Executive Summary Gleasondale School Lot Improvement Plan

Transcription

1 Twn f Stw Planning Department Executive Summary Gleasndale Schl Lt Imprvement Plan Overview The Gleasndale Schl Lt is a.28 acre Cnservatin Cmmissined wned parcel n Gleasndale Rad, alng the Assabet River, frmerly the site f a tw rm schlhuse. During the UMASS Gleasndale Village Revitalizatin Planning prcess, the site was nted as a significant resurce t the cmmunity. A staff wrking grup f the Planning Department has been wrking with staff t determine ptential upgrades at the site, prviding input and taking part in a September 2016 Design Frum, which led t the creatin f this plan fr the parcel s imprvement. Design Frum A Visual Preference Survey and Strengths/Threats/Opprtunities/Weaknesses (STOW) Analysis was used t gain input n the issues and pprtunities present at the Schl Lt. Participants identified several ptential designs and uses, sme f which require further analysis t determine the exact scale, lcatin and timing f their implementatin. Prminent design ideas included imprved parking areas, histric/educatinal signage, upgraded streetscape and seating ptins. Parking The pssibility f frmalizing the currently undevelped parking space in the Schl Lt has been a majr driver in the planning discussins due t the lack f parking in the neighbrhd and the histric use f the prperty. Many ideas fr designing a parking area that culd delineate parking spaces frm recreatinal uses is the primary planning cnsideratin that will need t be further reviewed with any future designs. Access t Site Vehicular and pedestrian access t the site is currently limited, with narrw shulders and a lack f pedestrian infrastructure affecting the site. Plans fr the Schl Lt shuld be integrated int the wider Gleasndale Traffic planning t take place during the Rute 62 Bridge redesign. Lng Term Management Stewardship and management tasks will need t be discussed with the Twn entity wning the prperty and nearby residents, wh have expressed interest in a mre frmal stewardship rle. Implementatin f Desired Uses Participants at the design frum were split n the need fr a cmprehensive design upgrades versus an á-lacarte apprach. Tw ptins have been ffered by Planning Staff. Cmprehensive plans fr the site, replete with design prpsals fr parking, aesthetic and recreatinal upgrades culd be frmalized and submitted t the required Bards. Funding thrugh varius means culd be explred. An al-a-carte apprach culd be utilized t make incremental upgrades depending n the level f funding required and cnsensus between residents and the Twn entity wning the land. Recmmendatins The primary shrt term recmmendatin is fr the Twn t determine the mst apprpriate future Twn entity t care fr the site. The Schl Lt is currently wned by the Cnservatin Cmmissin, althugh they have suggested that the Bard f Selectmen may be a mre apprpriate steward. The Planning Department has prvided several shrt, medium and lng term recmmendatins at the end f this dcument t ensure that future imprvements can be efficiently implemented. 1

2 Twn f Stw Planning Department Backgrund In the spring f 2014, UMASS Amherst graduate students cncluded the Gleasndale Village Revitalizatin Prject, which fcused n recmmending imprvements in the Village thrugh planning investments in the histric mill and surrunding neighbrhd. One recmmendatin f the planning prcess regarded imprvements t the site knwn as the Schl Lt, t reimagine the lt as a neighbrhd civic space. During the prject s Phase III Charrette, the Schl Lt was referenced by participants at the public meeting and thrugh an exit questinnaire. The graduate students recmmendatin was that: the parcel be cntinually used t alleviate the village s parking capacity issue. Accrding t stakehlder input and ur analysis, the cnversin f a prtin f the lt t a public park space wuld benefit the village. A playgrund, seating area, and playing lawns were referenced in the exit questinnaire. Figure 1 Gleasndale Schl Lt Lcatin Assabet River Dam at Gleasndale Mill The Schl Lt is a.28 acre lt lcated n the west side f Rute 62 in Gleasndale Village. Currently it is used as an unimprved cmmunity gathering space fr Gleasndale Village residents. The land is the vacant site f a frmer grade schl and library building that served Gleasndale Village frm 1850 until the late 1950s. In 1962, Annual Twn Meeting vters apprved the transfer f wnership f the land t the Cnservatin Cmmissin t be used as a park until the Twn vted fr anther purpse. At the same Twn Meeting, residents vted t raze the frmer schl building. In 1963, dnatins were prvided fr the Gleasndale Park t lam and seed the site, paint the chain link fence and install a swing. The Cnservatin Cmmissin s Annual Reprt f 1963 prclaimed Let s make this first Park in Stw smething t be prud f. 2

