Map 25 Major Plan Amendment Prepared on November 12, 2015 Prepared by: Sara Dechter, AICP Comprehensive Planning Manager City of Flagstaff 211 W Aspen Ave Flagstaff, AZ 86001 (928) 213-2631 sdechter@flagstaffaz.gov Stephanie Sarty Traffic Engineering PM City of Flagstaff Jennifer Mikelson Associate Planner City of Flagstaff Clay Donaldson GIS Intern City of Flagstaff This page was intentionally left blank Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 The Team .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Description and Need for Proposed Amendment.......................................................................................... 2 Project Narrative ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Changes to FRP30 ..................................................................................................................... 4 Conformance with Regional Plan Goals and Policies............................................................................... 7 Incompatible Direction ......................................................................................................................... 9 Impacts of the Proposed Amendment ....................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: Comparison of FRP30 Corridors and Functional Class ........................................................ 11 Appendix B: Proposed Map 25 Changes in Detail ..................................................................................... 13 Appendix C: Proposed Text Changes to Regional Plan.............................................................................. 19 Appendix D: Waived Submittal Requirements ........................................................................................... 35 Map Exhibits.................................................... ........................................................................................... 37 Tables Table 1: Proposed Changes to the Growth and Land Use Chapter ............................................................... 4 Table 2: Proposed Changes to the Transportation Chapter and Glossary ..................................................... 6 Table 3: Explanation of how definition issue translates into specific roads ............................................... 11 1 Map25Narrative_final Executive Summary The purpose of this major amendment is to bring Map 25: Road Network Illustration (Map 25) in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 9-461.05 and to resolve inconsistencies between the Land Use and Transportation Chapters and other parts of the City Code related to Map 25. These changes are being processed as a major plan amendment because they are related to the major amendment category of “Addition of a Corridor or Great Street” on page III-9. This amendment will result in: • • • • • • A Road Network Illustration that conforms to the legal requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes, Improved consistency on language related to Map 25 within FRP30 and with other City Code and policies, Improved ability to provide consistent direction to City projects and development applications, Expansion of the Corridor Place Type in two areas within the City, Improved ability to communicate with the public about land use and transportation issues pertaining to corridors, and Improved ability to determine the fair and rough proportional share of infrastructure costs. The Team The team assembling this application is led by Sara Dechter, the City’s Comprehensive Planning Manager. She has been working for the City since just after the Regional Plan was adopted by the City Council. She is responsible for educating staff on the Regional Plan and for coordinating its implementation across City Departments. Jennifer Mikelson is the Associate Planner for the City and is tasked with roles supporting the Comprehensive Planning Program and the Community Development front counter. Her role in this application is to lead the public outreach effort associated with this plan amendment. Stephanie Sarty is a Traffic Engineering Project Manager for the City of Flagstaff. Stephanie has been responsible for mapping the function classification of existing and future freeway, arterial, and collector roads and adopting the map/s into the City Engineering Standards. She is the point of contact for this amendment in the Engineering staff. Clay Donaldson is an intern working for the Comprehensive Planning Program. He is enrolled full time as a student at NAU with the Department of Geography, Planning, and Recreation. He is responsible for the creation of maps and GIS data management for this application. 1 Map25Narrative_final Description and Need for Proposed Amendment The purpose of this major amendment is to bring Map 25: Road Network Illustration (Map 25) in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 9-461.05 and to resolve inconsistencies between the Land Use and Transportation Chapters and other parts of the City Code related to Map 25. These changes are being processed as a major plan amendment because they are related to the major amendment category of “Addition of a Corridor or Great Street” on page III-9 in the FRP30. ARS 9-461.05.C.2 states that a general Plan must include, “A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed freeways, arterial and collector streets, bicycle routes and any other modes of transportation as may be appropriate, all correlated with the land use element of the plan [Emphasis added].” Map 25 is the instrument in FRP30 to meet this requirement but it does not display all of the existing and proposed arterials and collectors. In June 2013, this deficiency was identified in a legal review of the Draft Plan but it was not addressed before the adoption and ratification. This amendment will add all existing and proposed routes to the map in a manner that does not alter the intent of the Land Use Chapter. Another issue this amendment will resolve is that some of the roads that are displayed on Map 25 are not categorized in a way that logically corresponds to the explanation of these categories on page X-18. On the current Map 25, 15 % of arterials and 63% of collectors are miscategorized according to the Plan text (see Appendix A). For instance, minor collectors are listed under Circulation on page X-18 but are all displayed on Map 25 as Access. This amendment will resolve this inconsistency by updating page X-18 to show the correlation of road functional classes and the road network illustration categories more clearly and to recategorize some roads on the map. In the Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan 2020 (the previous Regional Plan), the map that is equivalent to Map 25, showed roads according to their functional classes. Road functional classes (i.e. freeway, arterial, collector, local) are shown in the City’s Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specification (Engineering Standards), a part of the City Code. Map 25 is more generalized and the comparison of road network v. functional classes on Page X-18 does not provide enough information to determine which roads are to be developed to which standards. Without a map that serves this purpose it is difficult to meet the stated FRP30 goal of having developers pay their fair share of the cost of development. In addition, Page X-19 in FRP30 has a description of these classes that is inconsistent with the Engineering Standards. There is concern that this will cause confusion in future development cases. Part of the solution to this issue is to adopt a map of road functional classes into the Engineering Standards until a Master Streets Plan (specific plan) can be completed. This amendment will remove the conflicting definitions and make reference to this hierarchy of documents. The Engineering staff adopted the map of functional classes into the Engineering Standards in August 2015. Another issue related to Map 25 that will be resolved is the “Urban Network” designation. This term appears only on Map 25 and has no corresponding explanation in the Plan’s text. In attempting to develop a description, it was noticed that the urban networks did not correlate to Urban Area and Place Types on the Future Growth Illustration (Map 22). This inconsistency could also be an issue under ARS 9461.05.C.2. We, therefore, have developed alternative text that addresses the intent of the Urban Network 2 Map25Narrative_final designation and simplifies the interpretations of Urban and Suburban Corridors in the Land Use Chapter, while removing inconsistencies. Another designation on Map 25 that is not explained in the text of the Plan is the blue circles that represent “Capacity Study Pending.” Some readers of the document have questioned if the studies are currently being conducted. They are not. Instead this blue circle was meant to show an area that potentially needs a connection in order to support a robust and resilient road network for future growth, but the timing and location of this future roadway is too speculative to show on Map 25 at the time of adoption. This application would replace “Capacity Study Pending” with clearer language and retain the blue circles. The public will benefit from these changes because the Plan will meet legal requirements and the direction for future land use and transportation coordination will be clearer. These amendments are not intended to alter the intent of the plan that was originally ratified. Instead, they are designed to correct errors, resolve inconsistencies, remove legal vulnerability and improve the readability of the document. It is our hope that this will improve the City’s ability to implement the land use and transportation policies in FRP30. 