RENEW OPELIKA ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN RENEW OPELIKA ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN

RENEW OPELIKA ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN

THE PLAN PROCESS TASK 1: PROJECT START-UP [complete] Kick off meeting Vision/goals/critical success factors TASK 2: ONGOING COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Charrettes (3) [June, August, October] Steering Committee meetings [throughout process] Stakeholder One-on-One Interviews [throughout process] On-line Input and Survey [charrette #1 - #2] TASK 3: Conceptual Elements Existing Conditions [complete] Market Analysis [complete] Transportation Study [ongoing] Plan Alternatives [ongoing] Conceptual Streetscape [ongoing] Funding and Implementation Strategies [Oct-Nov]

THE PLAN CONTENT INFORM THE PLAN Market Study Transportation Study Charrettes (3) Steering Committee Guidance Stakeholder Input On-line Input PLAN COMPONENTS LAND USE PLAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN STREETSCAPE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Survey

THE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION $5 Million allocated over 5 years for future improvements No final conclusions tonight Think in terms of a 20-year plan how should the roadway and land uses change over time and phasing?

THE PLAN TOOLS Preferred road section Future land use strategies Bicycle accommodation Traffic signal locations New road and alley connections Streetscape improvements Branding strategy Urban design preferences Code additions/modifications Investment prioritization/phasing Funding tools Highest and best use opportunities Land assemblage opportunity Regulatory changes * today s input

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT KEY PAD POLLING AND SURVEY * Percentage of time response chosen * Percentage of time response chosen

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT KEY PAD POLLING AND SURVEY *Number of responses

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT KEY PAD POLLING AND SURVEY *Number of responses *Number of responses

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ONLINE INPUT

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ONLINE INPUT *Number of responses

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ONLINE INPUT

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CHIP GAME Participants created scenarios for the future of the corridor Each chip represented a realistic density and type of development (commercial, housing, mixed-use, park)

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CHIP GAME Neighborhood Centers were consistently placed at Gay, Dean, EUD. Mixed Use or Neighborhood Center was consistently placed at Temple. The Regional Center was consistently identified as staying at EUD/Opelika Rd, with entertainment uses concentrated in this area also. Open space was generally placed within existing tree stands and drainage areas.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CHIP GAME Infill of office uses were placed around the existing office park north of Opelika Rd/Dean Rd. Existing residential was largely indicated to remain. Senior housing was located near the existing cluster of senior housing and near the regional center and walkable services.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CHIP GAME New hotels were located near/around the regional center and on the south side of Opelika Road between Dean and EUD. Infill of future duplex/townhome housing was placed adjacent to existing single family lots and apartments. Clusters of future duplex/townhome housing near the rec center/post office. Restaurants and entertainment uses were placed in and around the designated regional center.

MARKET EXISTING BUSINESS MIX (IN CORRIDOR)

MARKET MAJOR RETAIL CENTERS (ON CORRIDOR) (K-mart)

MARKET RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES Approx. 5,000 people live within ¼ mile of Opelika road Large student population a potential target market Mixed use opportunities in proximity to residential Opportunity to build off of regional destinations like the mall, bowling, restaurants, and post office Retail can be well-positioned at the western end of corridor on the route to downtown/campus and walkable to residential areas N. Dean & Opelika Road - major North-South connection city-wide and high traffic volumes

MARKET RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES Opportunity at N. Dean & Opelika for the reuse of SACO station Land availability at intersections due to underutilized or vacant land Opportunity for place-making - niche national and local retailers prefer pedestrian activity, public space and aesthetics Capitalize on local large number of locally owned services and restaurants

MARKET RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES Student Housing: Student housing has been the most active sector of the residential market with1,000 permits issued between 2008-2009. City-wide student housing occupancy rate was 91.5% in 2009. Since then 3,662 beds and an additional 732 units are now being constructed. Enrollment is targeted to expand by 1,000 graduate students The student housing market does not present additional opportunity on Opelika Road

MARKET RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES Conventional Apartments: Number of renters increased by 63% from 2000 to 2010 Low rental rates are the biggest barrier to development of conventional apartments, which do not support the cost of new construction However, leasing agents interviewed feel there is a demand for a rental product target to young professionals, grad students, families, and retirees Jobs increases will demand more rentals (Opelika)

MARKET RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR- SALE HOUSING Single Family-Low Residential Density: Not much additional demand Small parcel size make low density residential challenging Attached Townhomes / Condos: Higher Density (4 to 7 units per acre) developments have been successful in Auburn Senior Housing: Proximity to hospital, medical offices, and retail services on Opelika Road. Age Cohorts 55-74, are growing the fastest in the region Proximity to Senior Center and REC Center As housing values recover, more people can sell and transition into senior housing

