Growth Plan for Lancaster County by PennPlanning

Growth Management and Design Principles for the Future of Lancaster County

GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR THE FUTURE OF LANCASTER COUNTY

Prepared by: Urban Design Studio 702 Department of City and Regional Planning PennDesign, University of Pennsylvania

Professors Jonathan Barnett Dana Tomlin

Studio Team Matthew Bachler Andrea Buglione Sean Eno Jeffrey Kurtz Shea Oâ€™Neill John Postic Ayse Unver Yu Wang Jesica Youngblood

May 2012

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

FOREWORD Introduction to the Studio The purpose of this Studio was the creation of a Model Zoning Code for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania that incorporates environmental criteria and performance standards to help shape a more suitable and sustainable development pattern. An integral component of the Studio was a proposed phased Bus Rapid Transit system based around defined areas appropriate for dense, mixed-use development opportunities. Several of these sites are showcased by individual design plans that illustrate the application of the Code. As a means to determine suitability criteria and allocation methodologies for the zones described in the Code, the Studio used two distinct GIS approaches: sequential and heuristic. The final GIS outputs locate parcels most suitable to the zones defined in the Code. Overall, the objective of the Studio was to demonstrate the benefits of integrating urban design, land use planning, and geographical information systems analysis in the context of regional planning efforts.

Acknowledgements The Studio wishes to thank James Cowhey, the planning director of Lancaster County, for his generosity in taking time to meet with us and guide us on a tour of the county, and for providing information and documents compiled by his department. We also wish to thank County staff for their assistance, particularly Glenn Mohler, the countyâ€™s GIS manager, and Jeff Glisson, Director of Capital Improvements at the Red Rose Transit Authority. Professor Thomas L. Daniels of the City Planning Department, Professor Arthur Johnson of the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department, David Rouse at Wallace Roberts and Todd, and Brian Blaesser of Robinson & Cole provided helpful advice at critical moments.

iii

iv iv

Designs Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign DesignsFor Forthethe Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................... VII

01 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 2 02 BUS RAPID TRANSIT.................................................................... 6 03 MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................ 18 04 MODEL CODE OUTLINE.......................................................... 28 05 URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS.......................... 54 LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL AND PARK CITY CENTER SITE......... 66 COLUMBIA STATION........................................................................................... 76 ROHRERSTOWN STATION................................................................................. 90 KELLOGG STATION ............................................................................................ 96 EAST HEMPFIELD TOWNSHIP.......................................................................... 96 MARIETTA STATION.......................................................................................... 108

06 GIS METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 118 STUDENT PROFILES................................................................ 142

vi vi

Designs Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign DesignsFor Forthethe Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lancaster County, Pennsylvania adopted a Growth Management Plan in 2006 that seeks to balance urban development while maintaining the Countyâ€™s historic agricultural base and its scenic and natural resources. The Growth Management Framework Element Balance is purposed to provide direction and support to the recommendations contained within Lancaster Countyâ€™s Comprehensive Plan. The plan proposes visions and focus areas for future land uses and development. New residential densities within the Urban Growth Areas are targeted at 7.5 units or more per acre while development within the Rural Areas is limited to no more than 15 percent of future county growth located in existing Crossroads Communities and Village Centers. The Studio has explored ways of implementing the Countyâ€™s adopted plans through the development of a Model Code Outline that incorporates the installation of a Bus Rapid Transit system, which becomes the linchpin for zoning principles purposed to achieve a more compact, transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly development fabric for the County. The Studio also explored the capabilities of using a geographic information system (GIS) to allocate land uses (mapping of the code) sequentially and heuristically as described in the Model Code Outline. The final elements produced include six individual urban designs demonstrating the implementation of the Model Code Outline. A major component of the Studio was the proposal of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the County. BRT systems are cost-effective and efficient in moving large amounts of people. Bus travel speeds are increased through the use of dedicated lanes and pre-board fare collection. The Studio has designed a BRT system specific to the local context of Lancaster County and shown how the station locations would support higher intensity development within the designated growth areas. The Studio has outlined a development code that could be used by jurisdictions within the County to implement the adopted County master plan. The Model Code Outline introduces form-based concepts that provide a positive template for transit-oriented development opportunities. Furthermore, the Studio extensively analyzed the natural and built environment using GIS to help guide planning and development decisions.

vii

The Studio mapped seven of the twelve zones using GIS within two selected watersheds. Mapping the code occurred in two stages: suitability determination and land use allocation. Suitability factors included proximity to intersections, proximity to commercial centers, and impacts of environmental harm. The next step involved allocating each land use. Providing these two processes will provide the County the opportunity to explore each method as it best applies to future planning endeavors. The Studio tested the outlined code using individual urban design plans for select areas around potential BRT station stops: Columbia, at the Kellogg Plant, in downtown Lancaster City, at Lancaster General Hospital, in Marietta, and in Rohrersville. The plans demonstrate a variety of urban planning principles and have allowed for modifications to the code. Demonstrated through this Studio was the adoption and augmentation of Lancaster Countyâ€™s Growth Management Framework Plan. The Studio expanded the principles set forth by the County, integrated them into twelve zones within the Model Code Outline, and geographically analyzed land use suitability and allocation using a geographic information system. Overall, the Studio advanced traditional land use planning processes through the visualization of urban design plans that highlight innovative development proposals poised at achieving County plans for complementary growth, development, and preservation.

viii viii

Designs Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign DesignsFor Forthethe Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

INTRODUCTION

Rere, occaerit, nitatin ullupta ssitation non pa possunt ioneceptati dolorum quatiam atia imos ut ea cupid ullupta ius, sed quam que quiae ne as conse volorem re eicte rerovid ipsunt hil maximus volorrum voloren imagnientem vellandae nonse nonesciae dio es inullab orepra quas adias ut aut perro mo ium quis quam, qui quam ni dicae sam explibus solupturem aut facculla sunt quis millestia alitatia quis cus eati omnimin ctempor rovitati officia quatem quam, sit aut etur aturerum fugitame niet unt di dolorep erspis aut moluptat.

Lancaster County is a unique area of scenic and historic importance in the southeastern region of Pennsylvania, approximately 50 miles west of Philadelphia. In addition to its historic and rural qualities, Lancaster County is home to one of the most productive agricultural economies in the region. To protect the unique resources of the area, public agencies in Lancaster County have adopted smart-growth planning principles, including strict standards for farmland preservation and the adoption of urban growth areas. Despite the Countyâ€™s best planning efforts, economic and population growth continue to place development pressures on agricultural and environmentally sensitive land in Lancaster County. In 2006, the Lancaster County Planning Commission adopted a Growth Management Framework Plan to balance urban development with the preservation of agricultural, scenic, and environmental resources. The Plan included a number of elements to engender smarter future growth, including the readoption of the urban growth area boundaries, the designation of core reinvestment and core building areas within urban growth areas, and a â€œsmart growth toolkitâ€? to support municipalities in their implementation of sustainable planning policies. The Studio devised a series of unified development regulations to assist Lancaster County in achieving the growth management goals of densification and the protection of rural and scenic resources. The Model Code Outline combines elements of performance, form-based, and Euclidean zoning to create guidelines that are predictable and have an emphasis on preservation, but that still promote flexibility through intelligent design. To further the goal of compact development within urban growth areas, the Studio designed the Code alongside a proposed Bus Rapid Transit system. A future BRT system in Lancaster County could reduce dependence on automobiles, connect residents with employment and commercial centers, and encourage the growth of transit-oriented centers within urban growth areas.

Lancaster County is well known for its productive agricultural land and the large Plain people population that resides primarily in the eastern part of the County. Photo source: Los Angeles Times

Lancaster County Growth Management Plan. Designate urban growth areas are depicted in purple and brown. Agricultural and natural lands are shown in green and yellow. Photo source: Lancaster County Planning Commission

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Through performance and design guidelines, the Code also prioritizes the protection of vulnerable environmental areas and attempts to mitigate the negative impacts that population growth can have on the health of local watersheds. This is especially important in Lancaster County. Due to its downstream location along the Susquehanna River, the County must play a lead role in the regional strategy to protect water quality within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Historic downtown Lancaster City, Photo source: Pennsylvania Dutch Convention & Visitors Bureau

The studio featured two additional elements that facilitated the implementation and design of the Code, but which also have broader implications for the planning profession. First, the studio employed GIS as a fundamental driver of analysis in modeling transit patterns and watershed dynamics, and in the allocation of zoning districts throughout the county. The Studio sought to demonstrate how GIS and other related technologies can inform planning analysis in a more heuristic and logical fashion. Second, the studio iteratively tested Code guidelines through urban design plans at six proposed BRT stations throughout the County. These design plans demonstrate how Lancaster County can promote transit and economic and population growth, while protecting important environmental resources and the historic character of Lancaster County.

A stark image of sprawling, low-density development patterns encroaching on farmland in Lancaster County. The Growth Management Plan produced by the County Planning Commission is designed specifically to address and balance these contrasting land uses. Photo source: www.garthlenz.photoshelter.com

INTRODUCTION

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

A wide spectrum of settlement patterns and various population densities can be found in Lancaster County. However, over the past three decades new development has largely occurred in low-density suburban areas. As a result, most County residents depend on private vehicles to access jobs, shopping centers, and other County destinations. Due to environmental and economic considerations, providing transportation alternatives will help to reshape impacts attributed to private vehicle travel patterns. Alternatively, compact, mixeduse development supported by efficient and convenient multi-modal transportation options will be essential in positioning Lancaster County for a sustainable future. Bus-Rapid Transit offers a flexible public transit model that can reduce private automobile use and provide a greater degree of structure to designated urban growth areas.

PLANNING FOR BRT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a bus-based transit system that provides fast and cost-effective transit service through the provision of right-of-way infrastructure, rapid and frequent operations, and pre-board fare collection (ITDP 2007).

Economic Argument The costs associated with the land acquisition and infrastructure investment needed to implement a BRT system are significantly less compared to other transit systems. For example, the average cost per mile of infrastructure investment for BRT is typically 15 to 30% the cost of light rail (ITDP 2007). These cost savings allow BRT systems to be more comprehensive than light and heavy rail systems. From the perspective of transit-users, an extensive network serving most major origins and destinations is essential to the overall usability of the system (ITDP 2007). Moreover, because the construction procedures for BRT are similar to normal roadway construction, the need to expand the transit system to accommodate demographic and urban form changes is more manageable as compared to systems that require heavy infrastructure.

Bogota, Colombia: the TransMilenio BRT system opened in 2000. There are currently 9 routes running a total of 54 miles. Average daily ridership was 1.4 million as of 2009. Photo Source: New York Times

Case Studies The most effective BRT systems have been implemented in large, high-density cities outside of the United States. Examples of well-known systems include Bogota, Colombia, Curitaba, Brazil, and Guangzhou, China. Local conditions in Lancaster County will constrain the countyâ€™s ability to implement a comprehensive BRT system like those found in these cities. Major origins and destinations are dispersed across the County; large employers are not centrally-located; and existing infrastructure will not be easily adapted to a BRT system. However, lessons can be drawn from these international BRT routes facing similar limiting factors to those in Lancaster County.

Guangzhou, China: The BRT system in Guangzhou opened in 2010. There is currently one BRT line that runs 14 miles and makes 26 station stops. During peak travel times, buses arrive at stations roughly every 10 seconds. Approximately one million residents use the BRT system on a daily basis. Photo source: Ferrol Robinson, University of Minnesota

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Currently there are no examples of comprehensive BRT systems in the United States or Canada. However, several cities have developed â€œBRT Liteâ€? programs that have incorporated certain components of traditional BRT systems. Cleveland, OH: The Healthline is a BRT route connecting downtown Cleveland to the University Circle neighborhood along Euclid Avenue. Buses running along the corridor travel in a dedicated busway and stations are equipped with a pre-board fare collection system. However, buses make frequent stops, reducing the overall speed of the route. Cleveland BRT Healthline on Euclid Ave. Photo source: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

Los Angeles, CA: The METRO Rapid Wilshire Boulevard bus makes limited stops at designated stations along a route also served by local buses. Only certain segments of the route include bus-only lanes, while the remainder of the route shares a lane with mixed-traffic. A pre-board fare collection system has not been implemented. Ottawa, Canada: The BRT system in Ottawa serves downtown areas as well as surrounding suburbs. The 41 km of dedicated transit way includes 26 km of exclusive, grade-separated busway, 11 km of reserved freeway shoulder lanes, and 3 km of mixed-traffic operation (Cervero). Stations located in suburban areas are spaced several miles apart to increase speeds along routes.

Ontario, Canada BRT System Photo source: Maryland Department of Transportation

Proposed Regional BRT Systems Montgomery County, MD: Montgomery County is currently in the planning phase of implementing a BRT system. The system would run a total of 150 miles, serving all areas of the county. Key design features of the system would be securing strategically located right-of-ways for dedicated bus use, retrofitting intersections to prioritize bus travel, and using priority traffic signals (MCDOT 2011). Suffolk County, NY: Suffolk County is also in the planning phase of putting in a regional BRT system. Challenges faced for implementing public transit include an auto-centric culture, high levels of congestion, low density, dispersed work and retail sites, and no street grid. Design features of the system would include off-board fare collection, the conversion of shoulder lanes along a major arterial road to bus lanes, and designing bus queue jumpers at intersections. As of now, only three routes are planned for the county (Lin).

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Evaluating existing conditions in the County was important in guiding the development of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Five focus areas were studied: • • • • • •

Major Road Network

Existing infrastructure Existing transportation systems Major trip origins and destinations Demographic trends Environmental considerations Regional planning objectives

Infrastructure & Transportation The usage and functionality of existing transit systems in Lancaster County were assessed through an analysis of roadway networks, including daily vehicle miles traveled and commuting patterns, and the existing transit services provided by Red Rose Transit and Amtrak.

Road Network and Commuting Patterns The road network includes two major types of roadways. Historic pikes were constructed to connect early settlements in the county. Consequently, development along these pikes is directly adjacent to roads, limiting their ability to be redesigned to include BRT lanes. County highways typically have wide shoulders and medians that could be converted to busways.

Urban Growth Area

Limited-Acess Highway

Historic Pike

Interstate 76

County Commuting Patterns

The general trend for Lancaster County is a reliance on private vehicular travel for the majority of daily trips. Since 1980, daily vehicle miles traveled have doubled. At the same time, only 32 miles of new roadway have been built since 1995 (LCPC 2008). Nearly 88% of commuters uses a car to get to work while only 4.3% walk or bike. Countywide, less than 2% of the population relies on public transit to commute (US Census 2010). However, roughly 75% of residents commute to jobs within the County, sup-

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

88%

4.3%

1.4%

2010 US Census, Table S0801

Transportation Systems

porting the notion that improved transit services should be put in place to provide an alternative means of commuting as well as to mitigate roadway congestion and environmental impacts. Amtrak

Elizabethtown

Mt Joy

Lancaster

Urban Growth Area

Amtrak Rail Line

Amtrak Station

RRTA Bus Line

Transit Generator Density

Amtrak makes three station stops in Lancaster County - Lancaster City, Mount Joy, and Elizabethtown. All stations have seen an increase in ridership since 2000 (LCPC Annual Report). Furthermore, the cost of a ticket between County station stops is only $6.50, and the cost of a ticket to Philadelphia from Lancaster is $15.00. Renovations have recently been completed at the Lancaster station and station improvements are planned for the Mount Joy and Elizabethtown stations. Because of the high Amtrak ridership numbers, locating BRT stations and routes in close proximity to Amtrak stations will create beneficial intermodal connections. Planning a BRT system in relation to broader transportation use and linkages is crucial. Red Rose Transit Authority (RRTA) The RRTA is the primary public transportation provider in the County. Currently, RRTA operates 17 routes in the City of Lancaster and surrounding boroughs. On an average weekday, approximately 7,000 customers use RRTAâ€™s services (LCPC 2008). Routes within the City of Lancaster have relatively high ridership numbers while those travelling to outlying areas see less consistent usage. A BRT system would compliment RRTAâ€™s routes by putting in place more efficient lines going to boroughs in such areas.

Destinations and Employment Centers

High

Medium

Low

An analysis of the location of major employers and trip origins and destinations revealed that most transit generators are found in the central part of the County and are within designated urban growth areas. Hospitals, shopping centers, civic institutions, schools, business parks, and cultural amenities were included in the study.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Percent of Households without Access to a Vehicle

Demographics Both projected demographic trends and current social and economic characteristics were factors in planning the routes for the BRT system. As discussed in the introduction, Lancaster County will need to accommodate nearly 100,000 new residents by 2035. In laying out BRT routes, servicing those communities forecasted to experience the largest population growth was prioritized. Three criteria were assessed in evaluating where transit-dependent populations are concentrated: Percent of households without access to a vehicle, percent of population living below the federal poverty level, and percent of population aged 65 years or older.

