Meeting Packet - DMC - 8/1/2011
DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
August 1, 2011
5:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of July 11, 2011 Meeting Minutes
3. Public Participation
4. Police Update
5. Parks Update
6. BID Update
7. Presentation on Downtown Development and Parking Projections and DT5
Zoning Changes
8. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Recommend to City Council
the Adoption of the DUHMD/PS Capital Improvement Program
9. Matters From Commissioners
10. Matters From Staff
• Capital Improvement Program Update - RRC and Bill Fox
• Capital Investment Strategy (Ballot Item) Update
• Downtown Garage Signage and Enhancement Project
• Civic Use Pad Update
Attachments
• January - June 2011 Financials
• Police Stats -July 2011
• Downtown Boulder Open/Close List
• DT5 Memo to Planning Board
• Capital Investment Strategy First Reading Memo
2011 DUHMD/PS Areas of Focus 2011 DMC Priorities
• CAGID Capital Plan Phase II • Establish a Sustainable Maintenance and
• Hill Redevelopment Improvement Fund for the Pearl Street
• Downtown Improvements Mall and Downtown Streetscape.
• Civic Use Pad Support Civic Use Task Force
• Boulder Junction Access and Parking Recommendations and Participate in Civic
Districts Master Plan/"SoDA" Study.
• Encourage Vitality and Excitement of
Downtown Boulder as a Revenue
Generator and the Heart of the City.
Mission Statement: We serve the downtown, University Hill and affected cormmmities by providing quality program.. parking enforcement.
maintenance and alternative modes services through the highest level of customer service, efficient management and effective problem solving.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Ruth Weiss - 303-413-7318
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS: CORNELIUS, KOVAL, McMULLEN, PATTERSON
STAFF: "'INTER, CUNNINGHAM, JOBERT, WEISS, LANDRITH, WEINHEIMER, LA
HAIE, MARTIN
GUESTS: SEAN MAHER
TYPE OF MEETING: OFF SITE July 11, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 1- Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 5:26 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 2 - Approval of the May 2 and June 8, 2011 Minutes: (See Action Item Below)
AGENDA ITEM 3 - Public Participation: None
AGENDA ITEM 4 -Police Update: Weinheimer commented on the activity on the mall, calls for service were down
from last year with the biggest decline in the area of theft. Cunningham questioned the number of times the Drug Task
Force had been out and Weinheimer responded with two.
AGENDA ITEM 5 - Parks Update: La Hale discussed the Tulip Bowl Giveaway on August 11 at 11 am working to
repair the mall snail's broken antennae, all planting is complete for now. Lane questioned graffiti and La Haie replied
that a new officer was not aware that any graffiti was not appropriate but this instance it was caulk. Koval complimented
Parks on the Family Gathering Area remodel.
AGENDA ITEM 6 - BID Update: Maher mentioned that Downtown Boulder is starting their busiest week this
week. Power washing will be done in the alley later in the week and DT5 FAR zoning with Wittier neighbors taking
a stance against a third floor at 1600 Pearl Street. Office and retail vacancy remains low. Winter commented on
Portland. Oregon's downtown with its pushcarts/hand carts for distributing brochures and that the carts go where
people go. Cornelius questioned the problem with the third floor development on Pearl and was informed that the
Whittier neighbors thought it was too tall. Koval mentioned that Adams was helpful with the Whittier graffiti.
Maher mentioned that speaking with one of the Whittier neighbors, they are considering the ground floor for office
space and eliminating retail altogether. Koval questioned Open Arts festival and the elevated level of the arts to be
presented. Maher continued that at Open Arts, there will be a beer garden.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Matters from the Commissioners: Patterson commented that she has seen lots of people
downtown: McMullen mentioned the Civic Use Task Force and a meeting with Kociolek and Morzel. McMullen offered
that council questions were passed on. Mid year recruitment to take place with Dahl resigning from DMC. Koval
complimented Dahl on her input to the commission; Standing Committee positions were discussed. Patterson offered to
be on the Marketing and Economic Development committees.
AGENDA ITEM 8 - Matters from the Staff: Winter began the meeting by explaining the other meetings taking
place tonight, 7:45 pm TAB meeting and Capital Investment Strategy Stakeholder Group meeting at 8:30 pm in the Muni
Building.
TAB has been asking for projects update and Winter will be discussing Travel Demand projects; an update to look at
current and future downtown development and then look at parking projections and the readiness to perform. DT5 area
along Canyon to 17t1i and includes the Camera building and it is proposed to add a FAR bonus for commercial use. RRC
is developing development projections and has just sent out the increment and the impacts; Winter proposed that Koval
and McMullen be on a subcommittee to review and make some planning assumptions. Winter continued with the
downtown enhancement update and strategy meeting later in the evening and encouraged members to attend. The
proposal includes downtown enhancements worth 2.5 million dollars with 4 or 5 projects. McMullen questioned the
increase of the bond and that it is not competing with other projects. Winter responded that it is still a question.
McMullen commented that this is the next step and DMC needs to support it.
Matthews commented that Pictoform was selected to do the signage project, they are out of Vancouver, Canada, the
process would be to bring them out and meet with the downtown stakeholders to get a feel for what Pictoform would do
and the budget was kept. Painting may happen first, paint while the concrete is warm and the look at gate operations and
signage. Matthews continued that Pictoform package was available for review by the commission. Patterson questioned
the signage, if it would include way finding and Matthews responded that it will direct traffic to other garages. Patterson
questioned if local companies submitted bids. Matthews replied that Pictoform brought a lot to the table and presented
clear vision. Cornelius added that the local firms did not have clear visions. A consultant will be sent to review ingress
and egress along with the signage. Matthews continued with the forthcoming Boulder Junction garage to be erected and
wants to incorporate the new direction in its design. New mall vendors were discussed.
Jobert mentioned that the unsold parking permits, from the recession's peak, have sold and currently there is a wait list
for all garages. Short term revenue on street parking and in the garages is up; not looking for any spending reduction
which is the first in the last three years. Hoping to encourage the 29`h Street Mall patrons to do lunch in downtown
Boulder. Koval heard that locals eat at 11:30 am at the Mod Market and how to play off of it.
Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS:
MOTION: McMullen motioned to approve the May 2 and June 8, 2011 meeting minutes. Cornelius
seconded. Approved unanimously.
MOTION: DMC strongly encourages the Capital Investments Strategy Stakeholder Group to adopt and
consider for funding the downtown commercial district improvements investments as the nest
step in the downtown revitalization. Patterson seconded. All commissioners were in favor.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
August 1, 2011 Council Chambers Regular Meeting
APPROVED BY: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Attest:
Ruth Weiss, Secretary John Koval, Chair
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Downtown Management Commission
Molly Winter, Executive Director
FROM: Donna Jobert, Financial Manager
SUBJECT: January - June 2011 Revenue and Expenditures
DATE: 7/2612011
Shown below is a summary of January-June 2011 revenue and expenditures. The 2011 budget and 2010
actuals are shown for comparative purposes.
Revenue received is 58% of budget YTD for 2011.
Short term garage revenue is ahead of budget year to date and nearly $88k higher than the same time last year
Long term permit revenue is near budget to date. and $59k higher than the same time last year.
In 2011, there is a difference between the amount of street meters budgeted in CAGID and the total amount budgeted.
This difference is due to "bifurcation The total revenue budgeted in 2011 meters is $2,150,000 but the GF transfer to CAGID
is $1,350.000. The $800.000 difference in meter revenue will remain in the General Fund.
While on street meters are running 6% higher than 2010, CAGID will only receive the amount budgeted.
Rental income is slightly above last year. Vacancies continue; many of the leases have been reworked to help tenants and upgrades are
being covered with the lease revenue.
Property tax is about even with last year.
1000 Walnut tax revenue is below 2010. Taxes are coming in higher than 2010. In 2010 we received aback payment of $127k
from the St Julien for maintenance.
CAGID Jan-Jun 2011 REVENUES
Jan-Jun 2011 2011 Jan-Jun 2010
Revenue Approved % of 2011 Revenue 2010-2011 2010-2011
ACCOUNT Collected Budget Budget Collected Collected $ Difference % Difference
Property Tax 736,952 1,014,829 72.6% 737,279 (327) 0.0%
Specific Ownership 20,424 66,625 30.7% 20,716 (292) -1.4%
Subtotal TAXES $757,376 $1,081,454 70.0% $757,995 ($619) -0.1%
Broadway/ Spruce 86,176 165,000 52.2% 78,094 8,082 10.3%
15th & Pearl/ S. T. 96,499 178,000 54.2% 79,907 16,592 20.8%
11th & Spruce/ S.T. 169.523 320,000 53.0% 159,857 9,666 6.0%
11th & Walnut/ S.T. 118.442 225,000 52.6% 102,632 15,810 15.4%
14th & Walnut/ S.T. 46.239 75,000 61.7% 38,509 7,730 201%
10th & Walnut/ S.T. 158.560 280,000 56.6% 146.924 11,636 7.9%
Validation Stamps 38.192 65,000 58.8% 32.605 5.587 171%
Garage 20 day Pass 27,000 31,875 84.7% 16,000 11,000 68.8%
Cash Pass/Value Card 5,261 6,500 80.9% 3,825 1,436 37.5%
Subtotal SHORT TERM PARKING $745,892 $1,346,375 55.4% $658,353 $87,539 13.3%
11th & Spruce/ Permits 182.863 357,220 51.2% 184,065 (1,202) -0.7%
14th & Walnut/ Permits 151,426 321,180 47.1% 110,378 41,048 37.2%
14th & Canyon 28,293 56,100 50.4% 26,416 1,877 7.1%
10th & Walnut 261,115 514,100 50.8% 255,778 5,337 2.1%
11th & Walnut/ Permits 135,253 259,700 52.1% 139,200 (3.947) -2.8%
15th & Pearl/ Permits 344,804 727,160 474% 326,521 18,283 5.6%
177514th 21,130 44,220 47.8% 22,636 (1,506) -6.7%
174514th 33,065 72,600 45.5% 35,178 (2,113) -6.0%
Wait List/Over-Under/CC fees 1,470 0 200 1,270 635.0%
Subtotal LONG TERM PARKING $1,159,419 $2,352,280 49.3% $1,100,372 $59,047 5.4%
Tokens 5,900 9,000 65.6% 4,830 1,070 22.2%
Meterhoods 19,026 22,000 86.5% 7,462 11,564 155.0%
Cash Key 271 0 -9 280 -3111.1%
Meters (Transfer from G.F) 1,153.851 1.350.000 85.5% 1,085,086 68,765 6.3%
One Boulder Plaza 0 15.625 0.0% 7,813 (7,813) -100.0%
Subtotal METERS $1,179,048 $1,396,625 84.4% $1,105,182 $73,866 6.7%
Interest 16,919 23,500 72.0% 15.817 1,102 7.0%
10th and Walnut TIF/Interest/Misc 597,446 1,361,000 43.9% 674,893 (77,447) -11.5%
Rental Income-11th & Spruce 17,708 54,000 32.8% 12,259 5,449 44.4%
Rental Income-15th & Pearl 52,075 166,000 31.4% 49,126 2,949 6.0%
Rental Income-Kiosks 12,755 44,000 29.0% 13.558 (803) -5.9%
Rental Income - ATM Randolph 480 1,600 30.0% 507 (27) -5-3%
Miscellaneous 15,129 19.203 78.8% 20,704 (5.575) -26.9%
TOTAL $4,554,247 $7,846,037 58.0% $4,408,766 $145,481 3.3%
CAGID Jan-Jun 2011 EXPENSES
Expenditures for 2011 equal 29.7% of budgeted expenses and are $$1,290.477 below last years expenditures at the same point.
Operating expenses are 40% of budget to date. Major variances are due to timing of an annual payment to DBI and moving
a .5 FTE to the General Fund.
Non operating variances are primarily due to garage improvements which are slated to begin later this summer, a reduction in
debt interest due to refinancing a bond in 2010, capital funding for Bcycle and timing of improvements on the mall.
Eco Pass is also higher due to an increase in the per person charge from $111 per person to $125 per person in 2011.
We are not anticipating a reduction in expenditures in 2011 as revenue continue to be on budget, but, will the trends watch closely
Jan-Jun 2011 2011 % of 2010 Jan-Jun 2010 2010-2011 2010-2011
ACCOUNT Expense Budget Budget Expended Expense $ Difference % Difference
Parking Svcs Personnel 423,861 858.567 49.4% 416.268 7.593 1.8%
Parking Svcs Non-personnel 329,295 982,926 33.5% 347,441 (18,146) -5.2%
DUHMD Personnel 246,972 557,640 44.3% 268.990 (22,018) -8.2%
DUHMD Non-personnel 97,581 324,920 30.0% 76.939 20.642 26.8%
BID/DBlcontractual Services 21,747 67.536 32.2% 0 21.747 #DIV/0!
Subtotal OPERATIONS $1,119,457 $2,791,589 40.1% $1,109,638 $9,819 0.9%
Cost Allocation/Benefit fund/transfers 109.527 219.053 50.0% 106,131 3,396 3.2%
Debt Service 119.800 1,005,817 11.9% 196,287 (76,487) -39.0%
10th & Walnut construct/Debt Service 178,289 920,118 19.4% 186,539 (8,250) -4.4%
10th & Walnut excess Tax Increment 0 816,766 0.0% 0 0 #DIV/0!
Mall Improvements 191,191 342,809 55.8% 504,966 (313,775) -62.1%
Capital Maintenance/Improvement 70,677 1,645,841 4.3% 1,094,034 (1,023,357) -93.5%
Eco-Pass Prog. 746,720 792.173 94.3% 678,543 68,177 10.0%
Bcycle Capital Investment 50,000 0 #DIV101 0 50,000 #DIV/0!
Capital Replacement Reserve 0 177,775 0.0% 0 0 #DIV/0!
TOTAL $2,585,660 $8,711,940 29.7% $3,876,137 ($1,290,477) -33.3%
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MALL POLICE CALL STATISTICS
MONTH Assault Auto Theft Burglary Crim. Mis. Crim. Tres. Disturbance Domestic Drunk DUI Felony Menaci Fight
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
January 5 12 3 2 1 4 5 1 15 9 1 21 12 2 8 5
February 4 4 2 1 5 6 3 2 6 10 4 2 23 9 3 3 10 6
March 5 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 17 11 3 2 15 9 7 2 5 5
April 2 1 2 1 5 8 7 3 2 11 8 2 4 7
May 6 6 1 1 2 4 1 15 8 1 1 17 8 4 3 4 4
June 5 7 2 2 1 2 3 7 16 9 2 10 13 2 1 7 11
July 6 1 2 2 1 5 4 1 13 8 1 7 10 3 1 2 4 2
August 8 1 1 3 13 9 5 7
September 10 2 3 1 2 11 3 16 4 13
October 2 1 4 4 14 16 4 12
November 4 2 1 5 2 10 21 2 8
December 3 1 2 2 1 11 2 19 2 5
MONTH Fireworks Hang Ups Harassment Indec. Exp. Liq. Law Vio. Littering Loitering Narcotics Noise Open Door Party
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
January 7 3 7 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 5 1 2
February 4 5 5 5 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 4 3
March 4 9 6 4 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 8 2
April 6 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 5 7 3 3
May 10 6 5 3 1 5 2 1 2 4 12 3 3
June 8 7 10 4 1 1 6 7 4 3 18 16 4 1
July 5 7 6 8 2 2 10 5 4 3 14 10 4 2
August 7 6 4 7 4 6 1
September 9 3 6 3 1 1 1
October 8 7 1 1 5 2 7 2
2 1 1 1
November 1 16 12 2 $Sh
December 8 5 3 5 1
wler Robbery Sex Assault Shoplifting Stabbing Suicide Suspicious Theft Trespass Weapon
MONTH Pro
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 211 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
January 1 2 12 14 17 10 2
February 3 10 10 9 9 1
March 2 3 19 18 10 8
April 1 1 1 3 1 18 8 5 13
May 1 2 2 1 12 18 9 14
June 2 1 29 21 4 3
July 1 30 14 3 7
August 1 r20 6
September 1 1 1 9 2
October 1 1 9
November 2 12
December 10
Opened in 2011
Business Number Street Open Date Notes
Pizzeria Locale 1730 Pearl St 15-Jan-11
Moved - Buffalo Exchange 1813 Pearl St 20-Jan-11
Microsoft - Bing Mobile 1900 15th St 1-Mar-11
Green Piece Pipe and Hydro 1200 Pearl St 1-Mar-11
Ozo 1015 Pearl St 20-Jan-11
Shambla 1521 Pearl St 15-Jan-11
Frasca's II Caffe 1720 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011
Piece Love Chocolate 805 Pearl St 20-Mar-2011 Where Bayleaf Was
Steve Madden 1142 Pearl St 20-Mar-2011
Define Defense 1805 11th St A 1-Apr-2011 Arete
Julie Kate Photography 1805 11th St B 1-Apr-2011 Arete
Hip Consignment 1468 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011 Where Subway Was
IsupportU 1825 A Pearl St 1-Apr-2011
Posh 1468 Pearl St 1-Apr-2011 Wine & Painting (on 15th/Pearl)
The Yellow Deli 905 Pearl St 20-Apr-2011
Elm and Oak 2037 13th Street 28-Apr-2011 design firm/redord label
Style by Boulder Interior Design 2015 10th St 25-May-2011
Gaiam 1215 Pearl St 31-May-2011 Where Chicos Was
Los Osias 2027 13th St 11-Jun-2011 Replaces Draft House
The Kitchen Next Store 1039 Pearl St 11-Jun-2011
Shug's Low Country Cuisine 2017 13th St 1-Jun-2011 Where B side Lounge was
Eclectix 935 Pearl St 11-Jun-2011 Antique Shop
Lunieva 1500 Pearl St 15-Jun-11 from the owner of BolderWorld
Closed or Moved in 2011
Business Number Street Closed Date Notes
The Camera 1048 Pearl St 15-Jan-2011 Moved out of BID
Crystal Dragon 1521 Pearl St Replaced with tibet/nepal shop
Charlie and Watson 1825 Pearl St 15-Jan-2011
Juanita's 1043 Pearl St 30-Jan-2011
Colorado Draft House 2027 13th St 15-Jan-2011
Feather Thy Nest 1825 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011
Newton Gallery 1500 Pearl St 30-Mar-2011
Chicos 1215 Pearl St 1-Apr-2011 Moved Out of BID (to 29th St.)
Bookends Cafe 1115 Pearl St 20-May-2011 new Rest. concept by John Platt
Little Mountain 1136 Pearl St 30-May-2011
Outdoor Source 2027 Broadway 30-May-2011
Paper Doll 1141 Pearl St 1-Jun-2011
Great Awakenings 1717 15th St 1-Jun-2011
Boulder Nordic Sport 1717115th St 1-Jun-2011 Moved out of BID
1Oliv You and Me 2043 Broadway 1-Jun-2011
Studio One Dental 1610 Canyon 1-Jun-2011 Moved
Lai's Alterations 2027 Broadway 5-Jul-2011 Moved out of BID
Future
Business Number Street Open Date Notes
Cured Cheese Shop 1825 B Pearl St
3rd and Vine Design Antiques/On the East End
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City
Council on the following proposed code changes downtown:
1. Add the option of a 1.0 floor area addition for non-residential uses in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee in the Downtown-5 (DT-5) zone
district, subject to Site Review.
2. Add a 65-foot supplemental setback from the centerline of the Canyon
Boulevard right-of-way in zone districts Public (P) and DT-5, from 9th to
16th Streets.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Community Planning and Sustainability
David Driskell, Executive Director
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Louise Grauer, Senior Planner
Sam Assefa, Urban Designer
Molly Winter, Director, DUHMD/Parking Services
City Attorneys Office
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Public Works
Maureen Rait, Executive Director
Tracy Winfree, Director of Transportation
Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Program Manager
Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner
Bill Cowern, Traffic Operations Engineer
Housing and Human Services
Karen Rahn, Director
Andy Proctor, Manager Housing Planning
Michelle Allen, Housing Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is for Planning Board to consider recommendations to City
Council on two code changes in the downtown, both of which were previously discussed
by Planning Board at the March 17 meeting. The draft ordinance is in Attachment A.
1
Currently, the base floor area (FAR) in the Downtown-5 zone district (DT-5) is 1.7 with
two floor area additions allowed: one for housing (.5) and one for parking (.5), or 1.0 FAR
for housing if the parking addition is not used. The maximum FAR in DT-5 is currently 2.7
and is not proposed to be changed.
Planning Board and City Council adopted code changes downtown and changes to the
DoN,,ntown Urban Design Guidelines on March 17 and May 3, 2011. Staff's original
analysis and recommendations in April 2010 identified the demand for additional Class A
office space downtown and suggested it be given equal consideration with housing.
This issue surfaced again in discussions related to the site redevelopment at l lth and Pearl. City
Council, at its May 3 meeting, directed staff to bring back a proposal for a floor area addition
for non-residential use in the DT-5 zone district as an option to the existing floor area addition
for residential use. The community benefit for this additional non-residential floor area would
be a housing linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot to be paid on the additional non-residential
floor area. The housing linkage fee was analyzed by TischlerBise in the Development Excise
Study 2008 (Sec Attachment B). In addition, Council requested staff to come back with a
proposal to codify the 65 foot setback along Canyon Blvd from 9t' to 16th Streets that was
adopted by Planning Board and City Council in the Guidelines. (See
http://www.bouldercolorado.g,ov/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=14191&It
emid=260 for the revised minutes of the May 3 City Council meeting.)
The analysis of the proposed change shows the following:
• Through build out, there could be an additional 440,000 square feet of non-residential
floor area: estimated to be 120,000 square feet in the next 5 years (2012-2016); 160,000
square feet in the 2017-2021 period and 159,389 square feet after that.
• Through build out there could be an additional approximate 2000 trips per day resulting
from the additional non-residential floor area.
• The proposed change could result in a reduction in additional housing units downtown,
from an estimated potential of 240 additional units to a potential 92 additional units.
• The proposed linkage fee could generate approximately $7.7 million in affordable
housing funds through build-out, which is $3.5 million less than what might be
generated under the existing Inclusionary Housing (IH) in-lieu fee option if and when
new units are added downtown.
• Economically, the potential incremental increase in commercial space downtown could
generate (at build-out) an additional $5.5 million per year in employee spending;
$190,000 per year in new sales tax revenues; $51,000 per year to CAGID at build-out;
and $43,000 to the Business Improvement District (BID).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
1. Allow up to a 1.0 floor area addition above the 1.7 base FAR in the DT-5 zone district
for non-residential uses subject to a housing linkage fee ($9.10 per square feet of
2
additional floor area). (Section 9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements for DT-5, and 4-
20-62 Affordable Housing Impact Fee, B.R.C. 1981)
Rationale: This is the same structure and format of the existing residential floor area
addition in the code for housing in the DT-5 zone. The maximum FAR of 2.7 would not
change, so the maximum potential mass and bulk of future development in DT-5 is not
being changed. The additional flexibility will allow the market to respond to a critical
need in the downtown, while the linkage fee will create a community benefit in the
affordable housing fund.
2. Add a 65-foot setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way from
9th to 16th Streets for properties in the P or DT-5 zone districts. (9-7-1 Setbacks and 4-
20-62 B.R.C. 1981).
Rationale: This change was adopted in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (March
17 and May 3). By placing the setback in the code, it is established as a consistent
requirement.
BACKGROUND
As part of the downtown code and South of the Downtown Area (SoDa) meetings,
Planning Board and Council had several discussions about community benefit for
additional floor area. Staff had included a list of potential community benefits in exchange
for the additional nonresidential floor area in DT-5:
• Cultural or artistic floor area (percentage of the lot area)
• Publicly accessible open space: such as at-grade plazas, courtyards or rooftop
spaces (percentage of the lot area)
• Commercial Linkage Fee for nonresidential floor area (See Attachment B,
Affordable Housing Excise Tax, TischlerBise, 2008)
Although there was support for these other community benefits, the only one that can be
implemented in a timely manner is the housing linkage fee since it has already been analyzed
by TischlerBise. The other potential community benefits listed above would have to be further
analyzed to establish the necessary nexus.
Planning Board and City Council both adopted the 65-foot setback from the centerline of the
Canyon Boulevard right-of-way (ROW) in the Guidelines. The setback included the option of
an arcade condition, where the first floor is setback 65 feet from the centerline of Canyon, and
upper stories would overhang the first floor setback from a range of 12 to 15 feet. City Council
agreed with the urban design vision for the public realm focused on the south side of Canyon
but wanted it to be part of a larger study from 9th to 16th Streets which would include city-
owned property and the area of the Farmers Market. By codifying the 65-foot setback, the
ability for future streetscape enhancements along Canyon Boulevard would be preserved. The
setback would only apply to properties along Canyon Blvd which are redeveloping.
The following meetings were held since the May 3 City Council meeting:
3
• Notification of the proposed code changes mailed to property owners adjacent to
Canyon Boulevard.
• A follow-up meeting with the Downtown Boulder Inc (DBI) policy committee July 27.
• Design Advisory Board (DAB) met July 13 and discussed the proposed code changes.
(Draft notes from the meeting in Attachment D.)
• Met with three downtown boards at a joint meeting on June 8: DBI, Downtown
Management Commission (DMC), and the Business Improvement District Board (BID)
• Met several times with the property owner of 1580 Canyon.
ANALYSIS
1. Change to the DT-5 Zone District
Currently in DT-5 there is a 1.7 base floor area ratio (FAR) which can be used for either
residential or non-residential uses. In addition, there is a potential .5 floor area addition for
residential uses and a potential .5 floor area addition for parking uses, or 1.0 floor area addition
for residential uses if the parking bonus is not used. The proposal is to mirror this DT-5
requirement: there would be a .5 floor area addition for non-residential uses or 1.0 floor area
addition for non-residential uses if the parking bonus is not used in conjunction with a housing
linkage fee for the additional FAR. The maximum FAR (2.7) would not change.
The analysis of the potential addition to the DT-5 zone district to allow non-residential floor
area in conjunction with a housing linkage fee and the impacts to the economy, the affordable
housing program, parking services, and access to downtown are described below.
Core Project Principles
➢ Respond to the changing needs of Boulder's downtown core to ensure that downtown
remains a vibrant center of the city's economic, cultural and social life.
➢ Respond to the expressed community need for more and better office space in the
downtown core.
➢ Acknowledge the market realities of delivering "market rate affordable" housing units in
the downtown core given its high land prices (absent a high level of public subsidy).
➢ Recognize the value of downtown to the community at-large as well as to the community
of downtown businesses, residents and property owners.
➢ Address the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of transportation
impacts.
➢ Ensure adequate and balanced access to downtown by all modes of travel.
Data Analysis
An update of existing and future estimated development in all of the CAGID area is scheduled
to be completed in 2011. Since the change to DT-5 is being considered now, the initial analysis
has focused on additional projected development and corresponding trip generation in the DT-
5 zone which is the downtown's highest density zone district. Projections and analysis for all
of the CAGID area are anticipated to be completed within the next several months, including a
parking study of existing supply and demand of parking downtown and projected parking
demand based on development projections.
4
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) intensity in DT-5 would remain at the current 2.7 for
either the residential or nonresidential option. Most of the projects developed in the DT-5 zone
district in the last ten years, however, have developed at a lower intensity than 2.7 and we
would expect this trend to continue because of the physical and regulatory constraints of each
site, including the provision of open space, setbacks, and parking access. See the diagram in
Attachment E for the existing FARs of projects on the north side of Canyon Blvd in the DT-5
zone district.
Projections
The RRC report on development projections is included in Attachment F. In summary, under
the existing zoning, through build-out, an additional 1.01 million square feet of development is
projected, approximately 550,000 square feet of nonresidential space, and 460,000 square feet
of residential space. The incremental commercial space under existing zoning is projected to
house between 1,673 and 1,880 employees, depending on the employment intensity
assumptions utilized. Employment will vary over time depending on market conditions. The
incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 240 residential units.
This compares to 1.17 million square feet of development projected with the proposed DT-5
zone change, including approximately 990,000 square feet of commercial space, and 180,000
square feet of residential space. Under the proposed change to DT-5, the projected incremental
commercial space, 990,000 square feet, could house between 2,240 and 3,160 employees and
the incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 92 residential units.
The differences in development projections between the existing residential FAR policy and
the proposed non-residential option are shown in the table in the report in Attachment F.
Economy
➢ What are the potential economic benefits to the downtown of the proposed DT-5
changes?
The additional property tax revenues to the Business Improvement District (BID) based on
the proposed change and the additional non-residential uses, could add an estimated
$43,115 annually by build-out, and to CAGID, an estimated additional $50,814. A survey
from June 2011 showed that downtown employees spend an average of $86 per week in
restaurants and shops. The increase in the number of employees downtown will have a
positive impact for downtown businesses and corresponding sales tax revenues. By 2022,
the total incremental expenditures could be $5.5 million annually with the resulting
incremental annual sales tax revenues of $190,000.
➢ What would be the potential economic benefits to the community at-large?
• Provide additional Class A office space to the Boulder commercial market. This
market is limited and has a low vacancy rate, particularly in downtown Boulder. There
are currently very few options for large floor plate office space in downtown Boulder.
• Increase the likelihood of retaining existing Boulder primary employers, particularly
those that are seeking Class A space or that prefer a central Boulder location. In some
cases, these employers are choosing space in other communities in Broomfield and
Boulder counties or elsewhere in the region and country because they cannot find
5
adequate choices in Boulder (especially those seeking upgraded or newer space).
Business retention and expansion is a key goal of the city's economic vitality program.
• Attract new start-up and mid-stage primary employers to the downtown area and to
Boulder. These companies could support and strengthen Boulder's key industry
clusters (aerospace, bioscience, IT/tech, clean tech, natural/organic products, and
outdoor industry) and add to the community's "entrepreneurial density."
• Taxes and fees generated by primary employers and employees benefit the Boulder
economy and the city of Boulder, supporting services for the Boulder community.
Primary employers often pay high wages in a wide variety of industry sectors. The
companies pay taxes directly to Boulder and their employees patronize Boulder
restaurants and shops, which also generates tax revenues.
Access
➢ What would be the additional potential access demands that could result from this
change?
There are a number of reasons why downtown is an appropriate location for additional
class A office space. From a policy perspective, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) identifies the "historic downtown as the community's hub of economic, civic,
cultural and social activity. It provides specialty shopping and restaurants, a center for civic
activities, a central place for professional offices and banking, spiritual and educational
facilities and an active area for the arts."
The Downtown is also well-served by transit service and bike share programs. Commercial
employees and residents have the highest mode share for alternative travel modes-bus,
bike, and car pool-of any area in Boulder. For employees it is 63 percent. With such a
high mode share, although additional employees downtown will create additional demand
for parking and additional traffic impacts, these impacts would be much less than the same
amount of new commercial development located elsewhere in the city. The alternative
mode share for residents, at 73 percent, is twice the city-wide residential mode share due to
the proximity to transit and walkable destinations.
The preliminary transportation analysis from Fox Higgins is included in Attachment G.
The increase in incremental trips per day at build-out, based on the change to the DT-5
zone which would provide the option of office development on the upper floors, is
approximately 2000 additional trips per day. This trip generation number is based on the
very high mode share for employees downtown. The downtown street grid is adequate to
accommodate these additional trips without significant additional impact.
Expanded and/or new transportation demand management (TDM) programs which will
incentivize alternative travel modes and reduce the impacts of additional auto trips are
being considered:
• Eco Pass programs;
• Car share and bike share programs;
6
• Additional transit service, and improvements to 14a' and Walnut RTD transit station,
which could include a new bike station; and
• US 36 bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements due to arrive by mid 2015.
Management of parking supply and price are also critical to maintaining and increasing the
downtown's alternative mode share in light of the DT-5 zoning changes. The following
strategies are being considered to reduce long term parking demand: increasing the price of
parking, unbundling parking, using variable- priced parking, and developing joint shared
use of parking. These and other strategies will be discussed further for the downtown
following completion of the 2011 parking utilization survey. Also, site specific TDM and
parking management strategies will be considered through the site review process.
Housing
➢ How many potential new housing units might result from the existing FAR bonus
policy in the downtown core?
Table 1 in the RRC report (Attachment F) shows 240 residential units projected at build
out under the existing zoning, with an average unit size of 1650 square feet. This is based
on the assumption of an overall average FAR of 2.3. This projection assumes
approximately 46 percent of all incremental development will be residential. Currently,
residential development represents 14 percent of the total existing downtown development.
In the December 2008 analysis of downtown residential development by staff, 233 units
were projected at 50 percent residential, very similar to the RRC report. At 75 percent
residential, the 2008 study projected 355 units.
The analysis by RRC of the proposed FAR policy change to DT-5 assumes continued but
lower levels of residential development downtown, creating an additional 92 units through
build-out.
➢ What might be the total potential contributions to the city's affordable housing
program under both the existing policy and proposed new policy?
In the first ten years of the Inclusionary Housing (IH) program, very few affordable units
were created in the DT-5 zoning area. This is due to the high cost of land for development
and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of their land
investment.
Since 2000 when both the downtown residential floor area bonus and IH were put in
place, 142 housing units were built in the downtown area. Twelve of these replaced
existing units and as such had no affordable housing requirement for a total 130 new
units. Inclusionary housing required 26 affordable units. Of these, half, or thirteen
would be expected to be built on-site. Of the thirteen, four were built on-site, three
single family homes were provided off site, and for six units, the developer
contributed cash-in-lieu plus an additional 50% for an affordable unit required on-site
but not provided on-site. Developers contributed cash-in-lieu at the standard rate for
the remaining 13 required affordable units.
7
The comparison of an FAR addition for residential use with the corresponding cash-in-lieu
(CIL) and an FAR addition for office use with the corresponding housing linkage fee
shows that the city would receive more funding from the residential use. However, under
either scenario less residential development is projected overall in the DT-5 zone in the
next five years or so.
Analysis
Analysis was performed on two prototypical projects downtown to test the scenarios that
may result using the following assumptions: Scenario 1: No change to the current code for
DT-5 (IH); and Scenario 2: A mix of office and residential, based on the development
assumptions in the RRC report, applying IH to the additional residential floor area and a
linkage fee to the additional commercial floor area. Additionally, this level of analysis was
performed across all development as projected in the DT-5 zone district in the RRC report
(Appendix F).
Prototypical project 1 is a lot of 21,500 square feet with a small existing building, and
project 2 is a 41,500 square foot vacant lot. The results of this analysis are represented in
the following table:
Proposed Change to DT-5: Comparison between Residential and non-
Residential
Community Benefit - Cash
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Variance
Residential Non-residential
Addition No Change) Addition
Complete $11,185,000 $7,721,000 ($3,463,000)
DT-5 Area
Prototypical $486,400 $349,200 ($137,800)
Project 1
Prototypical $619,600 $354,900 ($264,700)
Project 2
Affordable housing benefit is realized in either units or cash-in-lieu of units. In the
downtown, few affordable units have been created due to the high cost of land for
development and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of
their land investment. Consequently, the proposed change would have a neutral impact on
the production of affordable residential units downtown. Most downtown projects
contribute cash-in-lieu of units to meet their IH requirements. Community benefit in the
form of cash contributions to the affordable housing fund are expected, although they
would be at a reduced level with the proposed change.
Summary
As community benefit programs in the form of either a commercial linkage fee or IH would
operate in parallel to each other, staff feels that adding a community benefit standard for
non-residential development in the DT-5 zoning district will provide developers an
8
alternative manner in which to develop their properties, while at the same time capturing
adequate community benefit for the Affordable Housing Program.
Development Feasibility
➢ What would be the relative development feasibility for housing vs. commercial space
under the existing and proposed FAR bonus options?
The research detailed below indicates that with all things being equal, modifications to the
density bonus to allow class A office space is likely to result in more commercial and less
residential development in the DT-5 zone. This conclusion assumes that the only factor
under consideration by a developer is the cost to comply with community benefit
requirements, and does not include other factors such as current housing or office demand,
costs of construction or developer return on investment.
Cost
In Boulder, the cost of development is higher for residential versus commercial
development, due partially to the Inclusionary Housing (IH) requirement that 20% of units
in any given residential development be provided in satisfaction of IH requirements
(including the option of paying cash in lieu of providing units) and due to the residential
parking requirement. In comparison, changes contemplated to the DT-5 zoning district
anticipate that for commercial developments, a linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot will be
applied to the additional floor area portion of the project. .
Financing
As capital markets around the country have experienced dislocations over the past several
years, the availability of capital has been constrained for multifamily residential
developments. Bank financing for these projects is typically now only accessible to the
most solid developers with proven track records; therefore very few residential developers
will qualify for financing.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a branch of the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is currently one of the nation's largest lenders for
multifamily rental developments. Due to the number of projects in Boulder that are FHA-
approved, as well as those funded by other means, the FHA is unlikely to finance a
multifamily rental project in Boulder until existing FHA-funded rental projects have been
leased-up. HUD does see Boulder as a market opportunity in part because of its low
unemployment rates as well as a decline in vacancy rates and an increase in average
monthly rents, but would likely delay approval of the finance of any new projects until
existing projects are adequately leased up.
Financing for commercial projects remain similarly constrained at present. While some
banks are willing to provide financing, those qualifying are often those with the least need
for bank-offered financing.
Vacancy
Commercial
Chris Boston with Gibbons-White Inc. reported that there is very little availability of office
suites of more than 7,000 square feet in size, which can pose a challenge for companies
looking to move downtown. (Boulder County Business Report, June 24, 2011) The
9
Newmark Knight Frank/Frederick Ross First Quarter 2011 Boulder Market Report states
that the market ended the year 2010 with flat absorption. While the first quarter of 2011
experienced a slight decline, the forecast is for moderate improvement over 2010, with
leasing activity steady throughout the balance of the year and slight increases in rental rates
expected later in the year. Additionally, the Downtown submarket continues to demand the
highest rental rates among the seven Boulder submarkets.
Residential-Rental
Rental vacancy rates throughout Boulder remain extremely low, at 3.5% excluding the
University Hill area according to the latest available data from the Colorado Division of
Housing (4t1' Quarter 2010). Nonetheless, due to the high costs of land and the high costs of
construction downtown the likelihood of rental housing development in the DT-5 area is
considered low, at least in the short term.
Residential-For Sale
While the exact number of residential for-sale units on the market fluctuates in the DT-5
area, the Boulder Multi Listing Service (MLS) indicates a number of unsold units with
prices below $2 million. With unsold for-sale units in the area, funding for construction of
additional units may be difficult to obtain.
Transaction Volume
According to Micah McKee with AIP Commercial Real Estate in a letter written to Sean
Maher of Downtown Boulder Inc. in June 2011, the total transaction and dollar volume for
building dealings within the Boulder Business Improvement District (BID) has decreased,
as with the rest of Boulder County. Within the Downtown BID, there was a drop in
transaction volume by 98 percent in four years, from roughly $22.5 million to $400,000.
Office Condominium transactions have performed better from a low of three transactions
(2008) to a high of ten transactions (2010). Seven projects were completed in the
downtown area between December 2007 and June 2011, adding 72,585 new square feet of
office, retail and miscellaneous to the District. He noted that the demand for office space is
substantially greater than retail space.
Summary
Construction funding remains constrained for development of new units in the residential
or commercial categories. While financing may be obtained in either category, the terms
may be prohibitive, or available only to the most well capitalized borrowers.
Vacancy rates for rental housing throughout Boulder remain at extremely low levels,
though land costs and the availability of financing point to difficulty in the development of
rental housing in the downtown area. Difficulties in obtaining financing due to dislocations
in the commercial real estate banking area as well as indications of unsold units downtown
point to a small likelihood of condominium development in the DT-5 zone in the near term.
While financing constraints also exist in the market for commercial real estate construction
loans, there appears to be a shortage of larger-sized commercial space downtown. The
market for downtown commercial space is also expected to improve moderately, and the
demand for office space downtown appears to be stronger than for retail space.
10
While all categories of development thus appear to have present constraints, allowing a
floor area addition for Class A office space in the DT-5 zoning district is expected to
increase the relative attractiveness of this development alternative and provide needed
flexibility for developers. Additionally, if the cost of compliance with Boulder's
community benefit priorities is compared between IH on residential projects and a linkage
fee on commercial projects, the linkage fee cost is projected to be less on a project by
project basis.
A reduced cost for complying with community benefit standards for development of Class
A office space downtown should increase the relative attractiveness of this type of
development option, while still providing resources to the Affordable Housing Program in
support of the City's affordable housing goals.
DT-5 Code Options
The options for changes to DT-5 include the following:
1. No change to DT-5.
Pro: No change, no additional impacts to parking and traffic downtown.
Con: Does not provide additional class A office space downtown and related
economic benefits.
Does not provide additional benefit to the affordable housing program if
residential development does not occur.
2. Change DT-5 to allow a maximum floor area addition of .5 for non-residential uses in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee.
Pro: Would result in half of the projected future increment of the development in the
build-out analysis and fewer impacts-- number of employees and average trips
per day.
Con: Would not provide the additional amount of class A office space downtown and
related economic benefits.
3. Change DT-5 to allow a .maximum floor area addition of 1.0 for non-residential use in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee.
Pro: Would provide the maximum amount of new class A office space downtown
and related economic impacts.
Con: Would generate approximately 2000 additional average trips per day which
could result in increased traffic.
2. Codifying 65 foot Supplemental Setback from the Centerline of Canyon Boulevard
Between 9th and 16th Streets
Purpose
As part of the adopted changes to the downtown zone districts and to the Guidelines
approved by Planning Board and City Council (March 17 and May 3, 2011), a 65- foot
setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way and corresponding
conceptual streetscape for the public realm were adopted in the Guidelines. Council
requested that the Canyon supplemental setback be codified in order to preserve the right-
11
of-way for future design options along Canyon Boulevard. A comprehensive urban design
approach for Canyon Boulevard from 9`1'to 16t1i Streets is planned to be part of a future
larger civic center master plan effort.
Council requested staff to codify 65-foot Canyon setback now in order to preserve the
Canyon Boulevard public realm for the future enhancements/ improvements based on the
completion of the larger study. Council requested that staff identify properties affected by
this code change. Staff has been working with property owners who have projects on
Canyon Boulevard to help identify maximum developable floor area while preserving this
65- foot setback on the first floor.
The urban design vision for Canyon Boulevard as stated in the Guidelines is:
Canyon Boulevard and Broadway accommodate large volumes of traffic moving
through the downtown. Streetscape features should be designed to buffer
pedestrians from traffic impacts, provide greater building setbacks and detached
sidewalks with planting strips between the sidewalk and curb. In areas with
detached sidewalks, well designed landscaping and street trees should be provided.
On Canyon Boulevard, the use of landscaped median strips and pedestrian safe
zones should be designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. (Guidelines,
pages 40 and 65.)
Design of the Public Realm
In order to preserve the future opportunity to implement a vision for the public realm along
Canyon, a minimum setback was adopted in the Guidelines. An analysis of the proposed
Canyon Boulevard streetscape has determined that 65 feet is the minimum setback from the
centerline of the right-of-way needed to preserve the opportunity for the future vision for
Canyon Boulevard.
An example of an enhanced Canyon streetscape that could be implemented in the proposed
setback given the high hazard flood implications where no additional parking would be
allowed is shown on the following page. The drawing to be included in the Guideline
shows the design of the public realm along Canyon Boulevard and an arcade design on the
south side of Canyon which would allow the second story and above to project from 12 to
15 feet over the first floor setback, including the supporting columns.
12
Cannon Blvd.. Looking East
r
~!C3T
65' G5
Canyon Boulevard 65' Suplemental Setback
DAB had a number of questions about the details of the arcade condition and about feasible
first floor uses. Staff will come back with additional information about uses, design details,
examples of arcades, and other details as part of a civic center master plan. (See the draft
notes from the DAB meeting in Appendix D.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will take Planning Board recommendations on the proposed code changes for City
Council consideration and action. The First Reading of these code changes in the downtown is
currently scheduled for the Sept. 6 City Council meeting and the public hearing and Second
Reading on September 20.
Approved B
Did Driskell, Ex u i hector
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft ordinance
B. TischlerBise Analysis of the Housing Linkage Fee
C. City Council minutes from May 3, 2011
D. Draft notes of DAB meeting July 13
E. FAR diagram
F. RRC Report
13
G. Fox Higgins Report
14
ATTACHMENT D
DRAFT Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB) Meeting Agenda Summary
Jzrly 13, 2011
Topics of discussion:
1. Proposed DT-5 Code & Guideline changes
2. BDAB Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed DT-5 Code Changes:.5 or 1.0 FAR for Non-residential Use
• Generally agreed with proposed changes.
65' Setback
• Generally agreed that the 65' supplemental setback from the centerline of the ROW of
Canyon Blvd. on the ground floor, with allowance for upper floor projections into the
setback was good.
• All agreed codifying it was OK in opposed to having it in the Design Guidelines.
Upper Floor Projection over Ground Floor Arcade
BDAB had several questions and issues with codifying the upper floor projection over the
first floor "arcade" from a design and land use perspectives, including the following:
• A "descriptive" guideline that is more flexible in opposed to "prescriptive" design
guidelines would be appropriate to guide the design, scale and character of the arcade.
• The focus of the guidelines should be more on the character of the "public realm", i.e.,
sidewalks, landscaping, trees, etc., rather than on the buildings.
• Consider a variety of ceiling heights for the arcade, anywhere from 14' to 18' height.
• Consider a variety of column spacing such as 10' wide spacing (which works with
standard architectural modules & parking spacing) of spacing, and other spacing that
would help express the 25' lot pattern currently in the Design Guidelines.
• Expressed concern about non-active ground floor land uses such as banks that would
not activate the arcade as opposed to retail uses.
• Some felt since existing retail spaces at One Boulder Plaza are not doing well, there is
no reason to believe that retail will thrive along Canyon, especially with less visibility
due to the arcade.
• Others felt we should be designing for the next 50 years and not be constrained by
current economic or other conditions since the area would be much denser in the
future and could attract more retail.
• There was also concern that because the arcade would be in the shade, whether that
pace would be desirable form retail as well as pedestrian
15
• An arcade concept for a "market-place" type of uses would be desirable, and it could
work well at the City site at 13th & Canyon.
• Concern about whether an arcade along the north side of buildings would be desirable
since it would be in the shade.
• BDAB members asked to have various examples of arcades from other places, and
that we comeback to them with various options and recommendations regarding the
arcade concept.
BDAB Roles and Responsibilities
• Elected David Biek to serve as the chair.
• Agreed to have minutes taken by staff in a summary format which the Chair and board
members would discuss and approve at the end of each meeting.
• Staff to highlight sections of guidelines relevant to the specific review of projects in
advance.
• The Tuesday before BDAB meeting, the chair to discuss agenda with staff to prioritize
the order of review and time.
• Asked to have some involvement at various stages of project review as appropriate.
For example, an early concept level review just on building massing and placement,
and a later review on architecture and design.
• Want to have a joint PB/BDAB site tour for buildings to evaluate/discussion what
worked and didn't work.
• Suggested creating an ongoing documentation to evaluate the guidelines to identify
those that do not work or are contrary to current design goals and objectives, but exist
in the current Guidelines.
16
DOWNTOWN AND
y:
UNIVERSITY HILL
I-P
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION &
j'R f5 3 r„: F
PARKING SERVICES
~,~j; ofy n f' Y'
~.tR°d'4 y S.f ~ Af
y
24
w. .
s
Al,
a
sr- a 5, LLL
i
d~
w rr _
cr d
a r s # N .t
t
77
nt.
000 OR
,.r L~ „L
`~~G:; QIA:.iS„fl
4
-r-
i .
.^'lls~w r w L
S a
DRAFT 2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DUHMD/PS - 15
City of Boulder Captial Improvement Projects, 2012 - 2017
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
North S1'" ^ i
Portland PI N
High St e ffi , r +6~ v
o IF ti oaPtet°r A
Maxwell Av a~
z 151: Pearl St Mall/
nC Downtown Ammenities N, I
1 arking g Garage
X52 P
I ~
cr i Mayor Maintenance
152: Parking Garage ' U
Major Maintenance I w ~J,•,1 pearl S`
r /
N SP~ce S Ajtt 4~ ~atn~t SA
t~ Canyon By
1, A k N 152: Parking Garage
Major Maintenance j
Grove St
Vi
I Ga'y 4~~. ~i 4
I ~ 150: 14th Street Parking
52 Av Lot Improvements
Pehoe
Ara-
j 1 Parking Garage
l Major Maintenance 152: Parking Garage X
Y
Major Maintenance
CAGID Boundary
" Athens St
Legend e St I
Year of Project N~actn w~
02012 VJ AV a s s. Ftll/sue
20112017 G(andVle i - Off.
2012 I ~nj pa , t a
- .t,_.:_ i y t` - `;a•k'ra
-2013-2017
2012 A ° IIf
_.'2013.2011 t. -
University Av
16 - DUHMDIPS I CITY OF BOULDER
Downtown • Division
FUNDING OVERVIEW
Downtown and University Hill Management Division/Parking Services (DUHMD/PS) man-
ages the Downtown Commercial District Fund and University Hill Commercial District Fund.
Within each fund there are restricted District parking and tax revenues as well as park-
ing revenues from on-street parking. In addition, DUHMD/PS has responsibility for many
General Fund parking programs such as the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program, several
surface lots and parking enforcement - all of which generate revenue.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND HIGHLIGHTS
Accomplishments:
Parking Garage Major Maintenance/Improvements:
During 2010, the major project was interior and signage upgrades to
the Randolph Center, the District's oldest garage. In collaboration with
Broadway/Walnut, LLP, enhancements were made to the common
rr m= areas of the building, an elevator was replaced and exterior signage
10 _ was updated. A design theme incorporated historic photographs of the
site. On Walnut Street,
11 improvements were made to the landscaping
n n n, and the bus stop. Another project involved substantial waterproofing
repairs at the St. Julien garage.
Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Improvements/Amenities Replacement:
One of Boulder's newest During the first year, the following replacements were completed: re-
parking garages at 1500 Pearl placement of the street tree sprinkler system along Pearl Street between 15th and 17th, and
Street replacement of the shade structure fabric on the 1300 block of the Pearl Street Mall.
In terms of improvements, enhancements were completed to 13th Street between Arapahoe
and Canyon to accommodate the growth and success of the Boulder County's Farmers'
Market. These were the removal of the on-street tree islands, planting of new trees and the
addition of electrical outlets along 13th Street.
Highlights:
Parking Garage Major Maintenance/Improvements:
Beginning in 2012, parking garage major maintenance/improvements is fully funded at
$250,000 per year through the Downtown Commercial District Fund with restricted Central
Area General Improvement District revenues. Fallowing a 4 year major improvement plan,
scheduled ongoing repairs/renovations will maintain the garages in good standing.
Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Improvements/Amenities Replacement:
Beginning in 2012, Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Amenities replacement will be partially
funded at $125,000 per year through the general fund meter revenues that are transferred
to the Downtown Commercial District Fund. This fund will provide for planned funding for
replacement of amenities on the Pearl Street Mall and in the Downtown Commercial District.
Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Improvements is a high priority unfunded project that is cur-
rently under review for the 2011 Bond initiative.
DRAFT 2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I DUHMD/PS -17
14th Street Parking Lot Improvements:
Beginning in 2012, 14th Street parking lot improvements are partially funded at $25,000 per
year through the general fund bifurcated revenues for lot permits in the Downtown Commer-
cial District Fund. Historically, no funds were set aside for repair or replacement. This fund
will provide for the upkeep of the pavement and landscaped areas of the three lots on 14th
street.
RELATIONSHIP TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIZATION
All proposed projects in the 2012-2017 CIP are consistent with the applicable guiding prin-
ciples. DUHMDIPS plans to create a master plan in 2012. All projects have sufficient funds
for ongoing maintenance and operations. All projects in the proposed CIP go towards main-
taining and improving existing assets. The Downtown Improvement/Replacement projects
support the economic sustainability of downtown Boulder. The multi year CAGID parking ga-
rage major maintenance project provides essential maintenance and reinvestment into the
parking districts five facilities. The Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Replacement project ensures
the long term sustainability of our downtown amenity infrastructure and the Downtown/Pearl
Street Mall improvements invests in the future economic and social vitality of the center of
our community and addresses emerging needs such as planning for the future of the civic
center/civic park area.
DEFERRED PROJECTS, CHANGES AND UNFUNDED NEEDS
The most important unfunded need is the Downtown/Pearl Street Mall Improvement project
that includes 13th Street/Central area enhancements for the Farmers Market, pedestrian
improvements at the 14th and Walnut Transit Center and streetscape improvements for 15th
Street and West Pearl. This project is included in the capital investment strategy project. The
14th parking lot improvements are a new project and are needed to maintain the long term
functionality of the lots. No other projects have been deferred.
EMERGING NEEDS
No additional emerging needs are identified.
kk_
~t
I I
777 4f,
X'-6.v r a
d
Capitalal replacement =z
money for the existing
amenities on the Pearl
Street Mall, such as
the pop jet fountain or
shade structures is par-
s .
tiatly funded beginning
n 2012.
18 - DUHMDIPS j CITY OF BOULDER
'
A
2012-2017 Capital Improvements Program
DUHMD 12-Jul-11
Est Total 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 6-year LFL Alloc Unfunded-
Cost Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total ing A mount
n Existing Facility - Rehab ( Repair / Deficiency Correction -
ra 14th Street Parking Lot Improvements 335,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 0 185,500
Downtown/Pearl St Mall Amenities Replace 1,410,610 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 750,000 0 660,610
n Parking Garage Major Maintenance 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,500,000 0 0
Project Type Total: 1,746,110 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000 0 846,110
D
Department Total: 1,746,110 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000 0 846,110
O
M
M
z
0
G)
n
v
c
v
2012-2097 Capital Improvements Program
Project Status Report
Project Name: Prb1Lct Number
14th Street Parking Lot Improvements L 450
Department: DUHMD Subcommunity: Central8oulder
Funding Source: Downtown Commercial District Fund BVCPArea:
Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab / Repair! Deficiency Correction
CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed
Project Description:
Parking Services manages the parking in three Downtown lots that are not owned by CAGID (they are city property) but located
within the CAGID boundaries. Historically no funds have been set aside for repair or replacement for the lots located at: 1336
Canyon. 1745 14th, and 1775 14th. These lots are for paid permit holders; there are no meters or pay stations in any of the lots.
Parks and Recreation has assumed the responsibility for routine landscaping, but also has not been funded for maintaining and
repairing the landscaping around these lots. Consequently, these lots have fallen into disrepair and the surrounding landscaping
has deteriorated to bare dirt and a few bushes.
Responsibility for repair and upkeep should be designated to Parking Services. An initial capital improvement outlay of
approximately $285,500 (based on assumptions in table) would be necessary for pavement repairs. From that point forward, a
repair and replacement fund drawn from general fund revenues generated by the lots should be established to maintain the
parking surfaces and the surrounding landscape. The new parking lots will have an estimated life span of 20 years, a
replacement fund for 20 years should be established ($18,020 per year for all three. Initial landscaping costs are estimated at
$50,000 (no bid has been solicited as yet).
Summary of expenses: $285,500 for initial repair and replacement to the parking lots. $50,000 estimated cost of landscaping
Total initial CIP: 5335,500. On-going replacement funds of 518.020 per year for the lots (not adjusted for inflation)
This project is for an ongoing funding program. In 2012, $0 will be spent on lot improvements as it will take at least two years to
accumulate enough for lot improvements
This project includes $0 of outside funding.
Relationship to Guiding PrIncipals,.
1. Master Plan: DUHMD/PS's plans to create a master plan have been postponed to 2012 due to work plan constraints.
2. Community Sustainabillty Goals: Providing access to the downtown supports both the economic sustairiability for downtown,
i.e. downtown employees, customers, clients, visitors and tourists, as well as the social sustainability, i.e. access for events such
as the Farmers Market and festivals.
3. Maintenance and Operations: DUHMD/PS budget includes ongoing maintenance for the three surface lots and Parks and
Recreation includes ongoing maintenance for the landscaping.
4. Emerging Needs: Not directly applicable.
5. Support City Business Systems: Not applicable.
6. Improving existing assets: This CIP request directly addresses capital maintenance of a city asset
7. Meeting Mandates, etc.: Not directly applicable
8. Efficiency of Investments -Cost Benefit and Coordination of Oepartments:
DUHMD/PS and Parks and Recreation Department share maintenance activities
9. Sound Fiscal Foundation: Does not directly apply.
Public roccss'status, Issues:
no public process
Relationship With Other Departments.
Parks and Recreation, FAM and DUHMD/PS have all participated in the care and maintenance of the 14th Street lots.
Capital Funding Plan
Est Total Cost 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 6-year Total
$335.SG0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25.000 $150,000
Prev Alloc Funding ; Unfunded Amount
$0 $185,500
Change from Prior Year: m
Annual On-going Operating Costs 0
Description: Ongoing operating costs are covered in the Downtown Commercial District fun
Source of Funding:
20 - DUHMD/PS CITY OF BOULDER
2012-2017 Capital Improvements Program
Project Status Report
Project Nama: Project Number! -Map Number.
DowntowrtlPearl St Mall Amenities Replacement 151
Department: DUHMD Suhcommuntty: Central Boulder
Funding Source: Downtown Commercial District Fund evCPArea: Area 1
Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction
CEAP Required: Np CEAP Completed:
Project Des'criptiort: -
Currently there is no capital replacement or future improvements plan or funding source identified for the Pearl Street Mall and
downtown streetscape improvements, The Downtown Improvement Plan will consist of two components: 1) capital replacement
budget for the existing amenities on the Pearl Street Mall (pop jet fountain, shade structure, kiosks, play areas, etc.) and existing
streetscape elements within the downtown area (benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, etc.) and 2) a plan for future streetscape
improvements in sub areas of the downtown.
When paid on-street parking was initiated in the mid-1990's on Saturdays, the incremental increase of revenues was included in
the budget for downtown improvements. In 2002, DUHMDIPS borrowed $3,000,000 from the general fund to renovate and
freshen up the Pearl Street Mallon its 25th anniversary. $500,000 was paid to the general fund each year to payoff this loan. In
2011, the final payment is $43,548. The plan is to redirect these funds towards an ongoing replacement fund and also designate
funds for renovations and improvements throughout the downtown.
This project is for an ongoing funding program. In 2012, there are no scheduled expenditures. The replacement funds are
designated as amenities age and need replacement or repairs.
This project includes $0 of outside funding.
RetationshIptoGuidipoPrincipals: -
1. Master Plan: DUHMD/PS's plans to create a master plan have been postponed to 2012 due to work plan constraints.
2. Community Sustalnability Goals: Downtown and Pearl Street Mall Amenity Replacements are very closely aligned with the
social and economic sustainability goals. Downtown is the primary community gathering place, commercial center and tourism
attraction, and thus is an important economic generator and source of community pride. A reinvestment strategy needs to be in
place to ensure the Pearl Street Mall and downtown remain a vital and attractive city center for residents, visitors and employees
The downtown area provides for a quality of life that attracts and retains diverse businesses; and is the site for dozens of
community events that create an inclusive and socially thriving community.
3. Maintenance and Operations: The goal of this request is to provide the long term replacement funds to sustain the amenities.
Ongoing daily maintenance of the Pearl Street Mall and downtown amenities is currently covered by Parks and Recreation,
DUHMD/PS and the Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District.
4. Emerging Needs: Not applicable.
5. Support City Business Systems: Not applicable.
6. Improving existing assets: The Downtowrt/Pearl Street Mall Replacement fund totally supports this guiding principle of
sustaining or improving maintenance of existing assets prior to investing in new assets.
7. Meeting Mandates, etc.: Does not directly apply.
8. Efficiency of Investments - Cost Benefit and Coordination of Departments: Reinvestment in existing, welt-loved amenities is
much more cost effective than constructing new amenites. DUHMDIPS works closely with other departments such as FAM,
Transportation, and Parks and Recreation to coordinate planning and maintenance.
9. Sound Fiscal Foundation: Does not directly apply.
Public Process Status, Issues
A Downtown Improvement Plan Task Force has been working to prioritize and identify improvements. Staff on the task force
represent Parks and Recreation, Planning, Transportation, DUHMD/PS and Facilities Asset Management. Also included are
representatives from the downtown boards and organizations: Downtown Management Division, Downtown Boulder Inc. and
Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District. Additional stakeholders will be added as the project evolves. The primary foci
of the task force has been twofold. First, working with Parks, GIS and FAM staff to create an inventory of existing amenity and
slreetscape improvements on the Pearl Street Mall and the downtown. This provides the detailed budget necessary to ensure
that capital replacement funds are in place for these existing investments. The second component has been the
recommendation for areas for future streetscape and infrastructure improvements.
Relationship with Other Departments:
DUH~hDlPS staff is Nwrking with staff from FAM, Transportation, and Parks and Recreation to coordinate the downtown capital
amenities replacement plan. In particular, staff is working closely with Parks and Recreation regarding their CIP for Pearl Street
Mall related infrastructure; such as the replacement of the irrigation system.
Capital Funding Plan
Est Total Cost 2D12 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 6-year Total
$1,410,610 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,D00 $125,000 $125,000 $750,000
Prev Alloc Funding J I Unfunded Amount
I' I 1
Change from Prior Year:
Annual On-going Operating Costs
Description:
Source of Funding:
DRAFT 2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DUHMD/PS - 21
2012-2017 Capital Improvements Program
Project Status Report
protect Name: t Project Nwnbber: Map Number:
Parking Garage Major Maintenance r 152
Department: DUHMD Subcommunity: Central Boulder
Funding Source: Downtown Commercial District Fund I BVCPArea: Area I
Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab! Repair / Deficiency Correction
CEAP Required: NO CEAPCompleted: - -
Project.Descrip6oa:
The Downtown Commercial District (DCD, formerly CAGID) is a general improvement taxing district created in 1970 to provide
parking and parking related improvements in downtown Boulder. Properties within the district pay property taxes into the district
fund; other revenues are derived from the parking feeds. DCD owns 5 parking garages in the downtown. The parking garages
total value is nearly 56 million dollars and breaks down as follows:
11 th and Walnut-Randolph = $7,129,037 - built 1979
1400 Walnut-RTD = $5,747,442- built 1989
11th and Spruce = $ 11,548,104- built 1990
1500 Pearl = $ 16,840,730 - built 1999
1000 Walnut-St. Julien = S 14,632,517 - built 2004
Due to the construction of 2 parking garages since 1999 funds were not available for major renovations and repairs until 2008. A
detailed assessment of all 5 garages was conducted during 2006 and a total of approximately $4million was phased over three
years beginning in 2008. The repairs include structural repairs and renovations such as, concrete and surface, fire suppression
systems, replacement of mechanical equipment; as well as aesthetic improvements including painting, elevator improvements,
lighting, signage, exterior improvements to 1100 Walnut, landscaping, entry equipment, trash receptacles and benches, and booth
replacement.
Once the project started, additional repairs issues were uncovered and more energy efficient lighting was added. The additional
costs were added into a 41h year of the capital improvements(major maintenance.
Additional costs include the upgrade of lighting systems at 1100 Walnut and 1400 Walnut to LED, a more energy efficient and
sustainable system, but more expensive initially than conventional lighting. While replacing the exterior signage was included in
the original budget (i.e. the "lollipop" parking P signs and new entry canopies), a comprehensive way finding directionallgraphics
system for all the garages will be included to provide clearer directions to our customers and reduce unnecessary driving. In
addition, there is an unanticipated foundation wall repair at 1000 Walnut that will cost $236,000.
The major capital renovation and repair project ends in 2011. Starting in 2012, $250,000 per year is projected as ongoing
repairs/renovations to maintain the garages in good standing.
This project is for an ongoing funding program. In 2012, $250,000 will be spent on scheduled garage repaving and resealing
projects.
This project includes $0 of outside funding.
Relationship-to Guiding Principals;` , .
1. Master Plan: DUHMD/PS's plans to create a master plan have been postponed to 2012 due to work plan constraints.
2. Community Sustainabiliy Goals: Providing access to the downtown supports both the economic sustainability for downtown,
i.e. downtown employees, customers, clients, visitors and tourists, as well as the social sustainability, i.e. access for events such
as the Farmers Market and festivals. Projects have included installation of energy saving light fixtures.
3. Maintenance and Operations: DUHMD/PS budget includes ongoing maintenance for the CAGID parking garages and surface
lot.
4. Emerging Needs: CIP funds will be used to install a variable messaging system between the garages taking advantage of
current technology to indicate available spaces.
5. Support City Business Systems: Not applicable.
6. Improving existing assets: This CIP request directly addresses capital maintenance of the CAGID parking assets.
7. Meeting Mandates, etc.: Not directly applicable
8. Efficiency of Investments - Cost Benefit and Coordination of Departments:
Not directly applicable.
9. Sound Fiscal Foundation: Does not directly apply.
Public Pmcess status, issues:
A detailed assessment and report was conducted by Weiss,Janey Elstner, parking engineers, that details projects in all 5 parking
structures phased over multiple years. A working group with representatives from the Downtown Management Commission and
the downtown community reviewed and contributed to the development of the renovation plan. At the end of 2007, a major debt
service payment is retired for the construction of 1 tth and Spruce and renovations at the RTD garages. Those revenues will be
allocated to the major renovation and repairs.
Relationship with other Departments:
None
Capital Funding Plan
Est Total Cost 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 6-year Total
$0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 5250,000 $250,000 $1,500,000
Prev Altoc Funding Unfunded Amount
$o $o
Change from Prior Year: {
Annual On-going Operating Costs $17500,000 _
Description:
Source of Funding: ~DCDPror)eiy taxes and garage revenues
22 - DUHMD/PS I CITY OF BOULDER