Indiana Community University District Master Plan

IndianaCommunityUniversity District Master Plan

Master Plan Indiana, Pennsylvania | January 8, 2016

Indiana Community University District

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction Project Overview + Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Planning Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Community Involvement in the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.0 District Analysis Community Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Physical Attributes of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 P.E.T. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.0 Physical Improvement Recommendations Big Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Application of the Big Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figures Figure 1. Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3-. Transportation Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4. Character Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 5. Street Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 6. Typological Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 7. Campus to Downtown Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 8a. Campus to Neighborhood Interface-Wayne Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 8b. Campus to Neighborhood Interface-Oakland Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 9. Suburban Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 10. P.E.T. Summary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11. Mobility and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 12. Housing and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 13. Open Space and Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 14. Project Ideas for Campus to Downtown Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 15. Sketch Ideas for Campus to Downtown Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 16. Project Ideas for Campus to Neighborhood Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 17. Sketch Ideas for Campus to Neighborhood Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 18. Project Ideas for Suburban Corridor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 19. Sketch Ideas for Suburban Corridor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 20. Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.0 Design Guidelines Design Guidelines for Future Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.0 Priorities + Implementation Long-term Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Implementation Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Tables Table 1. Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Project Overview + Purpose Planning Focus Planning Process Community Involvement in the Planning Process

Indiana Community University District

1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Overview + Purpose

• A resource to pursue funding and implementation of public improvement projects • A catalyst to build long-term partnerships among the participating entities and outside agencies that have been engaged in the planning (e.g. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT))

After four years of working collaboratively to address community concerns related to community economic viability, development patterns, traffic, and placemaking, community leaders from Indiana County, White Township, the Borough of Indiana (Borough), and Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) committed to work together to prepare a plan to guide the future development of the area surrounding the IUP campus. To assist in the planning and urban design aspects of the project, this coalition of stakeholders retained the services of SmithGroupJJR, a multi-disciplinary firm of designers and planners from Michigan. The study area, dubbed the Indiana Community University District (District), focused on the areas around the IUP campus on the Wayne Avenue/7th Street and Oakland Avenue corridors, from Indian Springs Road to Philadelphia Street (refer to Figure 2. Existing Land Use). These corridors function to move people into and from campus and downtown. They also provide for many of the housing, retail and service oriented business needs of students and long tenure residents of the community. This study provides recommendations for physical improvements to the publicly owned rights-of-way and open spaces. It also provides planning guidance for the development of the land along the corridors and the area between campus and downtown Indiana. • A guiding master plan driven by community input • An implementation plan for the District which can be built over time • A strategy for implementation with specific measurable benchmarks • A guide for encouraging desired development patterns and setting public investment priorities The District Partners (Indiana County, White Township, the Borough, and IUP) noted above have all contributed to this effort and plan to use the Indiana Community University District Master Plan to suit their specific needs. In general, the Master Plan can be used as: • A guide to update comprehensive master plans or campus master plans, as applicable • A source to incorporate key ideas into the White Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) • A source to incorporate key ideas into the Borough zoning ordinance. The Indiana Community University District Master Plan contains a broad set of recommendations, including:

1.0 INTRODUCTION Planning Focus

Community leaders recognize the mutual dependence of IUP and the communities that surround it - White Township and the Borough. While the community supports a healthy downtown and a number of stable and attractive neighborhoods, several trends and conditions in the community have raised concerns that require attention; for instance: • The district character of the two major corridors through the community does not present a positive image to visitors which impacts the ability to market to new residents. • New student-oriented rental housing units have been developed in White Township, in places leapfrogging over single-family neighborhoods, creating impacts to traffic, campus access, and parking needs near campus. • New developments near campus have raised concerns about the appropriate scale of buildings, placement of buildings relative to the street, and the design of the buildings relative to the historic architecture of the core area of the community. • Pedestrian and non-motorized travel in the community surrounding campus has increased, causing the volume to overwhelm existing sidewalks and paths. In turn, pedestrians moving towards campus must travel along and across corridors that do not accommodate safety. • Existing student housing, near-campus apartments, and single-family homes are struggling to remain competitive with newer apartments. Also, many of the older apartments offer limited amenities and unattractive settings. The past student housing and commercial development patterns, and public street infrastructure have resulted in a District that is unwelcoming, unattractive, and difficult to navigate. Newer development has addressed many of these fundamental concerns, but has missed the mark in key areas, such as building scale. Unhappy with both historic building patterns and new development, the community recognizes the need to refine and improve local planning and redevelopment strategies for the District. At the core of resolving these issues is the need to increase the quality and consistency of the outdoor environment of the community - what some refer to as the “creating a sense of place” or “place making.” Place making can be defined as “structuring the placement and design of built and natural elements to create unique places where the community interacts and lives in a way authentic to that place.” Elements of the physical environment that influence the sense of place include street design, architecture, open space, and connectivity. Attributes of placemaking that provide value to communities include:

• Attracting people, businesses, residents, students, tourists, and development is a critical focus of place making • PLACE MAKING IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL, not just a trend to make things “pretty” • High quality places are interesting and memorable - they are places where we want to be • A community’s unique physical and social qualities should be emphasized; be authentic to the community • A strong sense of identity for the community must be created and maintained in a way that fits the people and attributes of that specific community • A walkable and connected place is a key attribute to attracting and retaining younger and more active residents The community and IUP have significant assets from the place making perspective - many beautiful campus places, high quality open spaces (e.g. Mack Park), and a compact, walkable downtown. Building from these strengths will allow the community to reach its potential to become a stronger place, and elevate the quality of life for residents. The planning process for the District was organized in three distinct phases, each of which involved a robust

Development patterns in older student housing areas are visually cluttered, disorganized, and lacking in open space.

Indiana Community University District

1.0 INTRODUCTION Planning Process

community involvement component (refer to Figure 1. Planning Process). In addition to direct community engagement, the SmithGroupJJR Planning Team (Planning Team) worked with a Steering Committee comprised of key staff members from each of the District Partners and held interviews which provided focused discussions among those with shared interests. During Phase I: Discovery the Planning Team assessed a range of subjects including economic market conditions, land use patterns, the transportation network, and community character. To kick off Phase I, a two-day workshop was held inviting the community to participate in a study area walking tour, stakeholder interviews, and a public workshop. The workshop asked participants to offer input as to the attributes and places in the community that should be Preserved, Enhanced, and Transformed (P.E.T.). The results of the analysis and workshop were documented and became the basis of upcoming ideas and recommendations. In analyzing the community structure and conditions, clear patterns of land use, street use, community character, and function emerged, and allowed the Planning Team to categorize the District into three typological areas or zones, including the Campus to Downtown area, Campus to Neighborhood area, and Suburban Corridor (refer to Figure 6. Typological Areas). “Typology ” is a phase used by planners and designers to categorize streets and geographic areas based on common characteristics (e.g. traffic patterns, land use, pedestrian activity, and architectural character). These three areas have distinctive traits, ideas and recommendations specific to each area being developed. A four-day community workshop became the focus of Phase II: Community Workshop . The workshop provided an opportunity for community members to review the results of Phase I and refine the list of ideas for the community’s future related to three topics:

During the workshop, community members assisted the Planning Team in developing illustrative plans and sketches for civic improvement in the downtown/north campus area, along the corridors of Wayne Avenue and Oakland Avenue (where IUP borders neighborhoods and off-campus housing), and along the corridors in the southern suburban areas. Developing and reviewing ideas with the community provided guidance to the Planning Team as the recommendations were refined and mapped. The Planning Team worked with the Steering Committee during Phase III: Recommendations to refine the planning and design ideas into a set of draft proposals for consideration and review by the community. A final workshop was held, in an open house setting, to present draft ideas with other community initiatives. Based on the results of the Phase III workshop the Planning Team assembled this Indiana Community University District Master Plan Summary Report.

• Housing and Development • Transportation Infrastructure • Open Space and Green Infrastructure

A good range of community residents participated in the planning process.

