BJP2-Engagement Window 3-Summary
1 | May 25, 2023
Boulder Junction Phase 2
Community Engagement Window No. 3
This document provides a summary of key takeaways from engagement window #3 of the Boulder Junction Phase
2 project. The City of Boulder’s Comprehensive Planning Group is leading the project with the input of several
other city departments.
Engagement activities in July included:
• an in-person Focus Group meeting on July 11, 2023 held at the city’s OSMP Hub.
• an online questionnaire for focus group members to complement the in-person meeting
• consultation with the project’s community connectors.
Some focus group members have also submitted comments to the project team by email. The consultation with the
Multi-Board Working Group and the update to the Planning Board were also included during this engagement
window and are summarized separately.
About the Focus Groups:
Community engagement will continue to occur throughout the Boulder Junction Phase 2 project, including the use
of focus groups. For the plan amendment phase (February-September), there have been four focus groups that
each include 10-15 participants representing a diverse cross -section of community members. Each group includes
people with a variety of viewpoints, expertise, interests and experiences. Focus groups are tasked with (a) sharing
their experience or perspective of the outcomes of Phase 1, (b) providing regular feedback on alternatives and
recommendations for Phase 2, (c) assisting with identifying challenges, barriers, and unintended impacts for
implementing Phase 2 and achieving the Transit Village Area Plan’s goals, and (d) building consensus around key
recommendations.
Below is a summary of each focus group:
• Advocacy Focus Group –local advocates for social, environmental and/or economic issues .
• Daily Users Focus Group – people who live and/or work in the Boulder Junction area.
• Design & Development Focus Group – professionals working on Boulder’s development, including as
developers, real estate brokers, urban designers, architects and planners .
• Property & Business Owners Focus Group –property or business owners within the Boulder Junction area.
The project team has used the feedback from all focus groups to inform the recommendations for plan
amendments. The July 11 in-person meeting brought all 4 focus groups together for the first time (previously,
discussions were organized separately for each group). Twenty-two focus group members attended the in-person
meeting. Two council members attended as observers. More than one third of the focus group members (24 out of
68) also provided feedback through the online questionnaire. The project team also met with the project’s two
community connectors after the in-person focus group meeting to debrief and gather any additional input.
The list of participants in community engagement window No. 3 is included in Attachment 3.
2 | May 25, 2023
Focus Group Meeting Objectives:
1. To review work and engagement done to date and preliminary proposed amendments to TVAP plan
2. To discuss preferred alternative through the lenses of land use, transportation, urban design/public spaces
3. To vote on comfort level with preferred alternative
Note: Voting on the preferred alternative was facilitated through an online link provided to all focus group members
by email after the meeting. This allowed the project team to capture the views of all focus group members,
including those unable to attend the July 11 meeting in person.
Overview of Feedback from the Focus Groups (in person and online):
A. GENERAL COMMENTS
Two-thirds of focus group respondents either love or like the overall plan amendments, with the caveat that the
future programs, regulations and incentives need to maximize opportunities for affordable retail, culture and the
arts and green spaces to ensure a vibrant neighborhood that serves a diverse population .
For those focus group members who expressed less support (i.e. neutral or maybe) or do not agree with the
package of proposed amendments, remaining key concerns include:
• That the entire TVAP 2 area should be classified as MUTOD (and not MUI in the area between Goose
Creek and Pearl Parkway)
• That it is not fair to put two “Conceptual Outdoor Spaces” and a Multi-Use path through a single property.
• That redevelopment brings public investments and gentrification forces that are “too nice” and that the
population (with potentially limited levels of missing middle housing provided) cannot actively support
• That greater densities feel overwhelming and not like a livable environment if an appropriate balance of
landscape and outdoor space is not provided.
Another general comment is that the project should be a showcase of urban climate mitigation, adaptation and
resilience with renewable energy and nature-based solutions for managing increasing temperatures and water
management.
Yes, I love this
and can't wait for
the future!
Yes, I really like
all the changes
Neutral, but I can
live with it
Maybe, but I
would like to see
some changes
No, I don't agree
with this
Overall, do you support the package of
proposed amendments to the plan?
3 | May 25, 2023
B. FEEDBACK ON THE PROCESS
The project team asked focus group members about their satisfaction with the process thus far. The vast majority
said they understand the goals for the project and their role. A few respondents were neutral. None of the
respondents indicated that they are confused or never understood.
