Loading...
5A - Public hearing and consideration of a motion to narrow the Transit Village Area Plan Options anCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 19, 2Q06 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to narrow the Transit Village Area Plan Options and provide direction on the draft plan that will be considered for public hearing and adoption at the end of November. This will include direc[ion on preferred land uses, transportation demand management, parks and public space locations, and the depot. REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Planning & Development Services Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager Louise Grauer, Co-project Manager Conor Merrigan, Planning Intern Trans~ortation: Tracy Winfree, Transportation Director Micki Kaplan, Senior Transportation Planner Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner INTRODUCTION Area plans are developed where change is expected in the near future so that when redevelopment occurs, land owners can design their projects to fi[ into an agreed upon vision for the area. The Transit Village Area Plan is being developed to establish the desired vision for the future of the area roughly within a quarter mile walking distance of anticipated future regional transit improvements. Although the full complement of transit improvements is not expected for a number of yeazs, some properties are being sold and there is inierest by some in redeveloping their properties. The Transit Village Area Plan will establish the desired future of the area so that the community can be assured that changes in the area will be designed to support the city's overall goals, take advantage of the transit improvements, and provide good access to them. We aze now in the final phase of the four phases of the Transit Village Area Plan process identified at the outset of the project. 1. Data gathering, identification of opportunities and constraints Goals, objectives, and direction S:~PLAN\PB-ITEMS~NIEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc Aeenda Item # SA Paee# 1 2. Community Outreach to develop preliminary concepts What is the community's vision? 3. What are the options? Analysis and evaluation of the options Development of [he implementation approach 4. Public outreach on the options and implementation approach Plan adoption In phase 3, four options for the future of the Transit Village area were developed and assessed against the adopted area plan goals and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies. In this phase, an eight page newspaper insert (distributed in the Dailv Camera and Colorado Dailv) summarized the options and the results of the options assessment and requested feedback in the form of a questionnaire. Seven public meetings were held to ge[ additional feedback from the public and several meetings with property owners focused on the options and implementation approaches. Attachment B contains the questionnaire results and a summary of what we heard from the more than 150 people who attended the public meetings. PURPOSE The purpose of this hearing is to provide direction to staff pnor to developing the draft Transit Village Area Pian and Implementation Plan that will be brought back to Planning Board, TAB and City Council at a joint public hearing on November 28. Specifically, staff is seeking direction on the following (questions for the Board are listed in italics): 1. Land Use Plan: Narrow the options and identify [he general location, mix, and scale of buildings and uses in the azea. Wltat land use plan should be the basis for the drafi plan (see cover memo for area wide direction and Attachment A for quadrant- by- quadrant mrring and matching)? What is d2e appropriate future role of the Transit Village area? W12at should be the predominant future uses in the area? Should the emphasis be on residential or non-residential uses in this area? To what degree should mixed use be encouraged? Are [here existing uses that should be preserved? If so, where? What should be the overall character and intensity of development? 2. Transportation Demand Manaeement (TDM) and Connections Platt: Endorse the TDM approach, connections principles and general la~ out of the auto, bike, pedestrian and transit circulation system. Staff will refine the connections plan and TDM package after the Boards and Council agree on the land use plan (#1 above) and bring forwazd a recommendation with the draft Plan in November. Do you agree with the connections plan principles and general layout (see Attachment A)? Do you agree with the Transponation Demand Management (TDM) approach and do you suppon the continued development of a comprehensive TDM Program to fit the preferred option (see cover memo)? 3. Public Snaces: Review the key considerations for park altematives and the design principles for depot plaza and provide comments on the altematives. Staff will reFine the S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc A~enda Item # SA Paee# 2 parks and depot concepts a8er the land use plan has been identified and bring forward a recommendation with the draft plan in November. Do you agree with the key considerations for location of pocket parks? Do you have any comnients on the design cor2cepts? Does mi east-side or west-side park make more sense?(see Attachment A) Do you agree with the design pnnciples for depot plaza? Do you have any comments on the design concepts? Are each of the plazas consistent with the framework elen¢ents established in the bones?(see Attachment A) 4. Area Plan Contents: General feedback on the preliminary outline and layout of the plan. Do you have any comments on the contents/preliminary outline of the area plan?(see Attachment D) 5. Implementation Plan: General feedback on the work in progress. Do you have any comments on the preliminary outline and proposed next steps for the Implementation Plan? (You will receive a separate memo next week related to this question.) NARROWING THE OPTIONS (THE LAND USE PLAN) To set the stage for narrowing the options, the following materials aze provided in this packet: 1. Questions and information to assist your discussion of area-wide direction. 2. A workbook for quadrant-by-quadrant direction is provided in Attachment A. It contains illustrations and descriptions of the options broken down by quadrant with a list of key choices. 3. A summary of what we heazd from the public in this phase of the process is summarized in Attachment B. It includes the results of the questionnaire inserted in the newspaper on September 19 and distributed at the public meetings. Please also refer to and bring your August 31 packet (the green notebook) as it includes • the Area Plan Vision, • the adopted Goals and Objectives, • results of the assessment of each of the options, and • more detailed description of the options (including the master legend with a list of who is expected to live and work in each of the development prototypes and the associated densities/ FARs of each). Area-Wide Direction The options describe a range of potential futures that meet the azea plan vision and goals. The purpose of creating options was to evaluate them in comparison to current trends and give decision makers and the public alternatives to consider and debate. We expect the preferred option to be a mixture of different components from two or more of the options. Before you begin the process of mixing and matching the options, we recommend that you discuss the direction for the area as a whole by focusing on these questions: 1. What should be the primary role of [he azea in the future? S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 1019.06.doc Aeenda Item # 5A Paee# 3 2. What should be the predominant future uses here? 3. What existin~ uses should be preserved and what strate~y should be empioyed to preserve them? 4. What should be the overall character and intensity of development? The conclusions from the implementa[ion consultant's work is tha[ all of the options are financially feasible, so infrastruc[ure costs need not be a basis for your decision. The Options Assessment (the green notebook) and the public input (see Attachment B) should help guide your decision-making. Primary role of the area Council and Board discussions about the role of this area resulted in the adoption of the goals and objectives and the vision statement. They speak to a lively and engagina place with a diversity of uses that optimizes the community benefit of the transit investment. The options illustrate different potential roles for the area that meet these overall goals and vision statement. All assume that an important role N ill be as a destination to regional transit. Differences aze: • Western edge of the East Boulder employment area-to be part of the larger employment area that provides employment, business and service uses to the community (Current Trends Option). • A new neighborhood with a mixed use neighborhood center-to provide a variety of housing types for a variety of groups in an area where it would be easy to get around without a car. Housing would be tazgeted to groups for which there is an identified need including families, Boulder workers and seniors (Option 1). • A new mixed use urban center that expands the role of the BVRC-to provide a mixture of high intensity uses, including housing, along with a potential entertainmenU shopping feature. Like Option l, this option also provides housing for groups for which there is an identified need in an area where it would be easy to get around without a car, providing a more affordable lifestyle (Option 2). • A new major employment center-to provide a rich mix of business and employment uses to serve the community and the region (Option 3). What is the appropriate primary role of this area? ' While all the options play a number of roles, which of these is most appropriate as the primary role of the Transit Village area? 2. Predominant future uses in the area A number of conclusions from the Options Assessmen[ aze relevant to this question: • Community residential and employment needs: The greatest needs that have been identified are for affordable residential and non-residential space. On the residentia] side, affordable, accessible housing for a variety of groups, including families, workers, and seniors is an identified need. On the non-residential side, there is a need for flexible space for a variety of uses and space for service commercial and service industria] uses (discussed further under question 3). • Regional impacts: Given the city's growing jobs/ housing imbalance, the greatest regional impacts are created by options that provide more jobs than housing for workers since they create a demand for housing that must be met elsewhere in the region. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUVIEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc Aeenda Item # 5A Pa¢e# 4 Market (absorption): The EPS study estimates that the market could absorb all the residential units projected in each Option by 2030, but only a portion of the projected employment uses. Option 1 would absorb the most at approximately 70 - 75% of the projected non-residential growth to buildout. Option 2 would absorb approximately 65% - 70% of the projected non-residential growth, while Option 3 wouid absorb only 35% to 40% of the projected employment growth to buildout. What should be the predominant future uses in the area? Should the emphasis be on residential or non-residential uses in this area? To what degree should mixed use be encouraged? 