MARKET OFFICE OPPORTUNITIES Corridor is well positioned due to central location between downtowns Central Park office occupancy is high Opportunity to develop deeper parcels MARKET HOTEL OPPORTUNITIES Average occupancy rate for the 1 st six months in 2012 was 49.7% 2011 the rate was 44.7% Over supply of hotels in the city - not a near term possibility However the hotels on the corridor are aging, so there will be a future need Likely cluster near the village mall

A primary obstacle to redevelopment on Opelika Road is the aesthetic state. This is reflected from what we have heard from you, the public regarding your set priorities.

GAY TO TEMPLE OPTIONS Option 1 Two Travel Lanes with On-street Bike Facilities

GAY TO TEMPLE OPTIONS Option 2 Two Travel Lanes with Center Turn Lanes

GAY TO TEMPLE OPTIONS Option 3 Two Travel Lanes with Center Turn Lane, Sharrow & Sidewalks

TEMPLE TO CITY LIMITS OPTIONS Option 1 Four Travel Lanes with Median & Multi-Use trail

TEMPLE TO CITY LIMITS OPTIONS Option 2 Four Travel Lanes with Center Turn Lane & Multi-Use Trail

TEMPLE TO CITY LIMITS OPTIONS Option 3 Four Travel Lanes with Median & Bike Lanes

TEMPLE TO CITY LIMITS OPTIONS Option 4 - Road Diet with Bike Lanes & Enlarged Planted Areas

BACKSTREETS AND SIDESTREETS

BACKSTREET LAYOUT OPTIONS Option A Two-Way Street with Parallel Parking

BACKSTREET LAYOUT OPTIONS Option B One-Way Street with Parallel Parking

BACKSTREET LAYOUT OPTIONS Option C Two-Way Street with Angled Parking

BACKSTREET LAYOUT OPTIONS Option D Two-Way Street with Parallel & Angled Parking

ALLEY LAYOUT OPTIONS Option A Multi-Use Trail Only

ALLEY LAYOUT OPTIONS Option B Alley Street Only

ALLEY LAYOUT OPTIONS Option C Alley & Multi-Use Trail with Buffers

ALLEY LAYOUT OPTIONS Option D Alley & Multi-Use Trail with Minimal Buffers

PLANNING TOOLS FORM BASED CODES use physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. are regulations, not mere guidelines, adopted into city or county law. address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. are presented in both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visuals. are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development, rather than only distinctions in land-use types.

PLANNING TOOLS FORM BASED CODES Compared to other code types: This approach contrasts with conventional zoning's focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, traffic LOS), to the neglect of an integrated built form. Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory.

PLANNING TOOLS FORM BASED CODES Form-based codes typically include: Building form standards Architectural Standards Landscaping Standards Signage Standards Environmental Resource Standards

PLANNING TOOLS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT Key elements of a Traditional Neighborhood Design neighborhood center include: Mixed-use development, including a variety of housing choices Interconnected local street system and connections to adjacent or future development Pedestrian-oriented street and building design (parking in the rear of buildings wrapped with non-parking uses) Reduction of building setbacks, street widths and turning radii Minimized parking and maximized transit, bike, and pedestrian access Civic and park spaces within walking distance of residential Preservation of natural areas and green stormwater design

PLANNING TOOLS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT

BUILDING CONFIGURATION OPTIONS Option A Retail only Large parking field in front

BUILDING CONFIGURATION OPTIONS Option B Residential with retail on the ground floor Built to street Internal parking

BUILDING CONFIGURATION OPTIONS Option C Mixed-Use retail & residential one story Connected parking lots Interior courtyards

BUILDING CONFIGURATION OPTIONS Option D Mixed-Use retail & residential Connected parking lots Interior courtyards

BUILDING CONFIGURATION OPTIONS

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT mountain brook,alabama

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT ENGLISH VILLAGE.mountain brook,alabama

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT mountain brook,alabama

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT MOUNTAIN BROOK VILLAGE.mountain brook,alabama

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT BELMAR.lakewood,colorado

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT RIVERMARK.san jose,california

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT brea,california

THE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONCEPT THE CROSSINGS.mountainview,california

LAND USE BUSINESS AS USUAL CompPlan2030 designated Regional Center CompPlan2030 designated Neighborhood Center