High

Medium

Low 2010 US Census, Table DP04

Percent of Population Below Poverty

Households that do not own a private car are concentrated in the city of Lancaster and the borough of Columbia. Additionally, there are a high number of households across a broad area in the eastern and southern part of the County that do not have access to a vehicle. This region is home to most of the Plain people that reside in the county, a group that traditionally does not use automobiles. Residents living below the poverty line are found primarily in Lancaster city and Columbia borough. Poverty rates are also high in southeastern and northwestern regions in the County. High

Medium

Low

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

2010 US Census, Table DP03

Percent of Population Over 65 Years of Age Residents aged 65 years or older are concentrated in the communities surrounding Lancaster city as well as in Elizabethtown borough. There is a close correlation between this finding and the concentration of large retirement communities and assisted living facilities in these locations.

High

Medium

Environmental & Regional Planning Considerations

Low 2010 US Census, Table S0201

Lancaster County’s Comprehensive Plan consists of three major elements: “ReVisions” Policy Element, Growth Management, Element and Functional Elements.

Another important metric used for placing the BRT stations and routes was environmental considerations, including watershed health, prime soils, urban runoff, and important forestland. Locating routes and stations remained sensitive to the County’s rich agricultural lands and natural areas. Additionally, station locations were identified based on the Lancaster County Growth Management Framework Plan. Stations were only placed in areas defined by the County as Core Reinvestment or Core Building Areas so as to focus development in locations where infrastructure already exists and hinder sprawling development.

Lancaster County Planning Commission 2006

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

LANCASTER BRT PROPOSAL The criteria listed below were used to determine the best placement of routes and stations in the Lancaster BRT system and were informed by the review of existing and proposed BRT case studies in the U.S. The findings from our analysis of existing conditions in the county were factored into the decision-making process as well.

Routes ■■ Prioritize the use of highways and roads that have adequate rightof-ways for putting in dedicated bus-only lanes. Where buses must share a lane with mixed-traffic, implement transit signal priority systems and put in place bus jumper lanes ■■ Ensure that routes serve major county destinations (employment centers, shopping centers, hospitals, senior housing developments, colleges and universities, and cultural attractions)

Example of Lancaster County roadway with limited right-of-way. In this case, the use of transit signal priority would help buses to travel more efficiently in mixed-traffic lanes. Photo source: Michael Ronkin

■■ Ensure that routes serve transit-dependent populations ■■ Identify roadways currently experiencing high rates of congestion. Modal shifts to public transit from private vehicle are more likely in areas with higher congestion ■■ Incorporate feeder bus lines in areas where demand for transit is currently insufficient, for example low-density residential areas ■■ Create connections to important destinations outside the county, such as Harrisburg, York, and Reading ■■ Route placement should take into consideration which areas are expected to see the largest amount of population growth

Fruitville Pike, Lancaster County: This limited-access highway has sufficient shoulder space to put in place a dedicated BRT lane. Photo source: www.flickr.com

Benefits of Project Phasing “While a BRT system can be put in place quicker than light rail, the financing, design, construction, and increase in ridership will still take a number of years. Choosing certain routes to build first can help improve the design in subsequent phases. Phased construction also reduces the disruption that the process brings to traffic flows. Moreover, financing for the entire system may not be immediately available, particularly in times of sparse public investment in infrastructure. Phasing can help set reasonable goals for project completion and build public support.” (ITDP 2007)

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Routes Berks County Dauphin County

Lebanon County To Reading

Harrisburg

Ephrata Elizabethtown

Manheim

Lititz

Mt Joy New Holland Marietta Lancaster

West Lampeter

Columbia Millersville

Willow Street Chester County

To York

York County

Main Routes -- Phase One: Approximately 102 miles Feeder Bus Lines-- Phase One: Approximately 8 miles Phase Two Routes: Approximately 49 miles Phase Three Routes: Approximately 11 miles

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Station Placement ■■ Locate stations within County-designated Core Reinvestment Areas and Core Building Areas ■■ Identify adjacent sites that can support future transit-oriented development and do not have environmentally sensitive land ■■ Ensure major destinations and employment centers are within a one-half mile walkshed of station ■■ Adequately space stations along routes to guarantee sufficient speeds. Stations should be spaced at a greater distance is less populated areas and in closer proximity in densely settled areas ■■ Prioritize accessibility of station to pedestrians and bicyclists ■■ Place stations in locations that connect with other modes of transit, such as Amtrak and Red Rose Transit Authority stations

Station Design It is important to take into consideration the physical design of transit stations. The list below covers design features that improve system efficiency and enhance the experience of BRT riders: 1. At-level platform boarding 2. Efficient vehicle alignment to station 3. Adequate space on platforms for riders 4. Provide real-time information on bus arrival 5. Provide parking facilities for bicyclists 6. Incorporate design principles into station layout, such as the inclusion of public art and landscaping, to make station into a recognizable and meaningful “place”

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Stations

To Reading Downtown Harrisburg

Harrisburg International Airport Manheim

Ephrata

Elizabethtown

Lititz Mt Joy New Holland

Marietta Lancaster

West Lampeter

Columbia Millersville

Willow Street

To York

Main Routes -- Phase One Feeder Bus Lines-- Phase One Phase Two Routes Phase Three Routes BRT Station

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The studio initially investigated the various environmental factors of concern in Lancaster County, and came to the conclusion that the protection of watersheds and water quality, and understanding of the development factors that protected or aggravated the various streams and rivers throughout the county, were the most important areas of investigation. The studio came to understand the interactions between the various watersheds throughout the county and their influence on Lancaster County’s environment and the larger influences of pollution in the county’s water bodies on the larger ecosystem, including the Chesapeake Bay. The information and modeling performed set the stage for how the code and allocation maps could be made more sensitive to various environmental factors in order to protect and promote the county’s hydrological resources.

WATERSHED DYNAMICS What is a Watershed? A watershed is defined as any area or region drained by a river, river system, or another body of water. It is any geographic area where the precipitation that falls within that area flows towards a common outflow point.

Planning for a Watershed Any area or region, no matter how small or large, is comprised of watersheds that are connected and drain to a common point. For example, the watershed for the Chesapeake Bay crosses 6 states and the District of Columbia, and all of the rainfall and runoff that falls into this area eventually flows into the Chesapeake Bay (see figure at right). Each state and each county had smaller watersheds that drain water into smaller rivers and tributaries. Water quality in all watersheds is a significant issue as urbanization and population growth affect land use patterns and as climate change alters precipitation patterns. Access to clean water for consumption and recreation is increasingly jeopardized by factors such as runoff from increased impervious surface factor, precipitation, and discharges from wastewater treatment plants. As a result, understanding the nature of watersheds and how hydrological systems operate within them provides valuable insights into the causes of degraded water quality, and ways to improve it. Engaging in watershed planning can help to protect water as a public resource and amenity. Watershed planning is challenging, however, since watershed boundaries rarely coincide with political boundaries, like state lines. Different municipal and regional districts, as well as state agencies, need to cooperate and coordinate in order to effectively manage watersheds. Organizing these inter-organizational and inter-municipal coalitions is difficult, but necessary.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Watersheds of Lancaster County Lancaster County is organized into roughly 30 watersheds (see image at top right). Aside from small portions in the north and northeast corners of the county, all watersheds drain water towards the Susquehanna River, a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Watersheds may be delineated in slightly different ways, from very small to very large, depending on which water of body is considered as the draining point of the watershed,. For the purposes of this studio, however, we considered these 30 larger basins.

As mentioned previously, a major challenge of watershed management is how to protect watersheds when their boundaries do not coincide with political boundaries. Lancaster County is no exception (see image at bottom right). The urban growth boundaries in the county cross and do not align with the countyâ€™s watershed boundaries except in a few instances. This makes the stewardship of these watersheds a complicated matter.

Image caption: As mo miliam nem reped quame nonsequi ommoluptate quo conse sandis eaquo voluptaese commolo rumendi cuptaquis molenti nciam, omnienim ipsum imporum aut liquo conecerum la denimin conectur

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Watershed Dynamics The Little Conestoga watershed (image at left and below), of which the City of Lancaster is a part, is presented in the following section to illustrate some of the key dynamics of a watershed. Generally, ridges, or areas of continued elevated crest in the landscape, determine the major divides of the watershed as water naturally flows away from these high ridges. The topography of the land dictates how water flows through the watershed, where streams begin and the specific directions of the water flow (see image, opposite, top).

Development and different land use patterns, which alter the natural vegetative and topographic conditions of the land, impact on the basic structure of the watershed and how it operates (see image, opposite, bottom). Development, since it tends to reduce

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

vegetative landscape cover and increase impervious surface cover, escalates and intensifies the flow of water through the watershed. This creates additional pressures on the receiving waters, including erosion of stream banks and increased sedimentation, which leads to degradation of water quality. In addition, water flow over impervious surfaces increases the rate in which urban pollutants are picked up and carried into streams. Agricultural operations can also contribute to stream pollution due to runoff that picks up fertilizer and manure as it travels into nearby streams. The presence of wetlands and vegetated areas along streams may help cleanse degraded waters, however, by absorbing and filtering out pollutants. These were all important considerations when understanding how the code could support and protect the countyâ€™s streams.

Impaired Streams

and

Photo courtesy thejackalman.com

Non-Impaired

Based on the Clean Water Act established by the EPA in 1972, the State of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection monitors and assesses water quality. Streams considered in attainment of Clean Water Act regulations meet standards related to aquatic life, fish consumption, potable water supply, and recreation. If a stream does not meet these attainment standards, it is considered impaired. Most of the streams in the Conestoga watershed are impaired.

Above: attaining streams; below: a non-attaining stream. Photo courtesy pa.audubon.org

Photo courtey wolfnotes.com

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING While the primary focus of the studio in terms of environmental issues is watershed protection, there are many environmental factors that do not directly influence the health of watersheds that should be considered when developing a site. To ensure that the code accounted for environmental factors of merit, the studio took a dual approach to spatial analysis: modeling local environmental conditions and modeling watershed dynamics.

Interior Forests

Modeling Local Environmental Conditions The Lancaster County Planning Department has already established standards for the protection of sensitive environmental areas in their Smart Growth Toolbox. Using the criteria found in the section on Model Conservation Zoning District as a baseline, the studio modeled sensitive environmental factors, or triggers, such as steep slopes, vegetative cover, floodplains, wetlands, and others. A full list of all environmental factors considered by this studio is available in the GIS Methodology Section.

Steep Slopes

We used these local conditions to inform the environmental performance standards found in the GIS Methodology Section. The inclusion of environmental performance criteria gives the code a builtin mechanism to protect sensitive environmental areas, while still encouraging development. Local environmental conditions also play a role in the allocation of zoning districts. While the presence of an environmental performance trigger can often be managed on site, areas with a dense concentration of performance triggers may require a broader zoning designation that reflects the sensitive nature of the entire area. A more detailed description of how

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Hydric Soils

local environmental conditions factored into the allocation of zoning districts is discussed in the Zoning Allocation Section..

Modeling Watershed Systems

hydric soils

The goal of the studio was to use raster-based processing to model how individual environmental factors interact to influence the health of the watersheds that they lie within. Lancaster County falls within the Susquehanna River watershed. Within this watershed are several smaller watersheds that correspond to major rivers and streams; within these are even smaller drainage basins that correspond to individual stream segments (see image at left, bottom). In order to obtain a detailed understanding of watershed dynamics, the studio modeled individual drainage basins for every stream segment in Lancaster County. While all land within a given drainage basin is connected by a common point of outflow, the landscape can change throughout the watershed.

Drainage Basins We relied on the assumption that proximity to streams, the concentration and direction of surface flow, the presence or absence of vegetative cover, impervious surfaces, and other land cover, and the erodibility and capacity for filtration of the soil would determine the level of harm that development of a given area could inflict upon its watershed (see top image, opposite). For example, a farmland area lying proximate to a stream along an area with significant runoff flow, could theoretically contribute more pollution to that stream a similar area with higher vegetative cover along the stream, which is able to filter out those pollutants.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

In addition, modeling individual drainage basins for each stream segment allowed the studio to categorize the drainage basins based on the characteristics of their respective stream segments, such as “attaining vs non-attaining” or the stream’s order in a Strahler Hierarchy. We used the resulting classifications to “weight,” or place greater emphasis of conservation on, those areas within sensitive upstream drainage basins. A full description of the GIS methodology used to model watershed health is available in the GIS Methodology Section.

The resulting “sensitivity grid” (see image, bottom, at left) is a gradient that measures the sensitivity of the landscape as it moves between drainage basins. This grid plays an important role in determining the allocation of more intensive zoning districts. For a description of how watershed modeling factored into the allocation of zoning districts, please reference the Zoning Allocation Section.

Flow and Landcover

Basin Sensitivity

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Lancaster County is a unique mosaic of tradition and modernity, development and preservation. As the County anticipates adding 95,000 people and a substantial number of jobs by 2030, regulations need to encourage compact, transit-friendly development proposals and sustainable development practices in order to implement the Growth Areas adopted in the Countyâ€™s Master Plan. This Code Outline includes form-based regulations for buildings and performance elements to conserve the natural environment. The code also anticipates the construction of a bus rapid-transit system to support intensified development in the Growth Areas. Lancaster County can continue to achieve responsible growth and provide for diverse urban economic centers while preserving its cultural heritage and its invaluable agriculture and environment.

PURPOSE Lancaster County has adopted 13 Urban Growth Areas involving 43 municipalities within the County. These Urban Growth Areas are intended to focus new development where services currently exist or are anticipated in the future. Within the Urban Growth Areas the County has adopted Five Key Objectives: ■■ Increase the proportion, density and intensity of development with the UGAs ■■ Place a new emphasis on compatible reinvestment, infill and redevelopment ■■ Improve the character and form of new development in UGAs ■■ Increase housing choice and affordability ■■ Increase employment opportunities Outside the Urban Growth Areas the County has adopted a Rural Strategy with three key objectives: ■■ Establish Designated Rural Areas ■■ Reduce non-rural development outside of UGAs and direct it to Rural Centers to maintain the form and character of rural areas. ■■ Maintain the viability of the rural economy, including agriculture and other economic activities that depend on rural resources or a rural location.

Within the Designated Rural Areas the adopted policies include Designated Natural Areas, and two categories of Agricultural Uses. There are also policies for four types of Rural Centers: Village Growth Areas, Crossroads Communities, Rural Business Areas and Rural Neighborhoods. The purpose of the Model Code Outline is to help translate Lancaster County’s adopted growth management policies into development regulations that can be incorporated into local codes by the municipalities within the County.

Organization and Objectives The Model Code Outline (MCO) seeks to maintain the general organizational structure of the Lancaster County Growth Management Plan. In doing so, the code outlines 12 distinct zones which relate to the County’s rural and urban strategies. Each zone is designed to help the County meet its key objectives in terms of population growth and land consumption by facilitating compact, walkable development. A vision for each zone is used to guide the spatial and aesthetic components found within to ensure development achieves a desired character. Each zone incorporates multiple designations found within the County’s Zoning Lexicon in order to simplify the zoning code and provide greater flexibility in development opportunities.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

RURAL STRATEGY

ANA

URBAN STRATEGY

GRA

RR-OS

RR-RA RR-AR

VG-TN VG-R1 VG-R2

VG-TN VG-R1 VG-R2 VG-R3 VG-MX

UG-R1 UG-R2 UG-MX

CRA

GBA

UG-R2 UG-R2 UG-R3 UG-R3 UG-R3 UG-MX UG-MX UG-MX UG-CN UG-CN UG-CN UGCBD UG-I1 UGCBD UGBPO UGBPO UGBPO UG-I1 UG-I1 UG-M UG-M UG-W UG-W UGINS

CBA

CIC

UG-CH

UGINS

UG-I2 UG-RE UG-M UG-W

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Overview of Districts Purpose of the Model Code Outline Zoning codes regulate the size, bulk, use, and location of buildings to protect public health, safety and welfare. Subdivision codes regulate the division of properties into lots, the location, configuration, dimensions, and grading of streets, and the management of environmental conditions such as stormwater and erosion, for the same purpose. The MCO offers the framework for a unified code that is intended to include both zoning and subdivision regulations. In addition the maps on which it is based incorporate detailed information about the natural environment and existing buildings and infrastructure.. The MCO provides regulations for land uses, buildings, lots, lot coverage, streets â€“ including street design standards, public space, blocks, and densities. Additionally, the MCO regulates Environmental Performance and includes requirements for Renewable Energy. The MCO describes regulations that can be applied by local governments throughout Lancaster County and is intended to incorporate both existing and future development. For requirements and conditions for specific locations, refer to the Code Map to determine the applicable District.

SC: Scenic and Recreational Zone The SC Zone comprises land with high scenic, recreational, and natural resource value, and land unsuitable for development because of environmental constraints such as steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. The intent of this zone is that such areas should be permanently protected from inappropriate development and incorporated as much as possible into an open space / greenway network that extends both inside and outside the Urban Growth Areas. All development in SC zones requires a special permit and preliminary and final approval of a development plan.