3 Map25Narrative_final Project Narrative Map 25 Major Plan Amendment Proposed Changes to FRP30 This application is requesting to amend Map 25 and related sections of the Growth and Land Use and Transportation Chapters. On Map 25, we propose to add all collectors and arterials not already on the map in order to meet ARS 9461.05. We would also propose to correct factual and alignment errors, such as the incorrect future alignment for US 89A near Ft. Tuthill. The factual errors are typically roads that are categorized in a way that is incompatible with the crosswalk of functional classes and Regional Plan categories on Page X-18 (see Appendix A for details). Map 25 has two purposes in identifying roads: 1) to meet the ARS requirements and 2) to identify Commercial Corridor Place Types in the Growth and Land Use Chapter. In order to add the roads needed to achieve the former without impacting the latter, we propose to add a “Residential Access” category to Map 25. This category would also subsume the “Connectors” on Map 25 as “Future Residential Access.” Examples of Residential Access roads would be High Country Rd. or King St. The Proposed Road Network Illustration shows all of these changes. A side-by-side comparison existing and proposed maps can be found in Appendix B. In addition, there will be a revision to the gray shades denoting the Area Types in Map 25 since they do not match the final edits that were made to Map 22 Future Growth Illustration. Another set of edits would address issues in the legend of the map. First, we propose to change the category “Capacity Study Pending” to “Identify Network Solutions in Future Capacity Study.” We also propose to remove the “Urban Network” feature from the legend and content from Map 25. The purpose of identifying urban networks was to identify locations where increased connectivity would contribute to an urban form. This concept is redundant and inconsistent with the Existing and Future Urban Area Types identified on Map 22 (Future Growth Illustration). In addition, urban networks are identified in Map 25 but not defined or described anywhere in the document’s text. We propose to address this inconsistency by rewriting some of the language in the Land Use Chapter on connectivity to capture the same concept (see table below and Appendix C for mark-up) Table 1: Proposed Changes to the Growth and Land Use Chapter Page # Proposed Change Rationale IX-35 Eliminate the distinction between Regional and Neighborhood Corridors These qualifiers are not mapped and cannot be clearly interpreted in a way that is consistent with both Map 22: Future Growth Illustration and Map 25: Road Network Illustration. 4 Map25Narrative_final Page # Proposed Change Rationale IX-36 Under Transportation, add “Very high road and pedestrian infrastructure connectivity. Block sizes are smaller; gridded street networks preferred where not prohibited by topography.” This will partially replace the urban network map designation. IX-37 Eliminate distinction between Regional and Neighborhood Corridors. Add “More frequent intersections with local roads. Local roads IX-37 in an urban area type carry more through traffic than suburban local roads. Thoroughfares and boulevards may be applied in the context of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and the use of transect zones.” to the Urban Corridor Characteristics IX-47 Under Transportation, change to “Easy-to-access parking available via shared lots, shared parking structures, lots and on-street parking with pedestrian paths through and around parking areas. Transit stops available. Suburban block sizes may be larger than urban areas but must have highly connected bike and pedestrian infrastructure across the block and not solely around the block edges. Backage roads and collectors occur more frequently in suburban activity centers than in suburban neighborhoods.” IX- 50 Eliminate distinction between Regional and Neighborhood Corridors and add information to the definition of Suburban Corridor. IX- 50 Add “These corridors will be wider with faster speed limits, and will emphasize safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Local roads access suburban corridors through a hierarchy of functional road classifications. Suburban corridors provide well designed signage, landscaping, and public spaces, with wide sidewalks and parkways.” to the Suburban Corridor Characteristics IX- 55 & 56 Eliminate distinction between Regional and Neighborhood Corridors and add information to the definition of Suburban Corridors. IX-55 IX-68 Eliminate description of Rural Neighborhood Corridor and enhance the description of Rural Corridor. Add: “These corridors serve local residents and are a mixture of public and private roadways of varying standards. Commercial development is encouraged in designated activity centers that frequently intersect with regional corridors.” Change policy to read “Policy LU.18.9. Plan activity centers and corridors appropriate to their respective regional or neighborhood context and scale.” Change policy to read “Policy LU.19.2. Establish the context and regional or neighborhood scale of each corridor prior to design with special consideration for those intended to remain residential or natural in character.” These qualifiers are not mapped and cannot be clearly interpreted in a way that is consistent with both Map 22: Future Growth Illustration and Map 25: Road Network Illustration. This will partially replace the urban network map designation. This will partially replace the urban network map designation. These qualifiers are not mapped and cannot be clearly interpreted in a ways that is consistent with both Map 22: Future Growth Illustration and Map 25: Road Network Illustration. This will partially replace the urban network map designation. These qualifiers are not mapped and cannot be clearly interpreted in a ways that is consistent with both Map 22: Future Growth Illustration and Map 25: Road Network Illustration. Makes more consistent with other sections. Corresponds with changes on pages IX-50 and IX-37 5 Map25Narrative_final We would also propose the following clarifications and corrections in the Transportation Chapter in order to better integrate Map 25 with the Engineering Standards and Zoning Code: Table 2: Proposed Changes to the Transportation Chapter Page # Proposed Change Rationale X-1 Official name of Title 4: Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Editing error X-4 & 5 Insert updated proposed Map 25 Map 25 edits X-18 Change Section Heading to Roads and Corridors “Automobiles” does not describe the content of the section well because it contains overlapping information with other modes. X-18 Make the concept of their being a sliding scale of functional classes within the Road Corridor Categories on Map 25 clearer and clean up language about how they relate to functional classifications. This can be accomplished visually and with clearer language. X-18 X-18 X-18 X-19 X-19 X-19 Identify Residential and Commercial Access as a category to the list Describe how the concept of “Commercial corridors” in the Land Use chapter relates to Map 25 and these road categories in an inset box. Cross reference Map 25 and descriptions Describe relationship between Corridors and the RTP and describe “Conditional Roads” from the RTP and their relationship to Map 25. Include examples, such as • Clay Ave • 89 Bypass • Metz Walk extension • Anita Extension • Extension of Riordan Ranch South to University • Switzer Canyon Extension under I-40 Replace Functional Class Definitions with a more general statement and point to the Engineering Standards for the definitions of functional classifications. Talk about the desire to have a Streets Master Plan that serves as a Specific Plan between the Engineering Standards and the Regional Plan Match Map 25 edits Clarification Clarification Clarification brought forward through questions posed by the public. Some roads in the Regional Transportation Plan were marked as “conditional,” because further study is required before proceeding. These distinctions were not carried forward into FRP30 and it has led to some confusion. Consistency issue This part of the strategy is important but the plan is silent on it. 6 Map25Narrative_final Conformance with Regional Plan Goals and Policies Growth Areas & Land Use Policy LU.10.1. Prioritize connectivity within all urban neighborhoods and activity centers Goal LU.12. Accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and private cars to supplement downtown’s status as the bestserved and most accessible location in the region. Policy LU.12.7. Provide multiple routes and pathways for vehicular and pedestrian movement. Policy LU.13.1. Prioritize