strategies Strategies validated at meeting of Planning Commissioners and staff on March 26, 2014 Public/Private Collaboration: 3. Have the discussion with MDOT about what can be done to strategically plan for pedestrian crossings, including parallel sidewalks, medians and bus pull outs, before the project is completed next summer; then use that same model all along the corridor. Based on corridor plans and discussed strategies from these past meetings, planning commissioners and planning staff from each of the 4 local units identified common design elements that will impact road transportation and land use related issues with the intention of passing on these design elements to MDOT. A draft will be presented to the Grand Vision Natural Environment Networking group for their review. 4. Create and identify funding for a complete wayfinding plan that includes recreation and commercial access points; Create a consistent road name for the full corridor that would brand it as a unique place. Local Unit Jurisdiction: GT County Planning will reach out to local partners to identify funding opportunities to formulate a concept plan for the branding and wayfaring plans for the corridor. The original Unique Destination/Placemaking discussion group will be reconvened to provide further direction. 2. Develop long-range list of possible zoning changes (lighting, landscaping, sidewalks, bus stop lanes, shared access most support) that could be adopted as part of a corridor overlay for PCs to be able to prioritize those that may be more easily approved at the top of the list and those that need more research, education, and public input further down the list. GT County Planning will bring the planning staff from each of the 4 local units together to review each of the Master Plans, Corridor Plans, and Zoning Ordinances to find the zoning issues that would be most likely to be agreed upon as part of a corridor overlay district in each jurisdiction and to rank other issues as to project priority and possible agreement. Those issues that are most likely to be agreed upon will be presented to the PC members at a meeting on March 26 th by the staff members of all jurisdictions in preparation for further collaboration in the future. 10

11 Validated Strategies (continued) Strategies validated at meeting of Planning Commissioners and staff on March 26, 2014 At this meeting, planning commissioners and staff planners from the four communities of Acme, East Bay, Traverse City, and Elmwood created the segment maps that highlight desired improvements to the corridor. There are seven segment maps covering the 10-mile long corridor. Many of the desired improvements are based on local master plans and sub areas plans from the communities. The key below outlines the improvements on the corresponding segment maps. Improvements are intended for illustration. Further study would have to occur for some of these improvements to be implemented. Key for Segment Maps: Segment 1 Cherry Bend Rd South Twp Limits Segment 2 Union St North City Limits Segment 7 West Twp Limits East M-72 Segment 3 Fair St Union St Segment 4 Avenue B Fair St Segment 5 Three Mile Rd Airport Access Rd Segment 6 East Twp Limits Three Mile Rd 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 Input from Grand Vision Natural Resources Network Natural Resources Network meeting on May 21, 2014 Comments: 1. The culverts beneath M-22 at Brewery Creek and the oil refinery are too small to provide passage for wildlife under the highway. The result is wildlife being killed as they cross M-22. As M-22 is improved, the culverts should be replaced with larger culverts. 2. There are several stormwater outlets near the former power plant in Traverse City. These outlets have a negative impact on the water quality and beach quality. Alternatives need to be considered for these outlets. 3. Development should incorporate native plants that are hearty with toxins and are able to reduce erosion. 4. Interpretative information on wetlands and other features should be displayed. Locations include the area near the intersection of M-72/M-22 and near the Watershed Center office. 5. Critical natural features are located along the bay should be highlighted with new development/redevelopment. The development should be balanced with natural features and provide an opportunity to protect the natural features and increase visibility. Visibility of these natural features brings about awareness and educational opportunities. Such exposure and attention reinforces efforts to protect natural resources. There are many locations in Elmwood Township. 20