growth plan for lancaster county

Growth Management and Design Principles for the Future of Lancaster County

iPrepared by:Urban Design Studio 702Department of City and Regional PlanningPennDesign, University of Pennsylvania

Professors Jonathan BarnettDana Tomlin

Studio TeamMatthew BachlerAndrea BuglioneSean EnoJeffrey KurtzShea ONeillJohn PosticAyse UnverYu WangJesica Youngblood

May 2012

GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR THE

FUTURE OF LANCASTER COUNTY

Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

iii

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. Sev-eral 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 ben-efits 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 countys 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 En-vironmental Sciences Department, David Rouse at Wallace Roberts and Todd, and Brian Blaesser of Robinson & Cole provided helpful advice at critical moments.

FOREWORD

iv Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesignDesigns For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesigniv

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................... VII

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................2

BUS RAPID TRANSIT ...................................................................6

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...........................18

MODEL CODE OUTLINE .........................................................28

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

GIS METHODOLOGY .............................................................118

STUDENT PROFILES ...............................................................142

0102030405

06

vi Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesignDesigns For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesignvi

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania adopted a Growth Management Plan in 2006 that seeks to balance urban development while maintaining the Countys 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 Lan-caster Countys Comprehensive Plan.

The plan proposes visions and focus areas for future land uses and de-velopment. 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 Countys adopted plans through the development of a Model Code Outline that incor-porates 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 informa-tion system (GIS) to allocate land uses (mapping of the code) sequen-tially 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 in-creased through the use of dedicated lanes and pre-board fare collec-tion. The Studio has designed a BRT system specific to the local context of Lancaster County and shown how the station locations would sup-port higher intensity development within the designated growth areas.

The Studio has outlined a development code that could be used by ju-risdictions 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 opportuni-ties. Furthermore, the Studio extensively analyzed the natural and built environment using GIS to help guide planning and development deci-sions.

viii Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesignDesigns For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesignviii

The Studio mapped seven of the twelve zones using GIS within two se-lected watersheds. Mapping the code occurred in two stages: suitability determination and land use allocation. Suitability factors included prox-imity 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 Hos-pital, 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 Countys Growth Management Framework Plan. The Stu-dio 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 informa-tion 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.

INTRODUCTION

1Rere, occaerit, nitatin ullupta ssitation non pa possunt ioneceptati dolorum qua-tiam 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 milles-tia alitatia quis cus eati omnimin ctempor rovitati officia quatem quam, sit aut etur aturerum fugitame niet unt di dolorep erspis aut moluptat.

4 Designs For the Future of Lancaster County | PennDesign

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

Lancaster County is a unique area of scenic and historic importance in the southeastern region of Pennsylvania, approximately 50 miles west of Phila-delphia. In addition to its historic and rural qualities, Lancaster County is home to one of the most pro-ductive agricultural economies in the region. To pro-tect the unique resources of the area, public agen-cies in Lancaster County have adopted smart-growth planning principles, including strict standards for farmland preservation and the adoption of urban growth areas. Despite the Countys 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 engen-der 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 smart growth toolkit 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 perfor-mance, form-based, and Euclidean zoning to create guidelines that are predictable and have an empha-sis on preservation, but that still promote flexibil-ity 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 au-tomobiles, connect residents with employment and commercial centers, and encourage the growth of transit-oriented centers within urban growth areas.

5INTRODUCTION

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

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

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 im-portant in Lancaster County. Due to its downstream location along the Susquehanna River, the County must play a lead role in the regional strategy to pro-tect water quality within the Chesapeake Bay Water-shed.

The studio featured two additional elements that fa-cilitated 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 tran-sit patterns and watershed dynamics, and in the allo-cation 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 stu-dio iteratively tested Code guidelines through urban design plans at six proposed BRT stations through-out 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.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

2A 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 alterna-tives will help to reshape impacts attributed to private vehicle travel patterns. Alternatively, compact, mixed-use 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.


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

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 in-frastructure investment needed to implement a BRT system are significantly less compared to other tran-sit 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 comprehen-sive than light and heavy rail systems. From the per-spective of transit-users, an extensive network serv-ing 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 man-ageable as compared to systems that require heavy infrastructure.

Case Studies

The most effective BRT systems have been imple-mented 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 countys ability to imple-ment a comprehensive BRT system like those found in these cities. Major origins and destinations are dis-persed 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.