Views from Susquehannock State Park are a good example of the atural vistas the SC zone seeks to protects photo: hollynd.typepad.com

Development may include active and passive recreation areas such as baseball fields, golf courses, hiking trails, scenic overlooks, and buildings, roads and parking places that are accessory to these uses. Agricultural and Silvicultural uses may be permitted if they are compatible with the intent of the district, subject to approval of a management plan, and

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

buildings, roads, and impervious surfaces accessory to these uses if they are part of an approved plan.

AL: Low-Impact Agricultural Zone The purpose of this zone is to promote the continuation and preservation of agricultural activities in areas recognized as having significant importance to the agricultural economy, and containing rich soils highly suitable for agricultural purposes, but which also include areas which require significant measures to maintain the sustainability of the environment. This zone does not permit uses that are incompatible with farming and sets limits for agricultural support businesses.

Low-impact agricultural use in Lancaster County photo: http://article.wn.com

AH: High-Impact Agricultural Zone The purpose of the AH Zone is to promote the continuation and preservation of agricultural activities in areas recognized as having significant importance to the agricultural economy, and containing rich soils highly suitable for agricultural purposes. These zones are situated in areas that have been determined to provide adequate buffer from environmentally sensitive features so as to prevent their contamination or degradation by agricultural uses. Consequently more intensive agriculture is permitted in this zone than in the AL Zone, and additional agricultural uses, and farm-related businesses, are also permitted.

Agricultural uses which are nearby or damage water systems are considered high impact

CC: Crossroads Communities

photo: USGS

A Crossroads Community is an existing compact gathering of 20 to 50 dwellings with a distinct identity located in a rural area, typically at a crossing of two important local streets. A Crossroads Community often has a central gathering place and may have a few supporting commercial or public uses. The CC zone permits these communities to become the focus of a limited amount of residential and necessary local businesses as an alternative to locating such activities amid agricultural land. Only development that is compatible with the traditional character and scale of these small communities, and which is feasible to support with rural infrastructure, is permitted in a CC zone.

VG: Village Growth Area Village Growth Areas are intended to permit limited residential growth in rural areas and also serve as the center of rural commercial life. Village Growth Areas include an existing traditional village core, adjacent

Crossroad Communities are commonly found in Lancaster County photo: bing maps

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

areas that have already developed and additional land that can absorb future growth, while maintaining village scale, character and a defined edge. Development in VG zones should be provided with public sewer and water service. VG zones should not exceed 80 acres. The targeted net density is an average density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Village Centers can accommodate a mix of uses and housing styles. These communities greatly assist in the conservation of farmland by clustering development around community/service centers. Regulations for these communities are intended to help mitigate the impacts of development on proximate agricultural land. Typical character and size of Village Growth area. photo: Neighborhoods of Lancaster County

Mill Creek is an example of new development in Lancaster County which meets WN standards. photo: Neighborhoods of Lancaster County

WN: Walkable Neighborhood Development Walkable Neighborhood Zones are intended to be primarily residential but permit and encourage civic buildings and service commercial uses. These zones should be characterized by tree-lined streets which prioritize pedestrian traffic over vehicular traffic. Developments within this zone can and should include a mix of lot-sizes and house types. Build-to lines within Walkable Neighborhoods vary to allow for variety in block character. These Zones are required to have high levels of street-connectivity (internal and external) to create a street network with few, if any, cul-de-sacs or limited access points. Requirements for small block sizes are used to promote walking. The target density for Walkable Neighborhoods is at least 7.5 units to the acre, a population density that can support public transit. WN Zones should be mapped where there are suitable locations close to rail or BRT stations. The zone may include both existing and new development.

CN: Core Neighborhood Development

Standadards for new development within the Urban Growth areas are meant to encourage non-motorized transportation. photo: switchboard.nrdc.org

Core Neighborhoods combine moderate housing densities with commercial uses. Commercial components of the Core Neighborhood must be able to utilize small floor plates and may include, but are not limited to, retail, office, and cultural and institutional facilities. Core Neighborhoods contain tree-lined streets designed to accommodate higher levels of automobile traffic than found in Walkable Neighborhoods, but should also designed to be walkable These areas shall be visually interesting with variations in lot-size and house form. Build-to lines within Core Neighborhoods vary to allow for variety in block character. Streets in Core Neighborhoods are required to have high levels of connectivity (internal and external) to avoid creating cul-de-sacs and places with limited access. Requirements for small block sizes are used to promote walkability. Core Neighborhoods shall maintain overall densities suffi-

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

cient to support public transit. The CN zone can be mapped for new development, in which case the zone should not exceed 160 acres, but can also apply to existing developed areas.

RC: Regional Center District Regional Centers consist largely of commercial uses, including offices, hotels, and retail along with apartments and attached houses. Regional Center districts can also contain a variety of entertainment and sports destinations and government buildings, as well as institutions such as hospitals. They contain a variety of street types with building form and use varying by street. Street types within Regional Centers are intended to handle larger amounts of vehicular traffic than other districts. Infrastructure for public transport and multi-modal transportation is required. Build-to-lines and building envelope standards are protect the quality of the public space. Block size varies by street type. Open space requirements are less than other code districts. Regional Centers shall serve as hubs of public transportation networks.

CB: Central Business District

Regional Centers combine residential, commercial and office uses with thoughtful urban design. photo: Neighborhoods of Lancaster County

Central Business Districts (CBD) possess many of the same characteristics, functions and regulations as Regional Centers. However, where Regional Center designations may be mapped to regulate new development, CBDs apply to existing and historical business centers.

CIC: Civic and Institutional Campus Zone These areas are intended to accommodate large, stand-alone Civic and Institutional uses. The code for these areas is intended to ensure there is an appropriate relationship between the institutional use and its surroundings. Potential uses within the district include, but are not limited to museums, civic centers, schools, universities, hospitals and churches. The minimum size for a CIC Zone is 10 acres. CIC Zones may be mapped for existing areas, or for new development. The designation of an area as a CIC Zone requires an approved street and development plan for existing buildings and projected future buildings.

Each municipality has its own designated CBD. hoto: messiah.edu

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

1 of 1

Maps My Notes

CD: Corridor District

CD regulations are meant to address the typical corridor development patterns. photo: Bing maps

Corridor Districts are intended to recognize and regulate existing commercial development along thoroughfares and highways where the prevailing development consists of separate commercial buildings and large areas of surface parking.. Regulations for this district are intended to mitigate environmental issues caused by stormwater runoff/impervious surfaces and to improve the pedestrian environment along the corridors. Given the close proximity to highways and thoroughfares Corridor Districts are viewed as promising areas for future development and incorporation of transit systems. If a new permanent transit station is established within a CD district, the zoning district should be changed to CN. The Transit Overlay District will also apply. Existing Residential development within CD districts should be remapped in order to be included in one of the mixed-use districts that permit residences. 4/22/2012 7:12 PM

New corridor districts are not permitted to be mapped in undeveloped or partially developed areas

IM: Industrial and Manufacturing District This district is characterized by higher traffic, noise, pollution, energy use than other development districts. Uses found in the IM district either a) fail to meet performance standards to locate in mixed use development districts or b) require greater access to infrastructure (highway, rail lines). Uses include, but not limited to warehouses, research & development facilities, factories, shipping centers, and mining.

Environmental Protection Overlay The environmental protection overlay builds upon the Model Conservation Zoning District and Natural Resource Protection Standards designed by the Lancaster County Planning Commission. The intent of the overlay is to protect environmental systems such as sensitive habitats, forests, and watersheds and to protect the rights of the residents of the Lancaster County to clean air, pure water, and the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the environment as set forth in Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The performance criteria established in the environmental protection overlay were designed so as to permit municipalities of Lancaster County to accommodate their growth management needs in ways that minimize impacts to sensitive environmental areas. The standards delineated in the overlay district apEPO mapping occursstreams on a strategic and localized topography ply to all land-uses within a given zoning category, unless otherwise speclevel. forest blocks low high interior forests

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

ified. All environmental conditions discussed below have been mapped by Lancaster County GIS Department and are available for public viewing.

Transit District Overlay Plans Transit District Overlay Plans (TDOPs) are specific plans that are part of the code for areas accessible to intra- and inter-county train or bus rapid transit services. TDOPs apply only for areas within the urban growth areas, and are no larger than an area contained within a half-mile radius of the bus rapid transit (BRT) station or rail station .The TDOP can permit higher densities to support of compact, mixed use development and in pedestrian-friendly environments. To help ensure that land use patterns remain consistent with compact development , the TDO will promote land uses that strengthen economic opportunities and encourage continued BRT ridership. Design standards for this district will promote an attractive, walkable, and pedestrian friendly atmosphere through the provision of various provisions, such as but not limited to parking, set-back, landscaping, street width, street connectivity, and lot size/type. All development and design must meet both TOD standards as well as standards recognized in the Base District. Overall, the transit district overlay is purposed to help promote a compact form of development in congruence with the installation of a bus rapid transit station located in its interior in an attempt to localize activities, which will help improve Lancaster Countyâ€™s ambient air quality through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions. Transit District Overlay Plans must be created for all railway train and BRT stations.

HC: Historic Conservation District The Historic Conservation District Overlay is intended to provide standards and regulations to existing or future historic districts throughout the County for the purpose of protecting the distinctive historical character of these districts and to regulate the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of buildings within the historic districts. The model in Lancaster County is the Heritage Conservation District in Lancaster City.

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Under Pennsylvania Act No. 167, dated June 13, 1961, (P.L. 282) as amended by 1963 P.L. 27, Not 24 and 1980 P.L. 74 (53 P.S. 8001 et seq.), counties, cities, boroughs, incorporated towns and townships are authorized to create historic districts within their geographic boundaries providing for the appointment of Boards of Historical Architectural Review (HARB). Additionally, Act 247, Article III Section 301(a)(6) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code describes the purpose of a plan for the protection of natural and historic resources and sites with which Article VI establishes the basis for zoning in historic districts. Historic Conservation Districts are overlay districts over the base zoning districts, intended to preserve the specific cultural, architectural and/or historic significance of an existing area of a city or town. Regulations within a HC district are designed to protect the character and heritage of the area by requiring approval of significant changes to the exterior of existing buildings and reviewing new buildings that are added to the district to insure that they are appropriate to the form and style of its context. Public space within Historic Districts should facilitate walking and prioritize the pedestrian experience by maintaining ground level transparency, offering pedestrian crossings, low traffic speeds and tree lined streets. An HC District should be administered by a Historic District Review Commission, whose actions, while advisory to the Planning Commission, should ordinarily be the final determination. HC Districts should be mapped where the preponderance of the constructed environment has a specific historic character that meets standards for historic preservation, for example the criteria for districts included in the National Register of Historic Places.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Key Components In addition to elements found in traditional zoning codes, the Model Code Outline (MCO) incorporates regulatory guidelines for urban design and sustainability. The MCO is intended to make possible the development of walkable neighborhoods that maintain the character of traditional Lancaster County development. To do such, key elements of urban design are incorporated into the code outline to elicit a desired built form. These elements are intended to enhance the pedestrian experience and define public space. Urban design elements found in the code include:

Building Height to Street Width Ratio The street is one of the key elements of the public realm. A city or town’s streets are the center of pedestrian activity and generally constitute a large percentage of a municipality’s public space. As such, it is necessary to ensure that the environment found along streets is welcoming and comfortable to pedestrians. One of the key elements to creating a comfortable environment is the proportion of the public environment, defined by the height of buildings from building face to building face across a street. Thinking of the street as an outdoor “room,” it is easy to understand that some proportions are more comfortable than others. If the width of the road is too wide compared to the building height, the street does not provide a sense of enclosure. This can create an unsettling experience in a concept Jay Appleton established as the “prospect –refuge theory” (Appelton 1975). Likewise, a ratio that is too high – that is building heights that are significantly higher than the street width – can also create an environment that is unpleasing to pedestrians. Therefore this MCO outlines a method for regulating heights that goes beyond limiting by neighborhood zoning designation and imposes regulatory measure based off of street type.

Where height to ratios are lower, trees can be used to create the public space Building Height to road width ratio = 1:1

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Thoroughfare Type A key organizational component of the code is thoroughfare hierarchy. The code outline attempts to group existing - and future - thoroughfares into five classifications based on capacity and designed speed. Classifications include: • • • • •

Roads Streets Drives Avenues Highways

Each thoroughfare classification has its own regulations for building height-to-width ratio, parking, vehicular circulation and streetscape. These regulations vary depending upon the envisioned primary use along the thoroughfare. For example, streets and drives are envisioned in pedestrian dominated, mixed-use environments and thus have cartways and parking lane dimensions which are more narrow than those found along boulevards, which are predominantly auto-oriented thoroughfares found in Regional Centers. Additional sections and regulations are detailed in the MCO. Typical Elements regulated by thoroughfare type:

Travel lane ranges from 9-10 feet. Number of travel lanes not to exceed 4 Bicycle lanes are encouraged but not required on streets

Sidewalk width must be no less than 7 feet. Exact width of sidewalk depends upon ROW width

■■ Number of travel lanes ■■ Cartway width ■■ On-street parking availability, width and location ■■ Sidewalk width ■■ Provision of bicycle lanes ■■ Tree planting location ■■ Bioswale type and location

10'

86'

Typical Street Section: Height to Width Ratio = 1:2

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

10'

Maximum Block Length and Block Perimeter Long, wide blocks or â€œsuper blocksâ€? can deter pedestrians and decrease the overall walkability of an area. In order to create walkable neighborhoods, the code seeks to implement maximums on block length and block perimeter. By doing so the code ensures pedestrians have alternatives in travel routes and a greater ease of moving from destination to destination. However, it is necessary to balance the desire to promote walkability with the realities of development economics. Therefore the code allows for the implementation of pedestrian walkways in lieu of roads as a means for cutting down on the road-to-lot ratio for developers. The maximum block length and perimeter varies by neighborhood zone.

Block Perimeter =

Block perimeter may be broken by pedestrian walkways to accommodate greater block lengths

Block Width

2 x Block Length + 2 x Block Width

Block Length

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Connectivity The MCO incorporates the idea of a “connectivity index” as a means to increase walkability and eliminate the use of cul-de-sacs and dead end streets. Connectivity of roads and streets offers both pedestrians and motorized traffic alternative routes which helps ease congestion. Additionally, increased connectivity can reduce travel length by providing more direct access to destinations.

Connectivity: the diagrams below illustrate calculations for street connectivity. For a given area, divide the number of line segments (links) by the number of intersections (nodes). Do NOT count dead-end (e.g. culde-sac) links or nodes.

PASS 20/15 15 23

1.3

Connectivity essentially refers to the density of connections in a road or path network. For calculations of the connectivity index in the code outline, only vehicular connections are used. To compute the index, divide the total number of line segments, or links, by the total number of intersections, or nodes. As cul-de-sacs do not provide connections to other networks, they may not be considered nodes for the purpose of calculating the index. The code stipulates that new developments within the Urban Growth Boundaries (Walkable Neighborhoods, Core Neighborhoods and Regional Center Districts) achieve a connectivity index of at least 1.2

Benefits of Increased Connectivity ■■ Increased options for pedestrian and vehicular routes

PASS 19 28

1.5

■■ Reductions in traffic congestion ■■ Shorter travel times ■■ Increased walkability

FAIL 0.8

■■ Increased chance of walking as primary mode of transportation

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Grid Pattern In addition to connectivity, the MCO puts in place regulations for the grid pattern of a road network. This regulatory measure controls the percentage of streets within a network that must have 4-way intersections. On average the code stipulates neighborhoods must have between 40 and 90% grid pattern, depending upon the intended use of the area. However grid pattern works in unison with Connectivity and networks with minimal levels of 4-way intersections must still meet the required connectivity index. Similar regulations in other codes have required a much higher percentage of 4-way intersections than does this MCO. The reason is that the studio wanted to provide diversity in street type and experience. For example, street networks consisting entirely of 4-way intersections (100% grid pattern) do not provide opportunities for terminal views, a key urban design element. Conversely, networks which contain T-intersections offer the opportunity for architectural focal points.

Without a focal point on the horizon, the eye is drawn to the to ground plane.

With the use of a terminal vista, the pedestrian focuses on the architecture rather than the travel way.

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Typical Bicycle Lane Sections

Sustainability and Renewable Energy Standards Bicycle lanes and Bicycle Parking

Sidewalk Bicycle Painted Parking lane buffer

The Model Code Outline (MCO) calls for the inclusion of bicycle lanes and bicycle parking along several thoroughfare types and neighborhood zones. The inclusion of bicycle lanes and parking is meant to encourage multi-modal transportation and reduce the impact of increased density on local roads. Inclusion of bicycle lanes can be handled in multiple formats depending upon the allowable space and desired separation from vehicular traffic. The images at left provide a few examples of potential configurations.

