PUBLIC SPACES MASTER PLAN (POPS) UPDATES Long Range Planning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PUBLIC SPACES MASTER PLAN (POPS) UPDATES

Long Range Planning Committee May 29, 2018

1

AGENDA

• Introduction
• POPS Process & Timeline
• Focused Topics:
• Land Acquisition
• Level of Service
• Athletic Fields: Synthetic Conversion & Lighting
• Casual Use Spaces
• Natural Resources & Trees
• Other Plan Elements
• Privately Owned Public Spaces
• Fresh Approaches
• Q&A
• Next Steps

2

Winter 2015-16

strategic directions, actions, action steps + implementation strategy

PUBLIC MEETING SERIES POPS POPPING UP EVENTS

definitions, strategic direction prioritization

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT S

present final draft plan present preliminary recommendations

• ptions forclassification

+ LOS standards vision statement + strategic directions

FOCUS MEETINGS STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT

POPS CHARRETTE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT

land acquisition strategy draft plan discussions draft plan

COMMISSION REVIEWS COUNTY BOARD ADOPTION

GROUP

PUBLIC MEETING SERIES

Spring / Summer 2016 Jul - Aug 2016 Dec 2016 Feb 2016 Summer 2017 Summer/Fall 2018

present vision, discuss + prioritize strategic directions, ask targeted questions to informactions

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS

Dec 2017 Fall 2018

TIMELINE

WE ARE HERE

3

PUBLIC INPUT (COLLABORATIVE PROCESS)

Advisory Committee APS Aquatics BIDs & Partners Bike/Ped Dog Parks Gymnastics Natural Resources Urban Forestry Sports Millennials Seniors Teens Gen Xers Over 90 participants

Public Meetings

February 2016

Stakeholder Interviews

Winter/Spring 2016

Goal: 800 Actual: 1,470

Statistically Valid Survey

Winter 2015/2016

POPS Popping Up

Summer 2016

Focus Groups

Spring/Summer 2016

Charrette

December 2016

Public Meetings

July 2017

Draft Online

FINAL DRAFT COMING SOON…

Public Meetings

December 2018 Land Acquisition Athletic Fields Natural Resources, Trees & Casual Use Spaces July-August 2017 4

Work Session W/County Board

February 20th 2018 Land Acquisition Athletic Fields Level of Service Natural Resources/Trees Casual Use Spaces

POPS Advisory Committee

REVISIONS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT

5

TDR

1.1.6.

• Explore strengthening and expanding the use of the County’s Transfer of Development Rights

policy as a tool to create and consolidate future public space.

Preliminary POPS Draft:

County’s Regulations- Modifications

1.2.10. Review and study possible modifications to the County’s regulations and codes — including zoning and other requirements related to setbacks, lighting, parking, signage, height, and temporary use of public and private property as public space — to allow more flexibility in park planning and respond to high-density contexts.

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

6

• Guidance received on the following:
• Land Acquisition
• Level of Service
• Fields: Synthetic Turf & Lighting
• Natural Resources & Trees
• Casual Use Spaces
• Presentation & Video: County Website

LAND ACQUISITION APPROACH

7

LAND ACQUISITION- PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY

8

• General support for additional 30 acres of new public space over the next 10 years,

as recommended in the POPS draft

• Criteria & methodology in the preliminary draft were confusing
• Identify funding sources & acquisition mechanisms
• Identify priority areas- purpose of the site
• Identify potential acquisitions in the document
• Be transparent- clarify the process of making decisions to purchase the property

POPS Draft Recommendation: 1.1. Add at least 30 acres of new public space over the next 10 years.

Objective Evaluation Criteria Part I Part II Part III

Alignment with County Adopted Plans Alignment with General PSMP Priorities Recreational/ Leisure Purpose Natural Resource Purpose Historic Resource Purpose

Acquisition Opportunity

REVISED LAND ACQUISITION APPROACH HOW DOES IT WORK?

9

County Board Consideration County Board Consideration

1 from Part III

• The site is identified within an existing approved park master plan or park framework plan.
• The site is identified as future parkland in an adopted comprehensive plan element or

sector, area, or corridor plan.

• The site is suggested as future parkland in an existing neighborhood conservation plan.

PART 1: ALIGNMENT WITH COUNTY ADOPTED/ACCEPTED PLANS

10

PUBLIC SPACES IDENTIFIED IN ADOPTED PARK MASTER PLANS

EXAMPLE: MOSAIC PARK MASTER PLAN (ADOPTED IN 2009)

11

PUBLIC SPACES IDENTIFIED IN SECTOR PLANS

EXAMPLE: CRYSTAL CITY SECTOR PLAN (ADOPTED IN 2010)

12

• The site shares its perimeter with an existing public

space and is essential to the expansion of an existing public space.