In addition, the project team asked focus group members whether they felt that sta ff listened to their feedback and
incorporated it into the proposed amendment. About two -thirds of focus group member respondents said Yes,
absolutely! I see myself in the plan or Yes, I like how my feedback was used. A few people answered that they were
either neutral or Maybe, but not really. None of the respondents answered No, not at all.
Apart from two people, all respondents expressed the desire to continue being involved in the Boulder Junction
Phase 2 planning process. One of the focus group members also requested that the project team use more design
graphics and renderings in the process to help the community visualize any proposed changes or alternatives.
C. LAND USE OPTIONS
Focus group members shared comments related to changes to land use in person and through the online
questionnaire.
Most respondents either love or like the proposed amendments to land use. The most common response was Yes,
I really like all the changes but some people are less supportive or do not agree with the changes , including at least
one property owner.
Yes, now I want
to be a planner!
Yes, I understood
from the
beginning
Neutral, I think
I've got it
Did you understand the goals for this
project and your role as a Focus Group
member?
Yes,
absolutely!
Yes, I like how my
feedback was used
Neutral, I see a
few things
Maybe,
but not
really
Do you feel like staff listened to your
feedback and incorporated it into the
proposed amendment?
4 | May 25, 2023
Key comments for not supporting the changes include:
• A desire to see MUTOD throughout the Phase 2 area (and remove MUI) due to the following:
o Service/Retail/Light Industrial is very vacant in Phase 1 and does not seem successful; we should
allow more flexibility throughout Phase 2.
o Some buildings proposed in the MUI land use category will be hidden behind front facing Old Pearl
buildings, which would be a barrier to 1 st floor business success.
o We have been discussing the need for maximum flexibility – yet still proposing MUI, which is les s
flexible.
o It is unjust to single out some current property owners in Phase 2 and force them to be in a less
flexible Land Use Category (MUI).
• The lack of a park or other significant large green space is a major challenge to the area’s overall livability.
Goose Creek is great but can kids play basketball, kick a soccer ball or really run around?. A lack of green
space means that people still have to drive for recreation of kids and dogs, and that is antithetical to
reducing traffic and car usage.
Most focus group members support the direction to maximize housing opportunities while ensuring a livable
environment with green space and neighborhood services.
Detailed feedback and comments from focus group members related to land use change are included in
Attachment 2.
D. URBAN DESIGN & CHARACTER
Focus group members shared comments related to changes to urban design in person and through the online
questionnaire.
The most common response was Yes, I really like all the changes with the other responses spread across the four
other choices. Reasons or concerns for not supporting the changes include:
Yes, I love the
Land Use plan
and can't wait for
the future!
Yes, I really like
all the changes
Neutral, but I can
live with it
Maybe, but I
would like to see
some changes
No, I don't agree
with this
Do you support the proposed amendments to
the Land Use plan?
5 | May 25, 2023
• Concern with how meaningful the Neighborhood vs Innovation TOD are, as they seem to relate to uses that
an applicant would propose in the future.
• Disappointment that the changes do not include a large, consolidated parcel for public space
• Disappointment that there is no sense of placemaking establis hed through a more direct north-south
corridor extending from Valmont to Pearl Parkway with common design/public realm elements to tie it all
together
• Eliminate the multiple (and redundant) pathways, paseos, sidewalks for a relatively small area that spread
people out. The added expense and dedicated land area on private sites creates limitations on the urban
design architecture.
Detailed comments are included in Attachment 2.
E. TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS
Focus group members shared comments related to changes to transportation connections in person and through
the online questionnaire.
Most respondents either love or like the proposed amendments to the transportation plan. The most common
response was Yes, I really like all the changes but some people are less supportive or do not agree with the
proposed changes. Reasons for not supporting the changes include:
• Goose Creek is narrow, and there is a multi-use path on the north already. To put an additional path on the
south takes up valuable “park” space. Additionally, it pulls people behind the “retail, services, light industrial
1st floor” instead of having them walk farther down the railroad track path to Old Pearl.
• Additionally, this south multi -use path goes right through our property.
Yes, I love the
Urban Design
framework and
can't wait for the
future!
Yes, I really like
all the changes
Neutral, but I can
live with it
Maybe, but I
would like to see
some changes
No, I don't agree
with this
Do you support the proposed Urban Design
framework?