connectivity for walking, biking, and driving within and between surrounding neighborhoods. Goal LU.19. Develop a manageable evolution of the main corridors into contextual place makers. Policy LU.19.2. Establish the context and regional or neighborhood scale of each corridor prior to design with special consideration for those intended to remain residential or natural in character. Policy LU.19.4. Balance automobile use, parking, bicycle access, while prioritizing pedestrian safety along all corridors. Analysis The changes proposed in Table 1 improve the clarity of how corridors serve to increase connectivity in urban and suburban contexts and better distinguish how those contexts are different. In urban corridors, highly connected streets and gridded streets are preferred, while suburban corridors fit into the hierarchical system of local roads feeding into collectors and then arterials, and ultimately connecting to highways. Biking, pedestrian and transit needs are integrated into both urban and suburban contexts. Another way these changes improve the implementation of the goals and policies in the Land Use Chapter is by removing the distinction between regional and neighborhood corridors. First, there is no clear identification of these areas in the Regional Plan. Second, there are several corridors with both neighborhood and regional activity centers and no clear direction on how to resolve this discrepancy. Implementation of the Plan will be clearer if corridors are defined by their place types, with their scale being determined by the context of their location. If a portion of a corridor is adjacent to a regional activity center it can be considered a regional scale corridor depending on its proximity to and scale of the surrounding development. This allows for a transition to occur in a gradual manner and will prevent leapfrogging of large regional scale developments. This promotes complete connected places that are the heart of the land use strategy in the Regional Plan. The only inconsistency is that Policies LU.18.9 and LU.19.2 reference the regional and neighborhood scale division of corridors and activity centers. We propose to resolve this inconsistency by removing the words “regional or neighborhood” but maintaining the concept of scale and context. Transportation Goal T.1. Improve mobility and access throughout the region. Policy T.1.1. Integrate a balanced, multimodal, regional transportation system. Policy T.1.2.Apply Complete Street Guidelines to accommodate all appropriate modes of travel in transportation improvement projects. Policy T.1.3.Transportation systems are consistent with the place type and needs of people. Policy T.1.4. Provide a continuous transportation system with convenient transfer from one mode to another. Policy T.1.5. Manage the operation and interaction of all modal systems for efficiency, effectiveness, safety, and to best mitigate traffic congestion. Policy T.1.8. Plan for development to provide on-site, publicly-owned transportation improvements and provide adequate parking. 7 Map25Narrative_final Goal T.2. Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes. Policy T.2.5. Continue to seek means to improve emergency service access, relieve and manage peak hour congestion, and expand multi-modal options in the US 180 corridor. Policy T.5.4. Design streets with continuous pedestrian infrastructure of sufficient width to provide safe, accessible use and opportunities for shelter. Goal T.8. Establish a functional, safe, and aesthetic hierarchy of roads and streets. Policy T.8.1. Promote efficient transportation connectivity to major trade corridors, employment centers, and special districts that enhances the region’s standing as a major economic hub. Policy T.8.2. Maintain the road and street classification system that is based on context, function, type, use, and visual quality. Policy T.8.3. Design neighborhood streets using appropriate traffic calming techniques and street widths to sustain quality of life while maintaining traffic safety. Policy T.8.4. Protect rights-of-way for future transportation corridors. Policy T.8.5. Support the area’s economic vitality by improving intersection design for freight movements. Policy T.8.6. Maintain the City’s street infrastructure in a cost effective manner to ensure the safety and convenience of all users. Policy T.11.2. Approach public involvement proactively throughout regional transportation planning, prioritization, and programming processes, including open access to communications, meetings, and documents related to the Plan. Policy T.11.4. Attempt to equitably distribute the burdens and benefits of transportation investments to all segments of the community. Analysis Resolving conflicts between the RTP, Engineering Standards and FRP30 will improve the ability of engineers and planners to have a common understanding of how to interpret and use Map 25. This will improve the use of the document in reviewing development applications and providing answers to customers at the front counter. It will also improve the ability of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council to make decisions using these segments of FRP30. This supports many of the goals and policies in the Transportation Chapter. The changes in Table 2 are just as important as those in the map for creating a cohesive policy for determining how land use and transportation issues related to corridors are supported by the Plan or not. Inconsistencies and missing routes would also make it difficult to communicate about corridor development and transportation planning with the public. This has already occurred in the case of Conditional Roads from the RTP being carried forward into the Road Network Illustration without complete information. During public meetings for the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Plan, residents were very concerned that the delineation of the Clay Ave Extension on Map 25 meant that the decision could not be revisited without a major plan amendment. However, when it was clarified that a Conditional Road from the RTP would not be built without additional evaluation or study, it reduced (but did not remove) anxiety about the prospect of this future alignment. Given the current condition of the text and map, this type of miscommunication is likely to reoccur without corrective action from the City. Cost of Development Policy CD.1.5. Require that new development pay for a fair and rough proportional share of public facilities, services, and infrastructure. Analysis Providing further clarity on the corridors within the City, their relationship to area and place types and to Engineering Standards will assist the City staff in negotiating development agreements and provide more clarity in annexation cases. Ultimately this ensures that new development is able to determine their fair and rough proportional share of public facilities, services and infrastructure. 8 Map25Narrative_final Incompatible Direction Staff was unable to find any contradicting goals or policies for this amendment. The inconsistency in LU.18.9 and LU.19.2 can be easily resolved and the issue of how to apply scale to corridors can be determined using the context of the area and place types displayed on the Future Growth Illustration. This amendment does not resolve all inconsistencies or errors in the Plan; it only addresses those tied to Map 25, which is the trigger for a major plan amendment. All other text related inconsistencies and errors will be addressed with future minor amendments Impacts of the Proposed Amendment The area of the Regional Plan that would be impacted by this amendment is the number of parcels that fall within the Corridor Place Type. The Corridor Place Type allows for the development of mixed use and commercial land uses. Residential Access roads would not create new opportunities for commercial or mixed use zoning but added Circulation and Access roads may create some support for rezoning cases. The plan amendment was designed to minimize the impact of this change on the City and therefore there are only two areas that could be affected by this change in place type: Kaspar Ave. and the south end of Beaver St. and San Francisco St. where they intersect Franklin. However, it is important to recognize that place types alone are not the only consideration in a rezoning case. All the goals and policies of the Regional Plan will be considered as will public input at the time of an application. Several Access and Circulation corridors that are already exist in accordance with their functional class and roles were added to Map 25. The corridors added north and west of Downtown, Forest Meadows, Malpais Ln and Sawmill Road are all zoned for uses consistent with commercial and mixed use activities associated with the Corridor Place Type. Along Kaspar Ave., the properties along the west half of the road are zoned for commercial and mixed use, but the eastern half are residential lots. Adding Kaspar as an Access Road could be considered to support a future rezoning of about 5 parcels with frontage on Kaspar. Because this route lacks frontage and has limited connections to Route 66’s commercial frontage, it is less likely we would