PLANNING FOR BRT

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

9BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Currently there are no examples of comprehensive BRT systems in the United States or Canada. However, several cities have developed BRT Lite programs that have incorporated certain components of tradition-al 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 sta-tions are equipped with a pre-board fare collection system. However, buses make frequent stops, reducing the overall speed of the route.

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 in-cludes 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 in-crease speeds along routes.

Proposed Regional BRT Systems

Montgomery County, MD: Montgomery County is currently in the planning phase of implement-ing 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 arte-rial road to bus lanes, and designing bus queue jumpers at intersections. As of now, only three routes are planned for the county (Lin).

Cleveland BRT Healthline on Euclid Ave. Photo source: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

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


88%

4.3%

1.4%

EXISTING CONDITIONSEvaluating existing conditions in the County was im-portant in guiding the development of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Five focus areas were studied:

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 sys-tems in Lancaster County were assessed through an analysis of roadway networks, including daily vehicle miles traveled and commuting patterns, and the ex-isting transit services provided by Red Rose Transit and Amtrak.

Road Network and Commuting Patterns

The road network includes two major types of road-ways. Historic pikes were constructed to connect ear-ly settlements in the county. Consequently, develop-ment 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.

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 com-mute (US Census 2010). However, roughly 75% of residents commute to jobs within the County, sup-

Major Road Network

Urban Growth Area

Historic Pike

Limited-Acess Highway

Interstate 76

County Commuting Patterns

2010 US Census, Table S0801

11BUS RAPID TRANSIT

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.AmtrakAmtrak makes three station stops in Lancaster County - Lancaster City, Mount Joy, and Elizabeth-town. 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, lo-cating 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 pro-vider in the County. Currently, RRTA operates 17 routes in the City of Lancaster and surrounding bor-oughs. On an average weekday, approximately 7,000 customers use RRTAs services (LCPC 2008). Routes within the City of Lancaster have relatively high rid-ership numbers while those travelling to outlying ar-eas see less consistent usage. A BRT system would compliment RRTAs routes by putting in place more efficient lines going to boroughs in such areas.

Destinations and Employment CentersAn analysis of the location of major employers and trip origins and destinations revealed that most tran-sit generators are found in the central part of the County and are within designated urban growth ar-eas. Hospitals, shopping centers, civic institutions, schools, business parks, and cultural amenities were included in the study.

Transportation Systems

Urban Growth Area

Amtrak Station

Amtrak Rail Line

RRTA Bus Line

Transit Generator Density

High LowMedium

Lancaster

ElizabethtownMt Joy


Demographics

Both projected demographic trends and current social and eco-nomic characteristics were fac-tors 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-depen-dent populations are concentrat-ed: Percent of households with-out access to a vehicle, percent of population living below the fed-eral poverty level, and percent of population aged 65 years or older.

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 vehi-cle. This region is home to most of the Plain people that reside in the county, a group that tradition-ally does not use automobiles.

Residents living below the pov-erty line are found primarily in Lancaster city and Columbia bor-ough. Poverty rates are also high in southeastern and northwestern regions in the County.

Percent of Households without Access to a Vehicle

Percent of Population Below Poverty

High LowMedium

High LowMedium

2010 US Census, Table DP04

2010 US Census, Table DP03

13BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Percent of Population Over 65 Years of Age

Residents aged 65 years or older are concentrated in the commu-nities surrounding Lancaster city as well as in Elizabethtown bor-ough. There is a close correla-tion between this finding and the concentration of large retirement communities and assisted living facilities in these locations.

Environmental & Regional Planning Considerations Another important metric used for placing the BRT stations and routes was environmental con-siderations, including watershed health, prime soils, urban runoff, and important forestland. Locat-ing routes and stations remained sensitive to the Countys rich ag-ricultural lands and natural areas. Additionally, station locations were identified based on the Lan-caster County Growth Manage-ment Framework Plan. Stations were only placed in areas defined by the County as Core Reinvest-ment or Core Building Areas so as to focus development in loca-tions where infrastructure already exists and hinder sprawling devel-opment.

MediumHigh2010 US Census, Table S0201

Lancaster County Planning Commission 2006

Low

Lancaster Countys Comprehensive Plan consists of three major elements: ReVisions Policy Element, Growth Management, Element and Functional Elements.


