2015 Town of Upland Master Plan

2015 TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

“TOGETHER WE ARE ONE TOWN”

O N E

T O W N

UPLAND

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TOWN OF UPLAND John Bonham - Town Council President Charles Jaggers - Town Council Vice-President Mick Carmin - Town Council Member Warren Ross - Town Council Member Geoff Schwartz - Town Council Member Chip Long - Town Manager Jane Rockwell - Clerk Treasurer TAYLOR UNIVERSITY Dr. Gene B. Habecker, PhD, JD - President Marilyn Habecker - First Lady Stephen P. Olson - Vice-President for Finance/CFO PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE Dee Ballinger - Former Eastbrook High School Guidance Counselor John Bonham - Area Plan Commission Marilyn Habecker - Our Town Upland, Inc. Charles Jaggers - Town of Upland Master Plan Project Chair Chip Long - Town of Upland, Town Manager Stephen P. Olson - Taylor University, Vice-President for Finance/CFO Melanie Parker - Town of Upland, Assistant Vice-President Warren Ross - Upland Parks Board, Chair Dennis Smith - Upland Chamber of Commerce, Vice-President Marty Songer - Avis Industrial Corporation, Vice-President and Assistant to President Bill Wiley - Our Town Upland Inc., President Cindy Wright - Upland Lions Club Colleen Yordy - Upland South Elementary BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF Barth Hendrickson, PLA, ASLA, APA - Principal-in-Charge Ryan P. Cambridge, PLA, ASLA, APA - Project Manager, Director of Open Space Planning Brett Schlachter, PLA, ASLA - Urban Designer Mark Beer - Landscape Designer, Graphic Artist India Ballard-Bonfitto - Planning Assistant

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

i

ii

TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Acknowledgments ii. Table of Contents iii. Commonly Used Acronyms iv. Executive Summary

i iii v vii

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 1.1 Review of Existing Data 1.2 Project Steering Committee 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting 1.4 Community Overview 1.5 Demographic Overview 1.6 Real Estate Market Outlook 1.7 Summary of Existing Conditions

3 15 19 25 39 45 51

PART TWO: NEEDS AND PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT 2.1 Process and Methodology 2.2 Stakeholder Interviews + Focus Groups 2.3 General Public Workshop 2.4 Online Public Opinion Survey 2.5 A3 â„¢ Parks + Open Space Level of Service Analysis 2.6 Summary of Current Community Needs and Priorities

55 59 63 67 73 85

PART THREE: MASTER PLAN VISION 3.1 Master Plan Vision Overview 3.2 Reclaim Main Street 3.3 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor 3.4 Town Gateways

91 97 117 131

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN 4.1 Approach to Implementation 4.2 Project Action Plans 4.3 Year-One Priority Action Plan

143 147 163

PART FIVE: REFERENCES AND APPENDICES 5.1 References 5.2 List of Figures 5.3 Supporting Information

169 173 177

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

iii

iv

TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AASHTO APA ASHRAE ASLA BSU CAD CEDF CFF EE GDP GIS GSF I-69 INDNR INDOT LEED LOS LWCF MIBOR MOU MP NACTO NRPA NTS OSLAD OTU PACE PCPI PLA PPS ROW RTP SBIR SCORP SHARROW SR22 SR26 SSPC UAGA ULI US USGBC USTA

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Planning Association American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers American Society of Landscape Architects Ball State University Computer-aided Design Community Economic Development Fund Community Focus Funds Environmental Education Gross Domestic Product Geographic Information System Gross Square Feet Interstate 69 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Department of Transportation Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Level of Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors Memorandum of Understanding Master Plan National Association of City Transportation Officials National Recreation and Parks Association Not to Scale Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development Our Town Upland Partnering Arts Communities and Education Per Capita Personal Income Professional Landscape Architect Project for Public Spaces Right of Way Recreational Trails Program Small Business Innovation Research Initiative State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Shared Right of Way State Road 22 State Road 26 Second (2nd) Street Pedestrian Corridor Upland Area Greenways Association Urban Land Institute United States United States Green Building Council United States Tennis Association

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

v

(page intentionally left blank)

vi

TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

2015 TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

“TOGETHER WE ARE ONE TOWN”

O N E

T O W N

UPLAND

TOWN OF UPL AND COMMUNITY MASTER PL AN

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT OVERVIEW

“

The leadership of Upland and a core group of energetic patrons and volunteers, are moving forward with respect to our town’s future. We are building on past efforts and current enthusiasm to create a vibrant future for Upland; the Town Council, a Planning Steering Committee, key stakeholders, and committed volunteers stand ready to work together to realize this exciting vision!

”

- Chip Jaggers, Town Council Vice-President

ng

ACTION PLAN

rvi

an

ning

STEERING COMMITTEE

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

ENGAGE PUBLIC

st

si

s

li

This planning process included four (4) distinct and linear phases, each composed of multiple individual analysis and/ or design components intent on providing an overall, highlevel assessment of, and vision for, the Town. The four (4) phases consisted of the following: 1. Existing Conditions Analysis 2. Needs and Priorities Assessment 3. Master Plan Vision 4. Implementation and Action Plan

EVALUATE + ANALYZE

pl

A key function of this Master Plan was to review, vet, and prioritize findings associated with the 2010 charrette, as well at those identified within this planning process. In addition, the plan places special emphasis on implementation through the identification of key project partners, critical next steps, and potential alternative funding sources.

monitoring

obse

The Town of Upland is a small, rural town located in northwestern Indiana and is the home of Taylor University.

In late 2013, the Town and Taylor University partnered with Browning Day to undertake the development of Upland’s first Town Master Plan. The planning effort articulated herein builds upon a university-led planning charrette conducted in 2010 by Ball State University, which sought to articulate a long-range “community vision” and identified multiple high-level initiatives and projects.

en

in

g

VISIONING

s

t yn

h

e

Figure i: One Town Upland planning process diagram (Browning Day 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

ix

TOWN OF UPL AND COMMUNITY MASTER PL AN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Town of Upland is a small community located in Grant County, Indiana on State Road 22 about two miles east of Interstate 69. Like many towns in Indiana, Upland flourished during the gas boom in the late 1800’s, however, the Town has been in a state of decline since the construction of the Interstate 69. Taylor University - a Christian liberal arts college - relocated their main campus from Fort Wayne, Indiana to Upland in 1893, and has continued to be an integral part of the community since. In 2015, Upland had an estimated total population of 3,845 people.

A disproportionately large amount of the population is between the age ranges of 15-24, likely due to the presence of the University. Upland struggles to retain this student population and as students graduate, most leave the area.

The existing conditions analysis utilized a variety of techniques to evaluate the current condition of Upland by reviewing previously completed planning efforts, completing a demographic analysis, and undertaking a real estate market analysis to help better understand the current needs and priorities of the Town. In addition, the Project Team toured the town and documented their observations of its physical condition.

Figure ii: View from Main Street looking north through downtown (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure iii: Project Board #3 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (bottom) (Ball State University, 2010).

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NEEDS + PRIORITIES

Utilizing the process of “triangulation,” the Needs Assessment process utilized qualitative, quantitative, and anecdotal analysis techniques to better understand the needs and priorities of Upland residents.

66.7% 33.3%

Collaboration and engagement are core components of Browning Day’s planning and design methodology. As such, the Project Team intentionally engaged Town residents throughout the planning process through the use of stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and public meetings, and actively consulted a Steering Committee group comprised of local leaders. An online public opinion survey was administered to gather feedback and elicit responses from residents who may not have been able to participate in public engagement meetings. In addition, the Project Team completed a comprehensive parks and open space level of service analysis.

The Needs Assessment helped to identify and prioritize specific community-wide needs, which informed the initiatives and projects that were direct outcomes of the planning process. Together, the findings from Existing Conditions Analysis and Needs Assessment processes served as the foundational framework for the overall Master Plan Vision.

Figure iv: Project Steering Committee (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure v: Needs Assessment methodology diagram (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

xi

TOWN OF UPL AND COMMUNITY MASTER PL AN

MASTER PLAN VISION

RECLAIM MAIN STREET The revitalization of downtown must begin with the “reclaiming” of Main Street in Upland. The physical design of Main Street as it exists in 2015 is not contributing to the overall quality of life or sense of place desired by residents and project stakeholders. The roadway section is overly wide for a downtown, lacks appropriate crosswalks, and any sort of streetscape amenities typically expected in an “urban” area. In addition, there are no signalized intersections in the downtown core, which allows for increased traffic speeds and further compromises the viability of commercial businesses along Main Street, many of which have already relocated outside of downtown, leaving gaping holes in its urban and commercial “fabric.”

W Washing ton Street

2 Main Street / SR2

There are multiple individual projects associated with the reclaiming of Main Street and the long-term revitalization of downtown Upland, each intent on improving the aesthetic appearance, walkability, density, and economic potential of downtown without compromising traffic flow or safety.

Examples of projects include the Main Street Streetscape, a new urban park downtown, and a new mixed-use development.

Figure vi: Artist’s rendering of the proposed Main Street streetscape (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure vii: Reclaim Main Street logo (middle) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure viii: 3D view illustrating the proposed streetscape along Main Street (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NEW MIXED-USE INFILL During the public and stakeholder engagement process, multiple participants indicated the need for additional commercial and office infrastructure downtown to both activate Main Street, and serve as “business incubator space” for future Taylor University graduates. Discussions with University representatives indicated they were exploring the feasibility of relocating some university operations/services off-campus. As such, this Vision recommends that a new mixed-used development be constructed on the eastern side of the 100-block of Main Street.

The community’s vision for this project was of a completely new style of building in Upland; one which would unite the population of Upland and serve as a redevelopment catalyst for downtown by demonstrating long-term investment and vision. They envisioned a building that would engage a diverse user group, and provide a mix of uses such as ground-level commercial/retail, office, and multi-family residential. In addition, participants expressed a desire to see a civic – or Town – presence in the building. Though no specific roles were agreed upon, participants saw Taylor University as an obvious partner for this effort, given they were already a current landowner on the 100-block.

Figure ix: Northwest view into the interior courtyard of the conceptual mixed-use building (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure x: Conceptual mixed-use building program plan (middle) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure xi: Northeast view of the conceptual mixed-use building at Main St. and Railroad St. (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

xiii

TOWN OF UPL AND COMMUNITY MASTER PL AN

2ND STREET PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR

STREET

S

2ND

STREET

STREET

The SSPC was selected as a priority project for evaluation in this master planning process because of its direct connection between downtown and Taylor University; the students and faculty of which are key target users of the re-envisioned downtown. If the revitalization of downtown Upland is to be used as a catalyst for community-wide revitalization, a key component of that vision is providing safe, enjoyable, and convenient ways to access downtown which do not require the use of a car.

3RD

THOBURN

The 1.3 mile Second Street Pedestrian Corridor (SSPC), as envisioned during this planning process, is much more than just a “path,” but rather a linear park corridor which links downtown Upland to Taylor University, as well as five (5) community green spaces and an elementary school in between. In addition to serving as a means of alternative transportation, the corridor will help to improve overall community health, provide access to new recreation opportunities, and increase town-wide sustainability and safety.

S

Figure xii: Artist’s rendering illustrating the aesthetic of the 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor sidepath (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure xiii: Proposed neighborhood park along the 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MASTER PLAN VISION CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

CO RD. 500 S, SR22

C

B

VIE

WF

RO

MR

OA

VIEW

DW AY

A

M FRO

A

Y DWA ROA

D APPROX. 130 SPACES

B

F APPROX. 550 SPACES

K

SR 22

L

J

H G

E I

RESTORED NATIVE PRAIRIE

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

GATEWAY EXPERIENCE

The “gateway experience” was identified as an important component of overall community image and identity to Upland residents. As such, the planning process sought to re-envision not just the aesthetic of the two existing Town gateways, but also the definition of “gateway” itself.

BASIC PRAIRIE SEED MIX

160 S.F. | ANP 12 | NSY 34 | VJ GATEWAY SIGN 150 S.F. | ANNUALS

440 S.F. | JCS 200 S.F. | ANP

SR 2 6

/

E

7 0 0

S

100 0 In contrast to the typical definition of “gateway,” the 200 re-envisioned concept for the Northern Gateway is comprised of broad views and landscape gestures that serve collectively to form the user “experience,” while seeking to meet the unique requirements associated with the SR22 ROW. The centerpiece of these gestures is an outdoor performing arts venue, which would serve not only as a functional gathering space for the community but also as a geographic “marker” signifying arrival into the Town of Upland.

The vision for the future Southern Gateway creates a unified gateway entry for both the Town of Upland and Taylor University - symbolic of the strong bond between the Town and the University – through the addition of a new Town of Upland monument sign and supporting landscape.

Figure xiv: Enlargement of the conceptual site plan for the Northern Gateway (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure xv: Enlargement of the proposed Town of Upland sign at the Southern Gateway (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

xv

300

YEAR-ONE ACTION PLAN

TOWN OF UPL AND COMMUNITY MASTER PL AN

Following is a summarized list of high-priority projects and their associated action items which together represent the Year-One Action Plan for the Town of Upland (presumed to be 2015-2016). These projects/tasks were selected based on their ability to meet high-priority community needs (as identiďŹ ed in the Needs Assessment), their implementation feasibility, and lack of dependence upon the implementation of other Vision initiatives. These action items may need to be amended, over time, as progress is made towards the Vision and/or conditions change. A full description of these action items can be found in Section 4.3 of the Master Plan.

MAIN STREET STREETSCAPE O Begin coordinating with appropriate parties, such as INDOT and local community groups.

O Form a Committee (with the Town as lead) to focus on Main Street; reach out to all Main Street property owners and incorporate them into the conversation.

O Officially introduce all public and non-profit agencies to the project; integrate initiatives into their systems of communication and grant cycles.

O Plant as many street trees as possible - on both public and private property - along Main Street downtown.

O Identify and remove any unnecessary and/or prohibited curb cuts along Main Street in the downtown core.

O Assess and replace crumbling sidewalks adjacent to residences.

O Assess quality of existing mature trees; selectively prune, treat, and/or remove as necessary.

O Weed, re-till, supplement soil, fine grade and reseed lawn areas within the right-of-way along Main Street in the fall of 2015 in order to show progress and a fresh consistent appearance.

xvi

NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT O Create a formal committee composed of representatives from both the Town and the developer/owner to oversee the planning and design of the facility and demonstrate commitment to the project.

O Immediate effort should be given on behalf of the Town to market this project to prospective development partners.

O Immediately identify and apply for any applicable grants to assist with implementation.

O Once a development partner is identified, any necessary land acquisition should begin immediately.

O All buildings on the site should be razed as soon as possible, but not until after obtaining a development commitment for the site that includes a construction timeframe and dedicated budget.

O Care should be given to salvage and re-purpose unique building components from the existing structures.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECOND STREET PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR O Review currently proposed future roadway improvement, utility, and storm water improvement projects; attempt to integrate the side path as a component of the larger infrastructure project.

O Given the comparably low-cost, the Town may wish to proceed with implementing a shared-lane system along the corridor as an interim condition until the final path or trail can be developed in the future.

SOUTH GATEWAY O Craft a maintenance MOU between Taylor University and the Town of Upland for this project.

O Update the existing monument signage at the Northern Gateway in conjunction with this effort to ensure a similar aesthetic until the full vision for the Northern Gateway is realized.

O The Town should facilitate a meeting between Taylor University and the private land owner(s) to discuss scope, cost and schedule expectations, and to determine what, if any, partnerships or agreements may be required for implementation.

O Solicit the services of a PLA to complete schematic design, verify costs, develop construction documents, and obtain permits.

O When bidding the project for construction, selection of the contractor should be based on qualifications, rather than solely on price.

OTHER SUPPORTING HIGH-PRIORITY INITIATIVES O Appoint a “Project Director” – Every long-range planning project needs a “champion” in order to be successful. This person should be employed by the Town and be fully dedicated to coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the various Master Plan efforts and initiatives. The ideal candidate would have a long-term history with the Town, but also be familiar the various tasks associated with long-term implementation including, but not limited to, fund raising, interdepartmental coordination, and the full project delivery process.

This person will also be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the various community groups to ensure that they are all moving towards the same goal; a comprehensively revitalized Town of Upland.

O Hire a Professional Grant Writer – It is highly recommended that the Town employ the services of a professional grant writer to assist in the important activity of monitoring and responding to these opportunities, as the long-term implementation of the Master Plan Vision will likely require them.

O Begin the 5-year Comprehensive Park System Master Planning Process – The Town of Upland should undertake the development of a 5-year comprehensive park system master plan which meets the Indiana Department of Natural Resources requirements for grant-based funding.

Portions of this master plan effort may overlap with the requirements of the Park System Master Plan and should therefore be leveraged appropriately.

Having an approved park system master plan is required for the Town to qualify for INDNRadministered grant resources.

O Find Private Development Partners – In the interim, while progress is being made on the highpriority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial business partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

YEAR-ONE ACTION PLAN

NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK O Identify and engage a local community partner and/ or private donor to assist in the implementation of this neighborhood park.

O Acquire land, as required, based upon the chosen project delivery model.

O Once a development partner has been engaged, establish a project budget and revise design as required.

O Solicit the services of a Professional Landscape Architect (PLA) to produce construction drawings for the park, taking into account a phased approach, if required.

O After construction documents have been developed, the project should go out to bid for construction.

xvii

PART ONE

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS The Town of Upland is a small community located in Grant County, Indiana on State Road 22 about two miles east of Interstate 69. Like many towns in Indiana, Upland ourished during the gas boom in the late 1800’s. Taylor University relocated their main campus from Fort Wayne, Indiana to Upland in 1893, and has continued to be an integral part of the community since. In 2015, Upland had an estimated total population of 3,845 people. A disproportionately large amount of the population is between the age ranges of 15-24, likely due to the presence of the University. Upland struggles to retain this student population and as students graduate, most leave the area.

This existing conditions analysis attempts to evaluate the current condition of Upland by reviewing previously completed planning efforts, completing a demographic analysis, and undertaking a real estate market analysis to help better understand the current needs and priorities of the Town.

1.1 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA 1.1.1 OVERVIEW Creating a master plan for the Town of Upland and improving the downtown district has been a priority since 1995, as identified in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan.

There have been several agencies involved in the process that have made significant contributions to the planning and development.

The Review of Existing Plans and Data identifies previous planning efforts and documents that will impact future planning efforts. The review presents the authoring firm or agency of the document and a brief summary. Reviewing the existing plans and data ensures this plan will continue to build upon past efforts, and that efforts aren’t duplicated.

1.1.2 EXISTING PLANS Upland Area Greenways Master Plan Date: 2013 Author: Green 3 Studio Summary: To meet the Town desires of a looped trail system that could potentially connect to the Cardinal Greenway, Green 3 proposed three alternate trail designs.

Accompanying each design was an estimated construction cost, aesthetic qualities, and phasing. The master plan proposes 3-4 new trailheads, consistent way-finding signage, and trail information throughout the greenway system.

The “Complete Streets Trail” is the first option and it is a 2.07 mile route beginning at the 2nd Street pedestrian bridge. The trail runs south to Berry Avenue, shifts west to 3rd Street, and continues south to connect with the Taylor University campus. A proposed trailhead is located at 2nd Street and 3rd Street. The plan suggests land required to complete this trail could either be donated by Taylor University or acquired through grant funding. Depending on site conditions and design, the “Complete Streets Trail” has an estimated cost of $500,000 - $800,000.

The second trail option is the “Upland Parks Connection.” This 1.48 mile route would connect Two Lakes to the community baseball/softball fields. Upland owns some of the land needed for the trail and Green 3 proposed remaining land could be acquired through grant funding. The final cost estimate was $150,000 - $300,000.

The “8th Street Loop” is the third option. The trail begins at the end of the “Complete Streets Trail” and spans 1.27 miles to the Taylor University campus.

Similar to the previous trail options, grant funding was proposed for land acquisition.

The estimated cost of the “8th Street Loop” is $250,000 - $500,000 (Green 3 Studio, 2013). A copy of the trails map can be found in Section 1.4 of this report; additional narrative from the Upland Area Greenways Association can be found in Appendix 5.3.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

3

Inspection of Old Fire Station and Library Building on E. Washington Street Date: 2013 Author: Triad Associates Summary: Triad Associates reviewed the Old Fire Station and Library property in Upland on May 31, 2013. They inventoried the structure type as concrete block on slab and the size and condition of building, noting issues such as deterioration due to age and water damage.

Triad Associates also provided supportive imagery of their inspection. In conclusion, they believe the building needs more work than simple repairs. They provided a cost estimate for repairing the roof, masonry, doors, and windows and provided two alternative options to renovating the building. The first option was to demolish the building down to the slab and build a new structure and the second option was to sell the property outright (Triad Associates, 2013a).

Taylor University Long Range Campus Master Plan Date: 2013 Author: Barrett Architecture (Studio & Environmental Design Studio) Summary: Revised in 2013, the Taylor University Long Range Master Plan incorporates the University’s goal to integrate sustainable design practices into future development of Taylor University. (Barrett Architecture Studio & Environmental Design Studio, 2013).

Taylor University Campus Design Guidelines—Architecture and Landscape Architecture Date: 2008 Author: Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf, et. al.

Summary: The Taylor University Campus Design Guidelines provide two different forms of recommendations for future campus growth and development. The first form are general design guidelines for the campus categorized into four sections: context/use, planting, sustainability, and lighting. Each section provides several design recommendations to influence future campus development.

guidelines aim to influence future development to strengthen the existing architecture by recommending design elements and building materials. The guidelines suggest potential future projects for each district. The five districts are the Heritage Zone, Central Campus Zone, Residential Woodlands Zone, Natural Area Zone, and Athletic Zone (Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf et. al., 2008).

Buildings at Northeast corner of Railroad Street and Main Street Date: 2013 Author: Triad Associates Summary: Triad Associates reviewed the structures located on the northeast corner of Railroad Street and Main Street by exterior inspection. The two buildings are separately owned and share a wall. Triad was tasked with assessing the potential to demolish particular buildings without compromising the stability of the surrounding structures and conditions. They noted one of the reviewed buildings is capable of standing alone if the surrounding structures were demolished. However, the building has experienced a collapsed roof, compromised first and second floor systems, and could potentially have failure of masonry walls due to the exposure of exterior elements. Triad Associates concluded that unless the owner repairs the roof, the structure should be deemed unsafe and condemned (Triad Associates, 2013).

Upland Town Plan—A Section of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan Date: 1995 Author: Grant County Area Plan Development Summary: The Upland Town Plan is a section of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and the result of a planning process completed to identify the community strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Identified strengths included the street conditions and schools; weaknesses included the downtown appearance, retail opportunities, and medical services; and the opportunities were land use, economic development, and circulation. A policy statement provided several action steps for enforcement. Each action step identified responsible agencies and a time frame for completion (Grant County Area Plan Development, 1995).

The second form of recommendations is the creation of five campus districts to acknowledge areas of similar character and building style. The individual district

4

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.1: Process image from 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

One Town Upland Charrette Date: 2010 Author: Ball State University, College of Architecture and Planning Summary: In 2010, students and faculty from the Ball State University College of Architecture and Planning facilitated a two-day community planning charrette with focus groups from Upland to discuss the future vision and outlook of the Town.

The charrette covered topics such as building reuse, residential fix-up projects, historic preservation, restoration and new construction, landscaping, and façade and streetscape restoration. The project team identified a total of 22 potential projects, programs, and design recommendations that were unveiled in a public presentation.

Examples of the presented projects included the development of the north and south gateways, creation of a new central business zone, establishing Taylor University’s presence in downtown, and lake development around the Lions Club lakes (Ball State University College of Architecture and Planning, 2010).

The overarching community Vision articulated by the Ball State planning charrette will serve as the framework for the 2015 Town of Upland Community Master Plan, which will seek to prioritize, add depth, and create implementation strategies for the proposed initiatives. The final project boards from the 2010 charrette process are provided in this section for reference. Full-size versions of the project boards are available for viewing upon request; please contact the Town of Upland for more information.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

5

Figure 1.2: Project Board #1 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

6

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.3: Project Board #2 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

7

Figure 1.4: Project Board #3 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

8

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.5: Project Board #4 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

9

Figure 1.6: Project Board #5 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

10

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.7: Project Board #6 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

11

Figure 1.8: Project Board #7 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (Ball State University, 2010).

12

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 1.1.3 SUMMARY While the existing documents may be dated in some cases or are specific to individual buildings or Taylor University, they show a desire for community improvements and a need for a comprehensive Town Master Plan. From the existing documents, it is clear that the community needs to improve the existing trail network, revitalize the downtown area, and create more opportunities for business development.

The 2010 One Town Upland community planning charrette is especially insightful with regard to overall, high-level community vision and some of the projects or initiatives which may be required to effectuate that vision. Because this effort was largely charrette-based, involving on-site work and production, the recommendations and initiatives described lack sufficient depth and detail to be immediately actionable.

Additionally, the planning effort did not prioritize the improvements or pair them with funding sources, thus leaving the planning for implementation up to the Town.

When viewed collectively, it is apparent that the Town needs a practical and actionable plan which seeks to unify and prioritize the proposed efforts and initiatives. This plan will likely need to combine both short-term, low-cost goals (“low-hanging fruit�) with longer-range, significantly higher cost improvements; all of which should move the Town towards the eventual realization of the cumulative community vision.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

13

1.2 14

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE 1.2.1 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE One of the most critical components of a successful planning process is a diverse and dedicated Project Steering Committee (Steering Committee hereafter). The purpose of the Steering Committee is to serve as the “voice” of the community at large, and to help oversee and guide the implementation of the master plan long after the planning process is complete.

The Steering Committee for this master plan was composed of influential, local stakeholders selected by the Town. These individuals are leaders in the community and represent local business owners, non-profit organization leaders, and influential community members.

The Steering Committee remained involved in the planning process throughout its duration, and was engaged by the Browning Day team at key points during the planning process in a team setting. The many responsibilities of the Steering Committee included raising awareness of and promoting the planning process, branding the process, helping to circulate information throughout the community, and providing community feedback and diverse perspectives to the Project Team.

1.2.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS The Steering Committee was composed of thirteen (13) members who were selected based on their involvement in the Town of Upland and their community leadership and influence. These individuals are known for executing plans and “making things happen.” Collectively, the Steering Committee represented the thirteen (13) organizations and/or businesses, which included the following: - Upland Town Council - Ball State University - Taylor University - Upland Parks Board - Goff Real Estate (local business) - Our Town Upland, Inc. - Citizens State Bank - Upland Chamber of Commerce - Jones-Smith Funeral Home (local business) - Avis Industrial Corporation (local business) - Upland South Elementary School - Eastbrook High School - Upland Lions Club

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

15

The Steering Committee was composed of the following individuals (in alphabetical order): Dee Ballinger Eastbrook High School, guidance counselor (retired) John Bonham Upland Town Council, President Area Plan Commission, member Marilyn Habecker Taylor University, First Lady Our Town Upland, Inc., member

Charles “Chip” Jaggers Town of Upland Master Plan Project Chair Town of Upland, Vice-President for Planning Upland Town Council, member Ball State University, Interim Associate Vice-President of University Development Chip Long Town of Upland, Town Manager Steve P. Olson Taylor University, Vice-President for Finance/CFO

Figure 1.9: Steering Committee members at the Kick-Off Workshop (Browning Day, 2015).

16

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Melanie Parker Town of Upland, Assistant Vice-President Citizens State Bank, employee (Hartford City, IN) Upland Chamber of Commerce, Former President Warren Ross Goff Real Estate, President Upland Town Council, member Upland Parks Board, Chair Our Town Upland, Inc., Charter Member Dennis Smith Jones-Smith Funeral Home, owner Upland Chamber of Commerce, Vice-President

Marty Songer Avis Industrial Corporation, Vice-President and Assistant to President Bill Wiley Our Town Upland Inc., President Cindy Wright Upland Lions Club, member Our Town Upland Inc., member Colleen Yordy Upland South Elementary, teacher

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

17

1.3 18

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

KICK-OFF MEETING 1.3.1 OVERVIEW A Project Kick-Off meeting was held Tuesday April 15, 2014 from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at Avis Industrial Corporation Headquarters in Upland, Indiana. The purpose of this meeting was to formally start the planning process in a collaborative, group setting, to select a project brand/logo, and to introduce the Steering Committee.

1.3.2 PROCESS Facilitating the meeting from Browning Day were Barth Hendrickson, PLA (Principalin-Charge), and Ryan P. Cambridge, PLA (Director of Parks and Open Space Planning and Project Manager). The two Browning Day representatives reviewed the project scope, approach, schedule, and key milestones. Additionally, attendees were engaged in a discussion about the planning process and desired outcomes of the project.

Detailed meeting minutes and a copy of the meeting sign-in sheet and agenda can be found in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

1.3.3 DISCUSSION TOPICS The discussion at the meeting focused on answering the following questions: -- What do we want to learn from the public opinion survey?

-- What are the desired project products/deliverables/outcomes?

-- What is different about Upland today vs. Upland in 2010?

-- How can we brand the planning process?

What do we want to learn from the public opinion survey?

The online public opinion survey is a tool used to engage the public and see if there is support and desire for general improvements. The 13 question survey was distributed May 2, 2014 online, via Survey Monkey®. Town residents voiced concerns that some people wouldn’t have access to an online survey and anticipated general lack of participation from residents living on the north side of town, regardless of delivery method.

In an effort to reach residents who could have trouble accessing an online survey, printed copies of the survey instrument were made available at Town Hall for residents to manually complete. The received hard-copy surveys were manually entered online by Browning Day to ensure consistent data analysis. The survey was

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

19

also made available to Taylor University students, however the student responses were differentiated from permanent residents to ensure the demographic split of respondents is similar to that of the Town.

Questions in the online public opinion survey helped to inform the Town on what needs to be done to keep people living in Upland. While people are aging in place, the younger population is declining (see Section 1.5).

Town residents showed interest in knowing the answers to the following questions from the general and student population: • What do individuals like most about Upland?

• What features/amenities are lacking in the Town?

• If business development is a priority, what types of enterprises have potential to be successful?

• Are trails/parks/open green space a priority?

• What improvements can be done to improve the downtown appearance and create a more active downtown?

• What makes Upland different from Gas City, Marion, and Indianapolis?

• If people could change one thing about Upland, what would it be?

• What is the image people have of Upland?

• Once students finish their education, what do they want their career to be and would they come back to Upland if changes were made?

a business incubator.

Town residents stated that if the town receives funding for a project low on the priority list, they wouldn’t pass up the opportunity and would focus on completing the project.

There is an overwhelming desire amongst the Steering Committee to show “action” by implementing physical improvements, even if minor.

Overall, residents need to see how new opportunities align with the goal that will be established from this planning process. In addition to overarching, long-range goals, the plan should also include smaller, achievable objectives to make changes and establish projects so the community can see progress take place.

What are the desired project products/deliverables/ outcomes?

While business development and gateways have been noted as important outcomes from previous planning efforts, town residents discussed specific products they hope will be delivered from this planning process. Such products include a timeline for implementation, list of prioritized improvements, identification of “low hanging fruit,” creating a connection to Taylor University through involvement and engagement, reinforced vision and consensus, and creating an online presence for Upland.

Residents voiced the desire for multiple capital improvements which may result from this plan including the creation of an entrepreneurial space where the younger, creative generation and graduates of Taylor University can come together to develop ideas—similar to Figure 1.10: Kick-Off Workshop (Browning Day, 2015).

20

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS What is different about Upland today vs. Upland in 2010?

The town residents stated the primary differences between Upland today (2014) and Upland in 2010 are the projects that have been implemented by active residents. There have been several successfully completed projects including the planters placed along Main Street, the creation of a local dog park, a new festival featuring local artists, a poetry contest for elementary students, façade improvements, and creating a new and energetic Park Board. According to residents, “with a lot of people implementing projects, there is a lot of talk about what is next for Upland. People are asking what is going to happen next, not when are things going to happen.”

