Loading...
5 - Recommendation to the Planning Board on the Twenty Ninth Street Site Review Amendment Plan (Cros C I T Y O F B O U L D E R TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June14, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to Planning Board on the Twenty Ninth Street Site Review Amendment Plan (Crossroads Mall Redevelopment requested amendments to the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan. PRESENTER: SteveDurian, Transportation Engineer Executive Summary: The review of the Twenty Ninth Street project for the redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall consists of several stages. Staff reviewed a pre-application submittal for initial issue identification in April 2003. The second stage, Concept Plan review, is a non-binding review and comment by the community, staff, the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA), and Planning Board. The Concept Plan Review was completed in September 2003. The final stage of review is Site Review Amendment (and Use Review) which will include a decision by Planning Board (currently scheduled for July 7 and 8)on a site plan, applicable conditions of approval, and amendments to the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan. Westcor, the developer of the Twenty Ninth Street site, has submitted a plan that proposes construction of many of the critical missing connections that are shown on the th BVRC Connections Plan. These include the 29 Street and Canyon Boulevard alignments as well as pedestrian and bicycle upgrades. Due to the locations of the existing and proposed buildings and physical restrictions on the site, the developer is proposing to amend several of the connections shown on the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan. BVRC Transportation Connections Plan: Elements of the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP) are required to be constructed or areas reserved for future construction at the time of redevelopment. If a proposed connection is located more than 150 feet from the location shown on the BVRC Connections Plan or if an applicant proposes not to construct or reserve a connection, the BVRC Connections Plan must be amended. The amendment procedure outlined in the BVRC Connections Plan requires review and recommendation by both the TAB and the AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Board.These recommendations are provided to the Planning Board for a final decision on the amendment request. City Council will have the opportunity to call-up the decisions of Planning Board regarding amendments to the BVRC Connections Plan. Concept Review Summary: The Concept Plan for the Twenty Ninth Street development was presented to TAB on September 8, 2003. BURA and the Planning Board also reviewed the Concept Plan. Some consistent themes Board members related to the transportation connections were: Assure that the connections are well designed for their intended mode of transportation Allow flexibility in the implementation of the transportation plan Assure that the entire site is well connected consistent with the intent of the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan Site Review Proposal: The Site Review plan has five significant changes related to the BVRC Connections Plan compared to the Concept Plan previously presented to the board: 1.A connection for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles through the proposed new th 30 Street parking structure has been added to better connect the north and south ends of the site th 2.An access drive for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles to Arapahoe between 29 th and 30 Street has been added to the plans. th 3.29 Street on-street bike lanes and sidewalks have been added in lieu of a multi- use path shown on the BVRC TCP 4.Several of the on-site multi-use paths have been changed to narrower sidewalks, however these are landscaped and better distributed throughout the site. 5.On-street bike lanes along Arapahoe Avenue are specified to be removed Westcor’s proposed Twenty Ninth Street Site Review plan would change or remove several connections shown on the BVRC Connections Plan. These proposed changes are different than those proposed on the concept plan due to the evolution and greater detail included on the site review plan. Staff recommendations for each of these proposed amendments are included under the Staff Analysis and Recommendation section below. Specific requested amendments include: A.Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Canyon (consistent with TMP) B.Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Arapahoe th C.Replacement of multi-use path along 29 Street with sidewalk and on-street bike lane D.Removal of a portion of north-south Secondary Vehicular Connections between thth 29 and 30 Streets south of Canyon th E.Removal of a portion of a north-south Secondary Connection between 28 and th 29 Streets south of Canyon AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ F.Alterations to alignments of Multi-Use Paths internal to the site and changes to several multi-use paths to pedestrian sidewalk connections The role of TAB is to address the merits of the proposed modifications to the transportation connections only and not other aspects of the development proposal such as parking lot configurations, architecture, building locations, etc. BURA and Planning Board will consider TAB’s recommendations at meetings in June and July. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The plans that are being presented to TAB are from the Site Review package submitted to staff, BURA, and Planning Board. Westcor’s site plans and the BVRC Connections Plan are attached to this document with notes showing the proposed amendments. A) Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Canyon Currently there are no bike lanes on Canyon west of the Twenty Ninth Street site. Proposed bike lanes on Canyon have been removed from the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) with the recent update of that plan. Removal of bike lanes on Canyon within the Crossroads site would be consistent with the TMP recommendation. Advantages:The most significant advantage to removing bike lanes along Canyon is that they would not function well with proposed head-in angled parking. Head-in angled parking along a street frontage increases the high-turnover parking in front of retail buildings which makes the retail more viable. However, head-in parking creates more potential conflicts for bikers along this street. Disadvantages:The removal of bike lanes along Canyon would eliminate an exclusive bicycle facility along Canyon. This disadvantage should be considered in the context that the bike lanes would only extend two blocks through this site and not beyond the site. Staff recommendation: Due to the marginal value that a bike lane would have on this portion of Canyon without bike lanes elsewhere on this street, staff recommends that these be removed from the BVRC Connections Plan, consistent with the Transportation Master Plan. B) Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Arapahoe Bike lanes along Arapahoe east of Folsom are shown on the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan and on the Transportation Master Plan. However, it is unlikely that bike lanes will be constructed along other portions of Arapahoe due to the locations of bridges, existing privately-owned buildings and improvements, mature trees, and other obstructions. With the elimination of bike lanes from the BVRC Connections Plan, there would still be a multi-use path on both sides of Arapahoe in the vicinity of the Twenty Ninth Street development and elsewhere along Arapahoe. th Advantages:The primary advantage to the 29 Street development’s property is that it allows flood wall and grading to be located 5 feet further to the south than it would with AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ bike lanes. This would, in turn, result in less steep grading on the south end of the site. Removing the requirement for an on-street bike facility along Arapahoe would have specific benefits in locations outside of the Twenty Ninth Street site. As examples, by not having 5 foot bike lanes on both sides of Arapahoe, a 10 foot narrower street width for pedestrian crossings at all intersections along Arapahoe can be achieved and there would be less impact to wetlands and prairie dog habitat in the vicinity of Arapahoe and Foothills intersection. Disadvantages:The disadvantage to eliminating the on-street bike facility on Arapahoe is that this would eliminate a dedicated bike-only facility, thereby requiring bikers to use the multi-use path along either side of Arapahoe or mix with vehicular traffic as they do today. Staff recommendation: Because there are planned and/or existing multi-use paths on both sides of Arapahoe and also a parallel multi-use path facility nearby in the Boulder Creek Path, staff believes that the additional road width and its negative impacts outweigh the benefits of adding an on-street bike facility that may not be completed for many years. Thereforestaff recommends that the Arapahoe on-street bicycle facility be removed from the BVRC Connections Plan. th C) Replacement of multi-use path along 29 Street with sidewalk and on-street bike lane th The BVRC Transportation Connections Plan shows a multi-use path along 29 Street th from the Boulder Creek Path, north through the 29 Street development area and Target and then continuing north beyond Pearl Street. The multi-use path currently exists south of Arapahoe and is under construction by Target along the front of the store. The Twenty Ninth Street development plans show 8 foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of th 29 Street with on-street bike lanes consistent with city standards. These on-street bike lanes would occur along the back of head-in parking spaces. Advantages:The most important advantage of this proposed amendment is that this alternative design would separate bicycles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the plaza area central to the development where pedestrian activity is expected to be most intense. Another advantage is that bikers will be able to move more freely along a dedicated facility than one where they must compete with pedestrians and shoppers. A third th advantage is that with head-in parking along the sides of 29 Street, bikers would not be expected to freely move between the street and the multi-use path, and the path might not be effectively used by bikers even if designed to accommodate them. Disadvantages:The disadvantage to this alternate design is that there would be that a transition from paths on the north and south ends of the on-street bike lanes may be th awkward especially in the location of Walnut and 29 Street. Details of this transition area will need special