Citation
Yale Station area study

Material Information

Title:
Yale Station area study
Creator:
URS Corporation
ZGF Partnership
Leland Consulting
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
City and County of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Transit oriented development
Public transit

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
YALE STATION
AREA STUDY
Presented to the
City and County of Denver
January 2003
FINAL


City & County of Denver
Consultant Team:
URS Corporation
1225 17th Street, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
303.293.8080
ZGF Partnership
Leland Consulting


Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................1
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT..............................................................5
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................7
Background on the Light Rail Station Development Program...........................7
SE Corridor / T-Rex Project........................................................7
Project Purpose....................................................................9
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).................................................9
Planning Process..................................................................10
Process Summary.................................................................10
Public Involvement..............................................................11
SECTION 2. PROJECT ELEMENTS..........................................................13
Site Area Description and Existing Conditions.....................................13
Land Uses.......................................................................13
Ownership Patterns..............................................................14
Zoning..........................................................................14
Traffic Circulation.............................................................17
Pedestrian Circulation..........................................................17
Parking.........................................................................17
Environmental Conditions........................................................18
Market and Economic Analysis......................................................18
Opportunities and Constraints.....................................................19
Opportunities:..................................................................19
Constraints:....................................................................20
Summary of Land Use Scenarios.....................................................20
SECTION 3. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................23
Lessons Learned...................................................................23
Land Use........................................................................23
Property Ownership and Development Phasing......................................23
Zoning..........................................................................23
Traffic Circulation.............................................................24
Pedestrian Circulation..........................................................24
Parking.........................................................................24
City Actions....................................................................24
Guiding Principles................................................................25
Surrounding Neighborhoods.......................................................25
Access and Circulation..........................................................25
Parking.........................................................................26
Redevelopment...................................................................26
Urban Design....................................................................27
Timing/Phasing..................................................................28
Implementation....................................................................28
SECTION 4. APPENDICES................................................................31
Appendix A: Traffic Circulation Analysis..........................................31
Appendix B: Market and Economic Analysis..........................................33
Appendix C: Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios.........................49
Yale Station Area Study i


Executive Summary
The Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and
Transportation Plan call for transit oriented development (TOD) around proposed light rail
stations in Denver. With the direction set forth by this policy and the T-Rex/Southeast Corridor
light rail transit under construction, the City and County of Denver has developed the Yale
Station Area Study. The key to a successful TOD requires municipalities to plan the framework
for improvements around future light rail stations early-on. Therefore, the City developed the
Yale Station Area Study in preparation for the 2006 opening of the Yale station on the Southeast
Corridor transit line.
The Yale Station Area is the six-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the 1-25 and
Yale interchange. Bordered on the west by Grace United Methodist Church, on the east by 1-25,
on the north by the Arapahoe County line and on the south by Yale Avenue, the land uses consist
of office buildings, a gas station, a retail strip mall, three single-family homes along the northern
boundary, and approximately two acres of vacant land. The purpose of the Study for this station
area is to assist the City, property owners, and developers in identifying and analyzing potential
development and redevelopment opportunities and to create guiding principles for
redevelopment.
Metropolitan regions throughout the country are finding that building light rail transit (LRT)
alone is often not enough to increase transit ridership and enhance areas around transit stations.
TOD addresses this issue by helping to create transit-supportive environments that encourage a
mix of land uses, allowing people to live, work, and play in a community without relying on a
car. This is a key element to most successful light rail programs. TOD opportunities and
configurations are unique to each station in Denver, thus potential TOD at the Yale Station Area
must be tailored to meet the needs and goals of the City, the neighborhood, and the businesses in
the area.
Meetings with stakeholders and community members early in the planning process to discuss
existing conditions and issues revealed key opportunities and constraints to TOD at the Yale
Station Area. These interests laid the foundation for developing a range of scenarios and guiding
principles. By incorporating the evaluation of projected market demand, opportunities and
constraints, and stakeholder input, the project team developed a range of conceptual land use
scenarios for the Yale Station Area. These scenarios describe development potential at the station
area and are based on assumptions that specific actions would be taken by the City and/or
property owners. Each scenario was evaluated to ascertain its viability and to determine how well
each is likely to meet the goals of TOD at the Yale Station Area.
Scenario A describes the potential result if neither the City nor the property owners
proactively pursue redevelopment around the station area. While this scenario involves no
risk on the Citys part, neither does it advance the Citys TOD goals. Rather, most of the site
will likely be dedicated to surface parking.
Scenario B illustrates the potential outcome if the City facilitates a public investment and/or
urban renewal to redevelop the entire station area. While this scenario best meets the Citys
TOD goals, a financial proforma concluded that it does not achieve the fiscal requirements
necessary for viable development.
Scenario C describes a mid-range alternative in which the City provides specific entitlements
to promote TOD and property owners initiate joint-development. Because this scenario
Yale Station Area Study 1