1.0 INTRODUCTION Community Involvement in the Planning Process

The planning process for the Indiana Community University District Master Plan involved an unprecedented number of community participants through a series of outreach efforts, including: • The Phase I: Discovery Workshop involved 160 community participants in a tour of the study area, a participatory workshop, and interviews of community stakeholders. The results of this workshop included a list of critical issues and ideas which the community expressed. These broad, far-reaching ideas for improvement became known as the “Big Ideas” for the District (outlined in Section 3 of this report). The workshop also included the P.E.T. Analysis described later in this report. • The Phase II: Community Workshop, held over 4 days in October of 2015, during which 250 community members offered input as to the how the Big Ideas could be applied to specific parts of the District. Stakeholder meetings were conducted to provide detailed discussions of the emerging Big Ideas, and included sessions with elected and appointed officials, local school children and urban planning students from IUP. Participants also helped develop a range of conceptual plans and sketches which offered alternative designs for improving and redeveloping critical areas in the District, such blocks between downtown and the IUP campus. • The Phase III: Recommendations Open House, which included 120 participants, offered an opportunity to review the draft results of the planning process, understand how the ideas presented worked with other community improvement initiatives, and establish a sense of priority and depth of community support for the Indiana Community University District Master Plan ideas. During the Open House, several Planning Team members conducted a roaming, mobile poll of people at the event, and comments were also collected on a large marker board on which community members offered input. • On-the-Street Interviews were conducted by planning staff interns from Indiana County, and received nearly 300 responses on several key questions about the study area, including “Describe the areas around campus in 20 years” and “The areas around campus should have, be or need………” The interviews were conducted in neighborhoods, downtown, on campus, at the Indiana Mall, and at an IUP football game, and included participants representing a full range of community members-students, long-term residents, faculty and staff, and downtown business owners. Community input shaped the definition of the issues facing the District and the ideas for making the District a better place, and established a sense of priority as to which of the ideas should be pursued as the most important.

On-the-Street Interview.

Indiana Community University District

Phase III: RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase I: DISCOVERY

Phase II: IDEA GENERATION

Analyze the Community

Develop Big Ideas for Each Area

Establish Guidelines for Implementation

Define Typological Areas

Housing and Development

Guidelines include development parameters such as- • Yard setbacks • Building height • Parking lot locations • Maximum lot coverage Implementation Strategies including- • Zoning and Ordinance Amendments • Establishing and Organizing Structure • Funding Opportunities • Priorities

Campus to Downtown

Land Use

Physical Character

Transportation Network

Mobility and Transportation

Campus to Neighborhood

Preserve Enhance Transform

Open Space / Green Infrastructure

Suburban Corridor

Phase II Workshop

Phase III Workshop

Phase I Workshop

Indiana Community University District

Figure 1. Planning Process Analysis of the communities lead to defining the District into three Typological Areas (areas within the study area that shared common characteristics) and gave structure to the recommendations.

2.0 District Analysis

Community Systems Physical Attributes of the District P.E.T. Analysis Market Analysis

Indiana Community University District

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS Community Systems

Introduction To understand how to improve a community, planners and community members must first analyze the existing conditions of the area being studied. For the District the Planning Team utilized a range of analytic and investigative tools, including an assessment of community systems, the physical attributes of the District, a public participatory assessment of areas within the District to Preserve, Enhance and Transform (P.E.T.), and finally, a market and demographic analysis. Analyzing and comparing the community attributes (e.g. land use) individually allows planners and community members to understand in more detail how the community is structured and how it functions as a set of systems. The systems analyzed and mapped for the District include the following: Land Use and Zoning Land uses occur in communities based on a response to the market, as well as local government policies that are expressed in zoning maps, ordinances, and comprehensive master plans. Refer to Figure 2 for a summary of existing land uses in the study area. There are four primary land use classifications in the study area including commercial, institutional (e.g., schools and churches), industrial and residential. These four categories tend to cluster themselves along the main road corridors and vary in density, scale and mix along the length of the corridors. Transportation Networks Movement within and through communities happens in a variety of modes, and university communities typically need to support a higher percentage of people travelling outside of a standard passenger vehicle. People move through the study area on streets and thoroughfares (pedestrian, transit, and vehicular use), and on trails and off- road non-motorized routes, which were mapped and analyzed (refer to Figure 3. Transportation Networks).

Character Area Character areas describe the general mix of uses and physical form of the built environment (buildings, streets, uses). The analysis of the District identified 11 different categories that dissect the architectural and use characteristics from downtown, through the university influenced corridors, and out to the suburban edge, as illustrated on Figure 4. Character Areas. Street Character The streets are part of the “Public Realm” and are how people experience a community on a day-to-day basis. 12 categories of street character were identified based on the land use context and the primary function of the street in moving people, as illustrated on Figure 5. Street Character. Summary and Direction While examining detailed systems is critical to understanding the structure and function of a community, it is imperative to understand how these systems work together to create the physical community form. This involves examining all these factors individually and collectively to look for distinctions and similarities, and boil these community attributes down to the essence referred to by planners as the “typology” of a given area within a community. The resulting synthesis categorizes parts of the community into typological areas of similar use, structure appearance, scale and density. The analysis of the District categorized the study area along the road corridors into three typologies: Campus to Downtown, Campus to Neighborhood, and Suburban Corridor which are illustrated on Figure 6. Typological Areas.