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 right-of-ways for putting in dedicated bus-only lanes. Where buses must share a lane with mixed-traffic, implement transit signal priority sys-tems 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)

Ensure that routes serve transit-dependent populations

Identify roadways currently experiencing high rates of conges-tion. Modal shifts to public transit from private vehicle are more like-ly 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

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 avail-able, particularly in times of sparse public investment in infrastructure. Phasing can help set reasonable goals for project completion and build public support. (ITDP 2007)

LANCASTER BRT PROPOSAL

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

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

15BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Routes

Lancaster

Mt Joy

Elizabethtown LititzManheim

Ephrata

Marietta

Columbia

Millersville

New Holland

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

West Lampeter

Willow Street

York County

Dauphin County Lebanon County

Berks County

Chester County

To York

To Reading

Harrisburg


Station Placement

Locate stations within County-designated Core Reinvestment Areas and Core Building Areas

Identify adjacent sites that can support future transit-oriented de-velopment 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 popu-lated 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 land-scaping, to make station into a recognizable and meaningful place

17BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Stations

Main Routes -- Phase One

Feeder Bus Lines-- Phase One

Phase Two Routes

Phase Three Routes

BRT Station

Lancaster

Mt Joy

Elizabethtown Lititz

Manheim Ephrata

Marietta

Columbia

Millersville

New Holland

West Lampeter

Willow Street

To York

To Reading

Downtown Harrisburg

Harrisburg International Airport

MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3The 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 water-sheds throughout the county and their influence on Lancaster Countys environment and the larger influences of pollution in the countys water bodies on the larger ecosystem, including the Chesapeake Bay. The informa-tion and modeling performed set the stage for how the code and allocation maps could be made more sensi-tive to various environmental factors in order to protect and promote the countys hydrological resources.


WATERSHED DYNAMICSWhat 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 out-flow 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 water-shed for the Chesapeake Bay crosses 6 states and the District of Columbia, and all of the rainfall and run-off 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 precipita-tion 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 wastewa-ter 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 politi-cal 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-organi-zational and inter-municipal coalitions is difficult, but necessary.

21MODELING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

Watersheds of Lancaster County

Lancaster County is organized into roughly 30 wa-tersheds (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 Chesa-peake Bay. Watersheds may be delineated in slightly different ways, from very small to very large, de-pending on which water of body is considered as the draining point of the watershed,. For the pur-poses of this studio, however, we considered these 30 larger basins.

As mentioned previously, a major challenge of wa-tershed 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 bound-aries in the county cross and do not align with the countys watershed boundaries except in a few in-stances. This makes the stewardship of these water-sheds a complicated matter.


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, ridg-es, or areas of continued elevated crest in the land-scape, 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, op-posite, top).

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


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, wa-ter flow over impervious surfaces increases the rate in which urban pollutants are picked up and carried into streams. Agricultural operations can also con-tribute to stream pollution due to runoff that picks up fertilizer and manure as it travels into nearby streams. The presence of wetlands and vegetated ar-eas along streams may help cleanse degraded waters, however, by absorbing and filtering out pollutants. These were all important considerations when un-derstanding how the code could support and protect the countys streams.

Impaired and Non-Impaired StreamsBased 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 sup-ply, and recreation. If a stream does not meet these attainment standards, it is considered impaired. Most of the streams in the Conestoga watershed are im-paired.

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

Photo courtesy thejackalman.com

Photo courtey wolfnotes.com


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.

Modeling Local Environmental ConditionsThe 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.

We used these local conditions to inform the envi-ronmental performance standards found in the GIS Methodology Section. The inclusion of environ-mental performance criteria gives the code a built-in mechanism to protect sensitive environmental areas, while still encouraging development. Local environmental conditions also play a role in the al-location 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 zon-ing designation that reflects the sensitive nature of the entire area. A more detailed description of how

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING

Interior Forests

Steep Slopes


local environmental conditions factored into the al-location of zoning districts is discussed in the Zon-ing Allocation Section..

Modeling Watershed Systems

The goal of the studio was to use raster-based pro-cessing to model how individual environmental fac-tors interact to influence the health of the watersheds that they lie within. Lancaster County falls within the Susquehanna River watershed. Within this water-shed 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 or-der to obtain a detailed understanding of watershed dynamics, the studio modeled individual drainage ba-sins for every stream segment in Lancaster County. While all land within a given drainage basin is con-nected by a common point of outflow, the landscape can change throughout the watershed.

We relied on the assumption that proximity to streams, the concentration and direction of surface flow, the presence or absence of vegetative cov-er, 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 signifi-cant 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.

hydric soils

Drainage Basins

Hydric Soils


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 streams 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 refer-ence the Zoning Allocation Section.