LAND USE FOCUS ON NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS

LAND USE FOCUS ON RESIDENTIAL

KEYPAD POLLING charette #2 When the polling opens you will select a key and your keypad light should flash green 0 key= option 10 If you want to change your answer: select the buttons all over again- the last keys you select will register

My affiliation with Opelika Road is the following: (select all that apply) 1. Business owner 2. Property owner 3. Nearby resident 4. Business patron 5. Student of Auburn University 6. Commuter (use it to get to work, school, etc) 7. Other 5

I have been involved in the Renew Opelika Road effort in the following ways: (select all that apply) % 1. I attended the first public meeting in May % % % % % % 2. I have visited the Renew Opelika Road website 3. I provided input through the MetroQuest interactive site 4. I took the keypad polling survey online 5. I attended one or more stakeholder meetings 6. Other 7. This is my first involvement in the Renew Opelika Road effort 5

I am in favor of the following re-branding strategies along Opelika Road: (select all that apply) % 1. rename the road % % % % % % % % 2. create districts or destinations along the corridor 3. market the area as locally-owned destinations & businesses 4. create marketing tools (logo/district identity signage/markings) 5. create a streetscape design unique to the corridor 6. Modify zoning code(s) to encourage mixed-use 7. Create a merchant s association for Opelika Road 8. other 9. I do not support any re-branding strategies. 5

LAND USE

I feel neighborhood centers should be comprised of: (select all that apply) 1. Grocery Store 2. Drug Store 3. Big Box Retail 4. Office 5. Hotels 6. Townhomes or Apartments 7. Senior Housing 8. Entertainment Uses and Restaurants 9. Other Daily-Needs 10. I do not support the neighborhood center approach. 5

% % % % % I support strategies to encourage new or enhance existing neighborhood centers and mixed-uses at the following locations: (select all that apply) % 1. Opelika Road/Gay Street 2. Opelika Road/Temple 3. Opelika Road/N Dean Road 4. Opelika Road/E. University Drive 5. I do not support any of the above. 6. I would propose a neighborhood center at another location in or near the corridor 5

I believe that fast food restaurants, banks, and other facilities with drive through windows should be located: (select one) 1. Anywhere along the corridor, without restriction 2. Only within the Neighborhood Centers 3. Only outside neighborhood centers 4. Anywhere along the corridor but with appropriate design standards 5. I don't know I'd like to learn more.

I would be in favor of the following urban design strategies or controls on various areas on Opelika Road: (select all that apply) 2 1. A form-based code 1 2. Architectural design standards 2 3. Reduced building setbacks 1 4. Increased building heights 2 5. Reduced parking ratios 6. All of the above 2 7. None of the above

The current zoning requires a building setback of up to 40 feet. I am in support of re-writing the code to reduce the setback requirements. 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don t know, I would like to learn more

I am in support of modifying the parking requirements by: (choose one). 1. Reducing the minimum requirement 2. creating a parking maximum 3. Shared parking options 4. reducing the per square footage requirements 5. I do not support changing the parking standards 6. I do not know, I would like to learn more.

Based on the land use alternatives shown, I am the most supportive of: (select one) 1. Minimal land use controls 2. Retain existing land use controls - business as usual 3. Focus on mixed-use at neighborhood centers 4. Focus on residential 5. Mixed-use throughout - focus on development standards 6. Other 7. None of the above

ROADWAY AND TRANSPORTATION

In the context of future land use planning as redevelopment occurs, which new north-south connections or side-streets do you agree with? (select all that apply) % 1. Connecting Temple Street to the neighborhoods to the North % 2. Connecting Creekside to Opelika Road % % Road 3. Connecting N. Dean Road to Opelika Road 4. Connecting Gentry Drive through to the south of Opelika % 5. Connecting Gatewood Drive through to the south of Opelika Road % 6. Connecting Rosemary Gate to Gatewood Drive % 7. All of the above % 8. None of the above

In the context of future land use planning as redevelopment occurs which new east-west connections or back-streets do you agree with? (select all that apply) % 1. Connecting Temple Street to Dekalb Street % 2. Connecting N. Dean Road to Gentry Drive and Old Town Station % % 3. Creating a modified street grid on the block between N. Dean and Gentry Dr. % 4. Creating a modified street grid between Old Town Station and E. University Dr. % 5. All of the above 6. None of the above

I am most in support of the following strategy to accommodate bicycles in the corridor: (select one) % % % % % 1. A continuous multi-use path adjacent to the railroad 2. A continuous multi-use path adjacent to Opelika Road (not on-street) 3. An on-street bike lane on Opelika Road 4. A separated bike lane on Opelika Road 5. A sharrow on Opelika Road (in appropriate segments)