6 | May 25, 2023
Feedback related to proposed changes include:
• Use of performance incentives for permeability of privately owned lots for public access (instead of
including the alignments in the plan)
• Confirming the public’s safety (especially on multi-use paths; and checking with emergency services for
areas with single access points)
• Reducing zig-zags for the north-south corridor (introducing an urban street grid as much as possible)
• Concerns with single access roads to some parts of the Phase 2 area
Other common feedback related to transportation includes:
• The need for greater speed reducing mechanisms on Pearl Parkway
• Concern about dissuading vehicle use in the absence of (operating) public transit options
7 | May 25, 2023
Attachment 1 – Responses to questions about the process
1. Did you understand the goals for this project and your role as a Focus Group member?
Response
#
response %
Yes, now I want to be a planner! 5 21%
Yes, I understood from the beginning 15 63%
Neutral, I think I've got it 4 17%
Maybe, but I'm still a little confused 0 0%
No, I never understood 0 0%
• I appreciated this process and learned a bunch from other participants and staff. Loved some of the
innovative ideas - especially from the owner of the motorcycle shop. Staff was very engaged and open to
discussions and input and good to see other departm ents participating besides planning. Coming out of
COVID there were a lot of new faces on staff and the open houses, focus groups, tours were a great way
for everyone to reconnect.
• While I understand the goals, I also felt like I could contribute more if I had more knowledge of planning
basics.
2. Do you feel like staff listened to your feedback and incorporated it into the proposed amendments ?
Response
#
response %
Yes, absolutely! I see myself in the plan 3 13%
Yes, I like how my feedback was used 13 54%
Neutral, I see a few things 5 21%
Maybe, but not really 3 13%
No, not at all 0 0%
• I have attended all the meetings for the Phase II Committee and the majority of input has been to allow the
phase II to be more flexible. We as business and property owners should be heard. Otherwise, why were
we involved in this process.
• The city staff has done an outstanding job with the public engagement process. They have truly engaged all
stakeholders and interest parties and have listened to everyone involved so far.
3. Would you like to be involved in future steps of the Boulder Junction planning process ?
• Yes – 23
• No – 1
4. Other
• I've enjoyed being a part of this process. It's been well organized, clear, and efficient.
8 | May 25, 2023
Attachment 2 – Detailed comments by topic
A. Land Use
• Abandon the concept of MUI and make it all MUTOD.
o Provide the most flexibility and allow the market to evolve for all properties.
o 3 zones appear somewhat cumbersome and forced. It seems highly inequitable that some
properties would have to go through an added process to work under the desired flexible
and functional outcome.
o Allow for, but don’t require industrial uses. It is unrealistic.
▪ The concept of these spaces would be part of a mixed -use environment creating
impractical and undesired buildings (i.e.: the need for outdoor storage, use of
chemicals, noise, ceiling heights, deliveries etc.).
▪ Ultimately, the space may be too expensive to maintain as industrial uses as there
are no incentives for these types of business.
• Activate the existing activity nodes, retail space and public gathering areas in Phase 1.
o Phase 2 is in very close enough proximity (1/8-1/4 mile) to Phase 1 and can support those
areas. By allowing for 100% residential and/or office projects in all of Phase 2 (i.e.:
elimination of the requirement of 1 st floor commercial space), the area’s population would
add to the vibrancy of the already built environment.
• Community/City Support
o Creating a sense of place via a merchant’s/Business association.
o Plan for and allow events on public/private plazas.
o Providing direct financial incentives to support small businesses.
• Use the terms ‘encourage’ and ‘incentivize’ instead of ‘allow’
• Where is the market study? Large warehouses are not viable according to a recent market study
commissioned by a Phase 2 developer
• I want to be sure that the height limit across TVAP Phase 2 is 55', and t hat the zoning categories
result in the correct varieties of uses. Also there needs to be flexibility in locations of outdoor
space and all transportations connections.
• I think this land use will be flexible and allow for a more granular dive into the areas further into the
process. One comment I have - please try include photos of buildings that are 5 stories
maximum. Seeing the 6 story building on the board is misleadi ng to people viewing it without the
understanding that 6 stories will never be built in this city unless the public amends the charter ht.
limit.
• Old Pearl has access issues since it dead ends.
• Concerns about activating Goose Creek with too much development and activity fronting it.
• Still want Old Pearl activated- city should buy land for public parks.
• Frontier/Old Pearl has retail node potential
• MUI may not be as flexible as what is desired
• Main St/Live work terminology could be clearer
• Confusion around MUI/MUTOD. Need to better describe the differences between the two.
• Concerns about who operates and maintains the identified public spaces
• We need something special and unique as the core (e.g. along Old Pearl)
• MUI designation is a good attempt to preserve the existing industrial and service commercial
uses.