Figure 2. Existing Land Use

Indiana Community University District

Figure 3. Transportation Networks

Figure 4. Character Areas

Indiana Community University District

Figure 5. Street Character

Downtown Campus Interface

Neighborhood Campus Interface

Suburban Corridors

Figure 6. Typological Areas

Indiana Community University District

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS Physical Attributes of the District

Introduction As illustrated on Figure 6. Typological Areas, the analysis of the District previously discussed was utilized to identify three typological areas, Campus to Downtown, Campus to Neighborhood, and Suburban Corridor. Each area has a set of common attributes related to land use, street function, development patterns, and character, which are illustrated and described on the following pages. The identification of the three typological areas is important to the planning process as they will be used as the basic structure for the recommendations of this study.

Campus to Downtown

Attributes include:

• Poor pedestrian experience (narrow sidewalks and lack of trees and open space) • Inconsistent building pattern and a “gap” of commercial activity and energy between campus and downtown • “Hard” parking lot design character with limited landscaping

• The need for improved wayfinding and signage • Town and campus edges are architecturally ragged

The next several pages summarize some of the key physical attributes of each typological area of the District.

Figure 7. Campus to Downtown Interface

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS Physical Attributes of the District

Campus to Neighborhood

Attributes include:

• Vehicular traffic flow is often heavy, causing pedestrian conflicts • Utilities and street elements detract from street character • Lack of green space, streetscape trees and landscape

• Sidewalk experience is poor, widths are inadequate and safe use is questionable • Variable building scales and development patterns detract from corridor character • The location and landscape buffering lots is inconsistent • Gateway opportunities, which could benefit the community and campus, exist • Frequency of curb cuts is high in some areas and inconsistent

Figure 8a. Campus to Neighborhood Interface - Wayne Avenue

Figure 8b. Campus to Neighborhood Interface - Oakland Avenue

Indiana Community University District

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS Physical Attributes of the District

Suburban Corridor

Attributes include:

• Some parking lots appear over-sized • The location and landscape buffering of parking lots is inconsistent • Variable building scales, development patterns, and landscape treatments create a less than pleasant arrival into the community

• Frequency of curb cuts is too high, unnecessarily increasing points of conflict • Lack of accommodation of non-motorized users and sidewalk inconsistency

Figure 9. Suburban Corridor

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS P.E.T. Analysis

The analysis findings noted above were presented to the community during the Phase I: Discovery Workshop. In small, facilitated groups, meeting participants were asked to identify which elements of the study area’s physical environment they would Preserve, Enhance, or Transform (P.E.T.) using maps, photographs, and flip charts to record the information and stimulate discussion. • Preserve: Places or key attributes within the study area that strongly contribute to the community’s economic, cultural, architectural, and social strength and should be preserved based on their value to the community. • Enhance: Places or attributes within the study area that demonstrate positive potential as to their physical form and economic and cultural importance but are in need of reinvestment to help them reach their potential. • Transform: Places or attributes within the study area that are in need of more dramatic change or complete redevelopment and should be transformed in use, physical form, etc. Typically, strong patterns emerge from this exercise illustrating what the community values and wants changed in their neighborhoods and community. These patterns provide an excellent guide to the subsequent planning efforts. When you step back from the detail of the map (Figure 10. P.E.T. Summary Analysis) and look at the patterns one can clearly see that the clustering of red (Transform) dots along the Wayne Avenue corridor, especially between Church Street and 7th Street, and along the Oakland Avenue corridor near the intersection with Maple Street. Additionally, there is a discernible cluster of blue (Enhance) and red (Transform) dots in the area between downtown and campus. Participants in the P.E.T. exercise were encouraged to make notes on the plans to help explain the intent of their voting. These notes were recorded and analyzed. Some of the key observations of the P.E.T. analysis notes include: • Preserve: • 50% of the comments advocated for the preservation of open space and parks • 33% of the comments involved the preservation of the built environment, including the downtown and single-family residential areas • Enhance and Transform: • 44% noted the need for better non-motorized facilities and improved walkability • 15% noted the need for improved or additional open spaces

• 18% noted the need for improved roadways and intersections, or traffic issues • 8% called for increased diversity of retail offerings or improvements in development form

Based on results from the P.E.T. analysis and comments received from the workshop, there is a strong and clear concern in the community that pedestrian and non-motorized safety and movement is a leading priority and this input shapes and informs the recommendations of this study.

