8 - Hill Commercial Context Study (HCCS) L
Hill Commercial Context Study (HCCS)
Prepared by
The City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services Center
February 14. 2008
A. Overview
The Hill Commercial Context Study (HCCS) dated October 1, 2U07 presents an exciting
opportunity to address the revitalization of the University Hill commercial area, a goal the city,
business and land owners, neighborhood residents, and the community at large would all like to
achieve. As stated in the report:
The HCCS is an Urban Design study. Its purpose is to guide and inform the long term
redevelopment of the Hill by providing a vision of
possible uses, mass/scale, and design
themes of distinct sub-areas within The Hill that are consistent with the overall vision for
The Hill.
On January l 7, 2008, the HCCS team met with representatives of a number of relevant City
agencies to discuss concepts and ideas presented in the study report. Following that meeting city
staff members reviewed and commented on the HCCS. This report is a collation of those
comments.
i. The Development and Review Process and Next Steps
The city clearly recognizes the exceptional effort that went into the production of the HCCS, the
bold and far reaching vision it presents for the future of University Hill, and the effort made to
invite a number of property owners and citizens to participate in the HCCS planning process.
The city also recognizes that due to its far reaching vision, the 1-ICCS presents an excellent
opportunity to address the land use, policy, and development guideline questions that will
ultimately guide and inform the Hill's long-term redevelopment. As noted in the report
document:
The HCCS does not propose. or mandate specific building configurations/designs, as this
will be dT~iven by the market and the private sector. Instead the HCCS creates a broad
context or framework for specific projects.
Given the desire to achieve the common goal. of revitalizing the University Hill commercial area,
the city would consider pursuing, with the New Hill Company, a two phase strategy.
First phase: The New Hill Company Analyzes the HCCS to identify specific project
sites
The suggested first phase would entail an analysis of the HCCS by the New Hill
Company to identify a framework and rationale for developing specific project sites. For
example, the following would provide such a framework:
a. Project sites that may proceed by-right under the existing BMS (Business
Main Street) zone and that require no changes to the existing zone:
1
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
For example, some areas of University Hill such as the "Bova's" block may be
generally consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and
existing zoning. Such specific projects maybe able to proceed to the Concept
Plan and Site Review process in relatively short order. (See: Zoning section in
Part B: Preliminary Review Comments)
b. Project sites that may proceed under the existing BMS zone with some
modification to structures identified in the HCCS:
For example; the Jones Drug site (the area located within the BMS zone) may
possibly be redeveloped under the existing BMS zone with some modification to
the bulk and density of structures presented in the HCCS. This approach will
require careful coordination and cooperation between the New Hill Company and
the city.
c. Project sites that are significantly inconsistent with the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the Boulder Land Use Code.
For example, the residential development in the RHS zone, located north of
Euclid Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets, presents a significant departure from
current requirements and will require in depth analysis and consideration of
conformance with the BVCP and the RH-5 residential zone.
Second Phase: The City Conducts abuild-out analysis of the BMS and RH-5 zones
The second phase suggested by the city would be the preparation of a build-out analysis
of the BMS and RH-5 zones that the city would produce. This anal.
sib s may likely be
completed during the time the New Hill Company conducts an analysis to identify
specific development sites and projects that may possibl~~ advance under the BMS zone.
It should .be noted that while the HCCS process is indeed laudable, it is also unusual in
that it presents a redevelopment concept for a significant area of the city that would have
nominally been prepared by the City-a process that would have otherwise set the policy
stage and land use guidelines for a study such as the HCCS. Given the size and historic
standing of the University Hill area and the complexity and scale of ideas presented in the
HCCS, the city believes that it is necessary to explore and assess the development
potential under the current BMS zone as compared to the bold vision the HCCS
presents-a vision that raises a number of questions in key areas such as:
a. Intensity of development
The size and scale of buildings illustrated in the HCCS appear comparable to
buildings in the downtov~m Canyon and Walnut Street corridor. The buildings
appear to be considerably larger than that allowed in the BMS zone and the 1.85
Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the maximum allowed in that zone. Without a clear and
accurate build-out analysis it is impossible to either understand the amount of
development presented or to understand the impacts that may result such as
parking and traffic demand, residential densities, and infrastructure requirements.
Further, the amount of residential development illustrated in the area located
immediately north of Euclid Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets requires
2
Flill Commercial Context StudylStaff Review
considerable analysis and consideration due to what appears to be a sigiuficant
departure from current requirements in the RH-5 zone.
The amount of both residential and non-residential development illustrated in the
HCCS should be considered in light of findings in the Final Draft of the
University Hill Business Plan dated September 13, 2004 by the Ross Consulting
Group which notes that:
Ultimately, there is considerable density on the Hill that is not being
utilized regardless of BMS-X know BMSJ zoning. The average FAR on the
Hill is 1.1 whereas the maximum allowed under BMS
X is 1.85. This
means that there could theoretically be another 470, 000 square feet of
building space housed on the Hill which would almost double the amount
of building space currently there
faf• higher density than would likely be
optimal...
The Business Plan also raises questions about the differences between the Hill's
BMS zone and downtown's old RB 1-X zone:
d~ering descriptive definitions of the two districts demonstrate the
City `s original intent that redevelopment of the Hill he of a lesser intensity
and purpose that that on Pearl Street. Where Pearl Street's
redevelopment district is intended tv serve the larger City and regional
community, the Hill 's redevelopment district is much smalle~° in ,scale.
b. Coordinated phasing and ongoing business activity
Without careful consideration of specific project sites and how they will build-out
over time, prolonged redevelopment of the Hill may have a major impact on the
success of existing small businesses, the ability to market both retail and
residential properties, the phased financing and implementation of parking and
infrastructure facilities, and the livability of the area for Hill neighbors during
construction.
c. Historic preservation and Hill character
Consideration should be given to how The New Hill Group would implement the
concept of "integration" of structures that may contribute to the area's historic
quality, into development proposals. Such consideration would help in
understanding how such structures would contribute to the Hill's future character
and form. Although the majority of the approximately 120 buildings in the HCCS
area have been identified as contributing to the identified local and National
Register of Historic Places districts, only six of those buildings have been called
out for preservation/restoration treatment.
The concept. of integration should he considered in light of the areas eligibility as
a National Register historic district and how a district could be a valuable asset
that would help promote the area's future development. The University Hill
Business Plan identifies the opportunity for a designated historic district as
follows:
As land values increase and building conditions deterivi•ate ever time,
wholesale redevelopment becomes more economically viable in what
3
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
could be considered Historic buildings. Therefore, the City should
seriously consider pursuing a historic classification on the 13`i' Street
corridor and possibly shift redevelopment and additional density to other
parts of the Hill.
d. Urban design, site planning and public street activity
The HCCS identifies several sub-areas that may likely be developed in phases.
Such phasing would offer the potential far a variety of architectural treatments
that would visually distinguish each area, as well as architecturally differentiate
specific buildings and sites within a given area.
The concept of interior block courtyards and pedestrian ways located throughout
the study should also be given additional consideration with regard to service
access for fire, police, security; the delivery of goods and trash. pick up. The
interior pathways also raise serious concern about the fiinction of the public street
and sidewalk as the front door to buildings and the primary organizing framework
for the area.
e. Transportation and parking
Analysis and consideration ~f the amount and use mix of development is needed
to better understand and determine the type, amount and location of parking that
maybe required, parking revenue, transportation demand/mitigation, among other
related issues. Consideration of options and strategies for the incorporation of
University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) land for that is identified
in the HCCS for development is also of interest (see below under UHGID).
f. Public financing of infrastructure
Issues identified with regard to transportation and parking are similar to the
information needs that will allow the city to better understand the type, amount
and cost of potential infrastructure improvements for the area.
It should be noted that while the city recognizes the importance of revitalizing the
Hill, especially with regard to city council priorities, CU interests, and the
wellbeing of adjacent neighbors, public funding of infrastructure improvements
such as street, sidewalk and intersection up~ades; landscaping and other utility
upgrades, maybe difficult and will require careful analysis and consideration.
4
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
B. Preliminary Review Comments
Relevant city divisions that are responsible for various aspects of redevelopment of University
Hill were asked for their review of the HCCS. Following are their comments:
1. Relationship to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
With few exceptions the goals ofthe HCCS are supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the goals and the urban design illustrations in the HCCS report appear inconsistent
especially for the properties located in the RH-5 zone.
a. Section 2: Community Design
At the highest level of intensity are the city's three regional centers. They form a
triangle at Boulder's geographic center: the Historic Downtown, the Boulder
Valley Regional Center (BVRC), and the University of Colorado (CU) with the
University Hill business district. 'the University Hill Business District also serves
as a neighborhood center for the surrounding neighborhood. Each of these
centers has a distinct function and character...
The I3CCS goals are consistent in this area of the BVCP. Similar ideas are further
illuminated in Section 3, Central Area Plans and Programs under the title
University Activity Center.
b. Section 2.27: Variety of Activity Centers
.~4ctivity centers should be designed to be compatible with surrounding latad uses
and intensity and the context and character of neighborhoods and business areas.
Good multi-modal connections to and,from activity centers will be encouraged.
This element raises some concern especially related to the residential concept for
the southern portion of the study area located in the RH-5 zone as well as the
overall scale and intensity of the concepts presented in the HCCS.
c. Section 5.07 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas
The city will cooperate with the private sector to foster the revitalization of
commercial and industrial areas to create greater vitaliry...a variety of tools
should be considered to create public/private partnerships that lead to successful
redevelopment. Those tools may include, but are not limited to, area planning,
infrastructure improvements, changes to zoning or development standards and
financial incentives.
As mentioned earlier in this document, an area plan and additional in£ornaation
regarding the type and amount of development are needed to better gauge the
impacts of anticipated development and the need to forge collaborative planning
efforts. For example, any development proposal involving one of the UHGID-
ownedparking lots on 14th Street or Pleasant Street would require negotiations
with UHGID.
5
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
d. Section 5.09 Vital and Productive Retail Sase
The city will support coordinated public/private initiatives at the regional activity
centers, including downtown Boulder, University Hill and the BIiRC'. It rill also
consider, depending upon specific circumstances and opportunities/needs,
initiatives designed to facilitate mixed use development at community retail
centers where appf•opriate. (Same comment as Section 5.07)
The BVCP stipulates that activity centers should be designed to be compatible
with surrounding land uses and intensities and with the character of
neighborhoods and business areas within walking distance. The HCCS vision to
create a wider, snore regional draw for the Hill, including potential uses such. as
office, hospitality, conference, and performance venues, would necessitate higher-
intensity zoning and would trigger the need to consider the issue of compatibility
with the surrounding area, among other issues.
2. University Hill Area Plan (199b)
a. Regional draw
Similar to the BVCP, the HCCS goals are consistent with the Area Plan.
However, the goals and the urban design drawings illustrated in the HCCS report
appear inconsistent especially for the properties located in the RH-5 zone as well
as amount of development that would be aimed at serving a regional market.
Although the 1996 Area Plan emphasizes serving the close-in market within
walking distance, the HCCS asserts that providing regional retail; employment
and entertainment services and uses will serve Hill and campus residents and
reduce their need to travel elsewhere in addition to enlivening the area by
appealing to a broader market.
b. Compatibility with surrounding area
The need to ease the transition from the higher-density uses to the lower-density
neighborhoods surrounding the study area is again noted. The Area Plan
identified the need to ease the transition from the higher-density residential uses
surrounding the commercial core to the lower-density neighborhoods south of the
area. One possibility the Area Plan mentions is creating an intervening medium-
density zone. The HCCS envisions a major economic and architectural anchor for
the southern section of the area (p.18), with residential uses predominating nn the
southern and western portions of the section. This concept would need to be
assessed to ensure that a suitable transition is made to adjacent lower-density
residential areas.
c. Zoning issues
The Area Plan identified the problem of the non-conformities in the high-density
residential area and the need to amend land use regulations to facilitate property
upgrades. Although the plan did not recommend zoning changes to the
6
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
commercial portion of the Hill (although. after plan adoption the commercial
zoning was changed from CB-E to BMS-X), the HCCS study sees the curzcnt
zoning (BMS-X) as an impediment to redevelopment and reinvestment in Hill
properties, citing the 2004 Ross Group report, which states that allowing larger
buildings, larger floor plates and increased density would give property owners
incentive to make significant investments in their properties (p.9). However, in
some locations changes within the existing BMS-X zone may be made that
address concerns raised by the Ross Group report.
d. Parking
The HCCS recommends an overall increase of parking spaces and the provision
of underground parking structures. The Area Plan states that significant
redevelopment will necessitate consideration of additional parking and travel
demand management programs. Broadway is a multimodal corridor with
excellent transit service and awell-used multi-use path on its east side. BVCP
policy 6.10 on Multimodal Development (p. 46) calls for the city to develop
parking maximums and promote parking reductions along multimodal corridors.
This effort maybe facilitated here by the existence of UHGID, which already
manages parking for a portion of the Hill.
e. Public process
Although the UHAG includes a neighborhood association representation, it is not
clear the exact extent to which the public process included surrounding neighbors
and the general public (p.3-4}. An area plan update process would involve the
latter, as well as HCCS development team, city boards and the City Council.
f. Transportation and Capital Improvement Action Items
The Area Plan states that significant redevelopment will necessitate consideration
of additional parking and travel demand management programs. Broadway is a
multimodal corridor with excellent transit service and awell-used multi-use path
on its east side. Comp Plan policy 6.10 on Multimodal Development (p. 46) calls
for the city to develop parking maximums and promote parking reductions along
multimodal corridors.
The amount and below grade location of parking presented in the HCCS is of
some concern relative to the issue of supporting multimodal corridors and
alternative means of transportation. This effort maybe facilitated here by the
existence of'UHGID, which already manages parking for a portion of the Hill.
3. UHGID (University Hill General Improvement District)
Staff supports the overall goals of the New Hill Redevelopment plan to spark and enhance the
revitalization of the hill commercial area. UHGID efforts to encourage compatible
redevelopment have been going on for some years, most recently the Ross Business Plan for the
Hill and the redevelopment workshops in 2005.
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff' Review
The role and participation of UHGID will he essential since several of the potential
redevelopments involve the UHGID-owned surface parking lots. UHGID would look forward to
detailed discussions with the adjacent property owners.
It is important to understand UHGID's obligation to all the district tax payers to provide for the
parking needs of the entire district, not just those of the surrounding property. For example, the
plans assume the utilization. of UHGID's air rights for non-parking uses and assume that the
parking be constructed underground which is more expensive to build and to operate. Both of
these assumptions have a substantial and direct impact on the finances of tJHGID. Any plans for
redevelopment must make UHGID "whole" financially. DUHMD/PS staff as well as UHGID
Advisory Committee members will be interested in exploring the range of redevelopment
strategies and tools to assist in the plan's development while maintaining the financial integrity
of tJHGID.
4. Historic Preservation
' a. Potential historic areas
The HCCS area encompasses all of the identified potential University Hill
Commercial I-Iistoric District (20 properties) and a portion of the identified
potential University Hill Residential Historic district (approximately 100
properties).
Bath of these areas have been identified as being eligible for Local district
designation and far listing in the National Register of Historic Places as historic
districts. Plans for re-development cif these areas should be consistent with section
2.33 Prese~°vation of Historic and Cultural Resources of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan which states that, "protection of important (historic)
resources will be sought by the city when a proposal by the private sector involves
discretionary development review".
The majority of the approximately 12U buildings in the study area have been
identified as contributing to the identified local and National Register of Historic
Places districts, yet only six of those buildings have been called out for
preservation/restoration treatment.
b. Potential impacts on potential historic resources in the commercial area
The HCCS concepts for the cammercial area of University Hill would have a
significant impact upon identified historic resources calling for large areas of
demolition and new construction. For example, of the 20 properties in the
potential commercial historic district, 15 (79%) have been identified as potentially
contributing to the area while one (the Fox Theater), is designated. as a local
landmark. A number of these buildings, including what appear to be all of the
west side of the 1100 and 1200 blocks of 13`" Street, are shown to be demolished,
or "integrated" into the overall redevelopment with new buildings constructed in
their place. The potential for demolition and appropriate new construction. is
highest at the three identified non-contributing properties at 1119, 1121, & 1155
8
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
13th Street, while the remaining identified contributing buildings and the Fox
Theater should be rehabilitated (and if appropriate) added to in a mam~er
consistent with the historic preservation ordinance and the General Design
Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts and Individual Landmurks.
The potential contributing and non-contributing buildings illustrated on the map
of the identified University Hill Cammercial district are based upon a historic
building inventory of the area undertaken in 1990. The historic preservation
section plans to have ahistoric re-survey of this area completed in March of 2008.
c. Potential impacts on potential historic resources in residential areas
Approximately 100 buildings in the study area are within the identified
boundaries of the potential University Hill Residential Historic District. As in the
potential commercial historic district, the plan shows a number of potentially
contributing buildings as being demolished. For example, a number of houses on
the west side of the 1000 block of 14t" St. and both sides of the same block of 13`"
St. are shown to be removed to allow for the construction of new larger buildings.
Identified contributing buildings (including the individually land marked
Huntington Arms building at 1020 12th St.) should be rehabilitated (and if
appropriate) added to in a manner consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the General Design Guidelines for Boulder 's• Historic Districts and
Individual Landmarks.
d. Proposed Architectural Character
The HCCS states one of its goals is to "maintain end strengthen the Hill's unique
sense of place, with timeless architeciure...while retaining the rich physical
character that the neighborhood has achieved". From a historic preservation
standpoint, the proposed new construction and additions to existing structures will
result in increased mass, scale, and proportion that will have the effect of
overwhelming the generally modest scale and character of the historic buildings
in the area.
Steps should be taken to significantly reduce the mass, scale, height and
proportion of the development so that it is more in keeping with the existing
historic character of the area. Renderings presented show a vocabulary drawn
from a variety of architectural influences, some local to the area, others not. Per
the General Design Guidelines, new construction and additions in the identified
potential historic districts should preserve and complement the historic character
of the district, contextually, yet simply.
Staff does not consider the introduction of the University of Colorado "I'uscan-
Revival architecture as proposed appropriate, as this idiom is not indigenous to
either of the identified historic districts. Lzkewise, the introduction of "Broadmoor
Brownstones" along 13"' and 14th Streets is incongruous with the existing historic
character of those thoroughfares.
y
Hill Commercial Context Studv'Stafr Revie«~
In general, historic preservation staff considers the proposed Icvcl of re-
development as proposed too intense and that it should be modified to better
reflect the historic character of the two historic districts which it straddles. This
should include rehabilitation, additions, and new construction that is consistent
with the historic preservation ordinance and the General Design Guidelines. This
will necessitate the appropriate preservation of those buildings desibmatcd and
identified as potentially historic as well as a significant reduction in the proposed
mass, height, and scale ofproposed new construction.
e. Site Review
A condition of any future Site Review approval would require submittal of a
completed application to designate portions or all of the identified historic areas
as landmark districts per policy 2.33 Preservation of Historic and Cultural
. Resources of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
5. Zoning:
The prospect of redevelopment for the University Hill commercial district is very exciting and
the document as submitted is well prepared and identifies a number of key areas of the
University Hill District that maybe appropriate for redevelopment.
Of particular interest to staff are the pedestrian links to the University of Colorado campus and
the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed mixed use nature of the redevelopment and the
proposed detailing and quality of buildings. The creation of defined entry features, additional
public open spaces, public plazas, and activated public streets and alleys are also very interesting
prospects for University Hill. Overall, the proposed redevelopment appears to meet a number of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies regarding design for the public
realm, economic sustainability and vitality, convenient and defined pedestrian connections, as
well as the provision of mixed-use areas. Additionally, it appears that a majority of the proposed
uses are permitted under the existing BMS zone district by-right or through the Use Review
process.
The University Bill area should be viewed and evaluated in terms of areas that may currently
redevelop under the existing Business Main Street (BMS) zoning and Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and those which may be appropriate for consideration for additional density
and land use intensity.
a. Potential by-right sites
Based on the HCCS floor area ratio (FAR) and Density Comparison Chart Dated
June 5, 2007, it appears that several sites such as block /parcel B3, B5, D2, D3,
and E may be eligible for redevelopment under the existing BMS zoning (it
should be noted that l .8.5: l is the max FAR for the BMS zone district, not 1.87:1
as indicated by the study).
Additionally, it appears that block /parcels C1 and F1 propose FAR's that are
slightly larger that what could he accomplished by-right and could he easily
10
1-lill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
adjusted to be developed by-right (although additional information would be
required regarding the duality of the data and applicant's methodology for
calculating FAR) .
b. Areas that exceed by-right FAR and 5>' height limit
A review of the HCCS FAR and Density Comparison Chart also indicates that a
number of areas proposed for redevelopmen± are over the maximum 1.85:1 FAR
established by the BMS zone district. Overall, 57% of the ]and area studied
exceeds the allowable FAR for the BMS zone district.
Specifically, block / parcels A1, B1, B2, B4, and Dl more than double allowed
FAR for the area in some areas with proposed FAR's up to 5.9:1 according to the
chart. [This FAR calculation appears to be nearly impossible since no structure in
the HCCS illustrations exceeds 4 stories and nearly every site has significant open
space which would amount to an FAR much less than 5.9.]
Additionally, the proposed densities far block / parcels B1 and B2 do not appear
feasible as it would not be possible to redevelop at the proposed densities without
violating the 55 foot maximum height established by the city's charter. As noted
in previous discussions with the applicant, rezoning and amendments to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan would constitute a significant change in the
character of the area and would require preparation of an area plan on behalf of
the city prior to consideration for rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment.
While additional density maybe appropriate for specific areas of University Hill,
overall, several of the larger buildings, especially those contained in Block B
appear out of scale with the established context of the area. Additionally, it is
highly questionable whether such FAR's on the south side of the study will
provide an adequate transition to the surrounding neighborhood. Comparatively,
the maximum FAR in the downtown districts is 2.7:1 and it is questionab]e as to
whether it is appropriate to permit comparable density on University Hill.
6. Potential use of TIF
Tax increment financing (TIF) is a public finance mechanism that relies on the increased
property or sales tax collections from a redevelopment project to fund public improvements
associated with the project. Public improvements typically include infrastructure (water, sewer,
streets, flood control, etc.), public parking and public spaces/landscaping.
TIF is most closely associated with urban renewal projects--which are governed by the Colorado
Urban Renewal Law. The statute requires that blight be found within a proposed urban renewal
district, and an urban renewal plan is subsequently put in place to guide the public investment
and overall development objectives.
An urban renewal plan would be adopted by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURR) and
the City Council. Although subject to continual attention by the Colorado legislature, urban
11
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
renewal-based TIF can utilize all incremental revenue sources (property and sales). The City
could form a TIF project absent a blight finding, but only City sources of incremental (pmperty
tax) revenue would be available to service debt or any other public financial commitment
associated with the project.
Finally, although TIF is a very powerful public investment tool, it is most effective for Large
scale retail development or projects where very large increases in property assessments/values
are expected. In terms of the Hill redevelopment, TIF could be examined as one of the "tools in
the toolbox" of public finance mechanisms, but it would not likely be able to serve as the only
source of public investment.
7. Access/Circulation/Parking
a. Traffic Impact Study (TLS)
The study references the level of service operation of several intersections on
Broadway (page 36). Amore thorough traffic impact study (TIS} will be
` necessary which compares existing conditions with the conditions created by the
expected trip increases from proposed new development. Many intersections
other than those included should be included in the analysis.
b. Broadway traffic conditions
The study indicates the traffic generated by the proposed site is expected to be
approximately 5,000 additional vehicle trips per day. The vast majority of these
trips would occur through the Broadway corridor. Because of current traffic
conditions, the city has concerns regarding whether the Broadway corridor could
adequately support this level of trip increase. There are currently concerns
expressed from neighbors on 9th Street and Baseline that vehicles are traveling on
9t" Street and Baseline to avoid traveling on Broadway. The future "I'IS should
model this additional traffic and project the impacts to both the intersection level
of service and the progression of trat~c through the Broadway corridor.
c. Reconstruction of Broadway and College intersection
A diagram on page 39 of the study shows the Broadway & College intersection to
be reconstructed with northbound and eastbound left turn movements (movements
that do not exist today). The future TIS should evaluate the effects these changes
would have on both the intersection level of service and the progression of traffic
through the Broadway corridor. In addition, the TIS should evaluate what the
probable impact to 14th Street, south of the intersection would be. It seems likely
that this roadway would experience a significant increase in traffic, which could
impact residents of that street, both from the increased traffic of the new
development proposal and from existing traffic in the greater neighborhood which
would now be able to use this route to access/egress the area.
12
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
d. Parking and TDM programs
Additional information regarding the quantity, location and management of the
parking, as well as accompanying TDM programs should be included with future
submittals. The applicant is encouraged to consider incorporating elements of the
Transit Village Area Plan parking and TDM strategies; such as parking
maximums, unbundled parking, etc. An aggressive TDM/parking pro~am should
also be included in the TIS to reduce some of the projected €rowtr in traffic
volumes.
e. Crosswalks and standards
The study references "special paving" on page 12 to improve gateways for
pedestrians. Additional information may need to be provided to the city in order
to determine future maintenance costs to the city. In addition; if these pavement
treatments are proposed to be at crossing locations, they would be required to be
in conformance with MUTCD Standards.
f. Pedestrian crossings
The study references a new enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossing treatment on
Broadway at Pennsylvania (page 13). Since there is an existing traffic signal at
this location, additional information may be necessary at the time of future
submittal regarding all that is proposed as part of this enhancement.
8. Informational Engineering Comments
a. Water quality treatment
The use of green courtyards minimized directly connected impervious areas, and
low impact development techniques appear to enhance and improve the existing
water quality treatment within the study area.
Any modifications to Anderson Ditch will require prior written approval from the
ditch company.
Evaluation and analysis of the existing water and wastewater infrastructure is
needed to determine whether the infrastructure in place can support the increased
density and demands associated therein will be necessary.
b. Storm sewer
The existing 1200 feet of 33" diameter RCP storm sewer running north from
College in 13th to Broadway and then from the intersection of Broadway and 13th
to University has been identified as undersized in the recently adopted Storm
Water Master Plan. Re-development would require this pipe to be replaced and
up-sized.
c. Underground parking
If the underground parking structures require de-watering, additional storm sewer
installation may be required. Soil conditions, ground water depths and the
13
Hi11 Commercial Context Study/Staff Review
proximity of Anderson Ditch will help determine the need for de-watering
systems around the proposed underground structures.
d. Infrastructure
The private infrastructure associated with district heating and cooling would need
to be located on private property where possible and minimize utility corridor
impacts in the city right-of--way. In the cityright-of--way, depths of crossings,
minimization of the number of crossings and locating the crossings perpendicular
to the direction ofright-of--way travel would need to be reviewed as part of any
application for district heating and cooling. Revocableright-of--way permits
and/or leases may be needed to facilitate any proposed right-of--way crossings.
14
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Revie~~~
'4 t a. i ~ ~ ~ ~
_ _
' ~ i•i-
_ 1 -
_
•.I _ 7 ' ~ r -
v ..1;. _ ~
L
'~C • t ' ~
I ~ r r,
t
_ ~ i _ ~ r
_ K .r ; { ~ ~
A~.,... ~ r ' ; sir- r' ~f
t
~ ~
A cursory r.-eview of the ,ioz~cs Drug shown above and the allowable 1.85 FAR is
approximately ?7,000 square feet. The 1.85 FAR can be achieved in this illustration
I by reducing the two wings of the building to three floors as shown in the red areas
helo~-. See the sketches on the next page
.1+~ +.tt..~dJ..u: J l)t. ~ ~ ~ Ali'. _
-'f' ui'Ifp F'~ - ~,Lr,~-- ~_~i~ f!'S~ _~~.r r;` ~;y~d,;d r 1~ :
'fie
• ~ -U - ~ - ~ r~Y ;mar= -
.ar. , ~ ~ , _ .
1
' 7~ ~ !t I
- t".~...
P ~ -
- _
W
_ 4-
III i - -
. - - i .M ? 'TFr
'`1 t ~ .'.r
,°~ti"~?;; ;,+~•<Y. r ~ ~ ~ y,.:,~_ ire
i~~
1 il•
- FYI 1~`(~,~~~(l~Qt ~ ' ~ ~I ~ ~ ~~G ~
-••••-=~A~. Z ~~"T {.tLY 1 ~.~~s .V ;i. I. .Y.Iw=~'M~T~-a~-Y , J
_,L ~ .
_ i ~1
T j t
IS
Hill C~rnmercial Context Study/Staff Review
r
• _ _ _
' ~.Jrui9?~rrlll~o Jo'.ea Co~-t F~~Rir~s~i>f 1"he~er
Parf~.ii i!~:
~ ~ , _ _ _ ~-'r`te., ~ '~_y~,,n ~r f•~ir
_ ~^i1 ~q1 r„''(,r„ i_. ,'4 ~y,~~I~. 'Ifi3 LfO~'wa-~ _ ~py~~jY[~~
~ "'~~.•-N I lr'~r .11~ 1~~ __]L'~ I W ~ ~ _ ^ - {~jiyQ' ` Mme/
1 Y^~y. ,.,.--fir- ~r ~ ....si ~.~~.i~ ~(~p ! ' LLMM~VV _]"~Yr_
S ~~e:
I` i I r~ i ~ ft - _ ti. z+Y'_, ` _r~,~,z "1'
lfc• ~ ~,-~.~;".~V
~ t r_I 1 y~
1.•lr1 ~ ~ 4 ~ ^1C•' T s J{~~y ..1 ,
~ 7a1t~,...•~. ;iiJ~+`' ~ ~ ~ ~M v~I ~',1...~'~Si{~;
is L •J ~~~.J ~
l ~ ~~3~•~ ~ a'~`~•J ~ I [ I T++.VV~~----'-~
j
~ ..,..r,J~~ _ _ 'QTR _ I _ ~ =;J. - ' . ~~R! ~
_ ~ lr''..• ' •I ~
i ~r . I <<rRT JG.L_yG;f.:~_ _ ''l~~ ~ ~ ~Y -h1 _ .-^.rGL'A~`~' ~
-lf
~ lam. _~1~~_ i._tl:~/~~~~ 11'.1 r~~. ~ - - b_._.•
The sketch above from the HCCS study shows a four story building that is approximately ~ .
?7,000 square feet over the allowable 1.85 FAR which can be achieved by reducing the
wings of the structure to three floors and retaining the 100% corner at four floors.
.
.c _ _ ,
• cl'-. Ili- -
w"~?r - r I
_ ~ c-~4-.5 irt`y_ i,~-fin- - _ c.r.~%T-- .1 - , ' - ~y
~ - _ ' r _ ~y i
~11 •t.~ l~ ~~`~~--f.~; ~'-Y`,~4,. r`i_i,~(_'~1~7.1. ~i~:ll ~ ~'~~I~~I y rJ~f1"f~$, ~y
YrS.~n x``~ ~ t i
J{~`~'7i'`~•I~ ~ ~ ~ ~(C~'{rtlf~ 1i~ li~rc' ~ ~ _ " I~~~
r~s/f ~ ..fir S ~a~-'-'•~~~t~•nl
• r its ~'%N-._ ; +t r. ..n
16
Hill Commercial Context Study/Staff Review