depends on actions by private property holders, the timing of redevelopment is unpredictable,
but likely to meet some TOD goals.
In developing these scenarios, the project team and City staff also prepared Guiding Principles to
help public and private entities maximize land development opportunities and evaluate any
redevelopment plans around the Yale Station Area. The Guiding Principles also provide property
owners and developers with clear expectations by which to base future development and/or
redevelopment plans and embrace the most desirable characteristics of potential TOD scenarios
evaluated earlier in the planning process.
The Guiding Principles for the Yale Station Area are as follows:
Surrounding Neighborhoods
1. Promote development that is compatible with and complementary to surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
2. Establish building heights that are appropriate for an urban village center and that
transition to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
3. Ensure building scale, placement, design, and landscape treatment provide adequate
visual and noise buffers between new development and existing adjacent neighborhoods.
4. Recognize the character of single-family neighborhoods in Arapahoe County that abut
the station area as a part of the overall plan. Create methods to address spillover of transit
station parking into surrounding neighborhoods.
Access and Circulation
5. Prepare for the changing transportation patterns that the opening of light rail will bring.
6. Provide safe and efficient vehicular access to the site.
7. Ensure adequate internal traffic circulation within the station area.
8. Ensure convenient bus access to the site and efficient circulation within the station area.
9. The location and design of parking lots should not cause conflicts with bus, bicycle and
pedestrian circulation.
10. Improve pedestrian access within % 'A mile of Yale Station.
11. Provide bicycle access to Yale Station.
Parking
12. Encourage the development of structured or underground parking to minimize land
consumption earmarked for parking and maximize land development opportunities in
those areas.
13. Design multi-story parking garages to fit the scale of the surrounding buildings.
14. Encourage shared parking arrangements to make optimum use of the site.
Redevelopment
15. Maximize development potential within the transit station area to increase the return on
public investment and local property values.
2 Yale Station Area Study


16. Promote a mixed-use development with office and multi-family residential development,
with limited amounts of convenience and lifestyle retail.
17. Encourage development at the Yale Station Area that reflects its position in relation to the
larger T-REX/Southeast Corridor.
18. Encourage multi-family housing to diversify housing options at the Yale Station Area.
Urban Design
20. Require pedestrian connections within and between all parcels with the development and
redevelopment of all parcels in the station area.
21. Provide a public open space network in the station platform, bus-boarding areas, streets,
and sidewalks.
22. Design parking lots and structures so they do not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-
oriented streets or establish impediments to pedestrian routes.
23. Design ground floor uses of station area buildings to take advantage of their location near
an active transit station.
24. Make use of site topography.
Timing/Phasing
25. Encourage private property owners to direct development at the Yale Station Area.
26. Promote land assemblage.
27. Facilitate a long-term development strategy.
28. Plan surface parking lots as temporary uses.
Specific actions that proactively implement the Guiding Principles are essential to the full
realization of TOD potential in the Yale Station Area. In itself, the introduction of the LRT
station could stimulate land development opportunities in and near Yale Station, but it is unlikely
to do so alone or in a coordinated approach. Several other factors, such as a strong investment
climate combined with flexible public regulations, incentives and, possibly, infrastructure
improvements and/or investments, should be in place to realize the vision outlined in the Guiding
Principles.
The following implementation actions have emerged as the most promising specific private and
public strategies:
Explore zoning changes that are consistent with TOD guiding principles.
Consider public investments in an LRT park-n-Ride structure.
Identify additional financing mechanisms to stimulate TOD implementation.
Study the feasibility of a tax increment financing district.
Develop a parking management program with Arapahoe County.
Consider a signal at the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) intersection with pedestrian
crossings.
Determine needed pedestrian improvements across 1-25.
Yale Station Area Study 3


Pursue Yale Avenue corridor improvements.
Reassess the preliminary station design with respect to bus access.
4 Yale Station Area Study


How to Use This Document
The Yale Station Area Study is intended to be used by City staff, other public agencies, property
owners, and developers as a guide to future development in the area. The Study includes the
following four sections:
Introduction: The Introduction section of the Study identifies the context in which the Study was developed by providing background information on the Light Rail Station Development Program and the Southeast Corridor/T-Rex Project. This section also describes Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), the purpose of the Study, and the planning process.
Project Elements: The Elements section of the Study provides a detailed description of the components to consider in developing a TOD at the Yale Station Area. The discussion includes an analysis of existing land use, ownership, vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, parking, and environmental conditions. This section also presents a summary of a market and economic analysis of the study area, a discussion of site opportunities and constraints, and a synopsis of Yale Station Area land use scenarios.
Conclusions: The Conclusions section of the Study describes the lessons learned as each Study Element was evaluated throughout the planning process. These lessons are then incorporated into a set of Guiding Principles and Recommended Actions to implement a TOD at the Yale Station Area. These Guiding Principles, which may also be useful for other station areas with context similar to the Yale Station Area, address surrounding neighborhoods, access and circulation, parking, redevelopment, urban design, and timing/phasing.
Appendices: The Appendices contain detailed analyses of specific station area conditions and TOD scenarios for reference. This section also includes a traffic circulation analysis, a market and economic analysis, and a detailed assessment of the Yale Station Area land use scenarios.
Yale Station Area Study 5


SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Background on the Light Rail Station Development Program
The 2000 Denver Comprehensive Plan (Plan 2000) identified a regional rapid transit system as
the primary form of transportation to address the mobility needs of the city, while at the same
time offering the greatest benefit to and protection of Denver neighborhoods. In conjunction with
providing improved mobility, development of a regional light rail system is also a unique
opportunity for the City to promote higher-density, mixed-use development patterns around rapid
transit corridors and stations. To realize these goals, the City established the Light Rail Station
Development Program in 1995. The program encourages Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
around existing and future light rail stations. With the planned extension of the existing light rail
transit (LRT) system into the Southeast Corridor along 1-25, described below, the program is
currently focusing on creating areas around future stations that will support transit ridership while
enhancing the stations surroundings.
An initial assessment of the Southeast Corridor prepared in October 1999 identified the Yale/I-25
station as having some opportunity for mixed-use redevelopment in the area immediately west
of the proposed station.1 This area the Yale Station Area includes approximately six acres
immediately west of the proposed Yale station and provides the greatest opportunity for
redevelopment, as it sits as an isolated island of office and commercial uses surrounded by
established single-family neighborhoods. Accordingly, Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land
Use and Transportation Plan identifies the Yale Station Area as an Area of Change surrounded
by Areas of Stability.
SE Corridor / T-Rex Project
The Transportation Expansion Project (T-REX), formerly known as the Southeast Corridor
Project, is a joint venture between RTD and CDOT to expand over 16 miles of interstate
highways and to construct 19 miles of light rail transit (LRT). (See Figure 1.) Light rail will
extend along 1-25 from Broadway Boulevard in Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County
and along 1-225 from Parker Road in Aurora to a newly configured I-25/I-225 interchange. The
Yale Station will be one of 13 new stations on the Southeast Corridor light rail line. The current
design for the Yale LRT platform and park-n-Ride calls for 161 commuter parking spaces. RTD
has acquired parcels adjacent to the future Yale Station to meet this need. Preliminary designs
call for surface parking in the northeast quadrant of the station area, with a circular bus
turnaround located adjacent to the station platform.
1 Southeast Corridor Light Rail Development Program, October 1999.
Yale Station Area Study 7


Figure 1. SE Corridor / T-REX
8 Yale Station Area Study


CDOT and RTD are overseeing construction of the LRT in conjunction with reconstructing and
widening the 1-25 and 1-225 highways. When construction is complete, RTD will operate the
light rail system. While responsibilities for these projects are clearly divided between CDOT
(corridor construction and long-term highway operations), RTD (transit operations) and the City
and County of Denver (land use decisions), the three agencies are coordinating closely to meet
the T-REX goals of increasing mobility, enhancing accessibility and transportation options, and
improving safety in a heavily congested, growing business corridor. T-REX construction began
in 2001 and will be completed by late spring/early summer 2006, with the Yale Station expected
to open in 2006.
Project Purpose
In preparation for the 2006 opening of the Yale station on the Southeast Corridor line, the City
and County of Denver has developed the Yale Station Area Study. The purpose of this plan is to
assist the City and property owners in identifying and analyzing potential development and
redevelopment opportunities and to create guiding principles for redevelopment. These Guiding
Principles will direct future land use decisions around the transit station to promote transit-
oriented development, a concept that is described in detail below. Further, the guidelines will
provide City staff, other public agencies, property owners, and developers with clear direction to
develop and/or evaluate specific development proposals for the area around Yale Station.
Specifically, the Guiding Principles address surrounding neighborhoods, access and circulation,
parking, redevelopment, urban design, and timing/phasing and have been developed for adoption
into the Denver Comprehensive Plan.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Metropolitan regions throughout the country are finding that building a light rail alone is often
not enough to increase transit ridership and enhance areas around transit stations. TOD addresses
this issue by helping to create transit-supportive environments by encouraging a mix of land uses
that allow people to live, work, and play in a community without relying on a car, a key element
to most successful light rail programs.
Thus, pedestrian-friendly development and design is essential. Landscape, streetscape, entrances
at the sidewalk, and an inviting scale are essential to this concept. Minimizing surface parking
adjacent to the station encourages pedestrian activity. The intent of TOD is to promote high-
quality transit, bike, and pedestrian connections while encouraging a compact, mixed-use
development. TOD opportunities and configurations are unique to each station in Denver, thus
potential TOD at the Yale Station Area must be tailored to meet the needs and goals of the City,
the neighborhood, and the businesses in the area.
While each station has a tailored program based on its character, surroundings, and potential,
some key attributes of TOD commonly include:
A balance of mixed uses (residential, retail, office, entertainment, public facilities, etc.).
Compact, mid- to high-density development.
Close proximity to transit, emphasizing a walkable and attractive pedestrian environment.
Multi-modal transportation connections (rail, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, etc.).
Yale Station Area Study 9


