9/10 SAT 8:30 | Planning for Walkable Multimodal Neighborhoods


Published on

Renea Vincent
Whit Blanton
Scott Swearengen
Shilpa Mehta

The City of Tarpon Springs seeks to revitalize its downtown core areas and encourage redevelopment for a vibrant, thriving, destination with a wide range of travel options. The principal ways proving access to the City's urban neighborhoods are constrained and cannot be widened to meet existing or future demand generated by redevelopment. In addition, existing future land use and zoning regulations are out of touch with the area's traditional urban form.

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • City Map: roads, waters, trail, hist district, downtown, sponge docks, MMTD
  • Historic properties – preserve……..
  • 10 CDs – clear guide for the character of future development (intent) ……
  • 9/10 SAT 8:30 | Planning for Walkable Multimodal Neighborhoods

    1. 2. <ul><li>Why can’t we achieve redevelopment in the urban core? </li></ul><ul><li>Stagnant redevelopment activity – even in the boom years! </li></ul>
    2. 3. <ul><li>Outdated growth policies severely limit density and mixed-use development </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of redevelopment activity in the City’s urban core </li></ul>
    3. 4. <ul><li>Lack of redevelopment activity in the City’s urban core </li></ul><ul><li>Constrained transportation network cannot adequately support urban redevelopment </li></ul>
    4. 5. <ul><li>Unique identity – national brand </li></ul><ul><li>Safe, vibrant streets </li></ul><ul><li>Walkability </li></ul><ul><li>Live-work balance </li></ul><ul><li>Strong tourist market </li></ul><ul><li>Economic development / job creation </li></ul><ul><li>Housing and retail options </li></ul>
    5. 6. <ul><li>A revitalized urban core (composed of quality redevelopment) that serves as a vibrant, thriving destination with a wide range of travel options </li></ul>
    6. 9. <ul><li>Central Gulf Coast (Sun Coast) </li></ul><ul><li>Tampa Bay Region </li></ul><ul><li>Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater </li></ul>
    7. 10. <ul><li>Northwest corner of Pinellas County </li></ul><ul><li>Gulf of Mexico, Lake Tarpon, Anclote River </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Highway 19 (SIS) </li></ul><ul><li>Alt. 19 </li></ul><ul><li>Pinellas Trail </li></ul><ul><li>No limited access highways </li></ul><ul><li>Limited transit </li></ul>
    8. 11. <ul><li>Settled in 1864 </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporated in 1887 (1 st in Pinellas County) </li></ul><ul><li>17square miles (46% water) </li></ul><ul><li>23,500 residents – 12% Greek, 5% Latin/Hispanic, 6% African American </li></ul>
    9. 12. <ul><li>Quaint downtown – historic railroad depot </li></ul><ul><li>National Register Historic District </li></ul>
    10. 13. <ul><li>Prevalent, long-standing Greek heritage </li></ul>
    11. 14. <ul><li>Historic working waterfront (sponging industry) </li></ul>
    12. 15. <ul><li>Cultural tourism – from local to international visitors </li></ul>
    13. 16. <ul><li>Recreation amenities – fishing, trails, parks, beaches </li></ul>
    14. 17. <ul><li>Unique History </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sponging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Arts </li></ul></ul>
    15. 18. <ul><li>Strong Cultural Heritage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deep Greek roots </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eastern Orthodox Church </li></ul></ul>
    16. 19. <ul><li>Local, National and International Recognition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tourism </li></ul></ul>
    17. 20. <ul><li>Existing Urban Fabric </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Walkable streets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mostly preserved downtown fabric </li></ul></ul>
    18. 21. <ul><li>Working Waterfront </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique designation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tourist draw </li></ul></ul>
    19. 22. <ul><li>The Pinellas Trail </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Local/regional tourism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimodal connection through Pinellas County </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recreation and aesthetic amenity </li></ul></ul>
    20. 23. <ul><li>Location </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Out-of-the-way location </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited regional market capture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited local capture </li></ul></ul>
    21. 24. <ul><li>Constrained Roadways </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenges redevelopment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Traffic congestion </li></ul></ul>
    22. 25. <ul><li>Lack of Neighborhood Investment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lengthy, daunting process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impermissible regulations </li></ul></ul>
    23. 26. <ul><li>Underutilized Properties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prominently located vacant properties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expansive surface parking lots </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Undesirable development </li></ul></ul>
    24. 27. <ul><li>Waning Tourism </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knickknacks, trinkets and t-shirts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Day trips </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resistance to change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nostalgic longing vs. the 21 st Century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Static cultural heritage </li></ul></ul>