Improving pedestrian safety is a primary concern for residents.

Indiana Community University District

275

SHRYOCK AVE

SHRYOCK AVE SHRYOCK AVE

SHRYOCK AVE

7 PETWorkshop Records Location needs to be preserved Location needs to be enhanced Location needs to be transformed ICUD Property Boundary

OAK ST

BURNSAVE

WATER ST

BURNSAVE

281

NIXON AVE

243 210

242

NIXON AVE

241

NIXON AVE

197

170

164

297

177 166

167

192

244

69 25

282

UNNAMED 11ALY

276

196

126

GOMPERS AVE

130

290

193

125

120

128

GOMPERS AVE

176

143

169

151

CHURCH ST

153

286

211 283

152

195

198 181

KLONDYKE AVE

127

129

131

KLONDYKE AVE

SCHOOL ST

289

165

171

288

212

OBJECTID Type

Comment

199

180

ELMER AVE

2 Enhance 3 Enhance 4 Enhance 5 Enhance 7 Enhance

Enhancearea

179

Walkableandbikable connec Ɵ ons

144

WASHINGTON ST

253

156

Enhancegreen space

WASHINGTON ST

161 200

154

Enhanceplaza

155

252

163 251

WestWoodsandco-op farm

POPLAR AVE

140

151 Enhance 152 Enhance 153 Enhance 154 Enhance 155 Enhance 156 Enhance 157 Enhance 158 Enhance 243 Enhance 244 Enhance 245 Enhance 246 Enhance 248 Enhance 275 Enhance 276 Enhance 280 Enhance

Des Ɵ na Ɵ ons toa Ʃ ractothers;Small business incen Ɵ ves IRMCParkbe addedmore treesandopen space Des Ɵ na Ɵ ons toa Ʃ ractothers;Small business incen Ɵ ves ImprovepedestrianexperiencealongOaklandAve. Need stop signof3-way stopatWashingtonSt.

213

238

172

201

SOUTH ST

178

284

113

141

LOCUST ST

291

277

267

Improve tra ĸ cand road tobemorepedestrianatPra Ʃ Dr.aroundcampushub Improvepedestrianexperience crossingWayneAve.andalong road

UNNAMED 10ALY

214

215

SOUTH DR

ELM ST

245

110

GRANT ST

182

150

268

CLARK AVE

Improve connec Ɵ on to thisgreen space for increasinguse

149

236

111

145

216

WILLOW AVE 257

104

Shared resourcesat library

270269

Bike lane

237

112

256

293

254

175

220 218

Morea Ʃ rac Ɵ ve space foroutdoordinning toencourage useof small business

184

217

246 133

Enhance recrea Ɵ on

235

292

173

183

Moreu Ɵ liza Ɵ on;Accessibility topark Enhance WhitesWoodsandCampusLodge

GRANDVIEW AVE

263

186

132

202

264

261

100

Enhance IRMCPark

HoodlebugTrail extension Moredirec Ɵ onal signage

265

203

MAPLE ST

219

105

241 Miscellaneous 242 Miscellaneous 250 Miscellaneous 253 Miscellaneous 297 Miscellaneous 298 Miscellaneous 299 Miscellaneous 300 Miscellaneous

134

266

Moregarbage cans;Green space;"Place""

298

248

187

234

DIAMOND AVE

223

Dogpark

239

272

146

142

Pushby IUP to involve communityoncampus

259

CARTER AVE

Move TheateronPhiladelphiaStreet

271

225

285

174

222221

250

More sea Ɵ ngat football Į eld More ligh Ɵ ngon streets Disconnected fromcampus

119

101

121

185

273

233

258

102

122

224

226

157 274

107

191

135

279

231

247

108

249

227

147

232

168

109

295

159

240

136

162

148

294

188

106

158

228

280

160 204

299

229 189

123

137

209

OBJECTID Type

Comment Tra ĸ c Ň ow

300

10 Transform 11 Transform 12 Transform 13 Transform 14 Transform 15 Transform 16 Transform 17 Transform 18 Transform 19 Transform 20 Transform 21 Transform 22 Transform 23 Transform 120 Transform 122 Transform 123 Transform 166 Transform 167 Transform 168 Transform 169 Transform 170 Transform 171 Transform 172 Transform 173 Transform 174 Transform 175 Transform 176 Transform 267 Transform 292 Transform 293 Transform 296 Transform