Sidewalk

Bicycle lane

Parking

Bicycle Lane Dimensions ■■ 4 feet: minimum width of bike lane on roadways with no curb and gutter ■■ 5 feet: minimum width of bike lane when adjacent to parking, from the face of the curb or guardrail

Sidewalk

Bicycle Planted Parking lane buffer

■■ 11 feet: total width for shared bike lane and parking area, no curb face ■■ 12 feet: shared bike lane and parking area with a curb face

Sidewalk

Dual direction bicycle lane

Parking

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Stormwater Treatment and Infiltration This MCO calls for the inclusion of bioswales and stormwater capture devices in new development. Stormwater that is captured and filtered on site reduces the impact of development on municipal stormwater systems and regional watersheds. Bioswales such as the ones shown at right offer the opportunity for pollutants to filter out of storwater runoff before entering the system. Bioswales are other capture devices are no longer used solely in rural areas, where the capture and vegetated filtration process is easier. Instead, stormwater collection devices are commonly becoming integrated into urban sidewalks and parking lots. The MCO proposes the use of such devices in all zones. The specific type and size of device depends upon the setting and context.

Portland, OR has pioneered innovative measures for capturing stormwater runoff. The image above illustrates a sidewalk bioswale which collects runoff from both the cartway and the sidewalk. The vegetated planter acts as a filter removing pollutants from the water and regulating the rate at which water is put back into the stormwater system. Additionally, the vegetated swale allows for greater of evapotranspiration.

Typical Roadside Bioswale

Compacted Sub-base

Native plant material for filtration

Above is another example of an urban bioswale,. This technique has been utilized for roadside collection as well as in parking lots and other paved areas.

Organic planting medium Compacted Sub-grade

Underdrain pipe

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

MAPPING THE CODE Introduction The use of geographic information systems (GIS) to help guide planning and development decisions is an essential analysis tool available to planners. The technology enables the execution of sophisticated spatial and quantitative analysis as a means to help direct decision making. In addition to the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, the creation of the Model Zoning Code included suitability and allocation GIS analyses in order to help determine appropriate locations for the thirteen zones described within the Model Zoning Code. The twelve zoning code designations within the Model Zoning Code include areas located exclusively within or outside of the designated urban growth areas (UGA). Due to the Studio’s acceptance of these boundaries, the Studio executed the GIS analysis into two categories: areas inside the UGA and areas outside the UGA. Developing this strategy has enabled the Studio to make recommendations for locating the zones using two different GIS allocation methodologies. The first strategy employed was to use Sequential Allocation to place the four zones in areas outside the UGA. For land located inside the UGA, the Studio employed Parallel Allocation. Executing these two approaches simultaneously demonstrates the versatility of using GIS to guide planning and development decisions. Of note, the Studio executed this allocation process for two watersheds: not the entire county. The purpose of this Studio and the GIS analysis is to serve as a demonstration for future land use/zoning allocations.

Suitability The first step in optimizing the location of zoning districts was to identify those spatial conditions of the landscape that were congruent with characteristics of each zoning category. The Studio analyzed en-

Lancaster

Image caption: The process of Mapping the Code was conducted inside the two watersheds highlighted in red. Sequential allocation was executed outside of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Parallel allocation was executed inside the UGA.

vironmental, transportation, economic, demographic, structural, and numerous other spatial conditions within Lancaster County. The Studio used these data as inputs to design eight “Spatial Suitability Grids” that classified every segment of the landscape in terms of its preference for each of the primary zoning categories: • • • • • • •

Farms Scenic Crossroads Community Village Center Walkable Neighborhood Core Neighborhood Regional Center

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

In determining the criteria for spatial suitability, the Studio found it was important to consider elements of “what could be” in addition to elements of “what is.” One of the goals of the development code is to help the LCPC meet their goals of concentrating development within the urban growth boundary and protecting the rural character without. Doing so will require the preservation of existing urban centers and the creation and densification of future centers. The Studio balanced descriptive criteria (building density, road connectivity) with

prescriptive criteria (proximity to nearest arterial, environmental sensitivity) so that existing centers would revert to the appropriate zoning classifications, and so that it would be possible to identify the optimum locations of centers that could meet the future environmental, economic, and transportation goals of the Lancaster County Planning Commission. A full description of the methodology and a detailed list of the spatial criteria considered for each zoning district is available in the section on GIS Methodology.

Inside UGA

Outside UGA

-Good soil -Contiguous land -Low bulding density -Not near County attractions -Not near BRT stops

-Performance standards

-Proximity to rural roadway intersections

-Proximity to commercial centers

-Proximity to small commercial centers

-Low-med building density concentration

-Proximity to rural roadway intersections

-Proximity to med-capacity roadways

-Designated park or scenic

-Medium building density concentration

-Not near large commercial center

-Preserved

-Minimal environmental harm -Outside UGA

-Minimal environmental harm

-Performance triggers -Potential environmetnal harm -Outside UGA

-Outside UGA

SC Suitability

CC Suitability

VC Suitability

-Not adjacent to County attractions -Med building density

-Proximity to commercial

-Minimal topographic changes

-Proximity to high-capacity roadways

-Minimal environmental harm

-Minimal environmental harm -Proximity to BRT station -Proximity to County attractions -Med-high building density

WN Suitability

CN Suitability

-Proximity to major roadways -Proximity to County attractions -Not adjacent to UGA -Outside BRT walkshed -High concentration of commercial -High building density

GIS Analysis

F Suitability

Suitability Criteria

RC Suitability

Image caption: The overall methology used determine suitability criteria for each of the seven zones (green) shown above. Each set of specific suitability criteria became inputs to create the final suitability grids (blue).

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Sequential Allocation

Determining Zone Placement

Overview

The order in which each land use was allocated is as follows:

Using Sequential Allocation (SA) to determine four of the twelve zones included Farms, Scenic Land, Crossroads Communities, and Village Centers. The entire SA process sought to determine suitability one zone at a time. Overall, the SA methodology produced results demonstrating optimal zone placement based upon the various criteria determined in the suitability analysis. This approach will enable the Lancaster County Planning Commission to oversee the order and location of extra-boundary growth and development.

• • • •

First - Village Centers Second - Scenic Land Third - Crossroads Communities Fourth - Farms

The order for each zone was determined based on its flexibility by location and proximity to other land uses.

SC Suitability

CC Suitability

VC Suitability

F Allocation

SC Allocation

CC Allocation

VC Allocation

Allocation Process

F Suitability

Image caption: An overview of the Sequential Allocation process for areas located outside of the Urban Growth Areas.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Village Centers were the most dependent on a variety of conditions, and for this reason were placed first. Scenic lands were placed second in order to help locate areas that should not be development as a means to preserve inherent natural and aesthetic qualities. Moreover, it was important to locate Scenic Lands before Crossroads Communities in order to avoid Crossroads Communities from residing within these environmentally sensitive areas. Lastly, Farms were located on land not already occupied by another zone. All zones were not permitted to reside within one mile from the boundary of the UGA. these environmentally sensitive areas. Lastly, Farms were located on land not already occupied by another zone. All zones were not permitted to reside within one mile from the boundary of the UGA.

Allocation: Village Centers Based on the original suitability factors associated with Village Centers, allocating this zone included restricting its size to no more than 140 acres. This restriction was necessary because Village Centers reside outside the UGA where sewer and other infrastructure services are not usually provided. A Village Center growing too big in terms of size and population would be analogous to exurban sprawl. Because Lancaster County seeks to retain the majority of growth inside the UGA, limiting the space by which Village Centers can exist helps achieve this goal

Allocation: Scenic Lands Scenic Lands are best suited in areas that retain natural beauty, areas already described as Scenic by the Lancaster County Planning Commission, or areas that should not be heavily developed due to their environmental sensitivity. For this reason, allocating Scenic Lands included identifying the location of forests, parks, and already claimed scenic lands together into a new output.

Allocation: Crossroads Communities Crossroads Communities are smaller in size and population density than Village Centers. Because of their nature, Crossroads Communities should be separate from other Crossroads Communities as well as Village Centers. Locating these zones included assessing distance from other population centers and distance from Scenic Lands.

Allocation: Farms Farms were the last to be placed based on their versatility to the landscape as well as bearing little dependence on external dependence on external factors, such as proximity to a commercial center or rural intersection. For this reason, Farm Lands became the â€˜fillerâ€™ and were placed in all locations not already sited for Scenic Lands, Village Centers, or Crossroads Communities.

Conclusion After each of the four zones were mapped individually, they were combined in order to form a final map output. The sequential allocation method applies only to the four zones (land uses) dedicated to areas outside the Urban Growth Area: Village Centers, Crossroads Communities, Scenic land, and Farms. The next section dicusses the second allocation method used. The parallel allocation method applies to three selected zones (land uses) inside the Urban Growth Area and includes Walkable Neighborhoods, Core Neighborhoods, and Regional Centers. This process is explained in greater detail in the next section.

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

Parallel Allocation Overview The allocation of zoning districts traditionally follows a process similar to the sequential method discussed above. The most intensive or restrictive land use is sited first, with less restrictive uses following sequentially. Those uses sited later in the process still attempt to maximize their locational preference, but they become gradually more limited due to the locations of those uses sited before them. There is great merit to proceeding in this fashion, and it is often the most logical approach. For example, imagine building a public facility with a welcome center, several lookout points, and a few paths that connect visitors from the center to the lookout stations. It would not make sense to design the paths before one knew the location of the center and the lookout stations that those paths intend to connect. However, there are also situations in which priority is more ambiguous and it might makes sense to allocate in tandem (such as creating a fluid gradient of mixed-use development in Lancaster County.) One of the goals of the Studio was to use GIS to explore an allocation technique that does not proceed in an algorithmic or sequential fashion, but rather heuristically analyzes, recycles, and refines potentially infinite combinations of land-uses in an iterative and cyclical fashion. The Studio refers to this method as “Parallel Allocation.” Final Allocation Grid

Yes

Does X grid = X1 grid?

Sample Zones (WN, CN, RC)

Suitability Grids

However, there are also situations in which priority is more ambiguous and it might makes sense to allocate in tandem (such as creating a fluid gradient of mixed-use development in Lancaster County.) One of the goals of our studio was to use GIS to explore an allocation technique that does not proceed in an algorithmic or sequential fashion, but rather heuristically analyzes, recycles, and refines potentially infinite combinations of land-uses in an iterative and cyclical fashion. The Studio refers to this method as “Parallel Allocation.”

Maximize Suitability The Studio tested the parallel method by locating four potential zoning districts within the urban growth boundary: Walkable Neighborhood, Core Neighborhood, Regional Center, and Scenic and Recreational. The first step was to use the Spatial Suitability grids created earlier to identify for every segment of the landscape the zoning district(s) that was the maximum suitability score

Situational Suitability The process then subjected each Sample Zoning Grid to a series of situational analyses, such as the size and shape of contiguity, the proximity and distance to complimentary zoning districts, the clustering of zoning districts, etc. These situational criteria are equally important in creating a logical and fluid gradient of development, but they cannot be assessed until one actually knows the locations of all the zoning districts. The process then classified the results of these analyses into a “Situational Suitability Grid” for each zoning district, in which those areas that were appropriately sized, clustered, and located relative to complimentary districts received the highest scores.

Situational Suitability

Combined Suitability Combined Suitability

Image caption: An overview of the methodology employed for the Parallel Allocation stage of Mapping the Code.

Next, the method combined the Situational Suitability and Spatial Suitability grids for each of the

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

four zoning districts. The resulting “Combined Suitability Grid” is a gradient of preference in which the highest scores belong to those areas that satisfied both spatial and situational criteria. For example, an area with high spatial suitability that is located proximate to an uncomplimentary land-use would receive a lower score. The process then closed the cycle and subjected each Combined Suitability Grid to the initial Maximization Process to create a series of “New Sample Zoning Grids.” In the preliminary iteration, the Sample Zoning Grids reported maximum scores based solely on Spatial Suitability; in the second and all subsequent iterations, New Sample Zoning Grids report a maximum score based upon a combination of Spatial Suitability and their suitability in relation to other zoning districts.

Iteration and Conclusion The parallell approach then repeated the process with the New Sample Zoning Grids and automated all subsequent iterations. As the model progress, the Spatial Suitability for each zoning district never changes. However, new areas of maximum suitability will continue to emerge and disappear based upon changing Situational Suitability. For example, if an area with a middle Spatial Suitability score continued to receive high scores for Situational Suitability it might ultimately emerge as the optimum zoning category for that area. The automation continued until it produced a series of New Sample Zoning Grids that equaled the Previous Sample Zoning Grids. This indicates that the zoning districts have “stopped moving” and settled into those areas in which they maximize both their Spatial and Situational Suitability. For a more detailed description of the methodology used in the Parallel Allocation, as well as examples of the resulting zoning gradient, please access the section on GIS Methodology.

Allocated Land Uses

Overview After the Studio completed both allocation methods it was essential to combine the outcomes into one final scenario in order to determine parcel-level allocation land uses. Each final allocation output was attributed back into parcel scale. The resulting maps on the following pages display both the sequential and parallel allocation techniques.

Future Considerations It is important to note that the final outputs are only one demonstration of the combination of the two processes. If reiterated, changing any one of the suitability criteria for any of the seven zones explored will likely lead to different final suitability grids, which would then be apt to change the allocation process and results. The Lancaster Planning Commission can use this land use layout as a foundation for creating a more optimal suitability and allocation process as a means to render a more refined land use configuration. The principles, process, and outputs demonstrated through this Studio attempted to highlight and implement the integration of land use planning, GIS analyses, and urban design plans.

Final Conclusions The Studio’s zoning recommendations can help the Lancaster County Planning Commission guide future land use decisions. More important, however, is the potential of GIS to modernize the zoning process., shifting from a “drawing board mentality” to a “game board mentality,” where stakeholders can sequentially sketch out recommendations. The kinds of GIS processes the Studio explored this semester offer an opportunity for planners and city administrators to move from the “drawing board” onto the “game board.” This Studio imagines stakeholders interactively testing all possible outcomes with live feedback for economic, environmental, and spatial ramifications. This more heuristic process would provide an alternative to the more formalized plan-

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

ning processes. While the processes explored in this Studio are more academic than practical, software such as CommunityViz and City Engine are already bringing this philosophy of â€œplayâ€? into stakeholder meetings throughout the world. Planners that embrace the analytical and interactive capacity of GIS throughout the entire stakeholder process will remain ahead of the planning curve in the coming decades.

Final Sequential Allocation Map

Image caption: The final Sequential Allocation map, which first sited the most optimal location for a Village Center, followed by the most optimal locations allocated to Scenic land. Next, the top four locations for a Crossroads Community were placed followed by allocating land for both agricultural types. The final map is shown in context and proximity to the Urban Growth Area (dark grey).

Village Center Crossroad Community Scenic UGA Agriculture, LI Agriculture, HI County

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Final Parallel Allocation Map Image caption: An overview of the methodology employed for the Parallel Allocation stage of Mapping the Code. The process involved siting the most optimal locations for Walkable Neighborhoods, Core Neighborhoods, and Regional Centers. Each of these three zones were located inside the Urban Growth Area. The Parallel Allocation method differed from the Sequential Allocation method in its process and geography.

Regional Center Core Neighborhood Walkable Neighborhood County

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

The Studio sought to apply the concepts behind the Environmental Mapping and Model Code Outline to specific Urban Design plans at proposed BRT stations. he plans demonstrate how the environmental overlay in the code helps shape proposed development, the effect of form-based provisions, and that the projected residential and job growth in the County can easily be accommodated in areas within walking distance of BRT stations.

LANCASTER STATION/ LIBERTY PARK Lancaster City is located in the center of Lancaster County and lies at the core of the countyâ€™s projected urban growth area. The site area lies north of the Central Business District, bordered by two rail lines and Franklin and Marshall College. The site encompasses the existing Amtrak station as well as Clipper Magazine Stadium, Lancasterâ€™s 6000-seat baseball stadium. Most of the rest of the site was formerly occupied by an Armstrong World Industries plant. The site falls under the Core Neighborhood zoning code classification.

