Public Involvement Process Bayard Community Plan

Transcription

1 Bayard Community Plan The Bayard Community Plan could not have been realized without the extensive and collaborative input of the local residents and stakeholders. This process of community consensus building and decision-making resulted in creating a plan that more accurately reflects the desires of the local community and represents a clear vision of the future appearance and character of Bayard. Steering Committee Meeting The Bayard Community Plan was developed in two phases. During the first phase the stakeholders worked to create a common vision for Bayard s future character, which forms the basis of the Community Plan. The second phase focused on the implementation of their Plan through the creation of an overlay district with development standards to ensure that their vision would be realized. A. Neighborhood and Steering Committee Meetings There were a total of eight Steering Committee and four neighborhood meetings held between January 2005 and April 2007 for the development of the Bayard Community Plan and the Bayard SmartCode (a form-based zoning code). At the core of the participation process were capacity-building and visioning exercises to assist stakeholders in understanding Bayard s current development patterns, potential development opportunities, current City policies and land development regulations, as well as traditional neighborhood development (TND) patterns derived from new urbanism principles that include compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development. This participation process empowered the stakeholders to engage in the study process and develop a creative and insightful vision for Bayard s future. The Bayard Steering Committee was a volunteer group of residents and stakeholders who indicated an interest in participating in the development of the Community Plan. These volunteers attended meetings and worked closely with the Planning Team to provide the community s perspective and guide the direction for their vision for Bayard. The Planning Team consisted of the City of Jacksonville, led by the Planning and Development Department and the Project Consultant. III-1

2 The Bayard Steering Committee was comprised of the following 19 members: Ms. Lucy Barker Ms. Carolyn Coffey Mr. Jim Efstathion Mr. Robert Hayes Ms. Marilyn Hughes Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Jimerson Dr. Anna Maxwell Mr. David McDonald Mr. Jan Powell Ms. Teresa Powers Ms. Sharon Santerre Mr. and Mrs. Allen Suggs Mr. Richard Tuten Mr. and Mrs. Scott Whitt Mr. Tom Williams Mr. Donald Wing Community Visioning The neighborhood kickoff meeting was held in January 2005 at the Julington Baptist Church. This meeting provided an overview of the project and an introductory forum to begin gathering concerns and ideas as they related to the development of the Community Plan. In addition, other specific project elements such as existing conditions and analysis, coordination with other agencies, as well as the study s schedule and deliverables were reviewed and discussed in accordance with the City s scope of services. A series of visioning exercises were used throughout the development of the Community Plan. These exercises were instrumental in identifying the area s constraints and opportunities and how the varying character and development forms of other communities may relate to developing a future vision for Bayard. The City s scope of services required analyzing the use of a Town Center concept, in the context of a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), and a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), during the development of the Bayard Community Plan to determine the potential benefits that may be provided. TND and TOD designs and development patterns are mixed-use communities that utilize pedestrian sheds, -mile (5 minute) and -mile (10 minute) walking distances, from a neighborhood s perimeter edge to its center, where civic uses, such as plazas, squares, greens, and parks, are located. The Town Center of a neighborhood is most often located at the edge of the neighborhood adjacent to a main thoroughfare to enable other adjacent Neighborhood Meeting Participants neighborhoods to share these uses, and to reduce vehicular traffic in the neighborhood s interior, local streets. The primary difference between a TND and a TOD is that a TOD s Town Center commercial core incorporates a mass transit stop that is within a -mile walking distance to the neighborhood perimeter. To justify providing a TOD, residential densities must be a III-2

3 minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre within the pedestrian shed to support local bus service ridership. Higher densities are required to adequately support bus rapid transit or commuter rail services. The Bayard stakeholders also preferred the Town Center to be located in close proximity to U.S. 1 to preserve the residential character in the remaining areas of the community. The Town Center would become the neighborhood s focal point, helping to establish a compatible transition between U.S. 1, the U.S. 1 commercial frontage, and Bayard s residential areas. The TND and TOD development patterns would provide a neighborhood form that resembles Bayard s original layout and character, through the incorporation of its existing grid system. It is the character and sense of place created in these Town Centers that has often provided the catalyst and synergy needed for revitalizing suburban and infill neighborhoods throughout the country. In March 2005, the Planning Team met with the Steering Committee and the public to gather their impressions of broad community development themes. This included presenting a variety of potential development types, design elements, intensity of residential and commercial uses, neighborhood scale and aesthetics, and density options. Utilizing a visual preference survey (VPS) technique, the objective was to gather the residents perception of the community s present image and to build consensus to articulate the desired future character of Bayard. This analysis provided an opportunity to evaluate a variety of images that reflect possible development forms and themes. An open dialogue with the Steering Committee took place during the meeting to clarify their most preferred and least preferred selections. In addition, the process offered a method to measure local preferences with respect to town center and conventional retail development alternatives. By presenting the VPS, the Steering Committee made intuitive decisions reflecting the identity of how they wanted to guide the character of future development in Bayard. For example, images of town centers in other cities showing on-street parking, wide brick-paved sidewalks, street trees, walkable neighborhoods, and buildings defining the street edge, yielded favorable responses. On the other hand, images of auto-oriented commercial strip centers received unfavorable responses. This suggested that residents preferred an alternative type of development form to the highway commercial developments, with large parking lots oriented to U.S. 1, which currently characterize the corridor. Based on the series of images showing housing types and residential densities, the Steering Committee favored rural frame vernacular and bungalows incorporating wrap-around porches, gabled roofs with lots of windows. There was a dislike of newer home styles in which garages were the dominant feature, due to their protrusion toward the street. However, most did prefer larger lot zoning and lower densities. The visual preference presentation is provided in the Appendix. The results of the VPS revealed the residents desire to preserve the rural and historical flavor of Bayard, while being open to creating mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, main street town centers as focal points for the community. III-3