3 Twn f Stw Planning Department Winter 2016 Gleasndale residents frmed wrking grups t prvide further planning supprt t Planning Department staff in regard t a handful f neighbrhd planning prjects which residents were interested in pursuing, including imprvements t the Schl Lt. Residents identified the Schl Lt as an easily accessible vacant lt within a dense residential neighbrhd that suffers frm grwing traffic pressures and little access t pen space. Summer 2016 The Gleasndale Wrking Grup apprached the Cnservatin Cmmissin with cncept plans fr an imprved park n the Schl Lt, including cleaning up the site and adding new plantings. The Highway Department remved an irn ple, the last remaining piece f the ld swing. Residents held a wrk day at which participants cllected trash and perfrmed sme light landscaping. Thrugh initial discussins with the Wrking Grup, review f past planning dcuments and a series f site visits, a number f planning cnsideratins were identified fr further study, including access t the site, lng term management, designing fr desired uses, and parking safety. In September 2016, the Planning Department held a design frum fr the Schl Lt t allw residents t further explre these cnsideratins and pssibilities f design and use. Design Frum Planning Department staff hsted a tw part design frum n September 29, 2016 t further explre the varius imprvement cncepts discussed by the Schl Lt Wrking Grup. The advertised Design Frum began with a STOW (Strengths, Threat, Opprtunities, Weaknesses) analysis, fllwed by an visual preference survey t challenge participants t reflect n their preferences and gals fr the site. STOW (Strengths, Threats, Opprtunities, Weaknesses) Analysis The design frum examined strengths, weaknesses, pprtunities, and threats at the site. Specifically, participants were asked t cnsider the site s assets, factrs that culd negatively impact the site, hw the site culd best benefit the cmmunity, preferred uses, detractins frm the site, and any aspects f the site that may need t be imprved r changed. Figure 2 lists the cmments received by categry. Figure 2 STOW Analysis f the Schl Lt site: Strengths Threats View f river (including dam) and farm Prximity t river Histric site with educatinal value Safe frm flding (slpes uphill) Scial gathering space Centrally lcated Valuable pen space Chain link fencing prvides safety Parking- neighbrs, guests, river users If 62 were widened, lt size wuld shrink Parking f nn-passenger vehicles Parking that becmes lng-term, vernight T much parking, cmmercial parking Teenagers (cncern ver vlume, trash, latenight use) Playgrund (heavy use, vlume, etc.) Pisn ivy, invasive plants Sightlines n apprach 3

4 Twn f Stw Planning Department Handicapped accessible N electricity r water Shade and sun Hrse, dg mess Cncern ver changing appearance f fence Trash Traffic, nise Opprtunities Weaknesses Easement frm bridge alng Assabet River Prvide a new gate t imprve safety (pedestrian path?) Raised beds fr gardening/ living fence Space t garden Parking fr service vehicles/ Highway Dept. Increase parking t allw peple t visit wh aren t frm the neighbrhd Nice t have it as grass Excess/ verflw parking Neighbrhd activities and get-tgethers Histrical site and enrichment Quiet getaway, enjy nature Cnnectin t future mill revitalizatin Place t meet yur neighbrs Gate is n lnger at SW pedestrian entrance Pedestrian exit twards abutting driveway Fence is clse t the abutting prperty line t the nrth Privacy cncerns, nt much screening Unsafe t pull ut f Rute 62 Cedar tree is vergrwn and blcks sightlines Gets muddy seasnally, particularly with current parking cnfiguratin N crsswalks, n sidewalks N electricity r water N restrms N easement fr river access Nt apprpriate size fr large grups Nt ttally flat Nt plwed in winter Figure 3 Wrd Clud Analysis f Strengths and Opprtunities 4

5 Twn f Stw Planning Department Figure 4 Wrd Clud Analysis f Weaknesses and Threats Visual Preference Survey A visual preference survey further determined preference fr future uses by illustrating hw participant s feelings f the site are realized in physical design elements. The survey is structured t allw participants t individually cnsider and rate existing and prpsed features, as shwn in the image t the right. T islate preference in each categry- parking, seating, signage, and fencing- each design tpic was placed n a separate sheet. After the exercise, participants were asked t review the results and expand n their answers. The belw headings summarize the findings. Parking Scenaris 5