• The property is an infill property of an existing park,

located on the corner of a park or would serve to “normalize” a park boundary or shape.

• The site will allow the creation of new pathway

connections to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing park.

PART 2: ALIGNMENT WITH GENERAL PSMP PRIORITIES

13

• The site has been identified as one of the sending sites eligible

for the transfer of development rights.

• The site could be used to create a new park and offers future

potential expansion opportunities that would result in a park of at least ¼ acre.

• The site is a “generational” or unique opportunity that if not

acquired at the point of time of the offer, would not be an

• pportunity again.
• The site has been identified as a defunct private indoor or
• utdoor recreation facility (e.g., golf courses, swimming pools,

community houses, etc.)

• The site is located in one of the major planning corridors

identified in GLUP, such as, Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson-Davis and Columbia Pike Corridors, or any future identified corridors.

Creation of a new public space: Associated with existing public spaces:

• The site could be used to protect or expand a

Natural Resource Protection Area.

• The site could increase the diversity of habitats for

critical species.

PART 3: ALIGNMENT WITH PSMP PRIORITIES/SITE PURPOSE

14

• The site could improve connections to trail systems within
• r beyond the County, includes a segment of a future

planned trail, or widen an existing trail.

• The site could be designed to support casual, impromptu

use or connection with nature.

Recreational/Leisure Purpose (examples): Natural Resources Purpose (examples): Historic Preservation Purpose (examples):

• The site is individually listed on or eligible for individual

listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

• The site is called out for acquisition based on its historical

and/ or cultural value by an accepted Neighborhood Conservation Plan.

SITES THAT MEET CRITERIA FROM PART II & III

EXAMPLE: LANG STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN EXPANSION (ACQUIRED IN FY2015/2016)

Part II:

• The site shares its perimeter with an existing

public space and is essential to the expansion

• f an existing public space.

Part III:

• The site could facilitate adding or expanding

recreational amenities that are needed based

• n the Level of Service Analysis (e.g.,

community gardens, courts, etc.)

15

16

WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN POPS?

Acquisition Mechanisms

• Negotiated Purchase & Sale
• Dedication in Fee Simple
• Deed of Gift
• Acquisition of State or Federal

Surplus Real Property

• Right of First Offer
• Right of First Refusal
• Option to Purchase
• Life Estate with Reversion to the

County

• Acquisition with Restrictive

Covenant

• Easement
• Partnerships with Non-County

Entities:

• Conservation Org and Land Trusts
• Development Partners
• Eminent Domain/Condemnation

Acquisition Funding Sources

• Park Bonds
• PAYG
• Funds from TDR
• Developer Contributions
• Donations

17

WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN POPS?

Examples: Clarendon & Crystal City Sector Plans

Include a list of potential acquisition sites. Similar lists were included in the 1994 & 2005 Plans. Example from the 2005 PSMP: Benjamin Banneker Park Along the south side of North 18th Street from North Van Buren to North Tuckahoe Street adjacent to existing park land.

Compile all future public spaces identified in the County Board adopted plans

Mapping potential acquisition sites

INVENTORY OF PUBLIC SPACES IDENTIFIED IN ADOPTED PLANS

18

INVENTORY OF PUBLIC SPACES IDENTIFIED IN SITE PLANS

19

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

20

GUIDANCE ON LAND ACQUISITION :

County Board supported the proposed approach to Land Acquisition

LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACH

21

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

22

Population-Based + Access Standards

Preliminary POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

• Based on community feedback, LOS changed from 2045 to 2035.

Change

5 min high density 10 min low density Basketball Courts Community Gardens Multi-Use Trails Off-Leash Dog Parks Playgrounds 10 min high density 20 min low density Diamond Fields Tennis Courts Picnic Areas Rectangular Fields Volleyball Courts no access standards Comm., Rec., and Sports Ctrs. Hiking Trails Indoor and Outdoor Pools Natural Lands Nature Centers Skate Parks Small Game Courts Spraygrounds Tracks

LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACH

23

Population-Based + Access Standards Only Population-Based Standards

LEVEL OF SERVICE – POPULATION BASED STANDARDS APPROACH

24

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

25

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

26

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

27

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

28

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE - APPROACH

29

Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

benchmarking

Alexandria, VA Bellevue, WA Berkeley, CA

• St. Paul, MN

national averages statistically valid survey

Recommended Standard

220,500 232,700 244,800 256,000 266,300 278,100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