4 Proposed U.S. 1 Corridor Expansion Prior to beginning of this study, many of the stakeholders and steering committee members were already familiar with Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) proposed plans to expand U.S. 1 right-of-way and increase the number of travel lanes. After discussing FDOT s plans with the Steering Committee it was evident that their primary concern was the reduction in the number of median openings (full access points) on U.S. 1, resulting in reducing access options for entering and leaving Bayard. Currently there are 12 median openings along U.S. 1 within the Bayard Study area. Based upon FDOT s plans for U.S. 1, however, the number of openings would be reduced to 3 that would permit left-hand turning movements into and out of Bayard. Another major concern expressed by the Steering Committee was the expansion of the U.S. 1 right-of-way to accommodate the roadway improvements, resulting in impacts to existing commercial activities fronting the corridor. Most often, roadway improvement and access management guidelines identify a reduction in median openings as part of the recommendation to improve vehicle traffic flow and reduce vehicle conflict points. The Planning Team and Steering Committee representatives met with FDOT to discuss the proposed U.S. 1 plans and potential impacts on Bayard. FDOT indicated that upon completion of the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study, they would begin the design phase for U.S. 1. FDOT encouraged an alternative roadway concept to be incorporated in the Bayard Community Plan that would minimize the impacts to Bayard. Steering Committee Field Trip and Town Center Spatial Analysis Given direction by Bayard s Steering Committee members, the Planning Team developed a conceptual town center plan for Bayard. The proposed town center is bounded by Alphons Street, from U.S. 1 and terminating approximately one-half block east of Targonski Street, and one block north and south of Alphons Street along Targonski. To clarify with the Steering Committee whether or not the town center concept should be included as an element in the Bayard Community Plan, it was recommended that the Committee visit a number of town centers to experience and feel the qualities offered in their neighborhoods that Bayard may want to include in their community, as well. In April 2005, the Planning Team organized a field trip to visit other town Neptune Beach/Atlantic Beach Town Center Field Trip centers in the Jacksonville area, including Palencia, Neptune Beach, San Marco, and Avondale. The Planning Team presented the Steering Committee with scaled illustrations of these town centers to show the comparable size and similarities with Bayard s proposed town center concept. III-4

5 By walking through each town center, the Steering Committee was able to experience the daily activity, vibrancy, and sense of place for businesses and residents alike. The streets with the most activity have an established public realm. This is defined by buildings close to the front property lines with streetscape elements promoting a pedestrian-oriented environment. One of the common features shared by each of the town centers, including Bayard, is the grid street network. The success of these town centers is largely attributed to the enhanced multi-modal connectivity provided by the grid street pattern. Furthermore, many of the buildings in the core of each town center are mixed-use, providing storefronts and restaurants on the first floor with offices and/or residential units above the first floor. Figure III-1. Town Center Spatial Analysis, Avondale example Source: Prosser Hallock, Inc. The site visits also demonstrated how design elements such as sidewalks, street trees, parallel parking, architectural features, and a complimentary mix of business and residential uses can be successfully incorporated with one another, and how these elements are applicable for incorporation into the Bayard Community Plan. The integration of attractive public space and features such as lighting, art, and landscaping were analyzed in terms of how these elements collectively contribute to a community s identity. One of the primary concerns identified by the Steering Committee was how to address incompatible adjacent uses along U.S. 1. The town center visits depicted how incompatible land use conflicts were resolved by utilizing alleys, appropriate building locations, and architectural controls. III-5