6 Twn f Stw Planning Department The highest number f participants shwed preference fr a parking area design that reflects an imprved versin f the current scenari. This includes a third f the lt dedicated t parking, with n barrier between the parking area and the landscaping f the park. Residents suggested that this design ffers flexibility with the amunt f parking space available, as a fence r ther barrier wuld prhibit extra cars frm parking when needed. Hwever, ther residents nted the need fr restrictins n parking when there are events at the park. A third scenari discussed invlved leaving the parking arrangement as is, with the additin f tree trimming alng the frntage t help with sightlines, particularly with the red cedar t the nrtheast, and the additin f gravel t help with mud and better define the parking area. Generally, residents viced preference fr an imprved parking surface that wuld curb mud prblems while retaining r increasing landscaping arund the parking area. Signage Participants preferred signage that culd be educatinal, prviding a histry f the site. The prevailing idea was that a mre rustic sign culd be placed at the entrance f the park, t identify the lt as a public park, with anther interpretive sign inside the lt prviding mre detail. Sme nted preference fr a sign similar t the Lwer Village gateway sign, perhaps with an image f the frmer schlhuse. Seating Thugh the image t the right shws difference f pinin, thrugh cnversatin, it apparent that the lgic behind the chices made was similar. Many participants vcalized appreciatin fr bench seating that is durable, washable, and allws fr seating in either directin regardless f seasn. Sme residents felt that wden bench ptins lk uncmfrtable, and dn t prvide much supprt. One resident expressed interest in a rugh cut bench. Participants cited theft as an issue and reasning behind lking fr heavier, mre permanent seating ptins. Participants discussed having multiple types f seating. The ptin f a picnic table was seen as a threat t having a quiet park, as it culd invite unsavry use. 6

7 Twn f Stw Planning Department Fencing Participants vcalized verwhelming supprt fr keeping the existing chain link fence, nting it as the riginal fence installed when the schl was functinal and that it prvides safety fr visitrs and abutters. The main gal fr a fence was expressed as safety fr yung children keeping them and their wayward tys inside the lt and ut f the rad. The nly suggestins that invlved its alteratin included planting shrubs r vining plants in frnt f it, t green it up, r t install a white picket fence in frnt f the chain link fence as a means f beautificatin. The split rail fence with chicken wire was seen as appearing t farm-like, and there were cncerns with safety f children. Other Ideas/ Additins The small neighbrhd library received the highest number f favrable respnses in the survey. Participants revealed it was seen as a nd t the histry f the lt. Raised garden beds als received a relatively high number f vtes. Althugh, if cnsidered, participants preferred that it wuld be limited t a cuple f beds, and that they wuld be at the rear f the lt, perhaps prviding space fr climbing plants t mask the chain link fence and prvide privacy t the abutting prperty wners. Planning Cnsideratins The fllwing sectin explres future ptins fr the Schl Lt by cmbining data gained thrugh the STOW analysis exercise with results frm the Visual Preference Survey. Parking The pssibility f frmalizing parking space in the Schl Lt has been a majr driver in the planning discussins. Gleasndale residents and abutters t the lt stated the need fr parking when cmmunity events are held at the Schl Lt. Residents stated that arund 8-10 cars park n the lt during events. Anther need 7

8 Twn f Stw Planning Department identified is safe residential verflw parking ptins, given that Rute 62 has a limited shulder. Safe bicycle and pedestrian access t the site is als cncern amng residents. Residents discussed the site as split int thirds, with a general preference fr 1/3 devted t parking and 2/3 devted active use f the site. Hwever, there remains disagreement ver whether the parking area shuld be physically cntained, with the need fr verflw parking and safety f site users t be balanced. Primary Cnsideratins Parking Safety The Schl Lt is a publicly wned parcel, currently under the care and custdy f the Cnservatin Cmmissin. As it is custmary fr public parks and trail-heads thrughut Stw t include defined parking areas, any future upgrades t the site will require adequate safety measures be in place t delineate parking areas frm multi-use/recreatin areas. Parking Design Expansin r upgrade t parking at the site wuld need t be apprved thrugh the Zning Bard f Appeals. An updated parking area in the current lcatin wuld vilate frnt and side yard setbacks. Hwever, given the small nature f the lt, the slping grades in the rear and the pattern f current use, a variance frm the Zning Bylaw may be a pssibility. Access t the Site A number f pprtunities and weaknesses were nted in regard t site access, bth shrt and lng term. Primary Cnsideratins Vehicular Access Residents nted that sight lines culd be imprved with sme targeted cutting f cedar trees n the lt s frntage. Further, signage and landscaping can prvide visual cues t drivers that the site is a recgnized gathering space. Pedestrian Access Due t its relative density as a village, many residents f Gleasndale frequently walk t and frm their destinatin. Residents described unsafe pedestrian access t the Schl Lt, given Rute 62 has n sidewalks r crsswalks, and minimal shulders. Incrpratin int Gleasndale Traffic Planning The replacement f the Gleasndale bridge ver Rute 62 prvides pprtunities t reshape the pedestrian experience in Gleasndale Village. Residents agreed that a planned survey f the public right-f-way in Gleasndale culd aid in implementing future upgrades. Lng Term Management Management and care f the Schl Lt is tied t its wnership, which is yet t be determined, thugh staff with the Planning Department and the Cnservatin Cmmissin cntinue t wrk t slve this questin. Primary Cnsideratins Stewardship Gleasndale residents have been granted apprval frm the Cnservatin Cmmissin t prvide new plantings t the site. The Highway Department has als helped in remving trash and digging ut the 8