De-emphasis of auto parking including reduced parking requirements and replacement
of surface parking lots with structured and shared parking.
Urban design guidelines and aesthetic requirements.
Affordable housing opportunities.
Access to open space and recreational amenities.
Like other metropolitan regions, the City and County of Denver recognizes the benefits of TOD
and has incorporated TOD principles into its policy documents. The Denver Comprehensive Plan
2000 (Plan 2000) calls for TOD around existing and proposed transit stations. Plan 2000 states
that Transit Oriented Development concentrates an attractive mix of housing, retail,
entertainment, and commercial development near transit stops. This enables residents to live,
shop, and socialize in their immediate neighborhoods while having nearby transit access to distant
urban centers. In addition, Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2002, emphasizes TOD and provides
key strategies and tools to implement Plan 2000.
Planning Process
Process Summary
Since the Yale Station Area property owners must
choose how, when, and if to redevelop their properties,
the City chose to facilitate and encourage transit-
supportive development by producing conceptual
development scenarios and guiding principles, laying
a framework for future development. The process used
by the City created an atmosphere where property
owners felt comfortable discussing their individual
interests in exploring opportunities for mutual gains.
The Yale Station Area Study process began in early
2001 with a technical analysis of existing conditions that
addressed existing land use, ownership patterns, zoning,
traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, and
environmental and market conditions. The market
analysis assessed the Yale Station Area in the larger
context of the entire Southeast Corridor, showing its
secondary position to the Colorado Boulevard office
market and the University Hills retail center. The
projected market demand for the Yale Station Area
included a mix of office and residential uses with limited
demand for retail space.
Based on a review of existing conditions and projected
market demand, the project team formulated a series of
land use scenarios to explore development potential at
the station area. The range of scenarios covered such
possibilities as laissez faire market-driven
Yale Station Area
Stakeholder Process
Identify Existing Conditions &
Opportuniti^for Change
Review with^t^keholder
Analyze Markst Potential
Develop Alternative
Scenarios

Evaluate Scenarios / Outline
Phasing
Review with freeholders
Draft Guidinp-Principles

Review Development
Strategy /Action Items with
StakehrVers
Bhjje
Develop Yale Station Area
Study
10 Yale Station Area Study


redevelopment and publicly-directed urban renewal. A mid-range scenario privately-
led redevelopment with some public-sector support showed the most promise. Based
on discussions of these scenarios with stakeholders and City staff, a list of Lessons
Learned was developed and finally incorporated into the Guiding Principles and
Implementation Actions.
Public Involvement
Public involvement for the project consisted of three tiers of participation, representing a
cross-section of community interests:
Tier 1: Stakeholders/Property Owners
Participation by stakeholders or property owners in the immediate six-acre study
area was a key component of the public process. A series of meetings was held
with property owners to identify their interests and concerns, as well as to
evaluate proposed development scenarios and guiding principles.
Tier 2: Area Residents
Residents of both Denver and Arapahoe counties from the neighborhoods
surrounding the study area formed the second tier of participants and met with
the project team on two separate occasions to discuss their issues and concerns,
which primarily related to ensuring that new development will be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Tier 3: General Public
The general public, which also included some overlap with Tier 2 residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods, formed the third tier and participated in two public
meetings during the planning process. The first public meeting was held in May
2001 to introduce the planning process and information gathered on existing
conditions and to provide a forum for participants to discuss site opportunities
and constraints. The second public meeting, held later in the planning process in
October 2001, was designed to receive input and feedback on conceptual
development scenarios and draft guiding principles.
Yale Station Area Study 11


SECTION 2. PROJECT ELEMENTS
Site Area Description and Existing Conditions
Land Uses
The Yale Station Area is the six-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the 1-25
and Yale interchange. Bordered on the west by Grace United Methodist Church, on the
east by 1-25, on the north by the Arapahoe County line and on the south by Yale Avenue,
the parcels land uses consist of single-family homes, office buildings, a gas station, a
retail strip mall, and approximately two acres of vacant land.
As depicted in Figure 2, the interior of Yale Circle contains two office buildings and
associated surface parking, with a third office structure at the west comer of Yale Avenue
and Yale Circle. Land uses to the west of Yale Circle include a strip retail center on the
west comer of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle, a church parking lot, vacant land, and three
single-family houses located north of the vacant property. Land uses to the east of Yale
Circle include a gas station on the east comer of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle and a
vacant office building to be demolished prior to constmction of the light rail station. The
northeast comer of the Yale Station Area is currently a vacant lot that has been acquired
by RTD for a park-n-Ride with 161 surface parking spaces.
A variety of uses surround the Yale Station Area, with single-family neighborhoods
providing the predominant character of the area. The residential neighborhoods north
and west of the Yale Station Area are located in unincorporated Arapahoe County. Other
surrounding uses include mid-rise apartment buildings located just east of 1-25 and north
Yale Station Area Study 13


