Violet Township Community Center Project...Violet Township Community Center Project: Insight2050 TA Program Final Report . TABLE OF CONTENTS . Chapter 1 : Introduction 5 Chapter 2

Violet Township Community Center Project:

Insight2050 TA Program Final Report

Page 1-1

Insight2050 Technical Assistance Program Final Report

MORPC

3/18/2019

Violet Township

Community Center Project



The insight2050 Technical Assistance (TA) Program provides assistance from MORPC staff to

local government members within the boundary of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)

for the planning of transportation and community development efforts related to the findings of

insight2050 and goals of MORPC’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Through the TA Program, MORPC staff will assist member communities with specific planning

services related to transportation, air quality, traffic, and other projects that support consideration

of transportation in land use planning and/or demonstrate the benefits of various modes of

transportation.

MORPC does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, gender, sexual

orientation, familial status, religion or disability in programs, services or in employment.

Information on non-discrimination and related MORPC policies and procedures is available at

www.morpc.org.

http://www.morpc.org/



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 : Introduction 5

Chapter 2 : Farm to Community Case Study Report 8

2.1 Vision 9

2.2 Case Studies 11

2.2.1 Darby Town Center Case Study 12

2.2.2 Harbor Town Case Study 15

Chapter 3 : Transportation and Land Use 22

3.1 Transect Types 23

3.1.1 Performance Measures 24

3.1.2 Roadway Classifications 26

3.1.3 Pedestrian Priority 28

3.1.4 Pedestrian Places 29

3.1.5 Pedestrian Supportive Places 30

3.1.6 Pedestrian Tolerant Places 31

3.1.7 Pedestrian Intolerant Places 32

3.2 Proposed Street Network and Land Use Analyses 33

3.2.1 Proposed Land Use Map 34

3.2.2 Population and Employment Estimates 35

3.2.3 Proposed Street Network Map 37

3.2.4 Travel Forecasts 38

Chapter 4 : Economic Development 42

4. Economic Development 43

4.1 Economic Impacts of Recreation 44

4.2 Industry Insights 46

4.2.1 Metropolitan Statistical Area Employment Analysis 47

4.2.2 Violet Township Employment Analysis 48

4.2.3 Site Boundary Employment Analysis 49

Chapter 5: Conclusion 50

Appendix A : Insight2050 Summary Metrics 53

Appendix B : Transect Types Street Design Matrices and Glossary 58



TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Appendix C : Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamic (2015) Raw Data 63

Appendix D : Additional Resources 67



Chapter 1: Introduction

6



The seven-county Central Ohio region is rapidly growing. According to the insight2050

Scenario Results Report prepared by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

(MORPC), the region’s population is expected to increase by up to 1 million people between

2010 and 2050. As a result, Central Ohio could be a region of approximately 3 million

people within the next 30 years. The projected growth is expected to result in an additional

610,000 jobs and over 400,000 new housing units. As the region grows rapidly,

demographic shifts will have a significant impact on the region’s housing, transportation,

and economic development.

In the past 30 years, the large majority of Central Ohio’s population growth was among 35

to 64 year olds. Local plans, policies, and regional infrastructure investments pivoted

towards supporting that generation’s demand for larger-lot single family homes and

suburban lifestyles that fit their family raising needs. Therefore, most development

growth was designed around automobile access and investments in a robust highway and

roadway network.

Over the next 30 years, however, Central Ohio will experience dramatic changes related to

demographics and the shifting preferences of existing and future residents and workers.

The majority of the population’s growth will be in age groups below age 35 and over age 65;

and households with children will account for less than 20% of population growth in the

next decades. Furthermore, the region will be more diverse; racial and ethnic minorities are

expected to account for a majority of the region’s growth by 2050. These significant shifts

have implications for the kinds of homes and communities needed based on the

preferences of existing and future residents of Central Ohio.

Recent studies by the National Association of Realtors, Urban Land Institute, and other

organizations across the country are pointing towards increased preferences for walkable,

complete communities where daily needs are within close proximity to homes and jobs. In

Central Ohio we are already seeing increased market demand for walkable neighborhoods,

more transportation choices, mixed-use environments, smaller residences with less

maintenance, and mixed-age, mixed-income communities.

The insight2050 report identified 4 potential scenarios for how Central Ohio can

accommodate all of the anticipated growth and changes in demand:

A. Past Trends: Develop in the same way as in the past between 1980 and 2010

B. Planned Future: Develop according to community’s plans based on past trends

C. Focused Growth: Develop with some infill and redevelopment

D. Maximum Infill: Develop with maximum infill and redevelopment

INTRODUCTION

7



Page 1-1

A "Focused Growth" approach to development allows for context-sensitive infill and

redevelopment, minimizes local fiscal impacts, and maximizes sustainability, while meeting

the needs of residents. In this scenario, land patterns and housing mix are informed by

housing demand forecasts, with significantly more smaller lot single family, attached single

family, and multifamily homes than the Planned Future or Past Trends scenarios. A majority

of growth takes the form of compact development in walkable, moderate intensity mixed-

use areas. There is little Standard growth or new larger-lot single family housing

development in this scenario, as the majority of demand for this product is met through the

existing supply.

By employing Focused Growth development strategies, Central Ohio can expect to see

improvement across a variety of metrics including land consumption, vehicle miles

travelled, public health costs, greenhouse gas emissions, household costs, building energy

use, and building water use. For more information on these metrics, see the Scenario

Metrics Summary in Appendix A of this report.

Violet Township is preparing a site plan along the Refugee Rd. / Pickerington Rd. corridor to

meet the community's vision for a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood anchored by a

community center with surrounding ancillary medical-professional offices, retail, compact

residential uses and other support service related buildings. This report is a summary of the

research and background work done to date. It is meant to provide Violet Township staff,

residents, stakeholders, and decision-makers with the tools and resources necessary to

pursue a Focused Growth approach to development at the Community Center project site.



Chapter 2: Farm to Community

Case Study Report

9



Page 1-1

Visioning works best with the involvement of

multiple stakeholders with varying

perspectives and goals. Involving community

representatives, private sector stakeholders,

and appropriate public agencies in the

process – from conception to review –

increases the likelihood of an inclusive vision

that is innovative, flexible, and can garner

public support. With a project as ambitious as

a proposed master plan for a 600+ acre site,

visioning should involve multiple entities that

will most likely begin the process with varying

perspectives and goals for the development.

Therefore, creating a comprehensive vision will require mediated collaboration.

Violet Township already is doing much of this through extensive community outreach and

partnerships. The visioning process must look not just at all of the pieces, but at how they

will fit together. If a plan for the site is to be truly comprehensive, it must also consider the

context of future plans for other parts of the township, including Pickerington.

Creating a vision starts with questions and a definition. In this initial stage, think big,

explore visionary ideas, and contemplate the different ways that the Community Center

project site can bring value to Violet Township. What are we trying to accomplish and

address with this development? How can we translate an ambitious development vision

into an implementable plan given potential constraints?

There are several challenges and opportunities in the area – beginning with the skewed

intersection of two busy roads, Refugee Road and Pickerington Road. Open farmland

makes up the vast majority of this project, but it is adjacent to existing subdivisions and

institutional uses – some of it in Violet township’s jurisdiction, and some in Pickerington.

The housing is in typical suburban patterns at a time when consumer preferences are

shifting toward smaller lots and walkable communities. There is a desire to incorporate

civic activities and services into the development.

The existing thoroughfares and the desire for walkability, together, pose a particular

challenge. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Congress for the New

Urbanism (CNU) promote the idea of “context sensitive solutions” in project development –

especially in projects that need to balance traffic with walkability – and to consider the

ultimate uses and users of the site. ITE says the key is to broaden the definition of the

challenge to include community values as well as traffic needs, complete streets, as well as

a mix of land uses.

A very helpful way to define the challenge is with a wide range of questions that lead to a

community vision. The challenges arise when there is friction between the community’s

desires – say, a priority for walkability, and also a priority for smooth traffic flow.

2.1 VISION

Example rendering of mixed-use development. Source: MORPC

https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/RP-036A-E.pdf

10



QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

The questions below can help start the visioning process:

What type of development does the community want to see at the site?

What types of activities will the development encourage and facilitate?

How large will the development be?

Who will the development serve? Violet Township residents? Central Ohio residents? Visitors

and/or tourists?

How can development at this site help Violet Township achieve its economic, environmental,

and quality of life goals?

How can this site prepare Violet Township for anticipated growth over the next 30 years?

The questions below are relevant for reviewing the site vision:

Does this vision allow for innovative tools and creative solution-finding?

Is this site vision in line with market realities?

How can this site vision be adapted into an implementable plan?

Does this vision consider the needs and perspectives of the wide range of people who live and

work in Violet Township and Pickerington?

How can the desired outcomes be measured?

Does the site vision address external factors influencing Violet Township, Fairfield County, and

surrounding communities?

Questions such as the following can encourage the development of the site’s vision:

Are thoroughfare plans consistent with the adjacent land uses that are proposed?

Have traffic-safety studies considered plans for future development along the corridors?

Was current and future pedestrian activity considered in traffic studies?

Which stakeholders and community groups need to be part of the visioning conversation?

What is the perceived identity of the site and surrounding neighborhoods?

What models allow walkable neighborhoods to comfortably coexist with traffic?

What are the site’s challenges and problems?

How can a new vision address those problems?

What are the opportunities on the site?

Given public interest in a recreation center, what other public, civic, and even commercial uses

are suitable for the site?

What is the walkable site’s role within the Refugee/Pickerington Road area? Within Violet

Township? Within the metropolitan region?

How can a new vision support these roles?

11



This chapter will focus on two case studies to illustrate different aspects of developing this 600-

acre site: the Big Darby Town Center Plan in western Franklin County, and Harbor Town on Mud

Island in Memphis, Tennessee. We looked at a variety of “new town” developments across the

country to determine the relevance of the case studies we chose: Stapleton in Denver; Harbor Town

on Mud Island in Memphis; Celebration, in Florida; Prospect, in Colorado; Kentlands in Maryland;

Seaside, on the coast of the Florida Panhandle; Prairie Crossing, amid Chicago’s far-north suburbs;

Serenbe, near Atlanta; and the Big Darby Town Center.

The Darby plan is offered here as a case study in how a walkable community can develop around a

busy highway, and in the potential for green infrastructure. The Harbor Town model in Memphis is a

case study in how a new community can be planned in a way that accommodates a variety of

housing types and a mix of uses along a “transect” (from the center to the edge of a neighborhood).

2.2 CASE STUDIES

Conservation and

density come

together at

Serenbe,

Georgia.

Source: Haverty

Group

Pedestrian

streetscapes in

Kentlands,

Maryland.

Source: City of

Gaithersburg,

Maryland & DPZ

Partners

Prairie Crossing

conservation

community in

Illinois.

Source: City of

Grayslake,

Illinois.

Bold architecture

in Prospect,

Colorado’s new

urbanist

development.

Source: DPZ

Partners

http://www.stapletondenver.com/community/the-neighborhoods/

https://casestudies.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2016/06/Harbor-Town.pdf

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21712156-utopia-i-4-what-disneys-city-future-built-look-past-says-about

https://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/8/

https://casestudies.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2015/12/C024016.pdf

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/how-seaside-helped-revive-urban-design_o

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/how-seaside-helped-revive-urban-design_o

https://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/9/

http://americas.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/125/ULI-Documents/Serenbe.pdf

https://bigdarbyaccord.org/town-center

12



The 2011 Big Darby Town Center Master Plan is

easily compared to the Violet Township site. Part of

a multi-jurisdictional plan in western Franklin

County, the town center was planned to straddle

four-lane U.S. Rt. 40, with signalized intersections

for side streets leading to neighborhoods on either

side of the thoroughfare.