The progress to date is the result of people stepping up in the community and taking action. Enthusiasm in volunteer groups has increased since 2010, residents have a positive attitude about the presence of Taylor University, and festivals are gaining popularity and as a result, attendance and sales are increasing. Over Labor Day weekend in 2014, 100+ participants attended the home rummage sales. Both visitors and residents are drawn to Upland because people like the lifestyle, events, and synergy of a small town.

How can we brand the planning process?

Residents said they would like a defined, catchy brand/ logo for this planning process and would like to utilize a variety of outreach mediums, including Facebook® and printed media, to raise community awareness. Ideally, creating a brand for this planning process will help create an established connection between the Town of Upland, Taylor University students, residents, and the multiple community organizations. Additionally, branding the planning process and using Facebook® and other forms of outreach will create a way to involve the Taylor University students in the planning process.

The meeting attendees had the opportunity to choose what brand/logo to represent the planning process.

Browning Day provided 12 brand/logo alternatives created specifically for Upland which built upon the “One Town Upland” name used in the 2010 planning charrette. The selected brand image, as shown on the following page, was utilized on the project-specific Facebook® page (created by Browning Day), handout cards with the Quick Response (QR) code, and on other printed materials.

Figure 1.11: Kick-Off Workshop participants review brand/logo alternatives (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

21

ONE TOWN UPLAND BRAND “One Town” title was chosen in an effort to align the efforts of the multiple local community groups - each with unique individual visions but also members of one, unified town - and to maintain project continuity with he 2010 planning process.

Simple and clean sans-serif font (GeosansLight or similar sans-serif font).

A gold star marks the approximate geographic location of the Town of Upland within the State of Indiana.

Color palette was chosen to match the Town’s colors, as demonstrated on their website (www.upland.in.gov). The “white,” “navy” (R:33, G:31, B:94), and “gold” (R:255, G:204, B:4), colors also resonate with the colors of the Indiana state flag.

ONE TOWN UPLAND HANDOUT CARDS

O N E

T O W N

UPLAND scan here to find us on

O N E

T O W N

UPLAND

facebook.com/onetown.upland Figure 1.12: One Town Upland brand logo (top) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure 1.13: One Town Upland handout card, front (middle) (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure 1.14: One Town Upland handout card, back (bottom) (Browning Day, 2015).

22

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 1.3.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE Due to the dynamic and public nature of this project, dates and delivery timeframes would be adjusted as needed. Important dates through the term of the project included the stakeholder interviews, visioning workshop, draft master plan, and final plan presentation. The Town expressed a desire to complete the plan as quickly as possible. Browning Day advised that most thoughtful planning processes often take longer than anticipated, and that a project duration of between 8-12 months was more realistic.

1.3.5 MEETING OUTCOME

To engage the community, Browning Day discussed the future administration of an online question public opinion survey using SurveyMonkeyÂŽ online survey software.

The survey questions will focus on what can be done to improve Upland. While the survey will mainly be distributed online, paper copies will be available at local areas for residents who may not have Internet access.

Meeting attendees stated while there have been many projects implemented in the town, residents keep wondering what will happen next. As a result of the planning process with Browning Day, meeting attendees would like to identify low hanging fruit, a list of prioritized improvements, and an overall guiding vision so residents can see progress is taking place in the community.

The two-hour kick-off meeting reviewed the project scope, approach, schedule, and key dates with meeting attendees. Additionally, Steering Committee members were introduced. Following the presentation, Browning Day engaged the participants in a discussion about the planning process and desired outcomes.

Figure 1.15: Photo of the various brand alternatives voted on by the Steering Committee (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

23

1.4 24

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 1.4.1 OVERVIEW The community overview identifies resources within Upland and the areas of importance within the Town of Upland boundaries. The community overview reviewed the existing trail system, parks/open spaces, conservation areas, cultural facilities, transportation resources, educational facilities, and annual events.

1.4.2 TRAILS There is currently a limited trail network in Upland with only two existing trails, which are located between Main Street and the baseball/softball complex, and on the Taylor University campus extending west to 8th Street. These trails serve primarily as local connectors, and are not part of a larger system.

At the time of this study, the Upland Area Greenways Association (UAGA) was in the process of finalizing a trails and greenways master plan for the Town of Upland.

This planning effort was started in 2012, and seeks to identify critical pedestrian linkages and circulation routes for Upland residents. In addition, the plan seeks to link the Town into the larger Cardinal Greenways Network, which will eventually span from Richmond, IN to Marion, IN (Cardinal Greenways, 2015).

The Upland Area Greenways Plan was completed with assistance from Green 3 Studio - an Indianapolis-based consulting firm - and proposed three alternate trail designs. Accompanying each design was an estimated construction cost, aesthetic qualities, and phasing.

The master plan proposes 3-4 new trailheads, consistent way-finding signage, and trail information throughout the greenway system. There are three (3) key trail and/ or complete street segments currently proposed, totaling 4.8 miles. Green 3 Studio estimated the construction cost of these segments to be $900,000 - $1,600,000 (Green 3 Studio, 2013).

To avoid the duplication of efforts, this community master plan will seek to support the efforts of the existing greenways master plan rather than reinvent it. The currently planned routes, as well as their associated amenities, are described in Section 1.1 of this report. Additionally, full-page copies of the trail maps and associated narrative produced by Green 3 Studio and the Upland Area Greenways Association are provided in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

25

SR 5

CR 500

CR 500

URBAN STREET

ANSON STREET

P P

WASHINGTON STREET

WASHINGTON STREET

Th

P

P

NORTH STREET

2ND STREET

3RD STREET

4TH STREET

SOUTH STREET

5TH STREET

INDIANA AVE

P

B

S 1050 E CROSSING

MAIN STREET/CO RD 950

B

NORFOLK SOUTHERN

P

8TH STREET

JEFFERSON STREET

CR 600

BERRY AVE

P

P

Th

CR 600

MAIN STREET

ALLEY

1ST STREET

8TH STREET

3RD STREET

2ND STREET

Th

READE AVE

READE AVE

Th

HODSON DR

SR 26

SR 26

TOWN LIMIT

NOTE: TRAIL ROUTES ARE PROVISIONAL. FINAL ALIGNMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE.

KEY

CARDINAL GREENWAY EXTENSION DESTINATION PROPERTY (LION CLUB, PLACES OF WORSHIP, BUSINESS, RESTAURANTS)

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY PROPERTY

TOWN OF UPLAND PROPERTY

GREENWAYS PHASE

UPLAND COMMUNITY TRAILS COMPLETE STREETS TRAIL: 2ND STREET BRIDGE TO 3RD STREET CONNECTION ALTERNATE ROUTE

1.04

UPLAND PARKS CONNECTION: LIONS CLUB LAKE TO BABE RUTH BASEBALL FIELDS ALTERNATE OR SECONDARY ROUTE

1.48 MILES

Th

PROPOSED TRAILHEAD

8TH STREET LOOP: BERRY AVENUE, 8TH STREET AND HODSON DRIVE

1.27 MILES

P

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING NETWORK (LIMITED UPGRADES)

P

PROPOSED PARKING

FUTURE PHASE

B

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT

UPLAND AREA TRAILS - PROPOSED ROUTE MAP Figure 1.16: Upland Area Trails Proposed Route Map (Green 3 Studio, 2013).

26

250

500

1000

DATE: JUNE 6, 2013

N

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.17: Upland Area Trails Image Board (Green 3 Studio, 2013).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

27

Cardinal Greenways Trail Map ROUTES FOR ON-ROAD SECTIONS End of CG Trail (137)

Gas City

127

MARION

14th St. (132.5)

37

Miller Avenue (133)

I-69

10th St

On-Road Routes for Experienced Cyclists

Whee lin

g Pike

15

Upland

350

Water St. (128.5) 9 22

GAS CITY

22

37

26

26

UPLAND

26

Fowlerton

I-69

950 E

35

500

Sweetser (137.5)

1050 1100

600 E

GASTON

950 N

Gaston (113.5)

850 N

35

I-69

28

113.5

Shaffer (106) 332

113

Gaston

67

CR 400 (107.5)

Westend Overlook

750 W

1200 N

850 W

1200 N

Matthews

600 W

MATTHEWS

900 E

1125 500 E

26

FAIRMOUNT

McGalliard Rd. (105)

MUNCIE

35

McCulloch Riverview (104) 32

Wysor St. Depot (103.5)

YORKTOWN Bicentennial Overlook

Mansfield Park (100.5)

Westside Park

Prairie Creek 3

CR 534 (92)

Medford (97)

Legend

35

Trailheads

BLOUNTSVILLE

Blountsville (90.5)

Mile Markers

LOSANTVILLE Jacksonburg Rd. 36

Cardinal Greenway

ECONOMY Newman Rd.

Losantville (83.5)

White River Greenway Sweetser Switch Trail

(81)

1

(77.5)

Economy (79.5)

On Road Sections Prairie Creek Horse Trails

Williamsburg (74) Webster (70)

WILLIAMSBURG WEBSTER

Trailhead Amenities

WHITE RIVER GREENWAY ZOOM

Trail Parking

Tingler Rd. (67.5)

38

35 I-70

Restrooms

RICHMOND

Water Fountain

40

Ball State University

Muncie

Union (65) D. Street (62.5)

103 Main re

go

Tillotson

Kil

Jackson Madison

Jackson

Walnut

The water fountain trailheads are located at the depot (Muncie), Gaston, and Losantville.

Tillotson

Interpretive Display

27

Historic Depot Trailhead

102

32

Mileage 5

10

15

Visit cardinalgreenways.org to use an interactive trailmap where you can plan your route via a mileage calculator and view the locations of various attractions along the trails!

Figure 1.18: Cardinal Greenways Route Map (Cardinal Greenways, 2015).

28

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 1.4.3 PARKS/OPEN SPACE There are three traditional public community park spaces in the Town of Upland: Depot Park, the Upland Softball and Baseball Complex, and Memorial Park. Depot Park is located on the north side of the railroad near the intersection of Main Street and Railroad Street, and serves as a core downtown gathering point for Upland residents.

There are several seasonal events hosted at Depot Park, including Old Tyme Christmas and the Grant County Farmer’s Market.

A trail extends from Depot Park and connects with the Upland Softball and Baseball Complex. Located at the Upland Softball and Baseball Complex are four (4) baseball/softball diamonds (including the field to the north of the Pierce Company site), two (2) basketball courts, playground, a dog park, and a community building. As the name implies, Memorial Park serves as a memorial gathering space adjacent to Eastbrook Elementary School, and provides seating areas, plaza space, and flexible open space.

There are several public or quasi-public facilities which serve to meet the everyday recreation and open space needs of town residents. The largest of these is Taylor University, which contains a significant amount of recreation and open space amenities. Although the university campus is open to the public, the general public may have limited

to no access to its recreation facilities. Only university students and faculty would have full access to Taylor’s facilities, however, that demographic group makes up a significant portion of the Town of Upland as a whole (see Section 1.5).

In addition to Taylor University, Eastbrook Elementary School provides a notable amount of recreation and green space. The school, and its adjacent parcels, provide residents with access to a large playground, three baseball/ softball diamonds practice, and multipurpose green space.

The eastern ball fields are also directly adjacent to the Memorial Park Site.

Lions Club Park is a 40.5 acre private community green space located on the northeast side of town, owned and operated by the Upland Lions Club Inc. The site includes a playground, rodeo track, natural areas, and a 15-acre lake.

In the past the children and families would use the lake for seasonal recreational activities. In summer months, families would swim and fish at the lakes and during the winter, the lake would be used for ice fishing and ice skating. However, in the current state, the lake is not actively used. At the time of the report, the majority of the facilities appeared to be in need of updating, and the lake needed to be treated for excessive algae growth in order to be usable. Although this site is privately owned, it appears as though residents have open access to the playground and natural areas.

Following is a brief description regarding the location and inventory of each facility:

Figure 1.19: Depot Park (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

29

Figure 1.20: Upland Baseball and Softball Complex aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Upland Softball and Baseball Complex Classification: Public Community Park (Town of Upland) Location: Corner of N 8th St. and W Washington St. Size: 13.77 acres Amenities: (inclusive of the baseball/softball field to the north of the Pierce Company site) -- (4) Baseball/softball diamonds -- (2) Basketball courts -- (1) Playground -- (1) Dog park -- (1) Community building -- Picnic areas

30

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.21: Depot Park aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Depot Park Classification: Public Community Park (Town of Upland) Location: SE corner of Railroad St. and Main St. Size: 1.78 acres Amenities: -- (1) Picnic shelter -- Historic train depot and rail car -- Multi-purpose trail -- Flexible green space -- Plaza space -- Seating areas

Figure 1.22: Memorial Park aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Memorial Park Classification: Public Neighborhood Park (Town of Upland) Location: SE Corner of W Jefferson St. and S Main St. Size: 2.15 acres Amenities: -- Memorial plaza/garden with seating areas -- Flexible green space

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

31

Figure 1.23: Eastbrook Elementary School campus aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Eastbrook Elementary School Classification: Public Open Space (Eastbrook Community Schools) Location: S 2nd St. and E Barry St. Size: 10.09 acres (open space only; excludes school building and parking) Amenities: -- (3) Softball/baseball practice diamonds -- (1) Large playground -- (1) Storage shed -- Flexible green space

32

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.24: Lions Club Park aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Lions Club Park Classification: Private Community Park (Upland Lions Club Inc.) Location: NE corner of E Washington St. and Lake St. Size: 24.83 acres (excludes approximately 15 acres of water) Amenities: -- (2) Large lakes -- (1) Playground -- (1) Community building -- (1) Rodeo track -- Natural areas

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

33

Figure 1.25: Taylor University campus aerial view image (39 Degrees North, 2015).

Taylor University Classification: Private University Campus (Taylor University) Location: NW corner of E 700 S and SR22 Size: approximately 90.66 acres (“recreation” spaces only) Amenities: -- (9) Football/soccer fields -- (9) Tennis courts -- (4) Basketball courts (indoor) -- (4) Sand volleyball courts -- (2) Lacrosse fields -- (2) Baseball/softball diamonds -- (2) Running tracks (one indoor) -- (1) Indoor recreation complex -- (1) Pool (indoor) -- (1) Fitness center -- (1) Maintenance building -- (1) Outdoor ropes challenge course -- Fishing pond w/ pier -- Picnic shelters -- Numerous walking paths -- Flexible green space

34

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

campus map TAYLOR UNIVERSITY

W. WRIGHT AVE.

S. EIGHTH ST.

S. 3RD ST.

S. 1ST ST.

6

2

1

S. 2ND ST.

IN 22 TO UPLAND, GAS CITY, AND I-69 (EXIT 59)

TO FAIRLANE APARTMENTS (FOUR BLOCKS NORTH)

3

4

7

5

W. READE AVENUE

8 38

40

42

37

41

9

10

39 11

12

13

34 36 33

43

15

16

HEALTH CENTER

35

49

17

32

19

18 45

31

30

20 VAYHINGER LOOP

HODSON DRIVE

47

29

46

VAYHINGER LOOP

44

14

21

INDIANA

22

28

23

22

ACADEMIC BUILDING

OTHER

26 24 27

48

25

47

TO I-69 (EXIT 55) AND IN 26 WEST

RESIDENCE HALL

W. OVERLOOK DRIVE / 700S TO IN 26 EAST

Ayres Hall Bergwall Hall Boyd Complex Breuninger Hall Campbell Hall Campus Police Eichling Aquatics Wing English Hall Euler Science Complex Field House Freimuth Admin. Building Glass Track & Field Complex Gerig Hall Gudakunst Field (softball) Haakonsen Hall Health Center Helena Hall

13 29 45 27 2 36 30 24 19 34 3 39 26 46 25 49 14

Hodson Dining Commons Intramural Fields Football/Soccer Stadium Kesler Student Activities Center Lacrosse Field Meier Tennis Courts Memorial Prayer Chapel Metcalf Visual Arts Center Morris Hall Muselman House (President’s Home) Nussbaum Science Center Ockenga Honors Lodge Odle Arena Olson Hall Post Office Practice Field Randall Environmental Center

28 47 33 32 44 38 21 12 9 40 20 1 31 23 4 43 42

Reade Liberal Arts Center Rediger Chapel/Auditorium Rice Bell Tower Rupp Communication Arts Center Sickler Hall Smith-Hermanson Music Center Soccer/Football Stadium Student Center Swallow-Robin Hall Taylor Lake University Press Wengatz Hall Wheeler Field (practice) Winterholter Field (baseball) Wolgemuth Hall Zondervan Library

15 37 17 11 8 16 33 10 7 48 5 22 41 35 6 18

Figure 1.26: Taylor University Campus Map (Taylor University, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

35

1.4.4 CONSERVATION There are two large conservation areas in Upland: Avis Prairie Restoration and Taylor “Square Mile”. The Avis Prairie is a 25-acre ecological restoration project located east of Taylor University campus. Taylor University students conduct the various field-based research projects.

Additionally, Avis headquarters is located on the property.

The Taylor “Square Mile”, also known as “Taylor Wilderness,” is property of Taylor University and is located adjacent to Upland. Taylor University uses the 600-acre property for numerous activities such as environmental science research and graduate research (Taylor University, 2010).

1.4.5 CULTURAL FACILITIES Upland is home to the Barton Rees Pogue Memorial Library and Ivanhoe’s family restaurant. The library is located in downtown Upland and named after the late author, Barton Rees Pogue, who passed away in 1965. The library hosts regular story time events for children and a summer reading program for children ages 0 – 18 (Barton Rees Pogue Memorial Library, 2008).

Ivanhoe’s is a restaurant famous for its menu featuring 100+ shakes and sundaes. Formerly known as Wiley’s Drive-In, Ivanhoe’s has been locally owned and operated since 1965 (Ivanhoe’s, 2015).

1.4.6 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES Aside from an active rail that passes through Upland and bicycle friendly roads on the Taylor University campus, residents rely on automotive transportation. Upland’s “Main Street” is also IN SR22, and is under the jurisdiction of INDOT. Many of the sidewalks present within the Town are in need of repair or upgrading.; notably those along Main Street/SR22.

1.4.7 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Upland is in the Eastbrook Community School District.

The district teaches students from the near-by towns of Washington, Matthews, and Van Buren. There are four (4) schools in the district and Eastbrook South Elementary is the only district school located in Upland. In the 20132014 academic school year 430 students were enrolled at Eastbrook South Elementary (Eastbrook Community Schools, 2014).

Figure 1.27: Panoramic view of the Town of Upland water tower (Browning Day, 2015).

36

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Taylor University, one of the nation’s oldest evangelical Christian colleges, was founded in 1846 in Upland. It is located on the south side of Upland. In the 2013-2014 academic year, there were 2,014 on campus students and 238 online students. Taylor University reported 90% of the students live on campus and 75% of the faculty and staff lives within walking distance of the 952 acre campus (Taylor University, 2014).

The Upland Labor Day Festival is a three day celebration full of family friendly activities like a parade, truck show, ice cream social, craft and food vendors, live entertainment, and talent show.

1.4.8 ANNUAL EVENTS

The Grant County Farmer’s Market is a weekly, seasonal event held in Depot Park from late June through midOctober (Grant County Indiana, 2014).

The annual festivals and events Upland hosts are important to the town’s culture, identity, and sense of community. A few of the town highlight events include the Grant County Farmer’s Market, Old Tyme Christmas, Upland Labor Day Festival, and the Blooms and Berries Festival.

Old Tyme Christmas, Upland Labor Day Festival, and Blooms and Berries are organized by the Upland Lions Club. Old Tyme Christmas, held at Depot Park, includes carriage rides, hot apple cider, Christmas cookies, a visit from Santa Claus, and the Upland Christmas tree lighting.

The Blooms and Berries festival has all day live entertainment, craft and food vendors, games, and fresh strawberries.

1.4.9 SUMMARY Upland is a small, Indiana community that provides residents with a high quality of life resulting from its highly-rated schools, low crime rate, and its multiple parks and open spaces. Upland residents enjoy a small town atmosphere and sense of community, and value traditions, annual events, and festivals, most of which take place at Depot Park; one of the landmarks within the Town.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

37

1.5 38

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW 1.5.1 OVERVIEW The following demographic analysis was conducted to better understand the Upland population, define local trends, and understand how Upland relates to Grant County and Indiana. While the demographic analysis is quantitative in nature and lacks psychographic information, it provides a comprehensive snapshot of who lives in the community.

Methodology Data was collected from Esri Community Analyst, U.S. Census Bureau, and other reputable online sources. Unless otherwise noted, data represents information from 2012.

Comparison communities Upland was compared to Grant County, Indiana and the State of Indiana to understand similarities and differences between the communities and how Upland relates to the state as a whole.

1.5.2 POPULATION Upland has a total population of 3,813. The median age in Upland is 23, much lower than Grant County and Indiana (39.9 and 37.1, respectively). Out of the total population, 58% (2,237) lived in households while 41% (1,576) lived in group quarters. Group quarters are defined as college/university housing, correctional facilities, care facilities, military facilities, and other non-institutional facilities or emergency shelters (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a). In Upland, this figure represents the large student population living in Taylor University-provided housing. Upland also has a smaller population in families compared to Grant County and Indiana, indicating roommate-type households and living situations.

Population Distribution Comparison The bulges in a population distribution, also known as a population pyramid, indicate population growth due to high birth rates or immigration. The Upland population distribution shows over 50% of the population is between the ages of the 15 – 24 and just over 3% of the total population is between the ages of 25 and 29 (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a). This bulge is the result of the large Taylor University student population of approximately 2,000 full-time students, predominantly between the ages of 18-24 (Taylor University, 2010c). The drastic decline between the

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

39

Population Distribution Comparison

two age groups indicates as students graduate, 85+ 80 - 84 they typically leave Upland and Grant County.

75 - 79 The Grant County and Indiana population distributions indicate they are developed70 - 74 65 - 69 communities with moderate birth rates and 60 - 64 high death rates. The Grant County distribution 55 - 59 is influenced by the Upland population. As such, 50 - 54 there is a large population between the ages 45 - 49 of 40 - 44 15 – 24 and a significant population decrease 35 - 39 between the ages of 25 and 29.

30 - 34 25 - 29

While the total population in Indiana is 20 - 24 expected to grow at a rate of .45% from152012- 19 2017, Grant County is declining at an annual 10 - 14 rate of -.1% and the Town of Upland is declining 5-9 0-4 at an annual rate of -.32%. In 2017, the Upland population is projected to be 3,752 (U.S. -20 Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a).

85+ 80 - 84 75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 5-9 0-4 -15

15% -10

Indiana Female

10%

-5

Grant County Female

5%

Upland Female

Indiana Male

5 5%

10 10%

Grant County Male

Male Indiana

Should the Town desire to retain a higher percentage of Taylor University graduates, they will need to consider and actively plan to meet the needs and desires of the age group.

0 0

Upland Male

15 15%

Female Grant County

Upland

Figure 1.28: Age and gender distribution (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a).

1.5.3 RACE Towns with a university presence tend to have a more racially diverse demographic. However, even with Taylor University, census data shows 94% of the Upland population reported their race as white alone, a higher percentage than the state (84%) and county (88%) (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014). Still, state and county trends anticipate an increase in the multi-race and Hispanic or Latino population. As a result, the Town should proactively plan for a more diverse community (Kinghorn, 2012).

1.5.4 INCOME Indiana has a higher median household income and higher per capita income than Grant County and Upland. Additionally, 14.7% of the Indiana population is below poverty level, 17.5% of the Grant County population is below poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014),

40

Per Capita Income

Median Household Income

Figure 1.29: Income distribution (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

20

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS and 11% of the Upland population is below poverty level (Local Laboratories, 2014a). The higher median household income and lower percentage of the population below poverty level suggest Upland residents have a higher standard of living than Grant County as a whole..

1.5.5 EDUCATION The Upland population is more educated when compared to Grant County and Indiana. Almost 95% of the Upland population 18+ has at least a high school diploma or equivalent (Local Laboratories, 2014b), higher than Grant County (85%) and Indiana (86%) (Local Laboratories, 2014c). Over 43% of the Upland population 25+ has at least a bachelor’s degree and 21% of the 25+ population has at least a master’s degree (Local Laboratories, 2014b).

If the Town desires to keep those with bachelor degrees from leaving the county, they will need to plan for those people’s needs and desires and provide attractive opportunities for housing, employment, and recreation.

Upland

Grant County

Indiana

Figure 1.30: Educational attainment (Local Laboratories, 2014b).

1.5.6 HOUSING In 2012, there were 933 housing units in Upland.

Across the three communities, the percentage of housing units that were owner-occupied, renter-occupied, and vacant were very similar, though Upland had a slightly higher percentage of renter-occupied housing units and owneroccupied housing units. There may be more renter-occupied housing units due to housing marketed towards the transient student population. Out of the vacant housing supply in Upland, the majority of the units were reported as “for rent” or “other” (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a). Other units can be vacant for several reasons such as the owner doesn’t want to rent or sell and/ or living elsewhere. The unit may be used for storage, held for settlement, being repaired, or foreclosed.

Vacant

Renter Occupied HU

Owner Occupied HU

Figure 1.31: Housing comparison (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

41

Upland has a higher median home value ($156,624) and average home value ($175,084) of owner-occupied housing units than Grant County (median home value of $118,816 and average home value of $137,775) and Indiana (median home value of $120,823 and average home value of $143,049). Additionally, Upland has a larger percentage of owner-occupied housing units valued in the range of $150,000499,999 than Grant County and Indiana (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014b). Home values measure neighborhood quality, housing affordability, and wealth. The high home values in Upland signify a high level of neighborhood quality and quality-of-life.

1.5.7 SUMMARY Based on the demographic analysis, Upland residents are educated, invested in the community, and have a high standard of living.

While over 50% of the population is between the ages of 15 – 24 and most likely transient students at Taylor University, Upland has a strong residential population; represented by the high percentage of owner-occupied housing units and high home values. Upland does have more renter-occupied housing units than Grant County or Indiana, most likely catering to the student population.

Considering the large student population, Upland has a lower per capita income than Indiana and Grant County. However, the median household income is another indicator of the high standard of living of Upland residents.

Upland

Grant County

Indiana

Figure 1.32: Housing value comparison (U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014a).

To retain the 15 – 24 population, Upland needs to plan for their needs and provide opportunities and infrastructure for them.

While the town can provide business opportunities to retain the population, places to live are equally important.

42

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

(page intentionally left blank)

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

43

1.6 44

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

REAL ESTATE MARKET OUTLOOK 1.6.1 OVERVIEW The real estate market outlook provides an overview of current trends on a national level, state level, and local level in the following sectors: industrial, hotel, office, retail, multi-family residential, and single family residential. While general in scope, the real estate market outlook provides knowledge of what is happening beyond the Town of Upland, how development in Upland may be affected by external factors, and how Upland can be market responsive.

The Millennial generation is impacting all sectors. Millennials prefer to live, work, and play in an urban environment. Their work styles have caused office layouts to change to more open and collaborative work spaces while their use of technology has had positive impacts on the retail and industrial sectors (PwC & the Urban Land Institute [ULI], 2013).

Specific to Indiana, the most important factors regarding growth are thriving communities, quality of local schools, and maintenance of infrastructure. The unemployment rate in Indiana, an indicator of a state local economic health, was the highest in 2009 at 10.8%. As of March 2014, the Indiana unemployment rate was 5.9% (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 2014). When compared to the national March 2014 unemployment rate of 6.7% (Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject, 2014), Indiana shows a healthier economy than the nation as a whole.

Since the 2009 recession, the population in East Central Indiana has declined by .32% and employment has declined by 1%. There will be low levels of growth in the region in 2014. The gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to grow 1.9% in 2014 while employment will decline by 450 jobs. Personal income is projected to grow by 1.7% (Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research, 2013).

1.6.2 INDUSTRIAL National Trends As the United States economy continually improves after the 2009 recession, industrial real estate will see a boost in 2014 as shortening the supply chain becomes the top priority for retailers and manufacturers. This will lead to retailers and manufacturers looking for larger warehousing and distribution facilities. Warehousing is the strongest opportunity for development in 2014; not only in the industrial sector and top-tier markets, but across all sub-sectors and second-tier markets as well.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

45

The rise in e-commerce is directly related to the increased demand for warehousing space. Online retailers need fulfillment centers near major cities with easy access in order to complete same-day shipping that consumers now expect. In a 2013 national property type outlook study published by the Urban Land Institute and PwC, a logistics executive stated, “electronic retailing is impacting the whole distribution program. Facilities are being built to enable same-day delivery—huge buildings, fulfillment centers in areas where we’ve never seen warehouses before,” (PwC & ULI, 2013). Key drivers in warehousing development will be access to major cities, ability for global distribution, types of connectivity, infrastructure, healthy local economies, and large areas of space.

The manufacturing sector in Indiana accounts for 28% of Indiana’s gross domestic product (GDP), generates $84.2 billion in economic output, and employs almost 17% of the Indiana workforce. Since July 2009, the manufacturing sector in Indiana has added 63,300 jobs and increased manufacturing employee compensation by 6.5% for an average of $73,500. The growth in the manufacturing sector has led to a positive impact on Indiana’s per capita personal income (PCPI). Ranked 38th in the country in 2012, the growth of PCPI is expected to outperform neighboring states (Rushenbert, 2014).

The “reshoring” of manufacturing factories to the United States and the elimination of long supply chains across the Pacific Ocean will benefit the industrial market. As labor costs in China are rising, many companies are relocating at a rate faster than expected. Not only are American manufacturers looking for ways to shorten the supply chain, countries that export high numbers of goods to the United States are relocating to the United States as well.

Since the end of the recession, there has been substantial growth in the warehousing sector. Manufacturing of durable goods is close to the long-term trend and significant future changes are not likely to happen (BSU, 2013).

Drivers of relocation are the low energy costs in the United States and the 2015 opening of the widened Panama Canal. The Panama Canal will increase the demand for industrial spaces on accessible waterfronts along the East and West Gulf Coasts and ports that can support larger ships and offer intermodal connectivity will see the most benefit.

As travel increases (a sign of the national economic recovery), the hospitality industry will see an increase in hotel demand. Limited- service hotels are expected to be high performers due to lower operating costs, while full-service hotels are expected to decline. Selectservice hotel brands that have the appeal of full-service hotels with less amenities will also see high levels of performance. Corporate travel has a large influence on hotel performance and those located near large industrial and office nodes will perform well.

Other strong performing industrial subsectors are selfstorage, data centers, and research and development (PwC & ULI, 2013).

Indiana Trends Indiana analysts disagree with the national opinion and do not believe the industrial sector will see large amounts of growth in Indiana in 2014. Construction in metro Indianapolis is the highest since the end of the recession. In Q3 2013, there have been more than 4.5 million s.f. under construction. Demand has absorbed new supply and since Q4 2012, industrial vacancy rates are between 6% and 7% (ULI Indiana, 2013).

46

East Central Indiana Trends

1.6.3 HOTEL National Trends

Nationally, hotel development growth is slowing because increased demand is catching up with current supply. A new hotel in a market that currently has high levels of performance can have a negative impact. Other factors limiting growth are increased regulation and interest costs (PWC & ULI, 2013).

East Central Indiana Trends From 2010-2013, the accommodation and food services sector has declined in employment by 2.89% (BSU, 2013).

New investment and development in this sector is unlikely.

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 1.33: Local storefront along Main Street in Upland (Browning Day, 2015).

1.6.4 RETAIL

centers are one of the most highly rated retail investment categories in 2014 (PwC & ULI, 2013).

National Trends Indiana Trends The retail market is recovering more slowly than other property types. As a result of the upturn in the e-commerce markets, the retail market is expected to become leaner in the future because technology has enabled retailers to keep lower levels of inventory in stock requiring less space in the brick-and-mortar store.

The changes in retail will lead to a continual increase in online shopping, smaller retail stores, and a decline in large, big-box/ department stores. For retailers to be successful during these changes, they will need to rely on fastshipping. High-end retail is performing better than middle range retail due to location in entertainment districts and susceptibility to online competition.