Flow and Landcover

Basin Sensitivity

MODEL CODE OUTLINE

4Lancaster 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 en-courage compact, transit-friendly development proposals and sustainable development practices in order to implement the Growth Areas adopted in the Countys 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.


PURPOSELancaster 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 Ob-jectives:

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 poli-cies include Designated Natural Areas, and two cat-egories of Agricultural Uses. There are also policies for four types of Rural Centers: Village Growth Ar-eas, Crossroads Communities, Rural Business Areas and Rural Neighborhoods.

The purpose of the Model Code Outline is to help translate Lancaster Countys adopted growth man-agement policies into development regulations that can be incorporated into local codes by the munici-palities 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 Countys rural and urban strategies. Each zone is designed to help the County meet its key objectives in terms of population growth and land consump-tion 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 Countys Zoning Lexicon in order to simplify the zoning code and provide greater flexibility in devel-opment opportunities.

31MODEL CODE OUTLINE

RURAL STRATEGY URBAN STRATEGY

CRA

RC

UG-R2UG-R3UG-MXUG-CNUGCBDUGBPOUG-I1UG-MUG-W

CB

UG-R3UG-MXUG-CNUGCBDUGBPOUG-I1UG-MUG-WUGINS

CIC

CBA

UGINS

IM

UG-I2UG-REUG-MUG-W

CD

UG-CH

SC

RR-OS

ANA

CC

CC

VG-TNVG-R1VG-R2

VC

V

VG-TNVG-R1VG-R2VG-R3VG-MX

WN

GRA GBA

UG-R1UG-R2UG-MX

AH

RR-RARR-AR

AL

RR-RARR-AR

AA

CN

UG-R2UG-R3UG-MXUG-CNUG-I1

UGBPO


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 condi-tions 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 pro-vides regulations for land uses, buildings, lots, lot coverage, streets in-cluding street design standards, public space, blocks, and densities. Ad-ditionally, the MCO regulates Environmental Performance and includes requirements for Renewable Energy.

The MCO describes regulations that can be applied by local govern-ments 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 envi-ronmental constraints such as steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. The intent of this zone is that such areas should be permanently pro-tected 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.

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

Views from Susquehannock State Park are a good example of the atural vistas the SC zone seeks to protects

photo: hollynd.typepad.com


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 preserva-tion 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 envi-ronment. This zone does not permit uses that are incompatible with farming and sets limits for agricultural support businesses.

AH: High-Impact Agricultural Zone

The purpose of the AH Zone is to promote the continuation and pres-ervation 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.

CC: Crossroads Communities

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. Vil-lage Growth Areas include an existing traditional village core, adjacent

Low-impact agricultural use in Lancaster County

photo: http://article.wn.com

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

photo: USGS

Crossroad Communities are commonly found in Lancaster County

photo: bing maps


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 com-munities 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.

WN: Walkable Neighborhood Development

Walkable Neighborhood Zones are intended to be primarily residen-tial 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 vari-ety 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

Core Neighborhoods combine moderate housing densities with com-mercial 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 Neighbor-hoods contain tree-lined streets designed to accommodate higher lev-els of automobile traffic than found in Walkable Neighborhoods, but should also designed to be walkable These areas shall be visually inter-esting 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 connectiv-ity (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-

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

Standadards for new development within the Urban Growth areas are meant to encourage non-motorized transportation.

photo: switchboard.nrdc.org


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 devel-oped 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. In-frastructure for public transport and multi-modal transportation is re-quired. 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

Central Business Districts (CBD) possess many of the same character-istics, functions and regulations as Regional Centers. However, where Regional Center designations may be mapped to regulate new develop-ment, 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 sur-roundings. 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.

Regional Centers combine residential, commercial and office uses with thoughtful urban design.

photo: Neighborhoods of Lancaster County

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


CD: Corridor District

Corridor Districts are intended to recognize and regulate existing com-mercial development along thoroughfares and highways where the pre-vailing 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 corri-dors. Given the close proximity to highways and thoroughfares Corri-dor 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.

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 develop-ment districts or b) require greater access to infrastructure (highway, rail lines). Uses include, but not limited to warehouses, research & develop-ment facilities, factories, shipping centers, and mining.

Environmental Protection Overlay

The environmental protection overlay builds upon the Model Conser-vation Zoning District and Natural Resource Protection Standards de-signed 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, his-toric, 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 ap-ply to all land-uses within a given zoning category, unless otherwise spec-

CD regulations are meant to address the typical corridor development patterns.

photo: Bing maps

EPO mapping occurs on a strategic and localized level.