3. Preservation of Existine uses The goals of the Transit Village Area Plan include: • Support for locally owned and minority businesses in the uea. • Affordable spaces for retail, office, and service industrial uses. Approximately 37% or 2 million sq. ft. of the Transit Village Area is zoned for general industrial use and about the same area is zoned for service industrial use~. Approximately 5% of the area is zoned for service commercial usesz. Some existing uses located in the service industrial zone are not essential for the convenience of residen[s and employees (e.g., distribution centers, auro dealerships) and could be located elsewhere or outside the community. However, there are not other places in the community in which to accommodate service industrial uses that are important to the community and some of these uses will continue to move outside of the community for ]ess expensive space. There are also a variety of locally owned businesses and minority owned businesses in the area today. As the area redevelops, the primazy challenge for these uses is the price of owning and/or renting space devoted to uses that tend to favor low cost, low maintenance and low density locations. In researching other communities, the most successful strategy has been to preserve these uses through zoning that restricts scale and use. Larger ci[ies, due to their larger land base, have more opportunity to do this. To the degree that some areas can be preserved for these uses or these uses can be accommodated in a mixed use environment, the options present some opportunities to house them. The potential strategies for preserving these usesinclude: • Retaining some general industrial, service industrial and service commercial zoning. The service industrial and service commercial zoning districts were designed to protect some areas for certain uses; by restricting [he uses, the land values can stay more affordable. Some of these uses, particulazly service ~ Service indus[rial uses are repair and service uses that serve residents and employees in the community. Sample uses include: au[o service and repair, animal hospitals and kennels, building wntractors and usociated equipment storage, car washes, commercial kitchens and catering services, pa~nt supply houses, rental establishments, appliance repa~r, landscaping contrac[ors. They typically cannot afford rents paid by office and reta~l uses and can be pushed out of the community if not protected m some way. They provide services to residents and employees that they might othe~vise need to drive outside the commumty to find. Z Service commercial uses include a wide range of retail and commercial uses including repair, service, and small manufacturing in low intensity one and [wo story buildings with primarily surface parking. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc A¢enda Item # SA Paee# 5 industrial, need large land areas and only really work by expanding horizontally and will not easily fit into a mixed use environment. Mixed use iiidustrial zoning provides the opponunity to incorporate some industrial uses. Steelyards is our best comparabie for what works on the lower density end; there are few prototypes for a more intense product that indudes "industrial" type uses. Uses such as roofing companies, offices, wholesaling, and fumi[ure making are the types of uses we could expect to see in a mixed use industrial zone. The regulatory challenge is defining the zoning to allow only those uses that won't cause property values [o skyrocket or be noxious neighbors while accommodating the needs for housing in the area. The city could explore business assistance loans and ather incentives to suppon certain types of businesses, encourage owners/developers to construct buildings that have lower development and operating costs, and which could derive acceptable investment returns from a lower rent base; or provide flexible spaces at below-market rates in conjunction with civic space such as Depot Plaza. The implementation of the TVAP will impact the market dynamics of the area and displacement of service commercial and industrial uses by higher value uses will be inevitable. The plan needs to consider where the trade-off makes sense and where it may no[. The best opportunity for preserving some of these uses in the area will include a combination of: a. Retaining some of the existing zoning where it makes sense, e.g. potentially keeping some service industrial and general industrial zoning east of the railroad tracks. It may also be appropriate to retain some of the service commercial zoning along Valmont. b. Zoning areas for lower intensity mixed use industrial. Are there existing uses that should be preserved? If so, where? 4. Overall character and scale The appropriate scale and chazacter of the area is tied to the predominant role of the area and the desired mix of uses. While the options each suggest different levels of intensity, it may be appropriate to provide a variety of scales based on what you wish to achieve in each quadrant and what uses you feel are appropriate. For example, all the options show the greatest level of intensity in the Pear] Street Cen[er given its adjacency to the transit improvements and relationship to Pearl Street, Twenty Nin[h Street and the Crossroads Commons Center. If there is a desire to preserve service industrial uses in some areas, this may suggest a lower intensity in other azeas. What should be the overall character and intensity of development? Should the area be predominantly 2-3 story or 3-5 story in character? Should this vary by location and, if so, where would you see the highest intensity uses being located? Lower intensity? S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc A¢enda Item # SA Paee# 6 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM is an integral component of each of the proposed options and represents the intention of integrating the land use and transportation components of the area plan. The TDM packages developed for each of the options provide for an alternative mode share of 40% (Current Trends) to 70% (Option 2). Comprehensive TDM programs exist for the Downtown area and the CU campus with well documented results and the TDM proposals for Options 1-3 exceed these programs. Staff plans to return with a TDM program tailored to the prefeired op[ion. Elements that influence travel behavior and the resulting expected altemative mode share include the existing travel behavior in the community, the addition of transit service, the mix and density of land uses, and the specific TDM programs. While some modification of the TDM programs is possible, it is critical to recognize the supportive synergy between these elements and the significance of managed parking. So while Eco Passes will produce some increase in transit ridership, Eco Passes combined with managed parking and pedestrian supportive design will produce a greater effect than any subset of elements. Managed parking accounts for a majority of the TDM effects in all options and is the key to the effectiveness of the other programs. Key components of the TDM programs common to the three planning options are: parking management including: o unbundled parking o shared parking o parking caps o active parking systems 0 on street meters . preferential parking for HOV • Eco Passes for ali residents and employees • Active promotion • "city bike" service • mandatory TMO membership . CarShare service • Smart community network Key Differences • Option 1 includes unbundled parking and managed/shared pazking for commercial properties. Option 2 and 3 include a comprehensive pazking distr.ct with variabie pricing. . Options 2 and 3 would have no pazking minimums and pazking maximums. • Options 2 and 3 include a location efficient mortgage program. Do you support the continued development of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to fit the preferred option? TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS AND PUBLIC SPACES Draft transportation connections principles and a description of the overall proposed connections plan, along with alignment alternatives and design concepts for Junction Place and Depot Plaza aze provided in Attachment A. Please refer to your green notebook, section 3f for the draft connection plan options. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc Asenda Item # SA Paee# 7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Staff and consultant provided an initial estimate of the overall costs and the estimated market development values associated with the three Options in ChaQter 4 Im~lementa[ion, in the Green Book. That prelimmary analysis concluded that the range of overall preliminary infrastructure and amenity costs were within a reasonable range to finance. The costs have been refined and the next step is to categorize the costs based on the four categories below: 1. City funded: items already approved in a TIP or CIP budget or other items typically paid for by the city. This migh[ also include other sources of funding such as the construction use tax collected in the area. 2. Area-wide: this includes trunk infrastructure improvements typically paid for by the master developer in a large master planned project implemented by an individual developer. In this case, the area plan will be developed by multiple property owners/developers and these costs will need to be equitably distributed amongst them based on benefit received. 3. LocaU In-Tract: These cost items including local streets, grading, landscaping and open space are of benefit to the individual development project and aze therefore typically born by the vertical developer. Many of these costs will not be included . In some cases, the costs of a paRicular improvement have been preliminarily determined to be partially of benefit to the adjacent propeRy owners and partially of benefit to the larger area and are therefore allocated between the two categories. This category also includes the city and RTD as property owners. 