see a rezoning application of this type in this location than elsewhere in the City. As always, decisions must be made in context of the entire plan’s goals and policies and not area or place types alone. The proposed Map 25 would also extend Beaver and San Francisco as Circulation corridors south to NAU’s campus and would connect Franklin Ave to these corridors. There is a block of R1 and HR zoned parcels north of campus that are adjacent to this change. Going from a neighborhood to a corridor place type, would introduce the possibility of the plan providing some support for commercial or mixed uses on this block. If we wanted to preserve this area’s single family character, it would need to be called out specifically, because the corridor framework considers all Circulation corridors as having potential for commercial and mixed use development and this would be the only exception. Because of proximity to campus, the demand for commercial or mixed use in this area is high and this change to the map could therefore provide support for a future rezoning case. This would be considered along with all the goals and policies in the plan and is therefore not conclusive. Along Franklin Ave, most of the housing is more modern and has fewer historic resource concerns. Because of the traffic volumes and the road’s role as a gateway onto campus, it is recommended that this road be added as Access as opposed to Residential Access. 9 Map25Narrative_final There are also three new and one adjusted future Access corridors identified: 1) Old Walnut Canyon Road, 2) A Woody Mountain Road bypass, 3) A future connection between Harold Ranch Road and the New Lone Tree Corridor, and 4) The realignment of 89A near Ft. Tuthill. Like all future corridors, these are subject to further review at the time that development of the surrounding area occurs. In addition, the traffic modeling that was done with the Regional Plan considered these routes and it is unclear why they were not included. Before any of these roads would be constructed, they would require impact analyses including traffic. However, we do not know enough detail about the future land uses within these areas to be able to estimate the impact of the future routes. This amendment does not propose any physical change to the City’s transportation system at this time; therefore, it is not possible to determine a measureable difference in effects to Public Services and Facilities, Traffic, Water and Wastewater, Schools, Police and Fire, or Cultural Resources. All of the assumptions used in the impact analysis associated with the current version of FRP30 would be valid for this amendment as well. 10 Map25Narrative_final Appendix A: Comparison of FRP30 Corridors and Functional Class Issue: Page X-18 in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) identifies how road functional classifications should relate to the Road Network Illustration categories on Map 25. However, there are many segments that are categorized in RLUTP in a manner that is incompatible with the description in FRP30. Abbreviations FR - Freeway MjA – Major Arterial MnA- Minor Arterial MjC – Major collector MnC – Minor Collector CL – Commercial Local Table 3: Explanation of how definition issue translates into specific roads Road Name/Segment Flagstaff Ranch Road S. Thompson/University Av Turquoise Lone Tree from JW Powell to Pine Knoll Pulliam/High Country Huntington/Industrial Gemini Continental and Country Club south of Old Walnut Marketplace/Empire/Dodge Ponderosa Pkwy Forest Meadows btwn Woodlands and Beulah Linda Vista W 6th Ave Sparrow/Foxglenn Old Walnut Canyon/Walnut Hills Country Club north of I-40 W Route 66 to Milton intersection Functional Classification MjC MjC MjC MjC FRP30 Access Access Access Access Fits current p. X-18 definition? No No No No MjC MjC MjC MjC Access Access Access Access No No No No MjC MjC/MnA MnC Access Access Access No No No MnC MjC MnC MnC MjA MnA Access Access Access Access Circulation Regional Travel Regional Travel Regional Travel Regional Travel Regional Travel Access Circulation No No No No No No Forest Meadows btwn Beulah and Milton Beulah from I40 to Forest Meadows MnA 89A from I40 to JW Powell MnA Townsend-Winona/Leupp MnA N. Thompson Woodlands Village MnC MjC MnA No No No No Yes Yes 11 Map25Narrative_final Road Name/Segment Butler east of 4th St San Francisco and Beaver from Butler to Santa Fe Lockett/Fanning West E 7th Ave Country Club north of Old Walnut to I-40 Soliere Koch Field Silver Saddle Woody Mtn Rd Butler west of 4th St San Francisco and Beaver from Santa Fe to Switzer Switzer Forest/Cedar Lone Tree from Pine Knoll to Butler JW Powell 4th St East Route 66 past Flagstaff Mall Milton Functional Classification MjC MjC FRP30 MjC MjC MjC MjC Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Yes Yes Yes Yes MjC MjC MjC MnA MnA MnA Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MnA MnA MnA MnA MnA MnA MjA Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation Regional Travel Regional Travel Regional Travel Regional Travel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 89A south of JW Powell MjA Humphreys/Ft. Valley Rd/180 MjA Route 66 downtown to Flagstaff Mall MjA Fits current p. X-18 definition? Circulation Yes Circulation Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 Map25Narrative_final Appendix B: Proposed Map 25 Changes in Detail Key Red= Residential Access Orange= Access Blue=Circulation Black = Freeway W Kiltie Ln _ Presidio _ S Woody Mountain Rd. _ West Trl./ W high Country trail _ 13 Map25Narrative_final Mt. Dell _ S Pulliam Dr./ W Shamrell _ Walapai/ Zuni _ 89A adjustment _ 14 Map25Narrative_final Franklin _ S Paseo del Rio -Valle ContraPaeso de Flag _ McConell _ S. Black Bird Roost/ S Malpais _ 15 Map25Narrative_final Future Connection between New Lone Tree and Harold Ranch Cedar- San Fransico- Beaver _ Railroad Spring _ N Peak _ 16 Map25Narrative_final West of Downtown _ Mead _ Courtland _ Mallway-trailsend _ 17 Map25Narrative_final Sawmill _ N Kaspar Dr. _ E Fox Trail _ 18 Map25Narrative_final Appendix C: Proposed Text Changes to Regional Plan The following pages show only pages of the Land Use and Transportation Chapters that would have text edits. It does not include changes to text on maps. New language is underlined and deleted text is crossed out. Page X-20 of the current FRP30 is proposed for deletion because the content of the previous 2 pages has been reduced and Page X-20’s goals and policies will be found on Page X-19. 19 Map25Narrative_final AREA TYPES URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS Urban areas have a higher density of people, residences, jobs and activities; buildings are taller and close to the street; streets and sidewalks are in a grid pattern of relatively small blocks; the area is walkable and a variety of services and goods are available; served by public transportation and with various forms of shared parking (lots, garages, etc.) and street parking. Existing Urban Area *Symbol from Map 22 Future Urban Area *Symbol from Map 22 Desired Pattern Minimum 2 stories within a commercial core and on urban corridors Block Size 300 X 300 to 300 x 600 Density Range Minimum 8 units per acre. Increased density within the ¼ mile pedestrian shed; exception for established Historic Districts. Intensity (FARs) of 0.5 +. Higher range of intensity within the commercial core of activity centers and corridors; exception for established Historic Districts. Air Quality Consider long-term impacts to air quality by proposed development. Refer to Air Quality Goal E&C.1. Solar Access Consider solar access for all development, allowing passive/active solar collection. Corridors Include regional and neighborhood corridors. Refer to Urban Corridor Characteristics table, pg. IX-37 Mixed-Use rban mixed-use includes supporting land uses such as neighborhood shops and services, residential, business offices, urban parks and recreation areas, religious institutions, and schools. A full range of urban services and infrastructure is required as well as high pedestrian, bicycle and transit connectivity. Residential Residential uses in urban neighborhoods will be incorporated into mixed use projects. This includes apartments, condominium complexes, duplexes, townhomes, and other forms of attached housing, and single-family which is subdivided into smaller lots. Commercial Commercial development is to be located within activity centers and along regional commercial and neighborhood commercial corridors. Public/ Institutional As part of mixed-use development – vertical preferred. Make central to urban neighborhood and connected with transit and FUTS. Employment/ Research & Development/ Industrial Industrial not appropriate for urban context Research and Development offices, medical, services, professional offices, retail, hotel, and restaurants as part of urban form and within mixed-use development. Parks Urban Parks can be publicly or privately owned and designated for recreation use, allowing for both active and passive activities, as well as special use functions. May include special facilities and swimming pools, and neighborhood and community parks. Future park development is contingent upon density and intensity