Maps

My Notes

Print - Maps http://www.bing.com/maps/print.aspx?mkt=en-us&z=17&s=a&cp=40.06...

1 of 1 4/22/2012 7:12 PM

INTERIOR FORESTS

topographyhighlowinterior forests

forest blocksstreams

.75 1.5.250miles


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

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 develop-ment 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 en-courage 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 com-pact form of development in congruence with the installation of a bus rapid transit station located in its interior in an attempt to localize ac-tivities, which will help improve Lancaster Countys 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 stan-dards and regulations to existing or future historic districts throughout the County for the purpose of protecting the distinctive historical char-acter of these districts and to regulate the erection, reconstruction, alter-ation, restoration, demolition or razing of buildings within the historic districts. The model in Lancaster County is the Heritage Conservation District in Lancaster City.


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 boundar-ies 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 walk-ing 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 Commis-sion, should ordinarily be the final determination.

HC Districts should be mapped where the preponderance of the con-structed environment has a specific historic character that meets stan-dards for historic preservation, for example the criteria for districts in-cluded in the National Register of Historic Places.


Key Components

In addition to elements found in traditional zoning codes, the Model Code Outline (MCO) incorporates regu-latory 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 towns streets are the center of pedestrian activity and generally constitute a large percentage of a municipalitys 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 (Ap-pelton 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.

Building Height to road width ratio = 1:1

Where height to ratios are lower, trees can be used to create the public space


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. Classifica-tions 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 thor-oughfare. 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 boule-vards, which are predominantly auto-oriented thoroughfares found in Regional Centers. Additional sections and regulations are detailed in the MCO.

10'8' 8'6'10'10'10'6'8'10'

86'

Typical Elements regulated by thoroughfare type:

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

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

Travel lane ranges from 9-10 feet. Number of travel lanes not to exceed 4

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

encouraged but not required on streets


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

Bloc

k W

idth

Block Length

Block Perimeter =

2 x Block Length + 2 x Block Width

Maximum Block Length and Block PerimeterLong, wide blocks or super blocks can deter pedestrians and decrease the overall walkability of an area. In order to create walkable neighbor-hoods, the code seeks to implement maximums on block length and block perimeter. By doing so the code ensures pedestrians have alterna-tives 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 develop-ers.

The maximum block length and perimeter varies by neighborhood zone.


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. Ad-ditionally, increased connectivity can reduce travel length by providing more direct access to destinations.

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, di-vide 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 Neigh-borhoods and Regional Center Districts) achieve a connectivity index of at least 1.2

15

23

20/15

1.3

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. cul-de-sac) links or nodes.

0.8 FAIL

1.5 19

28

PASS

PASS

Benefits of Increased Connectivity

Increased options for pedestrian and vehicular routes

Reductions in traffic congestion

Shorter travel times

Increased walkability

Increased chance of walking as primary mode of transportation


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 intersec-tions. 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 percent-age of 4-way intersections than does this MCO. The reason is that the studio wanted to provide diversity in street type and experience. For ex-ample, street networks consisting entirely of 4-way intersections (100% grid pattern) do not provide opportunities for terminal views, a key ur-ban 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.


Sidewalk

Sidewalk Bicycle lane

Bicycle lane

Bicycle lane

Painted buffer

Planted buffer

Sidewalk

Sidewalk

Dual direction bicycle lane

Parking

Parking

Parking

Parking

Sustainability and Renewable Energy Standards

Bicycle lanes and Bicycle Parking

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.

Typical Bicycle Lane Sections

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

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

Compacted Sub-base

Compacted Sub-grade


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.

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.

Typical Roadside Bioswale

Stormwater Treatment and Infiltration

This MCO calls for the inclusion of bioswales and stormwater cap-ture 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 sys-tem. 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 becom-ing 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.

Compacted Sub-base

Compacted Sub-grade Underdrain pipe

Organic planting medium

Native plant material for filtration


Lancaster

MAPPING THE CODEIntroduction

The use of geographic information systems (GIS) to help guide planning and development decisions is an essential analysis tool available to planners. The tech-nology 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 al-location GIS analyses in order to help determine ap-propriate 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 ar-eas (UGA). Due to the Studios acceptance of these boundaries, the Studio executed the GIS analysis into two categories: areas inside the UGA and ar-eas 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. Exe-cuting these two approaches simultaneously demon-strates 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 pur-pose of this Studio and the GIS analysis is to serve as a demonstration for future land use/zoning allo-cations.