+25%

Forecasted population growth

current inventory Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035 Basketball Courts 2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

POPULATION-BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE (CURRENT POPS DRAFT)

30

Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035

Basketball Courts

2,547 2,132 6,000 Medium 3,000 2 2

Community Gardens

31,651 37,205 30,000 Medium 30,000 1 1 2

Multi-use Trails

4,577 N/A 2,500 High 3,300 19 7 7 33 (miles)

Off-leash Dog Parks

27,695 59,426 40,000 Medium 25,000 1 1 1 3

Playgrounds

1,758 3,101 3,500 Medium 3,000 Diamond Fields 5,153 4,107 6,000 Low 6,000 2 2 Tennis Courts 2,408 3,768 4,000 Medium 3,000 Picnic Areas 4,924 N/A 6,000 Medium 5,000 4 5 9

Rectangular Fields

4,180 3,643 6,000 Medium 4,200 6 5 11 Volleyball Courts 22,156 N/A 12,000 Low 20,000 2 1 1 4

POPULATION-BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE (CURRENT POPS DRAFT)

31

Population Based Standards Incremental Needs

Example Current LOS Bench- marking National Average Survey Recommended standard Current 2025 2035 Total by 2035

Comm., Rec., and Sports Centers

0.57 N/A 0.74 Medium 0.57 39,333 37,443 76,776 (sq. ft.)

Hiking Trails

15,242 N/A 10,000 High 10,000 8 2 3 13 (miles)

Indoor & Outdoor Pools

55,390 N/A 40,000 High 40,000 2 1 3

Natural Lands

197 N/A 333 High 200 96 108 204 (acres)

Nature Centers

73,853 110,900 50,000 Medium 75,000 1 1

Skate Parks

221,560 118,851 40,000 Low 120,000 1 1 2

Small Game Courts

15,826 N/A 6,000 Low 8,000 14 3 3 20

Spraygrounds

44,312 N/A 45,000 Medium 45,000 1 1

Outdoor Tracks

73,853 N/A 45,000 N/A 35,000 4 1 5

LEVEL OF SERVICE- PLANNING TOOL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT Population-Based + Access Standards

POPS Draft: 1.4. Use a context-sensitive, activity-based approach to providing amenities.

Walking Biking Transit Driving Example: Access to basketball courts

most need (limited access) least need (best access) Access Ranking potential areas of focus

32

6.1.1. Conduct a public space needs assessment, including a statistically valid survey and level of service analysis, at least every 5 years.

33

CURRENT POPS DRAFT – NEEDS ASSESSMENT

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

34

GUIDANCE ON LEVEL OF SERVICE:

• County Board re-affirmed the approach to

Level of Service

• Additional actions: develop 2 case studies

& include notes to help illustrate the recommended LOS

35

ATHLETIC FIELDS: SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTS APPROACH

FIELDS: SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTS IN POPS DRAFT PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY

Field Conversion

• support & disagreement
• separate synthetic turf from lighting
• create criteria for field conversion
• develop a list of priority candidates for conversion

36

Field Lighting

• impact of lights on surrounding residential properties
• separate synthetic turf from lighting
• develop a list of priority candidates for conversion
• develop clear lighting standards

PLANNING CONTEXT

• In 2002, the first full synthetic field was installed at Gunston Park.
• In 2003, a citizen/staff Synthetic Grass Working Group submitted their recommendations

regarding conversion of athletic fields from natural grass to synthetic grass.

• As a result of this report, several fields were identified as candidates for synthetic

surfacing, and some of them were converted.

• In the County adopted 2005 Public Spaces Master Plan, the first guidelines for synthetic

conversion were developed.

• Today, the County has 15 existing synthetic fields. 3 field conversions are planned at:

Gunston Park (2018), Wilson School (2022), Long Bridge Park field #2.

• The current Adopted FY 2017 – FY 2026 Capital Improvement Plan calls for 4 synthetic

turf fields conversions (locations: TBD).

SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD PROGRAM

37

• Reduces weather related cancellations
• Reduces maintenance and utility costs (water)
• Improves quality of fields (consistency of playing surface)
• Allows year-round use
• Increases durability

SYNTHETIC TURF- BENEFITS

38

FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA- PREVIOUS EFFORTS

39

2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group

CRITERIA TO APPLY TO SPECIFIC FIELDS:

• Size of Field
• Existing Condition of Turf
• Current Field Uses
• Field Lighting Currently Available
• Restroom Facilities (Year-round, Seasonal, Portable) Currently Available
• Off-Street Parking Currently Available
• Site Amenities (Water fountains, paths to Field, Spectator Capacity or Shelters) Currently Available
• Impact to the Environment is Minimal (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, Tree Master Plan)
• Impact of Increased Use on the Immediate Community is Minimal
• Likelihood of Support for Increased Usage
• Potential for Supporting Multiple Uses
• Potential for Conflict Between Uses
• Projected Lifespan of Field
• Likelihood that Field will Relocate/Realign as Part of an Upcoming Master Plan/Redevelopment is Minimal
• Potential for Financial Partners

CRITERIA TO APPLY TO THE OVERALL PRIORITIES:

• Geographic Balance
• Support for Multiple Sports
• Youth – Adult Balance
• Scholastic – Recreational Balance

40

2005 Public Spaces Master Plan Recommendations

FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA- PREVIOUS EFFORTS

• Convert a minimum of one natural grass field per year to synthetic grass

based on the analysis and recommendations of the 2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group.

• All synthetic grass conversions should have existing lighting or a plan for

installing “dark sky” lighting as a part of the synthetic grass installation.

• Continue to explore new technologies and practices for managing and

maintaining natural grass athletic fields.

41

2017 Williamsburg Field Site Evaluation Workgroup Report

• Lighting should be part of the original master planning for the field
• State of development of the area
• Topography of the surrounding area
• Physical features of the site which may mitigate light spill
• Presence of existing lighting in the immediate area
• Proximity of homes
• Environment Impacts

FIELD CONVERSION CRITERIA- PREVIOUS EFFORTS

• Started with:
• 2003 Synthetic Grass Working Group Report
• 2005 PSMP
• 2017 Williamsburg Field Site Evaluation Workgroup Report
• Grouped into:
• General
• Site Amenities & Investment
• Environmental Context
• Location & Context

FIELDS-DRAFT SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTS CONVERSION CRITERIA

42

POPS: CRITERIA FOR SYNTHETIC CONVERSION & LIGHTS

POPS goals:

• develop transparent process to identify potential sites for synthetic field conversions & lights
• establish objective + measurable criteria
• Develop a set of criteria for new synthetic turf conversion that can be objectively applied to

all fields

• Develop a set of criteria for siting of new field lighting
• Develop a set of lighting standards
• Develop a list of priority candidates for conversion to synthetic & lights

43

CRITERIA FOR SYNTHETIC CONVERSION & LIGHTS- PRESENTED IN DECEMBER

44

PROPOSED REVISED APPROACH

Run All Fields Through Synthetic Conversion Criteria Select Top Candidates for Synthetic Conversion Develop a list

• f Priorities for

Synthetic Conversion

Proposed Synthetic Turf Conversion Process:

Run All Fields Through Lighting Criteria Select Top Candidates for Installation of Lights Develop a list

• f Priorities for

Field Lights

Proposed Field Lighting Process:

Run All Fields Through Synthetic Conversion Criteria Run Top Candidates for Synthetic Conversion Through New Field Lighting Siting Criteria Develop a list

• f Priorities for

Synthetic Conversion & Lighting

Process Presented at the Meeting in December :

45

Feedback Result: Separate synthetic conversion from lighting Preliminary POPS Draft- All new synthetic turf fields and synthetic field conversions will include lighting. Change

• 1.2.9. Add lighting to synthetic fields and other multi-use fields, according to field lighting
• guidelines. (POPS Draft)
• All new synthetic turf fields and synthetic field conversions will include lighting. (p. 216 in POPS

Draft)

FIELDS-SYNTHETIC TURF & LIGHTING-

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE POPS DRAFT

46

Removed

• Based on community feedback, LOS changed from 2045 to 2035.
• By 2045, we would need additional 16 rectangular and 6 diamond fields.
• By 2035, we will need additional 11 rectangular and 2 diamond fields.

Replaced with Removed Change

There are different ways we can meet the estimated need:

• Create a new field
• Any combination of converting existing fields to synthetic and/or adding lights
• Create a multi-use field
• 1.2.8. Convert an additional 12 existing rectangular fields and 4 existing diamond fields to

synthetic turf as funding is available. (POPS Draft)

SYNTHETIC CONVERSION CRITERIA SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN DECEMBER

• general support for the criteria
• support for the minimum field size requirement
• support for taking into consideration existing

amenities

• environmental context should include impact on

natural resources

• community fields: support & disagreement
• consider location and neighborhood context
• concern that adopted plans could be outdated

47

General 1. Does the field meet the minimum size requirement: 35,000 SqFt for rectangular &

diamond & 65,000 SqFt for combination fields?