Site Area 283

Franklin and Marshall College

Central Business District

Site Area The largest factor affecting this site is the presence of the nearby Central Business District. In addition, Franklin and Marshall College, a small liberal arts school, is located just across the train tracks to the southwest of the site. This provides an opportunity for student housing on the site. The BRT route comes from the west, 1000â€™ enters the site from Route 30 in the north via Prince Street, stops at Lancaster Station, and then returns to Route 30 to proceed on its route east.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

1/2 mile

1/4 mile

1000â€™

Contours Floodplain Train Station

Proposed BRT Station

Environmental Concerns Since the site is already largely urbanized, there are very few environmental concerns to be addressed. The site is mostly flat, with the only significant grade changes occuring in the railroad beds. There are no riparian corridors, sensitive soils, or wildlife habitats near the site and the only 100-year floodplains occur outside of the site boundary to the northwest.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

1000â€™ 500â€™

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1

Site Plan The site is divided into three phases for sequenced build-out. The total proposed build out is 7,166,250 gross square feet over thirty to fifty years. The first phase will consist mostly of high density office buildings and a hotel near the train station. The second phase will contain the new Liberty Park and canal with surrounding development. The third phase will consist of lower density development outside of the half mile walkshed from the train station and will also include elderly housing and student apartments to serve the Franklin and Marshall campus. Two new bridges will be built across the train tracks to enhance connection between the site and the campus and neighborhood south of the tracks.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

500â€™

Land Use Plan

Residential - Medium Density

Mixed Use - Retail/Residential

Residential - High Density

Mixed Use - Retail/Office

Retail

Civic

Office

Hotel

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

186,255 131,080 100,640 25,160 240,596 60,149

122,585 24,517

104,420 20,884

128,328 32,082

149,976

167,743 37,363

85,068 28,356

46,359

46,359 57,609 57,609 56,436 53,709

Lancaster Station Proposed Square Footage Residential - Medium Density

318,081 s.f.

Residential - High Density

104,420 s.f.

Retail

294,230 s.f.

Office

1,284,026 s.f.

Civic

131,080 s.f.

Hotel

149,976 s.f.

56%

14%

6% 7% 13%

4% total s.f. 2,281,813

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

60,000

43,408 32,061

247,548

43,408 74,166

45,935 79,470 33,535

69,334 138,668

43,408 74,166

36,516 80,559

42,665 42,302

137,805 79,470 67,070

217,974 70,714 85,898

85,503 210,998 74,070 185,175

56,995 170,985

64,244 101,544 185,365

236,548

297,648 120,275

71,899 122,634

59,856 179,568

46,978 23,489 243,496

99,158 79,836 60,512

88,174 29,913 30,988

82,908 29,598

Liberty Park Proposed Square Footage Residential - Medium Density

178,245 s.f.

Residential - High Density

1,829,101 s.f.

Retail

1,277,900 s.f.

Office

1,119,147 s.f.

Civic

480,044 s.f.

4% 23% 37% 10% 26% 4,884,437 total s.f.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amtrak Station Opened in 1929, the historic Lancaster Train Station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Lancaster City Historic District. Composed mostly of brick, the stationâ€™s main entrance features concrete columns and large rounded windows. The station also serves intercity bus routes as well as the local Red Rose Transit buses. An extension of the walkway that currently takes passengers to the platforms is proposed linking to a new lobby on the north side of the tracks, providing a critical pedestrian connection as well as increasing the number of patrons that visit the station.

Lancaster Leaf The tobacco plant on the site was built in 1910 and has been owned and operated by the Lancaster Leaf Tobacco Company since 1920. This development proposes to renovate the historic five-story brick building into an art gallery.

Liberty Place The former headquarters of Armstrong World Industries, this 1924 structure has found new life as the Liberty Place Theater. This development seeks to place this civic amenity at the center of its proposal by surrounding the theater in a large public park. The Liberty Park district of this new development takes its name from this historic theater.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

BRT The high densities in this proposal will be supported by the implementation of a countywide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The BRT system, coupled with the existing local bus lines and Amtrak lines, will turn this formerly underutilized area into a thriving transit-oriented development. The BRT station at Lancaster Station is situated directly in front of the Amtrak station. This allows passengers on either line to more easily transfer between different transit systems. Additionally, the two stations can share facilities and amenities. The Amtrak station will be extended over the tracks to provide a new pedestrian link.

Pedestrian Bridge

Amtrak Station

Amtrak Line

Drop-Off Lane Bus Lane

Train Waiting Platforms

BRT Station

New Station

140’

55’

30’

55’

30’

55’

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

140’

10’ 30’ 15’ 15’

Median

Dedicated BRT Lane

Car Lanes

Bike Lane

Parallel Street Parking

Tree Planting Zone

Sidewalk

15’

5’

8’

5’

12’

8’

5’

15’

101’

Avenue Section

Prince Street, the major north-south artery that connects Route 30 to downtown, and McGovern Avenue, which runs east-west in front of the train station, have been renovated into tree-lined avenues. Some features of these avenues include wide sidewalks to accommodate bistro tables, permeable tree planting zones, dedicated bus and bike lanes, and a wide median which separates car traffic from bus traffic. Pedestrian Bridge

Canal

Riverwalk

Stairs/Amphitheater

Sidewalk

15’

70’

Canal Section

11’

24’

12’

100’

12’

24’

15’

70’

15’

The canal terminates in the south in a large pool adjacent to the reused Lancaster Leaf Tobacco Plant. The pool is surrounded by retail and restaurants which can make use of the plaza-like waterside space. There are steps and ramps leading from street level down to the canal level which can double as an amphitheater. The riverwalk at canal level is planted with lush greenery. A pedestrian bridge connects over the pool at street level.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL AND PARK CITY CENTER SITE Context This site is located to the northeast of the city of Lancaster at the border of Manheim Township and Hempfield Township. The entire area lies within the County’s urban growth area, and contains two of the County’s largest trip generators and employment centers: the Lancaster General Hospital Suburban Outpatient Pavilion and the Park City Center Mall.

Site location

Lancaster General Hospital

Park City Plaza

Harrisb

urg Pik

rri

Route 30

Pi ke

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bus Rapid Transit Two bus rapid transit (BRT) stations are proposed for this site, one on front of the Park City Center Mall and one in front of the Lancaster General Hospital, with approximately a mile in between the stations. The placement of these BRT stations is strategic in that it can serve populations that already travel to these areas in the short term, and can spur development and serve new populations in those developments in the long-term.

Environmental Constraints

Lancaster General Hospital Station

Park City Center Station

A large focus of the studio involved identifying ways that environmentally sensitive areas could have greater consideration in the development process. This area contains several such areas (shown below), including a stream with corresponding floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas, critical wildlife habitat, priority filtration forestland, highly erodable soils, and soils that are considered unsuitable for development or cultivation due to a high water table, steep slopes and/ or rockiness, for example.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

Walkable neighbrohood developments

In order to protect these areas, preserved green space is proposed in the siteâ€™s 100-year floodplain (image, top, left) and over most of the siteâ€™s riparian areas in order to mitigate flooding, preserve ecological functions and water quality, and connect future and present populations to Longs Park at the southeast portion of the site. This park acts as the centerpiece for the development on the southern portion of the sites.

Applying the Code to the Site This site can generally be divided into three zones: Walkable Neighborhood Developments, a Corridor District and a Civic and Institutional District. Infill development and redevelopment is suggested for the Corridor District and Civic and Institutional District in order to promote greater density of businesses and residences near the BRT stations.

CORRIDOR DISTRICT

CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT

In the Corridor District (image, left, middle), which includes that Park City Center Mall, the surrounding strip malls and parking lots, high-density residential development is proposed along the park, with additional commercial buildings to be built in the parking lot along a pathway from the BRT station to the residences to ensure a more pedestrian- oriented environment along this pathway.

In the Civic and Institutional District (image, left, bottom), building a medical mall that includes offices and other amenities for the concentration of healthrelated uses in this area would be beneficial. There is a good deal of undeveloped land in this area that could be utilized for new buildings that supplement the current uses, increase ridership to the BRT station, and create a continuous frontage of buildings along the pathway from the BRT station to the hospital and other buildings in the area to improve the pedestrian environment.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

A Walkable Neighborhood Development (see image, left, top) is proposed for the senior center development currently existing in the northern portion of the site. Additional residential development with some commercial development can protect the rural- residential feel of the area while supporting the seniors living in the development and helping them to age in place.

WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT

In the southern portion of the site (see image, left, top), another Walkable Neighborhood Development is encouraged. A detailed design proposal is presented here.

WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR DISTRICT

CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT

WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

Design Proposal In order to test the code that the studio created, the area to the south of Route 30 was selected for a proposed Walkable Neighborhood Development. The site is split into two developments due the linear park around the stream that runs through the site. The development on the western portion of the site (page 9) is centered around the Lancaster General Hospital BRT station, with commercial and higher density development directly adjacent to the station. The eastern portion of the site is meant to be able to access either the Lancaster General Hospital BRT station or the Park City Center BRT station, but since it is not directly proximal to a BRT station, the densities are slightly lower than the western portion of the development. Bike lanes are included on the main E-W and N-S arterial running through the site, and sharrows, or shared lanes, are expected on the smaller, residential streets. All sidewalks incorporate street trees every thirty feet and include bioswales or tree trenches for stormwater management. The two surface parking lots on the site around the BRT station serve BRT riders and users of the retail establishment in the buildings bordering the parking lots. Both lots include swales and green areas for absorbing runoff from the parking lot. The stations themselves incorporate a covered platform area and a highway overpass that connects the two stations. Due to the proximity to the BRT station, limited commercial/ office development (approximately (240,000 sq. ft.) is proposed for the parcels along Route 30 and that are adjacent to the Lancaster General Hospital BRT station. This development includes four main housing types comprising about 700 units: large lot homes that front on a street and may include a rear alley, townhomes that front on a street with car access from a rear alley, small apartment buildings and two large apartment complexes. This variety of housing options is meant to attract and accommodate a range of incomes.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Site Plan Route 30

Lots

Open Space

Parking Lots

Buildings

Land Use Plan Route 30

Transportation

Civic

Low-Density Residential

Retail

Open Space

Medium-Density Residential

High-Density Residential

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

existing development

Lots Open Space Buildings Parking Lots

The western portion of the development is pictured above. In the northeast corner of the site is an existing Toys â€˜Râ€™ Us warehouse location, which has been left untouched, but appropriately buffered from the rest of the development with trees. The site contains single family homes around its perimeter, adjacent to the park and across from Longs Park. Townhouse units with alley access are at the center of the site.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lots Open Space Buildings Parking Lots

BRT station

proposed civic center

The eastern part of the site is pictured above. In the north of the site lies a BRT station, surface parking lots, and retail uses. At the intersection of the main arterials are high-density, large apartment buildings. Also along the main east- west road are higher density apartment buildings to the west of the site and park in order to protect riparian functions and draw people to the park at the center of the site. Again, larger lots are found at the perimeters of the site and bordering the park with higher density townhome blocks with alley access in the central portion of the site.

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

BRT Station Plan

Lots Open Space Buildings Parking Lots

A zoomed-in view of the station area and sections are shown above and opposite. BRT lanes are marked in red to announce to both the bus and drivers that the bus will be making a stop and merging in and out of the right lane. The BRT stations are connected by a covered overpass. The station is surrounded by a green plaza and is serviced by green parking lots complete with swales. The developmentâ€™s main arterial has bike lanes marked boldly in green to remind drivers to share the road and bright crosswalks to protect pedestrians. A variety of tree types can be found along the developmentâ€™s streets and associated tree trenches help to manage stormwater.

MODEL CODE: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

20 feet

20 feet 50 feet

13 feet 20 feet

150 feet

86 feet 5 ft

15 feet 8 ft sidewalk

5 ft 10 ft

10 ft

parking bike travel turn lane

lane

10 ft travel lane

15 feet 8 ft

bike parking lane

sidewalk

lane

URBANDESIGNPLANSATBRTSTATIONS

COLUMBIA STATION Columbia is a small historic town located in the western part of Lancaster County on the Susquehanna River. The town is home to the Turkey Hill Experience, the National Clock and Watch Museum, and several art galleries. Bordering the city to the west is the Chickies Rock County Park. Compared to other parts of the Lancaster County, Columbia is considerably less well-off. Social and economic issues facing the community include high poverty rates, lack of commercial activity in the downtown area, and a deteriorating housing stock. Transit investment will help encourage new commercial and residential development adjacent to the BRT station as well as spur general reinvestment in the town.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Elizabethtown

Ephrata Mt Joy

Manheim

Lititz New Holland Lancaster

The Columbia Station will be located on the BRT line running west from Lancaster along Route 30. Station stops along the route will include one in East Hempfield and two in Mountville. From Columbia, BRT service will continue to Marietta. In the proposed second phase of the Lancaster BRT system, a route will extend to York in neighboring York County.

Columbia

BRT Route Map

Approximate BRT Travel Times Marietta

Lancaster Mountville

■■ To Lancaster: 28 minutes ■■ To Marietta: 6 minutes ■■ To York: 25 minutes

To York

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Columbia Base Map and Station Location

1,000 Feet

Station Context

1/2 Mile

The proposed station would be located directly off of Route 30. This site was selected to ensure easy access to and from the highway and to take advantage of the availability of more land in this less densely settled area.

1/4 Mile Downtown Columbia Major Manufacturing Employer Public Parks and Open Space Public School

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Over the past two decades the town’s population has declined from 10,700 to 10,400 in 2010. During the same period, the total population of Lancaster County grew by nearly 100,000 or approximately 23% (U.S. Census). County projections estimate that Columbia’s population will decline further to 9,746 in 2030.

Columbia Borough Population Change, 1990 - 2030 10,800 10,400 10,000 9,600 9,200 1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Year Housing Unit Build (Percentage of Total Units in 2010) 70%

50%

30%

10%

Prior to 1950

1950 to 1959

1960 to 1969

Columbia

1970 to 1979

1980 to 1989

1990 to 1999

2000 to Present

Lancaster County

More than 60% of housing units in Columbia were constructed prior to 1950. This is reflected in the characteristics of the town’s housing stock, which is largely defined by historic brick row homes. Beginning in 1970, Lancaster County saw an increase in housing development: 52% of housing units in the County were built between 1970 and 2010. In comparison, only 24% of the housing units in Columbia were built during this period (American Community Survey 2010). As evidenced by these numbers, countywide development trends have largely passed Columbia by.

Columbia Housing Units: Value (2010) 1,400

54%

1,000 26% 600 15% 200

6% Less than $100,000

$100,000 to $149,999

$150,000 to $199,999

The average age of Columbia’s housing stock helps to explain the low value of many of the town’s homes. In 2010, a majority of units were valued at less than $100,000, with only 6% of units valued at more than $200,000. The median housing unit value is approximately $97,000 in 2010 dollars (American Community Survey 2010).

$200,000 or more

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Environmental Factors Local environmental conditions within a one-half mile radius of the BRT station were mapped to determine potential constraints to development. Environmentally sensitive lands are included in the environmental protection zoning overlay district, shown on the opposite page. The presence of prohibitively steep slopes, interior forestland, and core wildlife habitat north of Route 30 will limit the amount and type of development that can take place. 100 Year Floodplain Steep Slope: 15% - 20% Steep Slope: 20% or more

Interior Forest Interior Forest Buffer Core Habitat Boundary

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Proposed Zoning

Zoning Districts

Zoning Overlays

Walkable Neighborhood

Environmental Protection

Core Neighborhood

Historic District

Civic and Institutional Industrial and Manufacturing Scenic and Recreational

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Land Use Plan Total Potential Development: 329,800 square feet or 7.5 acres Medium Density Residential 128,000 square feet (38.8%) High Density Residential 79,800 square feet (24.2%) Retail 21,100 square feet (6.4%) Office 37,600 square feet (11.4%) Mixed Retail-Office 20,500 square feet (6.2%) Mixed Retail-Residential 37,700 square feet (11.4%) Civic 5,100 square feet (1.5%) Transportation 103,000 square feet Public or Private Open Space 426,300 square feet

250 Feet

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Site Plan Overview

Design Principles: ■■ Create a hub of activity around the BRT station, incorporating a balance of retail, office and residential uses ■■ Provide a variety of affordable and modern housing options for Columbia residents ■■ Invest in public realm improvements, paying particular attention to walkability and the pedestrian experience ■■ Take advantage of infill development opportunities between the station and downtown to help encourage reinvestment in Columbia’s commercial core ■■ Manage stormwater on-site through landscaping, rainwater cisterns, and impervious paving material ■■ Incorporate elements of contextual design to reflect Columbia’s contemporary and historic characteristics

250 Feet

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Detailed Site Plan

The following pages illustrate how the model code outline could be applied to this specific site. In addition, proposals informed by the design principles for the site are identified.

There are two main development parcels in the plan: one which would be zoned as a Walkable Neighborhood District and the other as a Core Neighborhood District. The infill development opportunities are located in both the Walkable Neighborhood and Core Neighborhood Districts.

1. Walkable Neighborhood District 2. Core Neighborhood District 250 Feet

3. Infill Development Opportunities

250 Feet

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Walkable Neighborhood

Residential rowhomes with parking garages accessed from back alley

Highway ramp realigned to create large development parcel

Three-story apartment building with a variety of unit types and shared public plaza in front Public open space designed to retain and filter stormwater runoff

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Core Neighborhood

Highway ramp realigned to create large develoment parcel

Floodplain protection area with landscaping to filter stomwater

Green parking lot located in rear of development with impervious surfaces and landscaped parking dividers

Street trees planted at a distance of 30 feet from center

BRT station area

Permanent farmers market structure with adjacent public plaza for weekly farmers market

Mixed commercial and retail spaces to accommodate a variety of different types of tenants

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Infill Development

Residential units with ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space

Residential rowhomes with parking garages accessed from back alley

Multi-story apartment building with affordable units

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

BRT Station Plan The BRT station would be located on the northern side of the development proposal. One platform would service the BRT line running between Lancaster city and York while the other would service the route to Marietta. Station platforms would be aligned with the bus lane to ensure efficient bus travel speeds. A public waiting area around the platforms will provide space for bicycle parking, rain gardens, and public art installations.

BRT Station Section

Creative lighting Pre-board fare collection and real-time information on bus arrival At-level boarding platform

30’-0” Public Plaza

15’-0” Station Platform

12’-0” Bus Lane

20’-0” Public Plaza

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

North 3rd Street at Linden Street Looking West The section below is meant to illustrate how the road dimension requirements in the model code outline would apply to an existing street in Columbia. North 3rd Street is the main corridor connecting Route 30 to downtown Columbia. Currently, the section of the street between Linden Street and Route 30 has two travel lanes, two parking lanes, and a central turn lane. The proposed road retrofit would remove the central lane, replacing it with bike lanes along both sides of the road. While the two travel lanes would remain, their width would be narrowed to 10 feet to slow down the speed of traffic. The sidewalk on the north side of the street would be widened to accommodate increased foot traffic accessing retail establishments along the block.

Residential Commercial Residential

8’-0”

9’-0” 6’-0” Sidewalk Parking Bike Lane Lane

10’-0”

Travel Lane

6’-0” 9’-0” Bike Parking Lane Lane

12’-0” Sidewalk

68’-0” Cartway

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

ROHRERSTOWN STATION The site is situated west of Lancaster city, near Rohrerstown, adjacent to the Armstrong headquarter site. Armstrong is one of the leading international producers of ceiling product. The site is located where industrial zoning and small town neighborhood zoning meets. The site is currently mostly farmland, with Route 30 running to the north , connecting lancaster city to other boroughs. And the Bus Rapid Transit station is for the site is located along Route 30.

Birdâ€™s eye view

Riparian Corridors & Wetlands The site contains a bifurcated stream and several small wetlands. The stream separates the site into three parts, with the west part close to the existing industrial park, the northeast part close to Rohrerstown (this is where the BRT station is located), and the southeast part near the Armstrong headquarters, a local community center, and several residential neighborhoods. Initially performance standards proposed a riparian buffer more than 300 ft from the stream bank. This site found a buffer of that site to be too restrictive. After further research, we concluded that a 100ft riparian buffer is sufficient in filtering out the pollutants and sediments from smaller streams. While 300 would be desired , we seek the balance between environmental protection and encouraging high-density development.

Existing streets

Soil hydric map

There are several small wetlands along the paths of the stream, but their buffer are too small and are within the larger riparian corridors. Slopes

Contours

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Slopes, Contours & Soils

River streams

Apart from the river-that cuts through the site east to west, the site generally slopes north to south, and a freight line also cuts the site in two. So there are not many steep slopes within the site, there are some to the north of Route 30. Soils of most of the site are partially hydric, so any development should limit runoff through the use of green space and permeable surfaces.

300 ft corridor

100 ft corridor

Environmental Conditions Steep Slope:Conditions 15% - 20% Environmental

Steep Slope: 15%-20%

Steep Slope: 15% - 20%

Steep Slope: 20%+

Riparian Corridor

300 feet Corridor 300 feet 300 ft Corridor Corridor

Partially Hydric Soil

Partially Hydric Soil On site creek

On Site Creek

On site creek

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Land Use Map The site is currently zoned in three parts according to the river that separates it. The original zoning is a bit complicated and mainly consists of mid- or low-density residential and local commercial zoning. The new zoning makes the most of the south and east parts of the site zoned Walkable Neighborhood Development, the north part (which directly connects to the BRT station) zoned civic and industrial, and the west part which is zoned industrial. Within the residential zoning, two separate walkable neighborhoods are created, each radiating out approximately a quarter mile from its commercial and community amenity center. Additionally, there is a walkable, low-density mixeduse office park within a quarter mile from the BRT station. All three neighborhoods are pedestrian friendly, there are dedicated pedestrian-only green corridors and plazas that help the workers and the residents connect to the â€˜green beltâ€™ along the waterbank directly.

Low-Density Residential l Mid-Density Residential l High-Density Residential Commercial Mixed Commercial Residential Industrial Civic Open Space

Zoning Map

There is a local commercial center in the east central potion of the site. It not only serves the two residential neighborhoods, but is also situated along the main Rohrerstown road and can be easily accessed by the adjacent residents. The industrial park is relatively isolated from the neighborhoods. There is no vehicular traffic through the industrial park, but there are ample pedestrian paths to serve workers arriving by transit.

Walkable Neighborhood Core Neighborhood Industrial and Manufacturing Civic and Institutional Scenic and Recreational

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Site Plan

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Highway Bus Rapid Transit Station Section

Pedestrian bridge Car lane

Car lane

Bus lane

Bus stop

35’

Bus stop

20’

12’

5’

10’

5’

10’

5’

10’

12’

20’

35’

190’ p to

ou sr

p to

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

BRT station and plaza plan ■■ Pedestrian friendly plaza ■■ Pervious Surface Parking ■■ Dealing with height difference ■■ Mix-used Office 1/4 mile radius

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

KELLOGG STATION EAST HEMPFIELD TOWNSHIP

Kellogg Station is a proposal for a mixed-use, transit-oriented development in East Hempfield, PA. It is located on roughly 45 acres, adjacent to a future Bus Rapid Transit station. The site is along Route 283, approximately seven miles from downtown Lancaster. The plan utilizes development standards set forth in the Code to mitigate the impact of development on a greenfield. The core neighborhood will feature walkable and bikeable streets, townhouses surrounding open space, ample public plazas, and a variety of retail amenities. Site location

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH Kellogg Factory

Site Area

Kellogg Station BRT

Route

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP

283

EAST HEMPFIELD Har risb

urg

Pike

Park City BRT

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

LANCASTER CITY

Existing Conditions The site is comprised primarily of industrial and agricultural land in the midst of lower density suburban residential and commercial areas. The Kellogg Factory, east of State Road, employs over 570 people, making it one of the top ten employers in the County.

Core Building Area General Building Area

Less than one mile south of the site is a relatively high income single-family residential area. North of the highway (outside the scope of this site plan) is a gas station and auto dealership. East Hempfield is expected to experience some of the highest growth rates in the County over the next few decades. The County has designated the general area around the route 722 interchange a prime location inside the growth boundary for new development.

The area is surrounded by farmland on either side of the highway

Precedent In 2005, a New Urbanist development was proposed in and around the site-- Independence, PA, designed by the firm Duany Plater-Zyberk. The the proposed town would occupy over 300 acres. Many County residents disapproved of such a large scale development. The Kellogg Station plan provides a scaled down alternative to this precedent.

The general Kellogg Site Area compared to the DPZ plan

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Current Land Use

RD ATE

STATE RD 722

ROUTE 283

1/4 Mile

1/2 Mile IS

Farmland

Low Density Residential

Industrial & Corporate

Civic/Institutional

Commercial & Services

Forest

Med. Density Residential

Transportation & Utilities

Primary Site Area

AMTRAK

Typical large-lot housing style in neighborhoods south of the site

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Physical Limitations

The Amtrak line runs parallel to Route 283. This presents an obstacle in terms of station siting and the added distance BRT users must walk between the BRT platforms and main station.

TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES BRT Lanes

AMTRAK LINE

STATE RD 722

The site has a number of significant physical barriers created by existing transportation infrastructure.

Pedestrian Walkover

Station

ROUTE 283

Moreover, a 16,000 sq. ft substation is located adjacent to the tracks, in what would have been a prime location for the BRT station. State Route 722 passes over the highway but also has to clear the rail lines, and is therefore elevated on a berm, creating a noticeable incline down toward the site. Nearly five acres of land fronting Route 722 is too sloped for development to be feasible.

Substation adjacent to the Amtrak line

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

Environmental Sensitivity

STATE RD 722

Kellogg Factory

The site has a few areas of high environmental sensitivity, concentrated primarily in the southern portion of the site. One of the main features is a stream, known as Swarr Run, that meanders behind the industrial lots and into the existing farmland. The dark blue color represents its 100-year floodplain, while the lighter blue indicates a 100-foot buffer the studio added as an added layer of protection, where development should also be avoided.

Wetlands

Precautionary slopes (15-25% slope), shown in pink, are also unsuitable for development. â€œClass IVâ€? soils that are prone to erosion are shown in yellow. Development on these portions of the site could have a detrimental effect on watershed health and is therefore restricted.

Precauntionary Steep Slopes (15-25%)

100

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Class IV Soil 100-year Flood Plain Flood Plain Buffer

Proposed Zoning Potential Core Neighborhood Extension

Industrial Manufacturing

Environmental Protection Overlays

Core Neighborhood

Walkable Neighborhood Potential Walkable Neighborhood Extension Environmental Protection Overlays

The bulk of the site will be a Core Neighborhood district -- a zoning classification that allows mixed uses and housing densities between 10-20 units per acre. The maximum building heights will be 65 ft. Three-story mixed use buildings will be concentrated in the central portion, east of the linear park, as shown in the site plan. Of the roughly 220 units of housing, more than half will be single family detached units or detached one and two story townhomes. A smaller portion of the plan is des-

ignated as a Walkable Neighborhood zone, which tolerates slightly lower densities. While there is more adjacent land within the growth boundary to accommodate substantially more development within the 1/4 and 1/2 transit â€œwalkshed,â€? particularly as an extension of the Walkable Neighborhood District, this plan can be seen as a vision the first phase of potential development.

can be maintained, while new office buildings are proposed on the existing Kellogg parking lot, to create a denser built environment that connects to retail and restaurants. The green dashed outlines show the Environmental Protection Overlay areas where development is restricted or more carefully regulated.

On the western portion of the site, industrial and corporate uses

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

101

Site Plan

BRT Station Pedestrian Overpass

Steep Slopes

Kellogg Factory

Main Station Parking Garage STATE RD 722

Offices

Residential

Farmland Steep Slopes Flood Plain-- Park Farmland

Buildings-- New

Sidewalk, Public Plaza

Buildings--Existing

Rail Line Proposed Busway

300 ft

Parking-- New Public open space

Urban Growth Boundary

3-story townhouses facing open space Curb cut for access access first floor parking underneath the units

102

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

2-story attached single family Garage parking in rear 30 X 40 houses

STATE RD 722

Land Use Plan

300 ft

Single Family, Detached Industrial and Corporate

Commercial

Mixed Retail and Residential

Medium-Density, Attached Residential

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

103

Station Plaza Detail

(Substation)

Station Entrance Retail Bike Parking

Public Parking Garage ground floor retail Farm Market,Year Round

Bridge

Outdoor Seating and Event Space Retail and Apartments

Park

Townhouses

Cafe

100 ft,

N Street layout The overall street pattern complements the existing roads, creating a block pattern on the eastern side of the site. The diagonal direction of the main street is intentional, to emphasize the natural features of the site. This street and building layout is also in alignment with the eastern faรงade of the Kellogg factory.

The plan also accommodates slightly larger lots that will contain detached single family homes. These will be located primarily in the Walkable Neighborhood district, where the target density is 7.5 units per acre.

Housing

Bars and restaurants with ample outdoor space, including the cafe on the patio facing the linear park, provide venues for entertainment. One idea is for a bar and grill set around a public plaza that projects sports games and movies on a large screen. This would be attractive for the Kellogg employees, residents, and visitors alike. The Farm Market at the BRT station plaza will be an indoor, year-round operation, but will host weekend events with outdoor vending.

Apartment units are in the 2nd and 3rd stories above new ground-level retail and commercial uses. Parking for these units will be in interior lots, on the street, or in the case of the triangular building, hidden underneath a 2nd floor apartment terrace. Many of the blocks will contain an attached maisonette and townhouse typology. Clusters of townhouses will face the linear park. The homes will be two- story, single family units, with parking in the rear alley, as per the code regulations.

104

Entertainment

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Retail and Commercial The proposed site layout accommodates a variety of retail uses, from boutique shops to stores like CVS that require a larger building footprint. The vision for the site is that it primarily serve local needs. Examples of appropriate uses might include a hardware store, grocery store, coffee shops, a bank, nail salon, bike shop, and beer distributor.

Parking The transit overlay reduces the minimum parking requirements since more people will take mass transit, but off-street parking lots are still necessary. For office uses, for example, a minimum of 48 parking spaces are needed per 24,000 sq. ft. of office space. As the plan includes two large office buildings (48,000 sq. ft. each), nearly 200 parking spaces are required. To minimize impact of large lots, parking is behind buildings and heavily landscaped with shade trees and bioswales.

Bus Rapid Transit Access Stairs and elevators on both the east- and west- bound bus platforms along Route 283 will lead up to a covered pedestrian overpass spanning the width of the highway and rail line. The overpass leads to a 20,000 sq. ft., two-story station building. The stationâ€˜s interior will have a small cafe and ticketing booths, while externally anchoring a large outdoor plaza with a year-round farm market. On the south eastern side, a parking garage, with bottom-level retail, will serve County residents who need to access the station by car.

to station

Route 283 busonly lane

busonly lane

entrance bus platform bus platform

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

105

Green Infrastructure Protecting watershed health by limiting high volumes of stormwater runoff is a primary goal set forth by the Code. As such, a variety of strategies shall be utilized to reduce impervious surfaces and runoff. The Code requires all new Core Neighborhood Developments to limit impervious surfaces to 60% of the site. The Kellogg Station Site Plan meets most of this requirement by setting aside the linear park as a green open space that uses natural topography and hydrology to catch and filter runoff that may be created by adjacent uses. All new homes will be built with cisterns to catch rain water, and, where possible, pervious pavement. Alleyways within residential blocks will be constructed with porous pavement, with sub-surface piping that will connect to a bioretention area adjacent to the site. At least two major streets will be built with narrow bioswales to collect street runoff. These will also serve as bike lane buffers to provide safer biking conditions. Additionally, the perennial plants and trees within the swale can help bring the street to life. As the site will contain a few large office buildings and substantial retail, large parking areas are necessary, even with the transit overlay. To mitigate the impact of these surfaces, a combination of vegetated bioswales (with trees every 20 ft. to provide shade) and porous pavement will be installed. While these interventions cost more than conventional construction materials, they will add value aesthetically. Larger buildings with flat roofs are appropriate for green roof installations. For example, the parking garageâ€™s 27,000 sq. ft. roof will be targeted for a green roof capable of handling large volumes of rain water. The diagram on the following page illustrates one way to simultaneously deal with street runoff and protect bicyclists. Bioswales and bike lanes shown along the Kellogg Stationâ€™s main street.

106

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Street Section - Bioswale and Bike Lanes

Bioswale

5 ft 10 ft setback

sidewalk

5 ft

7 ft

Bioswale

10 ft

7 ft

5 ft

bike

bioswale

travel

bioswale

bike

lane

street tree

10 ft

5 ft

sidewalk setback

street tree

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

107

MARIETTA STATION Marietta is one of the 18 boroughs in Lancaster County with a total population of around 2700 residents. While it is a small town, more than half of the borough is a historic district with 373 structures contributing to the National Historic Registry in the central business district and the surrounding residential areas. Some of these structures include historic brick mansions and working class rowhomes. With a quaint small town historic fabric in place, the borough has capitalized on this feature and encouraged the development of independent art galleries, antique stores, coffee shops, and bed and breakfasts, especially along Market Street, the main commercial corridor. In addition, the Susquehanna River is another significant asset to the borough with numerous access points along the banks. Marietta is part of the newly created Historic Rivertowns and Western Villages Trail.

Susquehanna River Access

The development site, which is about 105 acres, lies north of downtown Marietta and is bounded by the urban growth limits. There are several significant employers and institutions around the chosen design site, including Donegal Insurance Company (a corporate headquarters), GlaxoSmith Kline (vaccine manufacturing), and Donegal Middle School. There is also a relatively new mixed-use development west of the design site, indicating a potentially favorable future real estate market for the area.

Architecture

Historic Marietta Square

108

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

DESIGN SITE CONTEXT

new mixed-use development

The proposed BRT station is located at the intersection of Anderson Ferry Road and River Road, which is approximately 1/2 mile northeast of downtown Marietta. This area is currently mostly undeveloped with a small branch bank, a motel, and the Donegal Insurance Company in its immediate vicinity. The BRT will be proposed to run along the River Road corridor, connecting Columbia to the west and potentially Harrisburg International Airport and beyond to the east. Intersection of Anderson Ferry Road and River Road. Location of the proposed Marietta BRT Station (courtesy of Bing Maps)

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

109

Major Environmental Conditions

A major environmental challenge in this study area is the existence of the 100 year floodplain. As shown on the map above, a good portion of Marietta is in the floodplain and as a consequence, periodic inundation is major issue for the borough. Although flooding is not an immediate concern with respect to the urban design site, the floodplain stretches across the southern portion. Based on the GIS environmental analyses conducted earlier in the studio, the 100 ft floodplain buffer marks a preemptive protection zone, where any proposed development will be subject to certain performance standards referenced in the model code.