    25. 28. Transportation Land Use Urban Design <ul><li>Quality urban neighborhoods require plans with balanced and integrated elements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation – a multimodal network supports walkability and mixed-use urban development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Land Use – a tighter mix of uses along with higher densities and intensities supports a multimodal network and puts less strain on vehicular capacity impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban Design – spaces designed to strengthen access and connection between uses and streets encourages walkability and supports mixed-use development </li></ul></ul>
    26. 31. <ul><li>The Vision: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality redevelopment growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher densities and intensities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed-use urban neighborhoods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobility options </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Constraints: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Constrained roadway system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Failing LOS on State facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited ROW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited vehicle capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How do we both mitigate the expected growth and stimulate the desired growth under the existing constraints? </li></ul>
    27. 32. <ul><li>Start by rethinking the transportation system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimodal vs. vehicular centric </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban neighborhoods vs. suburban subdivisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Connectivity vs. exclusivity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access function vs. capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation quality vs. vehicular quantity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The transportation network is the circulatory system that defines and supports community life. </li></ul>
    28. 33. <ul><li>Why a Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) in Tarpon Springs? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tarpon Springs has the basic building blocks that support multimodal transportation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional downtown, grid street network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pinellas and Tarpon Avenues cannot be widened </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$20 million in Streetscape improvements on Tarpon and Pinellas Avenues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pinellas Trail </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PSTA and PCPT routes through Tarpon, connecting to Pasco and south Pinellas County </li></ul></ul>
    29. 34. <ul><li>Essential means to create economic growth </li></ul><ul><li>Unifying framework for integrated planning and investment </li></ul><ul><li>Enables stronger City partnership with public and private entities </li></ul>
    30. 35. <ul><li>Establishing the boundary </li></ul><ul><li>Projecting future growth </li></ul><ul><li>Enables stronger City partnership with public / private entities </li></ul><ul><li>Defining Quality of Service: Conditions, Targets, Standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying multimodal projects to support growth </li></ul></ul>Existing and Adopted Multimodal Level of Service Standards Bicycle LOS Standard Pedestrian LOS Standard Transit LOS Standard Existing Condition D+ C F Adopted (2007) D+ C F Adopted (2015) C B E Adopted (2025) C B B
    31. 36. <ul><li>Multi-jurisdictional context </li></ul><ul><li>Build-out impacts to Strategic Intermodal System </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination with FDOT – lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>Defining thresholds, commitments and actions </li></ul><ul><li>Local approval </li></ul>
    32. 37. <ul><li>MMTD creates mechanism for clearly defined investments </li></ul><ul><li>Streamlined process </li></ul><ul><li>Beginnings of a mobility fee (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Create a trip bank / cost per trip </li></ul><ul><li>Future adjustments </li></ul>
    33. 38. <ul><li>First, establish a ‘trip bank’ and then proceed as follows: </li></ul><ul><li>Calculate total cost of capital improvements to meet target MMQOS </li></ul><ul><li>Determine acreage available for redevelopment </li></ul><ul><li>Calculate total number of units and floor area that can theoretically be constructed </li></ul><ul><li>Calculate trip ends based on estimated units and floor area </li></ul><ul><li>Calculate cost per trip: estimated total cost of improvements / total number of trip ends </li></ul><ul><li>Apply per trip cost to a proposed project </li></ul>
    34. 39. <ul><li>Total costs for bike, ped, road connectivity and transit improvements (10 year transit operating cost): $13,146,471 </li></ul><ul><li>Future additional DUs: 2,612 </li></ul><ul><li>Future additional commercial sq ft: 1,540,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Trip Bank: 34,033 trip ends </li></ul><ul><li>Cost per trip: $13,146,471/34,033 = $386 </li></ul>