9 | May 25, 2023
• A simplified land use plan works well
• Goose Creek should have frontage on both sides
• Flexibility w/ land use + transportation connections is important
• Need more direct north-south pedestrian connections
• Need more significant public spaces/partnerships with property owners for public spaces on
private property
• Need creative outdoor spaces.
• Have public safety concerns.
• Need to be more deliberate to ensure more open spa ce.
• Broken record here: Plan for as much housing as possible. Housing will drive the retail and the
transit. Employment is not a given considering the state of office work vs. remote work, which
could go on for some time. Housing is a continuing need that will bring people to Boulder Junction
not just to live but shop, recreate, commute, etc.
• City of Boulder needs to move with urgency to address the housing crisis by quickly allowing
diverse, efficient and flexible land use in Boulder Junction.
• My hope is that comments will be strongly taken into consideration and the City follows it's stated
objective to keep the land use simple with maximum flexibility.
B. Urban Design Framework
• I'm hoping we can avoid having a Form Based Code for this area - these plans fine tune the area
plan adequately.
• Truly develop the Goose Creek path/park to create an amenity rich destination for people to enjoy
the outdoors.
o Focus design and public financial resources to make it world class outdoor public space vs.
many small, private, dispersed, marginal, unprogra mmed, token outdoor spaces.
o Create and fund solid maintenance plan to keep the area enjoyable and functional.
• Eliminate the multiple (and redundant) pathways, paseos, sidewalks for a relatively small area. In
BJAD Phase 1, there are so many “pathways” that few are used, and they spread people out. The
added expense and dedicated land area on private sites creates limitations on the urban design
architecture.
• Support the existing (empty) retail activity nodes in Phase 1 vs. a mandate for more (see above).
• Support the creation of private outdoor space that can enliven the streets (front porches/yards).
• I am supportive of the main street live work along Old pearl, and I can envision a nice, smaller scale
and walkable frontage established along this two block section of Old Pearl. What I wonder about is
whether this place type might need a special exception to allow for housing on the ground floor
along the goose creek edge/adjacency. I feel this would be a desirable outcome, and do not want
to see it left out of the allowable ground level uses. In addition, I agree with the placement of the
neighborhood TOD, but i would caution on limiting the height in this area to 4 stories. If there is a
place for 5 stories (55' ht) in this city, and there has to be! otherwise we're never going to get
it...then i feel it's appropriate here, between the rail line and the elevated foothills parkway
• No taller buildings
• More planned green spaces (trees, shrubs, pollinator gardens, etc) to help cool one of the hottest
areas of the city
10 | May 25, 2023
• Frontier Avenue should keep going north passing Old Pearl and meet Goose creek. It creates
better urban connectivity, four active retail/F&B corners on Old Pearl and Frontier and equitable
and visible access to open space from the south. There should be a dedicated, and as direct as
possible, connection running north/south between Valmont and Goose Creek, and continuing on to
Goose Creek through Frontier all the way south of Pearl Parkway. This north south connector
should be tied with great placemaking, a common and distinct urban language of public real m. The
result will be walkability and vibrancy through the three sectors .
• The additional multi-use path on the south side of Goose Creek is redundant and causes the small
amount of space for a goose creek park to be pointless. The Goose Creek proposed park should
maintain the current multi use path to the north and allow the public to cross over the small creek
with small pedestrian crossings. The park will be unsafe for small children with cyclists racing
through the park on both sides of the creek. With the MUTOD to the north, it seems that the park
could have residential buildings with backyards overlooking the park. This would only make sense
to have the same opportunity for buildings on the south of Goose Creek. If the creek could be
bordered by residential units on the first floor, the park would be widely used. If the south side of
goose creek is MUI, the frequenters of the park would be sitting, recreating around the back of
industrial buildings, dum psters, storage areas. The south side would also become dangerous in the
evenings without residential 1st floor homeowners on site.
• I am concerned with the lack of meaningful sized open space/park area, instead looking at micro
conceptual outdoor space which I do not find appealing. TVAP 1 already feels like a concrete
jungle. Boulder has Scott Carpenter / Civic park centrally, Viele Lake in South Boulder, North
Boulder Park, Ebin G Fine to the west, and nothing out east. Valmont is not developed as a hang
out park, it's a bike park and a disc course. This is high density heart of Boulder location and only
getting more density. Perhaps the City can buy a parcel and make a dedicated park to create
meaningful green space that Boulderites say is important. Don't take the Goose Creek "green
space idea" and add a redundant Multi-use path on the South side when you have a path on the
North already. Keep the south side more green, play space for kids, family, etc.