100 year floodplain 100 ft floodplain buffer Priority Filtration Area

In addition, The GIS analyses identified a priority filtration area, a small forested area in the middle of the design site, which may help cleanse impaired waters from entering the stream course and eventually into the Susquehanna River.

110

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Transit Overlay Proposed Districts

The above map illustrates the proposed model code districts within the Transit Overlay District which covers a 1/2 mile walkshed from the proposed BRT station. The area between the proposed station and the western portion of the overlay is designated as Core Neighborhood, in anticipation of the budding mixed-use development expanding westward. It also includes Donegal Insurance Company and Donegal Middle School. The middle school properties will be designated as Civic and Institutional. The eastern portion of the overlay would not be able to sustain as much density and is designated as a Walkable Neighborhood. Any part of the borough of Marietta will have a historic overlay and the riverfront stretch along the Susquehanna River is designated as Scenic and Recreational. Finally, the areas covering the flood plain will have an environmental protection overlay to mitigate potentially harmful development impacts.

CN : Core Neighborhood WN : Walkable Neighborhood CI : Civic and Institutional Historic Overlay SC : Scenic and Recreational Environmental Protection Overlay Existing Parks

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

111

Proposed Design Plan

Andersen Ferry Road 5.5 acres existing forest block

48 acres

eventual detention pond or filtration wetland

proposed station

River Road

10 acres Donegal Insurance

floodplain zone

400 ft

existing residential

The proposed design plan generates a Transit Oriented Development with a core retail / commercial / office focus surrounding the BRT station. One of its primary goals is to establish a “walkable” connection between it and downtown Marietta, hoping to help draw more people to the borough. Given the proposal, downtown Marietta would be 1/4 mile from the southern edge of the development.

Proposed Buildings

The station itself is placed inside an oval park and plaza space to efficiently accommodate buses along the east-west River Road corridor. The overall design follows a simple concentric circular pattern around the proposed station, where the first ring facing the station are all retail and commercial building faces. All parking associated with the development is tucked behind them. There are also numerous small plaza spaces filling the “in-between” spaces.

Proposed Office Park

Proposed Open Spaces Sidewalks Plaza spaces

Proposed Medium Density Residential

To target the needed density to sustain this proposal, the plan also considers an office park development and medium density residential development to the west with a target density of 6-7 units per acre, totalling 350 - 400 new dwelling units.

112

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Station Vicinity Land Use

12000 sq ft 12000 sq ft 81000 sq ft shops with cinemaplex 15000 sq ft drugstore

12000 sq ft

PUBLIC SQUARE

50000 sq ft

16000 sq ft 12000 sq ft 16000 sq ft

37000 sq ft

Donegal Insurance 60000 sq ft grocery store 400 ft

existing residential

Three primary anchor retailers are proposed: a grocery store, a big box drugstore, and a shops with a cinemaplex totaling 156,000 sq ft. These major establishments will draw people in larger numbers and support the presence and vitality of a transit centered public square, the main public domain of the development. The rest of the development in the immediate station vicinity will be mixed office and retail totaling 130,000 sq ft.

Retail (156,000 sq ft total) Mixed Office and Retail (130,000 sq ft total) Open Space

The current entrance to Donegal Insurance will need to be reconfigured to accommodate the station area but the design of the station and public square will work with the large open space with a matured landscape in front of the company.

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

113

Circulation Diagram

to residential

drop-off

to residential

dro p-

offs

to office

River Ro

400 ft

downtown Marietta 0.25 miles

The circulation diagram of the plan shows how different parts of the development, including parking, are connected, and how they may be potentially accessed. All vehicular traffic will go around the station but the BRT buses will go straight through the oval area where the station is located. The walkable connections among the station, the anchor establishments, the various plazas, and parking areas, are especially important for this proposal. River Road supports dedicated BRT lanes in the middle due to its wide 80 ft ROW. There is ample space for vehicular lanes and generous landscape buffers and sidewalks. Depending on where along River Road, the landscape buffer may also be a parking lane or another vehicular travel lane. Due to it suburban context, parking is quite a necessary component for this development to be realistic and credible. The necessary parking spaces for this development follows the model code under the Transit District Overlay with no more than 3 spots per 1000 sq ft and not less than 1 spot per 500 sq ft. All surface parking lots will be designed to minimize heat island effects and facilitate natural stormwater filtration with generous landscaped plantings and shade trees.

114

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

BRT main vehicular pedestrian parking

River Road Typical Section

ALTERNATE parking lane 2nd traveling lane

TYPICAL PARKING SCENARIOS

DESIRED PARKING SCENARIOS

urbandispatch.com

rwmwd.org

forbes.com

land2plan.com

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

115

Station Area Detail

atrium access

retail enclosure Donegal Insurance “front yard” strong visual connections

”open” connections park and ride lot drop off zone

The creation of a vibrant and functional public square centered around the BRT station to encourage a less automobile-centric and more walkable environment, both within the development, and to and from Marietta “proper” is a key priority. In detail, retail fronts will face three sides of the square, and pedestrians may move about the entire area via crosswalks and traffic islands that connect the interior and exterior areas. The fourth side of the square is open and provides a more relaxing area for respite enabled by larger visual continuity with the “front yard” of Donegal Insurance Company. A partially dedicated park and ride lot and drop-off zone will be situated for people to conveniently access the station. Parking must be tied to the station since it is anticipated that a good portion of potential transit users will still need to drive to get to the station. The retail buildings around the station will have entrances in both the front and the rear to provide access for both drivers and walkers. In addition, atriums may be incorporated into these retail buildings for more direct circulation routes from the various parking areas directly to the station and its vicinity.

116

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

The integration of appropriately defined and scaled public realm spaces with the BRT station is considered. The station area will be designed to accommodate many activities, which may be tied to using transit. However, people will also have access and reasons to be in the station area even if they may not be commuting.

section cut

The station vicinity will be a mix of hardscape and softscape areas with a variety of paths running through them. At its widest areas, the square will encompass up to 120 ft of leisure space to accommodate various activities driven by the nearby retail establishments.

Section Through Station

URBAN DESIGN PLANS AT BRT STATIONS

117

GIS METHODOLOGY

The use of ArcGIS comprised a large portion of this studio project. At various points throughout the semester, team members relied on GIS for transit modeling, environmental modeling, and for allocating zoning districts throughout the county. This section of the document is intended to provide a more detailed review of the techniques of spatial analysis employed in this studio.

METHODOLOGY Vector-Based Processing Vector-based processing is the more common approach to GIS in planning. Vector processing involves modeling forms and attributes of discrete objects, such as streets and parcels. Much of the data that Lancaster County Planning Commission provided The Studio began in vector format. While members of The Studio conducted vector-based analysis early in the semester, much of the vectorbased data was eventually converted to raster for use in more sophisticated processing.

Raster-Based Processing The Studio primarily employed raster based processing techniques. Raster processing involves mapping properties of space rather than of discrete objects. It models the world as a series of similar sized girdcells, with each individual grid cell representing qualities of space for an area bounded by four coordinate points. If vector processing is beneficial for mapping the world as it is, then perhaps one of the hidden benefits of raster-based processing is the ability to map what “is not quite there.” Raster processing is invaluable when modeling more abstract and intangible qualities such as nearness, risk, probability, or neighborhood influence.

120

A juxtaposition of Buildings and Density of Buildings offers insight into why qualities of “space” are sometimes more useful than discrete objects.

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING The Studio sought to map the influence of environmental conditions in a local and a system-wide context. The following text discusses the specific techniques of spatial analysis used to model the environmental conditions in Lancaster County.

Mapping Local Conditions The following section will discuss the techniques involved in modeling the environmental conditions that informed the environmental performance standards within the code. The studio mapped most environmental conditions in vector and later converted them to raster for future analysis.

TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS Elevation -- Elevation was modeled by Interpolating with IDW a layer of DEM points provided by the Lancaster County Planning Commission Slope -- Slope was modeled using Slope Tool to measure percent change.

A grid of elevation with flow paths overlaid

Flow Accumulation -- Flow accumulation was modeled using the Flow Direction and the Flow Accumulation Tools upon the Elevation Surface. Flow Accumulation played a large role in modeling watershed dynamics.

VEGETATION/HABITAT Woodlands -- Woodlands were mapped by isolating contiguous blocks larger than 10,000 square feet from a Forest Shapefile provided by the Lancaster County Planning Commission. Forest Blocks -- Forest Blocks were mapped by isolating only contiguous areas of Woodlands 100 acres or larger. Interior Forests -- Interior Forests were mapped by Buffering 100 meters inward from the â€œedgeâ€? of Woodland Areas overlaid with a small town

GIS METHODOLOGY

121

any Woodland over five acres; edge is defined as any boundary created by a road, utility right of way, rail line, or forest end. Priority Filtration Cover -- Priority Filtration Cover was mapped by using Raster Calculator to isolate those areas that had a Flow Accumulation over 100 in a Forest Block. A Cost-Weighted Buffer of 100 feet was placed around all selected cells to create Priority Filtration Cover. Core Habitat Areas -- Core Habitat Areas were mapped using a Core Habitat Shapefile created for the 2008 Natural Heritage Inventory of Lancaster County. An example of a “Forest Block”

Supporting Landscapes -- Supporting Landscapes were mapped using a Supporting Landscapes shapefile created for the 2008 Natural Heritage Inventory of Lancaster County.

RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS

A healthy “Riparian Corridor”

Riparian Corridor -- Riparian Corridors were initially mapped according to a shapefile created for the Lancaster County Planning Commission by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. The original shapefile used a baseline buffer of 100 meters from the streambank, and increased this buffer according to landcover, stream order, and topography. The Studio found this buffer too restrictive. The Final Riparian Corridor was measured by first differentiating stream orders using the Strahler Method. Low-order streams were Buffered 50 feet from the stream bank; high order streams 75 feet from the stream bank; streams designated “Exceptional Value” 100 feet from the stream bank.

Wetlands -- Wetlands were mapped using a Wetland Shapefile provided by the Lancaster County Planning Commission.

Floodplains -- Floodplains are mapped using a 100-year Flood Plain

shapefile from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provided by Lancaster County Planning Commission.

122

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

SOIL PROPERTIES General Soil Properties -- Soil properties were mapped by accessing a Lancaster County Soil Survey through the USGS Web Soil Survey. Properties extracted from the site include erodibility, slope, distance to water table, filtration capacity, and suitability for development. Highly Erodible Soils -- Highly Erodible Soils were mapped by isolating those sections of the Soil Survey with a K-Factor greater than .4, or those soils labeled class VI or VII

A “Non-Attaining Stream” as evidenced by heavy sedimentation

Mapping Watershed Systems Understanding the health of a watershed begins by understanding the health of its respective body of water. The Studio decided to model the drainage basin for every stream segment in Lancaster County. Using a classification system designed by the EPA, The Studio classified stream segments according to whether they were “attaining” or non “attaining” and whether they were upstream or downstream according to the Strahler Method.

Modeling Watersheds The studio modeled watersheds using the Watershed Tool in the Spatial Analyst Hyrdo Toolbox. Each individual stream segment was converted to raster, and these raster cells comprised the “pour points” for each watershed. The Studio had each individual drainage basin classify itself according to the qualities of its respective stream: whether that stream is attaining or non-attaining and whether that stream is located upstream or downstream. The drainage basins were classified into four categories: attaining-headwater; non-attaining headwater; attaining downstream; non-attaining downstream. Headwater and attaining drainage basins will

A more controlled and less channelized “Attaining Stream”

require the most stringent standards for watershed protection.

GIS METHODOLOGY

123

Modeling Watershed Health The principal tool the Studio used to model watershed health was Flow Accumulation. The studio used Flow Accumulation to help design a surface of cost over which rainwater would flow. The value of each cell in the cost surface was determined by its ability to mitigate harm to the watershed. Areas with “low cost” have fewer opportunities mitigate harm, and should thus require more protective measures. The studio built a Friction Cost Grid that gave lower cost values to areas that could potentially cause more harm to their respective watershed. Areas proximate to streams, along concentrated flow paths, nearby agricultural or impervious coverage, and with high concentrations of erodible soils were given lower friction values. Areas less proximate to streams or nearby dense vegetation or soil with a high capacity for filtration were given higher friction values. The studio subjected the Friction Grid to the Cost Distance operation, which produced a graident of “cost,” or in this case “harm mitigation.” The Studio Reclassified high points and ridges between individual drainage basins to a value of NoData for the initial Cost Distance operation to ensure that cost accumulated: 1) only within its respective watershed; 2) along predeterminted flow paths, instead of jumping across flow paths to minimize its actual distance. At the completion of the Cost Distance operation, The Studio used Focal Statistics Maximum to return all basins to the maximum value of their immediate neighborhoods.

An example of how surface flow passes through different landcovers at different points in its journey through a watershed

124

Forest Cover

Impervious Surface

Farmland

Flow Path

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

The resulting cost distance gradient. In this instanceâ€œcostâ€? is a desirable outcome: increased cost means an increated opportunity to mitigate harm. Areas proximate to streams or that flow through farms or impervious coverage have less of an opportunity to filter out pollutants, and thus could inflict more damage to the water quality.

Potential to Harm High

Low

GIS METHODOLOGY

125

ALLOCATION MODELING The second major task involving GIS was to allocate the zoning districts throughout Lancaster County. Planners traditionally employ GIS as part of the zoning process, though it is often favored in initial phases of analysis or as a convenient means to assemble and organize data. The Studio sought instead to employ GIS as the driving force in determining the optimum locations for zoning districts. The Studio explored two varying techniques for allocation: sequential and parallel. Sequential allocation, as the name implies, sites desired uses in an algorithmic and hierarchical fashion. Sensitive uses are sited first, and subsequent uses locate accordingly. Parallel, or heuristic allocation relies on an automated process of trial and error that inches toward an optimum outcome given a set of cyclical evaluative parameters.

Context and Preparation

The watershed boundaries employed as test areas by The Studio

The Studio agreed to test the allocation methods within a confined geographic area. The Studio selected a test area of two watersheds in the Northwest section of Lancaster County. The watershed to the west offered an opportunity to allocate rural zoning categories, while the watershed in the east offered the opportunity to work largely within the Urban Growth Boundary. While the code lists a total of 12 zoning categories, The Studio decided only to site the primary eight categories: Scenic and Recreational (SC); Agricultural Low Impact; (AL); Agricultural High Impact (AH); Crossroad Community (CC); Village Center (VC); Walkable Neighborhood (WN); Core Neighborhood (CN); and Regional Center (RC).

126

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Spatial Suitability The first step of the allocation process involved creating seven individual suitability grids, one for each zoning category. The reason the studio created seven grids instead of eight is because Agricultural Low and High Impact employ the same criteria when determining suitability. What differentiates the two is their capacity to harm a given watershed due to their location along a surface of watershed cost. After farmland was allocated, the Studio employed Raster Calculator to identify those agricultural grid cells in high cost areas. The Studio created Spatial Suitability grids by examining environmental, demographic, and other spatial conditions in relation to how well the conditions satisfied the form, performance, and spatial requirements of each zoning category. The suitability grids were designed to prioritize both existing areas with desired form and areas of potential for the future. A series of spatial analysis tools such as Focal Statistics, Cost Distance, Euclidean Distance, and Kernel Density was used to identify the qualities of space important to each zoning district. The individual suitability grids were created using a combination of Raster Calculator, Reclassify, and Cell Statistics. The following pages discuss the criteria used to determine suitability for each each zoning category. The following seven grids employ the same symbology gradient, with ascending suitability values ranging from 0 (yellow) to 4/5 (royal blue). Each cell receives a value of 1 if...

Scenic and Recreational (SC)

■■ It has a high concentration of performance standards in its five-acre neighborhood ■■ It has any performance standards that preclude development ■■ It has a concentration of more than five performance standards ■■ It is in an area of “low watershed cost” (high harm) Reverts to zero if.... ■■ It is within the Urban Growth Boundary Reverts to the maximum score (4) if... ■■ It is within an area designated parkland by the Lancaster County Planning Commission

GIS METHODOLOGY

127

Agricultural (AL/AH)

Each cell receives a value of 1 if... ■■ It has a soil classification of I-IV ■■ It is within a contiguous 35 acre block of agricultural land ■■ It is within an area with a low density of buildings per acre ■■ It is more than half a mile from a commercial, cultural, or employment Trip Generator Reverts to zero if.... ■■ It is within a mile of a BRT station Reverts to the maximum score (4) if... ■■ It is within a preserved block of farmland

Each cell receives a value of 2 if...