If a multi-use trail was coordinated adjacent to the railroad, the layout I most prefer is: (select one) % 1. Multi-use trail only % % % % 2. I do not support a multi-use trail, I prefer the alley only option 3. Multi-use trail with alley and maximum buffers 4. Multi-use trail with alley and minimum buffers 5. I do not support an alley or a multi-use trail

The top street layout for Opelika Road between Gay and Temple is: 1. Two travel lanes with on-street bike facilities 2. Two travel lanes with center turn lane and sidewalks 3. Two travel lanes with center turn lane, sharrown and sidewalks 5

The top two street layouts for Opelika Road between N. Dean and E. University are: % 1. 4 travel lanes with a median and multi-use trail % % % 2. 4 travel lanes with a center turn lane and multi-use trail 3. 4 travel lanes with a median and bike lane 4. Road diet with bike lanes and enlarged planted areas 5

The top two street layouts for Opelika Road between E. University and the city limits are: 1. 4 travel lanes with a median and multi-use trail 2. 4 travel lanes with a center turn lane and multi-use trail 3. 4 travel lanes with a median and bike lane 4. Road diet with bike lanes and enlarged planted areas 5

The backstreet road layout I most prefer is: (select one) % 1. Two-way with parallel parking % % % % 2. One-way with parallel parking 3. Two-way with angled parking 4. Two way with parallel and angled parking 5. None of the above 5

I am comfortable with new traffic lights at the following locations: (select all that apply) 1. At a new North-South connection east of Temple St. / Opelika Rd 2. At a new North-South connection west of N. Dean / Opelika Rd 3. At Gentry Dr./Opelika Rd 4. At a new North-South connection at Gatewood Dr./Opelika Rd 5. Rosemary Gate/Opelika Rd 6. On East University Dr. north of Opelika Rd 7. All of the above 8. None of the above 5

STREETSCAPE

The first charette indicated interest in green stormwater elements within the streetscape along Opelika Road. I would support the following strategies. (select all that apply) 1. Rain gardens 2. Bio-swales 3. Pervious pavement 4. Regional stormwater detention (rather than site by site detention) 5. I don t know, I would like to learn more about these strategies 5

As a way of defining street identity, which architectural/streetscape style do you prefer? 1. Traditional/historic 2. Contemporary 3. Artistic 4. My vision is not reflected here 5

26. I am in favor of the following tree planting strategy along Opelika Road: (select one) 1. Tree planting within the median only to ensure visibility of businesses 2. Continuous tree spacing along the median and sidewalks to maximize shade coverage 3. Clustering trees in the median and sidewalks to provide some shade while creating openings for visibility of business 4. Clustering trees on sidewalks only to provide some shade while creating openings for visibility of business 5. No tree planting on Opelika Road provide shade areas along the side streets and backstreets only I do not support street trees on Opelika Road 6. I do not support any of these strategies. 5

BUILDING FORM

I would favor the following residential densities in the Neighborhood Centers: (select all that apply) 1. 1-3 dwelling units per acre. 2. 3-5 dwelling units per acre. 3. 5-8 dwelling units per acre. 4. 8-12 dwelling units per acre. 5. 12-20 dwelling units per acre. 6. 20-30 dwelling units per acre. 7. None of the above. 8. Whatever the market will support 5

As redevelopment occurs over time at neighborhood centers, I am in support of urban design standards that encourage the following building configuration: (select one) 1. Retail only with large parking fields in front 2. Office above with retail below set back from the street with teaser parking in front 3. Residential apartments/condos above with retail below built up to the street with internal parking 4. Residential apartments/condos above with retail below set back from the street with teaser parking in front 5. None of the above 6. whatever the market will support 5

In order to encourage redevelopment in the corridor, I would favor a building height limit in the designated neighborhood centers of (select one) 1. One story 2. Two stories. 3. Three stories. 4. Four stories. 5. Five stories. 6. Six to Seven stories 7. whatever the market will support 5

Outdoor dining was shown as important to people in charette #1. I believe provision for outdoor dining (wide sidewalks, tree canopy) should be accommodated on: (select all that apply) 1. Side streets 2. Back streets 3. Opelika Road 4. All of the above 5. None of the above 5

Do you feel this planning process so far has met your expectations regarding the key design and planning issues facing Opelika Road? 1. Well above my expectations 2. Above my expectations 3. About what I expected 4. Below my expectations 5. Well below my expectations 5