• I'd like to see larger connected "gathering spaces" as green spaces (not paved plazas like Depot
Square which needs to be seriously reimagined and re-done) adjacent to or in close proximity to
the idea (which I like) of concentrated "retail activity nodes" which are focused instead of spread
out and mixed with industrial service or office uses. Connect #1 and #2 O/S outdoor spaces?
Enlarge and relocate O/S #5 along BCO Farmers Ditch to just south of Pearl Parkway and on both
sides of BNSF with connection through the underpass. Enlarged O/S on both sides is also a major
benefit for flood control and runoff retention.
• Boulder Junction is one of the city’s hottest areas; it would benefit greatly from having a tree
canopy.
• The public realm is more important than buildings for creating a sense of ‘place’.
• Is there a market for industrial uses/warehouses in the center of town?
• Clean Energy/21st Century thinking. Chargers/Solar/"En ergy Parks"
• We’ll have an energy park with a view: to "charge your soul while you charge your car"
• Need a rendering of Goose Creek to visually describe potential design with installations
• What's the city's commitment to energy infrastructure (microgrid) in this area?
• Don't want the plan to be "regulate" but to "empower" and "incentive" and "inspire"
11 | May 25, 2023
• Want to see some hopes and dreams illustrated. Visualizations that summarize urban design ideas
to bring more optimism and clarity.
• TVAP misses sense of arrival, signage, wayfinding, lighting, trees, charm, character, and
placemaking. "Put love where the people are"
• Make a common language throughout the place (e.g. in design elements).
• What are the technical changes of the code that can improve Pearl Parkway?
• A gateway is crucial. Public space #5!
• Medieval streets- instead of a grid, turn the funky street pattern into an asset
• Two types of retail- 1) attraction based and can be anywhere; 2) smaller shops located where the
densest housing is (mini-mart, coffee shops, etc.)
• Organic change is desired; can’t control everything so should focus on the public realm and
passages/connections - personal choreography- bus stop, housing??
• Easements & put back on market. Property owners have different needs.
• Combine parks/retail together, e.g. Blank Park Café. Don't keep them separate.
• Think of retail in 2 or 3 mixed-use nodes along identity north -south corridor. Can align to non-
vehicle use.
• Issue w/ above comment- rule #1 of retail- more eyes the better (Pearl and Valmont)- has to go
west. Phase 1 east-west- going slowly.
• EPS Study is important – when will we have it?
• There is never enough residential density to support retail. Need a criti cal mass.
• In the future transit will be a major component.
• Need actual neighborhood serving retail. Need places to buy a banana or a newspaper. However,
it’s not a complete desert. Can already walk to Whole Foods.
• Combine area below #4 w/o form - based code.
• Park once strategy. Phase 1 transit center will help too.
• Use brick streets/sidewalk. Materiality that makes a place special. Vintage vibe - steampunk.
• Gateway is important- streetlight light north -south to pull you into the district.
• Tie everything together. Need some elements that are common to entire area.
• Micro-grids.
• Need an identity corridor with features that are multimodal. Private sector needs to form district to
jump start placemaking.
• Special- has a different character from Phase 1
• Would be great to have a pop-up, small library branch.
• Sun Valley neighborhood market. Decatur Fresh (10th & D Denver)
• Old Pearl -has potential but it’s also still industrial.
• Look at the example of the LA River ex. Can be eclectic- need to reform zoning in entire city.
• If we don’t have real working retail it could become a bedroom community.
• Use the 4 corners approach - clusters and not strips. Main \ Main
• Look at why retail doesn't work well around train stations/stops (except Dunkin Donuts)
• Retail doesn’t need to take a certain form. Allow funky niche style retail everywhere. Changes can
shift. Flex from residential to commercial and vice/versa over time for a more natural city pattern.
• Hesitate to put retail requirements anywhere. Let people have flexibility around retail.
• Avoid form-based code for this area. Can do "light" version maybe. Active frontage.
• 1st Phase: much retail empty. Railyards good but fluid.
12 | May 25, 2023
• Tension between flexibility vs concentration. Keep concentration w/ flexibility. Concentration
happens if you don't get in the way.
• Need to be cognizant of train riders’ patterns for retail. Don't have time to shop while waiting for
train…and also the end-of-the day pattern.
• East side of the site- city is studying ages of buildings (CU research ex)
• Crossing Valmont from the North is a big issue.
