APPENDIX A BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. B. Subdivision/Site Development Plan/Grading Permit Name and Number:

Similar documents
Anne Arundel County BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, TRANSIT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

NJDOT Complete Streets Checklist

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Omaha s Complete Streets Policy

Arlington s Master Transportation Plan

Multimodal Through Corridors and Placemaking Corridors

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

West Dimond Blvd Upgrade Jodhpur Street to Sand Lake Road

CHAPTER 16 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE OF CONTENTS

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

Morristown, NJ Complete Streets Policy

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

AMATS Complete Streets Policy

City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 4.10 ALBERT LEA CROSSWALK POLICY

RESOLUTION NO ?? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Long Island Rail Road Expansion Project Floral Park to Hicksville

Off-road Trails. Guidance

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

complete streets design and construction standards public primer City of Edmonton

Executive Summary Route 30 Corridor Master Plan

Roadway Classification Design Standards and Policies. Pueblo, Colorado November, 2004

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

9/25/2018. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Bianca Popescu, Transportation Planner

Complete Streets Guidance

ADA Transition Plan. City of Gainesville FY19-FY28. Date: November 5, Prepared by: City Of Gainesville Department of Mobility

SECTION 1 - TRAFFIC PLANNING

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Complete Streets Policy DAVID CRONIN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER


IMPLEMENTATION. PEDESTRIAN USERS (Continued /) Building Frontages: A: Stair Applications. Geometry (Accessed from the Sidewalk) Refer to A:

APPENDIX 4 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN INFORMATION

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

5 CIRCULATION AND STREET DESIGN

9/21/2016 VIA . RE: The Knot (DR16-270)

Classification Criteria

6.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 BICYCLE DEMAND AND SUITABILITY Bicycle Demand

10.0 CURB EXTENSIONS GUIDELINE

IMPLEMENTATION. PEDESTRIAN USERS (Continued /) A: Class 2 Pedestrian / Cycle Ways. Pedestrian and Cycle Ways:

San Jose Transportation Policy

Chapter 13 ORANGE COVE

Solana Beach Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS)

5/7/2013 VIA . RE: University Village Safeway Expansion (P13-019)

Chapter 5 Future Transportation

Living Streets Policy

Appendix 3 Roadway and Bike/Ped Design Standards

Plant City Walk-Bike Plan

City of Charlottesville Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update

Small Town & Rural Multimodal Networks

Agenda. Overview PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Recommended Roadway Plan Section 2 - Land Development and Roadway Access

Prince George s County plans, policies, and projects

Montclair s Complete Streets Experience

Welcome to the Quebec Alternatives Analysis Public Meeting

Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

DRAFT - CITY OF MEDFORD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Roadway Cross-Sections

Vision. Goals and Objectives. Walking

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES Clarksville Street Department

Active Transportation Access to Transit

Contents. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Stop Placement Guidelines

This page intentionally left blank.

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Board-Approved Funding Awards for Cycle 4 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects (in Order of Project Rankings) Approved on

RIVERSIDE, Newton MA BH NORMANDY RIVERSIDE LLC. Riverside Station. A green, transit-oriented community

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Transportation' s Complete Streets

Rochester Downtown Bicycle Study 2009

Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan Public Comment Report

POLICY REVIEW SUMMARY

Ballston Station Multimodal Study WMATA and Arlington County. Meeting Minutes

Circulation in Elk Grove includes: Motor vehicles, including cars and trucks

9/22/2014 VIA . RE: Butano Apartments Pre App (PAMP )

Report. Typical Sections. City of Middleton, WI

4/14/2017 VIA . Miriam Lim, Junior Planner City of Sacramento Community Development Department 300 Richards, 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95811

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

3/10/2016 VIA th Street, Suite 203 Sacramento, CA

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN LEON COUNTY FOR CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALKS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 1 P age

Balancing Operation & Safety for Motorized and Non-Motorized Traffic

MAG Town of Cave Creek Bike Study Task 6 Executive Summary and Regional Significance Report

COMPLETE STREETS PLANNER S PORTFOLIO

GOAL 2A: ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SAFE, CONVENIENT, AND EFFICIENT MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO MOVE PEOPLE AND GOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

12/4/2016 VIA . RE: Grocery Outlet Del Paso (DR16-328)

DRAFT for a State Policy for Healthy Spaces and Places

GIS Based Data Collection / Network Planning On a City Scale. Healthy Communities Active Transportation Workshop, Cleveland, Ohio May 10, 2011

Table #6 VISION CHARACTERISTICS

Physical Implications of Complete Streets Policies

MONTCLAIR SAFE COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. Monday November 13, 2017 Michael Dannemiller, Principal Engineer NV5, Inc.

Arlington Public Schools Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation Transportation Networks. Thomas Jefferson Working Group Meeting #6 November 10, 2014

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Watertown Complete Streets Prioritization Plan. Public Meeting #1 December 14, 2017

8/31/2016 VIA . RE: Freeport Arco Fuel Station (P16-039)

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Aurora Urban Street Standards For Transit Oriented Developments and Urban Centers

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Perryville TOD and Greenway Plan

El Camino Real Specific Plan. TAC/CAC Meeting #2 Aug 1, 2018

Multimodal Design Guidance. October 23, 2018 ITE Fall Meeting

CITY MANUALS AND STANDARDS REVIEW

Transcription:

APPENDIX A BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project name: B. Subdivision/Site Development Plan/Grading Permit Name and Number: C. Project address: D. Project description (existing and proposed uses): E. Number of residential units x $330: F. Gross floor area of non residential uses, other than warehouses x $0.40: G. Gross floor area of non residential warehouse x $0.11: II. SITE CONTEXT A. Identify existing and proposed road classifications and posted speeds within one mile of the subject property. Page 7