4. Other/Public investments: RTD will be making significant capital investments in the bus facility, the rail platform, parking and access paid for by FasTracks as well as the 7.8 federal CMAC grant. These items will be quantified as best as possible to show the level of outside investment that is being made to the Transit Village Area. All three options generate sufficient revenue to finance the area-wide costs under a variety of financing approaches. EPS will present additiona] financial information on the infrastructure and improvement costs and the allocation of those costs at the property owners meeting Monday October 9(ftom 430 - 6:30 at the Library Creek Conference Room). Planning Boazd will receive a follow-up memo next week which will include this m.ormation, a summary of the propeRy owners' meeting, and next steps for implementation including both the work of EPS and follow-up meetings with property owners. Based on a more detailed analysis of the preferred Option developed by Planning Boazd, the next step will be for EPS to develop a preliminary financing plan. AREA PLAN CONTENTS Draft area plan contents are provided in Attachment C. Do you have any comments on the draft area plan outline /contents? S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc Aeenda Item # SA Pa¢e# 8 NEXT STEPS The following are the anticipated steps in the process leading up to the Plan adoption hearings at the end of the year: • Receive input from the Transportation Advisory Board on the connections plan and TDM October 23. Forwazd Planning Board and TAB recommendations to Council and receive Council direction on these items October 30. If there area any areas of disagreement, cycle back to Planning Board and revise the adoption schedule. If Planning Board and Council agree on the land use plan, staff will develop a draft plan to be available to the public November 13. We will include: o A summary of projections of the preferred option and highlights of any key issues from the options assessment. o Refined connections plan to match the land use plan. o Refined parks and plaza concepts to match the land use plan. o An appropriate TDM approach to match the land use plan and TDM goals recommended by the Board o Streetscapes for 30`h, Pearl, and make any changes to Junction Place to match the land use plan. Hold the joint public hearing on the plan November 28. Approved By: ~ ~~/ ~ ('~.~ "~ ~/1 7 " ( ~ ^ ~ . ~ ,~ '.~ , Ruth McHeyser '~ ° Acting Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: A: Narrowing the Options, Connections Principles, Junction Place Alternatives and Preliminary Parks and Depot Plaza Design Concepts B: Summary of Public Input C: What Other Communities Have Done to Preserve Service Industrial Uses D: Draft Plan Contents/ Oufline S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVv1EMOS\tvap update 10.19.06.doc Aaenda Item # SA Paee# 9 ATTACHMENT A .. ~ The options are illustrated area-by-area on the next few pages. The area is divided into four quadrants (see map), with Goose Creek as the north-south dividing line and the rail- road tracks as the east-west dividing line between quadrants. This workbook is designed to assist the boards in providing direction on: 1. Land uses and development prototypes by quadrant. 2. Transportation connection plan. 3. Location of parks. 4. Design concepts for Depot Plaza. Transit Village Area Plan Options Summary Current Trends Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Charactcr 1-2 story buildings in a 13uildings ranging froiti 2-4 stories 3-5 stury buildings in a 3-5 story buildings in a and Scale car-oriented environment with most of the area containing pedestrian-orientecl pedestrian-oriented with surface parking lots 2-3 story buildings. PedesUian-ori- environment with short, environment with short, and long blocks ented environment with short, walkable blocks. walkable blocks. walkable blocks. Housing 300 -500 new dwcllings in 1,000 - 1,500 new dwellings in a 2,000 - 2,500 new dwellings 1,000 - 1,500 new dwellings mixed-use buildings above variety of housing types in primarily mixed-use in primarily mixed-use retail or industrial buildings buildings PermdnenNy 1G0 low/moderate income 335 low/moderate income units 600 lowlmoderate income 310 low/moderate income Affordable Housing units units units Other Uses Primarily general and Retail, office, service industrial, Primarily retail and office/light Primarily retail and office/ service industrial uses service commercial, and parks and industrial uses in buildings light industrial, along with civic spaces mixed with housing above, parks and civic spaces along with parks and civic spaces Employment 2,500 - 3,000 new jobs 1,500 - 2,000 new jobs 2,000 - 2,500 new jobs 5,500 - 6,000 new jobs Housing Creates demand for 1,500 Provides 140 more housing units Provides 940 more hous- Creates demand for 2,800 Demand new housing units in the than the demand created by new ing units than the demand new housing units in the regio~ jobs created by new jobs region October 2006 • ' ' ' ' 1 High Density ^ Resiclenlial 2 High Density Residential 2 High Density Residential 1 October 2006 Mlxed Uae 2 Mlzed lhe 1 ~ Olhce IndusMal . Hlqh Oensl1~ SeMca Resldentlal 2 Industrial .Induitrial Mbnd Indu~l'I M6csd , Medlum Denslhr HI9h D~raity 3ervice Use 2 Use 1 Re=~dentla~ ResideMlal 1 Commerefal Key Choices 1. Are there uses that should be preserved in this quadrant~ (see uses in CurrentTrends) 2. What do you see as the appropriate overall intensity/ character for this area or how should the intensity vary throughout the quadrant3 Options 1, 2, and 3 all show mixed use and residential as the predominant uses in this quadrant. Option 1 has primarily a 2-3 story character and Options 2 and 3 have primarily 3-5 story buildings. 3. Which areas should be residential~ North of Bluff Option 1 shows an area of inedium density residential. Should medium density residential be part of the residential mix in this quadrant and is this an appropriate location? Should the area close to the rail be mixed use or residential? Goose Creek All of the ~ptions show residential uses along Goose Creek. Which residential prototype is appropriate, HR1 or HR2? 4. Which areas should be mixed use? 30th Street Corridor Is MU1 or MU2 appropriate? Along the rail line south of Bluff Is MU1 or MU2 appropriate? North of Bluff, west of Junction Place Is mixed use appropriate here? October 2006 ' ~ 3 ., General Industrial Industrial O~ce Industrial O~ce Industrial Use 1 Mixecl Use Industrial 2 ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ...__.---~ - ~----, Residential 7 Residential 2 ~ Mixed Use 2 M6~ed Use 1 ~~ O~Ice Industrlal . Reg~deeinial3 Indu~rial .IndusUial AAi:ed Indusbial Mi~d , Medlum Denaly Hlqh DenslN Servi~ Use 2 Use 1 ReaideMlal RealdeMisl~l Cornmeraal 4 October 2006 Key Choices 1. Should General Industrial land use be preserved in this quadrant or should intensification and the addition of office uses be encouraged? 2. Should residential and mixed use industrial uses be located immediately north of Goose Creek? Option 1 shows a mix of inedium density residential, MU1, HR1, and Industrial Mixed Use 1 just north of Goose Creek. Option 2 shows HR2 and industrial Mixed Use 2. October 2006 . • ' ' ' ' . 5 ~.Y-----~. ~j' i . .,~r ~ -rr~.., High Density Residential 2 High vensity Residential 1 Mixed Uae 2 Mixed U:e 1 ~~ Qtflce Indushlal . Hlgh De~~ Servlce RealdeMial Induatrlal , Indus6lal Mlxed Induaalal Mboed . Medium Denaily Hqh Denaly- Servlce ~e Z ~ ~ Resldentlal RasldeMial i Commerclal 6 ~ Civic use, including tl~e RTD reglonal bus/ BRT statlon October 2006 Key Choices 1. Area there uses that should be preserved in this quadrant or should higher intensity mixed use development predominate? 2. Which areas should be residential? • Goose Creek Option 1 shows HR1, Option 2 shows HR2, and Option 3 shows MU2. Which is appropriate? ~ Junction Place Should the west side of Junction Place opposite the BRT station be primarily residential or mixed use? October 2006 . . • ' ' ' , ' . 7 . Service Industrial Residential 1 Industrial Mixed Use 1 Industrial Mixecl Use 2 General Industrial Industrial Mixed Use 1 Service Inclustrial Industrial Mixed Use 2 ~~ Of~ce Industrial Use 2 Office Industrial Mixed Uae 2 Mized Use 1 ~ Offlee Induatrial . Hlgh Densi~ 5erwce Rasi derttial ~2 Induatrlal .Industriel Mi:ed IiMustrial Mbced . Medium Densiy Hlgh Derolry Servlce Uae 2 Uae 1 ResideMlal RealdeMlal 1 Commercial g October 2006 Key Choices 1. Should service industrial uses be preserved in any area of this quadrant? 2. North of Pearl Should this area be primarily Industrial Mixed Use 1, Industrial Mixed Use 2, or a mix of uses including a residential neighborhood along Goose Creek as shown in Option 1? 3. South of Pearl Should this area be a mix of Industrial Mixed Use 2 and Office Industria) or should it be Office Industrial? Is Mixed Use 2 appropriate near the rail line? October 2006 . . • ' ' ' ' 9 ablish a fine-grained, multi-modal network of transportation connections that will: establish a pedestrian friendly environment; create safe and convenient access to transit; • establish a rich variety of safe and convenient connections to major activity centers and the rest of the community including 29th St., CU, Downtown, nearby neighborhoods and employment and industrial centers to the east; • support the goals of the Area Plan, Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan. The two connection plans for Options 1-3 woulcl transform the area into a walkable pedestrian-orientecl area with: • New roads at an approximate 400' grid, additional bicycle and pedestrian paths. • New traffic signals on Pearl, Valmont ancl Bluff to facilitate transit and traffic movement and provide safe pedestrian cross- ings and connections to the surrounding neighborhoods. •'J~mction Place' (32nd/33rd alignment) would become the 'spine' linking Pearl Street to Valmont. It would be designed as shared space, without curbs and allowing cars, buses, pedestrians and bikes to mix with a vehicle travel speed of 10 mph. • New bicycle and pedestrian links would be added, providing new connections to the regional network, including a new bicycle pedestrian path by Foothills, linking the neighborhood and employment areas north of Valmont and east of Foothills and south to the Boulder Creek Path near CU. • Alleys would be designed by property owners based on a requirecl pedestrian connection approximately every 200', which provide flexibility for owners and excellent bicycle and pedestrian access. • New underpasses. Different treatment of the intersection of 'Junction Place' and Bluff Street adjacent to the commuter rail platform. Options 2& 3 have a multi-modal bridge and road crossing over Goose Creek linking Wilderness Place to the 'Old area and a new traffic signal on Pearl. Options 2& 3 have additional multi-use paths and underpasses. Does the connections plan support the principles? From a community planning perspective, should Wilderness Place connect to Old Pearl? Should there be two multi-modal bridges over Goose Creek, (one east of the railroad tracks and one west of the tracks)? Are the additional underpasses and multi-use paths in Options 2& 3 critical to supporting the connections principles? ~ p . ~ . • ' ' ` . ' . October 2006 A shared street in a commercial area. This wooner/has a planted center median to separate lanes of traffic. takes advantage of er bridge over of Junction Place in this on finil design of BRT Junction place connects with 32nd Street to the south tion for street closure to enlarge plaza special events a space created between ~unction Place rail platform More of a"through-street" connection from Pearl Street to Varrnont More of a°circuitous" route from Pearl Street to Valmont bridge over Goose Creek Actual location of lunction Place in this area dependent on finaf design of BRT facility ment isolates the bus terminal from uses Junction place connects with 32nd Street to the south )unction Place Design Principles • Shared street with traffic calming measures/ devices • High quality materials - high quality public space • Strong building edge along street • Alignment follows existing ROW or property lines when possible • Alignment creates developable parcel sizes Key Questions • Do you agree with the design principles? • Do you have any comments on the design concepts? • Are both of these alignments consis- tent with the framework established in the "Bones"? October 2006 ~ • ' • ~ ' > > Alignment Alternatives for )unction Place Option for street closure to enlarge plaza for special events Plaza space created between Junction Place and rail platform Alternative 1 - Through Street Carnegie Branch Lrbrary for Local 1 fistory, Boulder 1 fistorical Socicty Colleclion Alternative 2 - Circuitous Street Planning for Parks and Public Spaces HOWARD HEUSTON PARK Nearby Parks, Greenways, and Recreation Facilities MAPLETON BALLFIELDS PARK Meeting Future Park Needs Most of the transit village area is outside of the service area of existing parks. This diagram illus- trates that park needs for the transit village area can be met through the provision of two pocket or plazas. city stand~rd for walking distance to a ket park, defined as smaller than 3 acres, is miles. The red line indicates a.25 mile king distance from two hypothetical public :es - one in the northern half of the area, the in the southern. ~ 2 October 2006 SCOTT CARPENTER Park Alternatives and Key Considerations Pocket Park Key Considerations • Parks should be located as close to planned housing as possible. Location along Goose Creek enhances access to potential parks. • Size of parks should be determined by anticipated use. At a minimum, any park should include a playground facility and opportunities for walking and sitting. • 1 acre park will allow for both active ancl passive play and may provide space for detention •.5 acre park will be used primarily for passive park and playground uses • Examples of 1 acre parks in Boulcler include: Holiday (not including detention area), Melody, and Smith • Examples of .5 acre or smaller parks in Boulder include: Canyon Point, Fitzpatrick, Fortune, and Knollwood East-Slfie Pdl'I( AItePlldtIVQS (all parks shown are approximately 1 acre in size) WeSt-SI(~e P'dl'~( A~teYllatlVeS (all parks shown are approximately 1 acre in size) • Do you agree with the key considerations? • Do you have any comments on the design concepts? • Does an east-side or west-side park make more sense? If an east-side park, which one? (West side parks are depend- ent on final alignment of Junction Place). October 2006 13 Smrth Park in West t3oulder Key Questions Example oFan urban playground Plaza and Depot Concepts Plaza Design Principles • Maximize views to the Flatirons from the plaza • Relocate the historic depot building to the plaza and activate with uses such as information center, bike rentals, cafe, etc. Align the depot with Bluff Street to maximize visibility. • Activate the civic plaza with adjacent commercial uses such as restaurant or cafe • Provide flexible space for a variety of uses including a"mercado," a farmer's market, and festivals • Include active art and water features, especially For children • Provide essential amenities such as bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles • Carefully design the train underpass/ overpass so that it does not negatively impact the plaza junction Place Through Street • Historic depot a"feature" in the plaza. Allows for building edge along train platform • Alignment of Junction Place creates a"deep- er" plaza • Train platforms coulcl be accessed through re-built open-air pavilion (originally part of the historic depot) Junction Place Through Street Alignment of Junction Place creates a"deep- er" and narrower plaza In this scenario, rebuilding the pavilion is not an option Junction Place Circuitous Street • Historic depot alignecl with center line of Bluff Street • Alignment of Junction Place creates a shal- lower plaza • Train platforms could be accessed through re-built open-air pavilion (originally part of the historic depot) Plaza Examples in Boulder Teahouse Plaza - .22 acres One Boulder Plaza (ice rink area) - .24 acres Courthouse Lawn - .65 acres CU UMC Fountain Plaza -.38 acres Key Questions • Do you agree with the design principles? • Do you have any commenis on the design concepts? • Are each of these plazas consistent with the framework established in the "Bones"? 14 October 2006 ATTACHMENT B WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC In General The city held 5 public outreach meetings from September 19 to October 4 to get input from the public and to provide information about the Transit Village Area Plan. In addition to the communiry meetings, there were some additional informal meetings: • Property Owners Meetings (Sept 13 and Oct 9) • Human Services Alliance (Sept I1) • Forum with Robert Ivy, Editor-in-chief ofArchitecn~ral Record, and architects from AIA and APOB (Oct 5) • Siena Club, Sprawl and Transportation Committee (Oct 12) • PLAN Boulder (Mid-November) Approximately 150 people attended these meetings with the greatest attendance occurring at the Oct.4th meeting which featured Hunter Lovins. On the positive side, for many it was their first exposure to the Area Plan and the proposed Options. The discussions were positive, constructive and informative for staff as well as participants. Some big ideas we heard: • We should design the Transit Village Area for a future that might be very different from today: we should provide a neighborhood that can be sustainable in the long run by providing excellent alternative travel modes for residents and employees as gasoline becomes unaffordable. • Boulder's greatest need in the transit village area is housing: affordable housing, accessible housing, work force housmg, and senior housing. Some like Option 2 because it provides the most housing; others prefer Option 1 at a scale of 2 to 3 stories because housing would be more affordable due to lower land and construction costs. • Another need in Boulder is for unconventional "hip" office and industrial space, including flex space that can morph and change over time. • Don't want to lose existing inexpensive art studio space, very important to artists who work there now. • Given the needs, the Transit Village Area is more likely to be a node or gateway or crossroads which serves a neighborhood and connects to other parts of Boulder as well as the region. It is not seen as a destination. (Twenty Ninth Street is the destination nearby) • Concern that higher density will result in greater impacts, and diminished public amenities and services for new residents compared to the quality of life experienced today. From the Questionnaire We received 123 questionnaires from the public, and the responses are summarized below and then by question. • Respondents favored Option 2(46 percent) compared to Option 1(29%) S:~PLAN\PB-ITEMS\MEMOS~9.28.06 TVAP Att B An_enda Item # SA Paee# B-1 •"Pedestrian/bicycle fnendly transportation options" was the most important element followed by "civic spaces & parks", "environmentally friendly bu~ldings". The lest important element was "retail opportunities" and the next least important was "high density housing" • There were 77 responses on Current Trends, and the prefened element was "One or two-story buildings with surface parking lots" (39%) • There were 245 responses on Option 1, and the preferred element was "new pedestrian/bicycle friendly street and path connections." (36%), followed by "diverse mix of housing types" (24%) and "space for a variety of businesses" (22%) • There were 284 responses on Option 2, and the preferred element was "new pedestrian/bicycle fnendly street and path connections" (32%), followed by "empioyment uses in mixed-use buildings" (21%) • There were 148 responses on Option 3, and the preferred element was "new pedestrian/bicycle friendly street and path connections" (53%) followed by "a diverse employment district- spaces for businesses and commercial uses" (26%) • More than half the respondents (58%) have lived in Boulder for more than 15 years. Detailed Responses to Questionnaire I. Which Option most resembles your ideal vision for the area? Cunent Trends 16% Option 1 29% Option 2 46% Option 3 8% Total 99% n=119 2. Rank the following elemenu in order of importance(1 most important, an:. 3.4 Pedestrian / bicycle friendly transportation options 4.4 Civic spaces & parks 4.5 Environmentally friendly buildings 4.8 Affordable housing 5.1 Variety of housing 5.3 Arts & culture 6.0 Employment center 6.1 Preservation of some existing service industrial and commercial uses 63 High density housing 63 Retail opportunities Other: • No three- to five-story buildings • Traff"ic control in the vicinity main streets, fine street grid least important): • No apartments • Hands off free market for housing • Bike/pedestrian improvements throughout other parts of Boulder • Affordable high rise retirement community • We are not New York • Please do not have bicycles share sidewalks with pedestrians - this does not work well at all S:~PLAN~PB-TI'EMS\MEMOS~9.28.06 TVAP Att B Ar_enda Item # SA Paee# B-2 • Reduce driving and total driving trips • Not too loud of trains • Library/ post office • Don't overcrowd the area • Least amount of car traffic generated • Safery, not have same population that hangs at the current bus stop, traffic friendly • No housing • Parking spaces for those riding train • Capture rain/snow before it becomes runoff • Accessible housing • Mixed use • Noise mitigation/ quiet zones in all of Boulder city limits • Energy independent • Walk to shopping • Underpasses What elements of the cunent trends option would like included in the final area plan? 26% Predominantly for service industrial, technical and manufacturing uses/ businesses 39% One or two-story buildings with surface parking lots 21 % No change to streeu-remain as they are today 14% Other: 100% n=77 Other: open space, no high rise, limited low-income housing (the fewer the better), bike/pedestrian improvemenu, fewer empty buses, underground parking, for those of us who already live there - do not have outsiders parking at our homes, allow current businesses to continue, some service industrial, keep service/indusuial south of Pearl, interlink streets north- south and east-west, not a great place to reside/ thus affordable, maintain and intensify service industrial, tech. and manufacturing 4. Are there elements of option 1-"Junction Village" that you would like included in the final area plan? 15% Primarily two- to three story buildings 24% Diverse mix of housing types 36% New pedestrian/bicycle friendiy street and ~ath connections 22% Space for a variety of businesses 5% Other: 100% n=245 Other: underground parking, pool, wireless internet, mixed-use buildings, small intimate parks, parking for buses and rail, one- to two-story buildings, affordable high rise retirement community, fewer empty buses, for those of us who already live there - do not have outsiders parking at our homes, the low-income housing village feel - but with civic and art center, location of housing to greenway, "neighborliness", no change to area between brewery and Goose Creek, service/industrial area as marked S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS\MEMOS~9.28.06 TVAP Att B Aeenda Item # SA Paee# B-3 5. Are there elements of opUon 2-"Junction Center" that you would like included in the final area plan? 16% A new urban center-with abundant, higher-density housmg 12% Three to five story bwldings 21% Employment uses in mixed-use buildings 32% New pedestrian/bicycle friendly street and path connections 12% Largest amount of new housing 7% Other. 100% n=284 Other: underground parking, affordable housing, gym, 33rd Street goes straight to Valmont, parking only, fewer empty buses, parking structures, for those of us who already live there - do not have outsiders parking at our homes, Boulder needs a civic and art center, but with two- to three-story buildings, larger depot plaza than Option 1, accessible housing, more mixed densiry, high dens~ty near creek, diversity, live work/reduce need to transport, some civic/cultural buildings, sustainability greater focus on design, managed and lots of parking, one- to two-story buildings, taller buildings five to seven-story. 6. Are there elemenu of Option 3-"Junction Place" that you wouid like included in the final area plan? 26% A d~verse employment district-spaces for businesses and commercial uses 14% Three to five-story buildings 53% New pedestrian/bicycle friendly street and path connections 7% Other: 100% n=148 Other: underground parking, health club, workout facility, Industrial Mixed-Use 2, parking, fewer empty buses, for those of us who already live there - do not have outsiders parking at our homes, I want more jobs, but the examples of the taller buildings were ugly, Option 3 is too heavy on business/industrial, make blue area smaller, keep service/commercial on Valmont, school connections 7. How long have you lived in Boulder? 4% 1 year 19% 2-5 years ll% 6-10 6% 11-15 13% 16-20 12% 21-29 33% 30+years If you do not ]ive in Boulder, where do you live? No answers S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS\MEMOSU.28.06 TVAP Att B Aaenda Item # SA Pase# B-0 Additional Comments • Option 1 is too much like existing neighborhood • Option 3 is too corporate, less community • It is imperative not to negatively impact traffic along the Arapahoe corridor. May need to create elevated exchange at Foothills • No three- to five-story buildings • Did anyone think about noise? Train whistle/housmg? • Parking for light rail, buses, bicycle and old Depot • Transit means parkmg for cars, no more cheap housing in this area • Don't like high buildings in front of mountains • I moved to Boulder so I could live in a small mountain community • I want to be able to see the mountains wherever l drive • If Boulder grows too big and suburban, my family will move away • If the plan requires three- to five-story buildiRgs, I could l~ve with it, but not happily. • Please look at Boulder's plans in the 1970's for connecting the 28'~'/Arapahoe/Pear/30°i azeas to make this area mostly pedestrian by having parking on edges. Busing people around on small conveyances to the various businesses - this is a good time to implement those earlier forward thinking ideas. • In favor of pedestrian/bicycie friendly transportation options • Keep in mind that the rail station will serve all of Boulder and those of us who have to pass through there on our way home hope there will be easy ingress and egress from the transit station. I live in Table Mesa, for example, and hope there is careful thought given to easy connections by bus/bicycle from the transit station to my neighborhood. • Boulder does not need any more housing or development which will increase traffic and people congestion! I've lived here long enough to see it grow too large, have traffic problems like LA, and just generally not be the same nice town it used to be. . A Boulder pedestrian is treated as "hurry up and get out of my way (by the car driver)"- honor the pedestrian, a bus load of people is treated as "got to get azound that bus because it is in my way (by the car driver)" - in Scotland the bus has priority over the car. • Pd like to see the city offices moved from Broadway and Canyon location to a new civic center located where either of the trailer parks are now located (north of Mapleton and 26~' or north east of Valmont and 28'~) - both trailer parks need moved out of the new core area. • Why do we need a village? Why not just a vaiq bus, parkmg station? I think you are trying to do too much. • On Transit Village Area Drafr Connections Framework - I wish it would include a bike path that connects the north side of Valmont to the T'VA - there is a newly completed bike path that goes under the Foothills Parkway about'h mile north of Valmont that would be good to connect directly to the transit depot. • Would like to see underground parking versus surface parking lots. Minimum building heights, especially along Goose Creek. The proposed plan shows high density residential along the creek, and I would prefer as much open space as possible along the creek with medium density residential along the sides. • We need to give ample attention to the public features of the plan, including streetscapes, public plazas, Gooses Creek greenways, sidewalks, parks, etc. Boulder does a really good job on this generally and that respect for community design should be carried over into the Transit Village area. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSIMEMOSV.28.06 7'VAP Att B An_enda Item # SA PaQe# B-5 • Whichever optwns we choose will result m a lot of opportunity for developers and land owners. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that we don't load the area up with just pnvate buildings but also public people places. That includes Depot Square, which has the potenttal for being a delightful gathering place, and some form of public plaza at the northeast corner of 30th and Pearl streeu on the City-owned land. • As usual, David Biek comes up with imagmative concepts. I particularly like his idea for a straight street connecting Pearl Street at the RTD BRT station and the RTD rail depot. I trust you and the staff will give consideration to David's ideas. • I hope you'll get up with Gwen Dooley soon about scheduling a presentat~on at a PLAN-Bouider County forum in November • I'd have prefened it if the ones doing all this input could be proven to be city of Boulder or Boulder County citizens. However, you may know more about reasons that you don't do that. I have no car. We all need much fewer of them. I want (and have thus indicated to Chamber of Commerce for years) shuttles into Boulder from other towns - almost zero cars. As a pedestrian, one of the most difficult options in Boulder are walk lighu - they are too short and are ignored by drivers. Hotel St. Julien has drivers who park on sidewalks - I call the police whenever possible. To approach chosen destinations, I walk grueling miles through parking lots. • In regards to housing and transit, especially trains, has :.7yone considered the noise generated by trains~ My wife and I live about one mile from the tracks and crossings and we hear (loudly) the noise of the Vains, especially blowing of their whistles, several times a night, at all hours. The trains blow their whisUes as they pass several crossings in the neighborhood. So has this been considered when you plan for housing even closer to the tracks? How is the housing going to be marketed with this noise? Are we going to create substandard living~ Are we creating housing that won't sell except below market prices? • Please no buildings higher than two, or at a ma~c three, stories. We purchased our house for the views of the Flat Irons and would not want to see our views and our neighbors views blocked by high buildings in our sight lines. In addition, higher housing is out of place in the neighborhood. • Most opposed to high density development, such as the Holiday development. IYs an opporiunity to do some planned development and create a park like setting as some of the heavier industrial moves out • Thank you for coming to the HSA meeting in September to talk about the Transit Village Plan. The HSA voted to support Option 2 in the plan because it provides the most affordable and hopefully accessible housing of all the plans. As you know, the non-profit community is highly interested in having truly affordable housing available for our employees and consumers. Option 2 best meets that objective and the HSA strongly supports the final plan being Option 2. Additionaliy, the Board of Directors of the Center for People With Disabilities (CPWD), at its September 27th meeting, voted unanimously to support Option 2 of the Transit Village Plan. The Board cited the need for affordable, accessible housing as its primary reason for supporting this option. Our consumers are extremely low income and need permanently affordable housing to continue living in our community. The center is more than willing to work with the City and with developers to implement Option 2 and to include as much accessible/visitable housing as is possible. As our population ages, we need to build more housing that people can "age out" in, that is, as people become more disabled their housing needs to be easily and inexpensively adaptable to meet their needs as they age. Option 2 also will offer more housing opportunities for our employees to live in Boulder, where they work. I provided my individual input on the website. Thank you for the opportuniry to provide additional information regarding HSA and CPWD support for Option 2. S:~PLAN\PB-ITEMS\MEMOSV.2S.061'VAP Att B Aeenda Item # SA Paee# B-6 • I like the idea of an eco-industrial area m the transit village area. We need to be able to afford to live where we work. • I ~ust filled out the transit village survey on the city web site. 1 found the various projecu each to have their own merits, and the illustratwns to be helpful, though matched possible with the wrong plans. I write because the check off boxes seemed overly constrained, and the 'bther " box seemed to be limited to ten words. I would simply comment about Mr. Wolfs and others opmion that Option ] is most consistent with the scale of Boulder that we all know and ]ove. I agree that looking to the past for precedent is more reliable than novelty, and that old urbanism uumps modern suburban planning most days. But the future may not be simply an extrapolation of the past; particularly when we limit past precedent to only quaint Boulder models. If the future horizon is moved out ZO to 50 years, higher density past precedenu come to mind. Equally quaint but more appropriately scaled densities for rail transit are the station squares and surrounding districts of Forest Hills Gardens, or Hampstead Garden Suburb for example. Regardmg the illustrations: usmg Boulder One as an example of higher dens~ty housing is loaded. I do approve of the density. However, the implied gentrification, - ~ormatrve housing and a streetscape designed within an inch of its life may not entirely be what we want. The industrial loft building used to illusuate the "employment option" , in my mind, can also be housing. Then a more exciting, accidental, and less "planned" urban life of SoHo in NYC, south of Market in SF, or LoDo, Denver might emerge. Finally, David Biek's concept for a sueet fronting the tracks can work. As rail commuter, I had spent years gazing at the passing back yards of businesses and residences. But as the trains slowed to the station stops, the orientation reversed and the vista widened to lively frontage streeu and station squares. I agree with Chris Shear's concern about block thickness, however , so the diagonal connecting to the BRT should not be closer than around 200 feet from the adjacent 31sb32nd street. • I like the Citizen's plan with the following commenu: A) I like the street in front of the station to be the commercial, office, restaurant etc. This would be more likely to be the "heart" of the neighborhood. 33rd St would be dull for a very long time because the back walls of the Steel Yard front ~t. More zoning along the Station front stage for this commercial activity should occur. B) I like the continuation of Pearl St into Old Pearl St and zone Old Pearl for commercial, etc uses. It could become a great wing of the heart of the neighborhood. C) There ought to be zoning for residential to face Goose Cxeek. This seems like a no -brainer inclusion. D) I feel strongly that the high high-voltage wires along Goose Geek shouid be undergrounded Costly, I know, but I think essential for residential along Goose Creek. I am interested in joining your meeting with Fenno and David. Please let me know when it happens. • I filled out my survey but wanted to add a few thoughts. I am e~ctremely concerned about the higher density housing options and am concerned that density and sustainability/environmental sustainability are being conflated in a way that makes no sense. The higher the density, the greater the impact in many ways - for example in terms of water in times of drought, school space, park land, trail use - you name it. If the higher intensity options are chosen, the PB and CC need to directly consider how the community services and amenities required will be paid for. 1'his is serious as they've shown no inclination to look comprehensively at services and amenities as they've approved dense developmenu; for e~cample and speaking mostly from a parks perspective, the very isolated Peleton w/ no provision for parks or open space and no school for miles, the dense and homely Uptown Broadway back units and the pathetic lack of funding for the small park in the Holiday Neighborhood, the small drainage outlots that are supposed to serve as parkland for the new Kalmia units... Hunter Lovin's statement about the need to figure out the character of the place we want is true. It isn't only about being green or being dense or building a good altemate S:~PLAIV~PB-ITEMS\MEMOS~9.28.06 TVAP Att B AQenda Item # SA Pase# ~7 transportation system - It's about all those thmgs and addtng a positive new neighborhood to Boulder that provides a quality of life for those who will live and work and shop there that is at least equivalent to the quality of life we enjoy today. Upping the density, above the Steelyards say, will make that a difficult goal to achieve barnng a substantial public investment and may diminish the quality of life for those already here. On another note, it's probably worth considering the non-auto connections to 29°i Street as a part of the plan and the relationship between the two actrvity centers. The realiry may be that while housing and employment may be an easy sell, it may be very difficult to build much of a retail center in the Transit Village proper. Perhaps there could be a center for environmental non-profits like ReSource 2000 and the BECC or space for Intercambio for example if we intend to continue to encourage Hispanic area businesses. My poi~t is that we may need to be creative as we seek to enliven the new streets. Enough for now and GOOD JOB! Such a lot of thoughtful work. S:~PLAIV~PB-ITEMS\MEMOS\9.28.061'VAP Att B Aeenda Item # SA Pase# B~ ATTACHMENT C Approaches to Retaining Service Industrial and Similar Uses in Other Cities Vancouver Vancouver has recognized the need for service industrial uses within the city and has formulated special zoning districts that strictly regulate the types of uses allowed to try and prevent incompatible uses while allowing for enough flexibility that some of the edgier urban uses like artist spaces can still use these lower rent areas. Vancouver regularly updates the zoning districts to tweak the uses with an eye to excluding those uses that will drive rents higher than practical for the more land intensive service industrial uses. Portland Portland still has enough land within [he city that such uses have simply migrated to these azeas as they get priced out of more desirable redevelopment areas. Additionally they allow these uses in enough zones neaz residential areas that residents generally don't have to go too far from their homes to have these needs met. Those uses that have been able to remain have generally reaped the financial benefit of decreased competition and remain successful in some of the [rendy post industrial neighborhoods in Portland. San Francisco San Francisco has implemented a zoning category of PDR (Production, Distribution, and Repair) to protect light industrial users and prevent encroachment from residential and other high value uses. They provide areas where light industrial uses are permitted but residential and heavy industrial uses aze not. The zoning restricts large box retail, large office buildings, and housing and regulates the demolition of sound industrial buildings. Uses allowed besides light industrial are warehousing, distribution, small offices, start-up spaces, and accessory uses. As buffers between uses, San Francisco has also included certain industrial parcels adjacent to residential and industrial uses that disallow heavy manufacturing uses as well as new residential development to help define and maintain the edge. Sausalito Sausalito looked at mandating residential uses above ground floor commercial or industrial and failed to do so due to basic incompatibili,ty of uses. They determined the best approach was to provide incentives such as shazed pazking for such uses rather than require them. They also looked at live-work with the same idea, and decided to allow, but not require. Lakewood (Belmar) Continuum Partners subsidized the construction of space on the back side of a parking garage and then charges the building tenants utilities and operating costs for which they about break even. The next largest cost is management, which in this case Continuum handed over to Working With Artists to be the property managers and deal with the tenants and choose which tenants would occupy the spaces. SdPLAN~PB-ITEMSIMEMOSITVAP uodate 1.19 ATT C.doc AQ¢~Id8 ItEm # SA Paee# C-1 ATTACHMENT D Transit Village Area Plan Contents and Format Draft 10/06 Contents Introduction • Purpose of the plan and why it was done • Plan goals and objectives Vision Statement Key Issues and Recommendations • Urban design diagram/ the Bones • Description of recommended role of the area( predominant land uses and character • Sustainability recommendations: environmental, social, economic o Strategies to make the area welcoming to all o Strategies to promote green building/ site planning o Strategies to preserve service industrial/ service commercial uses o Strategies for providing/ preserving affordable retail space • Parks and Civic spaces • Depot relocation • Other? Physical Plan for the area Plan graphic that illustrates the desired future of the azea. Includes: • Land use and development character: chazacter districts/ neighborhoods and the location and mixture of uses within each district street and path network location of public pazks and open space. street character sketches or cross-sections for key streets and/ ot prototypical streets. Transportation Connections Plan for auto, bike, pedestrian and transit. Includes location of streets, on and off-street Qaths, underpasses, transit connections and transit stops. Development Character Photos and/ or character sketches and design guidelines for development in different character districts/ neighborhoods outlined on the physical plan Implementation Plan Plan for implementing the plan: who will do what by when to implement the plan. Includes: • Comp plan Land use changes • New zoning districts and zoning changes • Recommended regulatory changes (parking, open space, etc) • Plan for financing/ installing public improvements • TDM Plan C:~DOCUME-I~a11em1~1.OCALS-1\Temn~lrea Plan Contents.doc _A~endB Item # 5A Pa¢e# D-1 • Plan for mitigatin~ impacts, if needed • Phasing plan • Plan for addressing targeted goals (e.g., affordable retail, preserving service indusmal, affordable housing) Background Information • Relationship of the area plan to comp plan, depaRmental master plans, CIP, development review • Summary of public process • Summary of opportunities and constraints in the area • Existing data: mix and location of land uses, pop and employment in relation to the rest of the city • Projected future growth and summary of cosd benefit analysis Format Web-based Hard copy: • Poster of physical plan (illustrative), connections plan, and character sketches/ guidelines and vision statement • Bound document containing Action Plan and Background information C:~DOCUI~-1~a11em1U,OCALS-1\TemoWrea Plan Contents'.doc A¢ende It¢m #$A Paee# D•2 Central Records Addendum Materials for the October 19, 2006 Planning Board Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Plannine & Development Services Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager Louise Grauer, Co-project Manager RE: Agenda Item: Transit Village Area Plan October 19, 2006 DATE: October 13, 2006 The purpose of this memorandum is to update Planning Board and the Transportation Advisory Board on the work to date on the Implementation Plan. It includes the following: 1. Proposed components and timing 2. Preliminary analysis of financial feasibility (Attachment A) 3. Information about discussions with area property owners Also included as Attachment B is a plan developed by David Biek and Fenno Hoffman for the Transit Village Area. This plan focuses on urban design and builds on the work on the options. Staff will be meeting with David and Fenno prior to the Planning Boazd meeting and will e-mail the board a summary of that meeting before next week's meeting. The preliminary analysis of financial feasibility by EPS, the implementation consultant, indicates that the costs for public improvements aze reasonabie based on the level of development and that there are a range of feasible financing alternatives to cover the costs. EPS is continuing to work with staff to refine the preliminary costs and benefits of the improvements and the phasing of deve-opment, but cannot proceed with more detailed wark until the city selects a preferred option. In addition, in the Green Notebook, on page 4-3, under Recommended Policv and Re~ulatory ChanQes, the concept of a density bonus for additional community benefits such as affordable housing or environmental enhancements was introduced. If Planning Board and City Council would like to pursue the concept of a density bonus, EPS will ir.clude analysis of the financial implications and feasibility of a density bonus in their work on financial feasibility. The questions for Planning Board on the Implementation Plan are: Do you have any comments on the preliminary outline and proposed next steps for the Implementation Plan? ~ Do you want to pursue the feasibiliry of a density bonus for affordable housing or environmental enhancements? S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvIEMOSUg10-19addmem.doc Aeenda Item # 5A Paee# 1 COMPONENTS AND SCHEDULE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The l~st below indicates the components of the implementation plan [hat will be included in the proposed Transit Village Area Plan and the components that will come later. Implementation plan - components that will be included in area plan 1. Phasing plan: estimated development phasing and associated public improvement revenues and costs by quadrant 2. Financing plan: Preliminary options for financing public improvements, analysis of pros and cons of the financmg options 3. Proposed comprehensive plan land use changes 4. Proposed zone dismcts and identification of any land use code changes 5. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan: TDM goal and svategies, process to develop detailed components including parking management 6. Strategies to meeting other community goals, e.g. service industrial Implementation plan - components that will be developed followine plan adoDtion (2007) 1. Financing plan: detailed plan for phasing and financing, selection of financing mechanism(s), implementation of financing mechanism(s) 2. Comprehensive plan land use changes 3. Code changes: changes to zone districts as needed including density bonuses 4. City initiated rezoning 5. TDM plan: details of TDM package, parking component, financing mechanism(s) PRELIMINARY COST ALLOCATION AND PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The EPS analysis induded in AttachmentA includes an illustrative example of preliminazy costs of infrastructure and improvements, how they could be allocated based on who benefits, and a preliminary evaluation of financial feasibility. This initial analysis was presented to the property owners at the October 9 meeting with the caveat that staff and EPS will be refining the costs with more detailed information and revising the cost allocations prior to the next meeting with property owners. The preliminary calculations show an initial financing lag, which will be addressed in the next level of financial analysis to occur once we select the preferred option and identify a phasing plan for future redevelopment. It is important to note that the column called "In-Tract," which includes items traditionally associated with the development of a parcel, also includes both RTD and the city as property owners of the 11-acre parcel at Peazl and 30`" Street. RTD has a$7.8 million grant for master planning the 11-acre parcel, si[e planning the 3-acre RTD pazcel, and phase I construction of their regional bus facility. The city will be working with RTD to determine their fair share of infrastructure improvements adjacent to the RTD property. Other public revenue sources that may be considered for capital improvements in this area include the city's Capital Improvements Program, the regional Transportation Improvement Program, and tvices collected in the area such as construction use taaces and selected portions of the development excise taxes. S:~PLAN~PB-I1'EMS~MEMOSUg10-19addmem.doc Aeendaltem# SA Paee# 2 PROCESS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS Staff and the implementation consultant have been working with property owners on the Area Plan and the Implementation Plan including the potential financing of infrastructure and improvements. Some property owners are interested in redevelopment of their property, some own businesses and want to continue to run their businesses, and others lease their properties and would like to continue to do so. Meeting invitations have been mailed to all property owners in the area at least [hree times since May 2006 and once property owners come to a meeting and give us their e-mail address staff can communicate with them more direc[ly via e-mail. Staff has held meetings with property owners on the following dates: May 18, August 22, Sep[ember 13, and October 9, 2006. Additional meetings will be scheduled in late October and November to review and provide input on a preliminary phasing plan, the EPS work as it evolves, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and the final recommendations to be included in the Implementation Plan. More detailed information about the upcoming schedule is included below. Approximately 15 property owners attended the October 9 meeting, including 4 owners who have not previously attended any meeting on the Transit Village Area Plan. Dan Guimond, EPS, reviewed their preliminazy work on costs and the allocation of costs (included in Attachment A), and reiterated that this information will be continually refined by staff and reviewed by property owners. Once a preferred option for the area is selected, EPS will conduct more detailed analysis of potential financing mechanisms and acrive at a variety of financing approaches to be considered by propeRy owners and Planning Board, TAB, and City Council. Staff and the consultant will continue in a process with the property owners until a feasible and reasonable approach to funding the costs of needed infrastructure and improvements has been " determined and this process will continue into 2007. Property owners need to know the zoning and corresponding entitlements on their property before they can become comfortable with any financing proposal. Approved By: ~ . ~~ ~ - ~~' ~ ~'~• ~~_ ~, -r _ ~ ! ~'1~~ ;(~ t~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~_~.tuet'i~N1~Heyser Acting~lanning Director ATTACHMENTS: A. EPS, Draft Preliminary Costs and Illustrative Allocation of Costs B. Plan from David Biek and Fenno Hoffman S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvIEMOSUg10-19addmem.doc Aaenda Item # 5A Paee# 3 ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM rr~ r'r'~~) Economic &, Planning Systems Rea Esmte tmnamss Rep~onN Econom~6 Publfc Flnm~ L~ Use Pa(~cy To: Louise Grauer; City of Boulder From: Dan Guimond & Josh Birks; Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Bouider TVA Implementarion Plan; EPS #16832 Date: October 5, 2006 PRELIMINARY COST ALLOCATION EPS has categorized the preliminary capital facilrties cost estimates identified by City staff for the Boulder Transit Village Area (TVA) into four categories, as shown in Table 1 and described below. City Funded - These rtems include items already committed from City sources including the CIP and TIP as well as other items typically paid for by the City. Many of these costs may be funded through development excise tax (DEI) collections originating within the TVA. Area-Wide - These items include the trunk infrastructure improvements typicallv paid far by the master developer in a large master planned project implemented by an individual developer. In this case, the TVA will be developed by multiple property owners/ developers and these costs wIll need to be equitably distributed based on benefit using one or more financing mechanisms. Local/In-Tract - These cost items including local ~treets, grading, and landscaping are of benefit to the individual development project and are therefore typically bome by the vertical developer. Most of these cost items aze not included in the City's cost estimates and are therefore not shown. In some cases, the costs of a particular improvemern have been preliminarily estimated to be partially of benefit to the adjacent property owners and partially of benefit to the larger area and aze therefore allocated between the two categories. • Other Public Investments - RTD will be making significant capital investments in the transit center, bus and rail starions, platforms, parking and access through the FasTracks program, as well as a$7.8 million CMAQ grant. There may be other public investments identified as the plan is refined. Although these items are not all DEXVER BEXNELEY SI1Cq4MEHT0 v1o C ~ :~„v, e,~ ~, . , ~ ~~ ;, , _ ~ _ ~- .,.,..... . ytr _ „ , .n , , „_,:~~,,. :4: : \ ~ "1 .)..:CC . ~.:A -'I' >P I:v ... ~~1.)-Yiiii ~.e . ~ I.-._' A .lT ~`f._..< .. i AAen(lalfem#__st Pa9e#~. Octobcr ~, 2006 Pagc 2 currently shown, they will be quantified to show the level of outside investment that is being made in the TVA. Table 1 Summary of Preliminary Capital Improvements Boulder NA Implementation Plan Other Public Improvement Total Cost City Area Wide' In-Tract = Investments Street Improvements PnmarySVeets $3,335,351 $0 51,667,675 $1,667,675 y0 SecontlarySVeets $4,761,364 30 $516,090 $4,245,274 SO UpgradetoSeco'WarySVaets 838459 ~ ~0 838459 ~0 Subtotal 58,935,~73 SO 52,183,165 56,751,406 SO Bike/Pedestrian Improvements Bike Improvements $316,438 $1,529 $314,909 $0 $0 Pedestrian Improvements 771 450 771 450 ~0 ~0 ~ Subtotal 57,OB7,887 5772,979 5314,909 SO SO Other Transportatian Improvements Treffc Sig~als $720,000 $72,000 $648,000 $0 $0 Pedeshmn Connections' $9,170,000 $7,140,000 $0 $30,000 $2,000,000 Vehicle Connections $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 50 $0 Miscellaneouslmprovemenls 936522 ~0 25 34,131 70$ 2,392 ~0 Subtotal 514,326,522 57,212,000 54,382,131 5732,392 SZ,000,000 Sireet ROW Acquisition Costs' Parks & Recreation Property Acquisition - Neighborhood Park (1 Acre) $1,300,000 $900,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 Property Acquisition - Depot Square $650,000 $162,500 $162,500 $162,500 $162,500 Development Costs - Neghborhaod Park (1 Acre) $600,000 $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 Development Costs - Depat Square 650 000 162 500 162 500 162 5 16S 2.SW Subtotal S3,200,000 51,526,000 Sg76,000 5676,000 5325,000 Utilties Property Acquisition - Water ~uality Open Space 51,000,000 50 E1.000,000 $0 $0 Stormwater Area-Wide Improvemants 2 400 000 ~0 $2.400.000 ~0 ~0 Subtotal 53,400,000 SO 2~,400,000 SO SO Fire (assume 20 k) FacilR~es 60$ O.OW ~0 SGW.000 ~0 ~0 Subtotal 5800,000 SO SfiU0,000 SO SO Total Capital Costs 531,549,563 59.509,979 S11.555,804 58,'168,800 52.325,000 PercenbgeotTOialTransportabonlmpmvemenm t009F 3p95 37% 2896 7% NOTE Cosh are eshmalm basetl on Ne pmposeE tlwebprtrM prog2m, coas apply to all Mree OevNOpment scenanos ' Area-vuCe msta mkutle rtanz Mrt w91 enaCle Ne redevebpmen[ of parcels wrthm Me NA; Mese easts wll be aplrt ecross a0 or a group of praperly ovmars, Ma City M BouYJer antl RTO ere pmpetty wmsa m tha area an0 wll Dear a proporOwul s~aro N Ne coctc ~ In-haC[ cosb inclutle items baEibonally acsoaetetl wM dm~ebpmeM ot a parcel, the w9 ~o a cpac~fic property avmer wll tlapeM on Me parcal s¢e and atl~acency ro straels/amenrty, properly v.xiem mclude fhe Gty d Boultler antl RTD ° Inclutles Me underpass a[ 30th Sheet Wikh is atretly hnded Nmugh TIP ' Coc[ ro be defertnined, a large poroon d Me ROW vnll likely be dedcatetl by propxry amers at tne bme M rctleveb0~k ~ly Mose parcol bosing all abilrty to retle+elop v.~ll neetl b be acquiretl tlrtectly Source CM1y M Boukeq Emnomc 8 Plannmg Systems N~t M]aBa~w rvA ~nemwee~hVts~x.cnrirmntowoev4~n Agetl~ riem # ~~_Page# _~_. October S, 2006 Pngc 3 The $31.5 miilion in ident~fied costs are tentatively planned to be paid for as follows: •$9.5 million or 30 percent from City funding sources. •$11.6 million or 37 percent by the affected property owners at large from an area wide funding program. •$8.2 million or 26 percent to be paid for by the vertical developer as in-tract costs. •$2.3 mill~on or 7 percent to be paid for by outside sources, prunarily RTD. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL FEASIBILTTY As a preli[nuiary evaluation of financial feasibility, EPS applied a 30.OW mill ad valorem tax to the three land use alternatives. EPS is not recommending a 30.000 mill property tax as the best funding mechanism at this point in time. However, based on our experience with a number of redevelopment projects in the Denver metro area, this level of additional tax burden has proven to be supportable in the market providing a level of additional land secured fmancing. The results of the analysis show that the estimated area-wide costs are relarively in line with this level of funding as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated Finance Proceeds BoulderTVA Impfementation Plan Land Use Alternatives Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Property Tax Revenue Calculation MarketValue~vear25)' $555,793,750 $834,127,500 $586,151,700 Assessed Value (vear zs~' $69,281,676 $94,586,467 $58,654,348 Milt Levy 30.000 30.000 30.000 Annual Property Tax Revenue ~vear 25)' 2,078,450 2,988,353 2,748,938 Total Property Tax Revenue (vear i to 25)' 29,858,287 33,986,767 30,664,089 Estimated Net Construction Proceeds 2 Number of Bontls Issued Year of Initial Issuance Estimated Capital Improvement Expenditures 8ond Proceeds Balance Initial Gap between Bond Proceeds and Ezpenditures Max. Gap belween Bond Proceeds and Expend'Rures $12,100,000 $12,230,000 $12,020,000 3 3 3 Year7 Year7 YearB $71,555,804 $11,555,804 $11,555,804 $544,196 $674,196 $464,196 (53,033.088) i53,033.088) (53,033,088) iS3,033A88) (53,033.088) (S3,687,266) ' Presented in Constant Dollars 2 Rounded to the nearest ten thousantl. Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems H \16832-BOUMerNA ImpementnhonVAOaeISV~6832-Finto0ao6 tls~BOna Sumrivry Agenda ttem #_ Slfi Pege M~_ Odo6er 5, 2006 Page ~ All three scenarios generate sufficient revenue under a 30.000 mill levy to fund the construction of $11.6 miilion in area-wide capital improvements. The revenue generated by the mill levy supports three bond tranches occurring during the estimated 25 year absorption period. The 30.000 mill levy could support additional bond issuances but are not needed at this time to fun the area-wide infrastructure costs. All three land use options generate approximately $12.0 million in net proceeds for construction The bonds are issued over the 25 year estimated absorptron period. The preliminary calculation shows an initial financing lag that will need to be addressed at the next level of financmg analysis. Each option cannot support a bond issuance prior to Year 7(Year 8 in the case of Option 3). The tnning gap is created by the need for upfront infrastructure investments and the lag in the property tax revenue stream generated by new development. Property tax revenue lags construction of units by approximately 2 years, due to assessment schedules and payment in arrears. Therefore, the construction occurring in Year 2 dces not generate revenue until Year 4. The timing gap creates an initial shortfall m capital improvement cash of $3.0 million for all three options and a maximum cash gap up to $3.6 million for Option 3. The next level of financial refinement will faus on the selected land use alternative. NEXT STEPS The allocation of costs by benefit will allow EPS to take the next steps in developing a financially and politically feasible implementation program for the preferred land use development option for the TVA. These steps are: • Continuing to work with staff to identify and refine the capital infrastructure needs, cost estimates, and financing responsibilities. • Refining the required riming and phasing of these capital investments based on estimated development absorption. • Testing altemarive financing approaches for equitably distributing the area-wide costs based on benefits received. • Addressing property and site specific issues rega*ding development plans, right of way (ROW) agreements, and zoning and entitlements. There are some additional cost items that will also need to be added to the preliminazy capital improvement program shown including the following: Property and ROW acquisirion costs - A significant portion of the road ROW needs can be acquired at no cost from the adjacent property owner in exchange for the benefits from the street and transit improvements and rezoning to higher value uses. Where a lazge ROW requirement renders a property undevelopable or otherwise creates a definable taking, the fair market value of the acquisition will need to be paid for. Agende ~em a__ 5 Yj__ Page ~~ Octaber 5, 2006 Pagc ~ • Transportation Demand Management - The'NA plan is predicated on a TDM program. The TDM assumptions by land use alternatives vary considerably. The TDM program and costs will need to be quantified for the selected land use altemative and included in the financial analysis. An ongou~g operations assessment will need to be added to the area-wide costs at a minimum. These refinements and next steps will be taken with the active involvement of the propefty owners in the TVA in a series of on-going meetings. It is our belief that an equitable and beneficial fmancing approach will be supported by the majority of the property owners mterested in development or redevelopment withm the TVA. qqentla Y~m # _ _~ ~`t Page 8 ~ - - ATTACHMENT B ARGADEA / HOFFMAN / CITIZEN SCHEME: THE VISUAI ACCE55 AXIS DESIGN OPTION iOR THE iRAN51T VIILAGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 NARRATIVE: 'Axes' is The plural of axis, but also the plural of 'axe.' This plan does not intend to chop through the plans developed by the City of Boulder's consultant team of Edaw / Shears Atkins or through a lot of existing city fabric. In fact, we have great respect for the consultant team and feel ihat their thinking is based on sound principles. This scheme builds upon their work, but focuses more on form and less on use. We feel that all new development could potentially be mixed-use, although we have suggested where residential buildings should be located. We are presenting ihis scheme as a way of stimulating discourse and critique of their three schemes and suggesTing a slightly different way of looking at ihings. This scheme suggests what should be done during the first phase, or within the next ten years, and what can be added later. CONCEPTS: 1. Emphasize that Boulder values susTainability by making the CommuTer Rail and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) depots more visible from outside streets, especially Pearl, and from each other by putting them at the end of visual axes. 2. Use tower elements at the end of sTreets to create grand gestures and draw people toward them (even the Boulder Brewery tower). Keep streets straight when possible. 3. Shorten the walk between the rail stop and bus depot and make it more obvious to newcomers. 4. Stack several levels of parking above and one below the bus depot with ground level retail wrap similar to other downtown siructured parking facilities. This can serve adjacent businesses in addition to transit, as at 14}^ and Walnut downtown. 5. Provide for easier and more flexible bus travel between the iwo depots (the plan is for some local bus lines to make the route frequently). S:~PL.AN~PB-1TEMSVNEMOS\10.19 7'VAP Scheme nartative 3 1 6. Create a civic plaza in front ot the Rail Depot that is larger to accommodate the buses and thaT will be visible to visitors arriving by train or passing by. 7. Locate larger retail and commercial buildings (with housing or other uses above, where appropriate) along heavily traveled streets where ihe traffic will make ihem more viable. As much as we like The idea, we question whether 32.5 / 33rd Street can be made into a strong pedestrian street lined with retail businesses, as in consultant team Option 2. It may be difficult to convince retailers to locate there as iT will not have large amounts of traffic on it, aT least for the foreseeable near future, and it doesn't have much feeding it on either end. Steelyards has already determined much of its character by its central location on it. 8. Create a smalier grained sireet pattem in the interior (away from busy sTreets) that mimics successful walkable neighborhoods in older paris of cities. Encourage a mix of 3 to 4 story row houses simiiar to Steelyards, but somewhat more compact and more sireet focused. 9 Enhance the Goose Creek path and locate housing overlooking i1 (rather than The backs of indusTrial buildings). This adds value to both. Put higher density housing here. 10. Continue This in ihe future all the way To Valmont City Park and line ihe park with housing (where pracTical) in order to add value to both. 11. Continue Pearl Street across the train tracks (even though it would be one way going west where it crosses) so ihat evenTually it can be reconnected underneath Foothilis Parkway. Create a funky new Old Pearl District with an artists loft / warehouse disirict feel that is separate, but still connecTed to the hearT of the city through this visual connection. 12. Leave expensive buildings (or businesses) in place. The Verlo Mattress factory on Valmont where 33rd Street must go ihrough and the Bartkus Oil Company where Pearl Street must go through east of the tracks are notable exceptions. 13. Place an iconic building (or two) on Pearl Street just easT of the tracks wiTh maTching towers to create a visual terminus. If one building, it could bridge ac ross. 14. Make the rail corridor as nice as we can for people coming into the TransiT Village area. Line the Tracks with trees ond do not turn only ihe backs of buildings to them. 15. Connect existing parking iot drive lanes in Wilderness Place to create streeTs, raTher ihan taking out buildings. The beautiful tree-lined plaza east of the Train depot looks great, but could be done later. Some additional ihoughts after the drawing was completed: the diagonal street connecting the two depots should be much smaller and for buses only. A building should occupy ihe triangle between that street and 33~d. Perhaps the bus depot bullding should extentl along Pearl St., as well. S:~PLAN~PB-1TEMSVNEMOS\10.19 TVAP Scheme nartauve 3 2 CITIZEN SCHEME ~i I~~ ~ ~,-.'. w, ~ !'~ i VISUAL ACCESS / AXIS ~~ i ~~~~~1 ' ~ ~\\ ~ ~.1~~ ~ryE~u,-~~,~~~ ' ~r ~`~ ' t~ ~) ~ ~ ~` ` w~~ ~ - '~: ~1 4~_~'I._~ ri _'_~~ ~~, l~%. . . ~ ~ r~. - i -_„_ _ - r~ .1 -~~~. ~ /i ~ ij '"V /~` _~J ~+ /~ 1 / ~, ~,~ ~~ , rL.'~-1 JI l~~ '~ I ~ ~~ .~- , • ^ I I I I ~ONCEITf: '' ~- 1 ._ _r.~ ~E~r~i i' Ev:Ntuxllr r0 CO~tiECt tp YA:MOAI P~RF &$E?'ONC j \ . n:,Vt-:; ,ii~~3.'Y 0` RA l GEPCI iROM FEAR~ Sl. S 6E'W:fN Rti~.~ 6 BuS DfPO`5 y I~~~~, •._: tOwER E:i~trtni5 AI t~G1 Df SIRA~.GHi S7REE'S ~ `.\ ~ 1 I \ . ...-~~C 51:=_t~AAOS ~Cn'.np~!E xEi~r+6GRnpCp ~•,~' ~ ~OCS: ~¢:E[ w:iN RES~~OEnCES - - ~ .. _-fE F:AKr nEw ,p'~_Cl FEhPL ~'~STAICi ' _ ~' . . ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ! ~ ~ ~~; ---; . , . ~ ~ i i,~ ~ 1 ' . . i i 'I .. lFGlND~. I `~h ROADS FNa ~A'HS ' ~ ~I 1 I r~-' ' l-----. I ~En BU'~ID:NI,S ~ a ~ ~~ /~t_ ~ shuEN YEw BJi:v'hG5 1~ /~(~~-~~~~ , ' 1 ~' y~~ L I T, RESIi.FN11At ur:i1S ~ ' ~ r' , .. r ~ ~u'JRE 3~~i'~~~.kGS b ROADS 1~ '-- a t l~~ f : ~ Bu LD=nGS t0 BE 3Er.eCv:O ••.. . . 1 --. `. . ~ . , . . .- ;~ ~ , iJ~ `~ :-,---~=,~ I -~~ ~~~`~._~ l ~'~t~~ ;-