Suitability

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

vironmental, transportation, economic, demograph-ic, 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 zon-ing categories:

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

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.


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).

In determining the criteria for spatial suitability, the Studio found it was important to consider ele-ments 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 con-centrating development within the urban growth boundary and protecting the rural character with-out. Doing so will require the preservation of exist-ing urban centers and the creation and densification of future centers. The Studio balanced descriptive criteria (building density, road connectivity) with

F SC

F Suitability

SC Suitability

CC Suitability

VC Suitability

WN Suitability

CN Suitability

RC Suitability

CC VC WN CN RC

Inside UGA

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

-Preserved

-Performance standards

-Performance triggers

-Potential environmetnal harm

-Outside UGA

-Designated park or scenic

-Proximity to rural roadway intersections

-Low-med building density concentration

-Minimal environmental harm

-Outside UGA

-Proximity to commercial centers

-Proximity to rural roadway intersections

-Medium building density concentration


-Outside UGA

-Proximity to small commercial centers

-Proximity to med-capacity roadways

-Not near large commercial center

-Not adjacent to County attractions

-Med building density

-Proximity to commercial

-Proximity to high-capacity roadways


-Proximity to BRT station

-Proximity to County attractions

-Med-high building density

-Minimal topo-graphic changes


-Proximity to major roadways

-Proximity to County attractions

-Not adjacent to UGA

-Outside BRT walkshed

-High concentra-tion of commercial -High building density

Outside UGA

Suitability Criteria

GIS A

nalysis

prescriptive criteria (proximity to nearest arterial, en-vironmental 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 en-vironmental, 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.


Sequential Allocation

Overview

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 place-ment 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.

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

Determining Zone Placement

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

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.

F Suitability

F Allocation

SC Suitability

SC Allocation

CC Suitability

CC Allocation

VC Suitability

VC Allocation

Allocation Process


Village Centers were the most dependent on a va-riety 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 en-vironmentally sensitive areas. Lastly, Farms were lo-cated 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 re-side outside the UGA where sewer and other infra-structure services are not usually provided. A Village Center growing too big in terms of size and popula-tion 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 natu-ral 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 to-gether into a new output.

Allocation: Crossroads Communities

Crossroads Communities are smaller in size and pop-ulation density than Village Centers. Because of their nature, Crossroads Communities should be separate from other Crossroads Communities as well as Vil-lage 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 versa-tility to the landscape as well as bearing little depen-dence on external dependence on external factors, such as proximity to a commercial center or rural in-tersection. For this reason, Farm Lands became the filler and were placed in all locations not already sit-ed for Scenic Lands, Village Centers, or Crossroads Communities.

Conclusion

After each of the four zones were mapped individu-ally, 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 sec-tion dicusses the second allocation method used. The parallel allocation method applies to three se-lected 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.


Parallel Allocation

Overview

The allocation of zoning districts traditionally fol-lows a process similar to the sequential method dis-cussed 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 loca-tions 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 build-ing 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 al-locate 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 heuris-tically analyzes, recycles, and refines potentially in-finite combinations of land-uses in an iterative and cyclical fashion. The Studio refers to this method as Parallel Allocation.

However, there are also situations in which priority is more ambiguous and it might makes sense to al-locate 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 heuris-tically analyzes, recycles, and refines potentially in-finite 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 locat-ing 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 dis-tance to complimentary zoning districts, the cluster-ing of zoning districts, etc. These situational crite-ria 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 Suit-ability Grid for each zoning district, in which those areas that were appropriately sized, clustered, and lo-cated relative to complimentary districts received the highest scores.

Combined Suitability

Next, the method combined the Situational Suit-ability and Spatial Suitability grids for each of the Image caption: An overview of the methodology employed for the

Parallel Allocation stage of Mapping the Code.

Yes

Sample Zones (WN, CN, RC)

Suitability Grids Situational Suitability

Combined Suitability

Final Allocation

Grid No

Does X grid = X1 grid?


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 al-location 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 suit-ability 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 Com-mission 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 out-puts demonstrated through this Studio attempted to highlight and implement the integration of land use planning, GIS analyses, and urban design plans.

Final Conclusions

The Studios zoning recommendations can help the Lancaster County Pl

growth plan for lancaster county

Documents

urban design studio

design principles

county staff

city planning department

urban design plans

department of city

acknowledgementsthe

lancaster general hospital