Bikewayandwalkway to townandbeyond

Pedestrian tra ĸ c

205

Change intersec Ɵ ons tobewalkable ordrivable

230 190

Tra ĸ candpedestrian Ň ow

138

Cleanup junk space

Tra ĸ c Tra ĸ c

207

Walkways

Sidewalksandbikeway Sidewalksandbikeway

139

Walkways Walkways

208

206

Bikewaysandwalkways to town

Creategateway Unusedindustrial

296

Water

114

Sidewalksandcrosswalk

Des Ɵ na Ɵ on,hangout, communityoriented,mixed industries

OBJECTID Type

Comment

Sidewalks toHoodlebugTrail

119 Preserve 160 Preserve 161 Preserve 162 Preserve 163 Preserve 164 Preserve 165 Preserve 251 Preserve 252 Preserve 282 Preserve 283 Preserve 285 Preserve

Preserve the trolley sta Ɵ on Preserve Hoodle BugTrail Preserve Memorial Park

Bikewayneeded

Walk signsand speedbumpneeded 2-way streetand4-way stop sign Sidewalkand tra ĸ cneeds improvement

PreserveMackPark Preserve OakGrove

Tra ĸ cstop signneeded;orenforce stoppingatcrosswalk Addmore commercial,addentrance gateway,addmore open space

Preservebusinessdistrictwitha lotof shopping

Preserve single family residen Ɵ al characterwith trees in thisarea Communityu Ɵ liza Ɵ onof IUP campus space inOakGrove Buildingsnearbyare verya Ʃ rac Ɵ ve;Greenspace;A Ʃ rac Ɵ ve landscape

Tra ĸ ccalming;morepedestrian friendly

Increasediversityandgive incen Ɵ ves to small business

Architectureblight;Decayedhousing

9thStreetandPhiladelphiaStreet intersec Ɵ on

Sidewalkends

Preservear Ɵ st'shands

Enable tailga Ɵ ng forgames

Allowinggreenspace/landscapeswithnew construc Ɵ on

Parkand ride

115

Indiana Community University District

0’

200’ 400’

800’

NORTH

116

117

Figure 10. P.E.T. Summary Analysis

2.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS Market Analysis

Employment and Office • The area experienced modest employment growth, along with gains in income • Typical lease rates are $12 - $14 per square foot; more for medical related uses • Office vacancies are currently difficult to fill; the market for medical offices is stronger than other types of offices • Market demand for office space is anticipated to grow modestly Summary • The market is not likely to support a measurable amount of new retail or office space in the next five years • New businesses will likely be filling existing space or replacing outdated facilities • New housing needs are predominately to suit the needs of non-student households, such as young professionals, active adults, and graduate students • Student housing areas are not likely to experience rapid change, but may experience redevelopment as facilities age past their useful life and competitive pressures to provide improved amenities grow This analysis by 4ward Planning helps to establish basic expectations for economic growth and land development, and to shape the planning recommendations of SmithGroupJJR, as follows: • The study needs to identify key areas in the District that are suitable for the demand for new housing types not abundantly available in the community • Recommendations for future development on private land needs to recognize that change is likely going to happen incrementally For the purposes of the overall study, key findings of the market and demographic snapshot include:

The final part of the community analysis conducted in Phase I: Discovery was a market and demographic snapshot of the community, conducted by 4ward Planning, a sub-consultant to SmithGroupJJR. The analysis examined data from the primary market area, White Township, the Borough, and Indiana County. The purpose of the analysis was to guide the Planning Team’s efforts so that the land use development recommendations are anchored in market realities. The market and demographic snapshot, as attached in Appendix A, is summarized below in four key areas of interest: Population and Households • Since 2010, population of the market area is generally flat and has experienced a slight decline in recent years • The number of households have grown, especially in the category of non-family households • Income in the market area has risen rapidly, especially in medical and other high-education fields Multi-family Housing • As of July 2014, vacancy rates are generally considered low, which suggests a healthy market for multi-family housing; however, brokers in the area have indicated that new student housing opportunities are experiencing increasing vacancy rates • New housing demand is relatively low; 800 new units are needed by 2019 in the market area, with 200 projected to be locate in the study area Retail and Restaurant • Typical lease rates are at an affordable rate of $8 - $10 per square foot • Consumer spending is below national averages per household, which relates to the high level of student population • There is little demand for new retail space • There is potential to capture business from outside White Township and the Borough to increase demand