• Paseos pedestrian in past
• The paseo next to Brasserie 1010 is a great example! Lighting etc. Need activity around them.
Art/murals, pathway w/ a destination.
• The plan should highlight overlaying initiatives/policies of the city like Cool Boulder and circular
economy.
• Funky- relook at picky codes/regulations to create originality. "Let it be Pink!!!!"
• Bikes on Main St. - Focus on north south connections. There are already lots of east-west
connections.
• Get people where we want them to be.
• Ensure retail in each subzone of Phase 2.
• Prioritize organic expansion.
• Need a corridor that connects each node- breadcrumbs that leads to each corner (can be light
fixtures, signage, etc.)
• From property owners: how does path work when it’s on our property city? (this is a ‘can’t live with’)
• Response: will work with you when redeveloping
• Flex alignment: Can it shift 50 ft in each direction?
• Retail around a park invariably fails. Rethink this.
• Union station example - iconic!
• Provide a free shuttle along retail nodes/corridor
• Nail down the nodes first- then can close any gaps over time organically.
• Gathering spaces should be peripheral to retail.
• FBC not proven to be successful in TVAP 1
• Need an identity corridor to start w/ some design features (through the district) - would actually be
great if it had a different feel from the other side (i.e. Phase 1)
• Want to see design elements that are common throughout
• Consider Goose Creek as a frontage instead of a pass -through, ensure business entrances,
residential stoops, and gathering spaces along this corridor.
C. Transportation Connections
• Utilize or repurpose the currently closed RTD station.
• Direct, thoughtful access to the underpasses and enhance that experience allowing for better
pedestrian and bicycle access between BJ Phase 1 and Phase 2 (vs. scattered pathways strewn
throughout the BJ Phase 2).
• Consider the concept of “People-focused” connections being prioritized over vehicular connections
while BJAD has a major problem without a functional public transit system. In the short term, Pearl
Street needs to function as optimally as possible for vehicles- limiting or impeding vehicular access
will only makes the experience worse as the pedestrian is forced to encounter clogged streets and
idling cars. If public transit becomes more available and there’s a reduction in vehicle traffic, it will
only enhance the already adequate sidewalks in place. In other words, at this stage – it would be a
mistake to make it harder to access Boulder Junction via a vehicle.
13 | May 25, 2023
• The fewer connections placed in the transportation and mobility plan the better, focus instead on
performance requirements of permeability or public access. It would be best if the old property
lines are not made rigid through this plan, given the potentia l of recombined lots in a future
development proposal. And, to the extent that we can avoid public ROW dedications for things like
paseos or other circulatory systems, we should. That approach is antithetical to shared systems,
eco-districts, etc. Be sure Goose Creek paths can have frequent opportunities to access adjacent
properties so they are not cloistered from residents.
• Sort out if and how we're going to use the "T" (RTD Station). It was barely considered or talked
about. The focus of trying to dissuade vehicular use is not sustainable.
• Major $$$ investment for the entire Phase II will be 3 bridges and 3 underpasses for BNSF and
BCO Farmers Ditch. Not really a good ROI as it supports connections which will closely parallel
existing multi-use paths. (3rd bridge is not shown on amendment but will be required over the
ditch at east end of Old Pearl.
• Ped/bike safety is a major concern. The multiple MUP and on street bike paths shown connecting
north across Goose Creek would mix peds and bikes wit h frequent daily heavy vehicle traffic from
existing light industrial and service uses: Repair Masters (many tow trucks), Boulder Roofing (
roofing supply deliveries), Camp BowWow with many vehicles dropping dogs off or picking up,
Winnelson Plumbing Supply (daily 53' semi deliveries), AMR ambulances, and add to this 40'
containers, forklifts, FedEx and UPS every day. A better, much safer plan would be to avoid Old
Pearl altogether and instead focus on new MUP's on east side of BNSF and on south side of Goose
Creek between BNSF and Foothills Parkway.
• I still think we need roundabouts on our Big roads at every intersection, More greenspace and
good cross paths around railways.
• The current amendment connections, if adopted, will also require some serious dedicated speed
limit enforcement on Old Pearl which is not the case at present.
• Pearl Parkway is designed with a street width to support vehicles going to 50 to 60MPH, a road
diet should be considered to encourage drivers to comply with the 30/35 MPH current speed limit.
This will result in additional sidewalk space and a better experience for the multiuse paths shown,
accompanied with trees to actually become a shaded parkway with a reduced temperatures.
