Patrick Henry School and Recreation Center Advisory Group Meeting Wednesday, March 2, 2016 6:15 PM www.acps.k12.va.us
Agenda • Meeting Guidelines (1 min) • Meeting Goals (2 min) • Project Update Traffic Study (5 min) • Design Review Process (5 min) • • Design Considerations (5 min) • Initial Site Plan Options (15 min) • Board Review / Discussion (30 min) • March 16 th Community Meeting (20 min) • Next Steps (5 min) www.acps.k12.va.us 2
Meeting Guidelines • Treat Everyone with Respect and Courtesy • Do Your Homework – Be Prepared and Be Familiar with the Docket • Express Your Ideas and Opinions in an Open and Helpful Manner • Be Respectful of Others’ Time by Being Clear and Concise in Your Comments and/or Questions • Demonstrate Honesty and Integrity in Your Comments and Actions Taken from City of Alexandria ‘Guidelines for Civic Discourse ’ www.acps.k12.va.us 3
Meeting Guidelines • Focus on the Issues Before the Decision Making Body – Avoid Personalizing Issues • Listen and Let Others Express their Ideas and Opinions • If a Decision is Made with which You Do Not Concur, Agree to Disagree and/or Use Appropriate Means of Civil and Civic recourse, and Move On Taken from City of Alexandria ‘Guidelines for Civic Discourse ’ www.acps.k12.va.us 4
Meeting Goals • Provide update on project team ongoing efforts • Receive high-level feedback from Advisory Group on initial three site options • Discuss process for engaging broader community at March 16 th meeting www.acps.k12.va.us 5
Project Update – Traffic Study • Preliminary in nature Studies typically occur during site design process • Project team advanced study to examine community concerns • during feasibility Study will be finalized once a site option is selected for • advancement • Examined Taney-and-Latham access and Taney-only access Both situations maintained acceptable levels of service • Entries off both streets would ease onsite traffic (pickup, drop-off) • Busing shall have separate access from cars for safety • • Fire department requiring an Emergency Vehicle Easement (EVE) off Latham to access all sides of new building www.acps.k12.va.us 6
Project Update – Design Review • Iterative Process • Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement Design Review Team (ACPS and City staff) • • Advisory Group Broader Community • Regulatory Agency Reviews (Concept I DSUP) • ACPS School Board • • Ongoing Design Review Team Efforts (for March 16 meeting) Meeting program requirements • Cost Impacts • Schedule impacts • • Designs will evolve during stakeholder review www.acps.k12.va.us 7
Project Update – Design Review www.acps.k12.va.us 8
Initial Design Considerations – Taking Shape • Fulfill Site Specific Program Document • Site Traffic Flows and Parking (Buses, Cars, Bikes, Pedestrians) • LEED and Sustainability / Stormwater Management • Consideration of Neighborhood Context (Scale, Setbacks) • Safe Construction Around Operating Facilities • Be Constructible Within Capital Project Budget • Maximize natural open space areas on the site • Attention to performing arts space • Proper focus on both the school and the recreation center • Remembering the big picture – designing a facility which the community is proud of and uses often www.acps.k12.va.us 9
Discussion • Moseley Architects to review current design options • After presentation Advisory Group members shall approach the presentation boards to ask questions of team members • Advisory Group members will return to panel seats for 30 minutes of additional discussion on: Initial thoughts (30 minutes) • Engagement with Community on March 16 th (20 minutes) • www.acps.k12.va.us 10
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 11
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 12
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 13
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 14
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 15
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 16
www.acps.k12.va.us www.acps.k12.va.us 17
March 16 th Community Meeting • Meeting Goals and Structure Receive feedback from attendees on: • Which design considerations are most important to them • How does each proposed site design accommodate those • considerations • Please share with your constituents! Send as much feedback as possible to • phproject@acps.k12.va.us by Friday, March 11th for the project team to incorporate into March 16th meeting www.acps.k12.va.us 18
Proposed Advisory Group and Community Meeting Schedule www.acps.k12.va.us 19
Next Steps • Ongoing stakeholder reviews of current site design options • Community meeting on March 16 • Construction Manager procurement www.acps.k12.va.us 20
Additional information about the project can be found online at: http://www.acps.k12.va.us/facilities/ph/ www.acps.k12.va.us 21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PATRICK HENRY SCHOOL AND RECREATION CENTER PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING STUDY Wells + Associates (W+A) has prepared a preliminary traffic impact and parking study for the Patrick Henry School and Recreation Center, located in Alexandria, Virginia. In a Joint Project the City of Alexandria, the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities (RPCA), Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) plan to replace and expand the existing elementary school with a capacity of 670 students and the 8,779 square foot (S.F.) recreation center with a new DRAFT elementary/middle school with a capacity of 900 students and a 17,000 S.F. recreation center. Vehicular access is provided at the eastern and western ends of the site frontage along Taney Avenue. This study evaluates a site plan approach created by a feasibility study commissioned jointly by ACPS, RPCA, and the City, which retains the eastern access on Taney Avenue and Constructs a new driveway north of the site on N. Latham Avenue. An alternative approach was also considered whereby all vehicular traffic would access the site only off Taney Avenue. A new bus drop-off/pick-up lane would be provided on Taney Avenue. The existing western access would be eliminated and student drop-off/pick-up activity occurring on Taney Avenue would be restricted. The project is planned to be complete by 2018. A total of 16 intersections were included in the study that evaluated the AM, midday (school), and PM peak hours. Based on data collected by W+A, under existing 2015 conditions, all signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “D” or better), except for the intersections of Taney Avenue and Richenbacher Avenue on N. Van Dorn Street, which operate at LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. All stop controlled study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service for the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Based on field site observations, traffic operations around the school are somewhat congested but adequate during the morning and afternoon school peak hours. The activity adjacent to the site is compressed into a 15 to 30-minute period when students arrive or depart from the school, and are facilitated by school staff that manages vehicle and pedestrian movements during these periods. Less congested conditions occur during the PM peak hour when the school day is complete but some activity occurs at the recreation center on the northeast corner of the site. In 2018 without the proposed development, but assuming regional growth and other pipeline developments, the majority of signalized study intersections and all stop controlled intersections would continue to operate at overall acceptable levels of service (LOS “D” or better) during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, consistent with existing conditions. Some individual movements and approaches would operate near or beyond capacity during these peak periods. The proposed school expansion from 637 existing students to 900 students and the recreation center expansion from 8,779 S.F. to 17,000 S.F. is estimated to generate 151 net new AM peak hour trips, 106 midday net new peak hour trips, 64 PM net new peak hour trips, and 677 net new daily (24-hour) trips upon completion and full occupancy by 2018. These additional vehicles were added to the road network to evaluate the impact of the planned redevelopment. The results of the future conditions with the development indicate that the majority of signalized study intersections and all stop controlled intersections would continue to operate at overall acceptable levels of service (LOS “D” or better) during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, without significant increases in overall delay at most locations. Increases in delay would be primarily realized on Taney Avenue intersections immediately adjacent to the school, but would be adequately accommodated at these locations. Thus, no off-site improvements, such as traffic signal 1 1
Recommend
More recommend