Examples:

• Rectangular Field: Barcroft Park (Field #5)
• Diamond Field: Barcroft Park (Field #1)
• Combination Field: Jamestown Back Field

2. Has the field been identified as a synthetic field in a County Board adopted plan? 3. The site has not been identified for school or public facility expansion?

PROPOSED SYNTHETIC TURF CONVERSION CRITERIA- WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE CONVERTED TO SYNTHETIC?

48

Note: Asterisk (*) Indicates new criteria developed after the December 6, 2017 public meeting at Navy League Building.

PROPOSED SYNTHETIC FIELDS CONVERSION CRITERIA

49

Site Amenities & Investment

• 4. Is the field already lit?
• 5. Are there existing or planned in the CIP year-round restroom facilities with public

access during the times of the field use?

• 6. Are there existing, or planned in the CIP, ADA accessible pathways to the field?
• 7. Does the financial (cost sharing) partnership with APS or another partner exist?
• 8. Is the field used for scholastic sports programs?
• 9. Is the field used for physical education classes during school day/year? (*)
• 10. Does the field provide benefits for both youth and adult sports leagues? (*)

Criterion presented in December- removed

Is this a community field?

PROPOSED SYNTHETIC FIELDS CONVERSION CRITERIA/STANDARDS

50

Environmental Context

• 11. Is the estimated disturbance to the trees and tree roots

associated with synthetic turf installation minimized? Location & Context

• 12. Is the field located in an area identified in the POPS access analysis (LOS) as

areas where access gaps exist for this type of amenity?

New standard

Standard: If the estimated disturbance from field installation is within 100 feet of a documented, significant natural resource feature, the project will go through the Rapid Environment Impact Review (REIR) process to determine any impact on the natural feature.

• 11. Does any edge of the proposed field renovation intersect with the

dripline of existing trees or woodlands? (*)

Note: If the proposed project meets enough criteria to move forward, a more detailed tree evaluation would be completed to determine all possible impacts.

Criterion presented in December- removed

• Extends the number of hours of play (lighting is critical to achieve this)
• Allows more benefits to the community

FIELD LIGHTING- BENEFITS

51 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Grass Field Synthetic Field

Hours of Play Per Field Type

No Lights Lights

No Lights Lights Grass 700 900 Synthetic 1,400 2,100+

FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA/STANDARDS SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN DECEMBER

• separate synthetic turf from lighting
• disagreement with the 25ft distance from residential

properties (too short or too limiting)

• disagreement on community field- increase in

usability, but big investment

• include glare control
• illumination should be balanced between sport

standards and needs of the community

• consider proximity to residential areas
• concern that adopted plans could be outdated, but

support for transparency

52

FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?

53

General

• 1. Does the field meet the minimum size requirement? (35,000 SqFt for rectangular &

diamond & 65,000 SqFt for combination fields) (*)

• 2. Has the field been identified as a lighted field in a County Board adopted plan?
• 3. The site has not been identified for school or public facility expansion? (*)

Is this a community field?

Criterion presented in December- removed

FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?

54

Site Amenities & Investment

• 5. Are there existing or planned in the CIP year-round restroom facilities with public

access during the times of the field use? (*)

• 6. Does the field support both diamond and rectangular sports? (*)
• 7. Does the field provide benefits for both youth and adult sports leagues? (*)
• 8. Does the financial (cost sharing) partnership with APS or another partner exist? (*)
• 9. Is the field used for scholastic sports programs? (*)

Is the field already synthetic?

Criterion presented in December- removed

FIELD LIGHTING-NEW FIELD LIGHTING CRITERIA WHEN SHOULD A FIELD BE LIT?

55

Environmental Context Standard:

If the estimated disturbance from light installation is within 100 feet of a documented, significant natural resource feature, the project will go through the Rapid Environment Impact Review (REIR) process to determine any impact on the natural feature.

• 10. Does the proposed light locations impact more than three healthy native trees over

12 inches, either through directly impacting their dripline or would require removal for access or disturbance? (*)

Note: If the proposed project meets enough criteria to move forward, a more detailed tree evaluation would be completed to determine all possible impacts.

New standard

Location & Context

• 11. Is the field located in an area identified in the POPS access analysis (LOS) as

areas where access gaps exist for this type of amenity? (*)

FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)

56

• A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less

than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.

• B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve

efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light

• spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously

review and update these standards.

• C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses
• ther than residential.
• D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.