of proposed development; and this Plan’s policies outline the need for recreational opportunities for all residents and visitors. Refer to Chapter XV Recreation Open Space Public Space pen Space in urban areas include greenways streetscapes, waterways, cemeteries, oodplains, riparian areas, corridors, boulevard viewsheds, and public plazas and squares and are used for passive activities. These spaces may be restored for their aesthetic value, vistas, and archaeological and historic significance Refer to Chapter IV - Environmental Planning & Conservation and Chapter V - Open Space Conservation Refer to Natural Resources Maps 7 and 8, and ‘Considerations for Development’ in Chapter IV - Environmental Planning & Conservation. Agriculture Urban food production – potted vegetables, greenhouses and conservatories, roof-top gardens, animal husbandry, and community gardens. Special Planning Areas Northern Arizona University to become more urban. Refer to NAU Master Plan. Master Plans Presidio West; Juniper Point BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Land Use IX-35 AREA TYPES URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER CHARACTERISTICS An area typically located at the intersection of two main thoroughfares. Urban activity centers include mixed-use, mix of housing type, mixed price range, walkable, transit-oriented-design; can include regional commercial or neighborhood commercial. Regional Urban Activity Center - Larger, mixed-use centers at intersections of Regional Travel and Circulation Corridors; with direct access of multiple residential developments; with entertainment and cultural amenities; public spaces; serves regional residents and visitors. Neighborhood Urban Activity Center – smaller, mixed-use centers at intersections of Circulation Corridors and Access Roads; with access to surrounding neighborhood; with local goods and services, public spaces; serves local residents; transit and FUTS access. Characteristics Each Activity Center is unique with contextual and distinctive identities, derived from environmental features, a mix of uses, well-designed public spaces, parks, plazas, and high-quality urban design. They are welldesigned for the purpose of maintaining a unique sense of place and to attract the residents/clients desired. Refer to A Vision for Our Urban Activity Centers on pg. IX-63. Desired Pattern Density Range Residential Only: 13+ units per acre Residential mixed-use: 8+ units per acre Intensity Regional scale and design Floor area ratios (FARs) of 1.0+ Mix of Uses Transportation IX-36 Neighborhood scale and design Floor area ratios (FARs) of 0.5+ Within commercial core: Government, services, education, offices, retail, restaurant, and tourism-related Residential opportunities, residential mixed-use, public spaces, place-making. Within the pedestrian shed but not in a commercial core: higher-density residential, live-work units, homebased businesses, educational, greater connectivity to a commercial core. Easy-to-access parking available via garages, shared lots, and on-street parking. Transit stops and routes centrally located. Bicycle access and parking abundant. Pedestrian-oriented design.Very high road and pedestrian infrastructure connectivity. Block sizes are smaller; gridded street networks preferred where not prohibited by topography. Land Use | BUILT ENVIRONMENT AREA TYPES URBAN CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS Corridors are where commercial development is encouraged; Urban corridors are not highways or neighborhood streets local streets and residential access are not considered urban corridors. Great Streets are corridors with the greatest potential for reinvestment, beautification, and appropriate land uses Refer to page IX-62 for more discussion of Activity Centers (Map 24) and Corridors (Map 25), and the Great Streets and Gateways (Map 12.) Characteristics of an Urban Corridor Regional Corridor Urban Corridor Serves larger capacities of vehicles and people, with more intense land uses. These corridors will be wider with faster speed limits, yet street parking is encouraged and pedestrian safety is a priority., and will provide Provides well designed signage, landscaping, and public spaces, with shops and services in buildings that front the street. Examples of urban regional corridors include: Milton Road, Route 66, and SR 89N. More frequent intersections with local roads Local roads in an urban area type carry more through traffic than suburban local roads Thoroughfares and boulevards may be applied in the context of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and the use of transect zones. Neighborhood Corridor Serves the surrounding neighborhoods, with shops and services in buildings that front the street. Street parking is encouraged and pedestrian safety is a priority. Examples of urban neighborhood corridors include: Cedar Avenue, Humphreys Avenue and Fort Valley Road. Character of an Urban Activity Center BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Land Use IX-37 AREA TYPES SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS CHARACTERISTICS An area typically located at the intersection of two collectors or neighborhood streets, with vertical or horizontal mixed-use (mix of any: businesses, retail, residential, offices, medical services, etc , serving the surrounding neighborhoods A suburban activity center can serve a Regional Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial scale. Regional Suburban Activity Center: Larger, mixed-use centers at intersections of Regional Travel and Circulation Corridors; with access of large residential developments; with entertainment and cultural amenities; public spaces; serves regional residents and visitors. Map Symbol Neighborhood Suburban Activity Center: Smaller, mixed-use centers at intersections of Circulation Corridors and Access Roads; with access to surrounding neighborhood; with local goods and services, public spaces; serves local residents; transit and FUTS access. Desired Pattern Photo credit: City of Flagstaff Density Range Residential Only: 6 - 10 units per acre. Residential mixed-use: 6+ units per acre Intensity Regional scale and design at Flagstaff Mall. Floor area ratios (FARs) of 0.5+ Mix of Uses Neighborhood scale centers at all others. Floor area ratios (FARs) of 0.35+ Within commercial core: Services, offices, retail, restaurant and tourism-related Residential opportunities, residential mixed-use. Public spaces, place-making. Within pedestrian shed but not in commercial core: higher-density residential, live-work units, home-based businesses, educational, greater connectivity to a commercial core. Regional Commercial is intended for all commercial and service uses that serve the needs of the entire region, those which attract a regional or community-wide market, as well as tourism and travel-related businesses. While uses located in this category typically tend to be auto-oriented, the regional commercial category emphasizes safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access and safety as an activity center. Commercial Transportation Neighborhood Commercial is intended for all commercial retail and service uses that meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These areas are typically anchored by a grocery store, with supporting retail and service establishments. Development in this category may also include other neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools, employment, day care, parks, and civic facilities, as well as residential uses as part of a mixed-use development activity center. Easy-to-access parking available via shared lots, shared parking structures, lots and on-street parking with pedestrian paths through and around parking areas. Transit stops available. Bicycle access and parking. Pedestrian safety. Suburban block sizes may be larger than urban areas but must have highly connected bike and pedestrian infrastructure across the block and not solely around the block edges. Backage roads and collectors occur more frequently in suburban activity centers than in suburban neighborhoods. BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Land Use IX-47 AREA TYPES SUBURBAN CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS Corridors are where commercial development is encouraged. Local streets and residential access are not considered urban corridors. Great Streets are corridors with the greatest potential for reinvestment, beautification, and appropriate land uses Refer to page IX-62 for more discussion of Activity Centers (Map 24) and Corridors (Map 25), and the Great Streets and Gateways (Map 12.) Regional Neighborhood Characteristics of an Urban Suburban Corridor Regional Suburban Corridor Neighborhood Corridor Serves larger capacities of vehicles and people, with more intense land uses, and pedestrian safety is a priority in this setting. These corridors will be wider with faster speed limits, and will emphasize safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings. yet consideration must be made for pedestrian and bicycle safety Local roads access suburban corridors through a heirarchy of functional road classifications and will Suburban corridors provide well designed