Urban markets are responding differently to changes in the retail market. There has been an increase in demand for urban shopping centers due to the millennial generation preferring to spend time in urban environments.

Additionally, neighborhood and community shopping

All property types in the retail sector have positive prospects. Neighborhood/community centers have expectations for growth while regional malls are expected to remain stable. New retail construction is not expected to take place in 2014 and development will be added in Class A suburban locations and select infill locations. Similar to national trends, high-end and discount/outlet retail is performing well while the middle market retailers continue to struggle (ULI Indiana, 2013).

East Central Indiana Trends The retail sector has declined in employment by 2.65% in 2010-2013. Growth is expected in employment and sales in 2014 with the development and opening of a Dick’s Sporting Goods in Delaware County. The sporting goods store will serve as an anchor for other retailers and a restaurant. The estimated development investment is around $12 million (BSU, 2013).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

47

1.6.5 OFFICE

1.6.6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

National Trends

National Trends

The office market will struggle more than others to find investors. In Q1 2014, the national office vacancy rate was 15.2% (Cassidy Turley, 2014). Trends show center city office markets will be stronger and have lower vacancy rates than suburban office markets (PwC & ULI, 2013).

Infill and urban housing is the top-ranked investment for development and will continue to grow. Although slightly lower than 2013, moderate-income to high-income apartment developments are projected to be very strong in 2014. There will be a demand increase for 55+ active rental communities as the Baby Boomer generation sell their homes in favor of more “resort like� communities geared towards active and walkable lifestyles. Many of the current homebuyers are Millennials and prefer to live in more urban and walkable areas (PWC & ULI, 2013).

Current trends show companies are able to do more with less space and by increasing employment density, companies are able to increase efficiency and productivity of office space while lowering cost per employee. The development of smart phones and portable technology has led to more companies letting employees work from home.

There will be an increased demand for energy efficient buildings, LEED certification, and quality of mechanical systems. In the near future, it is possible that developments will not receive a building permit without meeting LEED criteria.

High levels of density are not as much of a concern for mid-tier office markets. In suburban office markets where employees usually drive to work, offices are required to provide parking for every employee and are not able to increase density due to lack of available parking space (PwC & ULI, 2013).

Indiana Trends In agreement with national trends, the multi-family market is in a growth phase. In central Indiana, there have been four consecutive years of growth in the multi-family market and it is estimated 4,000 new units will be placed in service in 2014. The downtown core of central Indiana has seen consistent years of growth in multi- family occupancy. As a result of the new units, there may be leasing incentives offered in high-growth areas and occupancy rates are not expected to rise after 2014 (ULI Indiana, 2013).

Indiana Trends Recently, central Indiana has struggled with high vacancy rates due to companies increasing employee density and using office space more efficiently. However, the reduced number of large blocks of Class A space available hint that the office market could be growing (ULI Indiana, 2013).

East Central Indiana Trends There has been a decline in employment growth between the years 2010-2013 in sectors that are traditional office space tenants such as information, finance and insurance, professional, scientific and technical services. Employment growth has declined by -5.92%, -3.78%, and -3.49%, respectfully (BSU, 2013). The employment decline suggests an oversupply of office space and less demand. New office development is not likely and would not be absorbed by the market.

48

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART ONE: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 1.6.7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

East Central Indiana Trends

National Trends

Between February 2013 and February 2014, median sales prices for single family homes have increased by 40.8% from $47,900 to $67,450. In the past year, inventory of homes for sale has declined by -23% and new listings have declined by -31% (Indiana Association of Realtors, 2014).

The most significant prospect changes in 2014 are in moderate-income and high-income single family housing.

45% of housing sales have been all-cash purchases, a 15% increase from August 2012. Foreign investors, a majority from Latin America and Europe, are looking for second homes that offer a better value per s.f. than their home country. Large private equity firms are also investing in the housing market and purchasing vacant inventory for construction.

While the housing market is continually improving, it is still considered unstable because a considerable amount of homes are being purchased by investors. Once homes are sold at a constant and accelerated rate, this will be reversed and the market will be considered stable (PWC & ULI, 2013).

Indiana Trends The single family housing market in Indiana is also expected to see an upswing in development. The Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors (MIBOR) reported a 21% quarter-over-quarter increase in closed sales and an increase in sale price of 6.5% (ULI Indiana, 2013).

1.6.8 SUMMARY While offices in urban locations are increasing employee density, this is not much of a concern in suburban areas.

While increasing employee density is not a top concern for suburban office, they will need to provide various qualityof-life amenities for employees ranging from cafeterias, break areas, and exercise facilities. Trends show that new office buildings will be more successful if they are built more efficiently with the possibility of becoming LEED certified.

Trends show urban centers have seen an increase in retail and multi-family housing as both Millennials and Baby Boomers have a preference towards walkable, active, urban environments and communities that will see growth are those that have are located near the urban fringe or have an urban environment, strong quality of place, and provide amenities that nurture human capital. Communities that do not have offer these values will see their population relocate. This relocation will continue the regional trend of a decline in population and employment (BSU, 2013).

Figure 1.34: Typical residential street in Upland: 2nd Street looking south from Barry St., (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

49

1.7 50

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.7.1 KEY FINDINGS The existing conditions analysis is a foundational effort of the planning process and is necessary to better understand the current condition of the Town and trends or previous efforts which may influence the outcome of the planning process.

The Browning Day Project Team identified seven previously completed planning documents that will influence this planning process. The existing plans show a desire for business development opportunities, pedestrian trail network, and a stronger downtown core.

At the Kick-off Meeting, members of the Steering Committee were introduced and there was a discussion of the planning process and project schedule. The meeting attendees stated a desirable result of the planning process is to identify reachable goals, a list of prioritized improvements, and an overall guiding vision.

The demographic analysis was conducted to better understand the Upland population. While quantitative in nature, it provides a comprehensive snapshot of who lives in the community, local trends, and how Upland compares to both Grant County and Indiana. The demographic analysis concluded that while Upland has a very large student population, the residential population is very invested in the community. Additionally, Upland has a higher standard of living than the surrounding Grant County. To appeal to the student population after graduation, Upland will need to provide business opportunities, recreational activities, and housing suitable for young professionals.

The real estate market outlook analyzed the current trends to understand how external trends affecting development in Upland. While very broad, the key finding is the impact of the Millennial generation. The Millennials flock to active and dynamic “urban” environments, and place a significant amount of value on walkability and quality of life. Though Upland is not a “big city,” it is possible to create the sense of place of an active urban core. Consequently, communities that will see the most growth are those located in an urban environment or urban fringe, have a strong sense of place, and nurture human capital. If Upland wants to compete for this demographic - one that is currently leaving the Town - effort should be given to revitalize the “downtown” core through the introduction of new business and housing opportunities, and a dynamic public realm.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

51

PART TWO

NEEDS AND PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT Collaboration and engagement are core components of Browning Day’s planning and design methodology. As a result, the Project Team intentionally engaged Town residents throughout the planning process and actively consulted a Steering Committee group comprised of local leaders.

With the help of Town residents and the stakeholders, the Browning Day Project Team was able to identify and prioritize specific needs that will be direct outcomes of the planning process. A 13 question online public opinion survey was distributed to gather feedback and elicit responses from residents who may not have been able to participate in public engagement meetings. Together, this information will inform the Master Plan Vision (Part 3) and Action Plan (Part 4) of this document.

2.1 54

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 OVERVIEW A needs assessment process, as defined in “Needs Assessment, A Creative and Practical Guide for Social Scientists”, is “a systematic and on-going process of providing useable and useful information about the needs of the target population – to those who can and will use it to make judgments about policies and programs” (Reviere, 1996, p. 6). More simply, a needs assessment process is a series of evaluation and analysis techniques designed to better define and understand the needs and priorities of a community, which in this case is the Town of Upland. Having a detailed, accurate understanding of needs and priorities helps to ensure that the Master Plan Vision - and every dollar spent implementing it - provides the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of residents.

There is no set standard or uniform methodology for structuring community-based needs assessments; each community must choose an approach that works within for their unique population, approach, and budget. The needs assessment process utilized for this master plan included a variety of analysis techniques to accurately understand the needs and priorities - items that are very important, but which may or may not be quantified as a “need” - of Town residents and the physical system as a whole. This assessment builds upon the findings in Part One, which are also useful in understanding needs and priorities.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

55

QUALITATIVE TECHNIQUES FOCUS GROUPS PUBLIC MEETINGS STEERING COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES AMENITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ACREAGE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHICS ANALYSIS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

ANECDOTAL TECHNIQUES REAL ESTATE MARKET OUTLOOK SITE PHOTOGRAPHY OBSERVATIONS SITE VISITS Figure 2.1: Needs assessment methodology diagram (Browning Day, 2015).

56

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT 2.1.2 TECHNIQUES Proactively acknowledging the potential for bias, the assessment techniques were “triangulated” – or evaluated from multiple angles and viewpoints. Three primary types of analysis techniques were utilized: anecdotal, qualitative, and quantitative.

Anecdotal techniques are often some of the most accurate, but arguably the least scientific. These techniques are observational in nature, and are often less formalized (and subsequently less documented) than qualitative or quantitative techniques, involving informal conversations with residents or site users, observational site visits, and site photography. In addition, to site visits/observations and site photography, a real estate market outlook was also completed.

Qualitative techniques rely heavily on public and stakeholder engagement, ranging from one-on-one interviews to large-format public workshops. For this planning process, a Steering Committee – composed of influential community leaders – was developed and served as a “sounding board” throughout the life of the project (see Section 1.2). The Project Team also conducted a series of interviews and focus groups with key project stakeholders and stakeholder groups selected by the Town.

In an effort to reach a larger audience, a general, open public input meeting was also conducted.

Quantitative analysis techniques are the most scientific in nature, and are typically viewed as the most defensible.

These techniques are often the most labor and data intensive, and can serve as a “benchmark” that allows for comparison against similar communities, populations, or across a period of time. Examples of quantitative techniques utilized include a public opinion survey, level of service analysis, and community benchmarking.

When the cumulative findings of the various needs assessment techniques are reviewed, “needs” or “priorities” identified by multiple techniques are given the highest degree of validity, and serve as the foundational framework for the visioning and implementation portions of the plan to follow.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

57

2.2 58

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS + FOCUS GROUPS 2.2.1 OVERVIEW A group of individual project stakeholders were selected by the Steering Committee to be interviewed by the Browning Day team. Over the course of a day, multiple individual meetings were held on-site in Upland. Though stakeholders were given a list of “talking points” to guide the discussion, the intent of these meetings was to solicit broad-based input on the existing conditions of the Town and to learn, from a resident’s point of view, what is working and what isn’t working. Participants were asked to be open and honest, encouraged to focus on the “big picture,” and to not let the current constraints facing the Town - fiscal or otherwise - limit their vision for the future.

2.2.2 PROCESS On Thursday, June 12, 2014 representatives from Browning Day hosted individual stakeholder interviews and focus groups at Avis Industrial Corporation in Upland.

Meetings started around 8:30 a.m. and continued on an hourly schedule until 5:30 p.m. Additional stakeholder meetings were conducted over the phone with individuals who were not able to meet on-site. Browning Day met with a total of 9 individuals, who represented local business leaders, Taylor University staff, former Taylor University students, Town Council members, elected officials, and active Upland residents.

2.2.3 DISCUSSION TOPICS The discussion topics provided to participants were intended to guide the conversation, but not to dictate it. The handout provided four (4) questions, which were broad in nature and focused on what can be done to improve the Town of Upland and make this plan successful. The four discussion topics were: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Which improvements will have the greatest positive impact on the Town as a whole?

If I were in charge, I would fix…

Placemaking...what?!?

What will make this plan successful?

Following is a summary of the input received during the interview process; additional details and notes from the individual interviews can be found in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

59

1. Which improvements will have the greatest positive impact on the Town as a whole? - “What would you consider the MOST IMPORTANT to improving overall quality of life in Upland?”

Stakeholders expressed various improvements that would have great impacts on the Town including the establishment of a historic district, increasing land and business development, and forming a core/nucleus that creates a community within walking distance.

When asked what can be done that will have the most impact on the Town, one stakeholder said “it’s about trying to keep the young, best, brightest...or bring them back to the area or lure them someplace else. We need to be attractive to the 20-30 something’s.” Another stakeholder indicated a community center would benefit the Town and residents because, “we have a lot of different organizations, but need a social center. Those people really need some help, we have programs but they don’t know where to connect.”

2. If I were in charge, I would fix… - “What do you believe needs the MOST IMPROVEMENT within the Town?”

This question elicited various responses from stakeholders and the four main areas stakeholders expressed needed the most improvement were economic development, pedestrian network, downtown area, and parks. While discussing economic development, one stakeholder shared his personal story, ”What I’ve seen in my journey is we all needed someone who inspired us and we could say ‘they did it’ and follow them. Had I not done that, I never would have known my potential. It’s so hard to start a business, but if you support businesses that are started, they can see how it is done...I think the strategy of ‘we need to be able to innovate with new ideas is misguided because there is no one in town to help mentor, give advice, or teach QuickBooks.” Another stakeholder reiterated the need for a nucleus: “There needs to be a strong nucleus to expand entrepreneurship. We need to focus on the young people, the downtown has to take care of the young people.”

Multiple stakeholders indicated the pedestrian network should be a high-priority for improvement and creating a corridor down 2nd Street is feasible because of the elementary school and pedestrian bridge. One stakeholder indicated the Taylor University students complain that the sidewalks along Main Street don’t connect completely to the downtown area and that a lot of people walk along 8th Street, which has no sidewalks or trails.

Throughout the stakeholder interview process, improving the downtown area was identified as an important element to the Town of Upland Master Plan. One stakeholder said, “We all want to do something with the downtown.

One of the things I feel very strongly about is unless it’s economically backed, it’s short term.”

While there have been major park improvements, when a stakeholder was asked what they would fix, they said they would fix the parks: “When I look at the parks I see the broken windows theory in action—graffiti leads to more graffiti, etc. We need to put infrastructure in place so it lasts to a level of beautification that people are proud of and have a natural inclination to take care of it. Those are my primary concerns.”

60

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT 3. Placemaking...what?!? - “What improvements will help turn downtown Upland into an activated, dynamic place?”

Stakeholders identified improving pedestrian connections and addition of new business as important components to create a vibrant downtown. One stakeholder identified the key as the creation of a corridor with businesses and live/ work buildings, “creating a technical corridor somewhere where we had three or four businesses... Maybe a building that houses 3 or 4 people and a source of jobs for people.”

When discussing new business development, stakeholders communicated they envision businesses that will attract the creative class to Upland.

Additionally, stakeholders suggested Upland could become a hub for artists, similar to Nashville, Indiana and Brown County, or a college town.

2.2.4 SUMMARY The stakeholder interviews provided the Browning Day Project Team with valuable first-hand information about Upland to guide the planning process. Throughout multiple conversations, several key themes emerged: the importance of business development, the emergence of a downtown “core,” the expansion of a more extensive pedestrian network, and continual involvement and partnership with Taylor University.

These themes focused on the main goal of transforming Upland into a dynamic place, and that the revitalization of the “downtown” area could serve as a catalyst. Participants agreed that strategies aimed at retaining Taylor University graduates should be developed. These strategies would likely need to focus on overall quality of life, sense of place, and business opportunities.

4. What will make this plan successful? - “What will make this more than just a plan?

Stakeholders believe the key to making this plan successful is the partnership and connection with Taylor University and ensuring Upland is a business friendly community.

Taylor University is a crucial part of Upland and fostering a relationship to improve the Town will benefit both parties.

Additionally, creating a community where students will want to stay after graduation will benefit Upland.

For new business development to take place, Upland needs to provide the necessary infrastructure. This includes fiber optics, buildings, recreation activities, and housing opportunities for businesses and young professionals. .

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

61

2.3 62

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

GENERAL PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2.3.1 OVERVIEW + PROCESS A general public workshop was held at the conclusion of the stakeholder meeting discussed in Section 2.2, on Thursday, June 12, 2014 from 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm.

The workshop participants were provided with the same discussion topics as the stakeholders, with the same purpose; to gather broad-based input on the existing conditions of Upland and to learn what is working and what isn’t working. This workshop was open to the general public; a key difference between this workshop and the stakeholder interviews, which were by invitation. The result was a free flowing discussion between the Upland residents and the Browning Day Project Team.

2.3.2 DISCUSSION TOPICS The discussion topics were broad questions that focused on what can be done to improve the Town of Upland and make this plan successful. While the discussion was informal, the four main discussion topics were: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Which improvements will have the greatest positive impact on the Town as a whole?

If I were in charge, I would fix‌ Placemaking...what?!?

What will make this plan successful?

Following is a summary of the input received during the workshop; a copy of the sign-in sheet and full meeting minutes can be found in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

63

1. Which improvements will have the greatest positive impact on the Town as a whole? - “What would you consider the MOST IMPORTANT to improving overall quality of life in Upland?”

During the general public workshop, this discussion started by asking meeting attendees what improvements they think would have the greatest positive impact on the Town of Upland as a whole. The discussion for this topic naturally focused on downtown revitalization and strategies to attract and keep the Millennials, (the current student population), and the Baby Boomers; two demographic groups who desire to live in active, walkable, and “urban” environments.

Attracting and retaining these key target markets is important because they are the core component of the economic equation; if the Town doesn’t provide the lifestyle desired by these groups, they will go elsewhere.

2. If I were in charge, I would fix… - “What do you believe needs the MOST IMPROVEMENT within the Town?”

Because Upland is a small town, fixing one thing can lead to more improvements in the community. As previously identified by the stakeholders, participants at the general public meeting said if they were in charge they would focus on improving sidewalks, building facades, lighting, streetscapes, gateways, renovating historic buildings (mainly in the downtown area), business development, and expanding the parks program.

Additionally, attendees said they would like to see intangible efforts such as youth summer programs and services for entrepreneurs which would appeal to Taylor University graduates in an effort to keep them investing within the Town of Upland.

Meeting attendees stated there is a need for a place downtown besides the bar to bring people in all the time and on weekends. Participants believe creating a “place” where both older people and younger people can go and interact would benefit the Town. In the past, residents have expressed a desire for a coffee shop and Internet café downtown. Creating a “third place” such as a coffee shop or café can result in a more cohesive community and provide a service-learning experience for students if they participate in its operation and management.

Generally, meeting attendees seemed to agree that the best place for Town-wide revitalization to start was in the downtown core, and that strategies would also need to be developed to connect the downtown with Taylor University to the south.

64

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT 3. Placemaking...what?!? - “What improvements will help turn downtown Upland into an activated, dynamic place?”

Workshop participants believe that placemaking will be an important component to the success of the Upland Master Plan. Meeting attendees discussed the possibility of creating a gathering place downtown, improving building facades, creating a historic district, and creating an atmosphere that would attract creative individuals, artists, and visitors.

Participants agreed that incorporating mixed-use buildings - specifically those with a commercial ground floor and a residential component - into the downtown area and increasing density would add vibrancy to the community. It was stated that in the past, Taylor University has expressed the goal of supporting entrepreneurship and a desire to foster that locally. The idea of creating a Taylor University node in the downtown where students can showcase their work and collaborate could be a catalyst for other development was also discussed at length.

The topic of the Taylor University “urban campus” generated a significant amount of excitement, and residents believed that it could serve as a catalyst project for revitalizing all of downtown. Paraphrasing a workshop participant; “no one wants to be the first one to take a risk and invest in a dying downtown; that needs to come from a dedicated partner with a long-term interest in the community.” Participants agreed that Taylor would be a good candidate for this effort, and likely the only one within the Town able to execute it.

Meeting participants also discussed creating a coffee shop and art gallery in the same building could provide spaces for residents to gather and serve as a catalyst for future locallyowned shops.

4. What will make this plan successful? - “What will make this more than just a plan?

The success of this plan will be made possible with the creation of a core to support economic development and provide the synergy and density that will create a dynamic place.

Additionally, partnerships with Taylor University and other agencies will provide resources for implementation. While the core doesn’t need to be located in downtown Upland, the downtown area is a town component that can be improved and will have favorable results. To be successful, a guiding vision and action plan needs to be created to unify residents and ensure efforts aren’t being duplicated.

2.3.3 SUMMARY Meeting attendees envision future Upland as community with a vibrant downtown that attracts both the Millennial and Baby Boomer generations by providing an active, walkable lifestyle and additional housing and commercial opportunities.

Improving downtown infrastructure and streetscapes must be a key component of the plan in order to be successful.

This is especially true of Main Street, which is actually SR22 and under the jurisdiction of INDOT. There is a desire to expand the parks system and create more programs for the community youth, as well as the idea of an “urban” park downtown.

Workshop participants were very supportive of the idea of a large Taylor University “presence” downtown, which could include the redevelopment of the land currently owned by the University along Main Street into a mixed-use building. Participants also agreed that this building should integrate both university and general public/commercial uses - such as a coffee shop, bakery, or print shop - to create a more diverse base of users.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

65

2.4 66

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

ONLINE PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY 2.4.1 OVERVIEW In an effort to reach a larger amount of the general public, an online public opinion survey was conducted. This survey was intended for Upland residents, full-time Taylor University students attending the Upland campus, Taylor University faculty, and residents of the unincorporated areas of Grant County surrounding the Town of Upland. The 13 question survey took approximately 3 – 5 minutes to complete and participants remained anonymous. The survey was available to the public from May 2, 2014 till June 1, 2014.

2.4.2 PROCESS The online survey was administered by Browning Day through the use of SurveyMonkey®. Because the survey was elective (in that anyone could choose to take the survey), the results could not be statistically-valid. In an attempt to reduce the potential for bias, there were protections built into the online survey platform which only permitted one (1) survey response per unique IP address, thus minimizing the potential that someone could take the survey multiple times.

The survey was widely advertised to the general public for several weeks prior to its launch through the use of traditional public announcements, reminders included with residents’ utility bills, the project-specific Facebook® page, and local media.

Additionally, Browning Day created a project handout card (see Section 1.3) which included a QR code that directed users to a Facebook® application where the survey could also be completed.

A concern voiced by the Town during the planning process was that some residents may not be capable of accessing and completing an online survey. To address this, paper copies of the identical survey instrument were placed in Town Hall during the same timeframe for residents to complete manually. At the end of the survey period, paper copies were collected and manually entered online by the Browning Day Project Team to ensure consistent analysis of the results.

There were a total of 498 unique respondents to the online survey, representing approximately 13% of the town’s estimated 2014 population. The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were statistically similar to that of the Town overall with regard to age, residency, and gender.

Of the 498 unique survey responses, 490 were collected online from the survey web link and Facebook® page and 8 paper copies were collected. A copy of the survey instrument, as well as the full survey response data are provided in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

67

2.4.3 DISCUSSION TOPICS + RESPONSES

Demographic Information

There were two parts of the 13 question survey: basic demographic information and project specific questions.

Basic demographic information was collected to crossreference survey responses to existing U.S. Census data while the project specific questions were specific, preference-based questions to validate previous planning efforts and to inform the Project Team how to proceed in the current phase of the planning process.

Most of the collected responses (45.58%) were from Taylor University students. The Town of Upland residents were the second largest response group (40.36%). Consistent with the results from question 1, 45.58% of the residents specified they’ve lived in the Town of Upland for 1-4 years in question 2. The second largest response group (13.45%) identified they have lived in upland for 5-10 years. 50.4% of the collected responses indicated they were in the college age range between the years 18-24 and 23.29% indicated they are in the young adult age range. Additionally, 61.24% of the received surveys were from females. However, it’s important to note that there are more females than males in Upland and in 2012, 52% of the Town of Upland population and 55% of the Taylor University undergraduate enrollment were female.

Following is a summary of the responses received, as well as potential implications as they relate to the planning process.

OneTown Upland: 2014 Town of Upland Master Plan Public Opinion Survey OneTown Upland: 2014 Town of Upland Master Plan Public Opinion Survey

Q1 Which statement best describes you?

Q1 Which statement best describes you?

Answ ered: 498 Skipped: 0 Answ ered: 498 Skipped: 0

2

Tow n of Upland TOWN OFTow UPLAND n of Upland resident resident RESIDENT

3

Resident of GREATER UPLANDResident of the greater...

AREA RESIDENT the greater...

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY Taylor Taylor STUDENT Univ ersity...

Univ ersity...

(6+ MO. ON-CAMPUS)

1

Other OTHER

4

0%

20% 10%

Other

10% 0%

30% 20%

40% 30%

50% 40%

60% 50%

Answ er Choices Answ er Choices

Town of Upland resident Figure 2.2: Public opinion survey response bar graph for Question #1 (Browning Day, 2015).

Town of Upland resident

70% 60%

80% 70%

90% 100% 80% 90% 100%

Responses Responses 40.36% 40.36% 201 201

10.84% 10.84% 54 Resident of the greater Upland area (uninc orporated Grant County) who works in or visits the Town of Upland on a regular Resident of the greater Upland area (uninc orporated Grant County) who works in or visits the Town of Upland on a regular NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN 68 basis basis

Taylor University student (living on or near campus for more than 6 months a year) Taylor University student (living on or near campus for more than 6 months a year)

54

45.58% 45.58% 227 227

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT to the Town and increasing the viability of existing businesses was the most important area to improve.

Project-Specific Questions 92% of the received surveys indicated they did not participate in the 2010 Town of Upland Master Planning charrette led by Ball State University (BSU). Anticipating this possibility, the survey instrument provided some background on the planning charrette, which is serving as the vision-based framework for this planning effort.

In question 7, more than half of participants (53.15%) believe the addition of new businesses to downtown such as restaurants, shops, offices, or satellite education facilities will have the greatest positive impact on downtown Upland. 12.12% of the survey participants believe the creation of activated public spaces—such as a community splash pad, plaza, street life, or park space—will have the greatest positive impact. There were six responses in the other category and these specified a connection to Taylor University, renovating historic buildings downtown and creating historic guidelines for new developments, addition of new business in existing infrastructure, and more recreational opportunities like a skate park would have the largest positive impact on downtown.

It was indicated by 38.23% that the establishment of a historic downtown district, or a walkable and lively downtown core with activated public spaces that is composed of renovated historic buildings with places to shop and eat is the most important improvement area to improve overall quality-of-life in Upland. 28.44% of the responses indicated increasing land and business development by bringing new businesses and/or enterprises OneTown Upland: 2014 Town of Upland Master Plan Public Opinion Survey

Q7 A key theme resulting from the 2010 charrette was making improvements to “downtown” Upland; which of the below improvements do you believe would have the GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT on downtown Upland?

Answ ered: 429 Skipped: 69 100%

1

60%

Addition of New Buildings –...

Improv ed Pedestria n Connec...

7 ADDITION OF NEW BUSINESSES

Renov ated Historic Architect ure –...

4

5

IMPROVED PED. CONNECTIONS

Answ er Choices

Streetsca pe Improv eme nts –...

3

ADDITION OF NEW BUILDINGS

Creation of Activ ated Public...

6

RENOVATED HISTORIC ARCH.

0%

2

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

20%

ACTIVATED PUBLIC SPACES

40%

Addition of New Businesse s –...

OTHER

80%

Other (please specify)

Responses 12.12% 52

Creation of Activated Public Spac es – suc h as a c e Figure 2.3: Public opinion survey response barommunity splash-pad, plaza (e.g. town square), street-life, or park spac graph for Question #7 (Browning Day, 2015).

Streetsc ape Improvements – addition or improvement of lighting, street-trees, landsc ape, and sidewalks, and roadways

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

5.83%

25

69

Renovated Historic Architecture – rehabilitating and re-using existing historic buildings

9.79%

42

Addition of New Buildings – developing new in-fill buildings to take the plac e of vac ant lots or buildings whic h cannot be restored

8.39%

36

55.24% of the responses indicated the “small-town” community feel and atmosphere of Upland is what residents like and appreciate the most about the Town, while 27.27% of the survey participants indicated the quality-of-life of Upland has in regards to good schools, low crime, and accessibility is what residents appreciate the most about Upland. 11.66% of the collected surveys said they like the low cost of living in Upland when compared to other places.

Four individuals said Taylor University is what they like most about Upland; two people said Ivanhoe’s family restaurant is their favorite thing about Upland; and one response said they enjoy the faith-based culture of the town.

Over 42% of respondents believe economic development and bringing new businesses into the Town is the leading area in need of improvement while 23.47% believe creating a walkable, activated downtown area that is used by residents is the area in most need of improvement. A total of 13.62% of respondents said the overall image and appearance of the Town needs the most improvement.

When asked if the Town of Upland has a positive image through the eyes of visitors that will make them want to

NO!

stay or come back to the town, 66.67% of the responses indicated no and the remaining 33.33% of the responses said yes.

Over 57% of the respondents believe the key incentive to encourage Taylor University students to stay in Upland after graduation are business opportunities and 20.94% believe a positive sense-of-place with many things to do and unique appeal is the key. A total of 6.82% responded with other. In the other category, 79% indicated they believe employment opportunities are the key incentive and 31% indicated a sense of place and community is the key to retaining the student population. One respondent who indicated a sense of place and community would retain students said, “I can’t see any young adults wanting to live in Upland. I like it because it’s my home. All four of my children moved to big cities [after living in Upland].”

One Taylor University student responded “you are asking many people to stay in a small undeveloped area when we are going to school mostly to take part in developed areas.

Create post college opportunities beyond the few that are present,” and another student said, “rather than point

66.7% 33.3%

YES!

Figure 2.4: Public opinion survey response pie chart for Question #10 (Browning Day, 2015).

70

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT to incentives, I’ll point to the greatest disincentives: lack of diversity of employment opportunities and lack of access to high-quality restaurants and groceries.”

One response from a Town of Upland resident was “business opportunities that pay enough to enable them to pay student loans back. Most cannot stay, if they have any student loans, there is not enough money here to pay back student loans. Also many feel like they ‘need to leave’ to feel successful—some feel like it is a part of ‘growing up’ similar to leaving home, etc. so I think it would be great to get some if [sic] that thinking removed and I hope someday people can be excited about young people and new business ventures taking place here. We have brilliant people and money available in various forms, but it seems the community is resistant to change or growth in many ways…That’s just my opinion living here for 25 years and being connected to both ends of the Town. But at the end of the day we must begin to believe and demonstrate that Upland has value and it’s possible to do things in a small place. Then people will stay.”

2.4.4 SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS Based on the survey results, it is clear that Town residents have a high level of passion and commitment to Upland, but feel that there is room for improvement. The majority of the results from the various survey questions indicate that the revitalization and redevelopment of the “downtown” area is the highest priority from both an aesthetic and economic perspective. Most of the surveys indicated a strong desire for an appropriately dense, vibrant and active downtown that is able to retain the small-town community sense of place, which residents enjoy about Upland, while also providing additional business and economic development opportunities.

Question 12 asked survey respondents what they would consider the most successful immediate outcome of the current One Town Upland master planning process.

34.37% of the responses indicated the creation of shortterm, actionable initiatives like smaller improvements that can be acted upon in the near future would be the most successful immediate outcome of the current One Town Upland master planning process; 21% indicated the new long-range goals or major improvements that may take many years to achieve would be the most successful and immediate outcome of the previous efforts. Notable responses in the other category were “viable partnership between Taylor community and Town community to create job opportunities,” “more walkable businesses (restaurants, stores, etc.) for Taylor students who are already attending,” and “consolidate all the ugly signs at Berry and 22 into one nice sign listing all the businesses.”

The last survey question asked what the best method of outreach is during the planning process and the majority of the responses, over 64%, said the internet (Facebook®, Town website, etc.) was the most successful method of outreach. 24% indicated the local newspaper or other means of print publication was best and 8.16% indicated a community bulletin board within a business or restaurant was the most effective way to communicate upcoming events and opportunities.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

71

2.5 72

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

3

A PARKS + OPEN SPACE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ™

2.5.1 OVERVIEW: IT’S ALL ABOUT EQUITY! The Indiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) defines a parks and open space Level of Service (LOS) analysis as “a process of strategic planning which takes into account the unique aspects of individual communities and measures demand for recreation opportunities, current park and recreation resources, and the needs and preferences of community residents” (INDNR, 2012).

The purpose of the LOS analysis found herein is to attempt to identify gaps in access or equity with regard to parks and open space facilities or amenities. The reasoning behind a LOS analysis is that parks are for the people – all people - and that all people should have “equal opportunity” to benefit from them (Mertes, 1996). In his book The Excellent City Parks System; What Makes it Great and How to Get There, author Peter Harnik stresses the importance of equity by stating that an “excellent city park system is accessible to everyone regardless of residence, physical abilities, or financial resources. Parks should be easily reachable from every neighborhood, usable by the handicapped and challenged, and available to low-income residents” (Harnik, 2003).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

73

2.5.2 METHODOLOGY There are multiple ways to measure LOS from a parks and open space perspective; each of which is necessary but not sufficient alone. Similar to the needs assessment concept of “triangulation” discussed earlier in this section, LOS must also be evaluated from multiple vantage points because there are no concrete standards or guidelines that apply universally to all communities. Additionally, there is no one LOS evaluation technique that is able to account for every variable contributing to accessibility and equity. In the end, it is up to each individual community to decide what role they want their parks to play, and what standards are required to achieve or maintain that standard.

All too often, communities rely solely on acreage-based analysis (a ratio of acres per 1,000 population) because it is the most widely referenced and is also the easiest to calculate. Evaluating acreage LOS alone however, does not paint the full picture with regard to equity because it does not take into account quality, amenities present (or lacking), or geographic location.

To provide a more comprehensive view of LOS, this section of the master plan will evaluate LOS – at a high level - for both amenities (presence of facilities), and access (geographic distribution of resources), in addition to the traditional LOS for acreage.

Amenity LOS is important because not all parks provide users with the same facilities; just because a park is classified as a “regional park” does not necessarily mean it will have a pool. Therefore, knowing only park acreage or classification does not provide an accurate understanding of facility inventory compared against the existing population’s demand for those facilities. Similarly, evaluating access LOS is equally important. If a community has over 100 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents – an exceptionally high LOS – but 95% of those acres are located on one side of the community, is that equitable? Understanding the geographic distribution of facilities and resources is key to understanding equity, or lack thereof.

Figure 2.5: Eastbrook South Elementary School playground and greenspace (Browning Day, 2015).

74

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT 2.5.3 ACREAGE LOS Acreage LOS evaluates the total amount of park acreage a community has when compared with its population - both existing and projected – expressed in acres per 1,000 residents. As previously stated, this technique is often one of the most widely utilized due to its ease of calculation.

It is generally regarded that the higher the Acreage LOS, the higher the quality of life enjoyed by the community’s residents.

Currently, there is no clear Acreage LOS standard that applies directly to the Town of Upland. At the time of this planning process, the Town did not have a Parks Master Plan (the usual source of such information), and the existing Upland Town Plan (a component of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 1995), makes no reference to LOS. The 2011-2015 Indiana SCORP makes recommendations on the county-level (a minimum of 20 acres/1,000 population), but not for individual towns or cities. Based on their calculations (using the 2010 population), Grant County is providing an acreage LOS of 4.61 acres/1,000 population, which is 1,077 acres short of the Indiana SCORP recommendation. For comparison purposes, in 2014, the City of Indianapolis, Indiana was providing an Acreage LOS of 13.4 acres/1,000 population (Harnik, 2014).

approximately 0.32% annually. If these projections are realized, by 2027, the Town will provide an Acreage LOS of 9.1 acres/1,000 population if no additional park land is acquired (Figure 2.6).

9.1 acres/1,000 population is likely not representative of the actual LOS enjoyed by residents due to the large amount of quasi-public “park” space provided by Taylor University and the Upland Lions Club. Together, these two entities provide residents with access to approximately 149 additional acres of recreation facilities and open space.

Using the same population projections, when this acreage is taken into account the Town is providing a 2012 Acreage LOS of 47.3 acres/1,000 population and a projected 2027 Acreage LOS of 50.1 acres/1,000 population (Figure 2.7).

The findings of this LOS technique indicate that the Town – and its local partners – are providing residents with a comparably high Acreage LOS, which will only increase if the population projections are realized.

For the purposes of this analysis, a benchmark of 18.5 acres/1,000 population was chosen, which corresponds with the median acreage LOS for low-density cities as cited within the 2014 City Park Facts report published by the Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence. This standard is by no means universal, however, serves as a benchmark. In addition, this analysis utilizes population projections for the Town that are extrapolated from data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The purpose of the projections is to understand implications over time, as population changes.

At the time of this planning process, the Town of Upland had approximately 33 acres of public parkland. Using the 2012 population, the town was providing an Acreage LOS of 8.7 acres/1,000 population. Current projections indicate that the Town’s population is expected to decrease by

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

75

ACREAGE LOS: PUBLIC ACREAGE ONLY

2010 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage a 2010 Population a

3,845 3,845 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5 18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2010 2000 Population LOS

71.1 71.1

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage Acreage

Acresd Acres

Actual Actual Acres/1000 Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency Surplus/Deficiency

182 33

47.3 8.6

111 -38

2012 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage a 2012 Population a

3,813 3,813 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5 18.5 70.5 70.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2012 2006 Population LOS

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage Acreage

d Acres Acres

Actual Actual Acres/1000 Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency Surplus/Deficiency

182 33

47.7 8.7

111 -38

2017 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage a Estimated 2017 Population b Median LOS for Low-Density Citiesc (acres/1,000 residents)

3,752 3,752 18.5 18.5 69.4 69.4

Acres Needed to Meet 2017 2010 Population LOS

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage Acreage

d Acres Acres

Actual Actual Acres/1000 Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency Surplus/Deficiency

182 33

48.5 8.8

113 -36

2027 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage b Estimated 2027 Population b

3,633 3,633 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5 18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2027 2015 Population LOS

67.2 67.2

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage Acreage

Acresd Acres

Actual Actual Acres/1000 Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency Surplus/Deficiency

182 33

50.1 9.1

115 -34

a

U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014 2014 Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease decrease cc 2014 City Park Facts, The Trust for Public Land, 2014 Land, 2014 d Includes portions of Taylor University and Lions Club Park green space in total acreage bb

Figure 2.6: Acreage LOS analysis chart including only “public” park acreage (Browning Day, 2015).

76

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT ACREAGE LOS: TOTAL ACREAGE

2010 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage 2010 Populationa

3,845 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2010 Population LOS

71.1 d

Acres

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

182

47.3

111

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage

2012 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage 2012 Population

a

3,813 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2012 Population LOS

70.5 Acresd

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

182

47.7

111

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage

2017 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage ba

Estimated 2017 Population

3,752 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2017 Population LOS

69.4 d

Acres

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

182

48.5

113

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage

2027 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage Estimated 2027 Populationb

3,633 c

Median LOS for Low-Density Cities (acres/1,000 residents)

18.5

Acres Needed to Meet 2027 Population LOS

67.2 Acresd

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

182

50.1

115

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage a

U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2014 Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease c 2014 City Park Facts, The Trust for Public Land, 2014 d Includes portions of Taylor University and Lions Club Park green space in total acreage b

Figure 2.7: Acreage LOS analysis chart including only all accessible park acreage, including “quasi-public” sites (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

77

2.5.4 AMENITY LOS Amenity LOS (often also referred to as “Facilities LOS”) expresses equal opportunity through the availability of recreation facilities (e.g. basketball courts) within a community when compared with its population (Barth, 2009). In the 1990’s, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) published standards indicating the maximum population served by a recreation facility (e.g. one baseball field serves 10,000 population). These standards were intended to serve as a flexible benchmark, however, were blindly adopted by many communities.

Now, a more community-specific approach is often taken when evaluating Amenity LOS, with communities determining their own standards based on the vision of their residents, current programming trends, and operational capacity. At the time of this planning process, neither the Town, Grant County, or the Indiana SCORP provide specific guidelines on Amenity LOS.

In lieu of a local benchmark or requirement, this Amenity LOS analysis utilized the median population per facility data as reported in the 2015 NRPA Field Report. This analysis also incorporated the same population projections used in the Acreage LOS analysis. It should also be noted that this is by no means a comprehensive list of facilities, however, the facilities selected were the most applicable to the Town of Upland based on the data available in the 2015 NRPA Field Report.

When only “public” facilities are evaluated, in 2012, the Town of Upland was deficient in providing one (1) football/soccer field and one (1) tennis court. Despite the decreasing population, these deficiencies will remain in 2027 if population projects are realized and no additional facilities are added (Figure 2.8).

When the recreation facilities found at Taylor University and the Lions Club Park are included in the analysis, the Town of Upland has a surplus of facilities in every category with the exception of “community gardens” (Figure 2.9).

Facilities LOS: Town Only POPULATION SERVED per c facility

Surplus / Deficiency Existing # of Facilities

ACTIVITY

Population Estimate

2012

a

2017b

2027b

3,845

3,813

3,752

3,633

2010

a

24,804

Recreation/Community Center

0

0

0

0

0

3,899

Playground

2

1

1

1

1

4,413

Tennis Court (outdoor)

0

-1

-1

-1

-1

7,526

Basketball Court

2

1

1

2

2

43,872

Swimming Pool (indoor)

0

0

0

0

0

3,929

Football/Soccer Field

0

-1

-1

-1

-1

3,333

Baseball/Softball Field

7

6

6

6

6

53,915

Dog Park

1

1

1

1

1

27,000

Community Garden

0

0

0

0

0

4

4

4

4

4

19,043

d

Golf Course (9 holes)

aa U.S. CensusBureau BureauviaviaEsri EsriCommunity Community Analyst, 2014 U.S. Census Analyst, 2014 bb Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease c Based on the “median population per facility” data, 2015 National Recreation and Parks Association Field Report, 2015 dc Based the "median" per facilitycourse data, located 2015 National and Parks Field 2015 Walnuton Creek Golf Coursepopulation is a private, 36-hole in near-byRecreation Marion, Indiana, but isAssociation accessible to theReport, public for a fee. d

Walnut Creek Golf Course is a private, 36-hole course located in Marion, IN, but is accessible to the public for a fee.

Figure 2.8: Amenity LOS analysis chart including only “public” recreation facilities (Browning Day, 2015).

78

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT As noted in Section 1.4.3, although the university campus and its green spaces are open to the public, the general public may have limited to no access to its recreation facilities. Only university students and faculty would have full access to Taylor’s facilities. Walnut Creek Golf Course is a private 36-hole golf course, which is accessible to the general public for a modest fee. At the time of this planning process, it appeared as if Town residents had access to the playground and natural areas found at Lions Club Park.

Based on this Amenities LOS analysis, it is recommended that the Town of Upland explore the community’s desire for a community garden. Additionally, the Town has a disproportionate amount of baseball/softball diamonds and may wish to explore the feasibility of utilizing the outfields for football/soccer fields; soccer is a program that is expected to continue grown in popularity.

Facilities LOS: Town + Others POPULATION SERVED per c facility

ACTIVITY

Surplus / Deficiency Existing # of Facilities

Population Estimate

aa

a

a

b

b

2012

2017

2027

3,845

3,813

3,752

3,633

2010

24,804

Recreation/Community Center

1

1

1

1

1

3,899

Playground

2

1

1

1

1

4,413

Tennis Court (outdoor)

9

8

8

8

8

7,526

Basketball Court

6

5

5

6

6

43,872

Swimming Pool (indoor)

1

1

1

1

1

3,929

Football/Soccer Field

9

8

8

8

8

3,333

Baseball/Softball Field

9

8

8

8

8

53,915

Dog Park

1

1

1

1

1

27,000

Community Garden

0

0

0

0

0

19,043

Golf Course (9 holes)d

4

4

4

4

4

U.S.Census CensusBureau BureauviaviaEsri Esri Community Analyst, 2014 U.S. Community Analyst, 2014

bb Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease Based on a projected -0.32% annual population decrease c Based on the “median population per facility” data, 2015 National Recreation and Parks Association Field Report, 2015 dc Walnut Based on the Golf "median" facilitycourse data, located 2015 National and Parks Creek Coursepopulation is a private,per 36-hole in near-byRecreation Marion, Indiana, but isAssociation accessible toField the Report, public for2015 a fee. d

Walnut Creek Golf Course is a private, 36-hole course located in Marion, IN, but is accessible to the public for a fee.

Figure 2.9: Amenity LOS analysis chart including only all accessible recreation facilities, including “quasi-public” sites (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

79

2.5.5 ACCESS LOS A quantitative approach to level of service is to evaluate Access LOS through the development of spatial “service area” guidelines for specific park or facility types such as neighborhood parks or tot-lots. These service areas are representative of the true distance, utilizing the existing transportation network, which residents have to travel to access a facility. To complete this analysis, the existing facilities are mapped in GIS, and then a service area calculated through the use of Esri’s Network Analyst extension. The resulting “bubble” indicates which residential areas have access to a particular park of facilitytype within the given standard. These maps also indicate voids in the service areas, helping to indicate where new facilities should be located within the Town.

planning process; Quality LOS and Programs LOS. Quality LOS geographically maps the service areas of facilities based upon their condition or perceived quality to ensure equitable access to similar quality facilities across the entire community. Quality LOS was excluded from this analysis because the approved project scope did not include any detailed site evaluations of existing facilities, which would be required to obtain a detailed opinion of existing condition/quality. Programs LOS evaluates the geographic distribution of municipally-offered recreation programming locations. Because the Town does not currently provide any recreation programming directly, this analysis was not applicable.

Acknowledging the scale of the Town of Upland, for the purposes of this analysis all recreation and open space facilities were evaluated equally with ¼ mile and ½ mile service areas. Taylor University and Lions Club Park facilities were also included within this analysis (see note above regarding access).

Given the amount of undeveloped, natural or agricultural land that also exists within the Town, this analysis only took into account the primary residential areas of greater Upland, in which the predominant amount of residents live. In the future, should new residential growth occur the Town may wish to revisit this analysis as part of a larger park system master planning process.

The overwhelming majority of residents in the primary residential areas of Upland have access to a park or recreation facility within ½ mile (Figure 2.10). When the analysis is evaluated at a ¼ mile service area, gaps begin to appear, most notably in between Taylor University and downtown Upland (Figure 2.11). Given the significant amount of residential density within this area, it is recommended that the Town develop a small neighborhood park to help fill this gap (figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12 also indicates three (3) potential locations for additional park facilities, which are likely neighborhood scale in nature. True demand for these facilities should be studied further in order to justify investment.

It should be noted that there are two (2) additional variants of Access LOS that were not included as part of this

80

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT LEGEND: 1/2 Mile Service Area Ex. Park/Open Space Town Boundary

1

Baseball and Softball Complex

2

Depot Park

3

Memorial Park

4

Eastbrook South Elementary School

5

Lions Club Park

6

Taylor University Main Campus 1/4 mile - 1,320’

1 5 1

2

N

3

4 4

6

Figure 2.10: Access LOS illustrating a 1/2-mile service area for all publicly accessible parks and greenspaces (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

81

LEGEND: 1/4 Mile Service Area Ex. Park/Open Space Town Boundary

1

Baseball and Softball Complex

2

Depot Park

3

Memorial Park

4

Eastbrook South Elementary School

5

Lions Club Park

6

Taylor University Main Campus 1/4 mile - 1,320’

1 5 1

2

N

3

4 4

6

Figure 2.11: Access LOS illustrating a 1/4-mile service area for all publicly accessible parks and greenspaces (Browning Day, 2015).

82

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT LEGEND: 1/4 Mile Service Area Ex. Park/Open Space Town Boundary Potential New Park Location

1

Baseball and Softball Complex

2

Depot Park

3

Memorial Park

4

Eastbrook South Elementary School

5

Lions Club Park

6

Taylor University Main Campus 1/4 mile - 1,320’

1 5 1

2

3

N

4 4

6

Figure 2.12: Access LOS illustrating potential new neighborhood park locations based on a 1/4-mile service area (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

83

2.6 84

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

SUMMARY OF CURRENT COMMUNITY NEEDS AND PRIORITIES 2.6.1 OVERVIEW The Browning Day Project Team actively consulted Town residents and stakeholders throughout the Needs Assessment process. As such, Browning Day held individual stakeholder interviews and a general public meeting to gain valuable information about Upland and the desired outcomes of the planning process. To gather feedback from residents not able to participate in the general public meeting, an online survey was administered. In addition, a level of service analysis was completed to better quantify the need for parks and open spaces within the Town.

The individual findings from these analysis processes – most notably, the ones which appeared in multiple techniques – serve as a key component of the foundational framework for the Master Plan Vision initiatives to follow in Part 3.

2.6.2 KEY FINDINGS Opportunities: There were many positive attributes or opportunities identified during the analysis and engagement processes. Multiple participants indicated a key component of the quality of life currently enjoyed in Upland could be attributed to the good school system, low cost of living, perception of safety, and the high quality parks system. In addition, the Town benefits substantially from a comparably high level of volunteer engagement in various town initiatives, including several well-attended community events. There are multiple non-profit or community-based groups that help to organize and/or support these efforts. Examples of these groups include the Upland Lions Club, Our Town Upland Inc., Upland Area Greenways Association, Upland Garden Club, and Upland Parks Board among others. In addition, Upland has enjoyed generous support from both Taylor University and several local benefactors who have partnered with the Town on multiple projects in recent years. These community groups – and their willingness to work together towards a unified goal – will be critical in implementing the recommendations of this master plan.

Challenges: Like any small town, Upland also has its fair share of challenges, both physical and operational. Key areas of concern articulated by residents and stakeholders were largely physical in nature, and included items such as decaying infrastructure, the decline of the historic downtown core, lack of commercial businesses, and an

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

85

OneTown Upland: 2014 Town of Upland Master Plan Public

OneTown Upland: 2014 Town of Upland Master Plan Public Opinion Survey

Q6 The 2010 planning charrette (led by Q6 The 2010 planning charrette (led by Ball State University) resulted in several h State University) resulted in several highpriority projects or improvement are priority projects or improvement areas; which of these would you consider t which of these would you consider the MOST IMPORTANT to improving ove MOST IMPORTANT to improving overall quality of life in Upland? (examples of the quality of life in Upland? (examples of work products from the charrette can be work products from the charrette can found in the Photo Album section of our found in the Photo Album section of o Facebook page at : Facebook page at : www.facebook.com/onetown.upland ) www.facebook.com/onetown.upland Answ ered: 429 Skipped: 69

Answ ered: 429 Skipped: 69 Dev elopment of Gatew ays –...

DEVELOPMENT

8 7

elopment of OF TOWN Dev GATEWAYS ays –...

(NORTH +Gatew SOUTH)

Improv ed Parks System –...

Improv ed Parks

IMPROVED PARKS System –...

SYSTEM

Creation of Second Stree...

5 6

CREATION OF 2ND Creation of STREET Second Stree...

PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR Mainstreet

Streetscape...

Mainstreet MAIN STREET STREETSCAPE Streetscape...

IMPROVEMENTS

Establishment of Historic...

1

ESTABLISHMENT OF A Establishment HISTORIC Improv ingDOWNTOWN DISTRICT of Historic...

Ov erall Tow n...

4

ing IMPROVING OVERALL Improv TOWN Ov erall Tow n...

APPEARANCE

Dev eloping (PHYSICAL) Additional...

3

Dev eloping DEVELOPING ADDITIONAL Increasing Additional...

GREENWAYS + TRAILS Land and...

Increasing INCREASING LAND20% + BUSINESS 0% 10% 30% 40% Land and...

DEVELOPMENT 0%

50%

20%

70%

30%

2

80%

90% 100%

60%

70%

0.47%

2

NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT | TOWN 86 Improved Parks System – improvements to existing parks and addition of new fac ilitiesOF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN2.10%

9

Answ er Choices

10%

60%

40%

50%

Figure 2.13: Public opinion survey response bar graph for Question #6 (Browning Day, 2015).

Development of Gateways – landsc ape features and/or signage improvements to announc e entry into the Town (North, South, East)

Responses

Answ er Choices

Development of Gateways – landscape features and/or signage improvements to announc e entry i Creation of Second Street Pedestrian Corridor – “c South, East) omplete street” pedestrian c onnec tion to downtown from Taylor University

6.76%

29

PART TWO: NEEDS + PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT incomplete pedestrian network. The physical aesthetic of the Town is important to residents and there are desires to restore the existing historic buildings downtown, which are seen as a contributor to that. The majority of residents who participated in the public opinion survey do not believe the Town would be viewed as “attractive” in the eyes of visitors (see Section 2.4). Residents and stakeholders articulated the need for both long-range and immediately actionable physical projects, even if they are small in scale. Lack of “progress” in Upland is largely perceptional, however, physical improvements are needed to demonstrate action.

Residents also noted the need to keep Taylor University alumni active in the Town of Upland, post-graduation. As previously stated, current trends have indicated that the overwhelming majority of Taylor University graduates do not remain in Upland after their academic tenure. To retain students post-graduation, Upland will need to create emotional ties to the Town through the creation of a genuine and unique sense of place, provide ample business opportunities and infrastructure, and provide the lifestyle and overall quality of life that they desire.

In addition to the physical challenges, Upland faces many common operational challenges. Key operational constraints identified by residents and stakeholders included the perennial lack of funding for various initiatives, lack of appropriate staff to manage or implement efforts, and communication between community/volunteer groups. The latter of these is of particular concern. As noted above, there are a number of dedicated volunteer/ community groups that are active in Upland, however, it was evident during the needs assessment process that many of them have their own interests, initiatives, or projects to which their efforts are devoted, with few resources shared between groups. As a result, many of the projects implemented are small in both scale and long-term impact.

2.6.3 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The 2010 Ball State Planning Charrette had many strengths and positive outcomes, however, it did not effectively prioritize the projects/initiatives envisioned by the participants. As a result, the list of possible projects was substantial and no clear path to action – built upon community priorities - was articulated.

Utilizing the 2010 planning process as the framework for the Vision, the following high-level improvements/initiatives were prioritized based on the cumulative findings of the Existing Conditions Analysis and the Needs Assessment Processes, and represent the “top priority” action items to be further explored in this master planning process: 1. Increased Land and Business Development 2. Main Street Streetscape Improvements 3. Establishment of Historic Downtown District (development standards) 4. Creation of 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor 5. Development of Gateways 6. Developing Additional Greenways and Trails 7. Improving Overall Town Appearance 8. Improved Parks System

The long-range vision for the Town of Upland, as previously articulated by the 2010 Ball State University Planning Charrette (see Section 1.1), will require these community groups to “join forces” and align their efforts in order to achieve results which are larger than just the sum of their parts.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

87

PART THREE

MASTER PLAN VISION Part Three utilizes the findings and feedback in the Existing Conditions Analysis and the Needs Assessment to develop individual, site-based design solutions and/or initiatives that seek to meet high-priority needs and objectives. These solutions/initiatives will build upon the Vision articulated in the 2010 planning charrette – as vetted during this planning process - adding depth and detail in an effort to move the Town closer towards implementation. The resulting design products are both narrative and illustrative in nature, and are intended to convey overall design intent, order of magnitude cost, and complexity. The Master Plan Vision will also identify individual projects and any necessary additional study (if required), which together will inform a phasing/action plan found in Part 4.

3.1 90

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

MASTER PLAN VISION OVERVIEW 3.1.1 VISIONING PROCESS The “Vision” articulated in this section of the Master Plan utilizes –and subsequently builds upon – the guiding community vision articulated by residents and stakeholders during the 2010 community planning charrette (See Section 1.1.2). Part 3 of this Master Plan will seek to add depth and detail wherever possible to the high-level initiatives previously identified, as well as propose – where justified – new initiatives and efforts. In addition, an order of magnitude opinion of probable cost will be developed for individual capital projects to help facilitate long-range budgeting, and alternative funding sources – such as grants – identified where possible.

On September 30, 2014, the Project Team presented a preliminary draft of the Master Plan Vision and its associated initiatives to the Steering Committee for review and comment. Feedback from this meeting was incorporated and a Final Draft of the Master Plan Vision prepared. A copy of the meeting agenda and PowerPoint Presentation can be found in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

Following review of the Steering Committee, the Project Team held an open, public meeting and presented an overview of the Master Plan Vision contained herein to Town residents and stakeholders for review and comment prior to finalization.

Approximately 55 people attended the public meeting, which was held on December 8, 2014 at the Eastbrook South Elementary School in Upland. Meeting attendees included representatives from the Town Council, Taylor University administration, students, and faculty, the Upland Area Greenways Association, Upland Lions Club, local business owners, and town residents.

At the conclusion of the presentation, meeting attendees were provided an opportunity to provide feedback to the project team through a Q&A session, as well as on hard-copy comment forms. Overall project feedback was very positive and supportive, however, several attendees expressed concern regarding implementation timeframe and the availability of funds; common concerns not unique to this planning effort. A copy of the meeting agenda, PowerPoint Presentation, sign-in sheet, project image boards, and comment forms received can be found in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

91

GATEWAY EXPERIENCE TOWN OF UPLAND MASTER PLAN VISION

NORTHERN GATEWAY : AMPHITHEATER VENUE CONCEPT

CO RD. 500 S, SR22

C

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

B

VIE

WF

RO

MR

OA

VIEW

DW AY

A

M RO

FRO

A

AY ADW

D APPROX. 130 SPACES

B

F APPROX. 550 SPACES

K

22 SR

L

LEGEND A. UPLAND GATEWAY SIGNAGE

J

H

B . FOUNDATION PLANTING C. GATEWAY VIEWSHED

G

E

D. SURFACE PARKING LOT

I

E. SECONDARY SEATING LAWN

M

F. OVERFLOW PARKING / LAWN

P J

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

G. ACCESS ROAD

APPROX. 200 SPACES

H. LOWER WALK / MAINT. ROAD

D

I. ACCESSIBLE WALK J. TREE GROVE

N

O

URBAN ST

N

SR22

N

L. AMPHITHEATER TERRACES

1st ST

2nd ST

K. STAGE / CANOPY STRUCTURE

M. SCULPTURE / ARTS GARDEN N. OVERFLOW PARKING O. DENSE SCREENING P. CONCESSIONS / RESTROOM

N

100’

0’

200’

300’

SOUTHERN GATEWAY : UNIFIED ENTRY TO THE TOWN OF UPLAND AND TAYLOR UNIVERSITY

RESTORED NATIVE PRAIRIE

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY I

A G F E

LEGEND

G

SR-22 / S MAIN ST

H

B D

A. EXISTING TAYLOR U. SIGN B . PROPOSED UPLAND SIGN

SR-26 / E 700 S

N

C. GATEWAY VIEWSHED D. TURF

C

E. GROUNDCOVER BED F. PERENNIALS G. NATIVE PRAIRIE GRASSES H. ORNAMENTAL TREE I. EXISTING SCREENING

N

0’

60’

120’

180’

Figure 3.1: One of seven project boards available for review at the public meeting (Browning Day, 2015).

92

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

Figure 3.2: Participants discussing the various “vision” projects at the public review meeting in December, 2014 (Browning Day, 2015).

3.1.2 PRIORITY PROJECTS Upon review of the high-priority projects and/or initiatives described in Section 2.6.3, a key trend emerged; nearly all were directly involved with, or were dependent upon, the comprehensive revitalization of “downtown” Upland. As such, the projects and initiatives described in this section of the Master Plan will seek to utilize a re-envisioned downtown Upland as a catalyst for community-wide revitalization and economic development.

As requested by residents and the project Steering Committee, this vision is composed of both largescale, long-range efforts which may take many years to implement, and short-range, “low-hanging fruit” efforts which are immediately actionable. The vision described in the pages to follow is intended to be realistically implementable, however, most components will require partnerships or alternative funding sources in order to be realized.

northern boundary of downtown begins at the intersection of SR22/Main Street and E 500 S (the northern gateway), and extends to the railroad corridor to the south (intersection of SR22 and Railroad Street). This portion of Upland has historically served as the “downtown core,” and is home to some of Upland’s historic buildings, though many have been demolished over time or are in a state of disrepair.

As previously discussed, high-priority initiatives to be addressed within this Master Plan Vision– in order of priority – include: 1. Increased Land and Business Development 2. Main Street Streetscape Improvements 3. Establishment of Historic Downtown District (development standards) 4. Creation of Second Street Pedestrian Corridor 5. Development of Gateways 6. Developing Additional Greenways and Trails 7. Improving Overall Town Appearance 8. Improved Parks System

For the purposes of this planning process, the geographic area of “downtown” Upland is defined by the north-south alignment of SR22 (also Main Street), and includes three (3) blocks to both the east and west of that alignment. The

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

93

Figure 3.3: Placemaking methodology Venn diagram (Browning Day, 2015).

94

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION 3.1.3 IMPORTANCE OF PLACEMAKING

3.1.4 DISCLAIMER

A second key theme identified during the Needs Assessment process was the need for Upland to provide a high quality of life to its residents and to embody a unique sense of place that differentiates the Town from its neighboring municipalities (who are also “competitors” for future residents and visitors alike). Both of these attributes, working in-sync, are necessary for retaining existing residents – including Taylor University graduates – and attracting new residents.

A descriptive narrative, supporting graphics, and an opinion of probable cost will be provided for each of the key vision initiatives and/or projects following within this section. This document is a long-range planning tool representative of a community’s vision and priorities, and as such, no drawings provided herein are intended for construction.

A key component of both quality of life and sense of place is a welldesigned and programmed “public realm;” an all-encompassing term for the publicly accessible spaces and places where Town residents have shared encounters on a daily basis. Examples of systems within the public realm include parks, streets, sidewalks and trails, and other “public” spaces such as plazas, rights-of-way, and natural areas.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the public realm, not all “spaces” end up becoming true “places!” As such, the final design of the physical improvements proposed within this section should be approached from a placemaking-based methodology. According to the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), “placemaking” is more than just better design, it is a “dynamic, multidisciplinary planning process which facilitates creative patterns of activities and connections – cultural, economic, social, and ecological – that help define a place and support its ongoing evolution” (PPS, 2015). A placemaking approach is grounded in collaborative stakeholder involvement and produces solutions that involve and integrate all components of a community, from the built environment to the numerous interstitial spaces of the public realm where users spend a large portion of their daily lives.

A placemaking-based approach is critical to establishing community identity and sense of place because those attributes must accurately reflect the unique, collective “vision” of a community’s residents, at both the site and the systems-level. As projects move from “idea” to “reality,” it will be important for the Town to continue to actively engage the town residents and stakeholders in the design and implementation process to ensure that there is both collective ownership and group consensus on the final product. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to community-based design, and if parks and public spaces are truly meant for the people, then they should also be “by” the people. A diverse library of placemaking-based planning and design resources can be found on the Project for Public Spaces website at www.pps.org.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

Please note that any opinions of cost provided herein are made on the basis of Project Team’s experience and qualifications and represents their best judgment as experienced and qualified professionals generally familiar with the industry.

However, since the Project Team has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding, market conditions, or unknown site conditions, the Project Team cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction cost will not vary widely from opinions of probable construction cost as described below.

The estimated costs, in 2015 dollars, include allowances for design services (10%), contingency (20%), contractor general conditions, profit, and mark-up (9%). Estimates exclude any unknown costs associated with utilities, permitting, mitigation, and land acquisition unless otherwise specifically stated.

Because this project represents a planninglevel concept for development, exclusive of any engineering or detailed site design, unknown site conditions or constraints may exist which impact the construction cost. Additionally, the final design, scale, materials selection, and delivery method of the building and the site as a whole will have a significant impact on final cost. Costs should be continually evaluated throughout the design and documentation process of each constructionbased project through consultation with a professional cost estimator.

95

3.2

96

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

RECLAIM MAIN STREET

3.2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The revitalization of downtown must begin with the “reclaiming” of Main Street in Upland. One of the greatest challenges facing Upland is that in the distant past, Upland’s historic Main Street became part of Indiana State Road 22 (SR22), and is therefore under the jurisdictional control of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Along its current alignment, the Town of Upland serves as the easternmost terminus of SR22, where it merges with State Road 26 (SR26) near Taylor University. SR22 serves as a major east-west thoroughfare that links residents from Upland to the east and Kokomo to the west, to Interstate 69 (I-69).

I-69 opened for traffic during the 1960’s, and dramatically altered the course of history for Upland’s downtown core. Numerous businesses that once had a visible presence on “Main Street,” relocated to the west to be nearer to the interstate, leaving gaps in the commercial “fabric” of downtown. In addition, traffic volumes increased along the SR22 alignment, transitioning Main Street from a traditional small-town roadway to a busy freight corridor. Along with the increased traffic volumes came increased standardization, travel-lane expansion, and design-based restrictions associated with INDOT’s functional classification regulations.

As a result, the physical design of Main Street as it exists in 2015 is not contributing to the overall quality of life or sense of place desired by residents and project stakeholders, and serves as an effective barrier that divides downtown into eastern Figure 3.4 (above): Reclaim Main Street Logo (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

97

and western segments. The roadway section is overly wide for a downtown, lacks appropriate crosswalks, and any sort of streetscape amenities typically expected in an “urban” area such as pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, or planted bulb-outs. In addition, there are no signalized intersections in the downtown core, which allows for increased traffic speeds and further compromises the viability of commercial businesses along Main Street.

flow or safety. Each project has been assigned a priority classification of high, intermediate, and low. The projects within each priority class are co-dependent on the implementation of projects in the next highest class (e.g. a low-priority project has a lower likelihood of implementation and long-term success if the projects within the intermediate-priority group have not yet been implemented).

There are multiple individual projects associated with the redesign of Main Street and the long-term revitalization of downtown Upland, each intended on improving the aesthetic appearance, walkability, density, and economic potential of downtown without compromising traffic

Following is a description of the projects within each priority category, the assimilation of which form the “Reclaim Main Street” initiative.

Figure 3.5: Photo collage of images from the 100-block of Main Street in downtown Upland (Browning Day, 2015).

98

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

3 1

2

Figure 3.6: Graphic illustrating the location of the High-Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives (Browning Day, 2015).

3.2.2 HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS 1. MAIN STREET STREETSCAPE Description + Purpose The redesign of the Main Street streetscape is one of the highest priority initiatives recommended in this master plan, and unfortunately is one of the most expensive and complicated. As previously stated, the current design of Main Street in downtown Upland is not conducive to the dynamic and walkable urban environment articulated in the community vision, and as such, should be re-designed to be more business and pedestrian friendly. There are several critical faults associated with the downtown section of Main Street in its existing condition: -- Lack of signalized intersections in the downtown core -- Excessively wide pavement cross-section as a result of the parking lanes -- Lack of pedestrian-scale amenities such as bulb-outs, lighting, and street trees.

The proposed design concept for Main Street within the downtown area seeks to address these concerns without compromising the traffic flow or safety (for both pedestrians and motorists) by:

-- Visually narrowing the roadway section through the use of bulb-outs and surface treatments -- Creating a new signalized intersection in the downtown core -- Providing continuous 24-hour on-street parking along Main Street within the downtown core, which will permit the installation of streetscape amenities.

Project Components This project is composed of multiple components, which include: Continuous 24-Hour On-Street Parking - The current, perceived width of Main Street in the downtown core makes it intimidating to pedestrians. The downtown segment of Main Street is approximately 40’ wide, composed of two (2) 12’ travel lanes (one in each direction), and two (2) 8’ wide parking lanes (one on each side of the street). The primary problem with this crosssection is the continuous and unbroken parking “lanes.”

These lanes of pavement often lack parked vehicles, and as such, make the actual roadway seem wider than it is. As a result, the roadway appears intimidating to pedestrians, regardless of whether or not drivers increase their speed.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

99

By installing vegetated bulb-outs at key intersections along Main Street in the downtown area, the perceived width of the roadway will be narrowed. These bulb-outs will also serve as a location for low-level landscape plantings, which will help to further soften the aesthetic of the streetscape.

This project will require that additional curbs be installed within the existing parking lanes, which has the potential to impact the functionality of the existing storm water collection systems. At present, Main Street presumably sheet-drains from the south to the north, utilizing the backs of the existing curbs until it reaches drain inlets to the north near the intersection of Main Street and Urban Street. No additional drain inlets were observed along Main Street in the downtown area. To maintain the ability to sheet-drain Main Street, the parking lanes will need to be resurfaced/regraded to ensure positive drainage away from the curb (towards the centerline of the roadway), and valley gutters may be required along the edge of the travel lanes to help convey the water to the north.

As regrading or resurfacing will be required, consideration should also be given to changing the materiality or appearance of the pavement in the parking lanes. The use of brick or concrete pavers for the parking lanes would further increase overall aesthetic and visually narrow the roadway, however, are likely cost prohibitive. Possible alternative surface treatments include stamped and/or color-enhanced concrete or asphalt, both of which would achieve similar results. Stamped asphalt is likely the most cost effective, but is susceptible to degradation from the effects of freeze/thaw. Therefore, color-enhanced concrete with an attractive scoring/jointing pattern may be the best long-term investment.

Given the scale of the Town of Upland, it is not necessary to provide on-street parking for the entire length of Main Street within downtown, especially towards the northern gateway; an area which is primarily residential. In these areas, the roadway should be physically narrowed to the greatest degree permitted by INDOT. This will likely require that the parking lanes are removed and paved shoulders (with new, relocated curbs) provided instead. If the required width of the paved shoulder is equal to or greater than the existing paved width of the parking lane, then the existing lane shall be converted to continuous 24hour parking and bulb-outs should be installed as discussed above.

100

There is a disproportionate number of curb cuts present along Main Street within the downtown area. During the reconstruction process, the Town should evaluate the necessity – and permissibility – of the existing curb cuts, and remove any that are unnecessary or not permitted.

This is especially notable in the blocks between E. Washington Street and Urban Street, due largely to the presence of the two (2) existing gas stations. Although those businesses contribute to the town financially, their physical presence along Main Street is detrimental to the character and aesthetic of downtown.

Streetscape Amenities - Currently, the parking lanes along Main Street can also be used as temporary travel lanes, thus requiring the INDOT-mandated “Clear Zone” (and the associated “Obstruction-Free Zone”) distances to be calculated from the outermost edge of the parking lane.

Trees – and many other common streetscape amenities – are prohibited within these zones (INDOT, 2013). By adding the bulb-outs discussed above, and changing the designation of the parking lanes to “continuous 24-hour parking” the Clear-Zone and Obstruction-Free Zone can be calculated from the outermost edge of the travel lanes, which should allow for the installation of street-trees within the sidewalks along Main Street. Trees will have to be planted within tree grates, and trees within the bulb-outs will likely be viewed as an obstruction and subsequently prohibited.

In addition to street trees, the Town should also provide waste receptacles, public benches, and pedestrian scale lighting downtown. These amenities should be coordinated with regard to style and aesthetic, ensuring that the streetscape character is unified and not a “kit of parts.”

The Town should select fixtures that represent their own unique aesthetic, giving preference to those that also contribute to the increased environmental sustainability of Upland.

Signalized Intersection - Another key challenge facing downtown in its current state is the lack of a signalized intersection along Main Street in the downtown core, thus allowing motorists to pass through the downtown area without any need to slow down or stop. Pedestrians generally feel more comfortable crossing the street if there is a signalized intersection and a dedicated crosswalk (also absent). For downtown to be a dynamic and walkable

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

2 Main Street / SR2

W Washing ton Street

Figure 3.7: Simulated view looking south down Main St. illustrating the amount of existing pavement (Browning Day, 2015).

2 Main Street / SR2

W Washing ton Street

Figure 3.8: Simulated view looking south down Main St. illustrating how the integration of dedicated parking, bulb-outs, and street trees work together to visually narrows the roadway (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

101

STREET

RECLAIM MAIN

TOWN OF UPLAND MASTER PLAN VISION

MAIN STREET: EXISTING MAIN STREET: EXISTING CONDITIONS

C L

8’-10’ sidewalk

20’

20’

SR-22 / Main Street travel lanes with passive on-street parking

8’-10’ sidewalk

Figure 3.9: Typical existing section through Main Street; dimensions approximated (Browning Day, 2015).

ND CULTURAL CENTER

IXED-USE INFILL

Opinion of Cost Based on individual projects described above, it is anticipated that the improvements to Main Street’s streetscape will cost between $1.3M-$1.6M, dependent upon further study, final design, and market conditions at the time of implementation. Key cost contributors include the installation of the bulb-outs, sidewalk replacement, curbing and road surface improvements. The opinion of cost does not include any costs associated with currently unknown utility system improvements which may be required, including but not limited to overhead Underground Utilities - During the reconstruction process, and/electrical, storm water, waste water, sewer, or EXISTING FILLING STATION every effort should be made to relocate overhead utilities telecommunications Further study of the existing utilities EXISTING FILLING STATION underground within the downtown area, and improve systems will be required to fully understand these coasts. or repair existing underground utility infrastructure as required. Given the amount of currently unknown conditions and/or constraints associated with the utility and infrastructural systems downtown, the feasibility and associated costs of this effort will need to be further explored. place it must be pedestrian friendly; people must feel safe crossing from one side of Main Street to the other.

As a result, it is recommended that a fully signalized intersection be installed at the intersection of Main Street and Railroad Street. This location was selected due to its adjacency to Depot Park, the downtown commercial core, and the potential future mixed-use academic building recommended at this intersection. In addition, the steep grade of the existing railroad overpass to the south limits pedestrians’ ability to see oncoming traffic.

102

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

STREET

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION RECLAIM MAIN TOWN OF UPLAND MASTER PLAN VISION

MAIN STREET: PROPOSED MAIN STREET: PROPOSED STREETSCAPE

C L

10’

5’

wide sidewalk

buffer zone

8’

12’

8’

12’

dedicated on-street parking

SR-22 / Main Street travel lanes

dedicated on-street parking

active pedestrian zone

vehicular zone

5’

10’

buffer zone

wide sidewalk

active pedestrian zone

Figure 3.10: Typical section through Main Street showing proposed improvements, including new buildings and wider sidewalks; dimensions approximated (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

MIXED-USE INFILL

UPLAND TOWN HALL

UPLAND SHARED PARKING scope of services; currently unknown existing conditions FIRE STATION may impact the feasibility, final design, and aesthetic.

- The cost of this initiative will be significant, and will likely require the Town to seek out additional funding sources – such as grants, private donations, and/or state funding – in order to be realized.

FESTIVAL PLAZA

MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT

SHARED PARKING

Additional Considerations - Any new sidewalks installed or replaced in the downtown core should be at least 15’ wide.

- Though additional study would be required, the feasibility of utilizing the proposed bulb-outs as urban bioswales (storm water infiltration basins) should also be explored. With this application, it may be possible to maintain the existing cross-slope of the roadway pavement, which will reduce cost and provide a green infrastructure component to the streetscape.

- This project will require coordination with NEW multiple URBAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BUILDING agencies and/or governing bodies, most notably the Indiana Department of Transportation.

- These plans are conceptual in nature and will need to be URBAN UNIVERSITY further explored prior to implementation to ensure that CAMPUS (FUTURE EXPANSION) they meet the regulatory and code-based requirements associated with SR22.

- No detailed study of condition of the roadway or utility infrastructure systems was completed as part SHARED of this PARKING

FUTURE UPLAND CULTURAL CENTER

SHARED PARKING

NEW URBAN PARK/PLAZA

MIXED-USE INFILL

MIXED-USE INFILL

SHARED PARKING

103

STREET

RECLAIM MAIN

TOWN OF UPLAND MASTER PLAN VISION

EXISTING CONDITION

Figure 3.11: Artist’s rendering illustrating the proposed improvements to Main Street from the intersection of Main St. and Railroad St. (Browning Day, 2015).

104

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION 2. NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Description + Purpose A key component of the revitalization of downtown is restoring urban density downtown and filling in the voids left by abandoned and/or demolished buildings along Main Street through redevelopment. While there are many examples of structures downtown that are in need of redevelopment, focus should initially begin in the downtown core, along the 100-block of Main Street near its intersection with Railroad Street.

Adjacent to Depot Park – one of the town’s most active public spaces – this intersection is highly visible, and due to the rail alignment separating it from the residential areas to the south, serves as the southern “entrance” to downtown.

The western side of the 100-block has seven (7) existing buildings - several of which are historic - with active commercial or civic tenants. In contrast, the eastern side of the 100-block only has two (2) existing buildings with active tenants; the remaining buildings are abandoned and/or in a state of severe disrepair.

During the public and stakeholder engagement process, multiple participants indicated the need for additional commercial and office infrastructure downtown to both activate Main Street, and serve as “business incubator space” for future Taylor University graduates. In addition, discussions with University representatives indicated they were exploring the feasibility of relocating some university operations/services off-campus. As such, this Vision recommends that a new mixed-used development be constructed on the eastern side of the 100-block of Main Street, near its intersection with Railroad Street, in place of the dilapidated structures which currently exist. This development will likely require the use of multiple parcels that are currently owned by multiple landowners, including Taylor University.

When this concept was discussed with project stakeholders, their vision was of a completely new style of building in Upland; one which would unite the population of Upland and serve as a redevelopment catalyst for all of downtown by demonstrating long-term investment and vision. They envisioned a building that would engage a diverse user group, and provide a mix of uses such as ground-level commercial/retail, office, and multi-family residential. In addition, participants expressed a desire to

see a civic – or Town – presence in the building. Though no specific roles were agreed upon, participants saw Taylor University as an obvious partner for this effort, given they were already a current landowner on the 100-block.

Components The concept for the building, as illustrated in Figures 3.123.15 is three (3) stories in height, approximately 18,500 gross square feet, and distinctly “urban” in context. The ground-level floor plate is approximately 7,300 square feet.

The stick-framed structure responds to its urban context with street-level storefront to compliment the brick veneer.

The second and third levels feature a durable fiber cement drained/back-vented rainscreen. The high-performance structure should be designed to reduce energy costs by 30% and water consumption by 40%. With maximized use of regional and recycled content materials, and superior indoor air quality to compliment the abundant access to daylight and views, this building will stand as a testament of the Upland community’s commitment to a human health and environmentally-responsible design and construction.

The ground level fronting Main Street is envisioned to include commercial or retail uses that actively address the street. Ideas of uses proposed by the participants included a coffee shop, bakery, and/or a print shop. Participants also wanted to explore the feasibility for partnering with Taylor University to integrate the management of the retail operations within a service-learning curriculum. The remainder of the ground level, which does not front Main Street, would incorporate general building service uses – such as a lobby – and a civic use in the eastern most wing.

Examples of potential civic-oriented uses identified by participants included the relocation of the Upland Library, Police Station, or a combination of government offices.

The second floor of the building would be used entirely for the development of a “business incubator” space where Taylor University graduates and other entrepreneurs can rent low-cost, flexible office space for newly started businesses. This floor would likely house multiple individual “office” spaces and large flexible workspaces, as well as shared amenities such as AV-equipped conference rooms, printing stations, and breakout areas.

The third floor of the building would be composed of four (4) residential apartments. As indicated by some of the workshop participants who were also entrepreneurs,

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

105

it is perceived to be a struggle to get people to relocate to Upland due in part to the lack of housing options.

Excluding University-owned housing, there are few apartment or multi-family complexes in Upland when compared to the number of single-family homes. Bringing a multi-family residential use to downtown will help diversify housing opportunities and provide dedicated users for future commercial developments on the ground level.

The building site should incorporate flexible, outdoor gathering spaces that allow for users to both engage with activity along Main Street, and find refuge from it. The site design should incorporate green infrastructure practices such as storm water treatment/re-use, pervious pavement, and native landscape plantings.

The construction of the building – and its associated site amenities - should incorporate current best management practices for environmentally sustainable construction means, methods, and materials wherever possible.

Consideration should be given to innovative envelope treatments and high-performance building systems to

help reduce long-term operating costs. The building systems should attempt to reduce the environmental and operational costs associated with energy consumption for heating, ventilating, cooling, and lighting spaces. The building should also meet or exceed applicable state and local energy codes, with a goal of exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 baseline by at least 30%.

Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that the proposed mixed-use development will cost between $5.0M-$6.2.M, including site development costs. At 18,500 square feet, the building alone represents an approximate cost of $3.3-$4.1M, with an approximated construction cost of approximately $180-$220 per square foot, exclusive of any contingency, design services, or contractor bond, profit, and general conditions. These costs include an approximate allowance for additional land acquisition required, based upon estimated current market value.

THIRD FLOOR

- (2) Two-Bedroom Apartments (1,000 GSF ea.)

- (2) One-Bedroom Apartments (715 GSF ea.)

- Optional Expansion (2,800 GSF) - (2) additional one-bedroom units - (1) additional two-bedroom unit

SECOND FLOOR

- (2) Meeting Rooms/Classrooms (1,000 GSF ea.)

- (8) Private Study Rooms/Offices (120 GSF ea.)

- Open, Flexible Work Space (4,240 GSF)

FIRST FLOOR

- (2) Medium Commercial/Retail Sp. (1,000 GSF ea.)

- (1) Large Commercial/Retail Sp. (1,500 GSF) - (1) Community Partner Space ( 2,800 GSF)

PROGRAM LEGEND

COMMERCIAL SPACE: Three (3) units, 3,500 GSF COMMUNITY SPACE: One (1) large space, 2,800 GSF

BUSINESS INCUBATOR: Multiple, mixed spaces, 7,200 GSF APARTMENT SPACE: 4-7 Units, 3,400-6,200 GSF

Figure 3.12: Conceptual mixed-use building program plan (Browning Day, 2015).

106

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

Figure 3.13: Northwest view into the interior courtyard of the conceptual mixed-use building (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure 3.14: Northeast view of the conceptual mixed-use building at Main St. and Railroad St. (Browning Day, 2015).

Figure 3.15: Southeast view of the conceptual mixed-use building from the 100-block of Main St. (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

107

Additional Considerations - Given the scale of this project, and the current condition of downtown, this effort must be viewed as a long-term investment, and will likely require a partnership between the Town and another entity that has the ability to fund the construction and operation of the building independently of other downtown development.

- The final building program, scale, and aesthetic may change based upon currently unknown existing site conditions, desires of the owner, and/or available budget.

- As with many urban developments, providing sufficient on-site surface parking will be challenging. In addition to utilizing on-street parking, opportunities for shared-use parking strategies should be explored.

- The siting of the building should include a 15’ wide sidewalk along Main Street, per above.

- If historic preservation or design guidelines are developed in the future, they should be written in such a way that they encourage new, contextually sensitive and cost-feasible development.

3. NEW URBAN PARK Description + Purpose An activated and dynamic downtown should have multiple “public” destinations such as urban parks, plazas, and gathering spaces. This is especially critical in downtown Upland due to the constraints associated with the traffic volumes on SR22/Main Street. Even if the design of Main Street can be improved, that will not change the amount or type of traffic seen through town. In response, a key strategy to activating downtown is to provide places for pedestrian activity and interaction – such as a new urban park - which are set back from Main Street itself.

The concept for the park space, as illustrated in Figure 3.16 is to create a new public space in the center of the 100-block of Main Street. This public space is envisioned as a flexible, urban park space to be used for gatherings and public events year-round. This park space should embrace the streetscape of Main Street, appearing as a westward extension of it. The existing alley ROW will be transformed into a small “festival” street and plaza space suitable for small-scale events such as a local farmer’s market or art festival. Vehicular access to the alleyway would remain, however, it would be temporary access only.

During the stakeholder engagement process, the Project Team was made aware of efforts by a local community group to develop a splashpad in the Town of Upland.

Splashpads are often expensive to install and operate, but are also very popular amenities. Incorporating a small splashpad into the urban park will create a new “destination” not present elsewhere in Town which will help to draw residents and visitors alike to downtown. In addition, if designed appropriately, the splash-pad could also serve as an iconic, interactive fountain, flexible plaza space, or as a location for an ice-rink in the winter months.

The concept proposed utilizes two land parcels and an existing alley right-of-way. The southernmost parcel has an existing building on the southern portion of the property, which is to remain. The remainder of that parcel to the north is undeveloped green space. Although exceptionally narrow, the second, northernmost parcel is currently developed and serves as the location for a drive-through banking establishment. This existing business provides a valuable service to town residents, however, its physical presence on Main Street – in its current state - is

108

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

5’

10’

buffer zone

12’

8’

12’

dedicated on-street parking

SR-22 / Main Street travel lanes

dedicated on-street parking

active pedestrian zone

vehicular zone

5’

10’

buffer zone

wide sidewalk

active pedestrian zone

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION DEPOT PARK

SHARED PARKING

UPLAND TOWN HALL

MIXED-USE INFILL

W W AS H I N G TO N S T

FUTURE UPLAND C

SHARED PARKING

MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT

RA I L RO AD S T

SHARED PARKING

NEW URBAN PARK/PLAZA

FESTIVAL PLAZA

ide sidewalk

8’

MIXEDINFIL

MIXED-USE INFILL

NEW URBAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BUILDING

Figure 3.16: Sketch illustrating the location of the new urban park and plaza space (Browning Day, 2015).

URBAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (FUTURE EXPANSION)

detrimental to the character and aesthetic of downtown due to the scale of the narrow, single-story structure and its deep setback from the street. Consideration should be given to the redevelopment of this parcel for the highest and best use, which seeks to further the vision of downtown. In addition, significant effort should be given to SHARED preserving existing business operations along MainPARKING Street.

Components Potential programmatic components of the new urban park include: - Festival plaza space - Small, splashpad and plaza - Flexible turf panels - Native landscape plantings - Perimeter walkways - Associated site improvements/amenities such as seat walls, benches, waste receptacles, and pedestrian lighting.

Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that development of the new urban park will cost between $473,000-$578,000, which is inclusive of an allowance for additional land acquisition required, based upon estimated current market value.

SHARED PARKING

Considerations - The final design and programming of this park space must ensure multi-seasonal programmability and anticipate both daytime and evening activities. For the latter, site lighting will be an important component.

- If the final program of the park space includes a splashpad, the site design should provide a physical separation of that amenity from Main Street itself, to help prevent children from running from the play area into the street.

Examples of physical barriers include low seat-walls, landscape plantings, or an architectural screen. The use of a traditional fence, regardless of material or construction type, should be discouraged and views into the park from Main Street preserved.

- If a splashpad is included in the final design, consideration should be given to providing public access to the restrooms in Town Hall.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

UPLAND FIRE STATIO

109

3

1

2

1

2

2

3 Figure 3.17: Graphic illustrating the location of the Intermediate-Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives (Browning Day, 2015).

3.2.3 INTERMEDIATE-PRIORITY PROJECTS 1. PRIORITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Description + Purpose Over time, progress on the high-priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives should help generate a renewed investment interest in downtown and increase demand for both commercial and residential uses in areas adjacent to successfully completed projects. It is possible that some of the existing buildings downtown may be repurposed to meet this demand. Many of the existing historic buildings remaining downtown are between 2-4 stories in height, and are likely in need of significant renovations or repair in order to meet that need. Redevelopment projects in the downtown core should seek to maximize the use of the existing building by improving its safety and structural integrity, aesthetic appeal, functionality, and building systems.

The trends in the commercial real estate market at the time of redevelopment will likely drive the final program of these projects, however, the inclusion of an activated retail/commercial ground floor and a multi-family residential component will help further activate the downtown area.

110

The activated ground-level commercial/retail uses should seek to meet the every day needs of Town residents, and help foster a unique sense of place downtown. Potential desirable uses include retail shops, dine-in restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, and art galleries.

Components: -- Redevelopment of four (4) existing buildings along the western side of the 100-block of Main Street.

-- Final program of buildings to be determined by developer, however, should ideally include an activated retail/commercial ground floor with a residential and/or commercial component above.

Opinion of Cost The redevelopment of the four (4) aforementioned mixeduse buildings is estimated to cost between $3.2M-$3.9M, representing approximately 22,000 gross square feet of redevelopment at a market rate construction cost of $112$137 per square foot. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with these projects be absorbed by the private sector.

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION Considerations -- The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the successful completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result.

-- The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

-- If/when the existing structure located immediately to the south of the proposed new urban park space is redeveloped, consideration should be given to improving the appearance and transparency of its northern façade. In addition, opportunities for creating multiple, ground-level units within this building that open onto and actively engage the park space should be explored.

-- Renovated buildings should seek to meet their parking needs through a shared-parking strategy, and avoid parking lots which front Main Street.

-- Any new buildings constructed in the downtown core and fronting Main Street should provide a minimum 15’ wide sidewalk along Main Street.

the time of implementation. The inclusion of an activated retail/commercial ground floor and a multi-family residential component will help further activate the downtown area and serve as a means for economic development. Any activated ground-level commercial/retail uses should seek to meet the every day needs of Town residents, and help foster a unique sense of place downtown. Potential desirable uses include retail shops, dine-in restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, and art galleries.

It was made known to the Project Team during the planning process that the northernmost structure indicated for redevelopment (located on the eastern side of the 200-block of Main Street), had been recently purchased and was being used as local start-up café and bakery.

While these uses are congruent with the vision articulated for downtown, the existing structure is not, given its deep setback from Main Street. If this new business is successful and remains operational in the future, consideration should be given to relocating it to a storefront along Main Street in order to allow for the redevelopment of the parcel that it currently occupies. If relocation is not feasible, then consideration should be given to better engaging the building and its site to Main Street through the creation of a dynamic outdoor plaza or green space, relocating parking to the rear of the structure, and improving its façade.

2. PRIORITY INFILL PROJECTS Description + Purpose Mixed-use urban infill developments will be a key component of the long-term revitalization of Main Street, as they will increase the amount of uses and users downtown, stimulate overall economic development, and help restore an urban density and context to Main Street downtown.

In contrast to the priority redevelopment projects, the priority infill projects represent new-construction on sites where buildings have been demolished, or are currently present but not feasible for re-use.

Future infill projects should seek to restore the urban context of downtown while complimenting the character of the existing structures and streetscape. Infill buildings should be contextually scaled, include no more than four (4) stories, and have limited to no setback from the 15’ wide sidewalk fronting Main Street. The envisioned program of these future buildings is similar to that of the priority redevelopment projects previously discussed, which will likely be driven by the commercial real estate market at

Components: -- Development of three (3) new infill buildings, averaging 3-stories in height, in the downtown core of Upland.

-- Final program of buildings to be determined by developer, however, should ideally include an activated retail/commercial ground floor with a residential and/or commercial component above.

Opinion of Cost The implementation of the three (3) aforementioned mixed-use infill development projects is estimated to cost between $6.9M-$8.5M. This opinion of cost is exclusive of future land acquisition costs, and represents approximately 25,000 gross square feet of new development at a market rate construction cost of $180-$220 per square foot plus a 20% allowance for site improvements. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with these projects will be absorbed by the private sector.

Considerations

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

111

-- If the mixed-use development project discussed in Section 3.2.2 is successful, the feasibility of expansion through the creation of a “campus” along Railroad St. should be explored.

-- Some projects currently previously identified for redevelopment may be reclassified as “infill” if the cost of redeveloping makes doing so infeasible.

-- The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result.

-- The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

-- If the existing structure located immediately to the south of the proposed new urban park space is unable to be redeveloped, the new infill structure which takes its place should actively engage the proposed urban park space to the north through the provision of multiple, ground-level units within this building that open onto the park.

-- New infill buildings should seek to meet their parking needs through a shared-parking strategy, and avoid parking lots that front Main Street.

-- Any new buildings constructed in the downtown core and fronting Main Street should provide a minimum 15’ wide sidewalk along Main Street.

3. SHARED-USE PARKING LOTS Description + Purpose Over time, as new development takes place downtown there will be an increased demand for parking in the area.

Currently, the majority of parking downtown takes place along Main Street or behind the buildings that front it, with each tenant providing their own parking lot. It is important to maximize the future use of the parcels which front Main Street, most of which are likely too narrow to meet their full requirement for parking on-site. As such, a shareduse parking strategy should be developed which provides centralized parking lots, set back from Main Street, for use by multiple tenants, to supplement the already proposed on-street parking and existing Town-owned parking lots.

The actual demand for parking will not be fully understood

112

until some development has started to take place downtown, therefore, the exact number of spaces required is unknown at this time. Based on the vision projects previously mentioned, it is likely that the high-priority mixed-use building (at the northeast corner of Main Street and Railroad Street), and the new urban park will likely be the first projects to need additional parking. As such, a preliminary recommendation of planning for two (2) additional shared-use parking lots is justified.

Any new lots proposed downtown should be set back from Main Street and accessed utilizing the alley system, thus minimizing the need for additional curb-cuts along the 100-block of Main Street. All parking lots should include appropriate landscape plantings (including shade trees), storm water treatment mechanisms such as bioswales and/ or pervious pavement, signage, and ADA accessible spaces as required.

Components -- Two (2) additional shared-use parking lots, providing approximately 49 additional parking spaces.

-- Landscape plantings, storm water treatment mechanisms, lighting, sidewalks, and signage.

Cost The construction cost for the two (2) parking lots currently identified is estimated to be between $204,000-$250,000, including an allowance for land acquisition at estimated market value.

Considerations -- The need for the easternmost parking lot will be driven by the high priority mixed-use building proposed in Section 3.2.2, and therefore may be owned and operated by the developer leading that project.

-- If the future demand for parking along the 100-block of Main Street exceeds the current number of spaces proposed, consideration should be given to developing a larger, centralized lot to the west of Town Hall.

-- Providing a shared-use parking strategy which does not require developers to satisfy their parking requirements on-site serves as an incentive for development, however, will increase the financial burden of the Town as it will likely need to contribute financially to development of the shared-use parking lots. A cost-benefit analysis of this “investment” should be undertaken prior to the allocation of any public funds.

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

3

2

1

Figure 3.18: Graphic illustrating the location of the Lower-Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives (Browning Day, 2014).

3.2.4 LOWER-PRIORITY PROJECTS 1. SECONDARY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Description + Purpose If the initial redevelopment efforts downtown are successful, it is likely that there will be an increased demand for commercial and residential development opportunities in the downtown core. The anticipated future presence of the Upland Fire Station and the two gas stations along the 200-300 blocks of Main Street will likely serve as a northern barrier for future “urban� development downtown. As a result, future developers will likely look for opportunities that radiate east or west from Main Street, near the 100-block. Once the priority infill and redevelopment opportunities are exhausted, preference should be given to secondary redevelopment projects immediately adjacent to the 100-block of Main Street. A key redevelopment opportunity may exist along E. Washington Street, as there are several existing, historic buildings in this area. At the time of this study, the majority of the existing buildings appeared to have active tenants, and included both residential and commercial land-uses.

Any future secondary redevelopment projects should seek to achieve the same objectives articulated for the primary redevelopment projects, as previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.

Components -- Redevelopment of four (4) existing buildings along the northern side of E. Washington Street at its intersection with Main Street.

-- Final program of buildings to be determined by developer, however, should ideally include an activated retail/commercial ground floor with a residential and/or commercial component above.

Opinion of Cost The implementation of the (4) aforementioned mixed-use redevelopment development projects is estimated to cost between $1.8M-$2.2M. This opinion of cost is exclusive of future land acquisition costs and design services, representing approximately 12,000 gross square feet of redevelopment at a market rate construction cost of $112$137 per square foot. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with these projects be absorbed by the

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

113

private sector. Due the future nature of these projects, costs are likely to vary significantly based on the number of currently unknown conditions.

Considerations -- The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the high and intermediatepriority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result.

-- The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

-- Renovated buildings should seek to meet their parking needs through a shared-parking strategy, and avoid parking lots that front Main Street.

-- Any new buildings constructed in the downtown core and fronting Main Street should provide a minimum 15’ wide sidewalk along Main Street.

2. SECONDARY INFILL PROJECTS Description + Purpose Once secondary redevelopment opportunities are exhausted, secondary infill projects should be prioritized with a preference given to the areas surrounding E. Washington Street. A key secondary infill opportunity may exist on the south side of E. Washington Street, at its intersection with Main Street. At the time of the study, this parcel contained a single-family residence, which does not represent the highest and best use of that parcel given its aesthetic, limited uses, and low-density.

Any future secondary infill projects should seek to achieve the same objectives articulated for the primary infill projects, as previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.

Components -- Development of two (2) new infill buildings, averaging 3-stories in height, adjacent to E Washington Street in the downtown core of Upland.

-- Final program of buildings to be determined by developer, however, should ideally include an activated retail/commercial ground floor with a residential and/or commercial component above.

114

Opinion of Cost The implementation of the two (2) aforementioned mixed-use infill development projects is estimated to cost between $2.9M-$3.5M. This opinion of cost is exclusive of future land acquisition costs, and represents approximately 10,000 gross square feet of new development at a market rate construction cost of $180-$220 per square foot. In addition, it includes a 20% allowance for site improvements such as parking lots and/or streetscape amenities. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with these projects will be absorbed by the private sector.

Considerations -- Some projects currently previously identified for secondary redevelopment may be reclassified as “secondary infill” if the cost of redeveloping makes doing so infeasible.

-- The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the high and intermediatepriority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result.

-- The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

-- New infill buildings should seek to meet their parking needs through a shared-parking strategy, and avoid parking lots that front Main Street.

-- Any new buildings constructed in the downtown core and fronting Main Street should provide a minimum 15’ wide sidewalk along Main Street.

3. UPLAND CULTURAL CENTER Description + Purpose The majority of the Town’s existing “civic” infrastructure is located near the intersection of Main Street and Washington Street, including the Upland Town Hall, library, fire station, and police station. As such, this area serves as the civic hub for the entire town.

At the time of the study, the Upland fire station – located immediately north of Town Hall on the west side of Main Street – had an existing surface parking lot fronting Main Street. As has been previously discussed, surface lots along

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION Main Street should be avoided, and replaced with a more activating and engaging use. Given the civic nature of this portion of downtown, the feasibility of developing a small, Upland cultural center should be explored. This cultural center is envisioned to be a gathering place that will serve as a central hub for all of the community-based groups in Upland, as well as a home for the Upland Historical Society. and/or museum.

The architecture of the structure should be unique and contextual, but should also reflect the history and heritage of the Town itself. The future building should actively engage Main Street through the creation of a plaza space, and utilize a shared parking lot with the fire station and Town Hall. Overflow parking areas may need to be further explored based on currently unknown demand.

Components -- Upland Cultural Center building (1,500 GSF) -- Pedestrian plaza along Main Street Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that the Upland Cultural Center will cost approximately $462,000-$656,000, with an estimated construction cost of $180-$220 per square foot.

Considerations -- Further coordination with the local community-based groups will be required to better define the overall vision and objectives for the Upland Cultural Center, which will allow for a better understanding of aesthetic, program, and cost.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

115

3.3

116

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

2ND STREET PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 3.3.1 PROJECT SUMMARY The Second Street Pedestrian Corridor (SSPC) is an approximate 1.3 mile multipurpose trail alignment first envisioned as part of the Upland Area Greenways Association (UAGA) Trails Master Plan. As previously stated in Section 1.4.2, this community-wide master planning process will seek to support the efforts of the existing UAGA Greenways Master Plan rather than reinvent it. As such, this section seeks to build upon the vision articulated for the SSPC in the UAGA Greenways Master Plan by examining possible implementation methods, design constraints, and value-added opportunities which will help ensure that this critical pedestrian linkage helps to meet the high priority needs identified and objectives identified during the Existing Conditions Analysis and Needs Assessment processes.

The SSPC – as presented herein – is envisioned as much more than just a “trail,” but rather a linear park corridor which links downtown Upland to Taylor University, as well as five (5) community green spaces and an elementary school in between. In addition to serving as a means of alternative transportation, the envisioned corridor helps to improve overall community health, provide access to new recreation opportunities, and increase town-wide sustainability and safety.

The SSPC was selected as a priority project for evaluation in this master planning process because of its direct connection between downtown and Taylor University.

Taylor University faculty and students – including those who do not have access to a vehicle – are key target users of the re-envisioned downtown, and currently, there is no dedicated, multi-use pedestrian connection linking the two. If the revitalization of downtown Upland is to be used as a catalyst for community-wide revitalization, a key component of that vision is providing safe, enjoyable, and convenient ways to access downtown which do not require the use of a car.

The vision for the SSPC, as informed by this master planning process, is composed of three (3) distinct projects: -- The 2nd Street Path -- A new neighborhood park -- An improved community park space Following is a description of each of these projects which is intended to give an overview of the various components, potential cost, and other considerations intended to move the Town closer towards implementation.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

117

Figure 3.19: Graphic illustrating alignment of the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor and its associated parks (Browning Day, 2015).

3.3.2 SECOND STREET PATH Description + Purpose During the planning process, participants voiced the desire to explore the possibility of making the user-experience along the SSPC more “trail-like,” through the use of a dedicated pathway as opposed to traditional on-road bicycle lanes or paved shoulders. This option, if feasible, would serve as a second alternative, building upon the work of UAGA. No detailed analysis of the right-of-way (ROW) was included within the scope of this master planning effort, however, the Project Team did tour the proposed alignment of the SSPC. During the corridor tour, the Project Team observed numerous challenges associated with implementing a dedicated “trail” along the proposed alignment. The ROW conditions vary dramatically along the length of the corridor; there is no “typical” crosssection through 2nd Street or 3rd Street. Swales, utility poles, sidewalks, drainage culverts, mature shade trees, on-street parking, and drive crossings were all observed in various locations. In some cases, the grade outside of the roadway was level with the road surface, and in others elevated or depressed in the form of a swale. The existing

118

pavement along the corridor is approximately 20’ wide, consisting of two (2) 10’ travel lanes (Figure 3.20). In most cases, the overhead utilities appeared to be approximately 10’-15’ from the edge of pavement, though in some cases they may be as close as 5’. No detailed survey information was available for review at the time of the study. For the majority of the proposed alignment, the overhead utilities were on the eastern side of the roadway.

Given the constraints noted above, and the inconsistent nature of the ROW, no “standard” trail or path typology is a perfect match for the SSPC. As a result, a hybrid path typology was envisioned which is essentially a variant of a traditional sidepath (a shared-use path adjacent to a roadway). The 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is often considered a primary reference for bicycle facility planning and design. According to the AASHTO 2012 Guide, a sidepath must be physically separated from the roadway by at least 5’, or if immediately adjacent to the roadway, employ the use of a physical barrier to separate path users from the travel lanes (AASHTO, 2012a). In the case of the SSPC, the latter of the two requirements would apply; without realigning the roadway, there simply isn’t

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

Figure 3.20: Existing condition photograph of 2nd Street at its intersection with E Berry Street (Browning Day, 2015).

enough ROW on either side to accommodate a traditional sidepath.

The alternate concept for the SSPC includes the development of a 10’ wide asphalt sidepath adjoining with the existing road surface, along the western side of the alignment. In addition, this concept anticipates the need for a drainage and physical barrier component, both of which are currently illustrated within the 2’ wide “shyzone;” the area between a pathway and a roadway where users generally do not feel comfortable (Figure 3.21). It is likely, given the varying nature of the ROW, that multiple, different drainage solutions and/or devices will be required, sometimes on opposing sides of the path due to the existing grades within the ROW. Examples of potential drainage solutions to be explored include infiltration strips, trench drains, and/or swales. The sidepath should be physically separated from the roadway by the greatest distance feasible where the ROW permits, such as near Eastbrook South Elementary School (Figure 3.22).

There are several alternatives for creating a “physical” barrier between the roadway and the pathway, where required, including the use of a paved curb, plant buffer, railing, or reflective surface-mount delineators. For this

concept, a native prairie grass buffer strip is proposed.

This planting strip will allow water from the trail and the roadway to infiltrate into a collection pipe, is more cost effective than both the railing and paved curb, and provide a softer aesthetic than the surface-mount delineators.

Following is a summary of the opportunities and constraints presented by this alternative.

Opportunities: -- Both 2nd Street and 3rd Street are quiet, low-volume roadways with low traffic speeds, which helps to minimize the potential for conflict between path users and motorists.

-- The alignment directly connects the downtown with Taylor University, and bisects some of the most heavily populated residential areas in Upland.

-- A “dedicated path,” if effectively separated either through distance or with a physical barrier, appeals to a wider variety of potential users than an on-road facility.

-- The SSPC is only 1.3 miles in length and is not currently part of a larger, regionalized system, therefore, the majority of the users will likely be local walkers, casual cyclists, or bicycle commuters from the surrounding communities, which should anecdotally reduce the

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

119

potential conflicts between bicyclist and pedestrians.

-- There are opportunities for the Town to “brand” the corridor along the pathway through the use of pavement markings, signage, banners, etc.

Constraints: -- The greatest constraint associated with this concept is likely cost and complexity; both of which are anticipated to be significant given the condition of the ROW. -- There is no “one-size-fits-all” design solution that will satisfy the varying conditions associated with grade, utilities, and drainage.

-- Due to the varying existing grades within the ROW, it is likely that this project will not be feasible independent of a larger roadway or storm water improvement project that is able to benefit from economies of scale.

-- To meet the AASHTO design guidelines for a sidepath, a physical barrier will likely be required between the path and the roadway for the majority of its alignment; this complicates intersections and drive-crossings, and increases the overall cost of the project.

-- Further study, design, and engineering analysis will be required to determine actual feasibility of the concept.

Components -- 10’ wide, asphalt sidepath “trail” -- In addition to the physical pathway itself, the SSPC should incorporate directional and regulatory signage, and appropriate safety markings and surface treatments.

-- Pedestrian-scale lighting every 75’ -- Drainage improvements, as required (currently unknown) -- Street trees and buffer landscape plantings where feasible -- Physical barrier (if separation distance is <5’) Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, the 1.3 mile SSPC path – and its associated components – is anticipated to cost between $1.7M-$2.1M, exclusive of any improvements to the roadway or existing utility infrastructure. A key contributor to the overall cost is associated with the pedestrian-scale lighting (approximately $550,000). Given the current amount of unknowns, and the observed conditions of the ROW within the corridor, these costs could vary dramatically.

120

The estimated cost of implementing a shared-lane system along the corridor which is marked and signed on both sides of the roadway every 200’, is estimated to cost approximately $27,000, or $21,000 per mile.

Considerations -- Further study will be required to better determine a more accurate understanding of feasibility and associated cost of the sidepath concept.

-- If, after further analysis, the sidepath concept is deemed infeasible, or is required to be part of a larger roadway project in the future, an interim solution should be considered which does not require modification of the existing road, drainage, or utility systems. Given the low traffic volumes and speeds, the limited width of the existing roadway and the varying condition of the ROW along the alignment, the SSPC is a potential candidate for the use of marked, shared-lanes (sometimes referred to as SHARROWs). A shared-lane allows the bicyclist to “share” the travel lane with motorists, and is generally recommended on low-speed/lowvolume roadways. Few improvements are required to implement a shared-lane system outside of regulatory signage and pavement markings, which would allow for a faster implementation (AASHTO, 2012b).

-- When compared to the existing conditions, the addition of a shared-lane system would be of significant benefit to bicyclists, however, of a more limited benefit to pedestrians.

-- Even if a shared-lane strategy is inevitably utilized, opportunities to “brand” the corridor and provide directional signage and wayfinding should be explored.

-- Regardless of whether a sidepath or shared-lane system is implemented, the final design of the selected system should meet or exceed all applicable AASHTO design criteria with regard to safety, geometric design, pavement markings, signage, and intersection treatments.

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

ON-ROAD ON-ROAD“CYCLE “CYCLETRACK” TRACK”: TYPICAL : TYPICALRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALSTREET STREETSECTION SECTION CL CL

ON-ROAD “CYCLE TRACK” : TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTION CL

10’ 10’ multi-purpose multi-purpose path path

2’ 2’ drain drain strip strip

10’ 10’

2nd Street travel lanes 2nd Street travel lanes

10’ 10’

10’ (approx.)

10’ (approx.) existing swale/ROW existing swale/ROW

Figure 3.21: Section illustrating the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor sidepath adjacent to Second Street, where the existing ROW SEPARATED MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL STREET : EASTBROOK SEPARATEDgrade MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL2ND 2ND STREET EASTBROOKSOUTH SOUTHELEMENTARY ELEMENTARYSCHOOL SCHOOL is level with the roadway (Browning Day,: 2015).

10’ multi-purpose path

2’ drain strip

10’

10’ (approx.)

10’

existing swale/ROW

2nd Street travel lanes CL CL

SEPARATED MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL 2ND STREET : EASTBROOK SOUTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CL

(VARIES) (VARIES) existing perimeter parking and drive aisle for school existing perimeter parking and drive aisle for school

(VARIES) existing perimeter parking and drive aisle for school

10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 2nd Street travel lanes 2nd Street travel lanes

10’

10’ 2nd Street travel lanes

9’ 9’ street parking street parking

10’ 10’ separated separated trail trail

10’ 10’ bio-swale bio-swale

9’

10’

10’

street parking

separated trail

bio-swale

Figure 3.22: Section illustrating the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor as a fully separated trail within the “Improved Community Park Space” adjacent to Eastbrook South Elementary School (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

121

park park space space

park space

Figure 3.23: Artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rendering illustrating the aesthetic of the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor sidepath (Browning Day, 2015).

122

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

123

3.3.3 NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Description + Purpose As the Needs Assessment verified, the Town of Upland has a well developed and distributed parks and open space system, given its size. This is especially true when the facilities present at Taylor and other quasi-public sites are included. The Access LOS analysis – when evaluated at the “neighborhood-scale” (¼ mile radius service area) identified a gap in service in a densely populated residential area approximately 0.3 miles north of Taylor University (Figure 3.24). To fill this void, it is recommended that a small neighborhood park be developed within this area.

The concept illustrated in Figure 3.25 represents the development of a new neighborhood park on a vacant parcel of land within the under-served residential area mentioned above. This parcel is approximately 1.9 acres in size, and currently owned by Taylor University. Additionally, this parcel is along the proposed alignment of the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor (SSPC) pathway, and could serve as both a destination and trailhead for the SSPC. The program for this park should seek to meet the daily open space needs of adjacent local residents, providing basic amenities such as a small playground, picnic shelter, flexible, multi-purpose green space, additional street trees and landscape plantings, sidewalks, and a trail connection.

It is anticipated that the majority of future site users will live in the neighborhood and walk to the park, however, consideration should be given to providing some on-street parking along Spencer Avenue to the north to support the future trailhead use.

Components Components of the new neighborhood park could include: -- (13) On-street parking spaces -- (1) Small, neighborhood scale playground, with shade sails -- (1) Small picnic shelter near the playground -- Sidewalks -- Multi-purpose trail connection linking to the park to the future SSPC path alignment -- Pedestrian amenities such as benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles.

124

Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that the new neighborhood park will cost approximately $280,000-$345,000. Construction costs can be reduced during the design process by adjusting the quantities, size, and selections of the plant material and site amenities. If the available budget, which is currently unknown, does not permit full implementation of the park program, a phased approach should be developed which responds to the budget. Priority should be given to the trail and sidewalk linkages, picnic shelter (with seating), and the playground in the first phase.

Considerations -- Although the need for park space is not a high priority, demonstrating action and progress within the community is, and this project is a good example of “low-hanging fruit” which can be implemented easily if a development partner is identified.

-- The landscape design should incorporate native and/ or “native” friendly plant material, and be designed with ease of maintenance in mind.

-- When the SSPC is implemented, this site has the ability to serve as a destination trailhead, and as such, should provide directional signage and wayfinding associated with the larger greenways system.

-- Consideration may be given to providing a water fountain on-site, if appropriate utility connections are present.

-- Prior to developing this new neighborhood park, the Town should evaluate whether it has the capacity to operate and maintain it into the future. If not, then implementation should be delayed until such assurances can be made.

-- Not detailed analysis of this site was completed as part of this master planning process, and as such, currently unknown conditions of the site may alter the program, final design, and construction cost.

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

DOWNTOWN

NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SPACE

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Figure 3.24: 1/4-Mile Access LOS map illustrating the potential location for a new neighborhood park (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

125

1 | GTs

2 | GTs

2 | GTs

13 | AFr

230 SF | SHE 300 SF | CAC 3 | POm 3 | GTs

3RD

STREET

8 | POm

3 | AGr

1 | GTs

230 SF | SHE

3 | POm 2 | POm

4 | CCa

2 | LTu

300 SF | CAC

S

4 | CCa 4 | AGr 2 | LTu

4 | POm

T H O BU RN

S T RE ET

Figure 3.25: Conceptual site and planting plan for a new neighborhood park (Browning Day, 2015).

126

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION PLANT SCHEDULE BOTANICAL NAME 1 | GTs

|

COMMON NAME

| REMARKS

CANOPY TREE AFr ACER X FREEMANII

| AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE | 2.5” CALIPER

GTs GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS ‘SKYLINE’ | SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST | 2.5” CALIPER

2 | OPa

8 | AGr

QPa QUERCUS PALUSTRIS

|

PIN OAK

LTu LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA

|

TULIP TREE

|

SERBIAN SPRUCE

| 3” CALIPER | 2.5” CALIPER

EVERGREEN TREES POm PICEA OMORIKA

| 6’,8’,12’ STAGGERED HTS.

ORNAMENTAL TREE 8 | AGr

AGr AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA ‘AUTUMN BRILLIANCE’ | AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY | 10-12’ HTS., 8’ SPREAD, MULTI-TRUNK

450 SF | SHE

500 SF | CAC

CCa CERCIS CANADENSIS ‘FOREST PANSY’

| FOREST PANSY RED BUD | 2” CALIPER , 10-12’ HT. x 8-10’

GRASSES

1 | GTs

CAC CALAMAGROSTIS ACUTIFLORA ‘KARL FOERSTER’ | FEATHERED REEDGRASS | 2 GAL. @ 24” O.C. SHE SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS

|

PRAIRIE DROPSEED

| 1 GAL. @ 18” O.C.

2 | QPa

1 | GTs

127

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 0

40

80

120

3.3.4 IMPROVED COMMUNITY PARK SPACE Description + Purpose Immediately to the east of Eastbrook South Elementary School is a large, 6.7 acre community green space which is owned by the school. At the time of this study, there were four (4) existing baseball/softball diamonds located on site, with outfields that vary in distance between 185’ and 230’ approximately. This site benefits from its immediate adjacency to Eastbrook Elementary School, which has a large playground and over an acre of flexible green space.

Similar to the previously proposed new neighborhood park, this community green space is also located along the future Second Street Pedestrian Corridor (SSPC) path alignment, and could serve as a future destination and/or trailhead (Figure 3.26).

Currently, this site is effectively serving as practice space for youth recreation leagues, however, the capacity and utilization of this site could be increased with a few, comparably low-cost improvements. Additionally, the current arrangement of the fields does not maximize the amount of flexible green space that could be utilized for other sports such as football or soccer.

The vision for this quasi-public community park space is to increase its flexibility, programmability, and economic potential by improving overall field design, safety, and quality, and reorganizing the existing diamonds to maximize both flexible field space and outfield depth (anticipated to be approximately 225’). If overall field quality is improved, there is a potential that these fields could transition to “game” fields for little league baseball or adult softball, which could serve as a revenue generator for the Town.

In addition, the reorganization of the baseball/softball fields allows for two (2) full-size football/soccer fields to be striped in the outfields for multi-sport programming (assumes no outfield fences).

Components -- (4) Improved baseball/softball fields with a minimum outfield distance of 225’ -- (2) Full-size football/soccer fields in overlapping outfields, which serve as multi-purpose practice or programming spaces when the baseball fields are not in use.

-- Central pedestrian plaza and picnic pavilion -- On-street, parallel parking -- Field improvements such as new backstops, dugouts, and one (1) centralized digital scoreboard that could serve multiple fields Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that the improvements recommended to the community park space will cost approximately $187,000-$225,000.

Construction costs can be reduced during the design process by adjusting the quantities, size, and selections of the plant material and site amenities, and/or re-using the existing back-stops (if feasible).

Considerations -- A complete replacement of the turf grass and infields is recommended to occur during the relocation process.

-- The design and arrangement of the baseball/softball diamonds should meet or exceed all appropriate regulatory design and safety requirements.

-- The Town may wish to explore the feasibility of utilizing portable backstops and/or dugouts if they prove to be more cost effective.

-- The Town may wish to hold off on implementing this project until the SSPC path is constructed, as its final design and route may affect the location of site amenities currently proposed.

-- If the fields are to be used for game play, they must be maintained to a higher standard than traditional practice fields. This may require additional seeding, mowing, fertilizing and irrigation (temporary, as required).

In addition to the upgraded fields, various other site improvements are recommended such as on-street parking along 2nd Street, a sidewalk connection liking the park to the future SSPC path, and a central picnic pavilion. The upgraded baseball/softball diamonds would also receive new backstops, dugouts, and a central scoreboard.

128

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

W JEFFERSON STREET

MEMORIAL PARK 5

EASTBROOK SOUTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

S MAIN STREET/SR22

S 2ND STREET

3

2 3 7

6

3 2

LEGEND: 1

Existing Playground and Green Space

2

Multi-Purpose Field Overlay

3

Relocated Baseball/Softball Diamond

4

Landscape Screen

5

Linkage to Memorial Park

6

On-Street, Parallel Parking

7

Central Plaza w/ Picnic Shelter

RO X. 2

25

’

4

AP P

1 3 FUTURE SSPC PATH ALIGNMENT

E B E R RY S T R E E T

200’

N

Figure 3.26: Conceptual plan sketch illustrating proposed improvements to an existing community green space (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

129

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

CO RD. 500 S, SR22

C

VIE

WF

RO

MR

OA

VIEW

DW AY

M FRO RO A Y DWA

D

PROX. 130 SPACES

F APPROX. 550 SPACES

K

L

H G

E I

3.4

M

J

130

2nd ST

N

APPROX.

D

N

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

O

TOWN GATEWAY EXPERIENCE

B

A A

3.4.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW A “gateway” can refer to both an “experience” and a physical “marker” – such as a monument, sign, or sculpture – all of which denote entry into and/or arrival at a destination. The “gateway experience” was identified as an important component of overall community image and identity to Upland residents, and as such, the following two projects seek to re-envision not just the aesthetic of the existing Town gateways, but also the definition of “gateway” itself.

Currently, the Town of Upland has two (2) primary gateways, which denote physical arrival into the Town. The first of these is the Northern Gateway, which occurs along SR22 where its alignment turns south and enters the north side of downtown.

When entering the town from the north, a timber monument sign, located within the SR22 roadway ROW, greets visitors to the town.

The Southern Gateway to the Town of Upland is currently located at the intersection of SR22/Main Street and SR26, immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Taylor University. Similar to the Northern Gateway, the Town has a timber frame sign within the SR22 ROW announcing entry into Upland. Taylor University – a long-standing community partner – also has a monument sign in this location.

J

Following are concepts for a re-envisioned Northern and Southern Gateway to the Town of Upland, both of which seek to articulate the Upland’s unique identify and “brand,” and better define the visitor experience when entering the Town.

P CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

200 SPACES

D

1st ST

N

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

0

100

200

300

131

3.4.2 NORTHERN GATEWAY Overview + Purpose The vision for the Northern Gateway articulated within the 2010 Community Planning Charrette recommended that the gateway “experience” be controlled through the use of tightly spaced street tree plantings which line both sides of SR22 as you enter town (see Section 1.1.3). The vision for controlling the “gateway” experience through the use of broad landscape gestures is valid, however, the constraints associated with the SR22 ROW will likely render the previously proposed solution infeasible.

As previously identified, SR22 is under the jurisdiction of INDOT, which results in increased regulatory oversight.

Specifically, INDOT’s “Clear-Zone” requirements prohibit obstructions – such as the planting of trees - within the width of the “Clear Zone” of a roadway. As of 2015, INDOT has assigned a functional class of “Major Collector 5” to SR22 where it enters downtown Upland from the north (INDOT 2015). When this functional classification is combined with the design speed, traffic volumes, and shoulder condition of the roadway, a “Clear-Zone” of approximately 28’ is required (INDOT, 2013). In addition, the ROW along SR22 as it enters the Town varies dramatically with steep grades in many locations that would also prevent the planting of street trees along the majority of the alignment (Figure 3.27).

In contrast to the typical definition of “gateway,” the re-envisioned concept for the Northern Gateway is comprised of broad views and landscape gestures that serve collectively to form the user “experience,” while seeking to meet the unique requirements associated with the SR22 ROW. The centerpiece of these gestures is an outdoor performing arts venue – complete with an iconic, sculptural band shell – that is nestled into the natural rolling topography of the countryside. The amphitheater venue would serve not only as a functional gathering space for the community but also as a geographic “marker” signifying arrival into the Town of Upland (Figure 3.28).

The gateway performing arts venue is seated just north of Upland, nestled into the rolling hillside of an undeveloped 43.4-acre parcel of farmland that is currently owned

by Taylor University. During the visioning process, the University indicated that a future use of this parcel of land had not yet been identified.

132

Positioned along a broad curve in SR22 and immediately adjacent to downtown Upland, the amphitheater utilizes the rolling hillside to create architectural seating terraces and broad landscape gestures, which when combined with the iconic band shell, serve as the framework of the gateway and anchor the northern boundary of the community.

This “gateway” approach relies on user experience and response to the aesthetic of the built environment juxtaposed against a rolling agricultural landscape. The parcel on which the amphitheater is seated is unique in that it features a broad hillside facing SR22 to the north.

Working with the existing landscape, the amphitheater emerges from the context of its native surroundings.

Rounding the bend along SR22, broad views are traded for defined axial vistas that orient views on new Town entry signage and landscape treatments, and eventually into the heart of downtown.

Components -- 2,000-5,000 seat outdoor amphitheater and performing arts venue w/ an iconic band shell structure -- Approximately 330 paved parking spaces in two (2) separate lots.

-- Approximately 550 turf overflow parking spaces.

-- Sculpture/arts garden -- Supporting site infrastructure such as electrical utilities and hook-ups, restrooms/concessions building, and maintenance, storage, and staging facilities -- Large-scale landscape gestures, which seek to frame views into the site and buffer it from adjacent residential areas.

-- Access roadways which reconnect with the existing downtown street grid

Opinion of Cost Based on the grand vision articulated for the Northern Gateway, the full cost of implementation for this project is estimated to be between $2.4M-$2.9M, which could vary widely based on the final program, and/or currently unknown existing conditions and requirements of the owner.

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

Figure 3.27: Western view of SR22/Main Street where it enters downtown Upland (Browning Day, 2015).

Considerations -- Updated signage and more traditional wayfinding elements are important components to be utilized in conjunction with the amphitheater. Full implementation of the vision for the Northern Gateway, if supported by the parties involved, would likely require several years or more to implement given its scale. In the interim, the Town should upgrade the existing monumental signage to coordinate with the aesthetic proposed at the Southern Gateway, as described in Section 3.4.3.

-- Given the scale of this vision, it is likely outside the capacity of the Town to implement, and is therefore envisioned to be owned and operated by Taylor University.

-- Although the concept for the site attempts to work with the existing grade of the landscape, a facility of this scale will still require a significant amount of earthwork.

-- No detailed site analysis was completed as part of this master planning process; final design, programming, and feasibility may change based on currently unknown site conditions and/or constraints.

-- The total number of parking spaces provided will need to be adjusted based on the anticipated demand at the time of implementation. Parking the site for event-use should be approached as part of a larger, shared-parking strategy to avoid unnecessary asphalt parking lots.

-- Any parking lots proposed should be screened from view when entering the Town from the north along SR22.

-- Final design should utilize plant materials native to the project site to insure increased sustainability and integration within the existing landscape.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

133

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

CO RD. 500 S, SR22

C

VIE

WF

RO

MR

OA

VIEW

DW AY

M FRO ROA Y DWA

D APPROX. 130 SPACES

LEGEND

F APPROX. 550 SPACES

A. UPLAND GATEWAY SIGNAGE B . FOUNDATION PLANTING C. GATEWAY VIEWSHED D. SURFACE PARKING LOT E. SECONDARY SEATING LAWN

H

F. OVERFLOW PARKING / LAWN G. ACCESS ROAD H. LOWER WALK / MAINT. ROAD

G

E

I. ACCESSIBLE WALK

I

J. TREE GROVE K. STAGE / CANOPY STRUCTURE

J

L. AMPHITHEATER TERRACES M. SCULPTURE / ARTS GARDEN N. OVERFLOW PARKING O. DENSE SCREENING P. CONCESSIONS / RESTROOM

N

Figure 3.28: Conceptual site plan sketch for the performing arts venue at the Northern Gateway (Browning Day, 2015).

134

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

B

A A

B

K

22

SR

L

J

M P CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

APPROX. 200 SPACES

D

SR22

O

1st ST

2nd ST

N

URBAN ST

N

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 0

100

200

300

135

3.4.3 SOUTHERN GATEWAY Overview + Purpose The Southern Gateway is located at the intersection of SR22 and SR26, and immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Taylor University. Visitors entering Upland – or Taylor University – from the south do so along SR26, which eventually merges into SR22/Main Street. When approaching the intersection of SR26 and SR22, it is immediately evident that you are “entering” Taylor University due to the presence of their brick and masonry monument sign on the northwest corner of the intersection. The Town of Upland also has an existing welcome sign, however, it is a brown timber sign that is much smaller in scale and is easy to miss (Figure 3.29). It is important for visitors to know that they are entering both Taylor University, and the Town of Upland.

The vision for the future Southern Gateway creates a unified gateway entry for both the Town of Upland and Taylor University, which is symbolic of the notion that the University is part of the Town, and the Town part of the

University. The concept in Figure 3.30 illustrates how, with the addition of a new Town of Upland monument sign and supporting landscape, the unified gateway can be achieved. A key component of this concept is the proposed new monument sign for the Town of Upland.

This new sign should be located immediately opposite of the existing Taylor University sign, located outside of the INDOT-mandated “Clear Zone” of SR22 (anticipated to be approximately 28’ feet; see Section 3.3.3), and free of any potential utility conflicts. This sign should compliment aesthetic and scale of the existing Taylor University sign, however, should be distinctly different, reflecting the unique “character” of the Upland brand.

In this concept, the existing Taylor University sign would remain, however, a new, ornamental landscape would be installed which envelops it and the proposed Town of Upland sign, resulting in the creation of a single “gateway” feature. The landscape would be composed largely of ornamental trees, shrubs, and perennials with multiseasonal interest. A double-row of ornamental trees with foundation plantings beneath serves as the backdrop for

Figure 3.29: Southern Gateway location and the intersection of SR22 and SR26 (Google, 2015).

136

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION both signs, and “encloses” the gateway gesture. In addition, some native prairie plantings should be incorporated on the western side of SR22, to help unify the landscape aesthetic of both sides of the roadway.

Components -- New Town of Upland monument sign located on the northeast corner of the intersection of SR22 and SR26, immediately opposite of the existing Taylor University monument sign.

-- Supporting landscape composed of ornamental trees, shrubs, grasses, and flowering perennials.

Opinion of Cost Based on the vision articulated above, it is estimated that the vision for the Southern Gateway will cost approximately $68,000-$83,000. Construction costs can be reduced during the final design process by adjusting the quantities, size, and selections of the plant material, as well as the materials palette of the monument sign.

Considerations -- Care should be given in final design to ensure the scale, aesthetic, and materiality of the new Town of Upland sign compliments the existing Taylor University monument sign, which is to remain.

-- This concept will likely require the use of private property in order to locate the new Town sign and its supporting landscape out of the INDOT Clear-Zone and free of any existing utility conflicts.

-- If a development partner and/or donor are willing to assist in implementing this project, it would be considered “low-hanging fruit” and should be prioritized accordingly.

-- Consideration should be given to updating the existing monument signage at the Northern Gateway in concert with this effort to ensure a similar aesthetic in the absence of the full implementation of the vision for the Northern Gateway (as described in Section 3.4.2).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

137

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY BASIC PRAIRIE SEED MIX

160 S.F. | ANP 12 | NSY 34 | VJ EXISTING TAYLOR UNIVERSITY SIGN 150 S.F. | ANNUALS

440 S.F. | JCS 200 S.F. | ANP

PLANT SCHEDULE BOTANICAL NAME

|

COMMON NAME

|

NSy NYSSA SYLVATICA

|

BLACK GUM

|

VJ VIBURNUM x JUDDII

|

JUDD VIBURNUM

|

36”

|

36”

JCS JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS ‘SARGENTIS’

| SARGENTS JUNIPER

|

24”

|

24”

ANP ASTER NOVI-BELGII ‘PROESSOR KIPPENBURG’ |

NEW YORK ASTER

HEIGHT | SPREAD | CALIPER | CONTAINER | |

|

2.5”

SPACING

|

REMARKS

|

B&B

|

AS SHOWN

|

FULL GROWN,

|

|

B&B

|

AS SHOWN

|

FULL TO GROW

|

|

5 GAL.

|

3’-0” O.C.

|

FULL

1 GAL.

1’-0” O.C.

|

FUL

|

|

|

|

|

BASIC PRAIRIE GRASS

|

|

|

|

|

| 38.25 LBS / ACRE |

ANNUALS - FALL & SPRING

|

|

|

|

|

|

Figure 3.30: Conceptual site and landscape plan sketch for the Southern Gateway (Browning Day, 2015).

138

MASTER PLAN VISION | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

|

RESTORED NATIVE PRAIRIE

Main

Street

PART THREE: MASTER PL AN VISION

/

160 S.F. | ANP

SR22

BASIC PRAIRIE SEED MIX

12 | NSY 34 | VJ GATEWAY SIGN 150 S.F. | ANNUALS

440 S.F. | JCS 200 S.F. | ANP

S R 2 6

/

E

7 0 0

S

MATCH HTS. 6â&#x20AC;&#x2122; CLEAR TRUNK

WN

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

139

PART FOUR

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN The implementation of the Master Plan initiatives will require an organized and committed leadership, including a project â&#x20AC;&#x153;champion,â&#x20AC;? who provides leadership in several key areas: communication with other leaders, coordination of project committee activities, and engagement with residents and volunteers. The following implementation strategy adds actionable direction to each of the key projects, which identifies priority level, complexity, timeframes, and cost. As discussed in Part 3, cost parameters for implementing the Vision projects have been assessed at a high-level, including allowances for contingency, design fees, and general conditions where applicable (see Section 3.1.4).

142

4.1

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION 4.1.1 METHODOLOGY The funding and long-term maintenance of projects in the public realm will likely require effort from a combination of volunteer groups, Town capital improvement budgets, maintenance budgets, and private investment. In addition, the use of alternative funding mechanisms such as private/public grants, corporate grant programs, not-for-profit organizations, or through local, state and federal government programs should be leveraged wherever possible.

The implementation of the Vision initiatives should be addressed in a comprehensive and synergistic manner. While some projects will be fairly simple and straightforward, requiring only the sweat equity by local volunteers, others will require professionals in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and various types of engineering in order to design, permit and administer the construction on behalf of private entities or the Town.

For example, an underground utility project along a street could trigger an opportunity to entirely redesign a street, improve drainage, add a water line, etc.

This activity can easily lead to the addition of bike lanes and/or sidepaths, street trees, improved lighting, and bioswales that mitigate the quantity and quality of storm water. Rather than compartmentalize projects into categories of beautification or utilities—they should be viewed as necessary components of one, larger “project.”

In addition, some projects will have “synergistic” opportunities with others, and it is important that the Town leaders and all project stakeholders review the Master Plan Vision on a quarterly basis in order to be informed as to when a project may be considered, based upon available funding.

A key to success for the long-term realization of the Master Plan Vision will be the work accomplished as partnerships where group resources are leveraged for the greater good of the community. The Town should embrace the use of equitable, public private partnerships, whereby the Town of Upland, various mentioned groups and its citizens work collaboratively with local industry, educational institutions and the business community. In addition, the Town should proactively seek out the assistance of elected public servants/officials, departments and their technical assistance and grant programs, as well as funding at all levels (based upon taxes assessed locally), within Grant County, the East Central Indiana Economic Development region, the State of Indiana and at the Federal level.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

143

Figure 4.1: Chip Jaggers welcoming attendees at the Public Open House (Browning Day, 2015).

144

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN It is important to note that progress made on improvements through projects listed need not preclude others yet to be identified and accomplished through local means. New projects should always be reviewed and prioritized against the findings of the Needs Assessment and Master Plan Vision contained herein, prior to funding and implementation. It will be important for the Town to continually update the comprehensive “Action Plan” as progress on projects is made and funding sources identified. As time passes and conditions, needs, and/or priorities change, the Existing Conditions Analysis and the Needs and Priorities Assessment should also be revisited, and the community “vision” updated accordingly.

Funding sources for projects will come likely stem from a combination of public and private sources, economic development tax strategies, and tax deferment incentives.

The promotion of key priority projects to elected officials and their program managers at all levels of government, the continual “friend-raising” of potential partners, and traditional fund-raising will increase the likelihood that projects will come to fruition.

There are many sources of potential funding through grants, and while considerable time is required to manage these opportunities and respond to their deadlines, the information contained within this report can be useful in submitting for these grants.

As part of this planning effort, the Project Team created a list of potential, alternative funding sources which may be applicable to the various Vision initiatives. This list is not comprehensive, as the availability of resources in both the public and private sectors is constantly changing. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the various Vision initiatives meet all of the requirements of each individual funding source. As such, it is highly recommended that the Town employ the services a professional grant writer to assist in the important activity of monitoring and responding to these opportunities, as the long-term implementation of the Master Plan Vision will likely require them. A list of the identified grant-based funding sources referenced within this section is provided in Section 5.3 of the Appendix.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

145

146

4.2

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PROJECT ACTION PLANS 4.2.1 MAIN STREET STREETSCAPE Project Priority: High Project Summary: Multiple projects along Main Street involving renovation and new construction of utilities, sidewalks, curb and gutter, bulb-outs, traffic calming, signage, landscape, furniture and fixtures (see #1 in Section 3.2.2).

Opinion of Cost: $1,300,000-$1,600,000 Project Prerequisites: -- Communication with all elected officials and stakeholders who represent the Town of Upland.

-- Communicate desire for project with East Central Indiana Economic Development officials and all State and county and local officials.

-- Coordination with INDOT representative to express project intent and solicit support.

-- Meeting and coordination with all adjacent land owners.

-- ALTA Boundary and topographical Survey of project limits. A survey is a necessary set of data that usually takes 6-8 weeks in a project timeline to accomplish; having this data available will reduce the time it takes to start the design documentation and can likely be used on multiple individual projects.

-- Design documentation and Engineering of the public open space between buildings in the right of way.

Potential Alternative Funding Sources: -- Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion -- Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant Program -- Bicycle and Pedestrian Program -- Communities Putting Prevention to Work -- Transportation Alternative Program -- Regional Innovation Grants Program -- Main Street Revitalization Program -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program -- Community Forestry Grants Program Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- Given the amount of time required to appropriately coordinate the effort with the multiple parties involved, it is recommended that this process begin immediately.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

147

-- Form a Committee (with the Town as lead) to focus on Main Street; reach out to all Main Street property owners and incorporate them into the conversation; maintain buy-in.

-- The Town should coordinate with the private landowners who have frontages along the northern portions Main Street to plant as many street trees as possible. In this area – which is also the northern gateway to the Town - there is not enough width to plant trees within the ROW, and will likely require that they be planted on private property. Consideration for donation of large trees via tree spade from nearby tree nursery should be explored.

-- The Town should undertake an evaluation of the existing curb cuts present in downtown, along Main Street, to determine if any are unnecessary of not permitted. Any curb cuts that fall into either of the aforementioned categories should be removed (or “reclaimed”), wherever feasible.

-- Officially introduce all public agencies to the project intent and incorporate the initiative into their systems of communication and grant cycles.

-- Assess and replace crumbling sidewalks adjacent to residences in areas where curb and gutters would not be replaced north of the downtown.

-- Assess quality of existing mature trees; selectively prune dead wood and identify and treat existing Ash trees, if feasible and required.

-- Weed, re-till, supplement soil, fine grade and reseed lawn areas within the right-of-way along Main Street in the fall of 2015 in order to show progress and a fresh consistent appearance. Over-seeding and additional fertilization – as required – should take place again the following spring. This activity may require temporary permit from INDOT that should be obtained at Grant County INDOT facility.

-- Create a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to survey, design and engineer Main Street project area.

-- Utilize the services of a specialized professional consultant to develop comprehensive “design guidelines” for both historic and new infill development within the downtown area.

-- Replace all sidewalks within the project area (see description earlier in report), add new landscape, furniture and fixtures. Ideally this takes place after adjacent buildings are upgraded.

-- Add bulb-outs/rain gardens, if full-depth replacement of the roadway is not required -- After bulb-outs have been installed, transition parking “lanes” to continuous 24-hour on-street parking; mark and sign appropriately.

-- Town replaces the thresholds of all abutting streets via milling and surface replacement or full depth road replacement with cross-walks and traffic calming rain gardens.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+): -- Track INDOT’s surface milling and full depth road replacement schedules; ensure that Main Street is on the list.

-- Upgrade required utilities; bury overhead lines if possible.

-- Coordinate sidewalk and landscape maintenance with land owners and solicit financial sponsors for areas that require routine seasonal maintenance.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- Assess the condition of underground utilities along Main Street in order to understand how they would impact the future downtown project; have Town engineer write a report on how the utility plan impacts other desired projects. Additionally, the Town may wish to study the potential return on investment of upgrades (such as utilities) via specialty consultant.

-- Refine program of Main Street project once the activities of private building owners related to façade and building renovations are better understood.

Figure 4.2: Northwest view of the conceptual mixed-use building (Browning Day, 2015).

148

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN 4.2.2 NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- The Town should create a formal committee composed of representatives from both the Town and the Project Priority: High developer/owner to oversee the planning and design of the facility. The Town should obtain commitment from Project Summary: The development of a new, mixed-use the Owner/developer stating their commitment to the building on the east side of the 100-block of Main Street project. with immersion-based live, work, learn theme. Uses are to -- As previously stated, this effort will likely require a be verified, however initial ideas include, bakery and coffee partnership with a private developer or entity, and shop, restaurant, community space, apartment units, and immediate effort should be given on behalf of the Town teaching classrooms that front the street and courtyard to market this project to prospective development (See #2 in Section 3.2.2) partners in order to facilitate a faster implementation process.

Opinion of Cost: $6,300,000 - $7,100,000 (including site -- The concept as articulated herein, utilizes multiple improvements) parcels that are owned by multiple landowners. Once a development partner is identified, land acquisition Project Prerequisites: should begin immediately in order to secure the total -- The final Owner/developer must verify the suggested parcel size required for the building and site program. building program demand and define a budget Representatives from the Town indicated their desire -- Demolition of existing structures on owned property, for the buildings to be razed as soon as possible in rehabilitation of site as required to be “shovel-ready.” order to provide demonstrable evidence of “progress.”

-- Acquisition of all parcels required to support the final While genuine in its intentions, that decision brings building program and size. an inherent amount of risk; if the project falls through -- Potential Funding Sources: before anything new is built, downtown will have yet -- Private development partner/investor another gaping hole in its core. All buildings on the site -- Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion should be razed as soon as possible but not until after a -- Community Facility Grant development commitment for the site, which includes a -- Indiana Community Improvement/Development construction timeframe, has been agreed to.

-- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Once the party responsible for development has -- Regional Innovation Strategies Grants (Entrepreneurship) acquired all parcels necessary, the existing structures should be razed (see note above). Care should

be given to salvage and re-purpose unique building components from the existing structures – such as brick or ornate metalwork – where feasible. All unusable demolition debris should be hauled off in full; clean up soil and leave a clean site above and below ground.

Subsurface conditions of the site have a potential to significantly impact the feasibility – and associated cost of this project.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- Once a development partner is identified, they will need to undertake a full programming, design, and construction documentation process, the final product of which should ideally align with the vision articulated herein. It is estimated that the design and documentation process could take between 3-6 months. This process should involve academic program

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

149

N STREET: PROPOSED STREETSCAPE leadership, and seek business partners that have a relationship with the University and build strategic synergies that have business benefit to both entities.

During this process, long-term maintenance and operations costs should be projected, and long-term O&M budget established for the building based upon the approved program.

- The future developer of the site should undertake a detailed analysis of the existing conditions of the site to better inform any constraints associated with “brownfield” conditions (if existing), and the location and condition of surrounding utilities.

- Finalize Program and financial pro forma, complete design, and build new structures and site.

- Identify tenants for the structure; negotiate and sign lease agreements as applicable. Care should be given to activate the ground-level of the building as soon as possible.

4.2.3 SECOND STREET ON-ROAD PATH Project Priority: High C L

Project Summary: Designated north-south pedestrian pathway alignment through the residential core of Upland that links Taylor University with the downtown, five (5) public park spaces, and one (1) elementary school (See Section 3.3.2).

Opinion of Cost: $1,700,000-$2,100,000 Project Prerequisites: - Full survey of the existing conditions of the ROW within the proposed alignment to assist in determining final feasibility and cost of implementation - Appropriate funding sources

Potential Funding Sources: Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): - Recreational Trails Program (RTP) 5’ 8’ is successful, evaluate12’ 5’ 10’ - If initial development the feasibility 8’ 10’ 12’ Recovery and Environment - Urban Tree Expansion dedicated buffer -buffer based on cost and demand - of expansionSR-22 into /aMain Street travel wide sidewalk lanes wide sidewalk - Communities Putting Prevention to Work dedicated zone on-street parking zone parking larger urbanon-street “campus” along Railroad Street to the - Transportation Alternative Program active pedestrian zone active pedestrian zone east. A similar programming and design process (asvehicular zone - Community Foundation for Grant County noted above) should be undertaken for any expanded - Economic Development Assistance Program programmatic elements.

- Community Conservation Challenge - Community Forestry Grants Program DEPOT PARK

NEW URBAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BUILDING

SHARED PARKING

UPLAND TOWN HALL

MIXED-USE INFILL

FESTIVAL PLAZA

W W AS H IN GT ON S T

FUTURE UPLAND

SHARED PARKING

MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT

R AIL RO AD S T

SHARED PARKING

NEW URBAN PARK/PLAZA

MIXED-USE INFILL

Figure 4.3: Enlargement of the proposed New Urban Park and Plaza location (Browning Day, 2015).

150

URBAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (FUTURE EXPANSION)

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

UPLAN FIRE STA

MIX IN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN - INDNR Outdoor Recreation Grant - Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): - Review currently proposed future roadway improvement, utility, and storm water improvement projects to determine if 2nd Street or 3rd Street are impacted. If so, attempt to integrate the side path as a component of the larger infrastructure project.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): - Additional study, which utilizes the expertise of transportation engineers and professionals, should be undertaken to better understand the feasibility and associated cost of the sidepath concept. A full survey of the ROW will also likely be required.

- Given the comparably low-cost, the Town may wish to proceed with implementing a shared-lane system along the corridor as an interim condition (as described in Section 3.3.2), until the final path or trail can be developed in the future as part of a larger roadway improvement project, drainage project, or when sufficient funds become available.

- Seek out and apply for applicable grants targeting trails/greenways, green-infrastructure, multi-modal transportation, and stormwater improvements.

- Develop and implement community-wide signage and wayfinding design standards which address trails and greenways within Upland, ensuring uniformity and the promotion of the Upland “brand.”

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): - Undertake a design and documentation effort for the sidepath and any associated roadway or infrastructure improvements; construction should follow, providing funding has been obtained.

- Seek sponsorship and/or branding opportunities for the pathway to help support its long-term maintenance.

4.2.4 NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Project Priority: High (see “Considerations” in Section 3.3.3) Project Summary: Development of a new, neighborhood park in a currently under-served residential area of Upland, near Taylor University (See Section 3.3.3).

Opinion of Cost: $280,000-$345,000 (dependent upon final program and existing site conditions)

Project Prerequisites: - Full survey of the existing conditions of the park parcel proposed alignment to assist in determining final feasibility and cost of implementation - Land acquisition, as required, and based upon the final owner/developer (e.g. Town of Upland or private entity).

- Prior to developing this new neighborhood park, the Town should evaluate whether it has the capacity to operate and maintain it into the future. If not, then implementation should be delayed until such assurances can be made.

Potential Funding Sources: - Hometown Indiana Grant - Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion - Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - Shade Structure (Playground Structure) - Community Foundation for Grant County - Lowe’s Neighborhood Grant - The Home Depot: Community Impact Grant Program - USTA Public Facilities Grant - Tony Hawk Foundation - US Soccer Foundation Grant - NFL Grassroots Field Grant - Community Conservation Challenge - Environmental Justice Small Grants Program - Community Forestry Grants Program - INDNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): - The Town should engage a local community partner and/or private donor and to assist in the implementation of this neighborhood park.

- Acquire land, as required, based upon the chosen project delivery model.

- Once a development partner has been engaged, a budget for the project should be established and the park program/design modified, as necessary, to meet the budget and/or the currently unknown needs of the development partner.

- After a budget and final program have been agreed upon, the Town and/or the development partner should solicit the services of a landscape architect to produce construction drawings for the park. A phased approach to development which seeks to eventually realize the full “vision” for the park should be considered, based on funding available.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

151

- After construction documents have been developed (approximately 30-60 days), the project should go out to bid for construction.

- The town should immediately apply for any applicable grants to assist with implementation.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): - When the SSPC is implemented, this site has the ability to serve as a destination trail-head, and as such, should provide directional signage and wayfinding associated with the larger greenways system.

- On-going maintenance should be coordinated and budgeted by the appropriate managing agency (based on delivery model).

- The Town of Upland should undertake the development of a 5-year comprehensive park system master plan which meets the Indiana Department of Natural Resources requirements for grant-funding. Portions of this master plan effort may overlap with the requirements of the Park System Master Plan and should therefore be leveraged appropriately.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): - On-going maintenance should be coordinated and budgeted by the appropriate managing agency (based on delivery model).

- Park program should be re-evaluated every 5-10 years to ensure it continues to meet the changing needs of the surrounding community and Upland at-large.

4.2.5 SOUTHERN GATEWAY Project Priority: High Project Summary: The Southern Gateway is a landscape and signage project near the intersection of SR22 and SR26 in the southern portion of Upland, which is intended to demarcate entry into the Town and symbolize the unity of the Town and Taylor University (see Section 3.4.3).

Opinion of Cost: $68,000-83,000 (dependent upon the final scale of the sign and plant selection) Project Prerequisites: - Support of the Vision by Taylor University, who currently owns the land to the east of SR22. This concept will likely require the use of private property in order to locate the new Town sign and its supporting landscape out of the INDOT Clear-Zone and free of any existing utility conflicts; coordination with this private landowner to the west of SR22 will also be required.

- Any portions of the project which fall within the SR22 ROW will require coordination with INDOT for implementation.

Potential Alternative Funding Sources: - Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion - Transportation Alternative Program - Community Foundation for Grant County - Community Forestry Grants Program

RESTORED NATIVE PRAIRIE

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY BASIC PRAIRIE SEED MIX

BASIC PRAIRIE SEED MIX

160 S.F. | ANP

160 S.F. | ANP

12 | NSY

12 | NSY

34 | VJ

34 | VJ

EXISTING TAYLOR UNIVERSITY SIGN

GATEWAY SIGN

150 S.F. | ANNUALS

150 S.F. | ANNUALS

440 S.F. | JCS

440 S.F. | JCS

200 S.F. | ANP

200 S.F. | ANP

Figure 4.4: Conceptual site and landscape plan enlargement for the Southern Gateway (Browning Day, 2015).

152

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- Consideration should be given to updating the existing monument signage at the Northern Gateway in concert with this effort to ensure a similar aesthetic in the absence of the full implementation of the vision for the Northern Gateway (as described in Section 3.4.2). These improvements are not included within the current opinion of probable cost for the Southern Gateway.

-- The Town should reach out to the private landowner adjacent to the proposed Town of Upland sign to discuss the feasibility of the vision for the Southern Gateway and determine what, if any, partnerships or agreements may be required for implementation.

-- The Town should coordinate a meeting between Taylor University and the Private Land Owner to discuss scope, cost and schedule expectations. Two unique facility identities will exist on these corners, however the designs should create a single, unified gateway gesture.

-- The Town should solicit the services of a Registered Landscape Architect to complete schematic design, verify costs, and approval for documentation.

-- Once a budget has been set, the Town should seek to identify funding for construction and utilize the services of a registered landscape architect for the development of full design and construction drawings which respond to the budget.

-- Once appropriate design-based documents have been developed, the project should be let out to bid for construction. Rather than a traditional low-bid process, preference should be given to soliciting a request for qualifications and then negotiating a fee with the most qualified firm when selecting a contractor.

-- Craft a maintenance MOU between Taylor University and the Town of Upland Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- Monitor the quality and health of the landscape and change it as necessary. Pursue plant species that are hardy and that have low maintenance requirements.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): -- Monitor the quality and health of the landscape and change it as necessary. Pursue plant species that are hardy and that have low maintenance requirements.

4.2.6 NEW URBAN PARK Project Priority: Intermediate Project Summary: Infill green space between buildings downtown containing water feature (potential splashpad) landscape and hardscape, benches, art, and lighting. The park is to be a focus for the repositioning of adjacent buildings on the north and south, and serve as a “home” for local events such as a farmer’s market and/or art festival (See #3 in Section 3.2.2) Opinion of Cost: $473,000-578,000 (including estimated land acquisition costs as applicable) Project Prerequisites: -- As previously stated, the concept for this park as currently articulated, is dependent upon the use of parcels of land not currently owned by the Town. Prior to any further design or programming development, the Town should evaluate the feasibility of acquiring the aforementioned parcels either through outright ownership, subdivision, or a negotiated lease or easement.

-- Complete due diligence of soils condition to rule out underground debris; if findings indicate the location is a “dirty” site (old building site) it should be cleaned up.

Potential Funding Sources: -- Hometown Indiana Grant -- Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) -- Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant Program -- Shade Structure (Playground Structure) -- Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) -- Regional Innovation Grants Program -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program -- Lowe’s Neighborhood Grant -- The Home Depot: Community Impact Grant Program -- Community Conservation Challenge -- Environmental Justice Small Grants Program -- Community Forestry Grants Program -- INDNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- The Town should evaluate the feasibility of acquiring the necessary parcels either through outright ownership,

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

153

subdivision, or a negotiated lease or easement. This discussion should take into consideration the future shared-use parking lots as proposed in Section 3.2.3) -- Prior to including a splash-pad in the final design, the Town should undertake an operations and maintenance cost estimate to better understand the long-term, recurring costs associated with this type of amenity.

Operating costs should include the premiums associated with any additional liability insurance, if required. If estimated annual operating costs are acceptable, an annual maintenance plan and budget should be created and a dedicated funding source established.

-- The Town should seek out potential community partners to help support the development and longterm operations of the splash pad, should it be included in the final park program.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- The Town of Upland should undertake the development of a 5-year comprehensive park system master plan which meets the Indiana Department of Natural Resources requirements for grant-funding. Portions of this master plan effort may overlap with the requirements of the Park System Master Plan and should therefore be leveraged appropriately.

-- After final program is selected and appropriate land acquired and/or agreements negotiated, the Town should secure full project property and clean it up, as necessary. If undesirable sub-surface conditions are discovered, they should be remediated as necessary to support the final program.

-- IF phasing is required, potential Phase One improvements should be include regarding the site (post clean-up), the addition of a new turf lawn, and crushed stone walkways (compacted to 95% standard Proctor density). In the interim, the site could be used to display local public art (consider partnering with Taylor University), and as a host-site for community events.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): -- Implement the full program of the park – after vetting with local stakeholders as appropriate – including the addition of amenities such as the splashpad, specialty paving, lighting, and seating areas. If any redevelopment or infill projects have taken place on the adjacent properties, the final program/plan may need to be revised to ensure that they properly take into account

154

those improvements. It is critical that this public space engage the surrounding commercial and/or residential uses.

4.2.7 PRIORITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Project Priority: Intermediate Project Summary: Encourage building owners to renovate existing buildings by adding new roofs, facades and bring interiors up to code and improve overall appearance. A diverse array of uses should be encouraged, including ground-level retail/commercial and multi-family residential.

Ground-level uses should actively engage Main Street and any abutting public spaces (See #1 in Section 3.2.3).

Opinion of Cost: $3,200,000-3,900,000 Project Prerequisites: -- The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result. The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

Potential Funding Sources: Given the private, commercial nature of these projects, it is anticipated that the amount of available, grant-based funding sources will be limited. It is anticipated that these projects will require a large amount of private investment, in addition to traditional development-based incentives such as tax abatements, and/or low-cost leases in order to be implemented. Following are potential alternative funding sources, which may be applicable based upon final project program determined by the future Owner.

-- Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant Program -- Community Facility Grant -- Indiana Community Improvement/Development -- Historic Preservation Fund -- Investment Tax Credit Programs (Historic Preservation) -- Community Development Block Grants -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN -- Regional Innovation Strategies Grants (Entrepreneurship) -- Rural Energy of America Program -- Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIR/ STTR); 21st Century Research and Tech Fund -- AmeriCorps State Grant Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- In the interim, while progress is being made on the high priority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial businesses partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- Owners should have professional consultant or qualified contractor provide a conditions assessment for each building to be redeveloped to better determine final cost, feasibility, and potential program constraints. This will be important in understanding the amount of the level of deferred maintenance, and subsequent level of improvements required to meet current code and desired end-use programs.

-- Owners of the buildings adjacent to the new Urban Park space should study their structures to determine the feasibility of reorienting portions of the interiors to face the park with consideration of entry off the space.

-- The Town may wish to undertake a market demand analysis better define target businesses and industries.

-- The Town should develop design guidelines for the “downtown district,” which address historic preservation, redevelopment/adaptive re-use, and new infill development, to ensure a coordinated aesthetic, land-use, and scale.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): The aforementioned projects will be both market-driven and dependent upon a larger revitalization effort in the downtown core. As such, the amount of “unknowns” make it difficult to project past the near-term. It is anticipated that the Town will play a limited financial role in the implementation of these projects, however, the Town should help encourage new development in the downtown core through the use of various incentives (yet to be determined).

4.2.8 PRIORITY INFILL PROJECTS Project Priority: Intermediate Project Summary: Encourage new, mixed-use infill developments along and adjacent to the 100-block of Main Street. A diverse array of uses should be encouraged, including ground-level retail/commercial and multi-family residential. Ground-level uses should actively engage Main Street and any abutting public spaces (See #2 in Section 3.2.3).

Opinion of Cost: $6,900,000-$8,500,000 (including estimated land acquisition costs as applicable) Project Prerequisites: The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result. The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

Potential Funding Sources: Given the private, commercial nature of these projects, it is anticipated that the amount of available, grant-based funding sources will be limited. It is anticipated that these projects will require a large amount of private investment, in addition to traditional development-based incentives such as tax abatements, and/or low-cost leases in order to be implemented. Following are potential alternative funding sources, which may be applicable based upon final project program determined by the future Owner: -- Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion -- Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant Program -- Community Facility Grant -- Indiana Community Improvement/Development -- Historic Preservation Fund -- Investment Tax Credit Programs (Historic Preservation) -- Community Development Block Grants -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program -- Regional Innovation Strategies Grants (Entrepreneurship) -- Lowe’s Neighborhood Grant

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

155

-----------

The Home Depot: Community Impact Grant Program The Home Depot: Veteran Grants Program Community Conservation Challenge Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIR/ STTR); 21st Century Research and Tech Fund Rural Capacity Grants Workforce and Education Development Rural Capacity Grants for Entrepreneurial Support Community Economic Development Fund (CEDF) Community Focus Funds (CFF) Microenterprise Assistance Program AmeriCorps State Grant

Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- In the interim, while progress is being made on the high priority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial businesses partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- The Town may wish to undertake a market demand analysis better define target businesses and industries.

-- The Town should develop design guidelines for the “downtown district,” which address historic preservation, redevelopment/adaptive re-use, and new infill development, to ensure a coordinated aesthetic, land-use, and scale.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): The aforementioned projects will be both market-driven and dependent upon a larger revitalization effort in the downtown core. As such, the amount of “unknowns” make it difficult to project past the near-term. It is anticipated that the Town will play a limited financial role in the implementation of these projects, however, the Town should help encourage new development in the downtown core through the use of various incentives (yet to be determined).

to help serve the future commercial/residential uses anticipated as part of the comprehensive revitalization of downtown (See #3 in Section 3.2.3).

Opinion of Cost: $204,000-$250,000 (including estimated land acquisition costs as applicable) Project Prerequisites: -- The actual demand for parking will not be fully understood until some development has started to take place downtown, therefore, the exact number of spaces required is unknown at this time. Based on the vision projects previously mentioned, it is likely that the highpriority mixed-use building (at the northeast corner of Main Street and Railroad Street), and the new urban park will likely be the first projects to need additional parking.

-- The need for the easternmost parking lot will be driven by the high priority mixed-use building proposed in Section 3.2.2, and therefore may be owned and operated by the developer leading that project.

-- A shared-use parking strategy/ordinance should be developed and adopted by the Town prior to implementation of these projects.

Potential Funding Sources: -- It possible that one of more of these parking lots could be implemented in concert with a larger mixeduse development projects downtown, and in such a case, should be funded as part of that project. If the Town is responsible for developing one of both of the downtown lots, it is recommended that greeninfrastructure components – such as pervious paving, bioswales, and the use of recycled materials - be included in the final design, as they will likely increase the amount of alternative funding sources for which this project may apply. Potential funding sources to be explored include: -- Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program -- Community Forestry Grants Program

4.2.9 SHARED-USE PARKING LOTS Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): (none) Project Priority: Intermediate Project Summary: Includes the addition of two (2) small, shared-use parking lots in the downtown core intended

156

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- The Town should develop a downtown-specific shareduse parking ordinance, if none currently exists. This ordinance should clearly articulate parking requirements

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN for future development and redevelopment projects.

-- The Town should undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the shared-use parking strategy prior to contributing financially to implementation.

-- If the strategy is deemed cost-feasible, begin acquiring the land for the amount of anticipated parking to be required.

-- If the strategy is deemed infeasible due to cost, the Town should negotiate with developers of future projects to assist in building the shared-use lots.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): -- If the future demand for parking downtown exceeds the number of spaces currently proposed, consideration should be given to developing a larger, centralized lot to the west of Town Hall.

4.2.10 SECONDARY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Project Priority: Low Project Summary: Once the priority infill and redevelopment opportunities are exhausted, preference should be given to secondary redevelopment projects immediately adjacent to the 100-block of Main Street. A key redevelopment opportunity may exist along E. Washington Street, as there are several existing, historic buildings in this area. At the time of this study, the majority of the existing buildings appeared to have active tenants, and included both residential and commercial land-uses (See #1 in Section 3.2.4).

Opinion of Cost: $1,800,000-$2,200,000 Project Prerequisites: The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result. The Town will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

Potential Funding Sources: (see Section 4.2.7) Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- In the interim, while progress is being made on the higher priority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial businesses partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- The Town may wish to undertake a market demand analysis better define target businesses and industries.

-- The Town should develop design guidelines for the “downtown district,” which address historic preservation, redevelopment/adaptive re-use, and new infill development, to ensure a coordinated aesthetic, land-use, and scale.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): The aforementioned projects will be both market-driven and dependent upon a larger revitalization effort in the downtown core. As such, the amount of “unknowns” make it difficult to project past the near-term. It is anticipated that the Town will play a limited financial role in the implementation of these projects, however, the Town should help encourage new development in the downtown core through the use of various incentives (yet to be determined).

4.2.11 SECONDARY INFILL PROJECTS Project Priority: Low Project Summary: Once secondary redevelopment opportunities are exhausted, secondary mixed-use infill projects should be prioritized with a preference given to the areas surrounding E Washington Street. (See #2 in Section 3.2.4).