New Lighting- Standards:

Illuminance Levels Foot Candles Recreational Fields:

• Rectangular
• Diamond

30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield High School, College & Stadium Fields

• Rectangular
• Diamond

50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield

If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.

FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)

57

• A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less

than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.

• B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve

efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light

• spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously

review and update these standards.

• C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses
• ther than residential.
• D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.

New Lighting- Standards:

Illuminance Levels Foot Candles Recreational Fields:

• Rectangular
• Diamond

30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield High School, College & Stadium Fields

• Rectangular
• Diamond

50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield

If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.

(1ft candle was included in the POPS draft)

FIELD LIGHTING (DRAFT STANDARDS)

58

• A. The proposed field lighting will be designed and installed to ensure less

than or equal to 0.5 foot candles increase at adjacent residential property lines.

• B. LED or any other advanced lighting system should be used to achieve

efficiency, light uniformity and visual comfort while minimizing light

• spillage. As lighting technology improves, the County will continuously

review and update these standards.

• C. The above requirements shall not apply for athletic fields adjacent to uses
• ther than residential.
• D. Illuminance levels for recreation, high school or stadium fields.

New Lighting- Standards:

Illuminance Levels Foot Candles Recreational Fields:

• Rectangular
• Diamond

30 fc. 50 fc. Infield, 30 fc. Outfield High School, College & Stadium Fields

• Rectangular
• Diamond

50 fc. 100 fc. Infield, 50 fc. Outfield

If lighting is proposed for athletic fields not meeting the above requirements, a proposal to provide athletic field lighting may be considered through a separate process.

(1ft candle was included in the POPS draft)

Draft Standard Presented in December-removed:

A minimum of 25 feet shall exist between the edge of the field and the property line of the adjacent, residential properties.

FIELD LIGHTING-POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES

59

Glare and Spill Reduction Techniques

• Shielding
• Dimming controls
• Wattage
• Mounting height
• Aiming angles

Design Techniques

• Planting
• Other physical buffers

Operational Techniques

• Curfews
• Limiting special events
• Staff presence
• No use of amplification
• Seasonally-adjusted hours

County Board Approved Community Agreements and Standing Committees

• Formal Memoranda of Agreements with civic

associations or partner organizations

• Regular meetings

Summary of Feedback:

• Overall support for the draft measures
• Positive experience with MOAs, but they need additional enforcement
• Keep up with new technologies to increase light control

FIELD TURF & LIGHTING INSTALLATION – TECHNIQUES FOR TREE PRESERVATION

60

• Fencing and signage, to reduce damage to roots and compaction of soil
• Root pruning, to reduce mechanical damage from construction, outside of fenced area
• Air spading to find roots and avoid damage
• Root protection matting, where no excavation is occurring
• Root growth hormone, applied after damage, to encourage root regrowth
• Field design

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

61

GUIDANCE ON ATHLETIC FIELDS- SYNTHETIC CONVERSION & LIGHTING :

County Board supported the proposed major changes to the approach to synthetic field conversion and field lighting relative to the Preliminary POPS Draft

62

CASUAL USE SPACES APPROACH

CASUAL USE SPACES

POPS Draft:

1.3 Ensure access to spaces that are intentionally designed to support casual, impromptu use and connection with nature.

63

Big Walnut Park Glebe Park

Long Bridge Park

Definition: Space that supports casual, impromptu use, including relaxation, reflection, informal activities, or connection with nature. May be generally available or only available at designated times.

WHAT TYPES OF SPACES SUPPORT CASUAL USE?

64

Casual Use Spaces Include:

some available always, some at times

• open lawn with/without seating
• grill/picnic areas (including shelters)
• accessible forested areas
• accessible landscaped areas
• multi-use trails
• plazas
• esplanades
• fields with community use
• amphitheaters
• schoolgrounds

Casual Use Spaces Do Not Include:

• multi-use, paved courts
• community gardens
• parking lots
• spraygrounds
• batting cages, dugouts
• indoor or outdoor pools
• permit only fields
• skateparks
• playgrounds
• disc golf
• outdoor tracks

CASUAL USE SPACES- PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY Casual Use Spaces

• Overall positive feedback on the recognition of this type of open space
• Definition differences (What to include: fields, natural resources, always or

partially available, etc.?)

• How to measure? - Mapping & Level of Service
• How to design? - What amenities to include?