signage, landscaping, and public spaces, with wide sidewalks and parkways. Shops and services are in buildings that front the street. Examples of suburban regional corridors include: Fort Valley Road and parts of Butler Avenue. Serves the surrounding neighborhoods, with shops and services in buildings that front the street. Street parking is encouraged and pedestrian safety is a priority. An example of a suburban neighborhood corridor includes: Country Club Drive. Character of a Suburban Activity Center IX-50 Land Use | BUILT ENVIRONMENT AREA TYPES RURAL CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS Corridors are where commercial development is encouraged within a designated activity center. Characteristics of a Rural Corridor Regional Rural Corridor These corridors within rural areas tend to be highways and major arterials where access management is a significant issue to allow for the efficient use of these corridors ommercial services are encouraged within designated activity centers. These corridors serve local residents and are a mixture of public and private roadways of varying standards. Commercial development is encouraged in designated activity centers that frequently intersect with highways and major arterials Neighborhood Corridor These corridors serve local residents and are a mixture of public and private roadways of varying standards. Commercial development is encouraged in designated activity centers that frequently intersect with regional corridors. Character of a Rural Activity Center BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Land Use IX-55 AREA TYPES Rural Neighborhood ILLUSTRATION OF RURAL CHARACTER Neighborhood Corridor Commercial / retail Commercial / business Residential Institutional Photo credits: Coconino County IX-56 Land Use | BUILT ENVIRONMENT Employment Shared equestrian barn and open pasture ACTIVITY CENTERS AND CORRIDORS GOALS AND POLICIES Goal LU.18. Develop well designed activity centers and corridors with a variety of employment, business, shopping, civic engagement, cultural opportunities, and residential choices. Policy LU.18.1. Design activity centers and corridors appropriate to and within the context of each area type: urban, suburban, or rural. Policy LU.18.2. Strive for activity centers and corridors that are characterized by contextual and distinctive identities, derived from history, environmental features, a mix of uses, well-designed public spaces, parks, plazas, and high-quality design. Policy LU.18.3. Redevelop underutilized properties, upgrade aging infrastructure, and enhance rights-of-way and public spaces so that existing activity centers and corridors can realize their full potential. Refer to Chapter XI - Cost of Development for the potential of public-private partnerships. Policy LU.18.4. Encourage developers to provide activity centers and corridors with housing of various types and price points, especially attached and multi-family housing. Policy LU.18.5. Plan for and support multi-modal activity centers and corridors with an emphasis on pedestrian and transit friendly design. Policy LU.18.6. Support increased densities within activity centers and corridors. Policy LU.18.7. Concentrate commercial, retail, services, and mixed use within the activity center’s commercial core. Policy LU.18.8. Increase residential densities, live-work units, and home occupations within the activity center’s pedestrian shed. Policy LU.18.9. Plan activity centers and corridors appropriate to their respective regional or neighborhood context and scale. Policy LU.18.10. Corridors should increase their variety and intensity of uses as they approach activity centers. Policy LU.18.11. Land use policies pertaining to a designated corridor generally apply to a depth of one parcel or one and one-half blocks, whichever is greater. Policy LU.18.12. Corridors should focus commercial development to the corridor frontage and residential to the back. Policy LU.18.13. Promote higher density development in targeted areas where economically viable and desired by the public. Policy L 1 1 Endorse efficiency of infrastructure with compact development within targeted activity centers Policy LU.18.15. Actual pedestrian-shed boundaries will be established considering opportunities and constraints posed by natural and man-made barriers like terrain or the interstate, road networks, and existing development patterns. Policy L 1 1 Adopt traffic regulations to increase awareness of pedestrian-oriented design for activity centers Goal LU.19. Develop a manageable evolution of the main corridors into contextual place makers. Policy L 1 1 Develop a specific plan for each Great Street corridor Policy LU.19.2. Establish the context and regional or neighborhood scale of each corridor prior to design with special consideration for those intended to remain residential or natural in character. Policy LU.19.3. Enhance the viewsheds and frame the view along the corridors through design. Policy LU.19.4. Balance automobile use, parking, bicycle access, while prioritizing pedestrian safety along all corridors. Refer to Chapter VIII - Community Character for the discussion of “Great Streets.” IX-68 Land Use | BUILT ENVIRONMENT T ANSP TATI N Future land use patterns and transportation systems must be closely planned together because transportation right of way is the most heavily used and experienced public space; network design influences whether an area can be urban, suburban, or rural; and because streetscapes contribute strongly to community character. The primary goals of the regional transportation system are to: • Improve the mobility of people and goods • Provide choices to enhance the quality of life • Provide infrastructure to support economic development • Protect the natural environment and sustain public support for transportation planning efforts. In order to meet these goals, this chapter promotes: • Safety • Context-sensitive solutions • Complete streets • The integration and connectivity of transportation systems • Efficient system management and operation, and • Improvements to existing inter-modal transportation systems. This chapter addresses the everyday need to move about the community. Individual transportation modes are addressed starting with pedestrians - the smallest scale - and growing to rail and car. X Inside this Chapter: How We Get Around Mobility and Access Safe and Efficient Multimodal Transportation Environmental onsiderations Quality Design Pedestrian Infrastructure Bicycle Infrastructure Transit Automobiles Passenger Rail and Freight Air Travel Public Support for Transportation X-2 X-6 X-8 XX-9 X-10 X-11 X-14 X-1 X-21 X-21 X-22 Arizona Revised Statutes Section § 9-461.05.E.3 requires the circulation element of this Plan to include recommendations concerning setback re uirements, street naming, and house and building numbering hese are included in various Titles of the City ode, including itle 10 oning ode , the City Engineering Design Standards uilding and Specifications, and itle Regulations Our Vision for the Future In 2030, people get around to where they need to be in an efficient and safe manner, and more people ride the bus, their bikes, and walk, reducing emissions and increasing health. BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Transportation X-1 FO R T VA LL EY R D Buffalo Park LOCKETT RD " / " 6 USGS FOREST AVE ST EYS PH R HU M " /BUTLER AVE BU " 6 ROUTE 66 LONE TREE RD W O O DY M TN MILTON RD RD NAU " 6 CCC J. W .P O W EL L " 6 Airport LAKE M ARY RD X-4 Transportation | BUILT ENVIRONMENT ST Observatory Mesa " 6 66 H 4T N WEST ST E UT RO TL ER AV E Map 25: ROAD NETWORK ILLUSTRATION " 6 Picture Canyon " / Major Improvement " 6 New Interchange " / Existing Interchange Road Corridors EMPIRE AVE Commercial Corridors Regional Travel MARKETPLACE DR Circulation Future Circulation " 6 Access COUNTRY CLUB DR " 6 Future Access e! Residential Corridors LN WA Residential Access UT Y ON CAN Future Residential Access RD Identify Road Network Solutions through Future Study City of Flagstaff Urban Growth Boundary Regional Road Network 0 5 Miles Walnut Canyon National Monument Open Space - Preserved (Typically USFS); Open Space - Reserved (Typically State Trust) Rural - Existing Suburban - Existing Urban - Existing " 6 " 6 " /" 6 Camp Navajo " 6 " / " 6 Industrial / Business Park Existing pp Fort Valley Le u " 6 Rd Doney Park " 6 " 6 " 6 Special District Please see www.flagstaffmatters.com for an interactive GIS map. 6 " 6 " NORTH 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles La k eM ary Rd Mountainaire FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Transportation X-5 Automobiles Roads and Corridors Automobiles are likely to continue to be the dominant form of transportation in the region, especially for longer trips. Roads and streets will be more effectively designed into the areas they serve. As parts of the region urbanize, reliability will become more important than speed. In urban activity centers, levels of service for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit will take precedence over service for cars. Place Types and Corridors Corridors and Functional Class Successful places require successful corridors. Constraints