of Yale. Denver Academy, a private school, is located approximately 'A mile northwest
of the proposed station and the University Hills shopping center is just beyond a half-mile
radius, to the west of the site.
Ownership Patterns
In addition to the residential properties in the northern portion of the site, additional
properties in the Yale Station Area are currently owned by five major property holders:
Walter Buz Koelbel: four parcels along Yale Avenue and Yale Circle (east).
Legend Retail Group: medical office building on Yale Circle.
Nicole Property Group: office building on Yale Circle.
JDM Equities LLP: retail strip center on Yale Avenue.
Grace United Methodist Church: contiguous parcels on Eudora Street and on
Yale Circle.
RTD: acquiring rights-of-way along the 1-25 corridor for the light rail station,
including two residential properties located in Arapahoe County north of the
Yale Station Area.
Zoning
The Yale Station Area is zoned primarily B-2, neighborhood commercial, and R-l, low-
density residential. The following are general descriptions of the two predominant
zoning categories.
B-2 Neighborhood Commercial
This zoning applies to all the parcels adjacent to Yale Circle. These are the key
parcels in the core of the Yale Station Area with the greatest potential for
redevelopment.
B-2 zoning allows smaller retail uses, banks, childcare centers, medical offices,
dry cleaners, grocery stores, and restaurants, in addition to single- and multi-
family residential, nursing homes, offices, and schools. Ligure 3 illustrates the
maximum buildout potential of the Yale Station Area under current B-2 zoning.
Should property owners chose to develop and/or redevelop their properties under
existing zoning; the intensity of development is unlikely to change considerably.
Most of the existing structures could increase in density by one to three stories.
14 Yale Station Area Study


Figure 3. Maximum Build-Out Potential, B-2 Zone Neighborhood Commercial
oz

N
B-2 Zone
Neighborhood Commercial
BULK PLANE AND SETBACKS General Rules:
Building setback = Centerline of all abutting streets,
Above-ground starting point 10 feet.
Bulk plane = 45 degrees.
Maximum gross FAR = 1,0
Existing Building
/--------7
/ / Parcel Boundary
Existing roadway configurations and building
footprints underlay the illustrations.
Yale Station Area Study 15


R-l Low-Density Residential
Denvers R-l zoning applies to the parcels on the perimeter of the station area.
These parcels are the properties owned by Grace United Methodist Church, three
single-family homes, and a private tennis court. Some single-family residences
in Arapahoe County are also included.
R-l zoning permits single-family residential and limited institutional uses such as
churches, schools, libraries, and parks. The district requires a minimum lot size
of 6,000 square feet with a 50-foot minimum lot width.
Traffic Circulation
Primary auto access to the Yale Station Area is provided via Yale Avenue, an east-west
minor arterial that carried approximately 29,000 vehicles per day in four lanes in 2001.
Yale Avenues interchange with 1-25 is a diamond, with 1-25 over Yale. The station area
north of Yale Avenue is served directly by Yale Circle, a two-lane local street that forms
a loop with both ends connecting directly to Yale Avenue.
Both of Yale Circles intersections with Yale Avenue are slightly offset from the streets
serving the residential area south of Yale Avenue. The nearest traffic signals are at the
1-25 interchange to the east (one block) and Dahlia Street to the west (four blocks).
A proposed traffic signal at the Forest Street/Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) intersection
could handle future traffic demands for the Yale Station Area.
See Appendix A for a detailed traffic analysis.
Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian access to the Yale Station Area is limited by a lack of connections. While the
street grid west of 1-25 provides several access points to Yale Avenue, attached sidewalks
along Yale Avenue are generally substandard. Numerous curb cuts on the north side of
Yale Avenue may also discourage active pedestrian use. Through the interchange, fast-
moving traffic and multiple turn movements create hazards for pedestrians. The sidewalk
under 1-25 has ample width, but becomes more restricted on either side of the
interchange. Within the study area, attached sidewalks are located along the interior of
Yale Circle and are intermittent along the outside of Yale Circle.
Parking
Existing parking in the Yale Station Area is adequate to meet current needs. The on-site
office buildings currently have an informal reciprocal parking arrangement with Grace
United Methodist Church to the west that accommodates overflow parking situations.
Commercial uses occasionally overflow to the church parking lot on weekdays and, on
Sundays, church patrons use the office building parking lots. On rare occasions, church
parking extends onto local streets. The lack of curb and gutter and the narrow width of
portions of Vassar Avenue to the north discourage on-street parking.
This informal parking arrangement is likely to change when the light rail station opens
and light rail patrons seek parking beyond that provided by RTD. Uocal residents are
Yale Station Area Study 17


concerned about overflow parking on residential streets. The City of Denver might
explore implementing parking management strategies prior to the opening of the light rail
station and Arapahoe County has already expressed interest in cooperating with Denver
to enforce a parking program.
Environmental Conditions
The physical environment of the Yale Station Area is highly developed, with few natural
conditions remaining on site. Development on the property could be affected by the
possible presence of hazardous materials associated with the leaking of underground
petroleum storage tanks belonging to the two gasoline stations on the site.
Redevelopment of these lots would require that appropriate measures be taken by
property owners to ensure proper environmental assessments are conducted.
Market and Economic Analysis
A real estate market analysis was conducted in 2001 to determine the market potential for a
variety of land uses at the Yale Station Area. This analysis took into consideration how much of
the projected market demand for various uses along the Southeast corridor could reasonably be
absorbed by the Yale Station Area, based on the following assumptions:
Development pressures from the 1-25 Corridor and Southeast Denver metro area will dictate
that:
- Principal competition for land uses at the Yale Station Area will come from other
LRT stations within the corridor and development in neighborhoods adjacent to 1-25,
south of Broadway and north of Belleview.
- The corridor will remain a linear market with unique submarkets.
- The market will respond to the presence of the LRT station, but within the context of
the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods.
- Market demand at the Yale Station is affected by its relationship to other stations;
demand may dictate that the station serve as an overflow location of the office market
at Colorado Station.
- An intensification of retail opportunities within the Yale Station Area is limited by
competition from nearby University Hills retail center.
- A precedent exists for vertical/dense residential properties both east and west of the
station.
- The Yale Station Area could meet a demand for new condominium/townhouse
development, because of the aging and limited supply of competitive residential
products in the Denver area in general and in the Yale Station Area in particular.
Based on these assumptions and a fair share analysis from within the 1-25 Corridor South impact
area and Denver County, the project team projected the following market absorption:
18 Yale Station Area Study


Yale Station Area Adjusted Supportable Space over 10 Years:
> Residential: 200 to 250 units (2% to 7% of the SE Corridor)
> Office: 100,000 to 150,000 sf (5% to 15% of the SE Corridor)
> Retail: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (5% to 20% of the SE Corridor)
> Flex: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (3% to 5% of the SE Corridor)
> Undetermined Public Spaces and Civic Uses
See Appendix B for a detailed market analysis.
Opportunities and Constraints
Meetings with stakeholders and community members early in the planning process to discuss
existing conditions and issues revealed key opportunities and constraints to TOD development at
the Yale Station Area. Figure 4 illustrates several of these site characteristics. These interests laid
the foundation for developing a range of scenarios and guiding principles.
Opportunities:
The Yale Station Area already has good access to 1-25 and will have increased
commuter access with the opening of the LRT station.
Yale Avenue is currently under capacity and can therefore accommodate increased
traffic volumes.
Property owners have a history and experience with shared parking arrangements,
which could be a key component of future TOD.
The Yale Station Area is surrounded by stable residential neighborhoods.
Yale Station Area Study 19


The areas location between major employment centers at Colorado Boulevard and
the Denver Technological Center lends itself well to redevelopment as a secondary
employment center along the Southeast Corridor.
The sites topography, which rises to the northeast, may allow for increased building
heights closer to the intersection of Yale Avenue and 1-25.
Property owners are proactively discussing redevelopment opportunities.
Constraints:
Pedestrian access across Yale Avenue and under 1-25 is currently difficult. Sidewalks
along Yale Avenue are also inadequate.
The misalignment of Yale Circle and Forest Street (to the south) makes safe
signalization and associated pedestrian crossings difficult.
The proximity of Yale Circle East limits sight lines from the interstate off-ramp to
the site.
Existing R-l and B-2 zoning limits the potential for TOD in the Yale Station Area.
The relatively small size of the site, its configuration within and around Yale Circle,
and its limited access reduce its potential for intensive uses.
Multiple property ownership within the Yale Station Area requires coordination and
cooperation among several diverse interests.
The retail potential of Yale Station Area is limited by its proximity to the University
Hills shopping center.
The limited size of the Yale Station Area may necessitate the construction of one or
more relatively expensive parking structures or underground parking to maximize
development potential.
Summary of Land Use Scenarios
By incorporating the evaluation of projected market demand, opportunities and constraints, and
stakeholder input, the project team developed a range of conceptual land use scenarios for the
Yale Station Area. These scenarios describe development potential at the station area and are
based on assumptions that specific actions would be taken by the City, RTD, and/or property
owners.
Each scenario, as presented in the following matrix, was evaluated to ascertain its viability and to
determine how well each is likely to meet the goals of TOD at the Yale Station Area. The
scenarios cover a range of alternatives from laissez faire market-driven redevelopment described
in Scenario A to publicly-directed urban renewal described in Scenario B. The mid-range
alternative, Scenario C (privately-led redevelopment with some public-sector support) shows the
most promise as a politically and fiscally viable scenario.
Scenario A describes the potential result if neither the City nor the property owners
proactively pursue redevelopment around the station area. While this scenario
20 Yale Station Area Study


involves no risk on the Citys part, neither does it advance the Citys TOD goals.
Rather, most of the site will likely be dedicated to surface parking.
Scenario B illustrates the potential outcome if the City facilitates public investments
and/or urban renewal to redevelop the entire station area. While this scenario best
meets the Citys TOD goals, a financial performa concluded that it does not achieve
the fiscal requirements necessary for viable development.
Scenario C describes a mid-range alternative in which the City provides specific
entitlements to promote TOD and property owners initiate joint-development.
Because this scenario depends on actions by private property holders, the timing of
redevelopment is unpredictable, but likely to meet some TOD goals.
Existing Conditions
N
**
Potential Buildout
under Current Zoning
N
Rail Station
/\, Rail Corridor
Church
Commercial / Office
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Parking Garage
Potential Buildout of a
Redevelopment Scenario
N
**
Figure 5. 3-D Views of the Yale Station Area from the West
Because Scenario C was determined to be the most viable alternative, the project team further
explored potential land use mixes and phasing, including land use types, densities, and
orientations on the site. As shown in Figure 5, land owners explored the potential building mass
of different buildout scenarios. A more detailed analysis of Scenario C is provided in Appendix
C. However, by the conclusion of the planning process, significant land owners were not
prepared to engage a developer and initiate the process of a joint development. Therefore, while
the ideas put forth in Scenario C remain viable, they are not to date being pursued.
Yale Station Area Study 21


Range of Development Scenarios for the Yale Station Area
LAND USE LEVEL OF CITY DISPOSITION SO WHAT?
SCENARIO EFFORT
Scenario A Minimum Effort: Land uses and Significant land area
Status Quo/Do ownership remain as is dedicated to surface
Nothing > Zoning doesnt is: parking.
change.
> Church, Retail, > City offers no > RTD could
Office, Vacant, entitlements or acquire more
RTD public investment. land.
NO RISK NO TOD
Scenario B Significant Effort: Redevelopment City drives land use
Redevelopment of occurs through and timing of
Entire Site > City rezones and acquisition and land development.
provides assemblage.
> Church, Retail, inducements to
Office, redevelop.
Residential, RTD > City provides
significant public investment and/or
urban renewal. ACHIEVES TOD
HIGH RISK GOALS
Scenario C Development Redevelopment City has less control
Redevelopment of Inducements: occurs on its own: over and ability to
Key Parcels > City rezones and > Potential for joint predict development outcomes.
> Church, Retail, provides development
Office, entitlements, i.e., increases between > Timing of
Residential, RTD parking property owners. development is
reductions, variable and
increased height, depends on
and land use private property
intensity. City offers no public owner initiatives.
investment. MEETS SOME TOD
LOW RISK GOALS
22 Yale Station Area Study


SECTION 3. CONCLUSIONS
Lessons Learned
As the project team worked with project stakeholders to evaluate the range of potential
development scenarios and their feasibility from both a programming and a financial
standpoint a key set of lessons learned emerged. The Lessons Learned are incorporated into
the Guiding Principles which immediately follow.
Land Use
No relationship currently exists between the Yale Station Area and the surrounding
neighborhoods. Once light rail opens, however, this will change and the relationship
that develops should be a positive one.
Although the City and County of Denvers jurisdiction does not extend to the north
part of the study area, the success of a Study that enhances surrounding
neighborhoods is contingent on cooperation between Denver and Arapahoe County.
Opportunities for cooperation include land use decisions about the appropriate
transition between residential and commercial uses.
Property Ownership and Development Phasing
Given the multitude of interests among property owners, single-owner redevelopment
of the entire site is unlikely. Instead, development is likely to be incremental and
occur in phases.
Property owners may look to natural partners for initial development opportunities.
For instance, RTD and Grace United Methodist Church would not have to tear down
buildings to engage in a joint development and may therefore realize development
opportunities on vacant land sooner than property owners with built structures.
Later phases of development may be realized as property owners interest levels in
development increase with the opening of the light rail in 2006. Interest will be
further stimulated as an increasing number of light rail passengers arrive and depart
the LRT station. The final phases of development may include newer properties,
such as the Koelbel office building, which is currently under construction, and the
Total gas station, which has a five-year lease.
A development program in which individual property owners work collectively to
address issues such as parking and drainage would increase the areas development
potential and would likely work out financially.
Zoning
Should property owners choose to develop and/or redevelop their properties under
existing zoning, the intensity of development is unlikely to change considerably.
Most of the existing structures could increase in density by one to three stories.
Yale Station Area Study 23