65 Mapping Challenges- Barcroft Park Example

66

CASUAL USE SPACES- PROPOSED APPROACH

• Working with the POPS Advisory

Committee to better define this term

• Highlight the need for this type of

spaces as a priority

• Develop design characteristics
• Access standards (If these spaces can

be inventoried): use access standards to determine where access to casual use spaces is lacking

• Perform access analysis for these

spaces (if they can be mapped)

• Explore developing standards

Short Term

(Include in the POPS document)

Long Term

(Implementation item after POPS adoption)

How the PSMP Supports Enhancing and Creating Casual Use Spaces?

Benjamin Banneker Park Framework Plan adopted by the County Board in December 2017

What Are We Already Doing to Plan for Casual Use Spaces?

Short Bridge Park Master Plan adopted by the County Board in January 2018

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

67

GUIDANCE ON CASUAL USE SPACES:

County Board supported the proposed two-step approach:

• As part of the POPS document:
• acknowledge the importance of casual use

spaces as an element of the public space system

• develop definition and design characteristics
• Implementation Phase (post-POPS adoption):
• study access and explore development of

standards

NATURAL RESOURCES & TREES APPROACH

68

NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PUBLIC FEEDBACK SUMMARY

Natural Resources

• Support for the Natural Resource Management Plan Update
• Impact of population growth & development on sensitive natural resources
• Access vs. impact of use
• Balance of recreation and resource protection
• Secure funding for protection, expansion & maintenance
• Land acquisition: prioritize expansion/protection of natural resources

Trees

• Support for the Urban Forest Master Plan Update
• Impact of development
• Loss of tree canopy & removal of mature trees
• Secure funding for tree protection and expansion
• Land acquisition: prioritize expansion/protection of trees

69

NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PROPOSED APPROACH

• Update the Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) & Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP)

after POPS completion

70

• Revise the POPS draft by strengthening recommendations on natural resources & trees
• Update these plans (NRMP & UFMP) as one joint process which will review in more details

specific policies related to natural resources and trees

NATURAL RESOURCES/TREES-PROPOSED APPROACH

• Revise the POPS draft by

strengthening recommendations

• n natural resources & trees &

balancing what is more appropriate to be included in UFMP & NRMP

• Impact of private development to

be studied in the UFMP

• Add data from the Tree Canopy

Study in the final POPS document

71

Examples:

• 1.6. Ensure high-quality visual

and physical access to the Potomac River, Four Mile Run, and their tributaries.

• 3.3. Protect, restore, and

expand natural resources, particularly in riparian corridors along County waterways.

• 1.6. Ensure high-quality visual and

physical access to the Potomac River, Four Mile Run, and their tributaries, while improving the tree canopy, native vegetation, and other natural resources along waterways.

• 3.3. Protect, restore, and expand

natural resources, particularly in riparian corridors along County waterways.

• Make 3.3. a priority action.
• Add new: “Improve processes for

earlier review of public projects, to minimize impact on tree canopy and natural resources”

Current POPS Draft Proposed Changes

72

GUIDANCE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND TREES:

County Board supported the following proposed approach:

• As part of the POPS process:
• strengthen recommendations on natural resources and

trees in the POPS document

• After the completion of the POPS process:
• update the Urban Forest Master Plan and Natural

Resource Management Plan as one joint process which will review in more details specific policies related to natural resources and trees

FEBRUARY 20TH WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNTY BOARD

OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS

73

74

PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

VALUES AND CHALLENGES

75

Challenges:

• Public vs Private Spaces
• Who can use them?
• Who's in charge of them?
• Do private spaces feel less “public”?
• Lack of complete inventory
• Lack of consistent signage
• Lack of guiding design principles

What are Privately Owned Public Spaces?

• Accessible to public
• Typically built as a tradeoff
• Supplement publicly owned spaces
• Provide opportunities for activity & interaction
• Provide respite from noise & hardscape in urban areas

RELATION TO POPS

76

1.2.18 Develop Design Guidelines 1.2.19. Amend standard conditions of site plan approvals to improve signage 1.2.20 Complete a database & interactive map

77

GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES & DESIGN ELEMENTS

ANATOMY OF SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC SPACES

78

• 1. Programmed

activity area

• 2. Landscaping

provides shade & protection

• 3. Active uses along

perimeter of open space provide visual surveillance

• 4. Defined

pedestrian paths

• 5. Casual use area

Jamison Square Park, Portland, OR

GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES & DESIGN ELEMENTS

79

GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES & DESIGN ELEMENTS

80

• Planning and Layout
• Access and Circulation
• User Comfort
• Landscape
• Amenities
• Signage
• Functionality

Paley Park, NYC

NOT ALL SPACES ARE CREATED EQUAL

81

• Plazas
• Courtyards
• Gardens
• Walkways/ Mid-

Block Pedestrian Connections

• Landscaped

Setbacks/ Wide Sidewalks

• Interior Pedestrian

Connections or Atriums

PLANNING & LAYOUT

82

Size

• Large enough to provide amenities and a meaningful

space for users.