6 Some of the specific character elements that were popular among the Steering Committee included the compatibility of the mixed-use environment, sidewalk cafes and the vibrant street life at each center. The Steering Committee expressed consensus and enthusiasm for developing Alphons and Targonski Streets in a similar fashion. While many of the Steering Committee members were able to clearly express what they did not want in terms of a commercial area, the site visits provided them with a greater understanding and approach to articulate the neighborhood character and sense of place that they want in their community. The visits convinced the Steering Committee that the Town Center form of development was more appropriate for Bayard. The Town Center concept, utilizing TND and TOD design principles and standards, would tremendously assist in resolving Bayard s numerous design and transportation issues. As a result of the field trips, the Committee strongly recommended to continue the development of the Community Plan utilizing this concept. B. Public Involvement/Community Visioning Results Identification of Major Issues and Concerns At the conclusion of the neighborhood kickoff meeting, surveys were issued to attendees to better understand the community s demographic characteristics and their individual perceptions and concerns of Bayard as it exists today and in the future. As summarized in the Neighborhood Survey findings within Section II, this information reflects stakeholder concerns and desires that were obtained following each of the neighborhood and Steering Committee meetings. From the public involvement process, the following list was developed and summarizes the major concerns expressed by the stakeholders regarding their future vision for Bayard: Streetscape and shopfronts in Avondale Town Center 1. The encroachment impacts of U.S. 1 (Philips Highway), expanding its east right-ofway (ROW) line an additional 50 feet further into the Bayard community. These impacts include physical relocation of travel lanes, the speed and noise of vehicles reducing the neighborhood s quality of life and standard of living. 2. The U.S. 1 ROW expansion forcing further intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses into Bayard s residential neighborhood 3. The potential visual and noise impacts on Bayard by the proposed State Road 9B roadway extension. 4. The location of future school sites that will serve Bayard and the surrounding communities. III-6

7 5. Retain current densities. 6. Limit commercial phases of existing McLamb PUD parcel. 7. Provide public transportation services to Bayard. 8. Opposed to gated subdivision within Bayard. If a new subdivision is developed, it should have separate entrances to U.S. 1 and not be routed through Bayard. 9. Strongly in favor of preserving existing grid system. 10. New Community Plan will result in an increase in property taxes. 11. The new Community Plan requiring existing property owners forced to comply with new Plan s new codes and standards creating undo financial hardships. and Concern with being forced to comply with the Community Plan s proposed uses and densities when they make improvements to their properties. 12. The increase in crime rate resulting from rental units and a recent influx of new strangers in the neighborhood. 13. Higher density potentially causing an increase in crime rate. 14. Keep commercial activity on U.S. 1, but open to the idea of creating a town center at the intersection of Targonski and Alphons Streets. 15. Permit existing third generation truck repair shop to remain as business as a grandfathered use. The property will revert to existing land use category when the family closes the business. 16. Allow post office and general store uses in Bayard. 17. Preserve and relocate the historic school house within the community. 18. Preserve Bayard s neighborliness. 19. Reestablish Bayard s historic character and image. 20. The cost to connect to water and sewer for one single-family residential unit. 21. Prefer not to include multi-family apartments, but they would be permitted if located adjacent to existing single-family residences. 22. New U.S. 1 median closings cause semi-trucks to be routed through the Bayard neighborhood. 23. FDOT s proposed U.S. 1 expansion plans provides a traffic signal only at U.S. 1 and Alphons Street intersection limiting controlled left turn lanes from Bayard to the south. 24. FDOT s proposed U.S. 1 expansion plans provide limited left turn lanes into and out of Bayard. III-7

8 Residential Density Initially, the majority of Bayard s residents and stakeholders stated they were content with the community s existing residential density of one dwelling unit per -acre. The dialogue at the neighborhood meetings provided clarification on the City of Jacksonville s land use policies and zoning regulations, which presently allow property owners to develop at a density of up to 7 dwelling units per acre, if connected to the public water and sanitary sewer utilities that are available in parts of Bayard. Furthermore, the Steering Committee assisted in creating graphical studies that illustrated the potential density changes that could occur throughout the existing community if property owners connected to public utilities. Acknowledging that these potential density changes would eventually occur, but with only minimum development controls, the residents and stakeholders preferred guiding an increase in densities by creating a Community Plan which incorporated design elements and development standards that would continually improve Bayard s sense of community, aesthetics and quality of life. Compliance with Community Plan and Code The approval of the Bayard Community Plan concerned the majority of stakeholders in terms of them being required to comply with the Plan s new codes and development standards, i.e., the allowance of manufactured homes, new improvements meeting different setbacks standards, requirement to provide new street improvements when building a new home. The stakeholders were concerned that required compliance with the Plan would create financial hardships. This would defeat the objective of establishing both a higher quality of life and standard of living for the residents and businesses. To alleviate the stakeholders compliance concerns, the existing uses and property owners shall be considered grandfathered properties that will be stipulated in the land development regulations of the companion implementation code. Grandfathered properties shall be considered those properties and their uses owned prior to the adoption of the new code, or that were inherited from immediate family members after the codes adoption. Owners of these properties are permitted to maintain the existing uses and activities pursuant to the existing Zoning Code until property ownership is transferred to a non-immediate family member. Uses of a structure land or water or of a structure and/or land and water in combination that are not in conformance with the City of Jacksonville s adopted 2010 Comprehensive Plan shall not be extended or enlarged. SmartCode Model Development Code To implement the town center and traditional neighborhood concepts, the Planning Team recommended a model integrated development code, known as the SmartCode, and its design principles for the development of the Community Plan. The SmartCode incorporates Smart Growth, New Urbanism and form-based code principles, transect-based planning, environmental and zoning regulations, as well as regional, community, and building-scaled design provisions. This code can be modified to integrate the individual character, needs, and development forms preferred by the community stakeholders. III-8