Indiana Community University District

3.0 PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Big Ideas Application of the Big Ideas

Indiana Community University District

3.0

PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Big Ideas

Introduction The analysis of the community outlined in the previous section of this report gave the Planning Team a detailed understanding of the strengths of the District, the areas of concern expressed by the community, the market realities of how the private real estate market could play a role in community development, and the fabric and structure of the community-how it functions as a place to live. Based on the understanding gained during the initial phase of analysis, the Planning Team developed a set of overarching urban planning strategies for the District and community. This section of the report will explore the ideas generated by the public participants and the Planning Team for improving the District. The ideas that form the framework for improving the community became known as the “Big Ideas,” in response to the bold and broad approach supported by the community during workshops and interviews. While the list of ideas is comprehensive, the planning approach can be summarized in some key principals, including: • Safely connecting resident and students to their work, study and daily life destinations through improvements to the transit system, better bike and pedestrian facilities along the streets and major corridors, and providing multi-use trails through parks, open spaces, and campus. • Creating a stronger sense of place through better planning and design of public streets, open spaces, and private development, focusing on neighborhood-oriented development nodes on the major corridors and in the space between campus and downtown. • Encouraging new land development to meet the community needs, either by providing the type of land uses and housing not currently offered, and by scaling and placing development to suit the neighborhood it is located within. • Building on the strengths of the greater community - access to recreation and open space, a well-developed downtown, a beautiful and vibrant campus, so that future change enhances and reflects the community.

The Big Ideas The Planning Team sifted through the results of the community analysis (summarized in Section 2.0 of this report) and public input and organized a list of the Big Ideas for the study area, categorizing the ideas into four primary areas - mobility and transportation, housing and development, open space and green infrastructure, and community image, the Big Ideas include: • Mobility and Transportation: This topic includes streets, paths and walks to move people in whatever form they take, whether it be on foot, on bicycle, in a wheel chair or in a vehicle. Inherent in the discussion of mobility is the presumption that the community will consider the needs of all users, of all abilities, to insure universal access in all places possible. The Big Ideas for mobility and transportation include: • Widen and add sidewalks, particularly along the major roads • Install pedestrian amenities (e.g. street trees, lights, etc.) to make the streets safer and more attractive • Improve intersections for traffic and pedestrian use, allowing for safe pedestrian crossing without unduly limiting vehicular capacity • Create clear and safe connections through neighborhoods for pedestrians, students and long tenure residents • Develop more bike facilities where possible (e.g. off-road multi-purpose trails like the Hoodlebug Trail and on-road facilities such as bike lanes) • Manage parking lot locations and design to create more active and attractive streets • Better utilize the parking deck in downtown by improving access, wayfinding, and lighting • Coordinate near downtown parking needs with IUP, the Borough, and private development • Improve transit with a new hub in the downtown area • Housing and Development: The design of site and building developments shapes our experiences as visitors and residents to a community, contributes to the quality and sense of place, and reflects the community’s values. The Big Ideas for encouraging new and better housing and development include: • Guide new form and placement of new development to encourage place making • Improve the connection from downtown to campus with street improvements and new development, including housing

3.0

PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Big Ideas

Mapping the Big Ideas The Big Ideas outlined above are applicable to the District and community in a broad sense, and establish a overall approach to improving the District. During the preparation of the District Analysis and the public input workshops, opportunities were identified within the District for applying the Big Ideas to a particular place or places within the District. These site specific opportunties for improving the District were illustrated on a series of maps, which were used as a starting point by particpants in the Phase II: Community Workshop for developing more detailed planning and design ideas. The Big Ideas maps include the following:

• Create neighborhood based centers or nodes along each corridor that provide for a mix of uses and services, including small scale retail and services • Expand and diversify the range of housing options, especially for non-family households, young professionals, and aging independent adults • Strengthen downtown as the destination and heart of the community • Preserve single-family neighborhoods from being overwhelmed by student housing • Encourage a broader diversity in retail and food offerings • Open Space and Green Infrastructure: The community values open space and green infrastructure that supports leisure time activities, contributes to the positive small town character of the community, and reflects the community’s desire to promote sustainability and stewardship of the natural environment. The Big Ideas for improving the Open Space and Green Infrastructure of the District include: • Create more and improve existing open space • Provide open space amenities (e.g. pedestrian lighting) and access in each part in the District • Provide space and program support for a broader range of positive outdoor activities • Actively pursue greenway and non-motorized connections (e.g. bike trails and lanes) • Promote the use of best management practices for stormwater and encourage habitat restoration throughout the District • Improve wayfinding for community visitors and downtown users • Continue to enhance community/university gateways along Oakland Avenue and Wayne Avenue • Community Image: A number of ideas expressed by the community did not have a specific physical component to them, but spoke to the higher goals for the community’s image and values. Some of these ideas recorded during the planning process, include the following: • Create more of a “college town” physical character through streetscape design, building placement, and architectural quality • Strengthen university and community physical/social/cultural ties

• Figure 11. Mobility and Transportation • Figure 12. Housing and Development • Figure 13. Open Space and Green Infrastructure

• Insure that the community remains a family friendly place • Build a stronger sense of being a creative, artistic place • Become a more open, welcoming, relaxed, and accepting community

Example of comments/input as to which of the “Big Ideas” were most important.

Indiana Community University District

B i g I de a s ! Mo b i l i t y & Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n

PotentialTransit Hub

• Widen and add sidewalks • Install pedestrian amenities; e.g., street trees, lights • Improve intersections for traffic and pedestrians • Create clear and safe connections through neighborhoods • Develop more bike facilities • Manage parking lot locations and design • Better utilize the parking deck in downtown • Coordinate parking needs with IUP, the Borough, and private development

I nd i a n a Commun i t y Un i ve r s i t y D i s t r i c t

Figure 11. Mobility and Transportation

B i g I de a s ! Ho u s i ng & D e ve l o pme n t

• Guide new development • Improve the 8th Street connection • Expand and diversify the range of housing options • Strengthen downtown as a destination • Preserve single-family neighborhoods • Encourage a broader diversity in retail and food offerings

I nd i a n a Commun i t y Un i ve r s i t y D i s t r i c t

Figure 12. Housing and Development

Indiana Community University District

B i g I de a s ! O p e n S p a c e & G r e e n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e

• Create more and improve existing open spaces • Provide open space amenities and access in each ward/district in the community • Support a broader range of outdoor activities • Actively pursue greenway and non-motorized connections • ImproveWayfinding • Community gateway enhancements

I nd i a n a Commun i t y Un i ve r s i t y D i s t r i c t

Figure 13. Open Space and Green Infrastructure

3.0 PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Application of the Big Ideas

Most of the Big Ideas relate to a specific place in the District. The focus of the Phase II: Community Workshop was to work with the community to apply the Big Ideas and understand how these ideas could translate into actual changes in the District. To help make these improvements more tangible, the Planning Team prepared a series of conceptual site plans for different areas in the District. These alternative ideas do not represent a particular specific design recommendation, but show the range of possible solutions for the community to consider. The workshop participants were given an opportunity to help develop these ideas, express their preferences as to which ideas made the most sense to them individually, and suggest new ideas that complement those under consideration. Following the Phase II: Community Workshop, the Planning Team synthesized the input from the community into a series of three illustrative boards, each containing an overall plan of the typological area within the District, a listing of improvement ideas, and a series of conceptual site plans and computer generated perspectives which illustrate the application of the ideas. The ideas are organized on each plan into the three improvement categories (Housing and Development, Mobility and Transportation, and Open Space and Green Infrastructure). The following pages outline the following for each of the three typologic type areas defined in the analysis of the District (refer to Section 2.0):

• Planning Objectives - the “big picture” strategies for each area • Project Ideas - specific projects which are recommended for each area

Example of conceptual design graphic development during the Phase II: Community Workshop.

• Conceptual Illustrations - illustrations of what the Project Ideas might look like if implemented. The illustrations simply show intent, and multiple options are included for some areas to illustrate a range of approaches that can be explored

Indiana Community University District

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51

www.icopd.org

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs