Loading...
7B - Application for a CEAP, #CEAP-2000-1 for 28th Street Improvement from Baseline Road to ArapahoeCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Apri120, 2000 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 13, 2000) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and comment regarding an application for a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP), #CEAP-2000-1 for 28th Street Improvements from Baseline Road to Arapahoe Avenue. Plans include street, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ronald Secrist, City Manager Dave Rhodes, Director of Public Works Mike Sweeney, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works for Transportation Tracy Winfree, Acting Transportation Planning Coordinator Stephany Westhusin, Transportation Project Manager Bob Whitson, Transportation Planner Jean Hagen, Presenter OVERVIEW: The 28th Street - 2000: Central Corridor Planning Study (28th Street - 20Q0) unifies previously funded and currently proposed improvements for 28th Street and its frontage road from Baseline Road to Iris Avenue. The city of Boulder's Transportation Division initiated the study June l, 1999, with the goals of implementing corridor-wide safety and aesthetic improvements as well as improving the corridor's function as terminus for regional transit. Funding for construction is allotted from city, state, federal and RTD sources. The goals of 28th Street - 2000 aze: • To improve safety and efficiency for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians • To improve traffic operations and business access • To provide new local and regional transit routes, facilities and connections along 28th Street • To provide gateways to Boulder and improve its "sense of place" • To enhance 28th Street's regional significance s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Pa~e 1 I.BACKGROUND Community input is an integral part of the 28th Street- 2000 process. A citizens advisory group called the 28th Street - 2000 Design Committee (the Design Committee) was formed and to keep the general pub~ic informed, open hours sessions, newsletters, user surveys and a project web-site were implemented. The proposed projects also underwent social, physiological, and physical environmental evaluation. The Design Committee includes interested 28th Street users, Boulder citizens, elected and appointed Boulder officials, property and business owners, nearby residents and representatives from organizations having jurisdiction over transit improvements to the 28th Street corridor. Design alternatives explored to-date with advisory assistance from the committee include corridor-wide options for new regional and local transit routes, transit distribution systems and transit facilities; bike and pedestrian facilities; traffic efficiency improvements; and corridor image and identity (aesthetic and "wayfinding") features. The Design Committee has also reviewed and commented on design alternatives specific to improvements for 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe. The Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) document for 28th Street-2000 improvements for the south segment was submitted on March 6, 2000, to the city's Development Review Committee (DRC). The proposed improvements were presented to the BURA Commissioners on February 23, 2000 and March 15, 2000 and will be submitted to the Planning Board for review and comment on Apri120th. These comments and final staff recommendations will then be submitted to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and City Council (CC) for project approval. The CEAP document for the northern segments will undergo the same review process and will be submitted to TAB and CC in the fall of 2000. II. QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING BOARD Staff would like the Planning Board to specifically address the following questions: Does the Board agree that the best way to proceed is with the south segment as phase one of the project? 2. Do the proposed improvements meet Boulder's goal for increased transit facilities in the 28th Street corridor? 3. What direction would the Board like to see the Boulevard Proposal go? 4. What other improvements can be made to increase the vitality of Boulder's businesses? 5. T'he Image and Identity elements proposed for 28th Street aze designed to improve the visual image of 28th Street, make route finding easier, highlight significant landmarks, encourage use by pedestrians, transit riders and bicyclists, and provide an attractive gateway to Boulder. What other design elements are needed to meet these goals? s:\plan\pb-items~memos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~7~ Page 2 6. Do the proposed improvements strengthen Boulder's bicycle system? What other improvements can be made to transform 28th Street into a more pedestrian environment? 7. The traffic efficiency improvements are designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety for all modes. What can be added to the proposed improvements to meet this goal? 8. How well do the proposed improvements meet the goals of the plans and policies that serve as the Planning Framework for 28th Street? III. SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS CURRENT SCHEDULE FOR 28TH STREET - 2000 The schedule for 28th Street -2000 is based on completing the following three missions: • To provide an approved CEAP to construct improvements within the south segment of 28`n Street by June 2000; • To provide an approved CEAP for the middle and northern segments of 28th Street by fall 2000 and; To provide feedback to the U.S. 36 Major Investment Study in May 2000 on transit facility programmatic elements and possible locations. Review of the design alternatives and proposed improvements for 28th Street - 2000 will include meeting with and collecting input from the community, the 28th Street Design Committee, representatives from CU, RTD, CDOT, Planning Board Members and BURA Commissioners. With this input, staff will present the proposed improvements to TAB for recommendation, then to CC for approval. Board meetings scheduled for 28th Street south segment improvements aze: • BURA Board - February 23 and March 15 • City Council Study Session - April 11 • Flanning Board - Apri120 • Transportation Advisory Board - May 8 • Joint Study Session with TAB and City Council regarding U.S. 36 MIS - May 23 • City Council - June 6 s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Pa~e 3 IV. ISSUES A. SOUTH SEGMENT AS PHASE ONE The south segment for 28`h Street has been designated as ? ~~e first phase of the 28`h Street - 2000 project for various reasons. Federal funding for projects in this area is available innmediately; the north segment has recently undergone disruption from undergrounding of the power lines and businesses there could use a break; and, by constructing the southern entry feature to the city, the project would gain high visibility and credibility for actualizing its goals. B. IMPRO~EMENTS TO 28TH STREET FROM BASELINE TO ARAPAHOE - STAFF'S CURRENT THINKING For the south segment of 28th Street, from Baseline to Arapahoe, the following improvements are being analyzed and evaluated by the ~~oject Team as part of the CEAP (see Attachments A, B, and C for the proposed improvements~. New Regional Transit Route - Buses to travel north bound on frontage road, southbound on 28th Street. Transit stops" are considered for the College Avenue pedestrian underpass next to Colorado Avenue, Boulder Creek Greenway and Arapahoe / 28th Street intersection. New Regional Transit Service - Service from U.S. 36 would provide connections to local high-frequency routes at Colorado (CU shuttles), Arapahoe (JUMP), Canyon (HOP) and Pearl (LEAP) and to the Boulder Creek Greenway. These "super stops" would provide above average facilities for transit riders to make connections to buses or pedestrian / bicycle corridors easy to understand, safe, convenient, and comfortable. New Regional Transit Facilities - The "Distributed Transit System" would terminate at one of four potential sites now under investigation by the Project Team. This facility would provide regional bus layover space, bus driver facilities and possibly some parking for riders. The current sites under consideration include 33rd and Pearl (west side and east side), 28th and Arapahoe and 28th and Iris (see Attachment C). Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - A new multi-use path would be constructed on the west side of 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe. Bicycle lanes would be added to the frontage road with a detached sidewalk on the east side. Parking would be omitted and curb and gutter added to the frontage road. Pedestrian underpass entrances would be enhanced, connections made to two new "transit stops" at the east and west entrances to the College Avenue underpasses, and the underpasses would be widened. At Boulder Creek, the frontage road bridge would be widened to add bike lanes and sidewalk. A new pedestrian bridge would be added for the west side multi-use path. Traffic Efficiency Improvements - The recommended improvement is consistent with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the State Hazard Elimination s:\plan\pb-itemslmemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Page 4 Program, and they offer the most traff c efficiency improvement for the smallest cost. The alternative would expand 28th Street to three lanes the entire length in the southbound direction, and in select sections, northbound. The proposal would change the right turn lane at Colorado Avenue to a third through lane. Three lanes would continue through the intersection northbound and merge back to two lanes at the Boulder Creek bridge (ROW would be preserved for possible future widening). Three lanes southbound would be completed by widening the Boulder Creek bridge. A third through lane would be completed for eastbound Arapahoe Avenue which would become a designated right turn lane at 28th Street, continuing southbound on 28th to Taft Street. All reconfiguration would be re-striped. Consistent with a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) submittal, a double left turn lane would be created from northbound 28th Street to westbound Colorado Avenue, and a double left on eastbound Colorado turning onto northbound 28th. Eastbound traffic turning right onto southbound 28th would have a designated right turn lane and an acceleration lane would be added on southbound 28th. A double left turn lane from westbound Colorado to southbound Regents Drive would be added also. The northbound right turn only lane would be a through only lane, and right turns from northbound 28th Street to eastbound Colorado, a deceleration lane would be added at the approach to the first curb cut south of Colorado Avenue where northbound vehicles wanting to go east on Colorado Avenue would enter the frontage road and proceed to Colorado Avenue to make a right turn. At the Harvest House Hotel and Safeway access, the improvement would he a new right- in/right-out access with one-way northbound access to Safeway. Image and Identity Elements Entry Feature To mark the southern entry via U.S. 36 into the city, lighted monumental features are proposed to flank 28th Street at the Baseline interchange. The interchange would be landscaped with an informal planting plan comprised of native Boulder plant communities. Entry monument and landscaping would be designed to highlight views of the mountains, the flatirons, and CU. Streetscape and Roadway Edges from Baseline Road to Colorado Avenue A double row of trees, with native ground plantings, would be added in the median between the frontage road and 28th Street. A single row of trees on the east side of the frontage road would separate the sidewalk from the street. In 28th Street's medians, landscaping would be native foothill grasses depicting Colorado's prairie and agrarian landscape to highlight the sculpture of buffalo stampeding across 28th Street to the hillside next to CU events center. Native grasses and plantings on the west side of 28th Street would complement the buffalo sculpture. s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~V Page 5 Streetscape from Colorado Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue The landscape design north of Colorado Avenue would be a more formal arrangement, with double rows of trees on the west side of 28th Street in the median between 28th and the frontage road. A single row of trees would be planted on the east side of the frontage road and in 28th Street's median. Ground plane plantings in these areas would aid in separating pedestrians from 28th Street's traffic. Intersection Treatments The aesthetic treatments for Colorado Avenue / 28th Street and Arapahoe Avenue / 28th Street intersections would be designed to draw attention to each intersection as major junctions to other parts of the city. Enhanced "bus stops" would provide these connections to the JUMP and CU shuttle service. Sculptural landmarks would be featured in pedestrian plazas at each intersection corner. Pedestrian/Bicycle Underpasses Lighting, landscaping, monuments, retaining walls with murals, and railings wonld be added to identify each underpass, drawing attention to them for pedestrian safety. Bridges Over Boulder Creek Architectural treatments for the 28th Street bridges over Boulder Creek would be medium-sized monuments with more naturalistic forms and shapes than those appearing throughout the corridar. G CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ON STAFF'S PROPOSAL The Transportation Division presented highlights of staff's proposal to CC at the April 11, 2000 Study Session. Included in the presentation were comments on the CEAP from the community, the DRC and BURA. The transportation staff asked for CC comments on staff's proposal and their preferred course of action for additional research on land use and street design altematives (see Item D below). Generally, most CC members expressed support for the proposed improvements for 28th Street (Baseline to Arapahoe). Specific comments from them anc3 their requests for more information are listed below. Comments: Improvements in south segment should not preclude the opportunity for any major change to happen in the corridor north of Arapahoe . Further development of plans for the regional transit facility in the BVRC should be included in study of the middle segment. s:lplan\pb-items~nemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Page 6 • Three CC members would like to reconsider a continuous third northbound lane in order to enhance traffic operations in the BVRC and to support the additional cost of widening the bridge over Boulder Creek. Four members support this proposal. • CC members like the design approach for landscaping and encourage the use of trees in the medians and along street edges to soften the street character. • They would like us to consider features that are more intimate and softer for the monumental form of the gateway features. Cost is also a concern. • Further coordination with CU is recommended for entry features and intersection improvements. • CC supports buses to travel on the frontage road, bike lanes on the frontage road and multi- -use path on the west side of 28th Street. Requests for Additional Infonmation: Cost of the improvements (a concept level cost estimate will be provided for TAB and CC review when the final CEAP is presented in May and June. How will improvements affect the efficiency of traffic operations or improve the current and future level of service? Colorado / 28th Street intersection should be re-examined to provide the best pedestrian and bicycle connections across 28th Street. D. THE BOULEVARD PROPOSAL The Design Committee has been excellent, with a high level of participation and good, full discussions of the issues. Two issues that recently surfaced in the public eye as critical are the "Boulevard Concept" and the integration of land use with the proposed transportation improvements. The Boulevard Concept involves a four-lane arterial, landscape buffers and one-way frontage roads. (A more in depth discussion of the concept is provided in Attachment F.) At the March 21, 2000 Committee meeting, discussion of the boulevard/land use issues led to the request of additional information in the form of an "area plan" for 28th Street. Staff recommends (and City Council concurred at the April 11 study session) to proceed with the CEAP for the south segment and initiate a short, charette style study of the land use and boulevard for consideration in the northern two sections of 28th Street. This would allow a more extensive public review of the issue for the northern two segrnents and would not further delay or detract from progress made under the current public involvement process. The proposed putpose of the charette would be to develop strategies for economic sustainability in the 28th Street Corridor (Arapahoe to Iris), to obtain public opinion on the s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Page 7 preferred land use and transportation options, and to understand the impacts and benefits in the corridor alternatives. The charette will be managed by the Planning Department, the Transportation Division, and BURA. Approved By: Peter Pollock, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Cross Section for the south segment of 28th Street B 28th Street Baseline to Arapahoe - Illustrative Plan of Proposed Improvements (sheets 1 & 2) C 28th Street Future Transit Corridors and Facilities D. List of 28th Street - 2000 Design Committee Members E List of 28th Street - 2000 Intermodal Transit Facility Design Committee Task Force F Boulevard Proposal by Adam Krom G. Planning Framework for the Proposed Improvements for 28th Street H. DRC Questions & Responses s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\jh28ceap.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 7Q PaEe 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ eo n ~~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ • I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,' ~'' ~ L ~ ~' ~~ .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ 0 0 ~~ .~ 0 0 0 0 1 1~~ 0~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ I''' 12 it 8-10 fl 11 fl each 16 n 11 ft each Varies MuRi-use Path Landscape 3 Southbound Landscaped 2 and 3 Northbound Landscape Strip Travel Lanes/Bus Route Median Travel Lanes Median 6.5 ~~ry 11ft 6.5 8-10ft gh ~ TravelLane TravelLane/ ~ Landscap Sidewalk m Bus Route m Strip d Y m m Y m 28th Street frontage road 28th Street and the frontage road from Baseline Road to Arapahoe Avenue Regiona/ bzuses run north on the frontage road, south on 28th Street. The frontage road has two bike lanes and one sldewalk on its east slde. 28th Sheet has a mu/tl-use path on its west side. ~ c~r.r • su~g.w p~pliulCEMUpuMM1iMfip~_Y.N Cross Section for South Segment of 28th Street NOT TO SCALE ~ H H ~^ l M1 F~ ~ z y ~ •~~ ~ _, ~ ATTACHMENT B ~ ~``~~ ~ ~ Entry Feah~re g ~- m m Q ~ m z m ; Q m J ~ „ ~~-- -,. c° ~ iw ~ r f ~~°~ b Entrance fi~ PedeS~an nd Pedesfian Underpess Underpass ~~~ 2$th Street from Bas~line to Arapahoe: illustrative Plan o~ Proposed Improvemeuts, Sheet 1 of 2 ~,d~~ ~ager~a ~lem ~ . 7_~3 f ~c~ ~ __ /C' ATTACHMENT B r~,~ R~t~~~„~ ~n~ Multiwse Path 1I l ro .C J t ~ g _ =~~.~_-~'~ ~ ~ c ~. 2 m 6 ~ C ~ Q 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe: Illastrative Plan of Froposed Im~r~v~~~a~t~, ~~~~t ~ of ~ ~ ~a~ aqmihs ~ „~ a;r,~~ : , !~ ^ ~/ ~~~~t:''~ ~~~ °;.q'f'i :~~~Ckr ~; a P Attachment C' Future Transit Corridors and Facilities .. i.~-yr~.~-.-- ~._ /~_-1L.. ,, .-il ~.. 5~~~ ~" ~k _ -~-.~ . - - ~~ ~ - . itv~.. ~ ti, = , . ,,- ' , ~ _ ~I! - , ~ , ^ 1. , , ~ ~~~~~~ ( ..~ ` ' ~.~~ ;i~~o I r . -:~ (~2 ~_. ~' ~ . .i~ E~`~.:-ii ~~~FnlaomS` ~1~~~ ~ S .. _ NeW LOCa~ _ ~~ ~ P c ~z , ~ ( c~~ ~'--~- ~-~ m i { { ~3 , : ~ ~.~ ' 1 - W ~ ~ s~' , ~°o ~ i 3 --. 71 ,,i( I ~r . ~ ~t ~~ ~l ~ : lt- ~~ --~ - ~ a~ - : ~ ~ ~~~I ~ ~ ~ - -~' j~ ~'~A P J ~~ ~ ~i~ ~I'v~ _ I ~ t Sn ~ ~is~v "~ m _ 'm ' ~ ~ '~ - m o ~ b`~ ~1.~"~ fIm ~ ~ -t~_ ~ m'~~ i~ ~~.:c A,._ ' i~T :.m. O ~~ , ~o ~,:g si~/:,8~'"~S ~ ~ ~ . ~~ o ~ ~ ~ : ( -- a d= ~ - - ~:~" _ ~ ,~-~ .. ~'~ . ' s ; ~: A~ ~ _ 3i . ,..~ ~ M / a ~ 0 Y~~ ~ ''~ ~_~~ IG ~ „ _ __ ~ . ~ , ~ ' ~ '~ a = ~ ~'- ~ P~ ~ ~ , ~ ' -- ---- 1~ l`- ~al,• . o~, ~~ - - ~ ~ - ` .,1Y~ .- . ~:;: ~L - ~ . ~o . ' ~ ~ o m _ •- ~ ~. ..i "f..L~.. ~ i' _ I I ] ~_ ,, ' ~ . {,.. -.- .[: < --~- .. ---, `. - -- - +r ' ~ aa:. - - - -- --- - - = ~=, -_.28th St_,,~ _ '° r : -..: ~ i ~ ., . . - - -. . . _ ~ _ ' . V1 ~ .~. ,A 2 .,. .. - . i ~ _ .. a ~~ _ i - ~ _ . ~ ` I; ,-,~ ~ , _ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~, tn : ,~a?~~ r~_ ~:-~.~;.a s ~, I : '~ ' _- ~r_,,, ! -v ' ;: I ~ _A.~ 'd~05,; M, I;~ BA WB~~ ~.. ~ ` u °: ': , c~~ , - ~ f ~ -' , p P', _ ~ ` -- - ~ ~, - - _ ~'~• o, ._-_._-- _ :~~ f,__- _ ~ , r~j ~, __ 'i_ ~ . . , . ; L~ i. ~1 . ';, ~~ . n ~ h ~ ' .' ' . -` , ~ .~~ i. ... ~ ~ ~r . _ ~ I - _ i I I i 0 W ~~ '_.=~r=~ '~ ~I~`~~l~~ 71 i ~ r st ~u ~-- ~ ~- ~' J ~ ~ r U N Q ., - - " - =- "_-`'`~= _ ~ .,~cr-~_~-' .. - - - -- - ` ~' ~ _- ~ ~ ~ ~. _ ~ ~~~ '.-"~- ~;""` ~ ~ t• r ~ I - ~ i ~~~ J , ~ ~7° ~ . . I~~~ ~ .t_.~ ~ ~. _ j L-_ . , ~.~~ ~~~ .l~T~ '~ ~ . ~ ~ i ~; i _~. ~~w ~-~. ~ i c, ', ~ ` +If ~ " : i~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ , , i~u J , +' °y0 ' t ' ~' 1 4 ~ ~, ~, p ~ i , ~ ` I ~ ~ ~~~ i ~'r~ ~ ~. ~3 ` -- 3 r, W, + ~~ r 1 . ` , , ~ ~ ~4F1 _ ~ ~ ~`` `` 0`, ~ 1( `, ` 1 r - .~ ~ ~i;: ~ i ~1' Rl r ~ ' ' - _ - --- _- i ~ ~ ~; 4I ~ ~ ~F; -= Jt• ) l , ~ I~ ~` - ~f I ~c J ~~ #~ _ . .. ~ .. . . . ., _, 1~/ . ~ - ~`'~.. ~- ' . . P~ - _ ~~b ,.. . . ~~~ ~ i ~... .~ ~. . ~ ~ _ . . ::~~ .. ~ _ N --i - Potential future reg~onal super stop" ~, = Existing/planned transit service coverage ~ ~ = New regional transit service ~ n::. ~= New local (high frequency) transit service cc° , ~ ,.,,.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ H H ^~ l 1 x ~ z y ~ ^~~' Attachment D: 28th Street - 2000 ~-~~ Design Committee List of Members ~w ~ Name Organization Property Owners Lain Adams Crossroads Eric Hautzenrader Clarion Harvest House George Karakehian Coyote Car Wash Steve Miller Puddle Caz Wash Neazby Neighbors Lynn Dettloff Winding Trail Tom Dettloff Winding Trail Jerry Wyss Martin Acres Wayne Adams Goss-Crrove 28th Street Users Linda Diebert Special Transit/HOP Bill HiPP Gary Horton 28th St. User Adam Krom 28th St. User Robert (Bob) Law 28th St. User - Bike Sherry Richards Regional Motorists Patricia Taylor 28th St. User Jurisdictional Organizations Jim Baily CU David Cook CU Mark Gosselin CDOT Richard Rost RTD Jo~i Teter BiJRA r.~,.»„~ n~,.. ~genaa irem * _~~ _ ~a~e # ~_ ~~~~~,-~•~,- Attachment E: 28th Street - 2000 Design Committee New ~~ ~~ Transit Service aad Facilities Task Force ~...~.. ~' J .`..~ ,~: N.e.r„~ sa~. Name Organization Wayne Adams Goss Grove Neighborhood Sue Anderson League of Women Voters Wally Cameron COB Real Estate David Cook CU - Parking i Transportation JefF Dunning RTD Jean Hagen COB - Planning Fay Ignatowski BURA George Karakehian 28th Street business Kevin Luten Carter & Burgess Steve Miller 28th Street business Jared Moore Carter & Burgess Cesar Ochoa RTD Brad Power BURA Penny Puskarich COB Transportation Ken Ramsey COB Pazks & Recreation Richatd Rost RTD Ed Schumm Carter & Burgess Bob Wlutson COB Tracy Winfree COB Jerry Wyss - Martin Acres _ Diane Yates Carter & Burgess /M710101WANA0!\TA~fNA~IR~QIYO0UIMTTAC~1GwA , ;qenc~~ ~tem r ._ ~~ Pa~ #~ ~ '` ATTACHMENT F Hgenaa Item ~ __ `~L~ Page # ~ Deaz Members of the Design Committee, I propose giving 28~'' St. a multiple roadway boulevard design for these reasons: • a boulevard will efficiendy and safely move all forms of traffic • a boulevard will create a pedestrian oriented environment in a way that the proposcd street designs will never do 362G Broadway #7 Boulder, CO 80304 h: (303) 442-8901 w: (303) 439-852G • a boulevard will be the most beautifiul street in our region that also carries 40,000 cars each day • a boulevard will be a long-term catalyst fornew land-use in tfie Boulder Valley Regional Center • a boulevard would support new homes in this area better than other street types. The stafFof the 28~'' St. project have ovenuled this proposal, despite support of some members of the Design Commiaee. Staff have argued that the bonlevard is not as safe as other street rypes, will be too difficult to build, and would face community opposition. These arguments at first appear logical but do not hold up under research. Safety: A study by Professor Allan Jacobs of UC Berkeley has determined that boulevards that are properly designed can carrymore tra, f,~`'ic in greater safety than a conventional street design. He concludes that a few key design elements of boulevards, such as the width of access lanes, create a safe street. I have a video from Professor Jacobs describing boulevards and their safety and usefiilness that is available for you to watch. ~abj~j~/: Prof~essor Jacobs assured me that a boulevard could easily bc accommodated in the same right of way as some of the alternatives we are considering for 28~' St. Approximately 130' would be enough for a wonderfiil boulevard. Popularity: Many communities are choosing boulevards. In San Francisco, for example, residents just votcd to tear out_a freevvay and replace it with a boulcvard smeec. The ncw street will handle thesanne amount of traffic but will also accommodate pedesuians, bikes, transit, and allow for new land uses. The boulevard will be beautiflil, increasing propeny values, attracting tourism, and improving livability. These should be the goals of the 28" S~ prnjcct. At the beginning of the 28d' St. process, the Design Committee was asked to imagine 28~' St. as it might be in twenty years. With the same vision.and foresight as created the Pearl St. Mall, wc can create a dynatnic 28th St boulevard disuict. Please support adding a boulcvard street to the list of alternatives for 2$' S~ aad ask staff and the praject team to crrate documents that illustrate and study this concept. ~genda Item # _~_~, _ Page # /~ Adam Krom Creating the Pedestrian Realm PEDFSTRIAN REALM A q~pical street design dedicates about 10% of thc right of way to pedesuians. The street feels wide and unfriendl}~ for tvalking and biking. The boulevatd street design dedicates 40 to 50% of the right oE ~vay as usable space for pedestrians. The street feels nanower and is easier to czoss. Fast moving naffic is separated from bikes and pedestrians by a living fence of trees. PEDESIItIAN REALM ,ygEnGa dtem ~ _ ~~___ Page # __ f Z_~ PEDESTAIAN REALM PEDES7RIAN REALM Making 28~' St, a Boulevard What is a Multiple Roadway Boulevard? A Boulevard is a su~eec type invented in the 19~' Century ro speed ~ic throug~ a busy comdor while permitring a variety of niming and access movements and creating an invidng plaoe co stroll. It is characterized by raws of aees in medians which separate the main travel lanes of the roadway from local lanes and sidewalks. It can provide a pleasant and safie environment fnr bicydists and padcctrians while supporting the eoonomic vitaliry of adjacent businesses and providing opponunides for uansit Boulevanls have been sucoessfiilly used in Europe and in Brooklyn, Chico, C.alifomia, and Washington D.C. among other American cities. However, new boulevards are rarely construaed because they were deemed unsafe• 6or the needs of cats. This fear has been shown to be completely unjustified as accident rates are often la~wer on boulevards than other s~treets with comparable uaffic. Boulevands are a]so some of the most popular and memorable meets in the wodd. Primary Characteristics: • Designed to ef~iciendy move all cransportation modes from one end to the other • Sepazaces local traffic from throug~ trafFc with tree-lined medians • Trees act as columns to sepazate spaces, creating an ordered sense of place • Incersecdons are complicated, but safely allow all trafFic direcdons • Creates a place for all transportation modes: autos, uansit, bil~es, peds, etc. Why Consider a Boulevard? • 28'~ St. has suf~icient rig~ht of vv~ay in most places for a boulevard design. • A Boulevard will feel nazrower and be easier for pedestrians to cross than any other alternative. • A boulevard would create the neeckd sense of place" that doesnt exist today. • A boulevard would solve some pedesuian/bike/transit problems. • A boulevard is less dangerous than many other st~reet typec because cars in the access lanas near to pedestrians are forced m move slawly and cautiously. Arguments Against a Boulevai+d and Responses: • Boulevard interseectio~ts are morr complicated than curnent d~rigns Incersections hav~ been shown m be as workable and safie as comentional designs on many other boulevatds around the country and the world. • A boule~rd migfit rrduce the visibility of b~sinesses. V'~sibility is very important m busineases. A boulevard should not impact visibility. Altcrnaave signage and a more attractive commercial district should boost business instead of reducing iG • The land use and a~rhitecture along 28th S~ aa~e di,,~r~rnt than most otfxr boakvards in the world Although 28th SG currendy has parking lots and latge buildings fronting che sorxt, 28th S~ is redevdoping all the time. BURA design guidelines call for moving new buildings to the suceG Planting mees nvw and uating a beaudfiil street will spur redevelopment thac will be mone pedesa~ian fiiendly chac- codays configuradon. 28th St can become a aue civic place aver time, instcad of ~emaining only auto-orientod as it u today. • Cars would travel too fast in th~ accas/bik~ lurie. Drivers aravel rhe maximum speed at which they feel safe. In some boulevard designs, parkod racs in d~e acoaa lancs reduce driver's speedc. Some bouleva~ds do noc have pazked cars in access lanes. The same traffiacalming ef~ecc can be acoompGshed with tightu oomas, ~~w access lanes, very low curbs, bolluds, and eai.ced aossvvalla - all of which give drivers mend a~es m be cautious to prooect their vehicle and the lives of others. ;;g~naa ~iem ~ _~~.~ Page # / ~ . Boulevards that would fit in 135' of ROW. ~'"' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n i .~ , ~, ~ ~ * -, ~ ,~ * „ + `Sitlawelk 8 ~~ Vehide Vehicie vemCe PeOesv~an P~~"~ Travet Bikeway Travei Travel Buller 8 ~~~~~ Lane lene Lane ~ ~ ~~L / ~~ ~ r ---- - * * a * o a4 ia w .. . ._ i~ .~ l_...J - Vchide Parkmg S~~k 8 Travel B~keway Pedeslrian ~~i e 8 Loadiag BuHer Alt. One with bike lanes in center roadway. ~~L a~ ~.c. I~i ~ \ ~ ~ ~ o * ~ * a * * a * ~ ~ u . _~ ~--'---~ Siuewalk 8 park' Vetucle VeMde Veh¢le vehKle ye~~ ~ Sitlewalk 8 PeCeslrian ~ Travel Bikeway TrevN TravN Travel Travel Bikeway Pa~~ Pedesinan BuBer 8 ~oatling L~e Lar~e Lane La~ ~a~ 8 loatlin9 Buffer Alt. Two with bike lanes in access/parking roadway. These alternatives a11ow for parked cars in the access lanes. Traffic lanes are 11' wide. There is no center med.ian between intersections. The center roadway is ony 58' wide, which is approx.imately'the same width as Broadway at Pear1 St a width that is easy for pedestrians to cross. At intersections, the space for pazked cars in the access lanes is traded for space in the center of the road for a median and turn lanes as shown below ~"' ~~ ~.~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~_ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ * , ~ „~ '* .~~. '~ - ~„q -- * ~, u * ~Q sidawaNca ~ vetude vMide vehide Median vehiGe ~ ,• SqswaNca, P~ealnan Travel Bdcewey Travet Traval (Pnd Refuge Travel Bikeway Pedsslrian Buffer I.ane Lare Lane 8 Tum Lane) Lane Bulfer Staff has stated that these alternatives cannot be created because of impacts to existing trees. I think you have noticed that trees occur with consistency only next to Crossroads, and are fairly small in that area. New trees should be planted that will quickly reach a mature and ariractive size interspersed with slow-growth trees such as oaks. Trees need to be 15' on center to create the feeling of a living fence. ,4t~~G~ IC2rn ~ ~~~j ~__ `~a(I~ # ~_. .. ~r~ua ~~Gr~~ r, _ ~~_ . •`~~a~ ~ ~L%. . .-~ Y.: ~ ' I ~ ~ , ~ The boulevard street has ~~G rf ,rf ; been shown to be able to ~.:: <~~~' -~<i.ks:r~.r~::.~;:Y.a~:;(~~#~>. handle the same amount ~ of traffic as a sig-la.ne ___ . __ street, while allowing for . _ , - ; local tra(iic to access ___..._ ~,,,~~ businesses and creating ~s~ _ , incredible spaces for bikes - ~-- -~~ •~ - ~ ~ , and edestrians, who will . . _ _ ~------_- ' P ~ ~;~; - -:: .. , . .. ..~ ...y also patronize local - -. ...__.._.... . ._ • .. . ._..:,, businesses. In the long term, the ;~~' ;;~~~ . R, boulevard will become ;;,.`; f ~ : ;~ ~ ~ part of a newly reviral'ried %~f~ ~'~" ;~', ` area of town. New homes will generate residents who will pauonize local businesses. Tourists and I ~ county residents would come to see this special : place in Boulder. This ~ will help us compete with other retail areas such as Flatiron Crossing. When we look at 28th St. today, this idea may seem difficult to imagine, but ~'~ ~ below the surface is a .•~,j~ great street waiting to happen. .L . ~ ( i ..l_~~~~iil. ,. w~ __.. i c"r.: s_ _ ~_-_;c-~ _ . _....._ ,. i_~_ :___ ~ ~, l.. . . J ~..""__~ ~~ ~:;ui~lUi: ~ii~i='- - -_.5../_~___ V~~w j,, ' ~~^1 =~~_~ ATTACHMENT G PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 28TH STREET The proposed improvements to 28th Street are based on the Planning Framework, which incorporates the goals and objectives of city and regional transportation plans and policies. Improvements for 28th Street have been specified as part of the following plans and policy documents: Years 1999 and 2000 CIPs for city of Boulder. "The 28th Street project will correct pedestrian deficiencies, complete missing links in the sidewalk system, install raised crossings on free rights, improve transit access control and acceUdecel lanes as required, and potentially add bike lanes. A primary objective of the project is to address existing congestion and accidents in the comdor by improving travel safety and efficiency; improvements in turn lanes and the construction of inedians to control unsafe turning movements from adjacent commercial properties are included. As a result of the BVRC redevelopment study, this project has been redefined to include improvements from Baseline to Iris. The additional components of this project include: efficiency improvements at the Iris, Pearl, Canyon and Colorado intersections; widening the 28th Street bridge over Boulder Creek to accommoda.te completion of the western most south bound traffic lane; and extensive median landscape and urban design improvements from Baseline to Arapahoe (emphasizing the US 36 entrance into the city)." Boulder Yalley Regional Center (BVRC) Design Guidelines states, "28th Street is a primary corridor for regional transit service, connecting points along US 36 and the Diagonal Highway to the BVRC." The BVRC Design Guidelines direct that new and existing regional transit service "should be supported by improvements to traffic flow and pedestrian access and amenities." This document calls for a new regional transit center and pazk-n-Ride facilities to be built within the BVRC and the development of "more and better transit stops." Boulder Yalley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan was developed by BURA "to help guide decisions about what and when public improvements should be made for altemative mode use in the BVRC." Many of the proposed improvements for 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe were taken directly from the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan. They include pedestrian improvements along the frontage road, a multi-use path on the west side of 28th Street and intersection improvements to the entrance to the Harvest House Hotel and at Arapahoe and 28th. Planning Framework for the Carter & Burgess Proposed Improvments for 28th Street April 12, 2000 Agenda item ~ .,7_~ _ Page # ~v~ Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is currently undergoing update and revision. The 1996 plan lists two 28th Street improvements now proposed for implementation: bridge widening at Boulder Creek and level of service improvements for the 28th Streed Colorado Avenue/fronta.ge road intersection. Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan revisions propose changes in land use along the 28th Street corridor. One goal is to "locate additional housing along major transit corridors (such as 28th Street) to increase the ability of those residents to use forms of transportation other than cazs." Improvements to transit service and pedestrian facilities go hand in hand in improving the corridor for more housing. Planning and transportation staff have been (and will continue to) coordinate the proposed land use changes with 28th Street improvements to identify associated transportation impacts. 1996 Transportation Master Plan Update for the Boulder Yalley (TMP) states that 28th Street is one of three north-south principal arterials planned as multi-modal corridors with high frequency transit. The TMP sets out goals for the development of new transit service and facilities, followed by corridor improvements to provide efficient operations of traffic without providing for long-term growth in vehicular traffic. The 1996 TMP cites the following improvements, among others, for 28th Street south segment: • Widen bridge at Boulder Creek to allow for three continuous south bound lanes complete pedestrian and bicycle network • Colorado / 28th Street intersection - add tum lanes, and bike and pedestrian improvements • Upgrade landscaping and aesthetics from Baseline to Ara.pahoe Road • The T'MP says, "The 28th Street/[JS 36 Corridor will continue to play an important role as a transit hunk line. To facilitate continued growth in transit ridership, the city will make improvements in transit access north of Baseline. This includes transit centers and upgraded stops and shelters." Year 2000 Ciry Staff TMP Prioritization Proposal. 28th Street is the top priority for a multi-modal corridor in the proposal, which says, "Transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile enhancements aze all being incorporated into the 28th Street Corridor project. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of addressing improvements for one mode and not including the others. This is a logical approach given that travel occurs through corridors and often mixes modes. For example, a transit service will not function as efficiently as possible without the pedestrian facilities that serve those accessing transit." Boulder Bicycle System Plan defined 28th Street as a primary north-south bicycle corridor. The plan states, "Ideally a11 arterial streets within the pri.mary corridor will have Planning Framework for the Carter & Burgess Proposed Improvments for 28th Street Apri112, 2000 Agendalzem~;_~~___Pa~e~ 0?3 both on- and off- street facilities." The proposed on-street bike lanes on the frontage road and detached multi-use path on the west side of 28th Street help meet its designation as a primary bicycle corridor. Specific unprovements listed for 28th Street include: • multi-use path from Boulder Creek to Arapahoe Road • improved bike/ped access for the frontage road • Colorado / frontage road / 28th Street intersection improvements • Boulder Creek and the frontage road - improve wayfinding system and lighting • Arapahoe / 28th intersection improvements Boulder Pedestrian Policy Plan provides the followi.ng policy directive to improve the quality of the pedestrian environment (including 28th Street): • plant trees • use landscaped area to provide buffer zone between pedestrians and motorists • use color and texture to indicate pedestrian facilities and crossings • integrate art into the street and pedestrian environment • provide adequate lighting • provide rest area or small urban parks • make transportation related facilities, such as bicycle pazking and transit shelters more attractive University of Colorado Campus Plan, adopted in February 2000 designates Colorado Avenue as the principal corridor for transit, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Improvements aze proposed for the Colorado / frontage road / 28th Street intersection and the adjacent College Avenue underpass, and the azea is designated as a major entrance to CU's mai.n campus. The proposed multi-use path on the west side of 28th Street from Baseline to Colorado is shown as a proposed improvement to the campus Bicycle Circulation Plan. 28th Street - 2000 Citizen Design Committee represents the interests of citizens, institutions and businesses directly affected by 28th Street. The Design Committee's role is to define the goals and evaluation criteria for project improvements. They serve as a n advisory committee, stati.ng their preferences for the design alternatives generated during the conceptual design process. A list of Design Committee members (Attachment D) is included in this packet. 28th Street - 2000 Intermodal Transit Faciliry Design Committee Task Force is made up of inembers from the Design Committee, RTD, CU and the Project Team. The group was formed to focus on recommending programmatic elements and potential locations for the proposed intermodal transit facility and service for the 28~ Street corridor. A list of Planning Framework for ihe Carter & Burgess Proposed Improvments for 28th Street Apri112, 2000 r.~~n~a ~rein r __ ~'L3 _ ~age ~ ~?~/ _ members (Attachment E) is included in this packet. IIS 36 Major Investment Study (MIS). The 28th Street-2000 project is coordinating with RTD's on-going study for US 36 with the goal of identifying the city's preference for the regional transit corridor entering and terminating in Boulder. Regional Transportation Task Force. This consortium of Boulder County communities has identified Arapahoe Road and 28th Street/US 36 as two of the six major corridors connecting Boulder communities. The Task Force has promoted tr~c efficiency and transit improvements along these corridors to strengthen the county wide transportation system. Regazding US 36 and 28th Street, the majority of Task Force members have supported BRT/HOV facilities or other transit alternatives without adding new general purpose lanes to manage traffic congestion. Regional Transportation District (RTD) Transportation Development Plan. Funding for a new intermodal transit center in south Boulder is recognized in this plan. The Derrver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. DRCOG recognizes 28th Street as a consistently congested regional comdor and gives it priority funding for operation improvements. It is one of three regional corridors in Boulder qualifying for DRCOG financial support. 28th Street-2000 also integrates the objectives of relevant jurisdictional organizations and the objectives of associated projects currently in progress throughout the corridor. Closely collaborating jurisdictional organizations include Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA), University of Colorado at Bou~der (Cin, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). Planning Fraraework for the Carter & Burgess Propased Imprwments for 28th Street April 12, 2000 ~;~en~a fterr~ t, _~~. __ Page ~ ~ _. ATTACHMENT H CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION DIVLSION'S RESPONSE TO CITY OF BOULDER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RE5ULTS AND COMII~NTS DATE OF COMMENTS: March 28, 2000 CASE MANAGER: Elizabeth Hanson PROJECT NAME: 28th Street Improvements LOCATION: Baseline to Arapahoe COORDINATES: N1W4 - N2W4 REQUEST TYPE AND NUMBER: CEAP, CEAP-2000-1 APPLICANT: City of Boulder, Public Works DESCRIPTION: 28th Street improvements from Baseline Road to Arapahoe Ave. Plans include street, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Not applicable L REV~W FINDINGS Staff finds that the application adequately addresses the CEAP checklist items. Several questions raised by the CEAP document and checklist are listed below. This project is scheduled to be reviewed by Planning Board on Apri120, 2000. City Council is the decision making authority for this application. II. CTTY REQUIREMENTS Landscaping The Cross Section on page 13 shows the landscape strip on the west side of 28th Street as varying between 8 and 10 feet. According to BVRC streetscape standards, the landscape strip width here may not be less than 10 feet. A greater width than 10 feet is encouraged wherever possible, in order to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from the large volumes of high-speed traffic as much as possible. In order to accommodate a detac6ed, multi-use path on the west side of 28th Street, the steep hill on the east side of 28th Street between Colorado Avenne and Bonlder Creek will require a high wall or series of retaining walls for approaimately 300 feet In order to minimize the height of the wall, the landscape strip may be 8 feet instead of the usua110 feet specified throughout the remainder of the corridor. This landscape width complies with city standards and is outside of the BVRC. Transportation Division's Carter & Burgess Resporrse to DRC Comments April 12, 2000 f;~~;fl~~ ICc-~t #? __.~~.--- ~1~~ ~ ~lrJ Correct typo on page 12. to be clear that a double mw of street trees is planned for both the west side of 28th Street AND the median between 28th Street and the Frontage Road. The typo on page 12 will be corrected so that it is clear that a double row of street trees is planned for both the west side of 28th Street AND the median between 28th Street and the Frontage Road. Although the BVRC standards do not specifically address central medians, they do call for a boulevard- lilce street tree pattem along 28th Street. Therefore, street trees should be planted in the central medians, as illustrated in Cross Section drawing (but not mentioned in the Streetscape text section). Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-3276. It will be ctarified in the streetscape section that it is recommended that a double row of street trees be planted in the central medians of 28th Street south of Olsen Place. Also, a new illustrative plan will show this detail. No requirements. Bruce Johnson, 441-3240. Review Process BURA Review: Only a portion of this CEAP application is within the BURA area; BURA's southem boundary is Boulder Creek. Recommendations on the South Section CEAP from the BURA Commissioners will be a separate memorandum forwarded to TAB, Planning Board and City Council through the Project Team. BURA staffused three documents to evaluate the application: The BVRC Transportation Connections Plan, The BVRC Design Guidelines, and The Crossroads Comttiunity Consortium Report. BURA welcomes this major capital investment in improving circulation, safety and aesthetics in the southem portion of 28th Street. The proposed improvements generally comply with the Design Guidelines and carry out the many of the transportation-related objectives in the Connections Plan and the Consortium Report. Staff is concerned that a large detailed, illustrative drawing of the proposed South Section facilities and landscaping has been presented to the BURA Board and the 28th Street Design Committee as the CEAP proposal, but this drawing has not been included in the official CEAP application distributed to staff. That drawing shows a more detailed proposal than is evident in the application booklet's drawings and text. It should be included in the application for staffreview and public record. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441- 3276. An updated version of the illustrative plan that was presented to BURA will be included in the CEAP. A Wetland Permit is needed for the Boulder Creek Bridge expansion which is identified. Sue Ellen Harrison, City Attorney's Office, 303-441-3020. We will submit a Wetland Permit for the Boulder Creek Bridge eapansion. The following departments had no requirements: Fire Department Trartsportation Division's Carter & Burgess Response to DRC Comments April 12, 2000 ,,...~., , _7~._ ~~~~ ~~~ %~4LIWa ~~~~li ~i III. INFORMATIONAL COMII~NTS Access/Circulation The proposed new pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities comply with the BVRC Pedestrian Connections Plan, Bicycle Connections Plan, Transit Plan and Trouble Spots Map. The streetscape design complies with the BVRC streetscape standards. Please further explore alternative configurations for the Safeway/Harvest House entry. The proposed configuration requires bicyclists to cross three sepazate vehicle lanes in very short succession. An arrangement that combines the vehicle lanes at one or two crossing points where the bicyclist (and pedestrian) crosses only one (or two) entry lanes An attached sidewalk is shown on the Frontage Road just north of the Boulder Creek bridge. Please explore making it detached. T'he road cut where buses aze proposed to re-enter 28th Street from the Frontage Road needs more analysis, in terms of geometry/dimensions, safety/visibility, and traffic flow. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-3276. 1. Planning staff has some concems about the design for the new right in/right out driveways on the west side of 28th Street at the Safeway/Regal Harvest House entrances. It seems that restricting the driveway to Safeway to one-way traffic will add additional traffic to the shopping center parking lot, access drives and the 28th and Arapahoe intersection. In other words, this drive currently serves as a"release valve" for exiting shopping center traffic. Are there any safe options for twaway traffic on this drive? In the upcoming design development phase, alternatives will be further eaplored for the Safeway/Harvest House entry, the attached sidewalk on the frontage road just north of the Boulder Creek bridge and the road cut where buses are proposed to re-enter 28th Street from the frontage road. 2. Are there plans for a future 28th Street median just south of Arapahce Avenue? See illnstrative plan for median treatment just south of Arapahoe Avenue. Please make sure that any proposed raised crosswalks along Frontage Rd. are compliant with Fire Dept. approved criteria for ra.ised crosswalks. Adrian Hise, Fire Department, 303-441-3350. Proposed raised crosswalks along the frontage road are being coordinated with the Fire Departmen~ Engineering The applicant is required to obtain all necessary floodplain development and wetland permits. Bruce Johnson, 441-3240. Bruce Johnson, 441-3240. The necessary floodplain and wetland permits will be obtained. Fire Protection Please make sure that the addition or re-location of fire hydrants is consistent with city standards. Adrian Hise, Fire Department, 303-441-3350. Addition and relocation of fire hydranta will be consistent with city standards. Transportation Division's Carter & Burgess Response to DRC Commenis April 12, 2000 ,'',~er~da Irerrt x . 73.._ ~'ag~ ~ ~o __ Landscaping More work is needed on the image and identity designs. Staff suggests looking at ways to further integrate aesthetic improvements into the transportation improvements/facilities themselves (artistically designed bridges, railings, guardrails, abutments, light fixtures, etc.), and avoiding freestanding artistic pieces, like the gateway and corner monumettts. Artistic references to the area's history is another good suggestion offered by a Design Committee member. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-3276. The development of the landscaping image and identity will be refined further in the design development stage. l. Planning staffhas some concerns with the "Image and Identity" approach shown in the project proposal. The gateway feature "monuments" do not seem based upon a natural feature. Perhaps an existing natural feature in Boulder could be used as a more appropriate basis for a gateway feature concept. Also, staff questions the project statements that the monuments would "highlight" views while trees may block views. Upon approval of the CEAP a process will be determined to develop the eaact improvements of the gateway and other wayfinding features such as signage for ped/bike and an overall signage plan. 2. Please ensure that the areas designated for "natural plantings" appear as well landscaped areas that are maintained properly. The ezact choice of ptant materials and their arrangement will be determined upon approval of the CEAP. 3. Please carefully examine which existing trees will be removed and see if there are any options to preserve them. The eaact number of trees to be affected will be determined upon approval of the CEAP. Foreshy New trees on the east side of 28th Street should not be planted until power lines have been buried. All new trees will need irrigation to survive. Chapters 2 and 10 of the Design and Construction Standards should be followed. Forestry would like to be involved in the final landscape plan. Pat Bohin, Forestry Assistant, 303-441-4407. Chapters 3 and 10 of the Design and Construction Standards shall be followed. New trces will not be planted until power lines have been andergrounded. Miscellaneous Signage for pedestrians and bicyclists should be incorporated into the image and identity component of the improvements. Signage and pavement markings are particularly important for the new multi-use path on the west side and the short multi-use section on the east side just south of Arapahce. Experience with the 30th Street west side multi-use path shows that multi-use paths are not self-evident to bicyclists; most bicyclists do not know which sidewalks are actually multi-use paths and that they are permitted and encouraged to ride on them. Similarly, pedestrians need to be alerted that they should expect bicyclists on the path. Also consider whether markings separating pedestrians and bicyclists is necessary. Please see responses in the Ls~ndscape section above. An overall signage plan should be developed that will help bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users get around. This signage system should be designed to be useable in other parts of the BVRC in the future. Transportation Division's Carter & Burgess Response to DRC Corarrtents April 12, 2000 ;;.~i~i7 I~ci~i {; /C~ .... "~3~~ ~r Oi ~ ._. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-3276. Please see responses in the Landscape section above. Design efforts will be coordinated with BURA. Local businesses and the public will also be consulted. The project will have a direct impact on police services. Tr~c, pedestrian, and traffic accidents will have to be handled by police deparkment. Larry Wieda, Police Department, 303-441-3327. The Transportation Division will work with the Police Department and will provide mitigation when possible. There aze several hotel and motel buildings located close to the east frontage road in the project area. The proposal for RTD buses to use the east frontage road may result in new additional noise impacts to the visitors to these hotels. Has this noise impact been evaluated? A full-fledged noise analysis has not been implemented since the increase in noise due to bus and auto traffic is not ezpected to be significan~ Have the hoteUmotel owners and operators been notified of this specific change to the transit route? Options under consideration include having buses use a slip to enter the frontage road north of most of the hotels. Impacts of new lighting fu~tures upon these hoteUmotel rooms should also be evaluated. Lighting design and choice of fiztures will be evaluated so that they meet city standards with limited spill over light onto adjacent properties. Parl~ng The project proposal indicates that 50 parking spaces would be eliminated from the west frontage road and that these spaces are used by CU students. It is staff s understanding that these spaces are also regularly used by visitors to CU special events and sporting events. The CEAP checklist states that "these vehicle users may be accommodated on campus or by new transit facilities." Are there specific plans to accommodate these additional spaces? Where would the spillover impacts from removing these spaces most likely occur, given the fact that the frontage road pazking is free? Are there any options to maintain and upgrade these spaces in the right-of-way? More information should be provided on who uses the spaces and when (days, hours and times of year) they are used. Project team observation is that spaces closest to the underpasses to campus and to Colorado Avenue are used daily by visitors to the campus. Removing the approaimately 50 parking spaces will cause the majority of the people who use these spaces (CU staff, students and employees) to have to find parldng on campus. The remaining people who park in the spots toward the north end of frontage road will have to be accommodated on adjacent properties. This effort will be coordinated with the Transportation Division. Transportation Division's Carter & Burgess Response to DRC Comments Apri[ 12, 2000 -t~~n~1a irerr, r, __,~~_.~_ ~'ag~ ~t :~C~