    35. 41. <ul><li>Large-scale plans for future growth and development involving a mix of uses and a range of densities require a Special Area Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Pinellas Planning Council content Guidelines and Requirements (Countywide Plan Rules) </li></ul><ul><li>Large-Scale Future Land Use Amendment </li></ul>
    36. 42. <ul><li>Works well in contiguous areas with shared goals and objectives for future growth </li></ul><ul><li>Tailored toward areas within a City that excerpt a unique character </li></ul><ul><li>Establishes Future Land Use AND with a specific plan </li></ul><ul><li>Allows flexibility to the standard county-wide plan rules, especially with mixed-use development </li></ul>
    37. 44. <ul><li>Summary of Plan Area issues and objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Plan Area divided into ten distinct Character Districts (i.e. sub-areas) </li></ul><ul><li>Each Character District includes generalized permitted land uses and future land use-level development standards </li></ul><ul><li>Public infrastructure and facilities impacts evaluated </li></ul><ul><li>Consistency with Countywide Plan demonstrated </li></ul>
    38. 45. <ul><li>Encouraged in most areas </li></ul><ul><li>A maximum residential density and ‘non-residential’ FAR set individual use limits, respectively </li></ul><ul><li>A ‘maximum development’ FAR sets the overall development limit on mixed use projects, regardless of use </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple potential use combinations </li></ul>
    39. 46. <ul><li>Character Districts establish ‘base’ residential densities </li></ul><ul><li>Additional density can be gained when one property ‘receives’ a portion of another property’s ‘base’ density </li></ul><ul><li>A ‘receiving’ property can accept up to the ‘maximum’ density for their Character District </li></ul><ul><li>Encourages higher residential densities </li></ul><ul><li>Helps jobs-to-population balance </li></ul>
    40. 47. <ul><li>Detailed analysis of CHHA properties </li></ul><ul><li>Preserve previously permitted density limits in CHHA </li></ul><ul><li>No density transfers “to” properties in the CHHA </li></ul>
    41. 48. <ul><li>Development impacts difficult to measure in an open mixed-use scenario </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Redevelopment Probability’ methodology utilized to more accurately measure impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Parcel by parcel examination of existing development </li></ul><ul><li>Criteria established to determine the likelihood of redevelopment </li></ul><ul><li>Much more accurate than typical ‘maximum development potential’ methodology </li></ul>
    42. 49. <ul><li>A Plan for the Community, by the Community </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning and Redevelopment Focus Group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>City Commission, Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Board </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Established a cohesive, community-based vision for future growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identified implementation strategies to achieve the vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Established Plan objectives </li></ul></ul>
    43. 50. <ul><li>A clear land use plan to guide future development </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed-use development incentives to improve walkability </li></ul><ul><li>Higher density residential development incentives to foster a stronger jobs-to-housing balance </li></ul><ul><li>An improved Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use framework to guide new form-based land development regulations </li></ul>
    44. 52. <ul><li>LDC Update required to be measurably in compliance with SAP </li></ul><ul><li>Form Based Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Density, FAR and Uses were the common variables used to assure compliance. </li></ul>
    45. 53. <ul><li>Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm , the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. </li></ul><ul><li>The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visuals. </li></ul>FORM BASED CODE INSTITUTE www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes
    46. 54. <ul><li>Districts based on Community Character </li></ul><ul><li>Street Types based on Function </li></ul><ul><li>Building Types based on Use </li></ul>FORM BASED DESIGN STANDARDS
    47. 55. <ul><li>Use and Bulk Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Visualization </li></ul>
    48. 56. <ul><li>Based on the SAP Character Districts </li></ul><ul><li>Building Form and Use based on Street Type </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed Use </li></ul><ul><li>Continuity with Existing </li></ul><ul><li>Multimodal </li></ul><ul><li>Transect Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Core T6 </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Center T5 </li></ul><ul><li>General Urban T4 </li></ul><ul><li>Suburban T3 </li></ul><ul><li>Rural T2 </li></ul><ul><li>Natural T1 </li></ul>
    49. 57. <ul><li>Includes Land Use, Transportation, and Building Design Guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Bulk Regulations (Density & FAR) </li></ul><ul><li>Thoroughfare Types </li></ul><ul><li>Building Placement (Coverage, Setbacks, & Frontage) </li></ul><ul><li>Building Form (Height, Frontage Type, & Parking) </li></ul><ul><li>Building Function </li></ul><ul><li>frontage types </li></ul>
    50. 58. <ul><li>Facilitate Mixed Use and Shared Parking </li></ul><ul><li>Based on Building Function Categories </li></ul><ul><li>Adjusted for Intensity of Use (Open, Limited, Restricted) based on Location </li></ul><ul><li>Parking Requirements based on Building Function </li></ul><ul><li>Shared Parking Factor </li></ul>
    51. 59. <ul><li>Thoroughfare Standards include public right-of-way and public frontage elements </li></ul>
    52. 60. <ul><li>Urban Placemaking </li></ul><ul><li>Include Building Function/Use, Form, and Placement </li></ul><ul><li>Frontage includes Parking Location </li></ul>
    53. 61. <ul><li>Connecting Land Use, Transportation and Urban Design </li></ul><ul><li>Choosing the Right Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Form Based Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed Use and Multimodal </li></ul><ul><li>User Friendly Code </li></ul><ul><li>Staff Administered </li></ul><ul><li>Extensive Community Outreach </li></ul>TRANSPORTATION LAND USE URBAN DESIGN
    54. 63. <ul><li>MMTD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reframe transportation and a solution to the mobility problem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage in negotiating with developers and agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SAP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A plan for mixed-use development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incentivize residential and higher densities (jobs-to-housing balance) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FBC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attention to building form and neighborhood character </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement the plan </li></ul></ul>
    55. 64. Challenges Projects Constrained transportation network  MMTD  Lemon Street redesign  Safford Avenue improvements  On-going sidewalk program Outdated growth policies  SAP  FBC Out-of-the-way location  MMTD  Wayfinding and Signage Master Plan Lack of neighborhood investment  SAP  FBC Underutilized properties  SAP  FBC  Live Oak Street park design Waning tourism  SAP  FBC  Wayfinding and Signage Master Plan
    56. 65. <ul><li>Building momentum and excitement – </li></ul><ul><li>implement projects during plan adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Baby steps – </li></ul><ul><li>from full Board oversight to administrative approval </li></ul><ul><li>Sequential (methodical) approach – </li></ul><ul><li>review agency understanding, buy-in and approval (FDOT, FDCA, PPC) </li></ul>
    57. 67. <ul><li>Planning to meet the City’s Vision requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Land Use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban Design </li></ul></ul>
    58. 68. <ul><li>Conceiving the District Boundaries… </li></ul>
    59. 69. <ul><li>Outdated Growth Policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Future Land Use Element and Map </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Zoning regulations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promote suburban development patterns </li></ul></ul>
    60. 70. <ul><li>How do we both mitigate the expected growth and stimulate the desired growth under our existing constraints? </li></ul>
    61. 71. <ul><li>Anything else planned? </li></ul>
    62. 72. <ul><li>Focal Points: </li></ul><ul><li>Central Business District </li></ul><ul><li>Sponge Docks and Greek Village </li></ul><ul><li>PSTA transfer to Tarpon Mall </li></ul><ul><li>Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital </li></ul><ul><li>Schools and parks </li></ul><ul><li>Linkage to SPCC </li></ul>
    63. 73. <ul><li>Assesses pedestrian, bicycling, and transit systems (graded from A to F) </li></ul><ul><li>City is required to establish Multimodal Quality of Service (MMQOS) standards for an MMTD </li></ul><ul><li>Standards set a target for improving these systems by 2025; City and developers accountable for achieving this target </li></ul>
    64. 74. <ul><li>Pedestrian MMQOS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a sidewalk? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How wide is the buffer between the sidewalk and the street? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do parked cars or street trees help protect pedestrians? </li></ul></ul>
    65. 75. <ul><li>Bicycle MMQOS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a bike lane, paved shoulder or multi-use trail? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the condition of the pavement? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a wide outside general traffic lane? </li></ul></ul>
    66. 76. <ul><li>Land development characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban form </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Street connectivity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Used to adjust evaluations for each mode </li></ul></ul>
    67. 77. <ul><li>Jobs to Housing Balance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for shorter home-to-work trips </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Greater viability for non-auto commuting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MMTD internal capture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fosters a stronger mixed-use environment </li></ul></ul>
    68. 78. <ul><li>Negotiating with FDOT – the “Test” Case </li></ul>
    69. 79. <ul><li>Measuring progress </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MM concurrency analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation (projects) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Measuring success </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighborhood changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Horizon year </li></ul></ul>