consideration when staff reviews the more detailed final plans at Technical Document review. Staff recommendation: Staff has reviewed the design alternatives and also met with Boulder Bicycle Commuters (BBC) to discuss the plan. Staff and most members of the AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ BBC agree that a multi-use path along a busy pedestrian area is not a good design. There th were mixed feelings about having a bike lane due to the additional width of 29 Street th and higher potential vehicular speeds along 29 Street. However, a designated bike lane would provide additional space for bicyclists in the area where head-in parking is used within the plaza area. Based on staff’s assessment of the issue and input from the BBC, th staff recommends that the multi-use path shown along 29 Street between Arapahoe and Walnut on the BVRC Connections Plan be replaced with sidewalk and on-street bike lanes. th D) Removal of a portion of north-south Secondary Vehicular Connections between 29 th and 30 Streets south of Canyon The BVRC Connections Plan shows this connection extending through the site from Arapahoe north to Canyon and beyond. The Twenty Ninth Street development plan shows removal of a portion of this planned connection where it would conflict with a proposed large retail building. This connection would still exist as a landscaped sidewalk connection from Arapahoe to the front of the building and would include an access for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles to and from Arapahoe. Advantages:The advantage of removing this portion of this connection is that a building and parking lot configuration can be accommodated on this portion of the site. This configuration would include a well landscaped pedestrian corridor connecting Arapahoe to the front door of the retail building at this location. Disadvantages:One disadvantage of removing this portion of the connection is that the th internal circulation for the site depends more on 29 Street for north-south circulation. Another disadvantage of removing this connection would be that pedestrians wishing to move north through the site in this alignment would need to walk an additional 250 feet th west to 29 Street to continue to their destinations. It is not expected that this pedestrian route will be a high demand one for pedestrians moving through the site, so this disadvantage may not be significant for most users. Staff recommendation: Staff considered this connection in terms of the overall plan and feasibility of a large anchor retailer in this location. The value of a direct pedestrian link from Arapahoe transit to the front door of the anchor store is believed to be a significant benefit to the site, particularly for employees working at this location. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed removal of a portion of this Secondary Vehicular Connection thth between 29 and 30 Streets. th E) Removal of a portion of north-south Secondary Vehicular Connections between 28 th and 29 Streets south of Canyon By eliminating a portion of this connection, a vehicular/bike/pedestrian access point to Arapahoe shown on the BVRC TCP would not be constructed. Internal circulation would still be available within parking aisles. The BVRC Connections Plan shows this connection to Arapahoe at a right-in/right-out access for vehicles. The connection as shown on the Twenty Ninth Street plan achieves internal circulation but does not intersect Arapahoe as envisioned by the BVRC Connections Plan. AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ Advantages:This proposal would allow for a large retail building with a well landscaped parking lot. Alternatives with this connection to Arapahoe would require more pavement dedicated to parking. Also, an additional connection to Arapahoe in this location would create impacts from the regulatory 100-year flood plain that would severely limit the development potential of the southwest portion of the site. Disadvantages:Without direct connectivity to Arapahoe along this alignment, some th additional traffic be routed to the 29 and Arapahoe intersection. This additional traffic would cause more delay for vehicles at this intersection but would not cause significant congestion. Access to and from Arapahoe for bikes and pedestrians would be available th approximately 250 feet south of this alignment at the corner of 28 and Arapahoe. This corner of the site will feature wide sidewalks, a future transit superstop, signage and significant landscaping. Staff recommendation: Due to the limited benefit of extending the alignment of this secondary connection through to Arapahoe for vehicular traffic and the relatively short additional walking distance for pedestrians, staff supports amending the BVRC Connections Plan to be consistent with the Twenty Ninth Street plan. F) Alterations to alignments of Multi-Use Paths internal to the site and changes of several multi-use paths to pedestrian sidewalk connections The BVRC Transportation Connections Plan identifies multi-use paths on portion of the th 29 Street development parcel south of Canyon as “conceptual alignments”. The alignments of connections south of Canyon are proposed on the Twenty Ninth Street development site review plans. These proposed alignments connect the exterior of the th site to uses within the interior of the site and 29 Street and Canyon. The connections both south and north of Canyon have been designed as 5 foot sidewalks with significant landscape buffers. The BVRC Transportation Connections Plan defines multi-use paths as 10 feet wide, therefore the 5 foot width would be an amendment changing multi-use paths to Pedestrian Connections. The proposed pedestrian connections are more numerous and provide improved connections throughout the site than the number of multi-use path connections envisioned in the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan.. Advantages: The sidewalks’ narrower widths allow them to be better incorporated into parking lots and allows a more fine-grain of connections than could otherwise be achieved with wider multi-use paths. The landscaping associated with the sidewalks helps not only to buffer the sidewalks from parked vehicles but also provides a shaded and more pleasant pedestrian experience and increases the feasibility of the site as a pedestrian and transit accessible development. This pedestrian environment would best serve pedestrians and transit riders as they walk from the exterior to the interior of the site and also provide better quality connections between buildings. This is likely to reduce short vehicle trips within the site. Disadvantages:The disadvantage to this proposal is that the connections themselves would not effectively serve bikers along those alignments. The BVRC Connections Plan AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ envisioned multi-use paths at one-block spacing. This proposal would create bike connections at approximately two-block spacing in the east-west direction, which means that bikers would need to travel an extra 250 to 300 feet to reach an east-west bike lane or multi-use path. Staff recommendation: Staff assessed this issue by evaluating the costs and benefits of a well landscaped and closely spaced pedestrian environment versus the improved bicycle accessibility achieved with multi-use path facilities. The landscaped sidewalks proposed achieve a goal of a closely-spaced network for the pedestrians who would benefit the most from this configuration. Bicyclists would have facilities around the perimeter of the th site as well as along Canyon, Walnut and 29 Streets. The bike facilities would be spaced at two-blocks apart in the east-west direction with the option to use parking lot aisles between those two-block spacings. In most areas pedestrians would have facilities spaced at one-block separations in both the north-south and east-west directions. If a multi-use path network were to be implemented at one-block spacing in the east-west direction as envisioned with the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan, the quality of these connections and the site plan would be reduced due to the decrease in landscaping or a decrease in the developable density of the site due to parking impacts. Due to the higher quality and increased connectivity proposed, staff recommends the proposed alterations to the alignments of Multi-Use Paths internal to the site and the proposed changes of several multi-use paths to pedestrian sidewalk connections. Other Board and Commission feedback: At the time of the TAB hearing on June 14, 2004, BURA and Planning Board have not th yet reviewed the BVRC Connections Plan amendment requests or the 29 Street site review proposal. Concept review comments from both Planning Board emphasized th additional landscaping, particularly along the 29 and Canyon corridors and achieving good connections throughout the site. All three reviewing boards requested that reasonable flexibility be used in the design and review of the BVRC TRC and that a rigid, uncompromising application of this plan be avoided. Public feedback: As part of the January 14 agenda item, an opportunity for public comment will be provided. Additionally, the following comments were received by staff: After the initial submittal, staff presented the plan to the Boulder Bicycle Commuters at their March 1, 2004 meeting. A summary of comments collected at that meeting has been included as an attachment to this memo. An individual comment from a member of the Boulder Bicycle Commuters group th requesting that the proposed 29 Street bike lane not be constructed and instead create a narrower street width to help slow traffic. This e-mailed comment is included as an attachment to this memo. A statement from Walk Boulder, a pedestrian advocacy group, is also included as an attachment. This statement includes requests for adequately wide multi-use paths and wider and more frequent sidewalk connections than are shown on the site plan. This e-mailed statement is included as an attachment to this memo. AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ Board Analysis: TAB will hear a short staff introduction and a presentation by Westcor representatives. Board members will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the developer and staff, and to comment on aspects of the BVRC Connections Plan that would change with the proposed amendments. TAB will be asked to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board on the following amendments to the BVRC Connections Plan: A.Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Canyon (consistent with TMP) B.Removal of On-Street Bike Facilities on Arapahoe th C.Replacement of multi-use path along 29 Street with sidewalk and on-street bike lane D.Removal of a portion of north-south Secondary Vehicular Connections between thth 29 and 30 Streets south of Canyon th E.Removal of a portion of a north-south Secondary Connection between 28 and th 29 Streets south of Canyon F.Alterations to alignments of Multi-Use Paths internal to the site and changes of several multi-use paths to pedestrian sidewalk connections Approved By: Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Attachments: Summary of items discussed at March 1, 2004 BBC Meeting Statement from Walk Boulder Public comment related to BVRC TCP BVRC Connection Plan Amendment Flowchart BVRC Connections Plan th 29 Street Local Transportation Plan th 29 Street Site Plan AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ Boulder Bicycle Commuters Meeting, March 1, 2004 Summary of the Twenty Ninth Street redevelopment discussion As a general note, the meeting was informative and the group was well educated regarding the issues and also the history behind the BVRC plan. Many of the members understood the challenges of trying to create a large retail center that would be welcoming to bicyclists. Some specific issues that were highlighted included: -Center line striping of the multi-use paths similar to that used along the Boulder Creek Path should be considered if appropriate. -Consideration of whether bikes would be allowed on the internal sidewalks -Concern about how enforcement would occur if the internal streets, sidewalks, and paths are privately owned and maintained th -A 29 Street center bike lane would have difficulty in transitioning from the M.U. path to the center lane at both ends. -There should be diagonal connectivity from the corners of major intersections, even if the diagonal connection only leads to parking lot drive aisles -Where M.U. paths and sidewalks cross parking lots, parking spaces need to be removed where the paths and sidewalks cross drive aisles th -Crossings of 30 Street need to connect to paths and sidewalks internal to the Crossroads site -Covered bike parking including bike trailer accommodations need to be distributed around the site. These need to be well connected to bike routes. The Sunrise Center’s parking lot path was called out as being poorly designed and inadequate. -Crossroads would be an excellent location for a bike station for tune-ups. -The internal paths not only need landscaping buffers but need to be wider to accommodate bikes th -The connection from the corner of 28 and Arapahoe should accommodate bikes. If it cannot continue through the parking lot, this area should have good covered bike parking. -Generally, Westcor’s plan is an auto-centered plan and needs to better account for bikes. th -There is no significant auto-free zone along 29 Street. -Retail along the exterior of the site needs to face the streets, not the parking lots. AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ WALK BOULDER Statement on the redevelopment plans for Crossroads Mall As Boulder’s voice for pedestrians, Walk Boulder is primarily concerned that the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall will provide adequate facilities to ensure the safety and comfort of pedestrians. Accordingly, we offer the following observations and suggestions about the plans that have been submitted for the mall’s redevelopment: From the point of view of the pedestrian, the redevelopment of Crossroads th Mall, proposed to be renamed 29 Street, should not be oriented inward but should instead be integrated into the fabric of Boulder. That means th having attractive streetscapes along its outer boundaries, including 28 th Street, 30 Street and Arapahoe Avenue. Such design features should th offer convenient pedestrian access to the tenants and facilities of 29 Street. th We are particularly concerned that the current plans for 29 Street call for an uninviting large parking lot in front of the “big box” retailer at Arapahoe th Avenue and 30 Street, a curb/sidewalk cut in Arapahoe Avenue between thth 29 and 30 streets for that retailer, blank walls with no pedestrian access th to the cinemas along 30 Street and a blank wall along Arapahoe Avenue th at 28 Street for the smaller anchor tenant, likely to be a supermarket. In addition, the plans for the “big box” retailer turn the back of the building to the Canyon Boulevard extension, offering pedestrians a view of truck loading docks and blank walls. From a design perspective, it is important for pedestrians to have a sense of “transparency” (provided by windows, doorways, passageways, etc.) when walking next to buildings. In short, we believe that the developer’s plan shows particularly poor th attention to how the 29 Street project will relate to Arapahoe Avenue and th 30 Street, both major Boulder thoroughfares and pedestrian corridors. The City of Boulder should require the developer to provide more, wider and better-placed sidewalks within surface parking areas so that pedestrian interaction with automobiles is limited. Also, any driveways leading into the project from the adjacent boundary streets should have sidewalks on both sides. th In a project as large as 29 Street it is important that sidewalks and public spaces be designed as welcoming places. That means sidewalks should be at least ten feet wide (so two couples can pass comfortably), have AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ planting buffers (with shade trees) between the sidewalks and the curb and provide amenities along the sidewalks such as benches, drinking fountains and information kiosks. Every effort should also be made to separate pedestrian facilities from bicycle traffic and other wheeled traffic, such as scooters and electric bikes. Ideally, bicycle lanes should be provided on all streets within the project as well as bicycle racks and signs indicating dismount zones. If a sidewalk is designated as a multi-use path, federal guidelines should be followed (recommended width of twelve feet with a minimum of ten feet). If there is no physical separation of pedestrians and bicycles on a mutli-use path lines should be painted to indicate proper use. For the safety of pedestrians, no motorized vehicles (such as electric bicycles or th Segways) should be permitted on sidewalks or multi-use paths within 29 Street. In addition to the items listed above, Walk Boulder also agrees with the issues raised by David Beik, Richard Epstein and others regarding the overall development concept for the Crossroads redevelopment. In particular, we believe that the following issues should be thoroughly addressed before final approvals are given for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall: th In the current plan 29 Street has no central public space, such as a park or plaza. From the pedestrian point of view, this should be an essential th part of the development in order to provide 29 Street with spaces for enjoyable human interactions and to foster a sense of community. For the person on foot a central park or plaza would give character and identity to the project. It would also provide a destination, a meeting spot and a place to relax. Additional public facilities, such as water features or public art, could be incorporated in the central park or plaza. th Nothing in the plan suggests that 29 Street is located in Boulder. As th currently proposed, 29 Street is simply a shopping center with a design that could just as easily be located in Phoenix, Charlotte or Indianapolis as in Boulder. Some distinctive signature Boulder features should be included in the plan, similar, for example, to the stunning rock and water features on the Pearl Street Mall. Crossroads should be redeveloped as a mixed-use project, incorporating retail, residential and office uses. Development of a single-story complex is more appropriate to a suburban site than an urban setting such as central Boulder. At the very least the developer should be required to th include multi-story buildings along 29 Street in the center of the project between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street, with upper floors providing office and residential uses. In conjunction with a central plaza, these AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ buildings, probably two to four stories in height, would help create a more urban environment comparable to Pearl Street, which is a national model for pedestrian-friendly development. Walk Boulder appreciates the opportunity to offer these observations and suggestions to the City of Boulder staff, Transportation Advisory Board, Planning Board and City Council. Eric Karnes Walk Boulder steering committee 303/320-9144 Email: EKTriangle@aol.com June 2, 2004 AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ Public Comment Received Related to BVRC Transportation Connections Plan Received March 3, 2004 via e-mail: Steve, thanks for visiting Boulder Bicycle Commuters on Monday to get our input on the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. My biggest remaining concern for bikes in the plan is the consideration of putting bike lanes next to diagonal parking, specifically on 29th St. This sounds like a bad idea. I don't believe it's safe to ride on the right side of the lane next to diagonal parking, because a bike is much less visible there to cars backing out. Most experienced cyclists know this and would ignore bike lanes. Inexperienced cyclists might not know this, and shouldn't be encouraged to ride on the right where they are in jeopardy. Instead, I think the best solution is to engineer the street for very slow traffic speed, so bikes feel safe using the general purpose lane. The street already has some curves, which is a good start towards breaking up the line of sight and keeping auto speeds down. The next step would be to make the street cross-section as narrow as possible. I would prefer to see the street narrower than west Walnut St. between 9th and 11th, which similarly has diagonal parking on both sides. Marked pedestrian crossings, center bollards, etc. would also help to make sure the street feels very slow to cars. For added encouragement, it would also be desirable to post "Cyclists use full lane" signs as are currently used around Boulder on some downhill lanes. It's always difficult to engineer a single feature to accommodate all types of cyclists: fast, slow, experienced, inexperienced. But in this case I think bike lanes would be a disservice to all of them. Thanks. -- Kurt Nordback AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ C) Replacement of multi- th use path along 29 Street with sidewalk & on-street bike facility F) M.U. Paths to A) Bike Lanes become landscaped proposed to be sidewalks removed D) N-S Secondary Connection proposed to be removed E) N-S Secondary Connection proposed to be removed B) On-street bike facility proposed to be removed Note: Drawing scale has been altered to fit page. AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________ AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________