Slowing down cars will also increase walkability between the north and south.
• Concerned about some of the changes to the roads making them multi use roads between my
building and the building to the north.. 2905 center green is my building.. there is not enough
space to make a viable commercial r oad/ if I am understanding this correctly. I like most of the
other changes.
• I think there are some viability issues that need to get addressed from a fire/life safety accessibility
point of view which could completely change the thinking of what can actu ally get built in the area.
• I'd love to know if/when the commuter train stop will be completed.
• I do not think another multiuse path should be drawn directly south of the existing Goose Creek
greenway. The update should include pedestrian circulation along the building edges that abut
Goose Creek, but a multi-use path line is redundant. that being said, I would add pedestrian paths
on either side of the Goose Creek, that connect these buildings with the bridge connection to
Goose Creek. In fact, I would say across the board, the 'proposed multi use path' thick dashed
green line is overused and should be replaced with the dashed purple for pedestrian connections.
Also, I’m not sure how Depot Square got away without a multiuse path on their side of the rail , but
it's not there, so I’m unclear about which side of the rail we should be continuing the multiuse path.
Currently, it's drawn on the eastern side of the railroad on the north side of Pearl, where it's mostly
superfluous because of the path on the oth er side of the rail that's built. Then, for some reason, it's
drawn on the west/south side of the rail on the south side of Pearl, which seems like a missed
14 | May 25, 2023
opportunity. I recommend moving it to the other side so that the path gets completed with
redevelopment of that parcel.
• Will the Boulder Soccer area remain a dead end?
• Old Pearl needs improvements such as sidewalks.
• The east-west road connection off of Center Green could be multiuse- as long as there are
southern connections connecting to Wilderness.
• The underpass in the southern corner seems off.
• For all connections we need to think about safety between bike riders and pedestrians.
• NoBo ditch path- is this necessary with all the other east-west connections? Will it draw traffic away
from Old Pearl?
• How do the north-south connections work? How do we connect north -south? Is there a common
design pattern north-south? North-south needs an identity on the street.
• Think of future transportation options. Future proofing.
• Look at the example of the 39th Ave bike infrastructure in Denver.
• Getting down to Goose Creek requires more crossings than just a big bridge.
• What is the design along Pearl to slow cars?
• Can we realign the connection to run straight north-south from Frontier to Goose Creek?
• North-south connections- can we get rid of the zig zag and create a grid for more direct
connections?
• Green flag = Bridge over Goose Creek being pedestrian -only
• Incentivize the pedestrian connections within developments (by developers)
• Green flag = Pedestrian permeability
• Allow for secondary access to Goose Creek - think of examples in Hawaii or California on how the
public has right to the beach
• Make use of performance criteria for desired outcomes
• The area where Foothills Parkway meets Goose Creek could be improved
• Green flag = dual paths, but think of safety between users
• Particularly where lots are consolidated, we should be flexible on the exact alignment of
paths/connections
• Mirror the paseo from the north side of Goose to the south side to avoid creating bike highway
barriers.
• Green flag = Revitalizing Old Pearl (BUT, having only one entry point is challenging)
• Green flag = The safe crossing over the rail
• Green flag = A traffic light on Frontier Ave
• Green flag = the pedestrian bridge
• Southern portion (south of pearl) – one way in and one way out is not enough
• Why have a bike path on both sides of Goose Creek? One path would be enough – and the other
side (maybe southern side) could be a linear green space/play area/some whimsy (Note: others
expressed that it would be better to have a path on both sides)
• Bike path on ditch should be north of the ditch (west side)
• There is a redundant underpass under Foothills Pkwy on rail (south side)
• Old Pearl dead ends on each side/needs a multi-use path to connect this area better
• Dedicated bike lanes for safety are desirable
• More north-south connections
15 | May 25, 2023
• How can we make the most of the Goose Creek resource as an asset and create something
special (considering the challenge of it being a sunken/canyon)?
• We need some connective design elements for a north -south corridor to connect the retail nodes.
• Think of the big ideas that people love – that’s what makes a place
• Check out 39th street creek in Denver as reference of a recessed creek – they have installations at
frequent spots
• It’s essential to ensure access to goose creek from the bridge
• Need measures to slow traffic
• Too many fussy connections and prescriptions/programming as to how people should move
around the site. I think this compromises the main connections and access while distracting what
can be created by each project.