Crossroad Community (CC)

■■ It is less than .3 miles from a four way intersection of Country Roads ■■ It has a building density between .5 and 1 per acre Receives a value of 1 if... ■■ Itis within .3 and .5 miles of a four way intersection of Country Roads ■■ It has a building density between .1 and .5 per acre Reverts to zero if... ■■ It requires mitigation of environmental performance standards ■■ It is within the Urban Growth Boundary

128

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Village Center (VC)

Each cell receives a value of 1 if... ■■ It is within .5 miles of a four way intersection of Country Roads ■■ It has a building density greater than 1 per acre ■■ It minimizes its watershed cost ■■ It is less than half a mile to any commercial enterprise Reverts to zero if.... ■■ It is more than half a mile from a four way intersection of country roads. ■■ It is within the Urban Growth Boundary ■■ Requires mitigation of environmental performance standards Each cell receives a value of 1 if...

Walkable Neighborhood (WN)

■■ It is within .5 miles of any commercial establishment ■■ It is nearest to Country, Suburban, or Residential Avenues ■■ It is outside of highly dense commercial areas ■■ It is at least .25 miles from any Trip Generator ■■ It is outside .5 miles of a future BRT station Reverts to zero if.... ■■ It is nearest to a Highway or Commercial Strip Road Reverts to maximum score (4) if... ■■ It has a building density between .4 and 3 per acre and moderate road connectivity

GIS METHODOLOGY

129

Core Neighborhood (CN)

Each cell recieves a value of 1 if... ■■ It is within a quarter mile of a commercial cluster ■■ It is nearest to Residential, Downtown, Strip, Pike, or Highway roads. ■■ It minimizes its watershed cost ■■ It is more than .25 miles from the Urban Growth Boundary, unless there is a small clustering of commercial nearby ■■ It is within .5 miles of a Trip Generator Reverts to zero if... ■■ It has a high concentration of performance standards in its neighborhood Reverts to maximum score (5) if all three are true... ■■ It is within an area with a building density greater than 1 per acre ■■ It is within an area with moderate to high density of commercial establishments ■■ It is within .25 miles of arterial and collector roads with high VMT

130

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

Regional Center (RC)

Each cell receives a value of 1 if... ■■ It has a slope of less than 8 percent ■■ It minimizes its watershed cost ■■ It is within .25 miles of major arterial and collector roads with high VMT ■■ It is nearest to Downtown, Strip, Pike, and Highway Roads ■■ It is within .5 miles off a Trip Generator Reverts to zero if... ■■ It is within 2000 feet of the border of an Urban Growth Boundary ■■ It is farther than .5 miles from a future BRT station Reverts to maximum score (5) if two of the three are true... ■■ It is within an area with a high concentration of commercial/office establishments ■■ It is within an area with a building density greater than 3.5 per acre ■■ It is within an area with a high concentration of Downtown, Collector, or Arterial roads

GIS METHODOLOGY

131

Sequential Allocation The Studio decided to sequentially allocate zoning districts that occur outside the urban growth boundary. These include SC, AL, AH, CC, and VC. Since a vast majority of the land outside of the urban growth boundary will remain agriculture in the coming decades, the challenge of sequential allocation was to determine those areas that were best suited to become centers for rural development in the future. Since sequential allocation traditionally begins with the most sensitive or restrictive use, The Studio decided to first determine those areas that were most suitable for Village Center Development. SITING VILLAGE CENTERS In addition to the suitability criteria, the Studio determined that the following situational criteria would apply to how Village Centers locate relative to other land uses: 1) No area zoned VC will locate within 2 miles of another area zoned VC; 2) No area zoned VC will locate within .5 miles of any area zoned CC; 3) No area zoned VC will locate within 1 mile of the Urban Growth Boundary. To isolate those areas best suited for VC, the Studio used a combination of Cell Statistics and Raster Calculator to identify cells in which a VC Suitability score of 3 or 4 was ALSO the highest score of any of the potential zoning categories for that grid cell. The studio Region Grouped these areas and calculated Zonal Geometry Centroid to find the central point for each zone. The Studio envisioned these centroids as the focal points from which the boundary of a VC could be drawn. The Studio determined that a radius of 1600 feet (180 acres) was sufficient to maintain rural densities and contain sprawl. However, instead of measuring a 180 acre boundary using Euclidean Distance, The Studio chose to measure using a Cost-Weighted Distance, with the VC suitability values as the friction costs.

132

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

The logic behind this approach is that the environs of the zone should spread evenly from the centroid only in those areas where the landscape is suitable for VC development. If the entire 180 acres contained only VC Suitability values of 4, then it would make sense for the boundary to spread in a Euclidean fashion. But when the boundary encounters areas of low suitability, it makes sense that it would not wish to spread as far into those areas. This method helps conform the boundary to the realities of form and suitability, rather than geometry. SITING SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL

As part of the Sequential Allocation methodology, creating a Cost Distance surface helped to describe the cost per unit per distance traveling outward from the most suitable cells determined for Village Centers. Shown in gradation, areas in green have a lower cost than areas shown in red.

Initially The Studio planned to use the Scenic and Recreational zoning category to conserve sensitive landscapes through zoning. However, it soon became evident that the SC was better suited for large, contiguous tracts of forest, park, or public land than segments of individual property. The watershed cost metric and the performance standards within the code are adequate to mitigate conflicts between development and environmental protection. In that regard the studio sited SC by selecting all areas that satisfied the above criteria. SITING CROSSROAD COMMUNITIES The Studio determined that while CC is a necessary zoning category to contain sprawl, it is also the least amenable to compact, urban development. The Studio felt it was important to exert strict control over where CCs could locate, in order to preserve rural character, form, and the environment. The Studio determined the following situational criteria would apply to how Crossroad Communities locate relative to other land uses: 1) No area zoned CC will locate within .5 miles of an area zoned VC; 2) No area zoned CC will locate within 1 mile of another area zoned CC; 3) No area zoned CC will locate within 1 mile of an Urban Growth Boundary; 4) No area zoned CC will locate within 1/4 mile of any area with a high suitability (3 or 4) for SC.

GIS METHODOLOGY

133

AGRICULTURAL LAND All remaining land outside the Urban Growth Boundary defaults to Agricultural Land. In order to determine the difference between High Impact and Low Impact Agricultural, The Studio used Raster Calculator and the previously created Watershed Cost Grid (page 121) to identify all agricultural areas that were in sensitive watershed areas. By the virtue of location alone The Studio felt these agricultural lands have more opportunities to harm their respective watershed and therefore require the stricter land-use controls found in the AH zoning category.

When there was no more land eligible for VC, the Studio sited SC according to the aforementioned criteria. Next The Studio employed a similar CostWeighted approach for siting and applying a boundary to the optimum CC district. In the same fashion as the VC allocation, The Studio used Euclidean Distance to systematically eliminate all CC grid cells that conflict with situational criteria until no land eligible for CC remained. Finally, The Studio set all remaining grid cells to either the AL or AH designation depending on the level of harm those grid cells could cause to their respective watersheds.

THE ALLOCATION PROCESS Once the optimum location and appropriate boundary for the first Village Center was determined, the Studio modeled appropriate situational criteria based on this location. The Studio used Euclidean Distance to eliminate all potential VC grid cells that fell within a 2-mile radius of the original VC district.

The first CC zone district overlayed with all potential areas for CC districts

134

A two mile buffer applied to the firstsited CC zoning district

The remaining areas of potential CC districts

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

A sample raster grid of how a sequential process might allocate rural zoning districts in Lancaster County.

UGB

GIS METHODOLOGY

135

Parallel Allocation The Studio decided to experiment with Parallel allocation techniques within the Urban Growth Boundary. Due to the Lancaster County Planning Commissionâ€™s goals of promoting compact development and keeping agricultural land to a minimum within the Urban Growth Boundary, The Studio decided to site only three zoning categories within the UGB: Walkable Neighborhoods (WN), Core Neighborhoods (CN), and Regional Centers (RC). The Parallel technique designed by the studio featured an iterative series of addition to and subtraction from the original suitability grids according to how each zoning category performed in relation to its size, concentration, or proximity to complementary land uses. To determine the criteria by which each zoning district would evaluate itself for each iteration, the Studio designed the following situational criteria for each zoning district:

WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD 1) Walkable Neighborhoods require contiguous tracts of land larger than 800,000 square feet; 2) Walkable Neighborhoods do not want to locate within 400 feet of a Regional Center, unless buffered by a Core Neighborhood; 3) No grid cell within a Walkable Neighborhood wants to be farther than three quarters of a mile from either a Core Neighborhood or a Regional Center.

CORE NEIGHBORHOOD 1) Core Neighborhoods require contiguous tracts of land larger than 1,000,000 square feet; 2) Core Neighborhoods are attracted to areas near Walkable Neighborhoods where there is an absence of CN or RC zoning districts; 3) Core Neighborhoods are attracted to areas that buffer RC and WN areas.

In Parallel allocation land-uses move unless they satisfy both local and situational criteria. The model iterates until land uses stop moving (indicative of optimization), or patterns emerge that help the user learn important information about form.

136

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

REGIONAL CENTER 1) Regional Centers require contiguous tracts of land larger than 1,000,000 square feet; 2) Regional Centers prefer to “close the gap” in areas where they are the dominant zoning district encircling less dominant, scattered zoning categories; 3) Regional Centers do not want to be within 400 feet of WN unless buffered by a CN.

Starting the Process To begin the Studio had to create a “Dummy Plan,” which is a sample zoning grid where every grid cell is set to one of the three zoning categories. The purpose of the Dummy Plan is to catalyze a heuristic analysis. It is impossible to determine if an area zoned RC is within a 1,000,000 contiguous block or proximate to a an area zoned WN if you do not definitively know where these districts are located. The Dummy Plan could theoretically be a selection arbitrary values, but the Studio decided upon a more logical approach to siting the preliminary iteration. The Studio created the Dummy Plan by building a model in Model Builder that used Cell Statistics to isolate each grid cell’s highest suitability value from the three suitability grids. The model uses Raster Calculator to query each individual suitability grid to see if its value for a given grid cell was equal to the maximum suitability value for that grid cell. In the event of a tie the model defaults to the higher land use (RC over CN/ WN; CN over WN). The model produced three “Dummy Grids,” in which selected RC, CN, and WN grid cells are each set to a value of 1 and all others to a value of 0.

Above is part of a model The Studio built to automate the allocation process. In the first iteration the “Dummy Selection” portion of the model performed its operations to the suitability grids discussed above. For each successive iteration it would assess an Aggregate Suitability Grid of combined spatial and conditional suitability.

GIS METHODOLOGY

137

The dummy grids were run through a model that analyzed each grid cell based upon the situational criteria described on pages 132-133. The model assesses the size, location, and clustering of the zoning districts, and awards positive or negative values accordingly. The end result is a conditional suitabily grid that assesses the suitability of every grid cell based upon how well its current zoning designation performs in relation to the Dummy Grids.

Grid cells report their zoning category by color and the suitability score of that zoning category.

The conditional suitability grids for each zoning category are then recombined with the appropriate spatial suitability grids These combined suitability grids report a new value that reflects both the permanent spatial suitability of a given grid cell and the temporary, conditional suitability. The combined suitability grids are subjected to the same maximization process discussed above to create a new series of Dummy Grids. A zoning district that lost suitability points in the conditional round may no longer have the maximum value for a given grid cell, potentially offering another zoning category the opportunity to test its conditional suitability in the next iteration.

After assessing situational criteria each zoning category modifies its original suitability grid to report a new combined score from which new local maxima will emerge.

The model also contains a feedback loop that creates a new grid at the end of each iteration that reports the total number of instances per grid cell that each zoning category has been â€œmaximized.â€? The user can employ these feedback grids to inform future decisions and recognize patterns. Optimization in heuristic allocation is more about the process than any specific outcome. Depending on the given parameters and the total number of iterations, the process can sometimes result in a definitive outcome; other times it may enter into an endless loop in which, after major changes have settled, smaller changes will dance back and forth indefinitely.

Losses incurred in the conditional round can lead to changes in local maxima and often correct for issues such as small contiguity or incompatible proximity.

138

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

One of the most promising applications of this process is how the user can iteratively modify the input parameters based upon the results of successive iterations. When The Studio tested the allocation process, it soon became evident that the size of contiguity was an important concern. After the model had completed several iterations, The Studio modified the parameters so that grid cells were punished more strictly if they could not reach a critical mass. This helped the model give preference to contiguous areas with average levels of suitability rather than smaller, local areas of high suitability. It is equally possible that the model could incorporate a parameter in which contiguity is ignored in earlier iterations and punished with increasing severity as the process continues. This flexibility in design is what offers the greatest opportunities for planning. While it was beyond the scope of The Studio to design, it is not difficult to imagine a computer program that combines the basic methodology explained above with a more interactive and accessible graphical interface. Imagine a zoning process in which citizens from all over the municipal area could iteratively design and modify standards of form and performance and witness the manifestations in real time. It would function as an engaging learning experience that helps move the zoning process in an organic, holistic, and equitable direction. It is important to reiterate that GIS is never intended to replace the planner. But as the technology becomes more sophisticated it will be important for planners to remain ahead of the curve. The Studio attempted to demonstrate a preliminary example of how GIS can from a supplementary tool to a driving force in analysis, design, and public participation.

ITERATION 0

Regional Center

ITERATION 2

Core Neighborhood

ITERATION 10

Walkable Neighborhood

GIS METHODOLOGY

139

A sample raster grid of how a heuristic process might allocate urban zoning districts within Lancaster County

140

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

A future challenge is how to move from qualities of space back to parcels, which remain the administrative boundaries for zoning. As the map shows, the zoning categories designated in the raster-based process do not always align logically to parcel boundaries. One potential way to obviate this concern would be to factor parcel shape, size, and clustering into the initial process of determining suitability.

GIS METHODOLOGY

141

STUDENT PROFILES Matthew Bachler Matthew Bachler is a second-year Master in City Planning student concentrating in land use and environmental planning. He earned a B.A. in urban studies from the New School University. Before coming to the University of Pennsylvania, Matthew worked for a Los Angeles non-profit organization that operated several farmersâ€™ markets and managed a nutrition outreach program in underserved communities in the city. He is a native of Vermont and hopes to eventually return to northern New England to work on rural planning issues.

Andrea P Buglione Andrea Buglione is a second-year Master in City and Regional Planning student concentrating in environmental planning. She has also pursued coursework in economic development and transportation. She hopes to do work developing comprehensive plans and innovative stormwater management strategies. She has a particularly geographic interest in the rust-belt cities of her home state, New York. Andrea has a degree in political science and environmental studies from Smith College.

Sean Eno Sean Eno is in the Master of Urban Spatial Analytics program. He has a B.A. in history and anthropology from Bowdoin College and an MLA from North Carolina State University. Prior to coming to PennDesign, Sean worked with a variety of communities as a project designer for the Downtown Design Studio, a research and engagement based urban design and planning studio at the College of Design, NC State University, and also taught a digital media course in the Landscape Architecture Department.

Jeff Kurtz Jeff Kurtz is a second year City Planning student with a concentration in public-private real estate development. Before coming to Penn Jeff earned a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree from North Carolina State University and worked internationally in urban design and landscape architecture. Jeff â€™s interests are in urban infill development projects and the effect of urban design on real estate fundamentals.

Shea Oâ€™Neill Shea Oâ€™Neill graduated from Ithaca College with an B.A in History and Writing. Between schools he served as an AmeriCorp VISTA in Ithaca, New York and spent time teaching and writing in San Francisco, CA. During his time at Penn Design, Shea concentrated his studies in community economic development and techniques of spatial analysis. Shea has a diverse assortment of research interests that range from the role of career technical education in secondary schools in workforce development to designing GIS-based scripts that can help planners automate the allocation of land-uses.

John Postic John Postic earned his Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Oklahoma and is currently in the Post-Professional Master of Architecture program, with a certificate in Urban Design. His interests in urban design stem from a desire to create more informed, participatory architecture that engages people at various levels and those interarchitectural spaces within which the pulsing lifeblood of the city exists. John is an advocate of all things Oklahoma City.

Ayse Unver Ayse Unver is a second-year Master of City Planning student concentrating in land use and environmental planning. She attended Vassar College, where she majored in Urban Studies and minored in geography. Ayse is a New Jersey native and lover of the east coast, having lived in northern Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. She enjoys cooking, swing dancing, and riding trains.

Jesica Youngblood Jesica Youngblood studied geography as an undergraduate at Texas Christian University where she explored the cultural and physical imprints that people carve into the landscape. Miss Youngblood is currently a Master of City and Regional Planning student concentrating in land use and environmental planning. Her focus has been on the development of sustainable, site-specific solutions that unite form and function. In May 2012, she received the University of Pennsylvania School of Design Gaia Award for excellence in Environmental Planning.

Yu Wang Yu Wang is in the Post-Professional Master of Architecture program, with a certificate in urban design.

School of Design University of Pennsylvania Spring 2012 Urban Design Studio

Growth Plan for Lancaster County

Published on Jul 12, 2012

2012 studio report

pennplanning

Similar to

Popular now

Just for you

Go explore