T F A R PUBLIC SPACES MASTER PLAN UPDATE D (POPS) POPS Advisory Committee March 26, 2019 NOTE: This presentation is a working document, and some recommendations or ideas may have evolved or changed based on continued discussions and additional analyses. 1
AGENDA Proposed PSMP T • Approval Process F • Input Received/Discussion Next Steps A R D 2
POPS TIMELINE present vision, discuss + present prioritize strategic directions, preliminary ask targeted questions to recommendations inform actions T F A PUBLIC FOCUS PUBLIC GROUP POPS MEETING MEETING MEETINGS CHARRETTE ADDITIONALPUBLIC SERIES SERIES COUNTY BOARD ENGAGEMENTS strategic directions, ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT COMMISSION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE actions, action steps + ADVISORY ADVISORY ADOPTION R REVIEWS implementation strategy Summer 2016 Summer 2017 Feb 2016 Dec 2016 Dec 2017 Spring / D Jul - Aug 2016 Winter 2015-16 2018/2019 Fall 2018 Winter draft plan options for classification ENGAGEMENT land draft plan COMMITTEE ADVISORY + LOS standards acquisition discussions vision statement + strategy strategic directions WE ARE HERE STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY FINAL DRAFT definitions, strategic present final draft ONLINE + OPEN DOOR POPS POPPING direction prioritization plan EVENTS UP EVENTS 3
NEXT STEPS Final Approval Process: T F March 2019- Request to Advertise (RTA): o Planning Commission: March 6 A o County Board: March 19 April 2019- Action: R o Planning Commission: April 10 D o County Board: April 23 or 25 4
SD1 (PUBLIC SPACES)- PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK Priority Action 7 (1.5.9., page 68) Develop park master plans for all new parks or when renovation of an existing park requires a major rearrangement of park amenities. T Several parks have been identified that are of high importance to the park system over the next decade. Master planning efforts should be focused on those parks identified below: F Bon Air Park o Bluemont Park A o Drew Park o Future parks in Crystal City & Columbia Pike (identified in adopted Sector and Form Based Code Plans) R o Gateway Park o Maury/Herselle Milliken/future new properties o D Quincy Park o Rosslyn Plaza o Thomas Jefferson Park o Virginia Highlands Park o 15th Street South (Crystal City) o Planning Commission discussion: When does the increase in footprint of renovated amenities require a master plan? Notes : • * Page numbers indicate locations in the proposed 2019 PSMP • Text in beet red color represents changes made since the Final 2018 Draft • Text in green color represents discussion at the Planning Commission meeting (03/06/19) 5 • Text in blue color represents community discussion at the County Board meeting (03/19/19)
SD1 (PUBLIC SPACES)- REVISIONS SINCE THE FINAL 2018 DRAFT & PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK 1.4.2. Explore Identify the locations for two new multi-use activity centers T to provide year-round access to indoor athletic courts and fields. (page 64) F A Planning Commission discussion: should the language be strengthened to R include a more declarative statement? D 6
APPENDIX II (LEVEL OF SERVICE) REVISIONS SINCE THE FINAL 2018 DRAFT- LOS TABLE Long term future needs using arrows T Figure 27. Baseline data and factors taken into consideration Figure 28. Estimated future LOS targets (page 177) when developing recommended LOS (page 176) F A R D 7
APPENDIX II (LEVEL OF SERVICE) REVISIONS SINCE THE FINAL 2018 DRAFT & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Community feedback: remove any reference to the Long term future needs numbers that represent the field needs estimated by using arrows 2035 T Figure 28. Estimated future LOS targets (page 177) Example (page 197): Combining Arlington’s active adult F population with continued growth in the school age population results in heavy demand and a high level of scheduled and unscheduled use for A County and Arlington Public Schools athletic fields. The population- based Level of Service standards show that Arlington could need an R additional 11 rectangular fields and 2 diamond fields by 2035 in order to generally maintain the current Level of Service. At roughly 2 acres D needed per field, Arlington would need to identify space within existing parks or acquire 26 acres of land for new fields, which is not physically or financially practical. Increasing the number of synthetic fields, adding lights, and/or the combination of synthetic fields with lighting provides the best opportunity for the County to meet the demand (see Figure 32) by expanding the hours of play capacity of existing fields. Example (page 181) 8
SD2 (TRAILS)- REVISIONS SINCE THE FINAL 2018 DRAFT & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK New action step: 2.1.7. Explore opportunities to provide a space for pump tracks and cyclocross on a T temporary or permanent basis, while balancing potential impacts on natural resources and F trees. A Arlington does not currently provide opportunities for pump tracks or cyclocross. As part of the PSMP Update process, the community expressed interest in this type of amenity as that can provide additional R experience for cyclists to recreate and practice their riding skills. Interest was also expressed in mountain biking, however, mountain biking would need to have a more robust and broad community conversation to D understand the needs of the users and impacts on the natural environment prior to serious exploration of identifying a specific location. (page 87) Community/commission feedback: • mountain biking/impact on natural resources; • PSMP & Bike Element consistency 9
ATHLETIC FIELDS- LIGHTING MITIGATION MEASURES REVISIONS SINCE THE FINAL 2018 DRAFT & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Description added after the Final 2018 Draft & Proposed edits: T As part of any future capital lighting project initiative or the development of a field lighting program in the County’s CIP, with direction from the County Board, staff will take the top 3 to 5 candidates from F the list of fields scored against the lighting criteria and conduct an analysis of the impact of adding lights using the Standards and Mitigation Measures described in this Appendix III. Impacts analyzed A may include those from light spill, glare, and noise and those on natural resources, such as trees, tree R canopy, and wildlife. Additionally that analysis will evaluate the candidate fields for certain key considerations as described in Section IV Follow-on Recommendations of the Williamsburg Field Site D Evaluation Workgroup Report, particularly those key considerations related to state of development of the area; topography, physical features and the presence of existing lighting in the area; the proximity of homes; and environmental impacts. This analysis will be integral to and include the input from any civic engagement process for adding lights to athletic fields as that process is defined at the completion of Action Step 1.5.5. Based on that more detailed analysis, the appropriate field(s) to be lighted will be presented to the County Board for future funding opportunities. (page 216-217) Community feedback: lighting mitigation measures 10
APPENDIX III: PRIVATELY-OWNED PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN GUIDELINES T F A Community/commission feedback: R Include biophilic principles D 11
NEXT STEPS Final Approval Process: T F March 2019- Request to Advertise (RTA): o Planning Commission: March 6 A o County Board: March 19 April 2019- Action: R o Planning Commission: April 10 D o County Board: April 23 or 25 12
Recommend
More recommend