B. Land Use and Character: Describe the character of the project area, including predominant land uses, densities, scenic and historic roads, Town Centers, Business Districts, environmental features or constraints. Describe the compatibility of the proposed design intended to meet Article 17, Section 6 113 with these characteristics. C. Attach all applicable maps, background information, and exhibits to this Assessment. II. OFF SITE ASSESSMENT/OPPORTUNITIES A. Trip Generators and Attractors: List any major sites, destinations, and trip generators within one mile of the project area, including: transit stops; public facilities (e.g. schools. Libraries, parks or post offices); cultural facilities; retail and employment centers. Per County Code Article 17, Section 2 102(3), describe how the site design will provide for the proper and safe arrangement and connectivity of multi modal transportation infrastructure in relation to those existing or planned and to provide for the most beneficial relationship between the use of land, buildings, traffic, and multi modal transportation. Make note of any listed on Page 47 of the PBMP 2013 Update. Page 8

B. Travel Patterns and Conditions: Describe existing and desired walking, bicycling, transit, within the project area, including whether or not the surrounding network or roads are future projects in County plans and/or studies. Identify existing sidewalks, shared use paths, and bicycle lanes as well as worn paths which indicate a desired walking route. Plans to reference include, but may not be limited to, the 2003 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP), the PBMP 2013 Update, the General Development Plan, the Transportation Functional Master Plan, the Small Area Plans, and projects approved in the current CIP. C. Opportunities: Identify opportunities to address safety, mobility, and access within one mile of the subject site. Provide an exhibit that shows any offsite improvement proposed to meet the requirements of Article 17, Section 113. III. ON SITE ASSESSMENT/OPPORTUNITIES A. General: 1. Per County Code Section 17 6 103(i), describe how public roads within a proposed subdivision have been designed to enhance multimodal transportation options. Page 9

2. Per County Code Section 17 6 103(j), describe how private roads have been designed to encourage opportunities for multi modal transportation connections. 3. Does the right of way dedication provide sufficient space for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities required in the DPW Design Manual? 4. Describe how the roads have been designed to comply with County Code Section 17 6 103(c) and provide connections between subdivisions of similar zoning and use. 5. For development within the Odenton Town Center, describe how the requirements regarding multimodal transportation infrastructure are being met. B. Pedestrian Facilities (Please provide an explanation if a requirement isn t met) 1. Per the County Design Manual, describe how the site provides adequate clear sidewalk widths along street frontages (minimum of 5 feet of clear sidewalk width required per the Design Manual) and ADA compliant curb ramps? Page 10

2. Per County Code Section 17 6 103(j), describe how private roads have been designed to encourage opportunities for multi modal transportation connections. 3. Does the right of way dedication provide sufficient space for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities required in the DPW Design Manual? 4. Describe how the roads have been designed to comply with County Code Section 17 6 103(c) and provide connections between subdivisions of similar zoning and use. 5. For development within the Odenton Town Center, describe how the requirements regarding multimodal transportation infrastructure are being met. B. Pedestrian Facilities (Please provide an explanation if a requirement isn t met) 1. Per the County Design Manual, describe how the site provides adequate clear sidewalk widths along street frontages (minimum of 5 feet of clear sidewalk width required per the Design Manual) and ADA compliant curb ramps? Page 10

2. Per the County Design Manual, does the design provide recommended buffer between pedestrians and traffic? 3. Does the design include pedestrian facilities and designated crossings that provide direct connections to destinations? 4. Describe how pedestrian facilities provide for internal site circulation (e.g., walkways along and between buildings, walkways through parking lots to buildings, designated crossings of drive aisles). 5. Describe where walkway lighting and/or continuous street lighting that meets or exceeds County standards is provided. Page 11

6. Does the design minimize vehicle intrusions into the pedestrian zone (e.g., driveways, loading zones, bus or vehicle pull outs)? 7. Per the County Code, Article 17, Section 5 503(b), is the block length and width adequate to provide convenient access, circulation, and safety for pedestrian circulation? Provide the block length and width. There is no standard for this, however, typical safety 8. Are marked crosswalks and/or other crossing improvements provided at appropriate locations? C. Bicycle Facilities (Please provide an explanation if a requirement isn t met): 1. Per County Code Section 17 6 111(j), are bikeways and/or shared use paths that support the objectives of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure and connectivity to existing, planned, or future offsite infrastructure, and are in public easement, shown? Page 12

2. Include bicycle facilities identified in adopted plans. 3. For on road bicycle lanes, is adequate type/width per nationally recognized standards including those identified in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012 Edition) and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provided? 4. Is bicycle parking provided? D. Transit Facilities (Please provide an explanation if a requirement isn t met): 1. Are transit enhancements in the design (e.g., bus shelter, bus or intermodal transfer stop, park and ride facility, bus stop pad or pull out) provided? 2. Is lighting at on site transit stops that meets or exceeds County standards provided? Page 13

3. Is ADA compliant landing pads at on site transit stops provided? 4. Is a space for passengers to wait for and board transit vehicles that are separate from the walkway at the on site stops provided? III. BPTA CONCLUSIONS 1. Describe the recommended improvement to meet the requirements of Section 17 6 113. 2. Provide the cost analysis per 17 6 113(D). 3. If the developer is seeking additional funding from the County s Multimodal Infrastructure Fee in lieu Fund, please indicate an amount here. Page 14