• Need more permeability – suggest giving bonuses to developers for more public access through
private land
• Recommend using performance standards for things like paseos rather than drawing lines on the
map
• Where Foothills meets Goose Creek – that spot needs to be improved for bikers/it could be more
attractive; it is currently weird and could be better.
• The needs of older and disabled residents were not included. Not everyone can or wants to bike,
walk, or scooter around the area yet our numbers are high.
• I think the other big challenge is the one egress in/out of Old Pearl and the area South of Pearl
Parkway.
D. RETAIL NODES
Comment Location Identified
2 or 3 major nodes along the established ‘identity’ corridor
Need neighborhood serving retail
What about public parking?
Parking label, need good connection Depot Plaza
Unique design, materials, makes it special, "Old Pearl", a vintage
vibe- steampunk
Goose Creek corridor
Need neighborhood serving retail, maybe a small library branch Southwest end of Wilderness Place loop
east to end of existing road
Important gateway to north-south just east of Frontier & Pearl intersection
Why haven't previous stations been successful? Had retail? Rail plaza
Need a larger attraction/retail as an anchor (e.g. brewpubs)
Need mini-marts and coffee shops, paired with density
Need an initiating place/ gateway Crossing tracks east into Phase 2
Connect public space with retail!!!!!
Allow funky niche retail
16 | May 25, 2023
Comment Location Identified
Access today is broken. Allow for flexibility in retail location to
get retail organically.
Concern about current vacancy in TVAP 1 retail
Encourage 1 node in each subzone of Phase 2
3 corners facing each other and allow for organic expression
Makes a place to get to each area-retail corridor connect
Want to see more layers of energy, cool Boulder
Don’t believe ditch would accommodate path and what benefit
does it offer?
Concentrate don’t disperse energy like at Depot Rail plaza
Need iconic anchor stores Rail plaza
Focus Group Feedback on Retail Node locations
17 | May 25, 2023
E. Other
Detailed feedback and comments from focus group members related to other issues (not directly or strictly related
to either land use, transportation and urban design) are listed below.
• My biggest concern with this redevelopment is that it gets "too nice" w here there is either so much
public infrastructure and space that the population can't actively support it and that becomes
relegated to either income-restricted affordable or luxury with none in between. Keep it funky, but
also just a little dirty.
• I would love it if there could be a space or land cut out for a future Boulder tennis and/or pickle ball
facility similar to the incredible Apex facility that the City of Arvada built. There is a huge need and
even more so once Rocky Mountain tennis center goes away.
18 | May 25, 2023
Attachment 3 – Participants’ list
Focus Group Members Provided comments
(in person and/or online)
Ross Holbrook
Daniel Aizenman ✓
Chester Harvey ✓
Jerry Shapins ✓
Danica Powell
Jenna Reilly
Erin Bagnall ✓
Jeptha Sheene
Matt Grandsaert ✓
Tom Volckhausen ✓
Bryan Bowen ✓
Michael Leccese ✓
Chris Hamilton ✓
John Koval ✓
Bradley Wilson
Susan Osborne ✓
Adela Aguirre
(community connector)
✓
Demi Michelau
Derek Anderson
Raj Rawat
Duane Boyle
Vajra Rich
Henry Koren
Sharon Solomon
Michael Wang ✓
Jeremy Gruber ✓
Joseph Vigil ✓
Clay Phipps ✓
Roy Young ✓
Simone Smead ✓
Mark Gerwing
Adriana Palacios Luna
(community connector)
✓
Kristin Lawrence ✓
Patrick Keane ✓
Ryan Bonick ✓
Jasmine Rodriguez
Michael Hulet
Sarah Warner ✓
Del Kreiser
Hans Hyttinen
Kari Klein
Tara Spies ✓
19 | May 25, 2023
Focus Group Members Provided comments
(in person and/or online)
Marianne Okal ✓
Aleka Mayr ✓
Michele Marie
Theresa Halsey
Tom Kunstman ✓
Lauren Lambert ✓
Tupak Barrios Palacios Luna
Lisa Oshop ✓
Djenane Marlhen Jean Charles
Anita Speirs
Jane Hummer ✓
Claudia Thiem
Darcy Kitching
Meredith Olsen
Crystal Gray ✓
Sally Haselschwardt ✓
Siana Teelucksingh
Kevin Crouse
Tiffany Richards
Sean Haney ✓
Kyle Williams
Mike Reichert ✓
Jonathan Singer ✓
Lenz Jn Francois
Djenane Jean Charles
One person from the public attended the in -person meeting as an observer:
• Allie Lyle