9 Twn f Stw Planning Department ld swing t eliminate added hazards. Residents have expressed btaining a mre defined stewardship rle at the site in the future. Designing fr Desired Uses Part f the impetus fr hlding a design frum was t clarify the reasning behind requested redesigns and ensure that the new Schl Lt design ffers slutins t any current perceived prblems. Participants at the design frum were split n the need fr a cmprehensive design upgrade versus an á-la-carte apprach. The Planning Department recgnizes the need fr further planning and ffers the fllwing implementatin recmmendatins: 1. Cmprehensive Implementatin The Planning Staff Wrking Grup culd frmalize a Schl Lt park prpsal, submitting detailed plans fr the gravel parking area, in additin t landscaping, seating, and ther aesthetic imprvements fr review by the Planning Bard. Varius funding cmpnents culd include Cmmunity Preservatin Act funds, crwdsurce campaigns, and requests fr dnatins. Depending n the funding directin and extent f the upgrades, cmprehensive plans culd be submitted fr later review by the lt wner, Zning Bard f Appeals, and Cmmunity Preservatin Cmmittee as applicable. 2. Á-La-Carte Implementatin The Planning Staff Wrking Grup culd alternatively chse t make incremental imprvements t the site. This ptin may allw the design ideas t evlve, and prvide the Wrking Grup with flexibility t fund smaller cmpnents individually. The Wrking Grup wuld be able t determine a pace that feels mst apprpriate fr the cnsensus f pinins. Fr example, in the next year, residents culd crdinate landscaping and fundraise fr a few benches, and in the fllwing year research and purchase apprpriate signage. The primary cnsideratins f hw best t handle the parking situatin and fencing ptins culd cme at a later date depending n the use f the imprved site. Next Steps Planning Department Recmmendatin Stakehlders Invlved Pririty Time Frame Ptential Implementatin/Funding Surce Determine Twn Ownership Cnservatin Cmmissin; Bard f Selectmen Shrt N/A Imprve sight lines fr site access by trimming trees alng frntage Highway Department Shrt N/A Determine makeup/rganizatin f lng term land management Planning Staff Wrking Grup; Lt Owner Shrt N/A 9

10 Twn f Stw Planning Department Determine ptential signage design and placement Histric Cmmissin; Lt Owner; Highway Department Medium Cmmunity Preservatin Funds Assess designs fr additinal desired uses, including raised bed gardens, seating, free library Planning Staff Wrking Grup; Lt Owner; Abutters Medium Cmmunity Preservatin Funds, Crwdfunding, Dnatins Incrprate Rute 62 safety cncerns int future site and traffic planning Planning Bard; MassDOT; Lt Owner; Abutters; Mill Owner; OARS Medium & Lng Term Transprtatin Imprvement Prgram; Planning Bard; Cmplete Streets Pririty Plan Obtain feedback frm Lt Owner n safety expectatins in regard t parking upgrades Develp parking plan prpsal Implement parking plan Bard f Selectmen; Cnservatin Cmmissin; Zning Bard f Appeals; Planning Bard; Abutters Bard f Selectmen; Cnservatin Cmmissin; Zning Bard f Appeals; Planning Bard; Abutters Bard f Selectmen; Cnservatin Cmmissin; Zning Bard f Appeals; Planning Bard; Abutters Medium Medium Lng Term N/A N/A Cmmunity Preservatin Funds 10