Plans for the Big Darby Town Center were

completed in 2011 – five years after the 10-

jurisdiction Big Darby Accord in western Franklin

County set the standards for environmentally

sustainable growth models in the sensitive

watershed. The Town Center was designed to

accommodate a projected level of population

growth in a compact area selected to preserve

farmland, streams, and wetlands. Plans have been

on hold, however, because of the recession,

reduced development pressure, sewerage costs,

and other factors.

There are many differences between the Darby

Town Center plan and the Violet Township planning

initiative. The most obvious is the size. The Darby site is 2,500 acres – about four times larger than

the Violet site – though much of that acreage was designated for conservation.

There also are striking similarities. One is in terms of funding and development. Just as Violet

Township is considering a Community Authority to develop its site, Darby Town Center planners

opted for a similar strategy. Both sites are dominated by farmland, yet adjacent to existing

subdivisions. Both sites also have multiple owners of acreage for development. But perhaps the

most significant similarity is the presence of a busy east-west thoroughfare through the middle of

the land proposed for development. This is perhaps the most important factor shaping how the land

ultimately is used:

Will it be a thoroughfare flanked by subdivisions of homes and businesses?

Or will it be a community that is accompanied by a lot of traffic?

Source: Big Darby Accord Watershed Master Plan

2.2.1 DARBY TOWN CENTER, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH

https://bigdarbyaccord.org/town-center

13



A small creek runs beneath the skewed

intersection of Refugee and Pickerington roads.

Given the township’s interest in relocating the

intersection into a safer configuration, the riparian

zone could be preserved – and perhaps

incorporated into the grounds of a recreation

center near the high school. New development,

roadways, parking lots, etc., would need to be

designed in a way that minimizes impact on this

asset.

MORPC has a Green Infrastructure Toolkit and

interactive map that can identify strategies and

types of infrastructure that reduce runoff and

enhance the aesthetic and ecological aspects of

the area.

The land in this project may not be as pristine and

sensitive as the waterways and wetlands of the Big

Darby watershed, but Sycamore Creek, smaller

streams, and farmland – the drainage of which will

likely be changed by development – pose

challenges and opportunities. The rolling terrain is

an important part of the site’s character and

charm, but could pose challenges for drainage as

the area develops.

The 2006 Big Darby Accord set the tone for

emphasizing the preservation of ecological systems

as a basis for all development in the area –

“integrating natural resources as aesthetic and functional elements of development, enhancing

quality of life by providing human access to the natural environment.” This approach was reinforced

by residents in design charrettes for the Town Center.

In particular, the Accord emphasized water-quality protection, stormwater runoff control, and

stream restoration. These measures were to begin well before development – both for ecological

reasons and to “establish a sense of place and a pleasant aesthetic for potential new residents. By

building trail systems and restoring portions of the agricultural landscape ahead of the marketing

campaign, developers will set the tone for the Town Center community and pique the interest of

prospective buyers.” The Town Center plan also calls for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of

these features as crucial to continued marketability of the community.

The Town Center plan calls for a Stormwater Treatment Train (STT) approach, as opposed to the

conventional stormwater management that uses large detention ponds and a system of sewers,

pipes, and concrete channels. STT uses a “continuum of rain gardens, bioswales, sedimentation

wetlands, and naturalized detention wetlands.” Where possible and appropriate, Violet Township

should consider early adoption of such measures as they relate to streams, waterways, and areas

where field tiles may have been changed or removed.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Green stormwater infrastructure such as rain gardens and

pervious pavers can improve community water quality in an

attractive way. Source: MORPC

http://www.morpc.org/tool-resource/green-infrastructure-toolkit/

14



The questions below can help the Township consider how green infrastructure techniques can be

used on this site:

What natural features are potential problems/opportunities?

How can the creek be made compatible with new and existing development and infrastructure?

What sewerage is proposed for the area?

How can runoff be captured from pavement and buildings, and diverted from the creek?

What effect will development of the site have on existing drainage tiles in the farm fields?

Should tiles be completely removed in favor of green infrastructure?

Will the Fairfield Soil & Water Conservation District be at the table from the beginning of the

process?


FUNDING

The Big Darby Town Center plan considered four different models for funding and implementation.

(p. 133)

Market-driven Development with Zoning Intervention

Public Sector Developer with Bulk Sale to Fee Developer

Catalytic Development Entity with Bulk Sale to Fee Developer

Public/Private Partnership, which would require a Development Authority.

Some distinct differences exist, however. The Darby plan called for “constructive negotiation” with

landowners, who ultimately would commit their land as an equity contribution, with compensation

most likely to come from sale of the project to a master developer. While this model avoids the

need to raise capital for land acquisition, it would need a development authority to manage

landowner negotiations.

In the Darby Town Center plan, a New Community Authority (NCA) was to have been combined with

a Community Improvement Corporation. Revenue for the infrastructure and development costs

would have come primarily from three sources: developer contributions; a 30-year Tax Increment

Financing (TIF) deal; and 30-year, 5-mill to 10-mill property assessments through the New

Community Authority. The developer contributions were estimated at $2,500 per unit served by

public utilities in the Town Center. Planners predicted these sources would have generated about

$320 million.

In addition, an NCA has the authority to issue revenue bonds for development. Depending on the

financing structure and the use of the proceeds, the bonds could be taxable or tax-exempt. In the

Darby plan, other government jurisdictions participating in the project – Brown Township, Prairie

Township, City of Columbus, and Franklin County – also could be part of bond issues for the Town

Center.

Grants and low-interest loans were explored as other potential funding sources. These included low-

interest Ohio EPA loans for work on conservation lands, which make up a large portion of the Town

Center site. Planners also recommended formation of a Joint Economic Development District

(JEDD) among the participating jurisdictions to place a 2.5 percent income tax on all commercial

employees within the new development, to be used for the benefit of the Town Center.

15



Mud Island is not actually an island, but a 400-acre peninsula just north of downtown Memphis,

along the Mississippi River. Despite its proximity to downtown, it mostly was considered an eyesore

and a dilemma after it emerged 120 years ago as a sandbar and continued building up through silt

deposits. It was home to squatter farms in the Depression, then asphalt and rock-crushing plants,

and a small airport in the 1960s. It also was the subject of many visions and proposed name

changes up until the Mud Island River Park opened in 1982 on the southern tip.

Starting in 1989, a Memphis developer began 15 years of focused growth that resulted in Harbor

Town, a 135-acre mixed-use community that has become wildly popular, attracting a mix of

residents near downtown Memphis and inspiring other new developments and revitalization in the

metropolitan area.

Harbor Town itself is much smaller than the 600 acres planned for development in Violet Township,

but the entire peninsula is somewhat comparable in that it comprises hundreds of undeveloped

acres adjacent to substantial existing development. In addition to the river park on the southern

end, riverfront open space runs the length of the peninsula’s Mississippi side. The northern part

has more-traditional subdivisions.

Source: City of Memphis


2.2.2 HARBOR TOWN, MUD ISLAND, MEMPHIS, TN

16



Form-Based Development

The form of development at Harbor Town falls

into two main categories: neighborhood forms,

in a “transect” of different neighborhood types;

and building forms, through design guidelines

that do not spell out specific architectural

styles.

The community has more than just a mix of

residential, commercial, and office uses. The

residential areas include a similar variety of

sizes, styles and types, spread among an urban

transect of three interconnected

neighborhoods. The Harbor District includes a

“downtown” with higher density apartments and

condos, plus a town square, retail, offices, a

supermarket, a Montessori school, and a

marina. In all, the Harbor District has 30,000

square feet of office space and 25,000 square

feet of retail space.

The neighboring Garden District to the north has

a mix of townhomes, zero-lot-line detached

homes, and larger single-family homes. Beyond

that, the Village District has closely packed

single-family homes, rental apartments,

detached and courtyard houses. All three

districts are compact, walkable, and spiced with

small parks and a meandering stream.

The actual form of Harbor Town (shaped as it is

by the edges of Mud Island) may not translate

to Violet Township -- but the concept does. The

form of Violet Township is more likely to be

shaped by the intersection of Refugee and

Pickerington roads. A less expansive version of

the transect can still apply, with more intensive, multi-story mixed-use buildings along those major

roads, and development patterns quickly stepping back to smaller multi-family residential and then

to single-family homes.

Building forms can also help define a community. Although it is not billed as such, Harbor Town has

the hallmarks of form-based development. The project was built using visual design guidelines with

“dos and don’ts,” but no prescribed architectural styles. An Urban Land Institute (ULI) case study

said the intent of the guidelines was to “create an overall aesthetic for the community and ensure

that lower-price housing maintains a level of design compatible in quality to the most expensive

houses.”

PLACEMAKING

Form-based codes contribute to functional and aesthetically pleasing

commercial, residential, and mixed-use development in Harbor

Town. Source: MORPC

https://casestudies.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2016/06/Harbor-Town.pdf

17



In Violet Township, this approach can mean different things. The commercial buildings at the

intersection could be in similar styles for the sake of consistency and cohesion. Or they could be

developed with a mix of architectural styles to approximate a traditional American Main Street that

evolved across decades of different prevailing styles. Some new communities have achieved this

through a rigorous review process (Prospect, in Longmont, CO). But Harbor Town developers opted

for a more-flexible approach.

Likewise, the residential areas in Violet Township could be shaped by whatever approach to design

guidelines the community prefers.

Compatible Uses

A common accusation aimed at compact new developments is the high cost of housing and the

inability of working families to afford to live in the neighborhoods. Harbor Town was designed to be

more diverse. As the ULI study described it, “The dream of Memphis-based developer Henry M.

Turley, Jr., was to re-create the spirit of the old Memphis neighborhood where he grew up, a

neighborhood with a mix of rich and poor residents, and a few small shops and other businesses

where people met and developed friendships.”

In all, Harbor Town has 1000 housing units (421 rentals; 122 for-sale townhomes; 457 single-

family), ranging from $800-per-month apartments to $800,000 riverfront houses. In size, single-

family houses range from 1,000 to 6,000 square feet.

Mud Island’s proximity to downtown Memphis drove up the land value, resulting in mostly market-

rate housing rather than a healthy mix of prices. Demand has been high in the 14 years since the

Harbor Place development was completed with a wide range of housing types, sizes, and styles.

Housing prices and rental rates have climbed steadily because of strong demand – a challenge not

easily addressed without government solutions such as subsidized housing or inclusionary zoning.

Still, a mix of uses and housing types can be a factor in the affordability of housing. A compact

development pattern – with apartments and offices above retail and services – can accommodate

affordable rental housing in a neighborhood. That’s the case in Harbor Town, where apartments are

above restaurants in the ”downtown,” or “Main Street” Harbor District. The three- and four-story

mixed-use buildings give way to two-story apartment buildings, and then to the typically more

expensive single-family homes. The community also includes a pedestrian focus with gridded

streets; small parks; broad boulevards; and planned public squares.

The mixed-use buildings also strengthen the local property-tax base. North Carolina researcher and

planner Joe Minicozzi has studied the per-acre tax effects on different types of development in

communities around the country. He has found, for example, that a 35-acre big-box retail site with

parking and green space uses a lot of taxable acreage – but generates less property tax revenue on

a per-acre basis than a mixed-use business on one acre or less. This is a consideration for

jurisdictions – such as townships in Ohio – that rely on property taxes.

Asset-based Placemaking

The opportunity for public gathering is an important part of any community, and such space is a

clear part of Violet Township’s vision. Harbor Town has additional features that might be instructive

for the township. On one side of the town-square area is a riverfront park along the Mississippi; on

the other is a cluster of buildings conducive to community gathering: a marina, a fitness center, and

a school. While they are not exactly public community centers, they are examples of amenities that

can serve a similar function.

18



In addition, the southern tip of the island is home to the Mud Island River Park, which includes a

scaled replica (called the Riverwalk) of the southern half of the Mississippi; the Mud Island

Amphitheater; and the Mississippi River Museum.

A lesson to be learned from this is to build on the area’s heritage and geographic features. While

Violet Township lacks river bluffs, steamboat lore, and one of the world’s great rivers, it boasts a

beautiful rolling landscape and a long history of rich, productive farmland – worked by the relatives

and ancestors of current residents. There is an opportunity to pay homage to this heritage in public

spaces – and with extensive involvement among community stakeholders.

Because the development sites are adjacent to existing neighborhoods in the township and

Pickerington – not a literal or figurative island – they would benefit from master planning at a

broader, contextual scale that includes the agricultural heritage and future visions.

The Harbor Town marina, fitness center, and school are clustered between the harbor and town

center. That configuration is comparable to a Violet Township community center envisioned by

many residents.


Creative placemaking, with an inclusive and engaged range of stakeholders, provides a forum to

address questions such as these:

How would a community center relate to the nearby high school?

How would those public buildings relate to shops. services, and residences nearby on Refugee

and Pickerington roads?

How would township and city interests be balanced?

What land uses are envisioned as part of this project?

What types of retail/services are appropriate?

What types of office uses are appropriate?

Should the development have a broad range of housing types and price points?


http://memphisriverfront.com/venue/mississippi-river-museum/

http://www.canr.msu.edu/landpolicy/uploads/files/resources/publications__presentations/books/pm_guidebook/pmguidebook_final_wcag2.0_v.01.05_metadata.pdf

19



This report addresses the process,

guiding principles, and even the

philosophy of how to create walkable

communities with a multi-modal

transportation network. Retrofitting

neighborhoods to make them walkable

can be costly, and any change is

vulnerable to resident opposition.

Designing Walkable Urban

Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive

Approach, released in 2010 by the

Institute of Transportation Engineers and

the Congress for New Urbanism is a great

resource. In it, the Washington State

Department of Transportation explains

that, with Context Sensitive Solutions, “a

proposed transportation project must be

planned not only for its physical aspects

as a facility serving specific transportation objectives, but also for its effects on the aesthetic,

social, economic and environmental values, needs, constraints and opportunities in a larger

community setting.”

The document cites two sets of circumstances in which the Context Sensitive Solutions practice

applies:

A thoroughfare project in an existing walkable community where its multimodal character is to

be preserved and enhanced

A thoroughfare project in an area where community goals call for a walkable context, in which

case applying this design guidance will shape public investment to advance those goals

The second applies to Violet Township’s interest for the project. The ITE document explains that,

“commitment to walkable communities as

a goal means that throughout the design

process, location will serve as a design

control. As a result, design decisions will

consistently favor those elements and

dimensions that are most supportive of

walkable community characteristics.”

Using a Complete Streets policy to

incorporate context-sensitivity into planning

and engineering processes is a significant

step toward committing to a community

where walking, biking, driving, and riding

transit are all safe, efficient, and affordable

options for all.

Refugee Road is a defining corridor in Violet

Township, especially at the Pickerington

Road intersection. Likewise, the Big Darby

WALKABILITY & TRANSPORTATION

Walkability requires zoning and building codes that allow engagement with

the streetscape, like street furniture and outdoor seating. Source: MORPC

Wide sidewalks, narrow lanes, and on-street parking support walkability in

Harbor Town. Source: MORPC




20



Town Center Master Plan describes W. Broad Street (U.S. Rt. 40) as “a central spine to the Town

Center development” with plans to incorporate a greenway on each side of the road, and “to

eliminate driveway access in favor of more frequent intersections with local streets and a limited

number of signalized intersections that will calm traffic and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle

crossings.”

Violet Township’s proximity to highways such as Interstate 70 and State Route 256, and especially

the thoroughfare of Refugee Road, is a community asset. This proximity also poses a challenge to

designing a compact, walkable community with a diverse mix of people, transportation modes, and

land uses. Planning simultaneously for transit and local land uses is a smart approach to such

development. This is especially important in light of Fairfield County’s proposed study of the

Refugee Road corridor, ODOT’s long-range interest in a connector in the area, and the designation

of Refugee Road as an Active Transportation Corridor in MORPC’s 2016-2040 Active Transportation

Plan.

To support the vision for a compact, walkable community, proposed strategies for reducing traffic

congestion and improving internal circulation and external connectivity should emphasize walking,

biking, and transit. Violet Township can work to provide sufficient, safe, and comfortable active

transportation infrastructure to reduce vehicle trips. National best practices call for sidewalks that

are 5 feet wide minimum, but ideally up to 8 feet wide so that pedestrians of all ages and abilities

can navigate comfortably. Multi-use paths and trails shared by pedestrians and cyclists should be a

minimum of 10 feet wide or larger depending on multimodal traffic. To encourage and

accommodate cyclists of all comfort levels, bike lanes should be at least 5 feet wide and include

door zone and/or street side buffers. Buffered sidewalks, clearly demarcated intersection and

midblock crosswalks, ADA ramps, bike lanes, bike racks, trash cans, benches, and pedestrian and

bicycle signage are all tools that can encourage people to walk or bike to amenities within the site.

For information about active transportation design, see chapter 3.1.

Currently, the speed limit on Refugee Road is 50 mph east of Pickerington Road. While that may be

appropriate for the current function, it is not conducive to walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

Planning for walkability in and around the site means considering the benefits of traffic calming

projects: reduced traffic crash frequency; increased comfort and mobility for pedestrians and

cyclists; increased non-motorized travel substitutes for automobile trips; reduced automobile

impacts like traffic congestion, roadway expenses, and pollution; increased neighborhood

interaction; increased residential property values due to attractive street design, and improved

community public health.

Source: MORPC Source: City of Memphis

http://www.morpc.org/tool-resource/active-transportation-plan/

http://www.morpc.org/tool-resource/active-transportation-plan/

21




The questions below – some of which already are being asked – can inform the conversation as

Violet Township considers how circulation and connectivity can make the town center a more

transit-supportive development.

Are there first and last mile connections for transit users?

Is the transportation network conducive to multi-modality?

How does the land use composition of the site fit into the Refugee/Pickerington corridor?

What are the key places that need to be connected within the site?

How will the network connect with schools and other civic destinations?

Is there connectivity to the amenities surrounding the site?

What form of transportation does the existing infrastructure prioritize?

What form of transportation does the city want to prioritize?

What are the short, mid, and long-range goals relating to transportation and land use in the

site?

Increased density?

More pedestrian amenities?

Bicycle infrastructure?

Increased transit ridership?

Does the transportation infrastructure support the lifestyles of all Violet Township residents?

All ages?

All abilities?

All genders?

All socioeconomic statuses?

Traffic calming could include tree-lined boulevards, as in the Darby Town Center plan. The National

Complete Streets Coalition and MORPC’s Complete Streets Toolkit are helpful resources that detail

a variety of traffic calming measures and street designs that Violet Township can use to prioritize

safe multimodal transportation throughout the site.

Connectivity deals with the linkages among places, taking into account both distance and ease of

travel. Proximity is important, but if there are poor connections between close destinations, it can

seem that they are functionally disconnected. Violet Township already has shown interest in the

area’s connectivity. This planned mixed use community would connect to the broader

transportation network –(Refugee Road connecting to Hill Road and Interstate 70) to ensure a

seamless integration into the township and city.

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/

http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf#page=79



Chapter 3: Transportation and

Land Use

23



Page 1-1

This chapter is meant to be a guiding resource for Violet Township staff as they develop a

vision for the future of the Community Center project site. The chapter contains

performance standards and roadway classifications, as well as guidance for integrating

land use and transportation planning. The content in this chapter is meant to assist Violet

Township as they work to develop a site that can support the type of pedestrian activity and

active transportation options featured in the case studies in Chapter 2.

Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 detail project-scale performance measures and federal functional

roadway classifications. Following are considerations for how roadway design and land use

influence mode choice particularly for pedestrians and vehicles. Included in the initial

Transect Types report provided to Violet Township staff were street design matrices,

complimentary to the content in this chapter. The matrices are available in Appendix B of

this report.

3.1 TRANSECT TYPES

Source: MORPC

24



Page 1-1

As the FHWA writes in their Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance

Measures, “performance management techniques promote informed decision-making by

relating community goals to the measurable effects of transportation investments. Key

steps in performance management are to decide what to measure in order to capture the

current state of the system, to set targets to improve those measures, and to use the

measures to evaluate and compare the effects of proposed projects and policies.” As the

Community Center project proceeds, the vision for the site network will evolve and new

challenges and opportunities will arise. Because of this, the performance measures below

do not specify precise numbers to target. However, they are examples of the types of

performance measures that Violet Township can use to monitor the progress towards the

multimodal, safety, environmental, equity, and economic goals of the township as they

relate to transportation.

3.1.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Multimodal Mobility

Linear feet of new sidewalks or multi-use paths created

Square footage of pedestrian-only public spaces (i.e. plaza) created

Number of enhanced crosswalks

Miles of on-street bicycle routes created

Number of transit trips generated

Frequency of transit vehicles

Mode shift from single-occupancy vehicle to walking, bicycling, or transit

Average distance between signalized and/or protected crosswalks

Transportation Safety

Number and severity of crashes

Number of crashes involving pedestrians or cyclists

Percent of vehicles exceeding speed limit

Emergency vehicle response time

Number of ADA/AASHTO compliant fixtures

Environmental

Number of new street trees

Number of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) projects

Stormwater quality impacts of GSI

Percentage of recycled materials used in construction

Number of low-energy lighting fixtures

Economic

Number of temporary / permanent jobs created

Changes in property value

Amount of private investment generated

Example Performance Measures

25



Page 1-1

Equity

Mode shift by age group, gender, income, disability status, race, and/or ethnicity

Number of crashes involving pedestrians or cyclists by age, gender, income,

disability status, race, and/or ethnicity

Number of ADA compliant curb ramps

Number of ADA compliant Accessible Pedestrian Signals for visually impaired

pedestrians

Linear feet of “first—and—last mile” transportation connections added

Number of placemaking projects that embrace local and historical arts and

culture

Diversity of labor force used for construction projects

Non-single-occupancy vehicle access to amenities by age, gender, income,

disability status, race, and/or ethnicity

Place

Number of placemaking projects that embrace local and historical arts and

culture

Number of temporary and/or permanent public art installations

Percent of shaded public spaces and travel areas

Presence of pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding signs and/or maps

Sources: NCSC Evaluating Complete Streets Projects, FHWA Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian & Bicycle Performance Measures

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/evaluating-complete-streets-projects.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/pm_guidebook.pdf

26



Page 1-1

As Violet Township strives for a Focused Growth approach to development at the Refugee

Rd. / Pickerington Rd. site, it is important to remember the inherent connection between

movement and place. Standard roadway classifications may not be able to fully capture

that relationship, however this document aims to be a holistic resource by integrating

roadway classifications, street design guidelines, and land use considerations. Design

guidelines that consider multimodal mobility, adaptability, and compatible development

can help the township create a context-sensitive network that is walkable, efficient, and

equitable for all Violet Township’s residents and visitors. This resource also includes

performance standards which can help the township establish measureable outcomes

against which to gauge projects’ progress and success.

The way we classify our roads has implications for local transportation, land use, and

economic development policies and projects. According to the federal functional

classifications used by MORPC, typologies are assigned based on a roadway’s role in

providing access and mobility in the region. A roadway’s classification is closely connected

to eligibility for federal funds. It may seem that the typologies are a hierarchy of vehicle

movement but when classifying roads we take into account the capacity of all our streets—

Expressways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local roads—to move the

pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, emergency vehicles, and various other non-vehicle

roadway users that are part of the community.

3.1.2 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS

Minor Arterial

Minor arterial roads provide connectivity

between the Principal Arterial system and

provide vehicle mobility for moderate length

trips. Minor arterials in rural contexts tend to

have higher travel speeds and minimum

interference. 1

Expressway

Expressways offer a high level of vehicle

mobility, typically on roadways with a physical

barrier between directional travel lanes.

Expressways do not allow access to adjoining

land uses. 1

Principal Arterial

Principal Arterial roads also provide a high

level of vehicle mobility in both rural and urban

areas. Unlike expressways, Principal Arterials

provide access to adjacent land uses. 1

1.ODOT, Highway Functional Classification System: Concepts, Procedures, and Instructions

Source: Google Maps

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/MajorPrograms/Documents/FunctionalClassificationProcedures.pdf

27



Page 1-1

Local

Local roads provide direct access to abutting

land uses, typically local residences and

businesses. The majority of roadways in the

United States are classified as local. 1

Collector

Collectors provide connections between the

arterial network and local roads. Differences

between Major and Minor collector roads

generally involve speed limit, traffic volumes,

travel lanes, and curb cuts. 1

Source: Google Maps

28



Page 1-1

Most roads accommodate vehicles—in fact, roadways often prioritize vehicle movement

over other types of transportation options. In order to encourage equal consideration for

the multimodal transportation and mobility needs of all people, this chapter uses specific

language about the capacity of a roadway for pedestrian activity and vehicle movement.

We expect Central Ohio to see rapid population growth and demographic shifts over the

next 30 years. That growth will be accompanied by shifting demands in housing and

transportation—people will want more walkable communities with affordable transportation

options, compact housing choices, and mixed-use environments where they can live, work,

and play. Transportation and land use are inherently linked; mode choice is influenced not

only by transportation infrastructure, but land use characteristics as well. Both

transportation and land use have implications for density, public health, the environment,

and economic development. A comprehensive, focused growth approach is one that

integrates land use and transportation planning.

In a collaborative report meant to guide cities working towards a more active transportation

friendly network, ITE and CNU defined the range of Pedestrian Priority as:

“Pedestrian Places—mixed-use areas with a significant pedestrian presence, not

dominated by, and sometimes prohibiting, vehicles;

Pedestrian Supportive—mixed-use areas with moderate to significant pedestrian

presence;

Pedestrian Tolerant—areas that minimally accommodate pedestrians but do not

support a high level of pedestrian activity and are usually vehicle dominant

Pedestrian Intolerant—areas with little support for walking or that prohibit

pedestrians and are vehicle dominant.”

Opposite to the Pedestrian Priority range is Vehicle Priority, defined as:

Vehicle Place—roadways that prioritize vehicle movement with little to no

consideration for multimodal mobility

Vehicle Supportive—roadways that still primarily prioritize vehicle movement, but

with appropriate infrastructure to support multimodal transportation options

Vehicle Tolerant—areas that accommodate vehicle traffic, but have a well-connected

multimodal network that encourages active transportation through street design

and compatible land use

Vehicle Intolerant—areas that are primarily for pedestrians and may prohibit vehicle

traffic altogether always or for special events

3.1.3 PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY

29



3.1.4 PEDESTRIAN PLACES

Pedestrian Places are designed with pedestrians and cyclists in mind first and should

support a wide range of land uses. In these spaces, mixed-use, commercial retail, and

commercial office land uses should be prioritized. Compact residential and civic land uses

are also encouraged. Street design and land use for Pedestrian Places should provide

opportunity for social and economic activity through flexible and design-oriented zoning

codes, placemaking, and street furniture.

Pedestrian Places can range from vehicle supportive to vehicle intolerant. It is important

that regardless of the level of vehicle capacity, pedestrian places provide infrastructure for

safe and affordable multimodal transportation options that are accessible and inviting for

all people.

Examples of Pedestrian Places from across the region—Worthington, Easton, Downtown Columbus, Dublin, New Albany, and Gateway

District in Columbus. Sources: MORPC

https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/

https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/

http://creativeplacemaking.t4america.org/our-eight-approaches/

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2

30



3.1.5 PEDESTRIAN SUPPORTIVE PLACES

The infrastructure needed for a road to be Pedestrian Supportive will be different based on

the road classification and adjacent land use. Regardless of vehicle capacity, Pedestrian

Supportive roads require a well-connected network that gives active transportation users

safe access to necessary and recreational amenities. Higher vehicle-capacity roads can

support mixed-use, commercial retail, and commercial office land uses. Lower vehicle-

capacity roads can support mixed-use, neighborhood commercial, compact residential,

civic, and institutional land uses.

Flexible zoning practices, “Park Once and Walk” parking policies, placemaking, and design

guidelines are useful tools for creating roads that support active transportation options

while still accommodating vehicle traffic.

Examples of Pedestrian Supportive roads from around the region and the country—London, New Albany, Bridge Street District in Dublin,

Columbus, Westerville, Easton, and Kentlands, MD. Sources: MORPC, DPZ

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/faq_details.cfm?id=3478

http://creativeplacemaking.t4america.org/our-eight-approaches/

http://library.ite.org/pub/e1cff43c-2354-d714-51d9-d82b39d4dbad

http://library.ite.org/pub/e1cff43c-2354-d714-51d9-d82b39d4dbad

http://www.dpz.com/Projects/8805

31



3.1.6 PEDESTRIAN TOLERANT PLACES

Pedestrian Tolerant roads prioritize vehicle movement over multimodal transportation. They

are often characterized by wide travel lanes, wide intersections, frequent curb cuts,

dispersed land uses, large setbacks, and large amounts of surface parking. Low population

density and development intensity are indications that Pedestrian Tolerant infrastructure

may be sufficient to meet residents’ multimodal needs. When striving for a focused growth

approach to new development, Pedestrian Tolerant roads are suitable along industrial, low

density residential, and agricultural land uses.

Pedestrian Tolerant roads may not encourage mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to

walking or cycling, but they do provide essential connections to jobs and other key services

for those who either can’t or don’t prefer to drive. Pedestrian Tolerant roads must still be

safe and accessible to all users. Where appropriate, principal arterials and minor collectors

should prioritize additional intersection infrastructure and signage in order to increase

pedestrian and cyclist safety, visibility, and comfort.

Examples of Pedestrian Tolerant roads from around the region— Columbus, Westerville, Easton, and Plain City. Sources: MORPC

32



3.1.7 PEDESTRIAN INTOLERANT PLACES

Pedestrian Intolerant roads are not just those without any multimodal infrastructure –

inadequate facilities can also render a street functionally Pedestrian Intolerant. Sidewalks

that are not wide enough, lacking ADA ramps, or that are obstructed can create mobility

challenges for people. Bike lanes on high speed, high vehicle capacity roads may intimidate

all cyclists but the most experienced and confident (less than 1% of riders). Pedestrian

Intolerant roads can encourage unsafe behavior that leads to collisions and injuries.

When coupled with dispersed commercial retail or commercial office uses, roads without

sufficient multimodal infrastructure can encourage single-occupancy vehicle trips due to

concerns about safety, inconvenience, and access to desired destinations. For those whose

mobility options may be limited, Pedestrian Intolerant roads deny them the opportunity to

safely get to the amenities they need and/or want. Aside from expressways or other roads

where pedestrians are legally prohibited, it is almost never appropriate to completely

exclude pedestrian infrastructure as doing so can disproportionately impact low-income

families, the elderly, new Americans, people with disabilities, women, and/or people of

color.

Examples of Pedestrian Intolerant roads from around the region and country—Polaris, Columbus, Gahanna, and Louisville, KY.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746

33



3.2 PROPOSED NETWORK AND LAND USE ANALYSIS

Following is a proposed street network map and a proposed land use map for the

Community Center project site along Refugee Rd. and Pickerington Rd. Violet Township and

MORPC staff worked together to create these maps following guidance from local

stakeholders, best practices, and a Focused Growth approach which prioritizes compact

development to meet market demands. The maps should be viewed as suggestions for

how Violet Township can develop this greenfield site into one that meets the Township’s

vision and goals.

Along with the proposed network and land use maps, MORPC conducted an analysis to

determine how the proposed changes would impact population, employment, and traffic

within the site. The analysis was done using MORPC’s travel demand model. This analysis

is intended to provide stakeholders and decision-makers with data and information to

understand the forecasted traffic conditions resulting from proposed development and

land use changes, and roadway network modifications. Going forward, it will be the

responsibility of Violet Township staff to determine next steps for identifying appropriate

infrastructure improvements in the study area. This analysis has provided the data and

information to aid these decisions.

Refugee Rd

Picker

ington

Rd

Ault R

d

Achi

eveme

ntWay

TA Program: Violet Township Community Center ProjectProposed Land Use

Road NetworkProposed - PrimaryProposed - SecondaryExisting or ApprovedSite Boundary

ParkMixed-UseCommunity CommercialNeighborhood Commercial

Res Mod Suburban (3-5 units per acre)Res Suburban (1.5-3 units per acre)Public Service

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources made available to us which we believe to be reliable.N:\ArcGIS\CORE\Insight 2050\TA Program\Violet Township\TAP_VT_analysis\Violet_Twp_TAZ_proposedLU_only.mxd3/18/2019

Source: MORPC and Violet Township

± 0 0.25 0.5Miles

34

35



3.2.2 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS

The land use review area for this study is consistent with the area of proposed land use

changes on the east side of existing Pickerington Rd and on the north and south sides of

Refugee Rd. This includes the general area bound by Pickerington Rd and Ault Rd on the

west, and the Huntington Hills subdivision and Toll Gate Middle school campus on the east.

This area currently consists of agricultural or residential rural estate uses.

MORPC used the 2015 land use inventory, developed by MORPC as part of the 2016-2040

Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), as a starting point for the 2018 estimates. MORPC

staff then reviewed aerials and building permit data to identify the location, type, and

quantity of new development that had occurred between 2015 and 2018. These changes

were incorporated to create 2018 TAZ level estimates of households, population, and

employment.

Also as part of the 2016-2040 MTP, MORPC prepared 2040 land use forecasts for the

entire region and made them available to the local communities for their review and

approval. MORPC staff incorporated the proposed land use categories provided by Violet

Township to the future land use in the study area. The proposed land uses include a

community center and mixed use development. The proposed land uses are shown on

page 34. For documentation on how both the 2015 land use inventory and 2040 land use

forecasts were developed, refer to Appendix A of the 2016-2040 MTP.

Household density and development intensity factors were then used to estimate the

number of additional households and employees the new land use categories would

generate, accurately reflecting Violet Township’s vision for development within the study

area. Population growth was estimated based on the number of additional households,

assuming a smaller household size for the higher density residential areas (compared to

typical single family development currently in the study area). The employment estimate

includes all jobs or employees, both full-time and part-time, at the places of work within the

study area. The more employees an area has, the more home-to-work trips and business-

related trips (e.g., shopping trips for a store) it attracts and produces.

The table below summarizes the base year (2018) estimates and 2040 forecasts of

population and employment used for this traffic demand analysis for the study area.

Study Area Household, Population, and Employment Estimate and Forecast

http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/000MTPAppendix-A.pdf

Refugee Rd

2018-2040 Growth:Households: 100Population: 300Employment: 15



2018-2040 Growth:Households: 450Population: 775Employment: 1,600


2018-2040 Growth:Households: 850Population: 1,700Employment: 2,500


Picker

ington

Rd

Ault R

d

Achi

eveme

ntWay

TA Program: Violet Township Community Center ProjectLand Use & Population Estimates

Road NetworkProposed - PrimaryProposed - SecondaryExisting or ApprovedSite Boundary

ParkMixed-UseCommunity CommercialNeighborhood Commercial

Res Mod Suburban (3-5 units per acre)Res Suburban (1.5-3 units per acre)Public Service

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources made available to us which we believe to be reliable.N:\ArcGIS\CORE\Insight 2050\TA Program\Violet Township\TAP_VT_analysis\TAZ_Proposed_LU.mxd3/18/2019

Source: MORPC and Violet Township

± 0 0.25 0.5Miles

36

Picker

ington

Rd

Milno

r Rd

Refugee Rd

Scenarios can be assigned as engagement leaders see fit, or players can randomly pickfrom the scenario cardsScenarios can be assigned as engagement leaders see fit, or players can randomly pickfrom the scenario cards

Milno

r Rd

Kingfisher Ln

Hero n s Lan

ding D

r NW

DaventryDr

NW

Springcreek Dr

Ault R

dGarden Dr Apple

ton Dr

Bridge water Dr

HuntingtonWayNW

Hampton Dr

Refugee Rd

Windridge Dr

Picke

ringto

n Rd

Fox RunSt NW

Stemen Rd

Edge

water

Dr

B ri dgeview

Dr

Gree

nwoo

d Dr

Gearied St NW

Riverton

Cir

NW

Ach

ievem e ntWa

y

FoxRunC

tNW

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources made available to us which we believe to be reliable.N:\ArcGIS\CORE\Insight 2050\TA Program\Violet Township\Proposed_Network.mxd3/18/2019

SiteParcels within siteboundary

± 0 0.25 0.5Miles Existing road

Primary Proposed RoadSecondary Proposed RoadProposed Cul-de-sac

Approved Subdivision Road

TA Program: Violet Township Community Center ProjectProposed Street Network

37

38



3.2.4 TRAVEL FORECASTS

The 2018 household, population and employment estimates and 2040 population and

employment forecasts were used as input data to the travel demand model. The model

uses the data to project future traffic volumes on the roadways in the study area based on

where people live and work.

Violet Township staff worked with project stakeholders to develop a proposed network of

primary and secondary roadways, differing from the existing network. An additional

supporting network of roadways will be identified based on development needs. The

proposed network modifications include a realignment of Pickerington Rd. and adding a

roundabout to intersect a new east-west facility that turns south at the eastern part of the

study area to connect with Allen Rd. The proposed roadway network map is shown in on

page 37.

For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed roadway network is referred to as the

“2040 Build Scenario.” The resulting forecast traffic volumes are displayed on page 41.

A “No-Build” scenario was also analyzed. This scenario assumes no significant changes in

planned land uses (but assumes natural population and employment growth, in line with

recent trends), and no roadway network modifications. The resulting forecast volumes are

displayed on page 40.

Naturally, the Build Scenario has greater traffic volumes overall, due to the increased

population and employment in the area. The greatest difference between the two scenarios

is on the western leg of Refugee Rd. Traffic volumes in the Build Scenario are greater by

about 10,000, for a total of 23,000 in the Build Scenario. This volume is within the

capacity of a 5-lane facility (based on the recommended improvements from a 2018 traffic

study completed by TEC), but does exceed the capacity of the existing 2 to 3-lane facility.

As the site develops and the roadway network is improved and modified, the following

considerations are strongly encouraged relating to Refugee Rd:

A strong supporting network of east-west corridors to relieve some of the demand on

Refugee Rd.

Safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities and crossings

Strategic driveway access management

Reduced speed limit (35 mph) through more densely developed areas

Volumes decrease on the western leg of Stemen Road in the Build Scenario, likely due to

the proposed new roadway being the preferred route alternative.

Miln

or R

d

Pick

erin

gton

Rd

Refugee Rd

3000

60007000

9000

4000

4000

10000

600050

00

1000

1000

900010000

11000

2000

2000

2000

3000

60005000

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources available to us which we believe to be reliable.\\tdata2\transii\PROJECTS\Requests\2018_08_Violet Twp TAP\GIS_Files\GISmap\2015link_.mxd 10/17/2018

2018 Traffic VolumesTA Program: Violet Township Community Center Project

±0 0.25 0.5Miles

Volumes on Model Links

0 - 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 20,000

20,000 +

Study Area

Site Boundary

Road

Miln

or R

d

Pick

erin

gton

Rd

Refugee Rd

NCen

ter S

t¬«204

¬«204

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources available to us which we believe to be reliable.\\tdata2\transii\PROJECTS\Requests\2018_08_Violet Twp TAP\GIS_Files\GISmap\2040nobuild.mxd 10/17/2018

±

2040 No Build Traffic VolumesTA Program: Violet Township Community Center Project

Volumes on Model Links

0 - 1,000

1,001 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 20,000

20,000+

Study Area

Site Boundary

Roads

Miln

or R

d

Pick

erin

gton

Rd

NCen

ter S

t

Refugee Rd

¬«204

¬«204

The information shown on this map is compiled from varioussources available to us which we believe to be reliable.O:\PROJECTS\Requests\2018_08_Violet Twp TAP\GIS_Files\GISmap\2040build.mxd 10/19/2018

±0 0.25 0.5Miles

TA Program: Violet Township Community Center Project2040 Build Traffic Volumes

Study Area

Site Boundary

Road



Chapter 4: Economic

Development

43



4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In preparation for growth forecasted by the insight2050 report, Violet Township has

developed a vision for a mixed-use community anchored by a community center. The

envisioned development site will include medical and professional offices, retail spaces,

and a range of housing options that can attract and retain empty-nesters, young

professionals, and families. The development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the

previous chapter characterize this vision and are consistent with the township’s proposed

Community Center and recreation facilities, which will not only meet the community’s

current recreation needs and improve the Township’s quality of life, but can also be a

significant component of the economic development strategy for the future of the entire

600-acre site along Refugee Rd. and Pickerington Rd.

This chapter of the final report is meant to assist Violet Township as they develop an

economic development strategy that integrates the community’s heritage and incorporates

insight2050 principles. The chapter begins with an overview of economic benefits

associated with recreation facilities then reports regional, Township, and site-specific

employment analyses. It is intended to be a resource for Violet Township staff as they

engage the community, stakeholders, and decision makers about the current and future

economic development goals for the Refugee Rd./Pickerington Rd. proposed Community

Center site.

The employment analysis data reported in the analyses was collected from the Longitudinal

Employment-Household Dynamic (LEHD) program by the U.S. Census Bureau which

spatially links home location, work location, demographics, and industry data. The LEHD

data in this report provides a profile of industry jobs, and the employees who work within

the site boundary for the Community Center Project, within Violet Township, and within the

Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). There is a close relationship between

economic development, transportation, and land use. The information in the chapter is

meant to provide a snapshot of current conditions and offer insight into potential economic

development opportunities for Violet Township as they relate to regional trends in industry

and demographics.

Source: City of Pickerington

44



4.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECREATION

Park and recreation facilities offer environmental, health,

and equity benefits. Green spaces can improve the

community’s physical and mental health by providing

opportunities for active lifestyles while simultaneously

keeping our water, air, and soils cleaner. Park and

recreation facilities can also offer significant economic

benefits to communities like Violet Township. Each year,

public parks account for $200 billion of economic activity

across the nation. 1 The proposed Community Center will

provide space to host tournaments and competitions and

events that will provide opportunity for attendees to

patronize nearby businesses. With a creative economic

development plan, Violet Township can capitalize on the

vitality that recreation facilities add to a community.

Thoughtful integration of the Community Center and

associated public spaces with the proposed mixed-use

development will allow the Township to promote them as

an asset to developers, businesses, and residents. Parks

and recreation facilities are a significant aspect of quality

of life and sense of place. “Investments in improving a

community’s quality of life can create a virtuous cycle:

high quality-of-life locations attract workers, which attract

employers, which in turn attract even more investment

and jobs.” 2 Attracting residents and businesses to this

site will allow the Township to generate new revenue

through a focused growth approach to development.

Today’s talent-seeking companies are looking for office locations near housing and

transportation options, and the workplace amenities that their employees want, whether

they are young or experienced professionals. 3 The insight2050 report tells us that as

Central Ohio continues to grow over the next 30 years, both millennials and baby boomers

alike will increase demand for compact, walkable communities with nearby lifestyle

amenities. People of course want easy access to the places they need to go – home and

work – but they also want to be near the places they like to go – cafes, restaurants, retail

shops, daily amenities, civic services, parks and public spaces. The Community Center

Project site presents an opportunity for Violet Township to meet this demand for young

professionals, downsizing baby boomers, and also for older adults looking to age-in-place.

Whether the Township is targeting large, medium, small, and/or local business owners, it

will be important to actively place-promote the Community Center as the anchor of the

proposed future development. The Township can do this by pursuing partnerships and

The impacts of local park and recreation agency

spending on the United States economy in 2015.

Source: National Recreation and Park

Association

1.National Recreation and Park Association, Economic Impact of Local Parks Executive Summary

2.National Recreation and Park Association, Promoting Parks and Recreation’s Role in Economic Development

3.NAOIP, Preferred Office Locations: Comparing Location Preferences and Performance

https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/research/economic-impact-study-summary-2018.pdf

https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/nrpa-economic-development-report.pdf

https://www.naiop.org/-/media/Research/Research/Research-Reports/Preferred-Office-Locations/Preferred-Office-Locations-Final-Report.ashx?la=en

45



engaging potential employers as part of the economic development strategy for the site.

For example, in the City of Westerville, the parks department and economic development

department work together closely to recruit companies. The parks department offers

companies programs like “Workplace Wellness” which allows full-time Westerville-based

workers and their families access to the city’s recreation facilities for resident rates, even if

they do not live within Westerville. Both Westerville and participating companies benefit

from the program since “healthy and active workforces benefit businesses by increasing

productivity...and controlling healthcare costs.” 4 The City of Westerville views these

programs as a way to integrate employers into the local community and encourage

Westerville-based workers to consider moving to the city based on their positive

experiences in the community. 5

A thorough economic development strategy for the Community Center Project site should

be informed by a market analyses; but before that phase, the Township can continue to

think creatively about how to maximize the direct and indirect economic impacts of the

proposed park and recreation facilities at this site.

4.City of Westerville, Workplace Wellness webpage

5.National Recreation and Park Association, Promoting Parks and Recreation’s Role in Economic Development

https://business.westerville.org/home/showdocument?id=25651

https://business.westerville.org/business-support/workplace-wellness

https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/nrpa-economic-development-report.pdf

46



4.2 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

The data on the following three pages was collected from the Longitudinal Employer-

Household Dynamics (LEHD) program by the U.S. Census Bureau. The data is from 2015.

To provide both local and regional context for the information, the data pertains to

employees who work within 3 areas:

1. Columbus, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). That includes the following

counties: Union, Delaware, Morrow, Madison, Franklin, Licking, Pickaway,

Fairfield, Perry, and Hocking. In total, there are 999,665 jobs within the MSA.

2. Violet Township. That includes unincorporated portions of Fairfield County and

the incorporated portions of Pickerington, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, and

Lithopolis which fall within the Township boundary. In total, there are 11,911

jobs located within Violet Township.

3. The Pickerington Rd. / Refugee Rd. Community Center project site boundary.

There is a total of 476 jobs located on the site, which is about 4% of the total

jobs within Violet Township.

To see the raw data for the employment analysis of each of these areas, see Appendix C of

this report.

47



4.2.1 METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS

In the Columbus MSA region:

The top 5 industries are:

Health Care and Social Assistance—14%

Retail Trade—11%

Educational Services—9%

Accommodation and Food Services—9%

Administration and Support / Waste Management and Remediation—8%

There is an even split between male and female employees in the region

18% of employees are non-white

43% of employees make more than $3,333 per month ($39,996 annually) while about

23% make less than $1,250 ($15,000 annually)

About 55% of those working within the MSA are between the ages of 30 and 54

24% are age 29 or younger, and 19% are age 54 or older

Of the reported employees, 62% have had some additional education beyond high

school equivalent

48



4.2.2 VIOLET TOWNSHIP EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS

In Violet Township:

The industry with the highest number of employees is Retail, with just over 20% of jobs

Accommodation/Food service, and Administration and Support/Waste Management

each account for 18% of jobs in the Township

Educational Services and Healthcare/Social Assistance each account for about 9% of

jobs in Violet Township

White employees compose the majority, 88% of employees

About 53% of employees working in the Township are male

About 42% of workers in Violet Township make between $1,250 and $3,333 per month

($15,000—$39,996 annually)

28% of workers make more than $3,333 monthly

Of the reported employees within the township, just under 36% have had some addi-

tional education beyond high school equivalent

About 48% of employees working in the township are between the ages of 30 and 54

35% of workers are under age 30 and about 17% are over age 55

49



4.2.3 SITE BOUNDARY EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS

Within the boundary of the Community Center Project site:

Over 50% of jobs are in the Educational Service industry, as Pickerington High School

North is located within the site

Transportation and Warehouse jobs compose about 20% of workers on the site

15% of employees on the site work in Retail Trade

Accommodations and Food Services account for just under 7% of jobs

Unlike Violet Township, the overwhelming majority of employees within the site are

women—70%

Employees within the site have a higher educational attainment than compared to the

township, with 60% of reported employees having some education beyond a high

school equivalent

Only 20% of workers on the site are under the age of 30 and over 26% are over the age

of 54

9% of employees on the site are non-white



Chapter 5: Conclusion

51



Page 1-1

This report is intended to be a toolkit for Township residents and officials to shape their future for a

growing population and changing household demographics. While the focus is on former farms

along Pickerington and Refugee roads, what happens there can be a model for a larger township

initiative going forward. The same tools can be used over a broader area and in a variety of ways.

For example, the Context Sensitive Solutions process – a major factor in the Case Study Report and

the Transportation & Land Use Analysis – may not answer all your questions. Rather, it helps to

determine what questions to ask in search of solutions. By asking pertinent questions, the

community decides how to balance a desire for a walkable neighborhood with a busy thoroughfare

slated for widening and 45 mph speeds.

Likewise, the Industry Insights section illustrates how population growth translates into job growth.

The community, through planning and zoning, determines where different types of jobs may be

located, and how those areas interact with residential or institutional and recreational areas. The

proposed community center, for example, complements many other land uses. Are there ways for it

to share parking with nearby retail or job centers? Will residents be able to go shopping after a

workout or a community event without having to move the car?

This document offers resources, examples, and ideas to help Violet Township determine what

finance models might be used to develop the area; what green-infrastructure models are

appropriate to manage stormwater and perhaps beautify the streetscapes; and what businesses

and services are the best fit in a new town center that will meet residents’ needs and the job

market. It offers information on population estimates, and on the costs of housing and

transportation, which in turn can help the community what types of housing options are needed in

the township.

The process of generating this report has been a highly collaborative effort among Violet Township

staff, property owners in the target area, many community stakeholders and MORPC staff.

CONCLUSION

This page intentionally left blank

53

Violet Township Community Center Project: Insight 2050 TA Program Final Report

Appendix A: Insight2050 Summary Metrics

scenarioAPast Trends

This scenario extends the land use and transportation investment decisions of the past decades forward to 2050. A majority of growth is accommodated on previously undeveloped land, with most growth (85%) tending towards suburban and rural, auto-oriented development. New development is composed primarily of larger-lot single family homes and suburban office parks and commercial centers.

scenarioBPlanned Future

The housing and job distribution of this scenario reflects the direction of local plans and policies from the cities and townships across the Central Ohio region. There is more Compact growth than in the Past Trends scenario, and more smaller-lot single family and attached homes, though the majority of growth is still auto-oriented and tends to be located at the periphery of cities and towns. About half of new growth is accommodated as infill or redevelopment; the rest occurs on previously undeveloped land.

scenarioCFocused Growth

This scenario seeks to accommodate more growth in infill and redevelopment locations in and around existing cities and towns. Land patterns and housing mix are informed by housing demand forecasts, with significantly more smaller-lot single family, attached single family, and multifamily homes than the Planned Future or Past Trends scenarios. A large majority (84%) of growth takes the form of Compact development in walkable, moderate intensity mixed-use areas. There is also significant Urban development (10% of new growth) in Downtown Columbus. There is very little Standard growth or new larger-lot single family housing development in this scenario, as the majority of demand for this product is met through the existing supply.

scenarioDMaximum Infill

This scenario strives to maximize growth accommodated through infill on previously developed lands and within existing urban areas. The Urban place type assumes nearly 30% of growth in existing city centers and commercial corridors where significant redevelopment opportunities exist. An additional 70% takes the form of moderate intensity and walkable Compact development. Like the Focused Future scenario, the residential mix is informed by housing demand forecasts, with significantly higher proportions of multifamily, attached single family/townhomes, and smaller-lot single family homes. There is very little new larger-lot single family housing development in this scenario, as the majority of demand for this product is met through the existing supply.

insight2050 Scenarios OverviewEach of the insight2050 scenarios represents a different way of accommodating projected housing and job growth in Central Ohio to the year 2050. Each includes the same total number of people, homes, and jobs, but varies in where and how they are located across the region. The scenarios

also vary in terms of the types of homes that will be built in the coming decades, and the extent to which their mix of housing types meet the demands of Central Ohio's current and future residents.

54

Housing Unit MixInfill / Redeveloped Landvs. Undeveloped LandPlace Type Proportions

2010

2010

2010

2010

NewGrowth to

Resulting Housing Mix

Multifamily

Multifamily

Multifamily

Multifamily

Single Family Attached




Smaller Lot(<7,200 sq ft)




Larger Lot (>7,200 sq ft)




Rural Lot

Rural Lot

Rural Lot

Rural Lot

39%9%

20%9%

23%

80%

Infill / Redeveloped Land

20%Standard 86%

Standard 4%

Compact 13%

Compact 69%

Urban 1%

Urban 27%

NewGrowth


36%6%

24%

25%

35%4%

25%

10% 9%

26%

45%


55%

NewGrowth



65%

35%

NewGrowth


10%


90%

37%

37%

37%

37%

45%6%

6%

6%

6%

16%

24%

24%

24%

24%

9%

8%

8%

8%

8%

10%

25%

25%

25%

25%

20%

26%

27%

4%

4%

27%

30%

12%

11%

31%

28%

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

33%

46%

19%

16%

47%

37%

Standard 69%Compact 28%Urban 3%

Standard 6%Compact 84%Urban 10%

Undeveloped Land Growth




55

insight2050 Scenario Metrics Summary

scenarioAPast Trends

scenarioBPlanned Future

scenarioCFocused Growth

scenarioDMaximum Infill

The comparative scenario metrics summarized here are described in more detail in the following sections. For clarity, values are rounded. All costs are expressed in 2014 dollars.

The housing and job distribution of this scenario reflects the direction of local plans and policies from the cities and townships across the Central Ohio region.

This scenario seeks to accommodate more growth in infill and redevelopment locations in and around existing cities and towns.

This scenario strives to maximize growth accommodated through infill on previously developed lands and within existing urban areas.

LandConsumptionIncludes all previously undeveloped land that is urbanized from 2010-2050.

495

270

square miles

square miles

45

15

square miles

square miles

Transportation

Miles driven in passenger vehicles in Central Ohio in 2050.

15.9

15.4

billion miles

billion miles

12.0

11.1

billion miles

billion miles

8,450 miles / year(per new resident, 2050)




Capital and ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for new local roads, sewer, water, waste-water infra structure, and select services (2010-2050).

LocalFiscal Impacts

billion

billion

$16.4

$15.8

billion

billion

$13.2

$13.0

O&M

12

11.3

10

10

Capital

4.4

4.5

3.2

3

$408 Million Average Annual CostsCapital + O&M 2010-2050




This scenario extends the land use and transportation investment decisions of the past decades forward to 2050.

56

BuildingEnergy UseCumulative energy (electric-ity and gas) consumed by new and existing residential and commercial buildings from 2010-2050.

4.27

4.23

quadrillion Btu(British thermal units)

quadrillion Btu

4.15

4.12

quadrillion Btu

quadrillion Btu

$78.2 Billion Cumulative Costs 2010-2050




Cumulative water used to serve and maintain new and exist ing homes from 2010 - 2050.

BuildingWater Use

trillion gallons

trillion gallons

trillion gallons

trillion gallons

3.19

3.12

3.03

3.01

Annual CO2e emissions from passenger vehicles, and residential and commer-cial buildings, in 2050.

GreenhouseGas Emissions

35.8

35.2MMT / year

MMT / year(Million Metric Tons)

33.2

32.7

MMT / year

MMT / year

Buildings

29.06

28.76

28.20

28.03

Transport

6.71

6.47

5.05

4.67

Annual costs due to health incidences related to auto emissions, including hospitalization, premature mortality, and lost work days, in 2050.

PublicHealth Costs

Scenario A used as baseline for comparison

-$41 Million

-$246 Million

-$315Million

Annual automobile trans-portation (fuel, insurance, mainte nance) and home energy and water costs, in 2050

HouseholdCosts

per new household

per new household

$13,100

$11,600

per new household

per new household$7,700

$6,800

57

58


Appendix B: Transect Types Street Design

Matrices & Glossary

PPede

stria

n Pl

aces

—D

esig

n G

uide

lines

Pr

inci

pal A

rter

ial

Min

or A

rter

ial

Col

lect

or

Loca

l Tr

avel

Zon

e D

esig

n N

umbe

r of L

anes

4

- 6

2 -

4 2

- 4

2 -

3

Wid

th o

f Lan

es

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 9

- 1

1'

Traf

fic c

alm

ing

Rai

sed

med

ians

B

us b

ulbs

Rai

sed

med

ians

R

ound

abou

ts

Chok

ers

Bus

bul

bs

Text

ured

pav

emen

t

Rai

sed

med

ians

Tr

affic

circ

les

Chok

ers

One

-way

str

eets

Te

xtur

ed p

avem

ent

Spee

d bu

mps

Ch

ican

es

Min

i-tra

ffic

circ

le

Chok

ers

One

-way

str

eets

Pede

stria

n Zo

ne D

esig

n Cu

rb Z

one

6" -

1'

6" -

1'

6"

6"

Buf

fer

/

Furn

ishi

ngs

Zone

2' -

6'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

B

us s

helte

rs

2' -

5'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

B

us s

helte

rs /

bus

sto

ps

2' -

4’

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

2' -

4’

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

Pede

stria

n Th

roug

h Zo

ne

5' -

12

' 5

' - 8

' 5

' 5

'

Fron

tage

Zon

e

2' -

6’

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g Ca

fé s

eatin

g

2' -

6’

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g Ca

fé s

eatin

g

0 -

6’

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g Ca

fé s

eatin

g

0’ -

2'

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g

Inte

rsec

tion

Des

ign

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Exte

nded

cro

ssin

g tim

e

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck s

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

Pe

dest

rian

refu

ge a

reas

Cu

rb e

xten

sion

s R

aise

d cr

ossw

alks

R

aise

d in

ters

ectio

ns

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

M

id-b

lock

sig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck u

nsig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Pede

stria

n re

fuge

are

as

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Rai

sed

cros

swal

ks

Rai

sed

inte

rsec

tions

Uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

M

id-b

lock

uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

Pe

dest

rian

refu

ge a

reas

Cu

rb e

xten

sion

s R

aise

d cr

ossw

alks

R

aise

d in

ters

ectio

ns

Bic

ycle

Zon

e D

esig

n B

arrie

r-sep

arat

ed b

ike

lane

5

' - 7

'

Bar

rier-s

epar

ated

bik

e la

ne

Buf

fere

d bi

ke la

ne

5' -

7'

Buf

fere

d bi

ke la

ne

Bik

e la

ne

Shar

row

s M

UP ≥

10

'

Buf

fere

d bi

ke la

ne

Bik

e la

ne

Shar

row

s M

UP ≥

10

'

Park

ing

Des

ign

Stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng

Wal

l / h

edge

enc

lose

d su

rfac

e lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Free

/met

ered

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Dia

gona

l on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Rea

r/al

ley-

acce

ss s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

Free

/met

ered

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Dia

gona

l on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Rea

r/al

ley-

acce

ss s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

Free

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

59

PPede

stria

n Su

ppor

tive—

Des

ign

Gui

delin

es

Prin

cipa

l Art

eria

l M

inor

Art

eria

l C

olle

ctor

Lo

cal

Trav

el Z

one

Des

ign

Num

ber o

f Lan

es

4 -

6 2

- 4

2 -

4 2

- 3

Wid

th o

f Lan

es

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 9

- 1

1'

Traf

fic c

alm

ing

Rai

sed

med

ians

B

us b

ulbs

Rai

sed

med

ians

R

ound

abou

ts

Chok

ers

Text

ured

pav

emen

t

Rai

sed

med

ians

Ch

oker

s Te

xtur

ed p

avem

ent

Spee

d bu

mps

Ch

oker

s O

ne-w

ay s

tree

ts

Pede

stria

n Zo

ne D

esig

n Cu

rb Z

one

6"

6"

6"

6"

Buf

fer

/

Furn

ishi

ngs

Zone

2' -

6'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

B

us s

helte

rs

2' -

5'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

2'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

B

ench

es /

tras

h ca

ns

Bik

e ra

cks

2'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge /

ban

ners

Pede

stria

n Th

roug

h Zo

ne

5' -

12

’ 5

' - 8

’ 5

' 5

'

Fron

tage

Zon

e 2

' Pl

ante

rs /

land

scap

ing

Out

door

sea

ting

2'

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g

2'

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g

2'

Plan

ters

/ la

ndsc

apin

g O

utdo

or s

eatin

g

Inte

rsec

tion

Des

ign

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Exte

nded

cro

ssin

g tim

e

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck s

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

Pe

dest

rian

refu

ge a

reas

Cu

rb e

xten

sion

s R

aise

d cr

ossw

alks

R

aise

d in

ters

ectio

ns

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

M

id-b

lock

sig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck u

nsig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Rai

sed

cros

swal

ks

Rai

sed

inte

rsec

tions

Uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

M

id-b

lock

uns

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

Cu

rb e

xten

sion

s R

aise

d cr

ossw

alks

R

aise

d in

ters

ectio

ns

Bic

ycle

Zon

e D

esig

n B

uffe

red

bike

lane

B

uffe

red

bike

lane

B

ike

lane

Sh

arro

ws

Buf

fere

d bi

ke la

ne

Bik

e la

ne

Shar

row

s M

UP ≥

10

'

Shar

row

s M

UP ≥

10

'

Park

ing

Des

ign

Stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng

Wal

l / h

edge

enc

lose

d su

rfac

e lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Free

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Dia

gona

l on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Rea

r/al

ley-

acce

ss s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

Free

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Dia

gona

l on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

Free

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Min

imal

cur

b cu

ts

60

PPede

stria

n To

lera

nt—

Des

ign

Gui

delin

es

Prin

cipa

l Art

eria

l M

inor

Art

eria

l C

olle

ctor

Lo

cal

Trav

el Z

one

Des

ign

Num

ber o

f Lan

es

4 -

6 2

- 4

2 -

4 2

- 3

Wid

th o

f Lan

es

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 1

0 -

11

' 9

- 1

1'

Traf

fic c

alm

ing

Rai

sed

med

ians

R

aise

d m

edia

ns

Rou

ndab

outs

R

aise

d m

edia

ns

Spee

d bu

mps

Pede

stria

n Zo

ne D

esig

n Cu

rb Z

one

6"

6"

6"

6"

Buf

fer

/

Furn

ishi

ngs

Zone

2'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge

Ben

ches

/ tr

ash

cans

B

us s

helte

rs

2'

Gra

ss /

tree

s /

land

scap

ing

/ G

SI

Stre

et li

ghts

/ s

igna

ge

1’6

” - 2

' G

rass

/ tr

ees

/ la

ndsc

apin

g /

GSI

St

reet

ligh

ts /

sig

nage

1’6

” - 2

' G

rass

/ tr

ees

/ la

ndsc

apin

g /

GSI

St

reet

ligh

ts /

sig

nage

Pede

stria

n Th

roug

h Zo

ne

5'

5'

5'

5'

Fron

tage

Zon

e N

A

NA

NA

NA

Inte

rsec

tion

Des

ign

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Exte

nded

cro

ssin

g tim

e

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Pede

stria

n re

fuge

are

as

Curb

ext

ensi

ons

Sign

aliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck s

igna

lized

cro

ssw

alks

U

nsig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Mid

-blo

ck u

nsig

naliz

ed c

ross

wal

ks

Bic

ycle

Zon

e D

esig

n B

uffe

red

bike

lane

B

uffe

red

bike

lane

B

ike

lane

B

ike

lane

M

UP ≥

10

' Sh

arro

ws

MU

P ≥

10

'

Park

ing

Des

ign

Wal

l / h

edge

enc

lose

d su

rfac

e lo

ts

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

Scre

enin

g

Shar

ed s

urfa

ce lo

ts

61

Transect Types Glossary Click the links below for more information about each street design element.

• Barrier-separated bike lane

• Bike lane

• Buffered bike lane

• Bus bulb

• Bus shelter

• Bus stop

• Chicane

• Choker / Curb extension

• Crossing time (signalphasing)

• Curb cuts

• Curb zone

• Diagonal on-street parking

• Frontage Zone

• Furnishings zone

• Green StormwaterInfrastructure (GSI)

• Metered on-street parking

• Mid-block signalizedcrosswalk

• Mid-block unsignalizedcrosswalk

• Mini-traffic circle

• Multi-use path (MUP)

• Parking lot design

• Pedestrian refuge area

• Pedestrian through zone

• Planters

• Raised crosswalk

• Raised intersection

• Raised median

• Roundabout

• Screening

• Shared parking

• Sharrows

• Signage

• Signalized crosswalks

• Speed bump

• Street furniture

• Structured parking

• Textured pavement

• Trees

• Unsignalized crosswalks

Linked sources: MORPC Complete Streets Toolkit, NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, Montgomery County Planning Commission Sustainable Green Parking Lots

62




https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/bus-bulbs/


http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf#page%3D70






























https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9735/Green-Sustainable-Parking-Guide-2_10_2016-Web#page=47



http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_streetscape_wayfinding.cfm








http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf


https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/bus-bulbs/

https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9735/Green-Sustainable-Parking-Guide-2_10_2016-Web

https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9735/Green-Sustainable-Parking-Guide-2_10_2016-Web

63


Appendix C: Longitudinal Employment-

Household Dynamic Data (2015) Raw Data Tables

18

LEH

D E

mpl

oym

ent A

naly

sis

Dat

a JJo

bs b

y In

dust

ry

Site

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

In

dust

ry

Coun

t Sh

are

Indu

stry

Co

unt

Shar

e In

dust

ry

Coun

t Sh

are

Cons

truc

tion

1

0.2

%

Cons

truc

tion

43

7

3.7

%

Cons

truc

tion

34

,55

0

3.5

%

Ret

ail T

rade

7

3

15

.3%

R

etai

l Tra

de

2,4

93

2

0.9

%

Ret

ail T

rade

1

05

,57

1

10

.6%

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d W

areh

ousi

ng

90

1

8.9

%

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d W

areh

ousi

ng

27

7

2.3

%

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d W

areh

ousi

ng

51

,67

1

5.2

%

Prof

essi

onal

, Sci

entif

ic, a

nd

Tech

nica

l Ser

vice

s 1

3

2.7

%

Prof

essi

onal

, Sci

entif

ic, a

nd

Tech

nica

l Ser

vice

s 3

83

3

.2%

Pr

ofes

sion

al, S

cien

tific

, and

Te

chni

cal S

ervi

ces

62

,43

9

6.2

%

Educ

atio

nal S

ervi

ces

25

1

52

.7%

Ed

ucat

iona

l Ser

vice

s 1

,09

8

9.2

%

Educ

atio

nal S

ervi

ces

88

,71

5

8.9

%

Hea

lth C

are

and

Soci

al

Assi

stan

ce

14

2

.9%

H

ealth

Car

e an

d So

cial

As

sist

ance

1

,04

6

8.8

%

Hea

lth C

are

and

Soci

al

Assi

stan

ce

13

9,2

38

1

3.9

%

Acco

mm

odat

ion

and

Food

Se

rvic

es

32

6

.7%

Ac

com

mod

atio

n an

d Fo

od

Serv

ices

2

,16

6

18

.2%

Ac

com

mod

atio

n an

d Fo

od

Serv

ices

8

9,4

14

8

.9%

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

(exc

ludi

ng

Publ

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n)

2

0.4

%

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

(exc

ludi

ng

Publ

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n)

37

1

3.1

%

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

(exc

ludi

ng

Publ

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n)

29

,99

4

3.0

%

Agric

ultu

re, F

ores

try,

Fis

hing

, an

d H

untin

g 0

0

.0%

Ag

ricul

ture

, For

estr

y, F

ishi

ng,

and

Hun

ting

0

0.0

%

Agric

ultu

re, F

ores

try,

Fis

hing

, an

d H

untin

g 2

,56

8

0.3

%

Min

ing,

Qua

rryi

ng, a

nd O

il an

d G

as E

xtra

ctio

n 0

0

.0%

M

inin

g, Q

uarr

ying

, and

Oil

and

Gas

Ext

ract

ion

5

0.0

%

Min

ing,

Qua

rryi

ng, a

nd O

il an

d G

as E

xtra

ctio

n 1

,05

4

0.1

%

Util

ities

0

0

.0%

U

tiliti

es

64

0

.5%

U

tiliti

es

6,3

14

0

.6%

M

anuf

actu

ring

0

0.0

%

Man

ufac

turin

g 3

22

2

.7%

M

anuf

actu

ring

73

,22

4

7.3

%

Who

lesa

le T

rade

0

0

.0%

W

hole

sale

Tra

de

14

9

1.3

%

Who

lesa

le T

rade

4

0,9

04

4.1

%

Info

rmat

ion

0

0.0

%

Info

rmat

ion

10

8

0.9

%

Info

rmat

ion

19

,09

7

1.9

%

Fina

nce

and

Insu

ranc

e 0

0

.0%

Fi

nanc

e an

d In

sura

nce

15

5

1.3

%

Fina

nce

and

Insu

ranc

e 6

3,4

26

6

.3%

Rea

l Est

ate

and

Ren

tal a

nd

Leas

ing

0

0.0

%

Rea

l Est

ate

and

Ren

tal a

nd

Leas

ing

11

4

1.0

%

Rea

l Est

ate

and

Ren

tal a

nd

Leas

ing

13

,35

2

1.3

%

Man

agem

ent o

f Com

pani

es

and

Ente

rpris

es

0

0.0

%

Man

agem

ent o

f Com

pani

es

and

Ente

rpris

es

10

0

0.8

%

Man

agem

ent o

f Com

pani

es

and

Ente

rpris

es

42

,63

6

4.3

%

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Supp

ort,

Was

te M

anag

emen

t and

R

emed

iatio

n 0

0

.0%

Ad

min

istr

atio

n an

d Su

ppor

t, W

aste

Man

agem

ent a

nd

Rem

edia

tion

2,1

84

1

8.3

%

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Supp

ort,

Was

te M

anag

emen

t and

R

emed

iatio

n 7

8,4

56

7

.8%

Arts

, Ent

erta

inm

ent,

and

Rec

reat

ion

0

0.0

%

Arts

, Ent

erta

inm

ent,

and

Rec

reat

ion

15

0

1.3

%

Arts

, Ent

erta

inm

ent,

and

Rec

reat

ion

14

,32

3

1.4

%

Publ

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n 0

0

.0%

Pu

blic

Adm

inis

trat

ion

28

9

2.4

%

Publ

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n 4

2,7

19

4

.3%

To

tal

27

6

10

0.0

%

Tota

l 1

1,9

11

1

00

.0%

To

tal

99

9,6

65

1

00

.0%

64

19

JJobs

by

Wor

ker R

ace

Site

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

R

ace

Coun

t Sh

are

Rac

e Co

unt

Shar

e R

ace

Coun

t Sh

are

Whi

te

42

6

89

.5%

W

hite

1

0,5

02

88

.2%

W

hite

8

27

,88

5

82

.8%

Bla

ck o

r Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

43

8

.2%

B

lack

or A

fric

an

Amer

ican

1

,09

8

9.2

%

Bla

ck o

r Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

13

0,8

28

1

3.1

%

Amer

ican

Indi

an o

r Al

aska

Nat

ive

0

0

.0%

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Alas

ka N

ativ

e

30

0

.3%

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Alas

ka N

ativ

e

2,4

49

0

.2%

Asia

n

2

0.4

%

Asia

n

14

1

1.2

%

Asia

n

25

,95

3

2.6

%

Nat

ive

Haw

aiia

n or

ot

her

Paci

fic Is

land

er

1

0.2

%

Nat

ive

Haw

aiia

n or

ot

her

Paci

fic Is

land

er

2

0.0

%

Nat

ive

Haw

aiia

n or

ot

her

Paci

fic Is

land

er

46

7

0.0

%

Two

or m

ore

race

gr

oups

4

0

.6%

Tw

o or

mor

e ra

ce

grou

ps

13

8

1.2

%

Two

or m

ore

race

gr

oups

1

2,0

83

1

.2%

Tota

l 4

76

1

00

.0%

To

tal

11

,91

1 1

00

.0%

To

tal

99

9,6

65

1

00

.0%

Jobs

by

Gen

der

Site

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

Se

x Co

unt

Shar

e Se

x Co

unt

Shar

e Se

x Co

unt

Shar

e

Mal

e 1

44

3

0.3

%

Mal

e 6

,27

3

52

.7%

M

ale

49

8,9

93

4

9.9

%

Fem

ale

33

2

69

.7%

Fe

mal

e 5

,63

8

47

.3%

Fe

mal

e 5

00

,67

2

50

.1%

Tota

l 4

76

1

00

.0%

To

tal

11

,91

1 1

00

.0%

To

tal

99

9,6

65

1

00

.0%

Jobs

by

Age

Site

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

Ag

e Co

unt

Shar

e Ag

e Co

unt

Shar

e Ag

e Co

unt

Shar

e

29

or y

oung

er

99

2

0.8

%

29

or y

oung

er

4,2

06

3

5.3

%

29

or y

oung

er

24

5,9

64

2

4.6

%

30

to 5

4

25

1

52

.7%

3

0 to

54

5

,73

5

48

.1%

3

0 to

54

5

55

,51

3

55

.6%

55

or o

lder

1

26

2

6.5

%

55

or o

lder

1

,97

0

16

.5%

5

5 o

r old

er

19

8,1

88

1

9.8

%

Tota

l 4

76

1

00

.0%

To

tal

11

,91

1 1

00

.0%

To

tal

99

9,6

65

1

00

.0%

65

20

JJobs

by

Earn

ings

Si

te

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

Ea

rnin

gs

Coun

t Sh

are

Earn

ings

Co

unt

Sh

are

Earn

ings

Co

unt

Shar

e

$1

,25

0 p

er m

onth

or

less

1

49

3

1.3

%

$1

,25

0 p

er m

onth

or

less

3

,59

6

30

.2%

$

1,2

50

per

mon

th o

r le

ss

23

3,9

30

2

3.4

%

$1

,25

1 to

$3,

33

3 p

er

mon

th

16

8

35

.3%

$

1,2

51

to $

3,3

33

per

m

onth

5

,07

5

42

.6%

$

1,2

51

to $

3,3

33

per

m

onth

3

34

,69

7

33

.5%

Mor

e th

an $

3,3

33

pe

r mon

th

15

9

33

.4%

M

ore

than

$3

,33

3

per m

onth

3

,24

0 2

7.2

%

Mor

e th

an $

3,3

33

pe

r mon

th

43

1,0

38

43

.1%

Tota

l 4

76

1

00

.0%

To

tal

11

,91

1 1

00

.0%

To

tal

99

9,6

65

1

00

.0%

Jobs

by

Educ

atio

nal A

ttai

nmen

t Si

te

Viol

et T

owns

hip

MSA

Ed

ucat

iona

l Att

ainm

ent

Coun

t Sh

are

Educ

atio

nal A

ttai

nmen

t Co

unt

Shar

e Ed

ucat

iona

l Att

ainm

ent

Coun

t Sh

are

Less

than

hig

h sc

hool

2

9

6.1

%

Less

than

hig

h sc

hool

9

47

8

.0%

Le

ss th

an h

igh

scho

ol

68

,23

4 6

.8%

Hig

h sc

hool

or

equi

vale

nt,

no c

olle

ge

12

0

25

.2%

H

igh

scho

ol o

r eq

uiva

lent

, no

col

lege

2

,48

3

20

.8%

H

igh

scho

ol o

r eq

uiva

lent

, no

col

lege

2

13

,44

0

21

.4%

Som

e co

llege

or A

ssoc

iate

de

gree

1

12

2

3.5

%

Som

e co

llege

or A

ssoc

iate

de

gree

2

,44

7

20

.5%

So

me

colle

ge o

r Ass

ocia

te

degr

ee

24

4,2

06

2

4.4

%

Bac

helo

r's d

egre

e or

ad

vanc

ed d

egre

e 1

16

2

4.4

%

Bac

helo

r's d

egre

e or

ad

vanc

ed d

egre

e 1

,82

8

15

.3%

B

ache

lor's

deg

ree

or

adva

nced

deg

ree

22

7,8

21

2

2.8

%

Educ

atio

nal a

ttai

nmen

t no

t

a

vaila

ble

99

2

0.8

%

Educ

atio

nal a

ttai

nmen

t no

t ava

ilabl

e 4

,20

6

35

.3%

Ed

ucat

iona

l att

ainm

ent

not a

vaila

ble

24

5,9

64

2

4.6

%

Tota

l 4

76

1

00

.0%

To

tal

11

,91

1

10

0.0

%

Tota

l 9

99

,66

5

10

0.0

%

66

67


Appendix D: Additional Resources

Additional Resources

• EPA’s Smart Growth and Economic Success: The Business Case

• EPA’s Smart Growth and Economic Success: Strategies for LocalGovernments

• EPA’s Smart Growth and Economic Success: Benefits for Real EstateDevelopers, Investors, Businesses, and Local Governments

• Real Estate Issue’s article, “Mixed-Use Development and FinancialFeasibility: Part 1—Economic and Financial Factors

• Missing Middle Housing website

• Project for Public Space’s webpage, Eleven Principles for Creating GreatCommunity Places

• MORPC’s Green Infrastructure Best Practices

• MORPC’s Complete Streets Toolkit

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Infrastructure and DesignImplementation Tools

• Green Building Alliance’s webpage, Green Building Methods

• ECONorthwest’s report, Low Impact Development At The Local Level:Developers’ Experiences and City and County Support

• City of Aurora, Colorado’s Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment DesignHandbook

• Project for Public Spaces webpage, Traffic Calming 101

• The Brookings Institution’s policy brief, “Traffic: Why It’s Getting Worse,What Government Can Do”

• Walk Friendly Communities’ webpage, How Walk Friendly CommunitiesManage Speed

• NACTO’s Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities

• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s webpage, Public ParkingFinancial Strategies

68

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/business_case.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/sg-and-economic-success-for-governments.pdf



https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/smart_growth_and_economic_success.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/smart_growth_and_economic_success.pdf

https://www.cre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Mixed-Use_Development.pdf



http://missingmiddlehousing.com/category/the-types/

https://www.pps.org/reference/11steps/



http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/01.GIBMP_.pdf


https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-design-and-implementation



https://www.go-gba.org/resources/green-building-methods/

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/econw-publications/2009-Clackamas-County-Low-Impact-Development.pdf

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/econw-publications/2009-Clackamas-County-Low-Impact-Development.pdf

https://www.auroragov.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1881137/Image/Business%20Services/Development%20Center/Code%20and%20Rules/SIR%20Handbook.pdf



https://www.pps.org/article/livememtraffic

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/pb128.pdf



http://walkfriendly.org/2017/05/08/how-walk-friendly-communities-are-managing-speeds/



https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf



http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/2040/supporting-materials/process-archive/strategy-papers/parking/financial-strategies



Violet Township Community Center Project Final Report

Insight2050 Technical Assistance Program