Opinion of Cost: $2,900,000-$3,500,000 Project Prerequisites: The feasibility of these projects is highly dependent upon the completion of the High Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives and the subsequent demand and interest in downtown that is generated as a result. The Town

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

157

will likely play a limited role in the funding or physical implementation of the redevelopment projects – thus relying on the private sector - unless the desired end-use of the redeveloped structure is for a currently unknown civic use.

Potential Funding Sources: (see Section 4.2.8) Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- In the interim, while progress is being made on the high priority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial businesses partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- The Town may wish to undertake a market demand analysis better define target businesses and industries.

-- The Town should develop design guidelines for the “downtown district,” which address historic preservation, redevelopment/adaptive re-use, and new infill development, to ensure a coordinated aesthetic, land-use, and scale.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): The aforementioned projects will be both market-driven and dependent upon a larger revitalization effort in the downtown core. As such, the amount of “unknowns” make it difficult to project past the near-term. It is anticipated that the Town will play a limited financial role in the implementation of these projects, however, the Town should help encourage new development in the downtown core through the use of various incentives (yet to be determined).

4.2.12 UPLAND CULTURAL CENTER Project Priority: Low Project Summary: Given the civic nature of area immediately adjacent to Town Hall, the feasibility of developing a small, Upland cultural center should be explored. This cultural center is envisioned to be a gathering place that will serve as a central hub for all of the community-based groups in Upland, as well as a home for the Upland Historical Society. and/or museum (See #3 in Section 3.2.4).

158

Opinion of Cost: $462,000-$656,000 Project Prerequisites: -- Main Street Streetscape (see #1 in Section 3.2.2) -- Further coordination with the local community-based groups will be required to better define the overall vision and objectives for the Upland Cultural Center, which will allow for a better understanding of aesthetic, program, and cost.

Potential Funding Sources: -- Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant Program -- Environmental Education (EE) -- Community Facility Grant -- Indiana Community Improvement/Development -- Regional Innovation Grants Program -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Economic Development Assistance Program -- Lowe’s Neighborhood Grant -- The Home Depot: Community Impact Grant Program -- Preserve America Grant -- National Endowment for the Arts: Regional Arts Partners -- Our Town Grant (arts) -- Community Conservation Challenge -- American Electric Power Foundation Grants -- Environmental Justice Small Grants Program -- Partnering Arts Communities and Education (PACE) Program -- AmeriCorps State Grant Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): (none) Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): -- Although the Upland Cultural Center has been identified as a low-priority initiative, it is one that will require a significant amount of coordination amongst various stakeholder groups. This is a time-consuming process that should begin several years prior to anticipate implementation.

-- If the concept of the Upland Cultural Center is supported after coordination efforts with the local community groups, fundraising efforts should begin. The vision for this effort has the potential to become costprohibitive. As such, the town should attempt to identify private donors, in addition to alternative funding sources such as grants, to help fund the implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): -- Undertake a design and documentation effort for the building and site based upon the final program; construction should follow in a timely fashion.

4.2.13 IMPROVED COMMUNITY PARK SPACE Project Priority: Low Project Summary: Site improvements to the community park space adjacent to the Eastbrook South Elementary School, which are intended to increase site programming capacity and long-term flexibility (See Section 3.3.4).

Opinion of Cost: $187,000-225,000 (dependent upon final program and existing site conditions) Project Prerequisites: -- The Town may wish to hold off on implementing this project until the SSPC path is constructed, as its final design and route may affect the location of site amenities currently proposed.

-- Shared or Joint-Use agreement between the Town of Upland and the School District which details access,

programming rights, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

Potential Funding Sources: -- Hometown Indiana Grant -- Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion -- Bicycle and Pedestrian Program -- Communities Putting Prevention to Work -- Shade Structure (Playground Structure) -- Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) -- Regional Innovation Grants Program -- Community Foundation for Grant County -- Loweâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Neighborhood Grant -- The Home Depot: Community Impact Grant Program -- USTA Public Facilities Grant -- US Soccer Foundation Grant -- NFL Grassroots Field Grant -- Community Conservation Challenge -- Environmental Justice Small Grants Program -- Community Forestry Grants Program -- Certified Tech Parks Program Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): -- Basic, low-cost field improvements such as over-seeding, fertilization, and infield upgrades should be incorporated

Figure 4.5: Location of existing community park space at the northeast corner of S. 2nd St. and E. Berry St. (Browning Day, 2015).

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

159

into the maintenance program of the park space.

- Town/School District should consider offering the facility as a potential practice facility for fall sports (such as soccer of football), if it has not done so already.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): - The Town should meet with representatives from Eastbrook South Elementary School and/or the local school district to determine feasibility of establishing a joint-use and maintenance agreement for the property, if one is not currently in place. The possibility on partnering on the recommended improvements should also be discussed.

- The Town should meet with local recreation programmers in an attempt to better understand the current and projected needs for field space in the region prior to implementing any major field-based improvements.

- On-going maintenance should be coordinated and budgeted by the appropriate managing agency (based on delivery model).

- Public school recreation facilities should be included within the analysis completed during the 5-year comprehensive park system master plan process.

- The town should immediately apply for any applicable grants to assist with implementation.

- Replace backstops/dugouts and field turf, add onstreet parking and central plaza (both of which should anticipate the future alignment of the SSPC as described in Part III).

- On-going maintenance should be coordinated and budgeted by the appropriate managing agency (based on delivery model).

- Seek out rental agreements from private contractors to utilize Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): - When the SSPC is implemented, this site has the ability to serve as a destination trail-head, and as such, should provide directional signage and wayfinding associated with the larger greenways system.

- Park program should be re-evaluated every 5-10 years to ensure it continues to meet the changing needs of the surrounding community and Upland at-large.

160

4.2.14 NORTHERN GATEWAY Project Priority: Low Project Summary: A public/private partnership to develop a new outdoor performing arts venue at the northern gateway to the Town of Upland, along SR22 (See Section 3.4.2).

Opinion of Cost: $2,400,000-$2,900,000 (dependent upon final program and existing site conditions) Project Prerequisites: - Support of the Vision by Taylor University, who currently owns the parcel of land in question. This is a significant investment on Taylor University land that takes advantage of a prominent landform on the approach of the curve into downtown. This proposed development is a gesture to the value of cultural experience, sense of place, and economic development.

- Any portions of the project which fall within the SR22 ROW will require coordination with INDOT for implementation.

Potential Funding Sources: - Urban Tree Recovery and Environment Expansion - Transportation Alternative Program - Community Foundation for Grant County - Community Forestry Grants Program Short-Term Action Items (2015-2016): - Full implementation of the vision for the Northern Gateway, if supported by the parties involved, would likely require several years or more to implement given its scale. In the interim, the Town should upgrade the existing monumental signage to coordinate with the aesthetic proposed at the Southern Gateway, as described in Section 3.4.3.

Near-Term Action Items (2017-2020): - The Town may wish to meet with the appropriate representatives within INDOT to discuss the feasibility and potential implications of reducing the speed limit along SR22 where it enters the Town of Upland near the Northern Gateway. A lower speed limit may result in a reduced â&#x20AC;&#x153;Clear-Zoneâ&#x20AC;? distance, as discussed in Section 3.4.2.

- The Town should meet with representatives within the

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN leadership of Taylor University to better understand the interest and feasibility of this effort.

- If sufficient evidence of support and feasibility exist, a preliminary project budget should be established, and the concept plan revisited – and revised if necessary - to ensure it corresponds with the available funding.

- A programming, operations, and maintenance plan should be developed for the performing arts venue to ensure that it is appropriately utilized and sufficient funding exists for long-term operational costs. This plan should result in the creation of an annual “events” calendar for the facility, which identifies potential programming partners, annual/seasonal events, associated long-term repair and replacement activities, and cost-recovery goals desired by the Owner.

- Once a revised program has been established, a full survey of the site should be completed, and construction documents developed which will allow the project to be bid for construction.

CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

- A shared or joint-use agreement between the Town of Upland and Taylor University should be developed which details access, programming rights, and long-term maintenance responsibilities associated with the site.

- Potential sponsorship and branding opportunities should be explored to assist in the fundraising effort.

Long-Term Action Items (2021+ years): - Construction of the project should commence once funding has been allocated.

- Ongoing operations and site maintenance activities, post construction.

- The programming, operations, and maintenance plan – as well as the overall site master plan – should be reviewed and updated – as necessary – every 5-10 years.

CO RD. 500 S, SR22

C

B

VIE

WF

RO

MR

OA

VIEW

DW AY

A

M RO

FRO

A

AY ADW

D APPROX. 130 SPACES

B

F APPROX. 550 SPACES

K

22

SR

L

J

H G

E I M P CLEAR ZONE SETBACK

J

APPROX. 200 SPACES

D

O

SR22

N

1st ST

2nd ST

N

URBAN ST

N

Figure 4.6: Enlargement of the Conceptual site plan sketch for the Northern Gateway (Browning Day, 2015).

0

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

100

200

300

161

162

4.3

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

YEAR-ONE PRIORITY ACTION PLAN The following, high-priority projects and their associated action items represent the year-one action plan for the Town of Upland (presumed to be 2015-2016). These projects/tasks were selected based on their ability to meet high-priority community needs (as identified in the Needs Assessment), their implementation feasibility, and lack of dependence upon the implementation of other Vision initiatives.

OO Note: To track progress, the circles below should be “checked” to indicate that the priority action item has been addressed.

4.3.1 MAIN STREET STREETSCAPE OGiven O the amount of time required to appropriately coordinate the effort with the multiple parties involved, it is recommended that this process begin immediately.

OForm O a Committee (with the Town as lead) to focus on Main Street; reach out to all Main Street property owners and incorporate them into the conversation; maintain buy-in.

OOfficially O introduce all public agencies to the project intent and incorporate the initiative into their systems of communication and grant cycles.

OThe O Town should coordinate with the private landowners who have frontages along the northern portions Main Street to plant as many street trees as possible.

In this area – which is also the northern gateway to the Town - there is not enough width to plant trees within the ROW, and will likely require that they be planted on private property. Consideration for donation of large trees via tree spade from nearby tree nursery should be explored.

OThe O Town should undertake an evaluation of the existing curb cuts present in downtown, along Main Street, to determine if any are unnecessary of not permitted. Any curb cuts that fall into either of the aforementioned categories should be removed (or “reclaimed”), wherever feasible.

OAssess O and replace crumbling sidewalks adjacent to residences in areas where curb and gutters would not be replaced north of the downtown.

OAssess O quality of existing mature trees; selectively prune dead wood and identify and treat existing Ash trees, if feasible and required.

OWeed, O re-till, supplement soil, fine grade and reseed lawn areas within the rightof-way along Main Street in the fall of 2015 in order to show progress and a fresh consistent appearance. Over-seeding and additional fertilization – as required – should take place again the following spring. This activity may require a temporary permit from INDOT that should be obtained at a Grant County INDOT facility.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

163

4.3.2 NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OThe O Town should create a formal committee composed of representatives from both the Town and the developer/owner to oversee the planning and design of the facility. The Town should obtain commitment from the developer/owner stating their commitment to the project.

OAs O previously stated, this effort will likely require a partnership with a private developer or entity, and immediate effort should be given on behalf of the Town to market this project to prospective development partners in order to facilitate a faster implementation process.

OThe O concept as articulated herein, utilizes multiple parcels that are owned by multiple landowners. Once a development partner is identified, land acquisition should begin immediately in order to secure the total parcel size required for the building and site program.

ORepresentatives O from the Town indicated their desire for the buildings to be razed as soon as possible in order to provide demonstrable evidence of “progress.”

While genuine in its intentions, that decision brings an inherent amount of risk; if the project falls through before anything new is built, downtown will have yet another gaping hole in its core. All buildings on the site should be razed as soon as possible but not until after a development commitment for the site, which includes a construction timeframe, has been agreed to.

OOnce O the party responsible for development has acquired all parcels necessary, the existing structures should be razed (see note above). Care should be given to salvage and re-purpose unique building components from the existing structures – such as brick or ornate metalwork – where feasible. All unusable demolition debris should be hauled off in full; clean up soil and leave a clean site above and below ground.

Subsurface conditions of the site have a potential to significantly impact the feasibility – and associated cost of this project.

164

4.3.3 NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OThe O Town should engage a local community partner and/or private donor to assist in the implementation of this neighborhood park.

OAcquire O land, as required, based upon the chosen project delivery model.

OOnce O a development partner has been engaged, a budget for the project should be established and the park program/design modified, as necessary, to meet the budget and/or the currently unknown needs of the development partner.

OAfter O a budget and final program have been agreed upon, the Town and/or the development partner should solicit the services of a Professional Landscape Architect to produce construction drawings for the park. A phased approach to development which seeks to eventually realize the full “vision” for the park should be considered, based on funding available.

OAfter O construction documents have been developed (approximately 30-60 days), the project should go out to bid for construction.

OThe O Town should immediately apply for any applicable grants to assist with implementation.

4.3.4 SECOND STREET PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR OReview O currently proposed future roadway improvement, utility, and storm water improvement projects to determine if 2nd Street or 3rd Street are impacted. If so, attempt to integrate the side path as a component of the larger infrastructure project.

OGiven O the comparably low-cost, the Town may wish to proceed with implementing a shared-lane system along the corridor as an interim condition (as described in Section 3.3.2), until the final path or trail can be developed in the future as part of a larger roadway improvement project, drainage project, or when sufficient funds become available.

IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PLAN | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION + ACTION PL AN 4.3.5 SOUTH GATEWAY OConsideration O should be given to updating the existing monument signage at the Northern Gateway in concert with this effort to ensure a similar aesthetic in the absence of the full implementation of the vision for the Northern Gateway (as described in Section 3.4.2). These improvements are not included within the current opinion of probable cost for the Southern Gateway.

OThe O Town should reach out to the private landowner(s) adjacent to the proposed Town of Upland sign to discuss the feasibility of the vision for the Southern Gateway and determine what, if any, partnerships or agreements may be required for implementation.

OThe O Town should coordinate a meeting between Taylor University and the private land owner(s) to discuss scope, cost and schedule expectations. Two unique facility identities will exist on these corners, however the designs should create a single, unified gateway gesture.

OThe O Town should solicit the services of a Professional Landscape Architect to complete schematic design, verify costs, documentation, and approvals OOnce O a budget has been set, the Town should seek to identify funding for construction and utilize the services of a registered landscape architect for the development of full design and construction drawings which respond to the budget.

OOnce O appropriate design-based documents have been developed, the project should be let out to bid for construction. Rather than a traditional low-bid process, preference should be given to soliciting a request for qualifications and then negotiating a fee with the most qualified firm when selecting a contractor.

OCraft O a maintenance MOU between Taylor University and the Town of Upland.

4.3.6 OTHER SUPPORTING HIGHPRIORITY INITIATIVES OAppoint O a “Project Director” – Every long-range planning project needs a “champion” in order to be successful. This person should be employed by the Town and be fully dedicated to coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the various Master Plan efforts and initiatives. The ideal candidate would have a long-term history with the Town, but also be familiar the various tasks associated with long-term implementation including, but not limited to, fund raising, interdepartmental coordination, and the full project delivery process. This person will also be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the various community groups to ensure that they are all moving towards the same goal; a comprehensively revitalized Town of Upland.

OHire O a Professional Grant Writer – It is highly recommended that the Town employ the services of a professional grant writer to assist in the important activity of monitoring and responding to these opportunities, as the long-term implementation of the Master Plan Vision will likely require them OBegin O the 5-year Comprehensive Park System Master Planning Process – The Town of Upland should undertake the development of a 5-year comprehensive park system master plan which meets the Indiana Department of Natural Resources requirements for grant-based funding. Portions of this master plan effort may overlap with the requirements of the Park System Master Plan and should therefore be leveraged appropriately. Having an approved park system master plan is required for the Town to qualify for INDNRadministered grant resources.

OFind O Private Development Partners – In the interim, while progress is being made on the high-priority projects, the Town should attempt to make contact with local developers, landowners, and potential commercial business partners in an effort to solicit interest in the various downtown redevelopment projects.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

165

PART FIVE

REFERENCES + APPENDICES 5.1 References

page 169

5.2 List of Figures

page 173

5.3 Supporting Information

page 177

5.1

168

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FIVE: REFERENCES + APPENDICES

REFERENCES # 39 Degrees North. (2015). Grant county egis. Retrieved from http://grantin.egis.39dn. com/

A AASHTO (2012). 5.2.2 Shared Use Paths Adjacent to Roadways (Sidepaths). In Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012 (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

B Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research. (2013). Indiana Economic Outlook 2014: East Central Indiana. Muncie, IN: Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research Ball State University College of Architecture and Planning. (2010). Community Based Projects: One Town Upland.

Barrett Architecture Studio & Environment Design Studio. (2010). Taylor University Long Range Campus Master Plan. Retrieved from http://barrettarchstudio.com/ projects/taylor-university/.

Barth, D. (2009). Providing Equity for Parks and Recreation Facilities; Alternatives for Calculating Level of Service (LOS). FRPA Journal, Spring 2009.

Barton Rees Pogue Memorial Library. (2008). Barton Rees Pogue Memorial Library.

Retrieved from http://upland.lib.in.us/ Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf & The Troyer Group & The Garrison Barrett Group.

(2008). Taylor University Campus Design Guidelinesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Architecture and Landscape Architecture.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject.

Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014a). Local Area Unemployment Statistics: current unemployment rates for states and historical highs/lows. Retrieved from http://www.bls. gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

169

C

I

Cardinal Greenways Brochure Map. (2015). Retrieved from http://cardinalgreenways.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ CG-Brochure-Map.pdf

Indiana Association of Realtors. (2014). Local Market Update - February 2014. Retrieved from https://10kresearch. s3.amazonaws.com/iniar-z6fSb7ye7C/Grant-County.pdf

Cassidy Turley. (2014). U.S. Office Trends Report: 1st quarter 2014.

Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). (2013).

Chapters 49 and 55. In 2013 Indiana Design Manual.

Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department of Transportation.

Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). (2015).

D

INDOT Roadway Functional Class Viewer. Retrieved from https://gis.in.gov/apps/DOT/RoadwayInventory/

E Eastbrook Community Schools. (2014). Eastbrook South Elementary. Retrieved from http://www.eastbrookschools. net/index.php

F

Ivanhoes. (2015). Ivanhoes. Retrieved from http://www. ivanhoes.info/ivanhoes/index.php?lang=en

G Grant County Area Plan Development. (1995). Upland Town Plan—A Section of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan.

Grant County Indiana. (2014). Upcoming Events. Retrieved from http://www.showmegrantcounty.com/events/ Green 3 Studio. (2013). Upland Area Trails—Proposed Route Map. Retrieved from http://uplandareagreenways.org/map/.

H Harnik, P. (2003). Chapter 4: Equitable Access. In The Excellent City Park System: What Makes it Great and How to Get There. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land.

Harnik, P. (2014). Chapter 3: Parkland per 1,000 Residents

by City. In 2014 City Park Facts. Washington, D.C., District of Columbia: The Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence.

170

INDNR. (2012). Chapter 3: Supply of Outdoor Recreation Acreage in Indiana. In Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan 2011-2015 : Hoosiers Planning Play. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

J K Kinghorn, Matt. (2012). Indiana’s Population Projections, 2010 to 2050. Indiana Business Review, Spring 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2012/spring/article1. html

L Local Laboratories, LLC. (2014a). Upland, Indiana Income Data. Retrieved from http://locallabs.org/upland-indianaincome Local Laboratories, LLC. (2014b). Upland, Indiana Education Data. Retrieved from http://locallabs.org/upland-indianaeducation Local Laboratories, LLC. (2014c). Grant County, Indiana Education Data. Retrieved from http://locallabs.org/ grantcounty-indiana-education

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FIVE: REFERENCES + APPENDICES

M Mertes, J., & Hall, J. (1996). Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. Arlington, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association.

N O P Project for Public Spaces (PPS). (2015). What is Placemaking? Retrieved from http://www.pps.org/ reference/what_is_placemaking/ PwC & the Urban Land Institute. (2013). Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014ÂŽ. Washington, D.C.: PwC & the Urban Land Institute.

Q R Reviere, R. (1996). Introduction: Setting the Stage. In Needs assessment: A creative and practical guide for social scientists (p. 6). Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Taylor University. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.taylor. edu/ Taylor University. (2015). Campus Map_numbered.

Retrieved from http://www.taylor.edu/about/area-info/ Campus_Map_Numbered.pdf The Urban Land Institute Indiana. (2013). Real Estate Trends in Indiana 2014. Indianapolis, IN: The Urban Land Institute Indiana.

Triad Associates. (June 6, 2013a). Re: Inspection of Old Fire Station and Library Building on E. Washington St. Triad Associates. (July 22, 2013b). Re: Building at North East Corner of Railroad St. and Main St.

U U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). State and County QuickFacts for Grant County, Indiana and Indiana. Retrieved from http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18053.html U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst. (2014a).

Custom Comparisons of Town of Upland, Indiana; Grant County, Indiana; and State of Indiana.

U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst. (2014b).

Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

Rushenbert, Tim. (2014). Indiana Leads the U.S. in Manufacturing Production, Employment. Building Indiana: 2014 financial outlook. April, 2014. 44-45

S

V W X

T

Taylor University. (2010). Earth and Environmental Science.

Retrieved from http://www.taylor.edu/academics/ undergraduate/schools/natural-applied-sciences/earth-andenvironmental-science/facilities.shtml

Y Z

Taylor University. (2010c). About. Retrieved from http:// www.taylor.edu/about/

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

171

5.2

172

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FIVE: REFERENCES + APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure i: Browning Day. (2015). One Town Upland planning process diagram.

Figure ii: Browning Day. (2015). View from Main Street looking north through downtown (top).

Figure iii: Ball State University (2010). Project Board #3 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette (bottom).

Figure iv: Browning Day. (2015). Project Steering Committee (top).

Figure v: Browning Day. (2015). Needs Assessment methodology diagram (bottom).

Figure vi: Browning Day. (2015). Artist’s rendering of the proposed Main Street streetscape (top).

Figure vii: Browning Day. (2015). Reclaim Main Street logo (middle).

Figure viii: Browning Day. (2015). 3D view illustrating the proposed streetscape along Main Street (bottom).

Figure ix: Browning Day. (2015). Northwest view into the interior courtyard of the conceptual mixed-use building (top).

Figure x: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual mixed-use building program plan (middle).

Figure xi: Browning Day. (2015). Northeast view of the conceptual mixed-use building at Main St. and Railroad St. (bottom).

Figure xii: Browning Day. (2015). Artist’s rendering illustrating the aesthetic of the 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor sidepath (top).

Figure xiii: Browning Day. (2015). Proposed neighborhood park along the 2nd Street Pedestrian Corridor (bottom).

Figure xiv: Browning Day. (2015). Enlargement of the conceptual site plan for the Northern Gateway (top).

Figure xv: Browning Day. (2015). Enlargement of the proposed Town of Upland sign at the Southern Gateway (bottom).

PART ONE Figure 1.1: Ball State University. (2010). Process image from 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.2: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #1 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.3: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #2 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.4: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #3 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.5: Ball State University (2010). Project Board #4 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.6: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #5 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.7: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #6 from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

173

Figure 1.8: Ball State University. (2010). Project Board #7

from the 2010 One Town Upland Planning Charrette.

Figure 1.9: Browning Day. (2015). Steering Committee

members at the Kick-Off Workshop.

Figure 1.10: Browning Day. (2015). Kick-Off Workshop.

Figure 1.11: Browning Day. (2015). Kick-Off Workshop

participants review brand/logo alternatives.

Figure 1.12: Browning Day. (2015). One Town Upland brand

logo (top).

Figure 1.13: Browning Day. (2015). One Town Upland hand-

out card, front (middle).

Figure 1.14: Browning Day. (2015). One Town Upland hand-

out card, back (bottom).

Figure 1.15: Browning Day. (2015). Photo of the various brand

alternatives voted on by the Steering Committee.

Figure 1.16: Green 3 Studio. (2013). Upland Area Trails

Proposed Route Map. Figure 1.17: Green 3 Studio. (2013). Upland Area Trails

Image Board.

Figure 1.18: Cardinal Greenways. (2015). Cardinal

Greenways Route Map. Figure 1.19: Browning Day. (2015). Depot Park.

Figure 1.20: 39 Degrees North. (2015). Upland Baseball

and Softball Complex aerial view image.

Figure 1.21: 39 Degrees North. (201). Depot Park aerial

view image.

Figure 1.22: 39 Degrees North. (2015). Memorial Park

aerial view image.

Figure 1.23: 39 Degrees North. (2015). Eastbrook

Elementary School campus aerial view image.

Figure 1.24: 39 Degrees North. (2015). Lions Club Park

aerial view image.

Figure 1.25: 39 Degrees North. (2015). Taylor University

campus aerial view image.

Figure 1.26: Taylor University. (2015). Taylor University

Campus Map. Figure 1.27: Browning Day. (2015).Panoramic view of the

Town of Upland water tower.

Figure 1.28: U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community

Analyst. (2014a). Age and gender distribution.

Figure 1.29: U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Income distribution.

Figure 1.30: Local Laboratories. (2014b). Educational attainment.

Figure 1.31: U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community

Analyst. (2014a). Housing comparison.

Figure 1.32: U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community

Analyst. (2014a). Housing value comparison.

Figure 1.33: Browning Day. (2015). Local storefront along

Main Street in Upland.

Figure 1.34: Browning Day. (2015). Typical residential street

in Upland: 2nd Street looking south from Barry St.,

174

PART TWO Figure 2.1: Browning Day. (2015). Needs assessment

methodology diagram.

Figure 2.2: Browning Day. (2015). Public opinion survey

response bar graph for Question #1.

Figure 2.3: Browning Day. (2015). Public opinion survey

response bar graph for Question #7.

Figure 2.4: Browning Day. (2015). Public opinion survey

response pie chart for Question #10 Figure 2.5: Browning Day. (2015). Eastbrook South

Elementary School playground and greenspace.

Figure 2.6: Browning Day. (2015). Acreage LOS analysis

chart including only “public” park acreage.

Figure 2.7: Browning Day. (2015). Acreage LOS analysis chart

including only all accessible park acreage, including

“quasi-public” sites.

Figure 2.8: Browning Day. (2015). Amenity LOS analysis

chart including only “public” recreation facilities.

Figure 2.9: Browning Day. (2015). Amenity LOS analysis

chart including only all accessible recreation facilities,

including “quasi-public” sites.

Figure 2.10: Browning Day (2015). Access LOS illustrating

a 1/2-mile service area for all publicly accessible

parks and greenspaces.

Figure 2.11: Browning Day. (2015). Access LOS illustrating

a 1/4-mile service area for all publicly accessible

parks and greenspaces.

Figure 2.12: Browning Day (2015). Access LOS illustrating

potential new neighborhood park locations based on

a 1/4-mile service area.

Figure 2.13: Browning Day. (2015). Public opinion survey

response bar graph for Question #6.

PART THREE Figure 3.1: Browning Day. (2015). One of seven project

boards available for review at the public meeting.

Figure 3.2: Browning Day. (2015). Participants discussing

the various “vision” projects at the public review

meeting in December, 2014.

Figure 3.3: Browning Day. (2015). Placemaking methodology

Venn diagram.

Figure 3.4: Browning Day (2015) Reclaim Main Street Logo.

Figure 3.5: Browning Day. (2015). Photo collage of images

from the 100-block of Main Street in downtown Upland.

Figure 3.6: Browning Day. (2015). Graphic illustrating the

location of the High-Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives.

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FIVE: REFERENCES + APPENDICES Figure 3.7: Browning Day. (2015). Simulated view looking

south down Main St. illustrating the amount of

existing pavement.

Figure 3.8: Browning Day. (2015). Simulated view looking

south down Main St. that illustrates how the

integration of dedicated parking, bulb-outs, and street

trees work together to visually narrows the roadway.

Figure 3.9: Browning Day. (2015). Typical existing section

through Main Street; dimensions approximated.

Figure 3.10: Browning Day. (2015). Typical section through

Main Street showing proposed improvements,

including new buildings and wider sidewalks;

dimensions approximated.

Figure 3.11: Browning Day. (2015). Artist’s rendering

illustrating the proposed improvements to Main

Street from the intersection of Main St. and Railroad St. Figure 3.12: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual mixed-use

building program plan.

Figure 3.13: Browning Day. (2015). Northwest view into

the interior courtyard of the conceptual mixed-use building.

Figure 3.14: Browning Day. (2015). Northeast view of the

conceptual mixed-use building at Main St. and

Railroad St. Figure 3.15: Browning Day. (2015). Southeast view of the

conceptual mixed-use building from the 100-block of

Main St. Figure 3.16: Browning Day. (2015). Sketch illustrating the

location of the new urban park and plaza space.

Figure 3.17: Browning Day. (2015). Graphic illustrating the

location of the Intermediate-Priority Reclaim Main

Street initiatives.

Figure 3.18: Browning Day. (2015). Graphic illustrating the

location of the Lower-Priority Reclaim Main Street initiatives.

Figure 3.19: Browning Day. (2015). Graphic illustrating

alignment of the Second Street Pedestrian Corridor

and its associated parks.

Figure 3.20: Browning Day. (2015). Existing condition

photograph of 2nd Street at its intersection with E

Berry Street.

Figure 3.21: Browning Day. (2015). Section illustrating the

Second Street Pedestrian Corridor sidepath adjacent

to Second Street, where the existing ROW grade is

level with the roadway.

Figure 3.22: Browning Day. (2015). Section illustrating the

Second Street Pedestrian Corridor as a fully separated

trail within the “Improved Community Park Space”

adjacent to Eastbrook South Elementary School.

Figure 3.23: Browning Day. (2015). Artist’s rendering

illustrating the aesthetic of the Second Street

Pedestrian Corridor sidepath.

Figure 3.24: Browning Day. (2015). 1/4-Mile Access LOS

map illustrating the potential location for a new

neighborhood park.

Figure 3.25: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual site and

planting plan for a new neighborhood park.

Figure 3.26: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual plan sketch

illustrating proposed improvements to an existing

community greenspace.

Figure 3.27: Browning Day. (2015). Western view of SR22/

Main Street where it enters downtown Upland.

Figure 3.28: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual site plan

sketch for the performing arts venue at the Northern Gateway.

Figure 3.29: Google Inc. (2015) Southern Gateway location

and the intersection of SR22 and SR26.

Figure 3.30: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual site and

landscape plan sketch for the Southern Gateway.

PART FOUR Figure 4.1: Browning Day. (2015). Chip Jaggers welcoming

attendees at the Public Open House.

Figure 4.2: Browning Day. (2015). Northwest view of the

conceptual mixed-use building.

Figure 4.3: Browning Day. (2015). Enlargement of the

proposed New Urban Park and Plaza location.

Figure 4.4: Browning Day. (2015). Conceptual site and

landscape plan enlargement for the Southern Gateway.

Figure 4.5: Browning Day. (2015). Location of existing

community park space at the northeast corner of S.

2nd St. and E. Berry St. Figure 4.6: Browning Day. (2015). Enlargement of the

Conceptual site plan sketch for the Northern Gateway.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

175

5.3

176

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

PART FIVE: REFERENCES + APPENDICES

SUPPORTING INFORMATION CONTENTS: Meeting Minutes and Notes

p. 179

Proposed Upland-Taylor University Trail Routes

p. 237

Upland Area Trails Map and Project Boards

p. 239

Community Survey Instrument

p. 243

Community Survey Response Memo

p. 248

Community Survey Raw Response Data

p. 251

Steering Committee Input Mtg. Presentation Slides

p. 279

Public Open House Presentation Slides

p. 291

Public Open House Draft Project Boards

p. 305

Sternberg Lighting Quote/Cut Sheet(s)

p. 312

NOTE: This section of the Appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the Town of Upland Community Master Plan Document. In some print versions of this document, the contents of Section 5.3 may be omitted due to length. A digital copy of the full planning document, including Section 5.3 in its entirety, is available upon request and can be obtained by contacting the Town of Upland directly.

BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

177

(page intentionally left blank)

178

REFERENCES + APPENDICES | TOWN OF UPLAND COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN