Loading...
5 - Public Hearing & recommendation on Transit Village Area Plan Revised goals & objectives, key issCITYOF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDAITEM MEETING DATE: March 13, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and recommendation on Transit Village Area Plan Revised oals and ob'ectives, ke issues and rail latform location. PRESENTER/S: Martha Roskowski, GOBoulder Manager Micki Kaplan, Senior Transportation Planner Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Planning Manager Louise Grauer, Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A public heazing is scheduled for the Mazch 13, 2006 TAB meeting on the following Transit Village Area Plan Issues: • Revised goals and objectives • Key Issues • Rail Platform I.ocation TAB will recall that supportive materials for the above acUOn items will be distributed to TAB by March 10, 2006. The Transit Village Area Plan Working Group (Lynn Guisinger and Jim Rettew represent TAB on this committee), will meet on Thursday, Mazch 9 to review materials for TAB and Planning Board March public hearings on TVAP and the Apri14 City Council meeting. In the interim, until the Mazch 13 TAB packet distribution is available, additional background information is attached that TAB may find of interest related to the Transit Village Area Plan: 1) Feb. 21, 2006 City Council Update on Transit Village Area Plan 2) Feb. 16, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3) Recording of visioning excercise from PB and TAB Rail Platform Location At the January TAB meeting, TAB was provided with information from RTD detailing RTD policy on locating the commuter rail platform on a straight section of track as opposed to a curved track. This RTD "White Paper" provided a more detailed analysis of why RTD is unable to construct the rail platform on a curved section of track. (See City Council Attachment 1, page 47 for RTD White Paper). AGENDAITEM# PAGE At the Feb. 16, 2006 Planning Boazd meeting, Planning Boazd voted to recommend that City Council accept the proposed commuter rail platform on the straight section of uack and ti acceot tge current Regional Bus/BRT Station location at 30`h & Peazl Street. (Approach A). Minutes from the Feb. 16, 2006 Planning Boazd meeting aze in Attachment 2. At the Mazch 13 TAB meeting, TAB will be asked to consider a recommendation to City Council for formal direction on the locauon of the commuter rail platform. Suggested policy questions regarding the location of the proposed RTD commuter rail platform are included below, in advance, for TAB to consider: Approach A: Accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track and the Reginal BusBRT station will be at the Transit Village site at 30~' & Pearl. Approach B: Direct staff to advocate with RTD for a different outcome. Materials for the March 13 TAB meeting will be distributed to TAB by Mazch 1Q 2006. Approved By: Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Attachments: 1) Memorandum to City Council on Transit Village Area Plan Update, February 21, 2006 2) February 16, 2006 Planning Boazd Meeting Minutes 3) Recording of visioning excercise from PB and TAB Footer/Paee Numbers: AGENDA ITEM # PAGE CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 21, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: Update and discussion on the Transit Village Area Plan('TVAP): planning process, city-wide land use needs, regional and local transportation context PRESENTER/S: Plannine and Development Services Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Planning Manager Susan Richstone,Senior Planner Louise Grauer, Planner Transpoftation Tracy Winfree, Director of Transportation for Public Works Mike Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner Micki Kaplan, Senior Transportation Planner HousinQ and Human Services John Pollak, Director, Housing Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Planner EXECUTIVE SiJNIl~IARY: The purpose of this item is to: • Brainstorm City CounciP s ideas about "vision" and themes for the area. • Update City Council on the overall planning process • Provide background information on the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) in anticipation of the Council's Apri14 public hearing where it will be asked to approve revised goals and objectives. Background information includes: 1. Briefing papers on city-wide land use needs Housing Briefing Paper (Anachment G~ Commercial Briefing Paper (Attachment D) 2. Regional and local transportation context briefing paper (Attachment E) 3. Letter and white paper, "RTD Aligiment Requirements for Commuter Rail Station Operations" (Attachment F) 4. Station platform options 1-3. (Attachment G) AGENDA ITEM#`,g PAGE# 1 BRAINSTORNIING EXERCISE Staff would like to spend a few minutes at the beginning of this item to brainstorm the Council's ideas about the future vision for the Transit Village area and key themes that should be explored when we develop land use and transportation options. Attachment B contains a summar~ of ideas about future vision and themes that staff has heard to date from the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), the working group and staff. Planning Board will do a similar exercise on February 16. PROCESS The overall area plan process as revised since the working group mle was expanded and discussed with City Council Febmary 7 is oudined in Attachment A. The immediate next steps are as follows: Worldng Group Meeting March 2& 9 • Review draft revised goals and objectives for completeness • Review and discuss process for developing options TAB Public Hearing and Approval: March 13 • Revised goals and objectives • List of key issues/ choices related to transportation • Rail platform (whether to request RTD to consider an alternative location) Planning Boazd Public Hearing and Appmval: March 23 • . Revised goals and objectives • List of key issues/ choices to consider (overall azea & by district) • Process for developing options • Rail platform (whether to request RTD to consider an alternative location) City Council Public Hearing and Approval: Apri14 • Revised goals and objectives • List of key issues/ choices to consider (overall area & by district) • Process for developing options • Rail platform (whether to request RTD to consider an altemative location) Following the March and April public hearings, staff will work with the worldng group to develop a range of draft options. The idea is to develop options that represent a range of future visions that can then be evaluated in phase 3. The draft options will be presented to Planning Board, City Council, and TAB for approval before beginning the optio~s assessment. Prior to developing the options, staff and the working group need direction from Planning Boazd, City Council, and TAB on the four items listed above for the City Council and Planning Board hearings in Mazch and April. Planning Board, City Council, and TAB appmved goals and objectives at the outset of the project; however, we have learned a lot about the area and issues that should be considered in the plan since that time so feel it is appmpriate to revisit and discuss revisions to the goals and objectives. Additionally, a number of issues have been raised related to AGENDA ITEM#~ S PAGE# 2 the azea as a whole and to specific districts within the area. It is hoped that the background materials discussed below will inform both revisions to the goals and objectives and some of the key issues/ choices that need to be considered. BACKROUND TO INFORM REVISED GOALS AND OB.iECTIVES AND KEY ISSUES City-wide Land Use Needs In order to better understand what the appropriate future mix of land uses in the transit village area should be, staff iniriated an analysis of overall land use needs and desires city-wide, particulazly in the areas of housing and commercial uses (industrial and retail.) These analyses were described in the packets for Planning Board (December IS) and City Council (December 2A.) It is hoped that the conclusions will help inform both the revisions to the goals and objectives and the key issues, both of which will guide the development of land use and transportation options to be analyzed in the next phase of the project. Housine BriefinQ Paper This report (Anachment G~ includes the city's key housing goals, housing needs and target populations identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the Housing and Human Services Master Plan update. It includes additional information from the 2005 Boulder County Regional Housing Needs Assessment, some summary observations relative to the Transit Village Area Plan, and information about the potential housing prototypes for the area. Some of the priority targeted populations that have emerged from an analysis of the city's housing goais and housing needs to be considered in the land use and transportation options for the area plan are: • Low Income Population and Declining Middle Class: Many Boulder residents shvggle with incomes that are insufficient to meet basic needs. Boulder's median income exceeds the median income for the state and nation, however, the pmportion of the populalion living below the poverty level (149b, excluding university students ages 18 -22) is higher than the national rate (approximately 12%). The Boulder County Civic Forum cites the declining middle class as a key demographic trend. • Housing for Families: There is a need for more housing that is desirable and appropriate for families. At the same time, in 2000, 21% of households in Boulder included a person less than 18 yeazs of age. "fraditional families" appeaz to be a shrinking demographic narionally and locally, suggesdng the need for a range of housing types for a range of household types. • Growing Latino Population: Boulder's Latino population neazly doubled between 1990 and 2000, increasing from over 4% to over 8%. Immigration trends indicate that this growth is continuing. . • Aging of the Population: By 2030, an estimated 1 in 10 Boulder residents will be 60 or older, more than double today's figures, with multiple generations of seniors (younger, AGENDA ITEM#f~8 PAGE# 3 healthier, active as well as frail and disabled). Seniors present unique housing demands. They may occupy housing that is larger than necessary given household size. Without attractive, accessible housing with desired atttenities, seniors may tend to remain in single family homes, thereby limiting opportunities for families and the workforce. There is no one housing type appropriate or desired by all seniors; a range of housing options for seniors aze needed to meet individual preferences and needs It is hoped that this initial background information on housing needs will pmvide the information for the following future steps: Continue to revise the goals and objectives Consider more spe~ific housing types to meet the needs of the population tazgets and identify where in the area different housing types are most appropriate Consider conducting focus groups to better understand residential market needs and demands (housing product types, amenities, price points, neighborhood characteristics) for populations that may be targeted for housing in the transit village area given goals for the area. Focus groups could be structured to include representation of workers, in~ommuters, seniors, families, low-moderate and middle income households, developers (for profit and non profit), real estate professionals, Latinos, and people with special needs. Refine housing vision for the area. Commercial BriefinQ Paner (for Industrial and Retail Uses The city contracted with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to evaluate commercial and industrial development potential for the Transit Village Area Plan (Anachment D). The EPS paper includes an analysis of additional supportable neighborhood and community commercial space and industrial demand. The following points summarize the consultanYs economic analysis of the industrial activity within the area plan boundary and the support for new retail generated by the original diaft land use concepts. Staff includes additional input following the consultanYs points. Consultant summary points: • Total employment wiUun the TVA accounts for 10 percent of citywide employment. None of the previously identified clusters accounts for more than 4 percent of citywide employment. Therefore, the overall importance of the general and service industrial uses within the TVA, to the City of Boulder, appears minimal. • The potential retail demand for Shopper's Goods generated by new housing units in the TVAP will be absorbed by e~cisting, pmposed, and future development in and around 29th Street. • The grocery store sales generated by new housing in the range analyzed will most likely be absorbed by existing stores in the area. However, the number of new households generated in the first concept is close to the level that would support another grocery store. However, this would not occur until neazly all the households have been added to the City, approximately 10 to 15 years in the future. AGENDA ITEM#~gPAGEii 4 Much of the smaller community scale retail can be consuucted as part of mixed use buildings within the TVA. Depending on the amount of new housing units conshvcted in the TVA the demand for mixed-use retail could range from 28,000 to 55,000 square feet. The total demand for community retail might be as high as 100,000 square feet if a new supermarket is needed by housing growth, both in the TVA and elsewhere in the trade area. However, in addition to the economic analysis summarized above, staff has identified the following issues, including services needed in the community: The service industrial uses in the plan azea may not be of significance to the city economically, but may be important to preserve for other reasons such as convenience to residents and employees. This deserves fu~ther analysis since several categories in the TVA represent a range of 50 to 80 percent of the city's service industrial employment. More information is needed about where the uses are located and the types of services they provide, as not all of them aze located in the Service Industrial zoning dishicts in the area.. This area includes e~cisUng buildings, particulazly south of the rail lines, more conducive to warehouse uses than can be found in other industrial areas of the city. The amount of neighborhood-serving retail that is suggested as supportable in the area may be significanUy less than is desired to create a lively area, and the high end of the range (55,000 square feet) would require 5000 new units to support it. Additional future employees in the area may generate additional demand for neighborhood- serving retail uses, however, and deserves further analysis. REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT The purpose of this item is to provide information to City Council on the planned regional and lceal transit service to the hub area and its function and role in the Transit Village Area Plan. It also addresses questions raised in the public workshops about future tcansit service and the , potential ]ocation of the RTD commuter rail platform. The information is intended to pmvide information about the following topics: • Background "Regional and Local Transportation ContexY' (Anachmera E~ The time line and responsibility for the various regional and ]ceal planning activities affecting the TVA Current and future regional travel patterns affecting Boulder The planned transit service profile for regional and local uansit service as described in the US 36 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis and the city's Transportation Master Plan The RTD letter and white paper, "RTD Alignment Requirements for Commuter Rail Station Operauons" (Attachmenr F) Preliminary station platform altemarives 1-3. (Anachmenr G1 AGENDA ITEM#6S PAGE# 5 FY~ture Comtnuter Rail Platform and Place-Makina Imalicafions Attachments are included that detail RTD's policy on locaang the commuter rail platform on a straight section of track as opposed to a curved uack (Anachment F~• RTD is the final decision maker on the location of the future commuter rail platform. However, many people have asked and requested that the city identify and analyze altemative locations for the commuter rail platform for a number of reasons that might benefit the city in the future: to co-locate the rail and bus functions in order to create a more activated space. The RTD "white paper" provides a more detailed analysis of why RTD believes it is unable to construct the rail platform on a curved section of track. RTD will be the operator of the commuter rail service, and thus, the final decision maker on future commuter rail platform location and commuter rail operation issues. Option 1 in Attachment G reflects the preferred RTD option. RTD has stated that it will shive to put the rail platform as faz south as feasibly possible without sacrificing customer safety and ADA issues. In addition to safety and ADA issues, RTD has stated that it anticipates there will be very few transfecs occuaing between the regional commuter rail and the regional bus service. RTD staff will be present at the February 21 City Council meedng to address questions. At the Apri14 public hearing, staff will return to City Council for formal direction on what input to provide to RTD on the commuter rail platform locadon. Altemative I.ocetions Cazl Worthington and the OZ ARCHITECI'URE team developed the original land use illustration concept for the hub area. This first illustration is shown in Anaclunent G as Option #1, the RTD preferred option. T'his concept illustrates the RTD first-phase bus based hansif station on the city and RTD owned parcel on Pearl Sh~eet and the future commuter rail facilities located on the 800 foot platform on the straight section of track. Throughout the many public meetings held between February and November 2005 staff heazd many questions about the location of the future commuter rail platform. As a result, the city requested Cazl Worthington of OZ ARCHTrECTTURE to develop additional preliminary alternative rail plafform locations, Option 2 and Option 3. These conceptual illustrations move the rail facilities south in varying degrees, with Option #2 keeping the facilities just north of Goose Creek and Option #3 spanning Goose Creek with the rail platform. RTD has indicated that it dces not support Options 2 or 3. The rail platform was kept 300 feet north of Peazl, because a closer ]ocation would require having the railroad crossing gates closed on Peazl anytime a train was in the station; this was considered an unacceptable transportation impact. The three options reflect different schemes of public squares, public plazas, and the possible "Mercado" marketplace. The public spaces within the hub area could be designed and implemented in a way to enhance the connections between the rail and bus facilities and serve as the "heart" or fceal point for this area. Carl Woithington will be available to participate in the presentation to City Council on February 21. AGENDA TTEM#(~'B PAGE# 6 QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL: i. What questions or comments dces City Council have on the background papers? 2. Dces City Council sce issues at this time that it thinks should be considered in developing options for the area? 3. Dces the material suggest azeas where the goals and objectives in Attachmenr H should be revised? 4. Dces City Council need additional information for the Apri14 public hearing on: • Revised goals and objectives • List of key issues/ choices to consider (overall azea & by dishict) . Process for developing options • Rail platform (whether to request RTD to consider an alternative location) Appmved By: k W. Bruno, City Manager ATTAC~NTS: A. Transit Village Area Plan Process B. Summary of ideas about the future vision and themes of the area: from the public, working group, and staff, C. Housing Briefing Paper D. Commercial Briefing Paper (Retail and Industrial Uses) E. Regional and I.ocal Transportation Contezt briefing paper F. Letter and white paper from RTD on "RTD Alignment Requirements for Commuter Rail S[ation Operations" G. Station Platform Altematives: Options 1- 3 H. Adopted goals and objectives for the Area Plan AGENDA I7'EM# (r-B PAGE# 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ d BC}ULDER TRANSIT ViL~GE AREA PLAN DRAFT PRC~CESS 02I13/06 ~ ~~~~ ---- zoos : ~c~o~ ~ _ _- --- -~_ _ ~ __ _ .________ £~b~~ciive~ ~, ~i~ect~~~ c~r~ar~ur~iti~~ ~ Community C}utreach: What Is the Community's Vision? What are the Options? Analysis 8 Evafuation of Optjans P~~~ Adopt3on: Praposed Las~d Impiementatitrn Approach UsQ, Tran~portation Connections & Impiernentation :acsiz?;, ~k~,j~ w~iti=~:s ~ ~,'ir~~? ic~~ , «~`_~~ ~a._; C~~~~r~t~r~s'~t~~ c~.'~Z ~,C7Z'i?''s~CuEE't~S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~l~7~r#~ t~C9~Y~c~~~ ~ . ~. r;~ ~i ~'~,~b4dd ~ ~~ ~'u~~i~ l~~~ui ' ~.ocaf and ~,En~~,; r , ~egianat T:.r <<<Y ~ ~ Context ,.~,,g:_}t is t.r~ :. i 1~.t+.sJre ~~r~a~;~. : ~~~;~~- ~~ ~.~~~,=:a,,._ wna~uans;t ,sit'~'t"r .. se.rv~~Cl,*s i1rtT i ; ~.~-w- -s~ c.~vng w t~e . c ~. _ i ~ 3 ~: f~~:~„ _ , a~~ t , . + ii~E"r~.--> , € ~~,-~:~ ~ . r~ •~,~>_. Co~nmun- .. ;.._ . __~ ___._.. `~ ~~~ ~~~et~~, ._ i tcy Needa . ' °: Cra:2C~~E5 ~ I~ni3laj/S1S ~~ I , r,~~.,n . , .,,~~ ~ -. ~i~td~ Y~& Cf'i6 e . " ~ corn,mvnity's , _ needs f~rr industrial, r~[ail ~~ $ htwbirtg7 ~'t~ 1 Develop ~Draft Qptions . ~e.~a u~ . ,~a,:~~a~ . sMQ~~b . c„~«~ & 4mplemsnt- ation Approach aa,alyce attem~~ave ~~~~ an~i develcy~ eva~u~ian csite=~a .: ., T+~ .. . ... . ~ -.: ~ .i4 ~. ~. ~ ~ p ~ ~s ~' aNY.rei t?ta(~:~tl', ~ ii~~;'tN ttf ~Ca4i~.S ::ulsSt~; r~r,~lg~~~ i ~ ~ciK,'ys~a a.ttt; ~ ~ Fur4rrer'? ~ ~~ ~~wsa~~<<',,~~~~ Qraft Plar~ RiaoaminCn4~d Options sav Land ~&C. T~BfYSpbf4s1t10i1 arW tmpaemanisuc~ Consultank & City Staff Work with Working Graup lnput ~ublic In~-ut ATTACHMENT B Transit Village Area Plan 14 February 2006 Transit Villaae Area Plan Summary of Ideas about Themes and Vision From the Public: Urbanity/Focus o Focus on making the transit work properly before doing axrything else. o The heart of the azea should have an urban enagy. •"This is the right place for density in Boulder` o Public space should give the heart of the area a apecial identity and should be oriented to serve transit users, local residents and the wider community. o Transit users should experience intereating, active spaces when they get off of the train or bus. o There should be a centerpiece of the area that cries out "this is Boulder." o A car-free zone wuld encourage urbanity and reduce mngestion. o' The historic depot ahould be relocabed to serve as a cmterpiece of the rnmmuter rail platform area. . Diversity o t1n ethnic macado located in the heart of the area would provide space for minority owned businesses, a venue for community interaction, and a reason for members of the wider community to visit and enjoy the azea. o A diversiry of housing types, including a substantial portion of affordable housing would make the area more vibrant while helpmg to meet housing needs and providing places for local workas to live in the city. o A diverse mixture of building scales and uses will make the area attractive M the widest vaziety of people. Economic Vitality o Industry clusbers could help the city remain rnmpetitive while providing identity to the area. • Recreational uses and industries could be cluatered in the "Northwest" district of the plan area. • Offices and industries associated with renewable mergy wuld be located along Old Peazl St. in the "Hub" district. o Light industrial and service industrial uses are appropriate along Foothills Pazkway. o Large or medium foru~at retail uses could be appropriate near Foothills and Pearl or the 29~^ St. development. Great Streets and Connections o The plan should encourage "activating" principal streets with a mix of uses and an appmpriately scaled public and private rnalm. o New wnnections will be very important to the success of the area. • m the employment areas on the east side of PoothilLs • ro the King's Ridge community • to the reaidential areas north of Valmont o Geating a path or greenway along the Pazmefs ditch would wnnect the Transit Village to 29w Street and take advantage of an undeo-utilized neighborhood asset o Canyon Bwlevazd should e~ctend further east as a connection between the 29w Street development and the South of Walnut area. o Service areas should be at the rear of buildings. , • Alleys should be included in the plan. • Plan implementation o It will be very important to make sure that properly owners, business owners and developers aze part of the plan vision, and agree that the plan conld be realistically implemented. o Flexible mning or performance based standards in the azea rather than more tradiHonal use based zoning could allow the area to evolve more organically. AGENDA ITEM#/_.R PAGE# 9 Transit Village Area Plan From the Working Group 14 February 2006 The plan should focus on making a workable "hub" azea that is: o A"happening" place with geat urban energy and a sense of arrival and departure o A walkable place o A dense, mixed use envirormtent that is struchupd to mitigate impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods • The impacts of transit service on housing in the area need to be cazefully addressed o Composed of varions distinct neighborhooda • Station azea • Steelyazds • North of Steelyaxds • South of the creek and west of the rail • South of the cceek and east of the rail • North of rhe creek and east of the rail (Wildemess Place) The plan needs to carefully address connections between the h~ansit and the rest of the community o Neighborhoods to the north of Valmont o The pedestrian rnnnection along Pearl Street m downtown Boulder The plan should reIIect a growing and diverse rnmmunity Although service industrial uses in the azea employ relatively few people (by comparison with citywide empIoyment), they do provide an ixnportant service to the community From the Transportation Advisory Boazd ~ A vision for the hub azea on the west side of the rail lines includes: o A gateway as people disembark from the rail or bus o A central plaza-all pedestrian-with public art and surrounded by 2 to 3 story mixed use buildings with retail, office and housing above. o Alley takes people M the local bus or trolley to all points in Boulder o Plaza includes people of all ages and is vibrant day and evening o At night in the plaza-bands playing, vendor carts, nighttime bazaazs (Mercado) with Hispanic flavor o Seamless connections to all modes o Buildings have a classic look, built to last . Include real time transit information . "Car free" neighborhood, small blocks • Urban, dense, 45 story buildings, more affordable housing for the workforce • Green environment • In 50 years, want people to look back and say how bold Boulder was in the T'VA (i.e. blue line, height limit, urban growth boundary) o Car free o Have minimal impacts on the community o Cseate "sustainable" neighborhoods o Live/work in this neighborhood and use transit as a first choice . Seamless network of trails • People mover to 29~ Street • Roadway to include lane for electric scooters and bikes AGENDAITEM#LaPAGE# 10 Transit Village Area Plan From Staff and Others 14 February 2A06 . Induslry Clastere o A geegaphic wncentratian of indnstries that gain advantage through co-locaaon.•, o Could provide incentives for buaineasea to locate and mmain in Boulder while providing definition to the area o Industries with historically sunaig ties to the Boulder area rnuld be appropriate for clusters in the plan azea • Recreation • Outdoor equipment manufacture • Health food/ healthy living • Eco-friendly building products • Environment and Sustainability o An eco-village of "green" buildin~ • Could suppcxt clusbera of emoriaited businesses o An area devobed pritnarily to bikes and pedes4ians • Caz free zones • A significant network of great off-atreet bike connections • Lifestyle o AMive Healthy communily ~ o The "Creative dass" • M azea with a high level of live, work and play amenities to attraM creaavity and entrepreneurship o An aging population • An er~ with a high level of acceasibility, appealing housing types and artistic and cultural amenities o Ethnic and cultural miiwrities • M ar~ with a diverse amay of affordable housing types and a"Mercado" or clusbers of ethnically oriented busitureaes and commuxdty services • An ama that reflecta Bouldei's increasing diversity • Role A recognizable gabeway district for traneit riders arriving in Houlder • A sense of azrival and departure A vibraz~t mra that dces not compebe directly with downtown AGENDA ITEMk(p-s PAGE# 1 I ATTACHMENT C Housing Briefmg Paper Prepared for Consideration in the Transit Village Area Plan Process DRAFT: January 25, 2006 Summary The Ciry's key housing goals include: • Increasing the amount of permanently affordable housing to 10% of the housing stock projected at build-out. • Providing a mixture of housing types, densities and price ranges to meet the needs of a diverse community. Housing needs and target populations identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Housing and Human Services Master Plan include: Honsing for t6ose who work in Boulder: Boulder is an employment center with more than 100,000 jobs and an estimated 52,000 workers who in-commute daily 'I7iis creates housing deroand in excess of supply and contributes to regional sprawl, increased commuting distance, traffic congestion and sir quality. Providing housing options in urban areas and in proximity to transportation, jobs and services offers the opporhu~ity for those who work in Boulder to live in Boulder, mitigating some of the negative impacts of urban sprawi. Housfng for very low, low and moderate income households, as well as special populaNons: The lugh cost of housing in the City tias made it more difficult for many people to find affordable housing. Target populations identified include: the workforce, seniors, people with disabilities, fami6es, the growing Latino population, and people transitioning from shelters, the justice system, and hansitional or group living. A 2005 Regional Housing Needs Assessment pmvides the following housing information: Increases in home prices combined with more modest income growth make home prices out of reach for many people. Boulder has a strong residential real estate markcK. This is reflected in the City's relatively low vacancy rates, rapid absorption of housing units and rising sales prices. With a limited supply of existing and new housing stock, prices for both new and existing housing have risen significanUy. Boulder has a uniquely even split between owner and renter occupied households, which is unusual in the region; in all other communities, there are more owners than renters. Boulder's housing stock is aging; 69% of housing is more than 25 years old. Approximately 46% of Boulder households have incomes under 80% of the Area Median Income (under $50,000 for a three person household), compazed to 36% of households in the region and 40% statewide. Almost all of the City's land cuaently zoned residential is developed. Additional residential could offer the opportunity to address City housing goals, respond to residential mazket demand, and influence who could eventuatly live in this area. AGENDAITEM#Fi'BPAGE# 12 Background An area plan is being developed for the Transit Village Area, an area that encompasses about 450 acres of land in the approximate 'h miles radius of Pearl and 30"' Street. The plan could involve significant potential future land use, housing, economic and transportation changes. The possibility of additional residential development is being contemplated in the area, including both market rate and pe:manently affordable housing. This could offer the opportunity to respond to residential markets and demands as well as to influence who could eventually live in this area. Housing Goals and Policies The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Housing and Hwnan Services Master Plan, and the goals aad objectives of the Tranait Village Area Plan, all include Council supported goals and policies related to housing. They address goals related to housing types (wl+at) as well who to serve (who). Wkat: • Integcate housing with work, transit and leisure • Increase the awount and proportion of permanently affordable housing to address the goal of 10% of the housing stock as pennanently affordable • Provide a mixture of housing types and densities • Provide housing with a variety of price ranges (market rate and permanenfly affordable) to meet affordability needs of a diverse community and diverse income ranges Who: Increase housing for workforce and in-commuters Increase housing for very low, low and moderate income households Encourage development of housing for special populations and changing demographics o Seniors (a variety of housing types/options needed) o Peopie with disabilities o Faznilies o People transitioning from shelters, justice system, transitional or group living o Growing Latino population o Middle class Briefing Paper Purpose With these goals in mind, this paper has been prepazed to summarize existing housing information, including the 2005 Housing Needs Assessment, 2000 Economics Research Market Analysis, other documents and preliminary housing observations. It is not intended as a final report, but as a working draft to be used as a point of departure for diswssion and analysis of housing goals and strategies for the Transit Village Area Plan, and includes the following: • Boulder's Housing Stock, Household Composition and Affordability • Residential Demand • Populations and Employment Trends • Preliminary Housing Observations nr.Fn~ne TTFn,ve/_-Rner.Fn iz Table 5: Number and Pereentage ot Low-Income Households (flouaeholds wit6 Incomes <_ 80% AMI) # Honseholda (200~ % of Total Households Region ToffiVAveiage 48,568 35.7% City/Counry of Broomfield 4,704 27.8% HoulderCounry 43,846 36.9% Boulder City 19,426 45.5% Erie 578 15.1°h I,sfsyette 3,191 34.7% Longtnont 12,931 41.8% Louisville 1,690 23.4% Lyons 312 44.3% Superior 700 162% Mountains 1,491 27.4% Nmth Plains 1,863 39.4% South Plains 3,934 36.4°/a State Avecage 39.9% Table 6: 2005 Estlmated Baulder Households by Arer Medisn Income (AMI) Reutera Ownera Tofal AMI R>nee # % # Y. # % <=30% 12.8% 50-80% 3,720 173% 2.235 ]0.6% 5~958 14.0% 80-100°/a 3109 14.9°/a 3,062 14.5% 6,271 14.7% 100-120% 1,543 7.2% 2,057 9.7% 3,599 8.4% 120%+ 2,736 12.7% 10,691 50.6°/a 13,409 31.4% TOTAL 21,561 100% 21,145 100% 42,705 ]00% Table 7: 2004 AMI Income Itenges (Boulder County) AN1I Levd 1-peraon 2-percoa 3-pecaon 4person 5-person 120°k AMI 80°/a AMI 50°/a AM[ 40% AMI 526,100 AGENDA ITEMkt,oPAGE# 17 Boulder's Housing Stock, Household Composition and Affordability In early 2005, a Regional Housing Needs Assessment was prepared for the Boulder County Civic Forum. T'his study was commissioned as pazt of the Regional Affordable Housing Initiarive of the Boulder County Consortium of Cities. Profiles specific to each of the pazticipating communities, including the City of Boulder, were developed. Key highlights from the needs assessment are offered below. Housing Stock and Household Composition Boulder has a uniquely even split between owner and renter-occupied households, which is unusual in the region; in all other communities, there are more owners than renters. Bou(der has a strong residential market. This is reflected in the City's relatively low vacancy rates, rapid absorption of housing units and rising housing prices. Almost all of the City's land currently zoned residential is developed. Boulder's housing stock is aging; 60% of housing is more than 25 yeazs old. Slighdy more than ha1f, 52% of housing in Boulder is multi-family housing, compazed to 33% in the region. Table 1: City of Boulder Housing Inventory °/a (2000) # (2000) % (2005) # (2005) Total Housing Units 100% 42,930 100% 44,297 Occupied 97% 41,800 96% 42,705 Owrter 50% 20~696 50% 21,145 Renter 50% 21,104 50% 21,561 Vacant 3% 1,130 4% 1,592 Table 2: Houaing Unit'I~pe % Sing(e- 7G Mu/[i- Imn+~1 Iam~lY Region 63.5% 33.2% Broomfield 70.0% 24.6% BoulderCounty 62.6% 34.1% Boulder City 44.8% 51.7% Erie 95.9% 2.1% Lafayette ---59.5% 31.4% C.ongmont 66.5% 30.5% Louisville 77.0% 21.5% Lyons 81.2% 9.9% Superior 59.9% 39.6% Mountains 94.9% 4.4% Nor[h Plains 89.9% 72% South Plains 73.2% 22.7% encwrne rrar,.~~i.ener.Fe id Ta61e 3: Gtity of Bou-der Age ol'Hanxing s Owner Occupicd Renter Occupied Totat %(2000J # (20Q5) °le (2Q00} # (2fID5) °la (JA00} # {2009} h1arch 2000 - 2Q04 2°/n 448 2°l0 457 2°l0 965 1999 to March 2Q00 2"1a .179 1"h 112 1°lu Ayl 3995 to ]94$ 4°fn $49 3% 655 49~a 1.50~4 19~4to 1994 8% 1,733 G°lo 1~194 7°lu 2,92G 7980tu ]989 1?°l0 3,598 16°l0 3,d76 t7°fo 7,074 197D~u1h74 21% 4,4U4 3t°1o 6,791 26"l0 1f,195 1')60 tu 1964 22°fo 4,6~NJ 26°!ei 4,331 21°!a 9~021 1940to1959 15Yo 3,2dfi lA°k ?,920 14% 6,145 1934arearlier $°!0 1,797 R'!o 1,626 8°fo 3.423 Ruiltsince 1990 L6% 3,4E0 11% 2,417 14°!0 5,827 ^ TaMe 4: Housing Unit Gru~vth, 2000 to 20@5 RECatOIJ TOTAL ~ouider Caunty Boulder Cily CilyiCouMy of 8ropmLeM • Erie La(ayett6 Longmoni Lo~kville Lyons Superlor Mpuntain& NoAh Plairts Sou1h Plains More than half of all households, 58"/o are cornprised of unrclated individnals. The peccentuge of housing uniis occupied by a Latino househoider is comparatively law at 5°!0. Approximately 12°l0 of hauseholds include a senior, age 65 yeazs and above. Iust over 4I1"/o of t3oukder's workforce resides in the Ciry. ~ ~4~:xpA l~rcn~#6 ~ ~A~~:~ ~~' 0% 164b 2095 39% 40% 5046 80°!0 7446 80°di 80*k Percent Change (2000 - 2005) ~Cousing Affordabilit~~ r In the c[ecade betrveen 1990 and 200Q, home prices climbed twiec as fast as personal income. In 2004, the median pcice far a singla famiEy home was over $ASU,040. Attached home prices have inereased markedly as well, with the median price for attaehed hoines at about $220,000 in 2004. qW Am~ MeEla~ Mcame for ] wr~oa WuunoM Risin$ hausing cosis, combined wilh more modest income increases, make the current hame prices in Boulder aut af rcach for ma~y, As a result, many Iioulder «rorkers-including teachers, health cara workers, service and retail employees, adrninislraiivc: warkers and many others-chaase to find affordable hausing elsewhexe and join the tens of thousands of other commuters, coniributing to trat~'ic congestian, pollution and urban spcawl~ ttigh housing costs place We ecanomic diversity af the community at risk and can influence the demogra~hics of the community, witt~ many low and mode~ate income households seekin~ rnone affordable housing oplions outside the City. Approximately 65% af reater households and 25% of homeowncrs have income below 8Q°lo Area Median Income (AMI). Additionally, 11,652 tenEer households and 5,332 homeowner households have unmet housin~ ne~ds, which are defined as any housing problern including cost burden, overcrow~ding and lacking camplctc kitchen an~llor pLumbing facilities. There are nearly 16,p00 households cosL burciened by their housing payment; the percentage has stayed even sinre 1990'but the number has iucreased by 3,100 househotds. The City has an explicit goal to have ] 0% of the total housing swck perrnanentty affordable Por ]ow and moderate income haaseholds; the eurrent tqtal is 2,Gt1Q units or 5.8°fo. This goal 'as addressed through affoedable h~using requirements for new residential dcvelaprneut, funding, and palicics. AGIsNDA ITGM#G-~PAGF.#/IG, Residential Demand In 2000, the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) retained the Economics Research Associates (ERA} to conduct an independent market study of potential residential uses in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) area. While Uus study is a few years old and is not specific to the Transit Village Area, it does offer information with relevance and applicability to the Transit Village Area. The following are excerpts from that repoR. Residential Demand and Market According to the ERA report, regional demand for homes is high. The current countrywide ratio of 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit suggests that the potential demand for homes (both single and multi-family) in the Boulder market may be as high as 72,000 units given the number of jobs in Boulder Valley. A strict application of jobs/housing balance suggests a possible shortfall of up to 32,000 units compazed with the 40,000 existing units in Boulder. This comparison is not meant to iruply that Boulder should build a(1 of these units, since tlus would contradict Boulder's long-standing growth management policies. Ratha, this wmparison is made to show the breadth of potential pent-up demand if the City were to allow more residential development The report observed in 2000 that although new construction is on the rise due to a~owing economy, the majority of residential and non-residential constructions is occumng outside of the City of Boulder. T'his is generally due to strict land management and gowth policies set by the City government. Thus, with limited land available for development and subsequenfly rising property values and rents, many companies and potential residents have looked to other areas siumunding the City of Boulder for rental space and homes. The ERA study concluded that City of Boulder has a strong residential real estate market. This is reflected by the city's relatively low vacancy rates, rapid absotption of housing units and rising sales prices. Population and Employment Trends Current and future trends clearly must be considered in planning for the broad community as well as for the specific Transit Village Area; key demographic trends with particular relevance m Boulder's residential situation are highlighted below. Population Growth: According to the Denver Regional Council of Governments and other sources, the population in the Front Range is expected to increase by over a million people by the yeaz 2020, from approxunately 3.5 million in 2000 to as many as 4.8 million in 2020. The population in the City of Boulder is projected to increase from slightly over 100,000 to an estimated 113,000 by 2030. AGENDA ITEM#L.RPAGE# 18 T:~ble 8: F.XISIIII~ and Projrctcd Ilousin~, l~nits, ~~0~)ll~alion and ~mplo~'111CI1[ ZUQ~.Z~~~U:11.1(~ ~U1~(~OUI E.t•is~iug Prnjcrtc•d Prajcctcd Realistic• (.Ivrr. 20.30 Rtuldnur ?(10d/ ~I rra / (x~itltin Cify l.iucrtc) Iic~ucingllnit. 43,800 4y;t(lll 49,:~()0 Popialation 1 U1 ,5U11 1 1 j,200 1 13,J.U1) I;mpl~yment `».~{UU 1~ l, l OQ 166.GUU ; in•a ! and /I Itl+e C tJ1' rrnd surrne~rrding se~r~~ire~ area) liou~iog Units 48.R~0 53,90f1 S~,~i~0 P~~pul.ttion I 1[,SQO 12J,41)fl 124,400 Gmpluymcnl -- 101:100 125.S0p 171.,Q00 In-Cc~mmutin~: An esti~~lated ~2,ODU people carcunut~ into L3oulder cl<tily for work froin. tite re~;ion, ~vhich contributcs Io trt~ffic, pollution and congestion. Thc ratio ot~ jobs to housing has bccn a st~bj~;ct of much debate in Bouldec with tl~e Cit}= of t3nulder ha~~in~ a significantly higher jobs to housing i~tio that otl~cr communities in the mgion. O~~cr 40°/a uC Bo~~lclcr's ~a~orkforce residcs in thc city. Thc. tiguce.s i« the table bclo~v rc:prescnt joh~, nut emplo;rces. 'l~here is a differene.c_ On averabe, ettaployecs hold mort than one,job. In tt~~ rc;~ion, t}ic avcr~~c is about 1.2 jobs (full- and part-timc cumbincd) pcr ~mpl~ycc. Th~ numbcr of employees is therefore Icn~•er thun th~ nu'mber of'_jobs. The ma~~ beln~~~ on comnniti~i~ tracks tlie tloc~~ of cn~pl~yccs in ~nd out of ~c~tnnninitics. "1':iblc 9: Jobs:Housing R.~tio~ 2005 lnh.s ~~t~usiu~ Jubs:llu~uink L`~rih Ratrn ltc~ion 2U1,995 1~4,34U 1.4Q 13rx~onfficld 19,3<JU 1 ~+.U45 t .0? I3aufdcr I k~2.6i?$ 126,2~j5 1.-~S C~,unty - - _ - --- ---- i3ouldcr 101.47y a~3.~9? 2.2') ~''ry ~rie 3 t 9 4,02K O.U8 L~t:t~yette 5.636 9,G~)0 0.5Y Lon~mont ±~3,172 ~2,h76 1.U> Louis~•iU~ I S,G32 i,41 G ?.l l I.v~ns ~)7U 7i2 1.33 Superior ?.540 S,OA7 0.50 C'ommuting Pattcrns ;~r~cNi~,~ rri:~t~G--~3 N:~c,~:;~ ~ Low Income Population and Decline of the Middle Class: Many Boulder residents struggle with incomes that are insufficient to meet basic needs. Boulder's median income exceeds the median inwme for the state and nation, however, the proportion of the population living below the poverty level (14%, excluding university students ages 18 -22) is higher than the national nte (approximately 12%). The Boulder County Civic Forum cites the declining middle class as a key demogaphic trend. Housing for FamiGes: There is a need for moro housing that is desirable and appropriate for families. At the same time, in 2000, 21 % of households in Boulder included a pecson under 18 years of age. "Traditional families" appears to be a shrinldng demographic nationally and locally, suggesting the need for a range of housing types for a range of household types. Growing Latina Population: Boulder's Latino population nearly doubled between 1990 and 2000, increasing from over 4% to over 8%. Immigration trends indicate that Uris growth is continuing. . Aging of the Population: By 2030, an estimated 1 in 10 Boulder residents will be 60 or older, more than double today's figures, with multiple generations of seniors (yoimger, heakhier, active as well as frail and disabled). Seniors present unique housing demands. They may occupy housing that is larger than necessary givea househotd size. Withwt attisctive, accessible housing with desired ameniries, seniors may tend to remain in single family homes, thereby limitutg opportunities for families and the workforce. There is no one housing type appmpriate or desired by all seniors; a range of housing options for seniors are needed to meet individual preferences and needs AI:F.NnA TTF.M#l-RPAC'.Rk ~~ Preliminary Housing Observations As a part of the 2000 update to the Boulder Valley Comp'rehensive Plan, a series of housing prototypes were developed; descriptions aze included in the appendix. The pmtotypes include detached single family small lot homes, single family attached duplex/triplexes, single family townhomes, urban townhouses, multi-family gazden apartments, and mixed use developments. Variations of the prototypes developed for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan were used as a tool for preliminary observations of possible populations that cou(d reside in the future in the transit village area in terms of income ranges and target populations identified in City housing goals. Tsble 9: Posaible Populstloos To Be Served, Incomes end AftordabWty Income Ranges Target Populations (ategoriea ue not mutuelly ObservaHoes e:clusive Very Low/Low: Workforce housing Primarily cental <60% AMI Seniors with low fixed incomes Homeless • Some homeownership at upper end Paople with disabilities of range Low wage eamers • Generally subsidiud Families . May choose housing elsewhere for Single parent families affordability Those nceding ~oup living suppoR Transitional housing Modemte: Workforce housing Combination of rental and 60 - 80% AMI Seniors with limited means homeowneiship Singles Couples • Inclusionary wning producing Families - . -pennanenUy affordable housing for this income range • Singles and couples generally able to find market mte rental housing • Those not seeking pertnanently affordable housing may be choosing to live elsewhere for aR'ordability, choice "trade offs" Middle: Workforce housing Primarily homeownecship 80 -110% AMI Seniots with modest means Couples • Some pecmanently affordable Families homeownership units produced Singles th~ough annezarions (not in 7'VAP atea) . Those not seeking pecmanently affordable housing may be choosing to live elsewheie for affordability, choice, "trade offs" A(iENDA ITEMiL,rt PAGE# 21 Observafions Relative to the Ti~ansit VlUage Area Pbn Preliminary observations ]~ave raised a number of issues for further discussion and analysis. • It has been noted that it is important to recognize that the Transit Village Area Plan is a long term plan; current needs and trends should be considered, while allowing for flexibility to respond to ctianging conditions. Currently, "trade offs" that households are willing to make for housing choices may change in the future. For example, at present, commuting times may be acceptable for households seeldng larger homes outside of Boulder, but this may not be the case in the future, when interest in smaller, more urban homes may increase as commuting times get longer. • It is anticipated that the first waves of housing may appeal to less traditional households and those interested in a more urban lifescyle. The diversity of types of households interested in living in this area is more likely to broaden as more housing develops in tlus area. There is the need and desire to provide more housing options desirable for families in ttris area. At the same time, singles and couples are growing demograplrics, as well as seniors, and their housing needs should be accommodated as well. • The majority of the area is likely to be multi-family housing. However, to meet housing goals for a mixture of housing types for a diverse community, a balance may be needed that encourages a range of other housing types including homes with gound level entrance and small private yard or paYio space: townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and small lot single family homes. • There is an interest in serving a distribution of iacomes in Uvs area. Addressing the middle income household market is paRicularly challenging. Developers will tend toward higher end producc to the extent that the market will bear, and a certain percentage of low and moderate income housing will be developed because of affordable housing requirements, leaving a potential gap in housing for middle income households. •~rrently, to meet the 20% inclusionary zoning affordable housing requirement, developers may opt to provide half, or 10% of the affordable homes on site and make a cash-in-lieu contribution for the other 10%. Possible Policies, Incentives and Strategies A combination of possible policies, incentives and shategies may be wnsidered to influence future residential development in this area. Among the ideas raised thus faz include the following: • Consider requiring that the full 20% affordable housing requirement be provided on site. • Consider increasing the affordable housing requirement from 20% to a higher percentage in this area. • Consider incentives, such as density bonuses or height exemptions as an inducement for a higher percentage of affordable housing. • Consider a ballot initiative to amend the City's height limit in a narrowly defined area in exchange for enhanced community benefit. AGENDA ITEM#i ~ PAGE# 22 Consider establishing targets and define strategies to ensure housing for a broader distribution of incomes (in particular, encourage opdons for the middle class). This could mean establislung targets that housing will serve 1/31ow-moderate income households, i/3 middle income households, and 1/3 higher income households, or some variation of those percentages. Possible Next Steps As the options for the Transit Village Area Plan are developed, the followed may be considered as possible nead steps. Continue to refine the housing vision and revise goals and objectives of the Transit Village Area Plan to incoiporate the developing housing vision. Consider a wider variety of housing product types and less generic "mi~ced use" designations and identify where in the area different housing types are most appropriate. Consider conducting focus groups W better understand residential market needs and demauds (housing product types, amenities, price points, neighborhood characteristics) for populations that may be targeted for housing in the hansit village area given goals for the area. Focus groups could be siructured to include representation of wotkers, in-commuteis, seniors, families, low-moderate and middle income households, developers (for profit and non profit), real estate professionals, Latinos, and people with special needs. Refine housing vision for the azea. Generate possible policies, incentives and strategies to address the desired housing vision. Throughout these steps, actively involve input from decision makers and the public. AGENDA ITF.M#/_ePAC7FAt 2l : Res,c~er~t~iat Yratot~~~es a S«a~l Cot, sin~le fa~tai~~• det~eh~d h~m~s a.nd :~~~ diiplexl' triplex toFVSi husnes wft~~ indi~°idua! gara~rr ~~ and on street parlung . Fw°tC~ 1 il - l4 d~4~clEing ~er acre. Afforda~bi[ity: ~~iddle and upper incc~rr~~s. • t:~rt p~'pr•ici~ l~r;erunits app~alin~ to fa-nilies, 4auples, tttose w<~ttt€t~~ rnc~re (ivin~ space a~~ci n~ore privacy_ :'~ muae urhan ~~ersicm of the traditional si.n~le ~'~mily hc~u~i~~~ prociuc.t, • Can ~to~ide. ~nlall amat«t of~ pri~atc c~utdc~c~r spEac~, cas}~ entrv a~3c~ parkin,~. • Multi st~ry~ livin~ n1ay ~t~ake these nc~t as ~~~ell .uited I~~r ~eap[~ with ~isat~ilitic~ or 15 - ?~ dw~ellin~ units I ~iffardani~ pe~' ac~rt. pc~tentially 25 - 45 drvelli~i~ per ~cre. :idtc anci u~~~er incoitles, ~i]~I Of I11L1t~(:C.~tc inc~mc. • Garden apartmc,n~.~ tec~d to attract r~c~citirate i~~cc~rn~ :~in~l~:s, cc~u~~l~:s. fami~ies and sar~c sctiiors. C~ftet~ 1~ave ftlcilities for smal( cllil€iren. • V~'ith their 4•er~i~;~~1 a~-rari~ement, u3-ban tow+tt hotnrs n3ay ~zot bc suited far ~aeople with disabilities t~r f'r~il se~nior~, Aff'ord~biiitv: All it~corne ranges, but potenti~l to b~ affor€iable to tf~wcr (if subsidi.zed) and moderate incutt~e. • Les~ attiz~cti<<e f'or famili~.~. • Can v~in• sEibst~~r-ti~liy ic~ tc~°xi3s nf afFordrtbYlit~r, t~~~oin very afka~•ciabii; tU very hi~E~ end ~~rodt~ct ~~ith rnany amt~Yiti~s. • With ele~~a~c~r's ~nci ~xte sto~~~ livin~y 1~is pratoty~e ma}~ be apprc~~ri:~te; lUr pcuplc u-ith ~iis;~bilities Kind frail seniars. • A~p~alitte ?o tJtose e~esirin~ tirban liti~in~ cluse- tc~ transit ~nd scrvicc~. ~ z~~1: ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ,~.~ ~ ~ . ~ 7 :; ~: k` 4~` ~4 Li~°efi~'t~rk units ur re~ic3enti~l mixed verticallti~ ur horitontall4~ w~it~i ii~~t industrial ur service ftid~istriaf us~s in one to fhree stvey f)dlil~liliTS. ~urf'ac~ narkin~F '['~~o to threc storS mix€d use huilc~ings. Prrdominant use m:~y be c~n husincss ur resirlenti~l dc~pe~y~fi~~~ on zone. Su7~face ~~arkit~ to fvur story mixed us~ buil:din~a. i'rcd«minant use m~~~ t~e ~nrcc nr rr~cirl[~nYiSl [~enCtldiliu OI1 70tl~. U.6 f~ loor ~1rra Ratic~ 1.0 Floor Area R~fio .~~1€-re ~El~a~~ ~S d~r~elling ur~its per acre in bi~ilciings eseee~iin~, 5~' i,~ h.eig~~t A~t~rdahili~~': !~~ixed ~sc cau rau~e in af~'ordabilit4~ and types uf ~F~use~~c-ids serred, From affardable ta hi~l~er cn~i ~rociuct. • 'C~~ese prototypes an mc~re ]il:ely t~ bc Fii1S'"dCtlb`4' tt~ S]Il~~£S, c_c~uples anc~ ~~Urkers ~vhc> like proxinuhr to urban setz-ices, tra~~sit and ~:~~~~lo}~mLrit ~.eitters. • Th~;se protuty~~.s ~na;~. a15c~ ap~aea] to enz}~tr ncsters an~~i activc se€~~i~rs. :'~f#'ttrclabilits~: \'cr~~ hibh density pru~3~cts cuul~ yield a }~i~he.r total au~~~er o#'a1t'o-•dahle units. Atrract~ir~e t~a siraele~ ~~~c3 ctnpt~• t~estc.rs desi~-i-~ ; a ~~e;r}, ~-` I~T ~..J ~ ~ `d..2 *~ ~ z ~ ~, ?-- f,, U ~ ,fl~'I'ACHMENT D ~:~~~;~ Economic & Plunning Systeux.s Ikw6YWescommK. Rqbxa! Smmmin Pu64eFTrianoe LIMlIXPrIIuY MEMORANDUM To: Ruth McHeyser, Louise Grauer, and Susan Richstone From: Dan Guimond & Josh Birks, Ernnomic & Planning Systems Subject: Boulder Transit Village Commercial Analysis, EPS #15866 Date: January 31, 2005 This memorandum summarizes &onomic & Plannu~g Systems' (EPS)1) comparison of service industrial uses within the Boulder Village Transit planning azea M the City of Boulder as a whole, and 2) the retail square footage supportable by proposed residential development. The Transit Village Area (TVA) planning area encompasses a total of 450 acres surrounding the proposed transit facilities neaz 30~^ and Pearl Street Based on a quarter aule walking radius, apprmdmately 150 acres within the azea plan boundary conld be developed to transit oriented development (1'OD) uses. Other complementary development uscs could extend beyond this area within an appro~dmate one half mile radius. The azea currenfly contains a variety of land uses including a lazge amount of general and service industrial businesses and a smaller concentraHon of service/commercial space. The analysis of service industrial uses and supportable retail square footage is presented in the following sections: • Overall Employment Comparison • Service Industrial: TVA vs. City Comparison • Supportable Retail Square Footage for different ranges of residential growth • Conclusions OVERALL EMPLOYMENT COMPARISON The analysis of service industrial uses relied on FS-202 data, from the second quarter of 2004, supplied by the City of Boulder. A detailed analysis of the ES202 data on number of firms and number of employees within the TVA, organized by North American Industry Gassification System (NAICS), identified four industries containing 55.6 percent of all employees. These four industries include Retail Trade with 19.1 percent, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services with 19.1 percent, Manufacturing with 9.4 UENYEP 9ERNFLFY SACR~YEMTO 93C I]" Suee:, Smm G3D Vhone: 3~J-G3}_~5?9 phone Slp-N41-')1'/0 phonc 916-649-3010 Denveq CO P.02Ce JSi' 1ax. lU3-L2'+ '~Od9 fex. 510 8il-9SOA faF 916-049-20'10 www cry ys.com AGENDA ITEMi15-BPAGE# 26 January 31, 2005 percent, and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services with 8.0 percent, as shown in Table 1. Each of these industries was analyzed in greater detail to identify business clusters/niches by compiling data on more specialized four digit NAICS groupings. Table 7 Employment by Industry in Nq 2004 Boulder Tra~sk Vlllage Commercial Analysis Industry Estabiishments Employees # % # % Agricutture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining Udlities Construction Manufacluring Wholesale Trade Retail Trade TransportaGon and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rentai and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management af Companies and Enterprises kdmin/SuppoA & Waste/RemediaUon Services Educational Services Heatth Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and RecreaUon Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (except Public AdminisVaGon) Federal govemment (regardless of NAICS code) State govemment (regardless of NAICS code) Local govemment (regarclless of NAICS code) Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 23 4.4% 42 8.0% 40 82 11 50 22 82 35 14 36 10 25 45 0 0 5 526 7.6% 15.690 0.6% 2.1 % 9.5% 4.2% 15.6% 0.2% 6.7% 2.7% 6.8% 1.9% 4.8% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 100.0% 0 220 816 454 1.656 75 228 488 76 t,657 40 694 104 254 539 439 247 0 0 ~ 8,653 0.0°k 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 9.4% 5.2% 19.1 % 0.9°k 2.6% 5.6% 0.9% 19.1 % 0.5% 8.0% 1.2% 2.9% 6.2% 5.1°k 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7 100.0% Souroe: Ciry of 8oulder, State of Colorado ES202; Econpnic 8 Planni~g Syslems H115Be8bntltlm T~t Vllepe~A~[Q15BBBES202.tls1~+^~YN' NNCS 75H66-TMW27D6 AGENDA ITEM#16~BPAGE# 27 January 31, 2005 Using the same FS-202 data from the second quarter of 2004, the number of establishments and employees in the City were organized by NAICS code and compared with the numbers from the TVA analysis. The four industries containing the rnajority of the employment within the TI~A were compared to the total City of Boulder employment within these industries. Two categories accounted for over 20 percent of the City employment including Retail Trade (222 percent) and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (2A.2 percent) as shown in Table 2. The remaining two industries - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and Manufacturing - accounted for 14.0 and 9.2 penent respectively of total City employmenk Three additional industries stand out from the TVA to City comparison The employment within the TVA accounts for a significant portion of the total City employment within these industries. They include Arts, Entertainment, and Re¢eation which acwunt for 32.0 percent of City employment, Wholesale Trade (16.4 percent), and Finance and Insurance (16.2 percent). However, the three industries combined account for only 17.0 percent of the T'VA employment Table 2 Employment by lodustry CompaNson, 2004 Boulder Trensk Vlllage Canmerclal Malysis Industry EshWish• menls NA Pdof Empby- Boulder maM PUof Boultlar CHy oT Bouldar EsMW4M Empby- meMS meM p~ricutture, Farestry, Fishing and Hun6ng 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 17 53 Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 70 44 ~~~~ 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 24 ConsU~xiion 23 62% 220 10.1% 3W 2.183 Manufaduriig 42 14.6% 818 92% 288 8,902 WholeseleT~ade 40 10.7% 454 16.4% 398 2,789 Relail Trade 82 14.6% 1.856 ?22% 561 7,484 Transportation arM Warehousing 3 5.9% 75 8.0% 51 940 Infortnalion 11 4.5% 228 3.0% 248 7.867 Fnance and Insura~e 50 74.2% 488 162% 351 3,012 Real Esfate a~M ReMel and le~sing 22 6.0% 76 5.1% 38B 1,503 Pro(essionel, SdenUlic, and Technical Services 82 5.7% 7.657 14.0% 1,443 11.860 ManagemeM M Companies and Enterprises 1 32% 40 7.5% 37 534 AdmiNSuppoA & WartelRemediation Services 35 12.9% 694 202% 272 3,444 EducationalServi~s 14 11.0% 104 72% 72'! 8,862 HeaHh Care antl Social Assiatence 36 7.0% 254 3.3% 516 7,742 Arts, Entertainmen4 and Reaeatian 10 8.8% 538 32.0% 116 1,682 Accommodation and Food Services 25 6.6% 439 5.9% 378 7,400 Otl~er SeMCes (excepl Pudic AdminisiraUon) 45 9.~ 247 9.4 487 2 621 Total 528 8.7X &69 10.9X &028 79,028 gwr~: cnr mewea; smre w caa.ao ~; ~~ a ai..~~e sy.~~s OFp11YMAO~.tsee66oVanT~YNlqlb/1~~ ~~^^~nM u/l6 The overall employment within the T'VA accounts for 10.9 percent of City employment. Therefore, no one industry with employees in the T'VA azea accounts for a significant portion of total employment within the City of Boulder. 15B66-TM012706 AGENDA ITEM#6$PAGE# 28 January 31, 2005 SERVICE INDUSTRIAL: TVA VS. CTTY COMPARISON Each of the four industries identified above was analyzed in greater detail to identify specific business clusters/niches by compiling data on more detailed four digit NAICS groupings. Each industry was then compared to total employment within the City of Boulder to verify the importance the specific business clusters/niches identified. MANUFACTURING The previous analysis of the T'VA employment idendfied Printing and Related Support Services as a cluster/niche within the TVA based on number of employees and industries. When compazed to tohal employees within the Printing field, the 1'VA contains 52.1 percent of all City employees within this category and 4.0 percent of total City employment, as shown in Table 3. However, the 316 employees in this category employed within the TVA only account for 0.4 percent of the City of Boulder total employment. This small percentage of total employment suggests that Printing Services does not constitute a major cluster/niche within the City of Boulder. Table 3 Manufacturing Employment Comparison, 2004 Boulder Transit Village Commerclai Analysis ManufacWri~qlntlwtrNs Ee1ab maMS NA t Empby- BouMa maM Pet o Boulder C of eouldx ~ msnb m~N Mimal Food 7 100.0% 2 200.0% 1 7 Da'ry PmAUCt 1 100.0% 4 68.7% 1 6 Belceries aM Talille 3 30.0% 136 67.3% 10 202 geverage 7 18.7% G3 80.8% 6 71 Otl~er Tezlile Produd Mills 1 20.0% 15 28.9% 5 57 Apperel Accesso~ies and OlherApperel 1 100.0% 21 100.0% 1 21 PriMing end RelaOeE Support Pcih~Xias 73 32.5% 376 52.1% 40 6U6 PleeticaProduclMenufacWrinp 2 33.3% 7 22.8% 6 . 31 RuhherRoduclMenufecWArp 1 33.3% 33 BC.B% 3 39 Costi~g, EngiaWng, Heat Treatlng, end ABied Adivitlea 1 50.0% 25 73.5% 2 34 Commerdal an0 Servke Industry MecWrery 1 18.7% 6 2.8% 6 Y12 MemNrorkng MazhM~ery 2 68.7% 14 73.7% 3 19 Commu~Faliorre EQuipmeM 1 12.5% 2 0.6% 8 323 pudio end Video EquiPmerR 2 40.0% 23 C6.9% 5 49 SemicarMucbreMOtlrerElaclronkCOmporont 7 7.1X 60 8.7% t4 818 Navigatlorel, Fkaeu'ig. Eleclromedical. enO Cmtrol InsWmeMS 7 2.9% 14 0.4% 34 3,819 OTherElecOricelEqWpmentaMCOmpone~rt 1 33.3% 16 28.7% 3 57 FbuselnkandlreUWlbrelFumlWreantlKMCMnCebuiel 1 9.1% 1 3.7% 17 27 OlherFumiluieReleOeEProAUCIMenWacWrhg 1 50.0% 20 83.3% 2 24 OtlierASecellerreousManufacW~inB 4 223& ffi ~1.94 2Z 1@$ Tafal 42 22.3% 821 129X 188 8,389 Swice~ CNY af BaMx; SbM at ftlveEO ES]02: Emunk 6 PIenM^6 Sri~ rv~wm~4vwama. *~.r ~+D~w+eees~~o.a+P~ a ia 75866-7M012706 AGENDA ITEM#`•g PAGE# 29 January 31, 2005 RETAIL TIZADE The regional and community retail uses located along 30~ and north of the former Cxossroads site contains the bulk of the retaIl employment within the TVA. These retail employees mnstitute about one quarter (24.8 percent) of all retail employees within the City of Boulder, as shown in Table 4. Geazly, retail employment in this area is a vital employment source within the City and reinforces the importance of regional and community retail within this subarea, especially along 30~ Street. Table 4 Retatl Trade Empbyment CompaMson, 2004 Boulder Transft Village Commerciai Analysis RafallTradelnduaMas Establish- ments rvA PM BouWar mpby- maM Pct Boultler C4Y of Boulaer Estab - Empby- men~e ment q~py~~ pey~yq 6 33.3% 173 21.5% 18 805 AuOOmoUve Parts, ACCessoAes, enC Tlre SOOre6 5 23.8% 48 26.9% 21 177 Fumidxe Stores 2 11.8'b 21 18.8% 17 112 Hane Fumishirgs Stares 7 21.9% 38 13.7% 32 2~8 Elechronks antl Applience Stares 4 11-4% 65 18.9% 35 384 BuiWirg Materlal end Sipplies Dealers 8 30.0% 71 14.2% 20 500 Lawn ard GeNen EqulpmerR enA SuppBes Staes 2 28.8% 35 522% 7 67 G~,, ~~ 3 15.8% SdB 39.3% 19 1.393 Spedetty Footl Stares 1 10.0% 2 1.8% 10 110 Beer. Wine, end Liquor Stores 3 14.3% 21 H.8% 21 178 HeelCi and Persaiel Cere Stores 6 15.4% 85 25.1% 39 338 Gasoline SfeGons 3 8.8% 15 6.4% 35 235 Jew~ry, Luggepe, and Leather C,ooOs Slaes 2 12.5% 7 10.4% 18 67 Sportirg C,ooda. Hobby, and Musicel InsWmerR Stares 7 14.0% 54 9.5% 50 389 Book. Periodlcel, anE Music Storea 1 7.7% 71 32.1 % 13 221 p~~~ g~ 1 50.0% 237 70.5% Z 336 Fbrists 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 9 84 O(fce Supplies, Sf6tionery. end Gift Slores 5 21.7% 65 33.3% 23 195 UseO Merchandise S[ures 3 13.8% 79 14.4% 22 '132 ppbr lpisce~leneous gppre Retsllera 9 20.0% 49 22.7% 45 276 EledmNC Stwpping and MaiFOrder Houses 4 12.9% 53 14.5% 31 385 Di2U Selling F.s1a6NshmeMS 1 11.1 7 25. $ 71 Total 82 16.8;4 1,68Y 26.8X ~94 6,783 swos: ani ~eaw.~; sw acmam esanx E~om~mc a r~m~ sysume a~nu.rs~,~esa.ia.n.wv+~o~w,~~au~.asw~e.ri. PROFFSSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TEQ3NICAL SERVICES A research and development cluster/niche was identified in the previous analysis within the TVA. Overall, the TVA accounts for 14.0 percent of all Professional, Scientific, and Technical Service employment within the City of Boulder, as shown in Table 5. Reseazch and Development employees, within the TVA, account for neazly a quarter (24.3 percent) of all employees within this category. However, these 722 employees account for approximately 1.0 percent of all employees in the City of Boulder. sseec-rnTOUwe AGENDA ITEM#b'BPAGE# 30 January 31, 2005 Table 5 Professlonal, Scientiflc, and Technical Employment Comparison, 2004 Boulder Transit Vlltage Commercial Analysis PST Induatrlaa Eaq611sh• menu NA Pctof Empby Boulder mant Petof Boultler City of Boulder EsfabliaR Employ- meMS mant Legel SeMCes 16 8.2% 36 42% 195 B51 Accwnting, Tea Preparatbn, Boolckeeping, and Payioll 13 7 7.7% 60 15.9% 171 377 Architectural, EnglneeAng, antl Relaled Services 14 5.4% 123 5.6% 261 2.188 Spedalized Deeipn Services 2 3.0% 3 1.3% 66 226 Canpuler Syslems Design and Related Services 13 4.0% 287 10.3% 32B 2,798 Managemerrt. SdeatHic, end T~hnipl Consui~ng 8 2.9% 225 21.0% 274 1,070 Sde~NNC Resea~ch aM Denebpmefrt Servkes 10 12.5% 722 24.3% 80 2,977 AdverUsing aM RelaOed SerNCes 2 4.7% 14 7.4% 43 180 Otlier Profesalanal, SUenqfic, and Techniral 5 5.8 222 18.3% 86 1.210 Total 82 5.7!6 1665 14.0% 1,443 17,880 SaMCe: Clty d BdMtler, Sb1e W CdaeOO ESZUY: Fm~arNC 8 PIaMnB Syetwns tlFw1tl~W~a~.~aesmlYri~..Ilw~a~MtanESro]fiwa+~F i.b. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT AND WASTE/REMEDIATION SERVICES The Administrative and Support and Waste and Remediation Services industry contains some of the highest concenfrations of Gty of Boulder employees within specific industries. The employees in the Business Support Services (217 employees) account for 52.9 percent of total City of Boulder employees within this category, as shown in Table 6. In addirion, Travel Arrangement and Reservation Service employees (90) within the TVA account for 32.8 percent of all employees within this category in the City of Boulder. However, all the employees within the entire Administrative and Support and Waste and Remediation Services industry in the TVA account for less than 1.0 percent of total City of Boulder employment Table 8 Administrative and Support and WastelRemedfatlon EmploymeM Comparison, 2004 Boulder Transk Village Commercial Malysis Industry , Estab~sM menta NA Petof Employ- Bouldx ment PctM 8ouldar Cfty of Boulder EsWbflsh- Employ- ma~ts maM Office Adminishative Services 7 7.1% 10 10.8% 14 93 EmploymeMServices 10 30.3% 197 16.1% 33 1,221 Business Suppat Services 8 20.0% 277 52.9% 40 410 Trevel ArtanpemeM e~d Reservatian Services 5 152% 90 32.8% 33 274 InvesUgation and Security Services 3 27.3% 20 28.6% 17 70 Services M BuiWings and Dwellings 6 5.9% 147 16.3% 102 904 Other Suppat Services 1 3.0% 1 0.3% 33 336 WasfeCdlectian 1 50. 6 4~.~' 2 ~ Total 35 13.1SG BB8 20.0% 268 3,433 Souce: Gry ol Baltler, smte a CdaeEO ES2o2: EcwwMC a Rarming systeme aEpe~10XM~~ 6eeseu~erT ir~Y 01ep1MSW 6mFSptCa~pMwntl~p T.oi. 15866-iM012Ai6 AGENDAITEMti~=6PAGE# 31 January 31, 2005 SERVICE INDUSTRIAL Comparing the Service Industrial uses (as defined by the City of Boulder) within the T'VA ro employment within the City of Boulder by these same categories identifies five major industries. The five industries include Appazel, Piece Goods, and Notions Merchant Wholesalers (81.8 percent), Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicles ParLs and Supplies (55.0 percent), Chemical and Allied Products (54.8 percent), Lawn and Gazden Equipment and Supplies Stores (52.2 percent), and Printing and Related Support Services (521 percent). Three of these five industries differ from the previously identified service industrial clusters. These three new industries account for a majority of the employment within the City in these categories, identifying a concentration within the TVA azea. However, these six industries combined, with a total of 601 employees, acwunt for less than 1.0 percent of total City of Boulder employment. The uses categorized as Service/Industrial in the TVA do not include a lazge number of community serving uscs. Approximately 33 percent of the Service Industrial establishments aze in Whoiesale Trade industries. These busimsses generally supply retailers and other business and cate to larger market areas than the City of Boulder. Overall, rewning the service industrial land within the TVA will not siginificanfly impact the availability of industrial services that serve City of Bonlder residents for the following reasons: The small number of establishments in community-oriented Service Industrial industries, such as I.awn and Gazden Fquipment and Supplies (2 establishments), Services to Buildings and Dwellings (6 establishments), Automotive Repair and Maintenance (22 establishments), and Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance (2 establishments), acmunt for a small fraction (14 percent) of the total number of establishmenis m the City of Boulder as a whole. The displacement of these businesses, if it occurs, will not significanfly impact the availability of these services. The geographic location of Service Industrial uses does not significanfly impact their ability to serve the Boulder community. Many of these businesses (e.g., Services to Buildings and Dwellings and Lawn Care) do not require the consumer to visit the actual establishmrnt; instead they come to the consumer. The other Service Industrial uses (e.g., Automotive Repair and Maintenance and Personal and _ Household Goods Repair and Maintenance) have a low frequency of consumer visits; therefore their immediate proximity to azea residents is not a high priority. Most of these community-oriented Service Industrial uses exist within the TVA because of the availability of low rent space. These users aze low rent users and will continue to locate where low rent space is available. The outside development pressures already occurring in the TVA azea, which will only increase with the addition of a transit stop, will mostly likely force rents up displacing many of these users despite the mmderlying zoning. 15H66-TM012706 AGENDA TTEM#6~BPAGE# 32 January 31, 2005 Table 7 Service Industrlal Employment Comparison, 2004 Boulder TransR Village Commercial Analysis ~~dy~py EntahllaM1- manb Tyq Pct of BoulCar Empby- ment Pct o( BoulAar Clly W Boulder Eatebdah- Emplq- menb mant Manuhcluelnp PrinWg end Releled Suppoh AcllvNes 13 32.5% 318 52.1% n0 608 ourer Mlacelleneous rnenutaaw+ng 1 3.Z.ffi 2 1.~ ~ 1@3 ~,y~ u so.ax a~e oo.sx a~ ns whdasaM rna - Molor VeHda entl Motor Ve~k9e PeNS anE SuppNes 1 33.3% 22 55.0% 3 40 FumiWreand Hane Fumishinp 1 8.3% 1 3.2% 72 31 Prpfesalonel eiM CanmemAel Equlpmeirt and SuppAes 7 11.7X 93 10.5% BO 9b2 ~~qk~ ~q E~yp~~ (~~ppeg 3 8.8% 23 5.9% 34 392 FieNwere, end PWmbMg antl Hmtl~ Equlpment antl Supplies 3 30.0% 10 20.4% 10 49 Machlnery. Equipment, enA Supptes 4 21.1% 72 26.8'K 19 82 MI6Cellaneaue Ouable Go00s 5 11.99: 31 12.3% 42 252 Paper erN Papx Pmduct 1 18.7% 8 20.0% 6 40 pfu8g antl Onggkte' SunOAes 1 14.39L 2 2.8% 7 72 qpparel, Pieca Gaods, end Notlona 4 33.3% 184 Bt.BX 72 225 ~ry a~p ~y~ p~pd~( yy~~9 2 f0.59i 3 2.3% 19 130 ~~ ~q qp~y p~~~,yg 2 33.3% 17 54.8% 8 31 MigceY9neou6 Nddu~eUle CaoaES 2 9.59L 22 13.3% 21 765 Whobsak EbctraNc M1a~kels end Agenla arM emkers 4 2.89i 1.4 ,5.494 13I +1P2 g~y~y~ ~10 f0.3% ~59 16.8% 38B 3.893 Refall Tretle q~pm~ p~~y 6 33.3% 173 21.5% 18 805 qubmptlve PaAS. PcceswAes. arW Tka Sbr86 5 23.8% Ib 2b.91b 21 171 BulltlY~p MeteAel enC SuppAes OeBbB 8 30.09G 71 142% 20 WO Lawn and GeNen EqulqneM aM Suppllas Slores 2 2fl:594 $,!` `,72.~ Z 9Z g~pppy~ 18 28A% 325 27.1% 88 1.S~A Transporte~lon enA warohouN~p SuppoAPCtMUestarNrTransportetbn 1 20.09G 1 5.0% 5 20 Support ActlvlUes tar Rmd Tranepona~bn 1 25.09i 0 0.0% 4 2B cauners 1 14.9.96 Z3 28~°i ]4 131 gypyvl 3 15.8% 74 ?A.7% 79 289 MmINSupport i WssbrttemWletlon Sarvlces Bu6lnBee Slqport SBrvkee 2 5.0%. 59 14.4% 40 470 Services to BuMdnps antl Wrellln~ 6 5.9% 147 16.3% 102 904 qha~~g~,~5 1 3.0% 1 0.3X 33 336 WasteCdlec~an 1 ',t~.494 fl 4.@7i 2 ~3,4 auem~ai ~o s.ex z~s ~z.ox m ~,ns EGUfatlonel SeMCe~ Tedmicel and Tratle Schaols 1 9.19G 7 0.7% 11 150 W~erSdioolsanANatnictlon $ 1].$°Li lfl EZ96 ,`!1 24B gyp~v~ ' 7 71.3% 19 SOX 82 989 pMer SeMas (w~apl Publlc AtlminlaVatlon) . q~~~ ry~pgK g~p ~~¢~9 22 202% 120 18.594 108 fi49 Perwnel anO Haceetold GroAS Repalr a~M MeIM. 2 18.7% 8 13.0% 12 46 pryqeairinganOlBUrMrySaNCes 1 7.1% 5 3.1% 14 787 OMer Personel Servkes ~4 ~,Z'N~ `,~ ~Q,7.44 ~4 ~fi SuUlafd ' 70 18.2X 1M 77.6% 165 1.0.M Tpp~ 12~ 19.0% 1,SB6 7&e% 9N 8,514 sa.ca: c~ry a ewax s.ro acaaeeo ~xoz: ewmmc a ri.~.~q syamro w.~e+.'am~xwaae. m~r xwe.'aw~xme~ W s..w a e.w ~.a 15866-TM012706 AGENDAITEM#6'BPAGE# 33 January 31, 2005 SUPPORTABLE AETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE This section of the memorandum summarizes the preliminary estimate or supportable retail square footage associated with new residential development in the T'VA. Atthough the specific preliminary concepts developed by City staff aze no longer being considered, they were used to analyze the range of future potential retail in relation to new residential development. An estimate of supportable retail square footage is determined by estimating the resident expenditure potential within the pmposed new households and converting that potential into squaze footage using industry accepted average annual sales per square foot figures. Retail expenditures can be estimated as a function of the total personal income of the trade azea and p~cent of inrnme typically spent by retail smre category. Total personal income (TPn is calculated by multiplying the households within a defined geographic area by the average household income for that defined azea. The average percentage of TPI spent by retail store category can be determined from Census of Retail Trade data on a statewide basis. Multiplying the trade azea TPI by the Census of Retail Trade average expenditure figure for a specific store category deterntines the dollaz amount trade area residents can be expected to spend regazdless of location The first concept focuses on providing new apportunities for housing in the T'VA. The concept includes approximately 5,000 new households, with an estimated population of 11,000 new people. In addition, the concept includes nearly 2.0 million square feet of additional commercial and industrial development. The second concept focuses on providing opportunities for general industrial, service industrial, and commercial land uses. However, the rnncept does include an additional 2,500 housing units with an estimabed popalation of 5,600 new people. The concept proposes an additiona12.7 million square feet of industrial and commercial development TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME An estimate of the total personal income generated by the proposed development plans is presented in Table S. In both concepts a stabilized vacancy raM of 5.0 percent is assumed reducing the total number of households for TPI calculadon purposes. The first concept will take an estimated 15 years to absorb completely at roughly 250 households annually. Initially the new households will generate approximately $330.2 million by completion. The second concept will take an estimated 10 yeazs to absorb completely with roughly 167 new households joining the Boulder market annually. The 2500 new households will generate $165.1 million in TPI. 15866-TMO12706 AGENDA ITEM#G-6 PAGE# 34 January 31, 2005 7able 8 Total Personal Income, 2010 - 2025 Boulder Transk Village Commerclal Analysis Factor Completion Concept#1 Housing Units 5,000 Less: Vacant Units s56 (250) Households 4,750 Avg. HH Income 15 Income (SOOOs) f330,196 Concept#2 Housfng Units 2,500 Less: Vapnt UniLS s% (125) Households 2,375 Avg. HH Incame 69 15 Income (SOOOs) 5165,098 Source: City d Boulder; Clari[as; Economk 8 Plannirp Systems xEw~~~~smeawn.r~~ww~WSeessuw«rowe ~e.x sn~~zsaaaelmi CONCEPT #1 The retail expenditure potential generated by the proposed 5,000 new households is approximately $106 mIIlion annually, after mmpledon, as shown in Table 9. However, not every dollaz of the new resident retail expenditure potential will be spent within the City of Boulder. The analysis assumes only 67 percent of the expenditure potential will remain within Boulder, based on a full sales flow analysis performed as part of the Boulder Retail Strategy project. The local capture rate varies by store as shown. Afber factoring out the retail outtlow the resident expenditures is estimated at $70.7 million annually, once the 5,000 households aze built out, which may take 15 to 20 years. ~sees-rnao~zms AGENDAITEM#6.gPAGE# 35 Januaiy 31, 2005 Table 9 Concept l~1: Resident Expenditure Poternial Boulder Transtt Village Commerclal Malysls Store Type pe(, of TPI Residant Expend. Potentlal (SOOns) Local Caplure Reside~R E~cpeadilures Isooos) Convenience Goods Supertnarkets / Grocery 6.0% $19.812 90°~ $17,831 Specialty Food Staes 02% 660 90% 594 ConvenienceStores 0.1% 330 90% 297 Beer, Wi~e, 8 Liquor Stores 0.8% 2.642 90% 2,377 Health and Personal Care 1.~ 4~23 85% 3 929 Total Convanienee Goods 8.SX 28,067 25,029 Shoppers Goods Generel Merchandise 6.6% 21.793 30% 6,538 Cbthing & Accessories 2.1% 6,934 70% 4.854 Fumiture & Hane Fvnishings 1.6% 5,283 75% 3,962 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 1.5% 4,953 85% 4,210 Electronus&Appliar~ces 1.3% 4,293 90% 3,863 Misceilaneous Refail 1.5% , 4 53 60% 2~2 Total Shoppers Goods 14.8;6 48,~09 26~399 Ealing and Drinking 52% 17,170 65% 11,161 Building Materiel & Gerden 3.8% 12.547 65% 8,156 Total Retall Gooda 32.1% 5105,993 67% 570,745 Source: 2002 Census M RebA Tatle: GaMae: Ciry d BouMer E~nanic & Plenniig Syatems ~~w~u+.wM»awaer rma w WumaN~~sewKK~ ws~ eo.~+zre,a.lemwb n T'he analysis presented in Table 10 converts the estimated retail expenditures into supportable square footage of new retail space. The amount of retail space supported by the new households is estimated by dividing the retail sales by average annual sales per square foot estimates. 15866-TM0127p6 AGENDA ITEM#(.RPAGE# 36 Januaiy 31, 2005 Table 10 Concept #1: Supportable Square Pootage Boulder Transit Village Commerclal Analysis Sa1es Supportable Store Type Per SqFt Square Feet Convenience Goods SupermarketslGrocery 5400 44,576 Spedalty Food 5300 1,981 Convenience Stores 5400 743 Beer, W ine, 8 Liquor $300 7~925 HealU~ and Personal Care $300 ~ 3.098 Total Convanience Goods 68,323 Shopper's Goods General Merchandise . $400 16,345 Cbthing & Accessories $300 16,180 Fumiture & Home Fumishings $250 75,&49 Sporling Goods, Habby, Book, & Music $300 14,033 Electronics & Appliances $`.~ ~~~2~ Miscellaneous Retail $250 11 887 Total Shopper's Goods 82,~z~ Eating and Drinking $350 31,888 Building Material 8 Garden $300 27,186 Total Retail Goods 209,418 ' Supportable Squere Feet are pieaeMed as cumulatlve numbers Source: 2002 Census d Reteil Tratle; ClarMes; City of Boulder; Economic d Plaiminp Systems PEpat'61MC{~1588&Bautler Tni W I MWpN11oEeI~Y168BeSUppdYde ReYll Spr.c011508~ls~5uppo~e0le SVFI Pt The 5,000 proposed new households within the first concept will support approximately 200,000 square feet of new retail across various categories. Not all of the 200,000 square feet of supportable space translates into demand for mixed use retail space. The largest single block of new square footage falls within the Supermazkets/Grocery category. The estimated 45,IX10 square feet would be close to the level needed to justify a new supermarket. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, the City of Boulder is currenfly well tenanted with traditional grocers. In addition, Figure 2 shows that much of the Boulder market has been penetrated by natural food grocers like Wild Oats and Whole Foods. The supermarkets are pazticularly dense in and azound the T'VA. More than likely, the addirional sales would be absorbed by these existing stores. The 82,000 square feet of supportable Shoppe~'s Goods retail space is expected to bel absorbed in the larger trade azea by existing or new lazge- and mid-box development, especially along 28~ and 30~h Streets surrounding the Twenty Ninth Street project. In addition, the 27,000 square feet of Building Material and Gazden square footage will also be absorbed elsewhere in the trade area. Therefore, excluding the supermarket, the 158fi6-iM0127(/6 AGENDA ITEM#6.R PAGE# 37 . Jttr~+r~ri~ 31, 't~US remainin~; 23,Ot?U square feet c~f cc?n~rei~iei~ce i°etail a~td ~2,t?Q() square feet of eatir7~ ~~t1d clt•inkii~~ se~uarc iaatage can E?e'absc~rE?etl l~~' [TlYYtI~ US4' S~7~CC'~'Vit~ltll tflt? T~~~. Tlte tat<~1 c~e~Zta~1c~ fc~r mixt~d us~* ~c~tai[ i5 cstim~ted at ~5',C~Uf} ~c~t~ace~ fc.~~t oi ~}~~~ce. f~:i~ren the sitc's r,E~nk~ral ee_ntr:~l lc~c~~tic~n, this ~mc~unt c,f spacc c~ulci b~ incrcascd by a~ac~or nf t~~vo as a k~i~;h sidr esti~~iate r•r.sultii~~; ii1 a ran~;r~ fr~~r~7 :?5,i)()0 ta 1 1(),(1(lt) tiyu~~r~~ ~E'E't. i.;:'tlf: P;blili.':il(i~ - AE~E~1[~.~1, I`1'1::ti~[~~~8 )~r1(_rl;:~~~~`s Figure 1 Supermarkei Distribution, 2005 Boulder'Fransit Viilage Commercial Anaiysis farruanf ~"t, 2Ut?5 I'~i:=bn 7~ht1?Il;i7h :~1GLNDA ITLI~4~t6~-~ PAG~ft ~;`~. I Figure 2 Naturai Food Groce~ Distribution, 2005 Boufder Transit Village Commerciai Analysis Jw~~„~ si, zoos CONCEPT #2 The retail expenditure potential generated by the pmposed 2,500 new households is approximarely $53 million annually, after wmpletion as shown in Table 11. After factoring out the retail outflow the resident expenditures is estimated at $35.4 million annually, at buildout, after a112,500 households are inhabited by new residents. Table 11 Concept #2: Resident Ezpendlture PoteMial Boulder Transk Village Commerclal Analysis Slore Type Convenienca Gooda pct, o( Resident Eupend. Local ResidaM TPI PolentWl Capture F~andilures Supertnarkels / Grocery 6.0% $9.906 90% $8.915 SpeciaUy Food Stores 02% 330 90% 297 ConvenienceSbres 0.1% 165 90% 149 Beer. Wine, & Liquor Stores 0.8% 1.321 90% 1.189 Healtli and Personel Cere 1,4°la 2,~~1 85% 1.965 Total Convenbnes Goods 8.5X ~ 14,033 12,514 Shoppar's 6oods Generel Merchendise 6.6% 10,896 30% 3,269 Cbfhing & Accessa'les 2.1 % 3,467 70% 2,427 FumiWre & hbme Fumishings 1.8% 2,&42 75% 1,981 Sporting Gooda, Hobby, Bodc, & Music Stores 1.5% 2.476 85% 2,105 Electronics 8 Appllences 1.3% 2,746 90% 1,932 Miscellaneous Refail t.~ 2~78 60% 1.486 Total Shoppere Csooda 74.6% 24,104 13,200 Eating and Drinking 52% 8,585 65% 5,580 Building Material & Garden 3.8% 6,274 65% 4,W8 Tofal RMail Goods 32.796 552.998 S~`,372 ' Ravtlml EzPeMilure PateMlel b P~M~ as amulethe numEeis Saurce: 2002 Cerieus d Rel~ TaEe; Cleips; Clry d Bautler. Emiwnk S Plem6p Sysleme CFy1NYMPm~.1lBB6BpYMtTIwYllVipeMVIM~16B8B&ypdbtl~RNY Bpau01]dU8.t1RqMM 14 L5866-TM011706 AGENDA ITEM#y-(;PAGE# 40 Jrmuary 31, 2005 The analysis presented in Table 12 converts the estimated retail expenditures into supportable square footage of new retail space. The amount of retail space s~pported by the new households is estimated by dividing the retail sales by average annual sales per square foot estimates. Table '12 Concepl #2: Supportable Square Footage Boulder Transit Vtllage Commercial A~alysis Sales Supporfable Store Type Per SqFt Square Feet ConveNence Goods Supermarkets / Grocery $400 22,288 Specialty Food $300 991 Convenience Staes _ $400 371 Beer, Wine, & Liquor $300 3,962 Health and Personal Care $300 6 549 Total Convenlence Goods 34,162 Shopper's Goods General Merchandise $400 8.172 Clothing 8 Accessorles $300 8,090 Fumiture 8 Home Furnishings $250 7,925 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, 8 Music $300 7,017 ElecVOnics 8 Appliances $500 3,863 Miscellaneous Retail $250 5 944 Total Shoppar's Goods 41,010 Eadng and Drinking $350 15,944 Building Mate~ial & Garden $300 13,593 Total ReWil Goods 104,709 Squere Peet are presentetl as wmuletive numbera Source: 2002 Cereus of Refail Trade; CleMes; Gry of Boulder, Economic 8 Plann(ng Syslems ~~u+wmwmpixeeawnrrremn~m[+sem~aoou~~. wmn 5wu~+~web.l~aw~~scfl n The 2,500 proposed new househalds within the second mncept will support appro~dmately 100,000 square feet of new retail across various categories. The largest single block of new square footage falls within the Supermazkets/Grocery category at 22,000 square feet The existing store pattern suggests these gocery sales will most likely be absorbed without a new store in the TVA. The 41,~ square feet of Shoppe~'s Goods space and 14,000 square feet of Building Material and Gazden space will be absorbed elsewhere in the trade area. Therefore, the remaining 12,000 squaze feet of other convenience and 16,000 square feet of Eating and Drinking constitute the potential demand for mixed use retail space (28,000 square feet) within the TVA. Given the site s general centrallocaHon, this amount of space could be increased by a facror of two as a high side estimate resulting in a range from 28,000 to 56,000 square feet. 15866-7M0127P6 AGENDA ITEM# 6'BPAGE# 41 ATTACHMENT F taoo ewm sraai Drn~r~ ool~e~o eo¢ox-tsse a~r~aooo December 19, 2005 Mickt Keplan Senior Trensportation Plan~er City of Boulder/GO Boulder PO Box 797 Boutder, Colorado 80306 Re: 30'"/Pearl Commuter Rail Station l.ocation Dear Ms. Kapla~: This letter and attached white paper are intended to provide clar'rficetion on RTD's position on the locetion of the commuter rail station platform for the 30'"/Pearl Station. As you know, RTp ia currently in the finel ateges of the draft EIS for the US 38 Corridor which will be released in 2008. RTD's position is basad on current level of engineering and environmerrtal aneysis that has been completed through thet procesa. Ou~ position on the stetion platForm bcation reHects our current design standards and input fram the Burlington Nortfiem Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad. The attached white peper provides a technical summary of RTD's position about the location of the rail pletform. A simplified summary of that position is provided in the following builets: • RTD's current desig~ standards do not allow for station platFortns to be located on e curve. Gaps between the platform end a treln located at the station would violate requiremeMS for handicap access under the American with Dieabilities Act (ADA). I~ eddftfon, we have received input from BNSF that they will not allow a pietfortn on e curve within their right-of-way. • RTD belfevea that a separation of the commuter rail functions and regianal bus functions at this Ixation is prefereble. There will be minimal interface between regional bus activity and regional rail activity at this location becsuse they provide duplicetive services. Local lws accesa to activity centers within Bailder is plann~ to be provided at both the regional bus facil'rty and the commuter reil faciGty. If you have any questione about this lettsr or the white paper please contact Bill Sirois at ~ 303.299.24'17. Sincerely, ~ John Shonsey Senior Maneger, Enginaering c: Henry Stopplecamp, Engineering Technical Services Manager Bill Sirois, Ma~ager, Tronsit Oriented Development Dave Shelley, Manager, Cortidor Planning M EqUY OpporUnRy /A~w J1cYOn Enpbyer AGENDAITEM#(•g PAGE#'~/~ January 31, 2005 CONCLUSIONS The following poinls summarize the analysis of industrial employment within the TVA and the support for new retail generated by the proposed land use concepts. • Total employment within the 1'VA accounts for 10 percent of citywide employment. None of the previously identified clusters acwunts for more than 4 percent of citywide employment. Therefore, the overall importance of the general and service industrial uses, within the TVA, to the City of Boulder appeazs minimal. • The potential retail demand for Shoppe~s Goods generated new housing units in the T'VA will be absorbed by existing, proposed, and future development in and azound the 29~ Street properly. • The grocery store sales generated by new housing in the range az~alyzed will most likely be absorbed by e~dsting stores in the azea. However, the number of new households generated in the first concept is close to the level that would support another grocery store. Howeva, this would not occur until neazly all the households have been added to the City, appro~dmately 10 m 15 years in the fuivre. • Much of the smaller rnmmunity scale retail can be constructed as part of mixed use buildings within the T'VA. Depending on the amount of new housing units constructed in the TVA the demand for mixed-use retail muld range from 28,000 to 55,000 square feet. The total demand for community retail aright be as high as 100,000 square feet if a new supermuket is needed by housing growth, both in the TVA and elsewhae in the trade area. 15H66-TM0727(16 AGENDAITEM#G"BPAGE# 42 ~~'I"1'~1(`flh~~lf~N~T [: Regional a~ac~ ~.,ocal Transpor~ation ~ante~t VVt~at is C`~~m~t~uter Itail? Ce.~nrrt¢ttter rtrif re(ers tu f~cr,s.ven,~rr rr-ceir~s ~~T~e~rr~r- ecI uri rrtue» fi~i~ rcri(~t+ud trct~~~ ttx~iru~icde trtvr.r~ norlttfic»r fietH>rr.tr .rat~- ur•larrn ctr2te~•s tr~ ct>irtrnl t'tt,; Cc'1if[~Y.S tllYr2 e'n~f)Ir'iy- tIt871C f'FJTfEY.i' 'I'}~t ~aach~s arc often simil:~r to intercity {~4~n(r~kj cc~achcs, but typseal#y have higher density ~e:~tiai~ ~ts die xvcr.~gc ride i~ ghorter. C'a~a~r~~titer rail 1ir~es r~t~r«1a~1~~ cxtcnc~ sn a~~cr~~e af 1() t~~ St) miles froin th~ir t~ow•ntvw~r terminux. In son~e cas~.c sen~ ice is only offered in ru~h haurs. In ncher cities, service is ~~?ecat~ thc~augl~oui di~ dx}~ and e.~~~nin~, and i~~t w•~~kcrtd~. St~tiU[~ t{k~%i~~~ is [;•~i- caily me<t~ureti in inil~s. Commut~r eai! systema (sonye etectrik'ied. soine c~iesel ~~auledj a~~ tr;~ditio~i<dl~- .~ss~ivtcd with older industri;tl ei[i~s su~ii qs 13o~[r~r~, ~tc.~T Yurk, F'EUl~ci~l{z9iia.lE~d C]~ieago, bu[ ii~ rcc~nl ye,us ne~~ dicsel ~~wvered coauz~uter rrul syste3i~ h.~~~e tx~tn iz~c,ugueatr.d in cili~s t~s diveri~ ~s Lc>s A~~~;c:lcs :t€icl Burlingtun, Vcrmnnt, ~t5 tr2ftic «n~es€i~ti tk~> >i~tlc; autt7 ~or~u~tutcs inucli t~torc diftirull. M~~ty .~ci:lition:il ci~ics xrC plza~riing cc>mrr~uter rail lints cuttently. t'oinat~utcr r~til liiret c.in u}xr~EC over exist- i~tg fr~.igRt c:ul linen. V4'hat is Bu~ Itapid Transit (Bf~T)'? t3k`l' i.h a brc~.7d t~rn~ ~iven u~ .i ~~:~r~ety af bri~ tr.ai~s~x,rta- ticv~ s~~ste~t~s dtat. thmtEgh inCr~slntctt~Xal ,irtd ~chcduaen~; imprc~vemeir[s, u~e~ bt~ses to pmti~id~ ~t serti~iCc Ekt;~t i~ :~ It~~lter ~~ualiiv, f<~ster, co~~ve~ier~t ~nd ~~uire cc~~r~f~r~<ablc than a~~ earc~in~r}~ bl~~ li~ic. '1'he gc~al is to a~prvai.h Ihc- scr- t~ iCU t~u~fity at n~iil tr~an+it ;~[ t1 fr.t~tic~s~ i~E Ihe c-ust, ~~hilc enjoy'itt~ tlte fl~xil~ifity i?! b~~s tr:~nsit. 131i'C Can u~:r~tc c~n htks k:~ate<. II[~ti~ l~~les, exprt-sst~~ays, c~r ordinrtnf strrc~GS_ A 131;'I' sysf~~tt c-~ittt~iirns a~itt~~lc mtrii: I.+}~t~ut, fr~qiicnt ser. ~i~w, tiEni€eci stops, lrt~c~lli~~~rt!'['xans~~rt,~ti~m S~°~tcmti f I'I :5) tecl~n~~ltY~}~, ~?~ssen~E.r inlctrnt.jtiun systc:3ns, tr.~ftic 51~;1tal ~7ri<~iri6)~ l~c~r trarssit, clcarie.r hnd quictcr vchiclzs. raE>i(1 nst.d c~t?r-venicnt f~.trt+ c•i~llcc~tii,n, hi~h-c~~~alii}' p.'~cse~- ~e-r f:acil~ticc, ancl ii~tr~rati~~E~ witt~ 1~u~c1 uk p~licy. ltiirf~duciion ith the. p.tscage~ ot' 1'asT'raeks, tl~c Rtgirxnal ~Tram~ortation 17isEeict (TZT[>j will ii~vest ~.i taillii~Ky dc~llatrs in futut~ tran~sl ~.~rvi~~ ia~ six z~trriclE~rti iri ~hc I~cnucr n:~ic~~i ovcr the t~cxt t~n pt~~ ye.arti. C urren[!_y. ~ut F:nvironrnc.niaf Ii~~~>1ct Stui9y (l;t5} is underway lwy K~1'1) :Encl CI~C~'1' Co cvafuz~te thc ir~nsat atlttrna[ives ~~n~ tt~c^- impact5 c~f each altemative tbr the ~~S 3C> Cnrriclor. F2°l`r] ~:stimate~ thaC 11tC draft CIS will be a~~nilat~l~~ far ~ublic co~iu~ient iu Jw~c t>i` 24)~C~. ~T~1~ [ti:U11111]t;Ell.~~111D11 ~iUltt lfiC CU~tj]LIUI7 Of E]l:1VUf5 ~~f(liYt (~lc; t~xa•n~ .~I~~n~ ihe US :~CS ur~rrid~>r was t~j iacludc. tx~th cc~n~m~iter ~•ail uo ihe ~xistinr Y'~eight ~ra~~ks un~l tws rspi~i trsr~sit t13RTj, a hikc .~ay, enhanceii hus serti~ice anci s~me general pt~r~ose Vanes, G~ch patt of the packa~e serves tlie US 3G c~m~t~uni~ic:s in ~lit-t~i'eitt wa~~ti iat~.kin~t ihe, ~ru~k~~~ itsrll~ irr~~x>rtam !~a t]ic uvcr;~[I c<~rridur_ i'r?ralirrued o1i ~~;e i ~c~e~~~ iT~n~i~~-~ ~:tic~E~r~a;~ ( 3r:~~,rizr,ulrP~~, 3r.r:uury ~l;dth ~ansit Village Area Plan n~~ CT ~"QIISpOTtQl~Olt COi1~EXt... (continued from page 21 Regional 1Yave1 The Transit Village Area Plan identifies the "hub" area where the new regional transit facilities will be located along with associated mixed use development. Future commuter rail service would enter Boulder on the ezisting freight rail tracks. RTD has proposed that the futwe rail platform be located north of Goose Creek, between Pearl and Valmont Streets adjacent to the tracks at a location to be finalized in summer of 2007 as part of the US 36 EIS process. Regional bus service and SRT will be provided at the future RTD bus facility at 30th & Pearl in addition to the downtown transit station at 14th and Walnut streets. In the "hub" area, local bus service would be provided for both rail and bus pas- sengers for ease of transfer and connecdons throughout the city. Regional bus service at 30th & Pearl will include existing and new regional bus service, and later, BRT. Projected Ridership Preliminary RTD ridership projections for the US 36 corri- dor indicate there could be 1,700 total trips (or 850 uavelers per day) at Boulder's future transit hub at 30th and Pearl. While the US 36 modeling dces not yet provide the direction of travel, it is assumed that the majority of transit riders will be "in-bound" morning commuters, minoring current travel pattems. Since the early 1990's, Boulder has been a net importer of jobs. Analysis of the Boulder travel shed shows that 60 - 75 percent of vehicles are commuting into Boulder during morning peak hours. Transit use at the hub is anticipat- ed to have similaz travel pattems with a strong "in-bound" moming commute into Boulder. RTD regional modeling shows that the transit hub continues to perform well rela- tive to the rest of the US36 corridor in terms of ridership. Also worth noting, high transit ridership is projected at the "super stops" along 28th StreeG These bus stops along 28th Street are expected to have at least twice the daily boardings compared to boardings at the transit station at 30th & Peazl. This is similar to the way current bus riders access regional transit service on Broadway. The downfown transit station at 14th & Walnut serves approximately 20 percent of regional B and AB transit pas- sengers while 40 percent of riders for these services access the regional bus frvm bus stops along the Broadway corridor. Both the downtown station and 30th & Pearl Street stations will serve as important trans- fer and layover facilities. Ridership figures are subject to change and are based on assumed population arid employment in DRCOG's 2025 Regional Plan. Tcavel Time By 2025, RTD projects it will take 104 minutes to drive a car to downtown Denver from Table Mesa in Boulder com- pared to 35 minutes by BRT and 54 minutes by commuter rail. RTD anticipates that the future regional BRT will be the "work horse" of the system, transporting more than four times as many passengecs compared [o the future commuter rail. Transit riders may use the commuter rail to come from Longmont to Boulder or from Boulder to downtown Louisville as an ezample. Transit riders, who need a more direct and faster trip between Denver to Boulder, or to destina- tions along US36 such as Interlocken, may choose to use the BRT due to its travel time advantage and more direct routing. Few transfers are anticipated between the commuter rail to the regional BRT, since both these services provide transporta- tion access between the tra~sit village azea and Denver, and serve different travel markets. For example, an inbound morn- ing commuter could arrive in Boulder via BRT or commuter rail, de-board along 28th Street if going to CU (similar to Broadway and ABB bus), or transfer at the rail station to the HOP or other local CT'N route to reach their final destination. Other transfer possibilities include deboarding at the regional bus or rail and walking, bicycling or using a car to reach the final destinations. Surveys show that 61 percent of downtown employees use transit, bike or walking to get to work. The hub azea could mirror these types of travel pattems. continued an page 4 Traruit Area Village - 3 AGENDA ITEM#6' B PAGE# ~ Transit ~'ylla~e .r~rea ~'~a~n AS a r~sillt G~i thc ~#<~nned (ut~are traiisit ita t3c~elc~ir ~rt~ c~~tiec cltafiges fiappenin~, $auliicr cmbarked ~m an t~rcu Pla~ pr~~cc~s en defin~- the cit}r's vis6an ror tlte~ are€~ most iztfit~ceti'~d by the fu~urc: tran~it. Ttyz ptnnnin~ prc~css itic.lude~ a l~rgc 45{) acre plan~3in;~ area, ~e~t~rall}~ u~'itl~iit a half rnile walkin~ dis[ai~ce of tlie tutt~re transi[ f~cilities. Regional Yl~an~~ir~~; P`roc~csscs 7't~xre rttajur ~>ltinning ~cii~~i~ics a3Eiecting the'IYansit titi[lagc:'lrca i'lr:n are ~nt3erwap: • Tfiic i.iS36 Envirt~nnicnt:3! [nip~ct SttEdy: 12'7'17 anti CT~C~T a~~e t}~c~ d~c:i~ic~r~ i~~~tker'~;. • RTD H~-~`rrs~c~:~- 12T[) i~ th~ [3ecisit~n m~tker t'or F~ts'Crt~cks. • Tr~~nsit ~u'iI1.~~;z.Ar~~~ Pl;u~: [he. ciiy of L3oulcier is 1h~ cici~tii~~at ~ti~if~~r. '1'li~ tiit~ing of ~a~h c~1~ tl~~c~ proc~wses i~ ~h«ti+~n ab~avc_ irt a~ldiliaii. RTt] tittx ~~7_R rrtilli~xEi ~ra~nt €o t'oncjuct ma~- ter plannin~, af the I 1 aCre cily/ft"T'D-ow~tee~ sii~ ;~t 3()th an~l i'c:arE S[rie[s sn~ €o ~3c~ign and ~onslru~q the t~rs1 pt~~~c rc.gioital P~iix tit.rtii~n on ~h~. RTf) ~~~7rtit~r~ ctf ~l~c;ir ~e~~~erty. 'I~t7~ ttr~~ter 17l.tnnin~ c{'1~«rt f~ir thc c~ityflt`I'I)-(~wntc7 sitc ~vc>ulci ec~itimeEice .sFt~~r the :~r~.:3 ~It~it is atlc~piect, r'+?r1111tGttl r.;i jx~2kK .{ i ivr~ecif ..3~~~°C F~ rllA„r~o ~.--.. ' r~<;i;hD~~ (`I'1~~4~~-E3 PAC;[?t~ ~`~ traraspnr'~`1rt10/t C'()IJl`L'Xr... fr.nnri+=ue~rf~r~~ri~f;e I1 Transxt '~'illa~e ~~re~ ~'~an ~!'C1it,S()f1t'C1111Q11 CL112/('.Cl... rcvm'ir~ra~,t fiprr~ {x:,~e~ 3? 'I'he I..crcal ('ontcxt It ~~~ill F~e m~~ao~lant far l~u~ure trai~sit fa~itita~s.ir~d sG~~>}~«rti~i~ t[~nsp~7rt~liun irrfr~3~irta~.turc. c~f~ p~.de4lri;~n, lair.ytl~. auttrmabile and l~xa] C'nm~uUniiy "fraii~il Nr.nvurk t('~~l`l~) bt~s servi~e ii~ be e3e~.i~iiec! ti7 }~rcavi~le luc:al a~cc5.: to 7317(~ t1't7111 [lit rc~innal hits st,~titfta t~nd the rctii~>nal c:t~m~nute-r r:ti1_ T1t~. dias~ram at riazltt ~l~cy~v;; sji e»rrt~le nf hot;• otle r~~ic~n (I3ay ~rea Rs~pi~l Tr,in~it. [3A1tI') has iElustrate€~ thc~ hi4~r.~r~]~y [~;xislin~; anci 1're~osed I,~ctyl Comn-u«ity T~ansit ~etwork lit3utc*s ___..~ # , ~ ~ * _ ~ _.. F,,,,'~: m~._--__-__ ,~.: f ~; ~~ i _ r t ~ ~ r i ~ . ~ ~ i '~. ~ ~ _. _ ~. , ~ .~~ . _ _ . -~ ~,. ;~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ _ t-- -- y ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ o ~ ' ' ' ~~ Valmont . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ _ F~ ~ ~ w. ~- ___ _ _ ,~ : _ ~ ~, ~ __ ~ ~ ~. ... ~ ~~ ;___ ~._- - ~ ~` E ... ~ ,..~.. ~ _ ~ , . ~ l 1 ~ .. . . . ~ ~ . ~ s ~ .+r :~ s'~a *'~" '3 ~ ~ , _ . . - .. = ' , . ~ , ~ .. ~,,,,,,,~, , ~ ~~~ ,.~, ~~~~ l~w ~ , ~ ~. ~,.» uc _ ~ _ ~, _ ~ - .- wc~rYx ~ '~ - ,~,;- E ~ q~p ,~+ A/ i • 4.s de~ _ .,~.~.w. Ara a~7 h _.~. ~. - t - . - : . , ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ r ` ~~; ,' , s _ "' ... _~:__---,"'~ ~ ~ . a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ^.~ u : • '~ ~ ° ~ i ~ ~ ~ • i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Baseline Rd • ~ ~ ~ ~_,,.-,«-,« .,- .~--~•--,.~--.~.....~,m. -- _ -~,- ~ ._ - ~ ~ ~ t ~ ».~ s -,. ' s ~~ ~ ~ { ,~, ,~ ~~.. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~. i ~' 4 ~ T__ _ ~~ r~ -.. ' le Mesa Dr ~ ~ ~ r ~ - ~ ~ ~ - -~'~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ _ -.. ~ ~ , , ~. ~, - ~ ' ~' ~ ~~~,;: ~~~an<n u~a~pehrea P er~;.rca Proposed CTN Routes Current CTN ROUtas ~ QNf3J E~ AUKit Y13t ^-- 5r.,~uixf ~rihhiQPA[G:'~tYCCMCr rr~ lEJSP-ACQOnF:lh - ~ UB61'. _ ~ ti ~s+sn RLin C3 '-~^~ H3G ~ I~1'CK'l7&C~' $atf Ef14CS:Q ~ ~ V~,1h1f7 ~S$Il F .~-.••• .IlltYrh Rr.pQFlaG 8us R~p~~ TrS~;c ~ -^ 4':b+on P4en F ^~^^^ Li,n J J~~~~ ~}~ Rrcpoxrse f:etrrr!~iter Re ~ -- w'"~~"°n PSan C ~°-^°°~ Sk~~p SE:Ml14lN^.!N ~~ ~~ acces5 r~~crarcn~~ of i~xa] a~c~ss to ~~~td froitt r~.gi«nat tran~it faci[i- i ies. Acl~ilir~nat ne.w Ic>cal tr~r~sit scr~ic~e to thc trantiit hub u~ill inel~~de t}trec new high fret~ueney <:'om~nfifiity'Tran~il Netwnrk (CTNj rifutes ~ilon~ ~'cYlnu~~t. Pear3 Street and a FolsolEtJ2Rtt~ Strcr-t route ~peratin~ e.~'iry 1() minutcti ic~ Stth~lt)rt IC~CaI U.<u~sfers fr~7rtr nc«- €~~±ic~nal transit. irt at~dition, locst huti scrvicc, inclt~ding the 11~t' ~td pc~stiihl}~ nthcr le,cal L~us rc~utes, wc>uld bc rc~lcsigned to provicie "fri~ni tt<7ar" .~cc~ss to Fhe bus stat'toe~ xnd ccimmuFZr e~3il ~~atlt~rt3t via ~i ~t~~v „32rxi wlt~:ct.. t~ ~~m~ide ez~s}~ ~E~Eil c«i~~•~:nicnt tran~fer?~ fr~nt ttt~ r~ea~ rti~?ia~n~tl ~i]~'T 17tE~ ~utd ccun3nuter rail traie~it tc~ tltc litc'aE trtzm.sit ,ySteiT-. I'i-i~~~sil.Araa i~ei:lsi;.~ 4 ~~c1~:t~-~~ r~r~:~~~~~-g~t~~~cr~ `~~ RTD alignment requirements for Commuter Rail Station Operations RTD has looked at the requests from the community that will utiliza the 30"' & Pearl commuter rail station and the Boulder Transit Village dealing wkh the location of the reil station. The proximity of the rail platform to the Boulder Transit Village is the major concern raise by the community. The desired location for the platform lies within a 4 degree curve on the BNSF inainiine. For many reasons R7D's design criteria along with BNSF's policy do not permit placing a station on a curve. Accesses to the vehicles are gaverned by the Federel Government ADA requirements. These requirements also provide some unique challenges when stations are buik into curves. The current location of the 30`" & Pearl Station is within the 1200 feet walk distance outiined by RTD's Park-n-Ride design manual. RTD doas realize that if all possible the walk distance should be minimized for our patrons. However RTD can not compromise safety for our patrons and employees. Our primary goal is to provide a safe and reliable service to our riders. RTD is currently working with the community end lacal govemments to provide a win-win situation. As the project goes into Finaf Design, RTD will endeavor to move the station as close to the Boulder Trensit Village as sefety will permit. RTD's Commuter rail design criteria states, "Locate stations on horizontel end vertical tangent sectio~s." The reil geometry section requires that the tangent section continue a minimum of 85 feet beyond eacfi end of the platform. In developing RTD's design criteria RTD took the existing design guidelines from Amtrak, BNSF and UPHR as our sterting point. We realize that the host railroads design requirements will govem flTD's design while operating on their uacks. If RTD operates on the same corridor, but on separete tracks there will be some fiexibility in our final design and implementation. RTD staff consuRed with both BNSF and UPRR railroads on their logic and rational of the various track requirements and atation restrictions. Realizing that all three railroads have put considerable effort and research into their development of their design guidelines, it anly made sense to utilize their work. It was determfned that R7D would use the most restrictive guideline from each of the raiiroads ae a starting point. RTD met with BNSF in 2003 and teiked in depth about their station requirements including locating the station in a curve. RTD used the 30'^ and Pearl stations an example af a poseible commuter reil station located on a curva. BNSF summarized their po(icy and concems in a tetter to RTD dated December 23, 2003. BNSF pollcy is not to al/ow p/atforms to be bullt on curves. There aie severel reasons far this; the abrlhy for an engineer to see the activtty alang his irein is reduced, there are c%arsnce issues between ihe platiorm and fhe side of a ca~, and the -- - - - - -~-- - pct'iL~N~A I7'Licfi#'~''BFAGE# "a8 superelevatfon of the track makes entering & exiting the cars difflcu/t to name a few.' ~. BNSF listed several issues associated by placing stations on a hodzorrtal or vertical curve. Commuter rail cers are not articulated and act as e cord within the track curve. This means that the doors in the center of the car are further awey from the platform than the end doors. There is no way to build the platfarm to match the final door locations. Commuter rail trains will stop, plus or minus 3 feet of their desired spot. As the front end of the car traverses through the station it will remove all protrusions extending past the curvature of the platForm. FTA has indicated that FRA nortnally does not permit high platforms to be built on curves sharper then 1 degrea 40 minutes with a maximum af 1 inch superelevation, FRA does not override the fiost railroad ff the railroad states that they will not permft a station on their line to be in a curve. Sight distance for RTD's patrons and operators is also reduced. The operetor's line of sight down his consist is reduced. Mirrors, attendants or sorne other methods are required to ensure that the doors are cleared end that no patron is in the way of the trein. RTD has evaluated the potentisl risks associated by placing a stetion on a horizontal or vertical curve. RTD also looked et ways to mitigate the risks identified with a commuter rail station on a curve. After much discussion wkh the railroads end other agencies, loaking aY design solutions and maintenence requirements, R was detertnined that RTD did not believe that it was in their best irrce~est to permit designing a commuter rail corridor with one or more of its stations on a curve. RTD criterie should be mairrtained end toUowed by the corridor designera In order to promote e anfe and eccesaible system. AnY moditications to the design criteria must be revlewed by RTD'a safety committee. Department of Transportation disabil+ty law guidance on full-length, level boerding platforms in new commuter and interc'tty rail stations states, "level boarding is defined as involving a horizontai gap of no more that three inches and a vertical gap of no more than 5/8 inches." With the cord effect on the distanca between the door and platForm, this raquirement cen not be met. Also if the car is on superalevatad track the access into or out of the car is a greater challenge for the mobility impaired community. If the station was placed in the curve at 30"' & Pearl, the gap batween the center door and the platform would be greater than 8 inches. This does not meet ADA requirements. A six inch gap is enough distance to catch a small foot or hinder wheelchairlstrollars/luggage from entering the railcar. (See attachments) The current location outlined by the EIS, puts the 30'" & Pearl Station is within the 7200 feet walk distance outlined by RTD's Park-n-Ride design manual. The distance ar_cnme rrcr,ru6`benF~t eo- is measured from the parking garagelbus tumeround to the piatform. RTD currently requires patrons at some stations to walk 7400 feet from their car to the platform. . RTD tries to minimize the distance this distance as much as possibie. RTD has looked at the 30"' & Pearl station to see how far south we can move the station with out placing the station in the curve and maintaining the require treck geometry as specified by BNSF. The design team has eliminated the required 85 foot tangent section at the south end af the 30"' & Pearl St station, As the SB train leaves the station h goes immediately into a spiral and then into the curve. The EIS has already moved the station as far south as possible at this time. The Fnal Design will determine the impact of these exceptions to the desig~ criteria wiii need to be approved by the RTD's Operetions end Safety departments along with BNSF. R7D wiil continue to work with the communlry during fina! design to try to move the station further south. Both parties have to realize that the safety of our patrons is our numbar one priority. ~ - -~ACiENDA iTEM#6-RPAGF,iY 50 4ilFM1 ~aell~ Yll~Ki ~w ~is uonx. ~ sr.s. taaor~ smrt ,yp. ~s~w ~ F^ Z W ~ U Q ~ Q ~us w+Pio rw~NS~r i PARK-N-RIDE ~ ~ N h ~ W Q a, m ~ ~ w ~- ¢ A z w v ¢ ~ 1 M ~ ~ L7~ v Q G. ~ ~ 7t ~ w ~ Q Q z ~ ~ ¢ BUS RAPID 7RANSIT f PARK-N•RIDE JL ~ .~... ~.•....•... 300' FROM PEARL PARKWAY J ~ L ~ PU6LIC I i RESIDENTIAI K2 ~ ~ ~ w c~ a a. CD ~~ W ~ ~ A z w C7 ~ Transit Village Area Plan ATTACHMENT H Goals, Objectives, and Future Direction for the Area Plan The city has recognized that achieving a destrable vision for the Transit Village area will require new thinking about the way we plan our neighborhoods and transportation systems. On April 26, 2005, the Boulder City Coundl and Planning Board approved the following goals, objectives, and future direction for the Transit Village Area Plan: Goals: 1. Create a well-used and well-bved pedestrian orlented place of enduring value that serves all of Boulder. 2. Provide a strong sense of aommunity far residents, neighbors, businesses, and the community-at-large through the design of street blocks, scate of development, creaNon of public spaces and the connections to them, and variety in scale, land uses, and building types. 3. Maximize the community benefit of the transit investment: Locate homes and employment to maximize access to local and regional bus service, future rdil, and bus rapid transit and to alfaw for a transit oriented lifestyle. 4. Support divarsity: Indude land use and travel options that expand opportunities for employees and residents of different incomes, ethniciUes, demographics, and different abilities. 5. Enhance acanomic vitality: Increase economic activity for businesses, inaease revenues for the dty of Boulder, reduce transportation wsts for residents and employees, and increase transit ridership for RTD. 6. Connect to the natural environment: Create a place that reflects Boulder's commitment ta environmental susUinability and "green" building. 7. Engage the public: Create a place that reflects input from property and business owners, residents and adjacent neighborhoods. Objedives: • The Plan should include: 1. A mi~cture of land uses and intensities that meet Comprehensive Plan poUaes related to community design, ernnomic vitality, jobs/ housing balance and affordable housing and that opdmize transit use. This will include: a. Multiple housing choices, including a variety of housing [ypes at a range of prices from market rate to affordable. b. Multiple employment opportun(ties. c. Neighborhoad-serving retail uses for residents and employees. 2. Places with special charecter that rei~force Boulder's unique idenHty and sense of place. 3. Functional public spaces designed to accommadate the needs, aspiretions, and celebrations of diverse ethnic groups. 4. Active walkable streets in a fine grain grid pattem. 5. Multi-madal access and mobility within the area and to the rest of Boulder includfng the Downtown, Twenty Ninth Street, University of Colorado, other employment centers, Goose Creek path, Valmont Park, and other nearby parlcs. AGENDA ITEM#6-Q PAGE# 55 6. A plan for city services including innovative approaches to services such as storm water management 7. Solutions to mitigate traffic impacts. S. Solutions to mitigate environmental impacts. 9. Strategies to promote water effidency and quality improvements. 10. Preserving some of the service industrial uses in this area or in another idendfied locatian. 11. Support and expand the unique miMure of minority-owned businesses in the area. 12. Services that support the residentr, adjacent neighbors and businesses, such as child care. 13. An implementatian plan far shart and long tertn phasing that accommodates change and adjustment based an the future needs of the community. Directioo for the Next Phases of the Project: 1. Trensit hub area: Initial plan~ing should focus on the area in closest proximity to future trensit, generally from Valmont south to the ditch south of Pearl Street, from 30th StreeY east to Frontier. To betker understand the relationships among the land uses and t2nsporta[ion connections in Me area induding the transit functions, access to the transit functions which are pedestrian, lacal bus, bicyde, and auto access which includes parking, the location of the commuter reil platform, and the transi[ user movement pattems, the city should develop a framework plan and plannin9 options fnr the trensit hub area. 2. Retail: The 29th Street projed reflects a very large private investment in Boulder's future (130 million dollars.) The transit hub area must support this investment in every way. The area should provide connections for pedesMans and bicyclists to go there easily and efficiently. Future reWil uses in the transit village area should be pedesMan- oriented neighborhood-servfng uses that do not duplicate 29tfi Street . Large format retail uses muld be lowted further away from the t2nsit hub area-- east of the rail lines, south of Pearl with access from Foathills Highway-- but could negadvely impac[ the desired pedestrian environment for the transit hub area. 3. Housing: There is a strong market for maiicet rate and affordable housing in a mix of multi-family/townhouse/live- work units in eoulder . Enaugh housing should be provided in locatlons to create neighborhoods rather than as sottered isolated pockets of residential uses through this area. Initlal resldenNal development will not likely att2ct many family households and is more Ilkely to appeal to those interested in a more urban res(dential experience. However, as new neighborhoods reach a critical mass, housing options desirable for famllies such as townhomes may become more viable in the area. 4. Office: This area is not a particularty strong office locatlan now. Downtown is eoulder's primary dass "A" office location. The area east of the rait li~es and north of Goose Creek (i.e. Wildemess Place ) is valuable class "B" office that could possibly be ~Menslfied in the future and reorfented to the rail and Goose Creek . Afforclable office locations should be identified. 5. Industrfal: Staff should analyze the role this area plays in providing different types of industrial uses to help identify the amount and type of indusMal land uses that should be recommended in the plan. 6. Service Industrial: Service industrial uses do not support transit and the future transit investment will result in strong market pressure to drive a conversion from service industrial to mixed uses, including residential. The city should worlc wlth existlng businesses to develop a plan for transitioning these uses out of the area and to idendfy altemative IocaUons for service Industrial uses. 7. Unique IdeMlty: The T2nsit Villa9e area should connect to the downtown via Pearl Street and should reinforce Boutder 's unique identity. The urban design character of the area should celebrate the care values of Boulder that indude: • Open space and naturol corridors and greenways, including Goose Creek and Boulder Creek paths. AGENDA ITEM# 6-iPAGE# 56 • Views af the Flatirons and faothills. • The city's multi-modal corridors- the system of roadways, high frequency transit , bikeways, pedestrian and multi-use paths that tie the city together and make it easy ta travel within the city and connect to ather areas in the regton. • A continuatlon of the mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented charecter of Pear1 Street east of the downtown into the transit village area. Pearl Street is the "Iffeline" and "spine" connecttng the downtown to BN and should extend the familiar character of Boulder to the east. • Identifiwtion of spedal character areas, includin9 mimicking the street and block pattem found in the older histortc areas of Boulder, with smaller block sizes creating a pleasan[, walkable environment. • Recognition that this area will become a new "gateway" to Boulder and should provide a unique welcoming and reinforcing of what sets Boulder apart. • Exploration of potential locations and uses for the historic train depot W this area. 8. Density and Scale: Indude a variety of densities in the area. Higher densities will be most appropriate in the transit hub area and at select lowtions along multi-modal corridors, particularly Pearl and Arapahoe. The Steelyards project is a good model for mixed use in this area, at similar or higher densitles in certai~ locatians. 9. Implementation: Adoption of an area plan including a transportation connections plan must provide clear policy direction and will be the ftrst step toward establishing an efficient and predictable process. After plan adoption, the city should inidate wmprehensive plan changes and a rezoning af the area to be consistent with the directton established in the plan supporting transit and the 29th Street investments. 10. Investment: All public investrnents should reinforce and focus the policy direction and should leverage private dollars, partlwlarly in areas more difficult to redevelap. Consider focusing dty investment at the transit hub area. An infrastructure plan should create a finer grid of streets and sidewalks and should include a plan for dty utilitfes such as water and sewer Iines 11. Public/ private partnerships: There are a number of financing tnols that have been success(ully used in transit-oriented development and includ'e a mix of public and private investment which should be ide~tified for discussion and consideration for implementation of the plan. 12. Parking: Due to the excellent multiple transit access opportunitles at this location, consider reducing the parking requiremen4s in areas dose to transit. Parking requirements should be flexible and reduced as much as possible to refled the planned pedestrian charader and a transit oriented lifestyle. 13. "Green^ Area Planning: The plan will include ~green" planning and urban design concepts and will identify incentives for innovative "green" site planning, architecture, and other sustainable methodologies. 14. Significance of the city/RTD-owned sita (Transit Village): This is the keystone propeKy strategically located to provide connedions between future commuter ratl, bus rapid transit, lowl and regional transit and 29th Street , and multi modal connections to the rest of the eoulder communfty. Providing well thought out connections will be a critical component to the success of the transft hub area and far this new neighborhood. Connections to 29th Sheet, CU, downtown, the Goose Creek multi-use path, the Steelyards and adjacent neighbofioods are all critical connections 15. Housing : The city/ RTD-owned site is a good place for housing, particula~iy adjacent to Goose Creek . 16 . Transit and Parking Uses: The dty and RTD should plan the property in an integrated manner to explore design options meeting current and future transit and parking needs and integretion with future phases of development on the site. Any built elementr on the site should reinforce the long-term goals of the area plan, accommodate RTD's needs, be adaptable to future expectations. Proceed wrefully with firs[ phase [ransit developments. AGENDA TTEM#(tg PAGE# 57 ~~r #a CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 16, 2006 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven yeazs) aze retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web aC http://www.ci.bouldecco.us/planning/planningboard/agendas BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Macon Cowles, absent Sim Adr. Johi Phil Clai Elis ST? Pete Rutl Dav Lou Abe 2. 3. 4. 5. ACTION ITEMS ~iness vles, 'S Public hearing and update on the Transit Village Area Plan: working group meetings; regional and local transportation context; and city-wide land use needs. Public Participation: Fennon Hoffman, 505 Geneva Ave. Boulder Bill Roettker, 4507 Mulberry Ct. Boulder Vince Porreca, PO Box 22 Boulder SitP\~'iP,vkCennal~~ldminiCucn~tiuqics~[iores\P~V Boarc151'fAF3\Pacl.atsl0t,ib~t~rch\Ak~enda ItemS TV;'sP g~al,~.~H,~ectn-c,Vlit.h2-'_.16d}6 PIan13~d_m~ia 1 Sue Anderson, 1135 Jay St. Boulder 1. How would you like to provide input between the points in the process when we will seek your formal direction at public hearings? Planning Boazd was generally supportive of the proposed new process with the working group. Members are interested in an expanded role, perhaps as the options are developed. Boazd member Levy suggested that the process be altered somewhat so Planning Board meetings occur prior to working group meetings. 2. Are you comfortable with the plan for providing a clearer method of information sharing? Planning Boazd is comfortable with the approach that all Planning Bi>~ard members, TAB members and City Council members receive the inf~ The information will also be posted on the web site: 3. Do you have any comments on how the public setting parameters and the next phase of deve Planning Board did not address this question.;,_;i 4. Do you have any questions or comments on the b< See attached list of questions generated by Planning 5. Do you see issues at this time that yoi options for the area? Planning Boazd did not address issues, 6. Dces the material ~ should be revised? Planning Board did 7. Do you ~~''a~dii a. Rev~se<L~oals and ,_....~ _ b. List~vf`~c~v~issues/ Planning $ti~d made a m area, and theq;~j,qve on to Valmont on the`qo~#h, Foc south and 30`h Stre~t;~n.tb included. in their questions. the goals and objectives in Attachmerzt H the goa~'and objectives orip~tion for the March 23 public hearing on: es =:. . o consider (overall area & by district) ~qn to focus first on the hub area, a smaller central core tlier azeas. They amended the hub azea to be defined by fills highway on the east, the rail lines and the ditch on the east up to Mapleton, where both sides of 30~h Street would be c. How to present choices to the community re: key issues Planning Board did not specifically address this question. d. Rail platform (recommendation on the city's position on the future commuter rail platform) Planning Boazd recommended to City Council to "accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track and the BRT station will be at the 30th & Pearl site. options? to the working group. phase of be consi~lered in developing S_1P1V\Fark(`rnn~il\.~dminlCom~r7unicationElPb\ _ft~~ard~ATARU'ac~4.a~<1~61ht zrch~Agendn hem5'1~V,1P roal,&ob,~ecu~-c~lAttch2-'_.16.OG 7'lani3rd m~n 2 They made two motions, one on the rail platform, and one on the location of the BRT. They passed both motions. See below for the detailed motions. Other: Planning Boazd requested that staff come back with a revised process for the azea plan that shortens the overalllength of time. Questions Questions for EPS on the Retail and Industrial Analvsis: 1. How much demand is there for industrial space in 2. Are there other locations city-wide for service ind 3. Is there demand for mixed use industrial developr 4. Would there be demand for the intense industrial uses? 5. What would the ripple effects to Bouldel;~e if industrial users out to other locations`~~ ' 6. Other than economic criteria, as used in the ~ be used to analyze the impacl redevelopment? i.e. residents Ouestions for RTD: 1. How will the lo~~t ~~e~_be ~~,~a~ 2. How wi111oc~J;;routes ii3~~< 3. What are the t~ti~C~nt rideist ;=::v::.. __ 4. Confirm the prol~ted ricl~ village area? Steelyards? ;rty into more what other criteria should azeas to mixed use or li'dye,~ drive furthei'~°~industrial services? ~ i.. ujr Ztegrat~with the regional buses? existing and future neighborhoods? > numbers:~n:dhe B buses? the train and BRT from Boulder. Do the pro~AiQns inclt~ ;~ ders~to and ~'om Longmont? Do they include any prQ~cted ~~4~!ment~~ousing w'ith a quarter and half mile of the transit? How : 3~ould the proi~ift~~s m~~_with TOD in the hub azea? will the per~tage of:~-commuters using train or bus compared to those 6. Giverii~he_ridership~rojections, how much pazking is needed for those departing from Boiilc~er? What is the relationship between pazking demand and projected ridership~~'~ 7. What is the c{f~kY'ent ridership on the Southwest comdor? And how does it compaze to the projections? 8. Are there models of expected ridership based on ceRain residential and employment densities? Ouestions for Staff or Others 1. Do employees who work in Boulder but live elsewhere want to live in Boulder? If yes, in what type of housing do they want? 2. What type of density and intensity is needed to create vitality? (DUS/acre, height, number of residents) S:AP4V'~}'arkCentiall_ltl~nin\ConununicationtilPV!'_F3uard~AT,1BiPa~ketslQ6lbSirch\Azenda hem5't~V,1Y goal,K.nl7~ectt~e~ltlttclt2-'_.16.i1G_YlanBrd_~tu~a 3 Employment: 3. What are our needs for industriaU office space in the future? 4. What kind of space is needed? 5. Do businesses within a"cluster" want to be located close together? Motion made by A. Sopher, seconded by P. Shull to accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track. Vote 6 to 0. Motion made by E. Jones, seconded by S. Mole to accept the ittformation provided by RTD that the BRT station will be at the 30th & Pearl site. Y~#e 5'to 1(A. Sopher opposed.) = _ Motion made by A. Sopher, seconded by S. Mole=Yl~:fo~us first ti71~e hub area, a smaller central core azea, and then on to othe~~reas. (The hub azea ~#'~ed by ;~.,~, Valmont on the north, Foothills highway pn:~e east, the rail lines and~;difch on the south and 30~h Street on the east.)Vote 6 to 0. '~ Motion made by C. Levy and sectiiided by E Jones fti ~end the hub azea boundaries to include the west siderd~'~~th Street from C~~pont to Mapleton.Vote 5 , ~ ,,,~ to 1 (A. Sopher, opposed). '_: " 6. DISCUSSION i~'1~~,. ~ F~~' ~ rF~ 7. MATTER~ irRR?QM TI~ PLANNIN t~BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, City Council study session regazding code zz~orming use policy options. 8. 9. CHECK journed the meeting at 1034pm S:1PW~1'~irk(`ent[ail\RdmnilC'+nnmunic~iti~mtili'\b' Ponrd,A7'A81Pacl.atcAi36\Afiar~hiAzeitela hem5'I~VAP goal,Rnb~ect~ti~e,~\tich2-2.16d}b_YlanBrd ~run 4 AND CITY A1"I~32N f1~' # 3A DRAFT Revised 2/21 /06 Transit Village Area Plan DRAFT Visioning Exercise From Planning Board Brainstorming Session 216 06 (does not represent a consensus): 1. Create a center far arts and entertainment with transit access for all the Boulder community as well as for the region and including housing. It would include clubs, cabarets and a performing venue(s) with less seating than Macky Auditorium (< 2500 seats) 2. Create a place with a focus on alternative energy; it could support and foster "green" building and "green° site planning (a height exception could help defray additional costs) 3. Create an urban heart in the center of Boulder with housing for a younger population and seamless transportation connections to the downtown and the rest of Boulder. T'his would provide housing for employees to offset the numbers of in-commuters. Focus on meeting Boulder's affordable housing goals. This could be a model transit oriented development (TOD) for the region. 4. Embrace diversity: include the Mercado concept; invite and celebrate ethnicity 5. Think about Boulder as a job center: employees will be able to commute to the hub by transit. Build on Boulder's natural foods niche by creating additional opportunities for businesses and encourage a large daytime population to support Twenty Ninth Street and other retail opportunities 6. Include industrial type flex space for low rent uses for non-profits: e.g. Open Studios, or the natural foods demonstration kitchen. The unifying theme is that the space would be inexpensive and would not need high profile street frontage. It could be adaptive reuse of existing buildings. 7. Create a place east of 30~h Street that is unique in Boulder, e.g. Lodo in Denver, Mission district in SF, the old New Orleans. It would include: Less rules; less planning True mix of uses Alleys as important as roads "Charming chaos° Unruly A mix of old and new; "bohemian' DRAFT Revised 2/21/06 Exceptions to existing height and density regulations 8. Create a new exciting destination that draws people in; creates a sense of arrival and departure to and from Boulder. It will have vitality and urban energy. It could include two centers (or "hearts"): • One north of Goose Creek-train focus; include the historic depot • The other is at Goose Creek with an opening up of Goose Creek to an amphitheatre From the Transportation Advisory Board 2/13/06 (does not represent a consensus): A vision for the hub area on the west side of the rail lines includes: o A gateway as people disembark from the rail or bus o A central plaza-all pedestrian-with public art and surrounded by 2 to 3 story mixed use buildings with retail, office and housing above. o Alley provides access to the local bus or trolley to all points in Boulder o Plaza includes people of all ages and is vibrant day and evening o At night in the plaza-bands playing, vendor carts, nighttime bazaars (Mercado) with Hispanic flavor o Seamless connections to all modes o Buildings have a classic look, built to last o Include real time transit information o"Car free° neighborhood, small blocks Urban, dense, 4-5 story buildings, more affordable housing for the workforce • Green environment In 50 years, want people to look back and say how bold Boulder was in the transit village area (i.e. similar to blue line, height limit, urban growth boundary). This could be: o Car free o Have minimal impacts on the community o Create "sustainable° neighborhoods o Live/work in this neighborhood and use transit as a first choice Seamless network of trails • People mover to 29th Street • Roadway to include lane for electric scooters and bikes A-rr ~ 38 TAB Brainstornune: Februazv 13. 2006 Krista - Getting off the train you would see an Artistic gataway, central plaza, surrounded with 2-3 story buildings w commercial uses on 1" floor, full of pedestrains with bikes on the edges, could through plaza to bus connection Public art in the middle of plaza, very pretty and memorable. Businesses folks walking through, young and old playing- am thinking of all of this on west side of the tracks. At night. a band playing in the plaza, folks dancing and vendors, night mazkets, very active and vibrant. Jim - adding on to Krista's vision- night bazaars, northem end a place to bring in diversity. Transportation aspect is seamless, is right there and don't have to wait, all the facilities and buildings are very classic, looks like a real train station in that it is built to last, has a historic chazacter, is not disposable Would provide real time transit, big screens directing you exactly where to go. In the Neighborhood, could see a test azea where it is all alt modes and cazs are not allowed, we should try a neighborhood without cazs Lynn - can see very similaz elements, but more urban. Can we create a functioning city for employees that don't currently live here? Would be a very green environment, maybe even including ballfields, and maybe something taller, denser for a small part of it Could see density as a tradeoff of more green space, going to 4-5 stories. This is the last big planning area in Boulder as someone said and we have the space to do a lot of things important to the community Bill - wants people living here 50 yeazs from now to look back on our decisions as fondly as we do now about the blue line and open space Want to think about big ideas, like a car free neighborhood Should think about what do we need to do to add 1Q000 people and have neaz zero impacts on traffic, water etc.? This would be the ultimate definition of sustainability Want people who live and work in this azea to think of alt. modes as their first choice for traveling. Jim - very vibrant for night and day, used for things besides transit. Have established so many trails throughout the planning area that you can get close to where you want to be. Maybe a People mover to 29`h Street mall (Disneyland) Help for people who can't don't want to walk Krista - Part of roadway set aside for elderly on scooters