by Flagstaff ’s terrain, railroads, highways, and interstates heighten our need for clear expectations of our corridors to establish the “sense of place” and to service the expected land use patterns. The desired “sense of place” for the region, centers, and neighborhoods will be more successfully achieved when the function and role of our corridors is sensitively applied. Corridors in urban, suburban, and rural places will serve similar yet unique functions and roles. The Flagstaff Regional Plan deals directly with the corridors serving regional travel and circulation functions roles and sets general expectations for the smaller access corridors. The corridor classifications should be understood as a sliding scale with circumstances dictating how purely a road can serve its function the road’s functional class. Corridors may be classified by function: as regional travel, circulation, and access, as shown on Map 25. Listed below are the functional classifications and some of the multi-modal facilities associated with each. Regional Travel Facilitates long-distance travel across and between regions Circulation Provides for movement between neighborhoods and non-residential uses Residential Access or Access Local access to adjacent land uses • • • • Freeways Passenger and freight rail Major arterials Dedicated express bus lanes • • • • • • Minor arterials Urban thoroughfares Major collectors Minor collectors Fixed transit routes Multi-modal trails • • Minor collectors Local streets – commercial and residential, neighborhood streets Sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian connections • X-18 Transportation | BUILT ENVIRONMENT Photo credit: City of Flagstaff Corridors and Place Types he term corridor is used in the ommunity haracter, Growth Land se, and Transportation Chapters. orridors are roads demarcated on maps based on their role in the greater transportation system, surrounding existing and future land uses and their context ategories of Regional ravel, irculation, and Access denote transportation roles on Map 25 In the ommunity haracter chapter, some of these roads are identified as Gateway and Great Street Corridors on Map 12 for their value in placemaking and their relationship to iconic scenery. In the Land se hapter, the relationship between corridors and area types is described on pages IX-37, IX-50 and IX-55.To further identify the relationship between corridors and land uses, Access corridors on Map 25 are divided into Access and Residential Access the former is associated with commercial and mixed use environments and the latter with neighborhood settings. Corridors serve many roles, and these roles may be understood as: • Carrier of goods and people – how many, how far, what kind, what means • Connector of activities – how active, what scale, what purpose, relationships • Space and Shelter for activities within the public realm – how often, vulnerable, duration, solitude • Symbol for the understanding of place – identity, purpose, behaviors as it applies to specific roads or corridors, not to classes of corridors. • Builder and destroyer of city and place – corridors may be perceived as supporting a sense of place, or destroying it. Freeways - serve regional travel as a high-capacity carrier for automobiles and trucks and provide space and shelter via rest areas and truck stops. They accommodate high-speed, long trips that connect the region to the state and nation. Freeways build regional economies, but can destroy landscapes, cities and neighborhoods if improperly planned. Freeways require large rightsof-way (up to 300 ft. or more), are designed with full access control and are intended to carry a large percentage of trucks. Adjacent land uses may include commercial areas, open space, public lands, industrial sites, and certain institutional sites. Residential property will not abut freeways unless separated by adequate buffering. Photo credit: City of Flagstaff Major Arterials - serve regional travel on relatively high-capacity roadways as a carrier for predominantly cars, transit, trucks, and bicycles. Pedestrians will find passage along these arterials and special attention is given to pedestrian crossings. Space and shelter is found at bus stops, pedestrian waiting areas at intersections, and midblock crossings. Key connections are to major regional centers of activity and to extra regional destinations like other cities. As in the case of Route 66, this major arterial is symbolic of “the mother road” - regional identity and pride. Throughput capacity provided by strong access management will be emphasized over direct property access. Adjacent land uses include highway and regional commercial areas, open space, public lands, industrial sites, and institutional sites. Residential property will not abut major arterials unless separated by adequate buffering. Minor Arterials - serve circulation and some travel functions within and between different areas of the region. Activity centers will often be located along a minor arterial or at the intersection with another minor arterial or a major collector. All modes are carried on minor arterials with increasing emphasis on the bicycle and pedestrian modes. Space and shelter become more pedestrian in scale, more frequent, and generous. A minor arterial like Lake Mary Road might symbolize the “Great Outdoors.” Connections between residential and commercial areas, regional parks, and major institutions are often made by minor arterials. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial areas, open space, public lands, industrial sites, and institutional sites. Thoroughfares - are unique components of the urban network. They synthesize circulation, access, and to a lesser extent, travel functions. The roles they serve are more balanced and at a uniformly high level. All modes are carried with special emphasis on the pedestrian, transit, and bicycle modes. Space and shelter are vital components to thoroughfares as a wide-range of face-to-face interactions will take place here. Major Collectors - serve circulation by collecting traffic from minor collectors and local streets in an area and deliver it to major or minor arterials. All modes of transit are carried. These roadways are generally contained entirely within a recognizable area and connect adjoining neighborhoods with each other. Adjacent land uses include residential areas, commercial areas, open space, public lands, industrial sites, and institutional sites. Moderate access management is expected with limited direct access being acceptable. BUILT ENVIRONMENT | Transportation X-19 Minor Collectors - collect traffic from local streets and deliver it to major collectors or minor arterials. They serve as carriers for pedestrians, bicycles, and cars with lesser roles for transit and trucks. Connections are made between smaller neighborhoods and parks and occasional convenience centers. Through trips are discouraged as space and shelter activities have increased including promenading, recreational walking, and exercise. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial areas, open space, public lands, industrial sites, and institutional sites. Connectors/ Commercial Local/ Residential Local (Neighborhood Streets)/ Alleys - are all minor roads that provide direct vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to individual commercial and residential properties, providing no route continuity beyond the areas they serve. Alleys provide secondary access to the rear of residential or commercial properties and may also be used to provide access to parking garages and surface parking lots. They carry pedestrians, bicycles, and cars and in commercial areas; some streets will provide access to trucks. In residential areas the street surface may be used for impromptu recreational activities, visiting, and carwashing. As place builders, these streets are vital in creating an attractive setting, efficient access, safe operations, and strong internal circulation. To fully implement the Regional Plan’s vision for Flagstaff ’s roadways a Flagstaff “Streets Master Plan” should be developed to serve as the specific plan that bridges the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications and the Flagstaff Regional Plan. Until such a Plan is developed, functional classifications for roads and their definitions can be found in the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications. Corridors in the Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a five year planning document developed by the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization. It is used to identify roadway projects that are eligible for federal funding. Some of the future roads identified on Map 25 are also identified in the RTP, however, these two documents are not required to match. The RTP provides more detail about the stage of planning for each roadway. Some future corridors are considered “conditional roads” in the RTP, which means that further study is required before proceeding with a project. Examples include the Clay Avenue Extension, the US 89 Bypass, the Metz Walk Extension, etc. AUTOMOBILE GOALS AND POLICIES Goal T.8. Establish a functional, safe, and aesthetic hierarchy of roads and streets. Policy 1 Promote efficient transportation connectivity to major trade corridors, employment centers, and special districts that enhances the region s standing as a major economic hub Policy 2 Maintain the road and street classification system that is based on context, function, type, use, and visual uality Policy 3 Design neighborhood streets using appropriate traffic calming techni ues and street widths to sustain uality of life while maintaining traffic safety Policy T.8.4. Protect rights-of-way for future transportation corridors. Policy Policy users. X-20 5 Support the area s economic vitality by improving intersection design for freight movements Maintain the ity s street infrastructure in a cost effective manner to ensure the safety and convenience of all Transportation | BUILT ENVIRONMENT XVI PLAN AMENDMENTS Date of Resolution Resolution Number Description of Amendment Pages Changed October 20, 2015 2015-35 La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan Minor Plan Amendment XVI-1 November 17, 2015 2015-XX Maps 21 and 22: Future Growth Illustrations Minor Plan Amendment - New area type of Existing Suburban IX-28-29 December 1, 2015 2015-XX Map 25: Road Network Illustration Major Plan Amendment and related text edits IX-35-57 X-1, X-4-5, X-18-22 XVI-1 This Is Our Plan | INTRODUCTION Appendix D: Waived Submittal Requirements 35 Map25Narrative_final 36 Map25Narrative_final Map 25: ROAD NETWORK ILLUSTRATION " 6 FO R T VA LL EY Picture Canyon " / Major Improvement " 6 New Interchange " / Existing Interchange R D Road Corridors EMPIRE AVE Commercial Corridors Regional Travel MARKETPLACE DR Buffalo Park Circulation LOCKETT RD " / USGS ST HU M Observatory Mesa " 6 Future Access e! UT BU ER Future Residential Access AV E Identify Road Network Solutions through Future Study RD " 6 TL Y ON CAN " /BUTLER AVE ROUTE 66 City of Flagstaff LONE TREE RD W O " 6 Urban Growth Boundary " 6 CCC Regional Road Network 0 5 Miles Walnut Canyon National Monument Open Space - Preserved (Typically USFS); Open Space - Reserved (Typically State Trust) EL L Rural - Existing J. W .P O W Suburban - Existing Urban - Existing Fort Valley " 6 " 6 Airport " /" 6 LAKE M ARY RD Camp Navajo " 6 " / " 6 Industrial / Business Park Existing pp " 6 Rd Doney Park Le u O DY M TN MILTON RD RD NAU " 6 Residential Corridors Residential Access LN WA PH R ST EYS Access 66 H 4T N WEST ST E UT RO COUNTRY CLUB DR FOREST AVE Future Circulation " 6 " 6 " 6 " 6 Special District Please see www.flagstaffmatters.com for an interactive GIS map. 6 " 6 " NORTH 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles La k eM ary Rd Mountainaire FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S Exhibit 2 New and Changed Routes on the Proposed Road Network Illustration " / " 6 " / " 6 FO RT VA LL EY RD EMPIRE AVE Picture Canyon Major Improvement New Interchange Existing Interchange Identify Road Network Solutions through Future Study City of Flagstaff Urban Growth Boundary LOCKETT RD USGS FOREST AVE N WEST ST SS T RE Y PH HU M E R AV E Future Circulation MILTON RD D Regional Road Network LONE TREE RD R W O " 6 " 6 Access Circulation NAU TN M DY TL Routes on Current Map 25 D NR " 6 Special District O AN Y AV E Industrial / Business Park Existing TC LE R B U Urban - Existing " 6 L NU WA O ST " / Suburban - Existing 6 H BU T Rural - Existing " 6 4T ROUTE 66 U RO 6 TE " / COUNTRY CLUB DR Buffalo Park Observatory Mesa Open Space - Preserved (Typically USFS); Open Space Reserved (Typically State Trust) MARKETPLACE DR Connector Future Access " 6 Regional Travel CCC Proposed New Routes Walnut Canyon National Monument Regional Travel Future Circulation W .P O W EL L Circulation J. Access Future Access Connector NORTH 0 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.8 Miles Airport LAK E M A RY RD FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S Residential Access Exhibit 3 FUTS and Road Network Illustration Identify Road Network Solutions through Future Study ! " 6 ! City of Flagstaff ! ! LL RD ! EY ! ! ! EMPIRE AVE ! ! ! Rural - Existing ! ! ! ! Open Space - Preserved (Typically USFS); Open Space - Reserved (Typically State Trust) ! Picture Canyon VA ! Urban Growth Boundary ! ! ! ! ! RT ! ! FO ! ! ! Suburban - Existing ! ! ! ! ! ! Urban - Existing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Industrial / Business Park - Existing ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Special District ! ! ! ! ! " 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! FUTS ! " / ! ! ! ! ! USGS ! ! ! ! ! LOCKETT RD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MARKETPLACE DR ! Buffalo Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PH ! HU M ! ! ! ! ! ! RE Y ! SS T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! AV E D NR R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O AN Y E TC TL ! " 6 ! ! ! ! !! L NU WA ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! D !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LONE TREE RD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Walnut Canyon National Monument ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MILTON RD !! ! ! Residential Access ! ! ! R ! ! Connector ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TN Regional Road Network ! ! CCC ! ! ! ! ! ! M ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Future Access ! ! DY Circulation Access ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! O Future Circulation ! " 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! " 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Regional Travel ! ! ! ! ! Road Network Category ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! FUTS, Proposed ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! NAU " 6 ! ! ! ! ! ROUTE 66 ! FUTS, Planned ! ! ! Loop Trail ! ! B U ! ! ! ! AV E ! ! W " 6 ! ! ! ! ! LE R ! ! ! ! ! ! " / ! ST ! BU T ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H 4!T ! ! ! ! Observatory Mesa ! ! ! FUTS, Existing 66 ! N WEST ST ! ! TE COUNTRY CLUB DR U RO ! ! ! FOREST AVE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L W .P O ! ! ! J. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NORTH ! ! 0 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.8 ! ! ! ! Airport ! ! ! ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! LAK E M A RY RD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Please see www.flagstaffmatters.com for an interactive GIS map. W ! ! ! EL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S Exhibit 4 Zoning and Proposed Road Network Illustration " 6 FO " / " 6 " / RT VA Picture Canyon LL EY RD EMPIRE AVE Major Improvement New Interchange ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Medium Density Residential (MR) Existing Interchange High Density Residential (HR) City of Flagstaff Manufactured Housing (MH) Urban Growth Boundary Central Business (CB) Road Network Category Highway Commercial (HC) Regional Travel MARKETPLACE DR LOCKETT RD USGS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W O " 6 RE Y BU T " / ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! N WEST ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LE R NAU ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " 6 ! ! ! ! ! Research and Development (RD) Future Access Light Industrial (LI) Residential Access ! " 6 TL Zoning (2011) Regulated Use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Light Industrial Open (LI-O) Heavy Industrial (HI) Heavy Industrial Open (HI-O) Rural Residential (RR) Public Facility (PF) Estate Residential (ER) Public Lands Forest (PLF) Single-family Residential (R1) Open Space (OS) E R AV E Regional Road Network " 6 Suburban Commercial (SC) Access ! 66 B U ! Community Commercial (CC) Circulation Connector ! AV E Commercial Service (CS) Future Circulation ! LONE TREE RD ! ! PH ! ! ! HU M ! ! ! ! ! MILTON RD D R ! ! ! ! ! ! D NR TN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O AN Y M ! ! ! ! TE ! ! ! ! TC DY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L NU WA O ! ! ! ! ! ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " 6 H ROUTE 66! ! ! ! ! U ! O! R ! 4T Observatory Mesa ! SS T FOREST AVE " / ! COUNTRY CLUB DR Buffalo Park ! Single-family Residential Neighborhood (R1N) " 6 Please see www.flagstaffmatters.com for an interactive GIS map. CCC NORTH J. W .P O W EL L Walnut Canyon National Monument FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S 0 Airport ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0.45 0.9 Miles LAK E M A RY RD 1.35 1.8 Exhibit 5 Great Streets and Gateways with Corridors " 6 Gateway FO Great street RT Road Network Categories VA LL EY RD EMPIRE AVE LOCKETT RD N WEST ST SS T RE Y PH HU M E AV E D NR R O AN Y TL TC " 6 " 6 L NU WA W O " 6 LONE TREE RD R MILTON RD D NAU TN M Residential Access B U AV E Connector 66 ST DY TE H O U RO " 6 4T ROUTE 66 LE R Circulation Future Access " / COUNTRY CLUB DR FOREST AVE BU T Future Circulation Access USGS " / Regional Travel MARKETPLACE DR Buffalo Park Observatory Mesa Picture Canyon " 6 " 6 CCC J. W .P O W EL L Walnut Canyon National Monument 0 0.45 NORTH 0.9 1.35 1.8 Miles Airport LAK E M A RY RD FL A G S TA F F R E G I O N A L P L A N V I S I O N 2 0 3 0 : P L A C E M AT T E R S