Configuration

• Main area should be regular in shape (square,

rectangular).

• Minor areas can be irregular in shape- these could be

niches or transition zones.

Visibility

• Clear sight lines into and throughout for safety
• Site lighting
• Visual surveillance- eyes on the street

PLANNING & LAYOUT

83

Liberty Center, Ballston Latitude Apartments, Virginia Square

ACCESS & CIRCULATION

84

Accessibility

• Should be accessible for all users integrating

Universal Design Principles for all ages and abilities.

Access Points & Paths

• Should have a minimum of two public entry/exit

points.

• Avoid dead-ends and areas of entrapment.
• Provide clear paths through site and to adjacent

building entrances.

Elevation

• Locate public spaces on same level as adjoining

sidewalk.

• Minor changes in elevation should remain open &

inviting from adjacent spaces.

ACCESS & CIRCULATION

85

Marymount University, Ballston The Ellipse, Ballston

USER COMFORT

86

Shade

• Shade from buildings, trees, or other structures should be provided in

areas with high solar exposure.

• Sun/shadow studies should be done in the design phase to determine

positive or negative impacts.

Lighting

• Adequate lighting should be provided to create a welcoming and safe

place.

• Avoid light pollution at night and utilize full cut-off lights or timers

where possible.

• Utilize directional, path lighting to light circulation paths or ground

plane lighting can help animate the space at night. Wind, Noise- provide protection from unwanted external noises

USER COMFORT

87

LANDSCAPE

88

Striking the right balance of hardscape & softscape

Softscape

• Trees
• Planting Beds
• Stormwater Management/ Green
• Infrastructure
• Lawns
• Gardens
• Raised planters/ potted plants

Hardscape

• Paving
• Other materials

LANDSCAPE- HARDSCAPE & SOFTSCAPE

89

AMENITIES- SEATING

Seating

• A variety of seating types should

be offered throughout catering to different uses, age groups, and abilities.

90

AMENITIES- PLAYFUL ELEMENTS

91

AMENITIES- PLAYFUL ELEMENTS

92

SIGNAGE

93

FUNCTIONALITY

94

The Avenue, Washington DC

The landscape can have multiple layers of functionality to support various uses:

• Ecological/Ecosystem Services
• Green Infrastructure Solutions
• Social Interaction & Wellness
• Physical and Mental Wellness

Randall Children’s Hospital Portland, OR Uptown Streetscape, Normal IL Warren Park Dallas, TX

Lewis-Davis Park, Memphis TN

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

95

• Develop design principles
• Include specific action steps & action

plan (signage, inventory, responsible parties, timeframes, etc.)

Short Term

(Include in the POPS document)

• Complete inventory
• Review & revise existing policies,

regulations, processes (signage, site plan conditions, etc.)

Long Term (Implementation items after POPS adoption)

Example from Singapore: Good Practice Guidelines for privately Owned Public S (P )

96

FRESH APPROACHES

Dog Parks Dog Runs Size 10,000+ ft2 2,000-7,500 ft2 Hours (unlighted) Sunrise-1/2 hr after sunset N/A Hours (lighted) Sunrise-10:00pm Layout Separate small/large dog areas Lighting Recommended Location On public property On public or private property Sponsorship Required – with formal agreement Recommended Standard Amenities Fencing, double gates, water source (for dogs), shade, benches, signage, trash and recycling receptacles, dog waste receptacles Water source (for humans), visual screens if needed, information board Resource Protection Areas All new dog parks and dog runs shall be developed outside of RPA.

FRESH APPROACH- DOG PARK & RUN STANDARDS

97

Change

FRESH APPROACH- TRAIL LOOPS

2.1. Expand Arlington’s network of connected multi-use trails.

2.1.1. Complete an “inner loop” of protected routes that connects the Custis, Four Mile Run, Arlington Boulevard, and Mount Vernon Trails.

98

2.1.2. Complete an “outer loop” of protected routes that connects the Four Mile Run, Mount Vernon, and Zachary Taylor Trails.

Preliminary POPS Draft:

99

FRESH APPROACH- DEFINITIONS

99

NEXT STEPS

100

• May & June: Additional POPS Advisory Committee meetings
• Summer:
• Final POPS draft posted online
• Public engagements
• Fall:
• September & October: Commission reviews
• October: RTA
• November: Planning Commission action
• December: County Board Review