Traffic Circulation
Although Yale Circle and Forest Street could be realigned to create a four-way
intersection, a traffic signal with pedestrian crossings on either side would suffice to
handle future traffic.
Reconfiguring Yale Circle might yield a larger development area, but the cost of
relocating existing underground utilities on Yale Circle would likely preclude this
realignment.
The current Total gas station parcel has two driveway curb cuts to Yale Avenue
between Yale Circle (east) and the ramp junction signal. When this parcel is
redeveloped, the driveways for the gas station should be closed. Adequate sight
distance can be maintained with Yale Circle (east) remaining open.
Pedestrian Circulation
A lack of pedestrian connections contributes to the isolation of the Yale Station Area
from surrounding neighborhoods. Improved connections should include detached
sidewalks along Yale Avenue and up-graded pedestrian crossings at a future traffic
signal.
Parking
Parking needs must be met at every phase of redevelopment.
For structured parking to be viable and encourage maximum development on the site,
parking should be centrally located and shared, including parking for RTD park-n-
Ride purposes. Structured parking will likely require dense development to justify its
cost.
Overflow parking associated with the light rail station should be addressed through a
management program or some other means, so that it does not become a
neighborhood issue.
City Actions
If development interest in the station area becomes more solidified, the City could
consider the establishment of an Urban Renewal Area to help facilitate the
redevelopment.
With the exception of the light rail, significant public investments in the station area
are unlikely and, therefore, redevelopment will primarily depend on action by
property owners.
24 Yale Station Area Study


Guiding Principles
The Guiding Principles have been prepared to help public and private entities maximize land
development opportunities and evaluate any redevelopment plans around the Yale Station Area.
The following set of Guiding Principles provides property owners and developers with clear
expectations by which to base future development and/or redevelopment plans. The Guiding
Principles embrace the most desirable characteristics of potential TOD scenarios evaluated earlier
in the planning process.
Surrounding Neighborhoods
1. Promote development that is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding
residential neighborhoods. According to Blueprint Denver (Denvers Land Use and
Transportation Plan), the Yale Station Area is an Area of Change surrounded by Areas of
Stability. The goal of this Station Area Study is to focus development at the station area,
not to encourage the redevelopment of surrounding single-family neighborhoods.
2. Establish building heights that are appropriate for an urban village center and that
transition to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Locating taller buildings near
the eastern edge of the site will maximize visibility of the site from the interstate
highway, at the same time creating a buffer between interstate traffic and surrounding
neighborhoods. Buildings on the western side of the site should step down in height to
create a visual transition between higher-intensity land uses adjacent to the light rail
station and smaller-scale residential neighborhoods to the north and west of the station
area. The Yale Station Area is not located in an existing Denver View Preservation
Corridor.
3. Ensure building scale, placement, design, and landscape treatment provide
adequate visual and noise buffers between new development and existing adjacent
neighborhoods. Seek opportunities to locate structures as buffers between 1-25 and the
single-family residential areas.
4. Recognize the character of single-family neighborhoods in Arapahoe County that
abut the station area as a part of the overall Study.
5. Create methods to address spillover of transit station parking into surrounding
neighborhoods.
Access and Circulation
6. Prepare for the changing transportation patterns that the opening of light rail will
bring. Opening day of the light rail system will bring an immediate change to
transportation patterns around the station area. The introduction of light rail in
combination with development on the site will increase the number of people who use the
station area.
7. Provide safe and efficient vehicular access to the site. Although the use of alternative
modes will increase with the opening of the light rail system, private automobile access
will continue to be a major transportation mode in the Yale Station Area.
Yale Station Area Study 25


8. Ensure adequate internal traffic circulation within the station area. In case of traffic
incidents on Yale Circle, maintain the two existing access points at Yale Circle.
9. Ensure convenient bus access to the site and efficient circulation within the station
area. Accommodate bus loading near the light rail station for passenger convenience.
10. The location and design of parking lots should not cause conflicts with bus and
pedestrian circulation. Entrance and exit points of parking facilities should be located
within safe and adequate distance from bus-loading and turn-around areas. Parking
access should also be located to avoid areas with high levels of pedestrian activity.
11. Improve pedestrian access within % Vz mile of Yale Station. Provide signal-
protected access at Yale Circle and Forest Street for vehicles and pedestrians.
Coordinate sidewalk improvements on Yale Avenue on east of 1-25 with Arapahoe
County. Improve the safety of pedestrian crossings at 1-25 ramps. Encourage the
construction of detached sidewalks on Yale Avenue and within the station area.
12. Provide bicycle access to Yale Station. The proposed traffic and pedestrian
improvements near the station area should also include improvements to bicycle access to
the site.
Parking
13. Encourage shared parking arrangements to make optimum use of the site. Seek
opportunities to share parking for RTD park-n-Ride purposes (contingent on RTDs on-
site participation).
14. Encourage the development of structured or underground parking to minimize land
consumption and maximize land development opportunities in those areas. Parking
structures should be centrally located to promote shared parking and serve multiple uses.
Preferably, a parking garage will serve on-site employees, residents, and shoppers as well
as park-n-Ride patrons.
15. Design multi-story parking garages to fit the scale of the surrounding buildings. For
large structures, the ground floor level facing the street could be dimensioned to
accommodate retail and create a pedestrian-friendly presence on the sidewalk.
Architectural treatment and detailing should be used to make the structure less intrusive
and more aesthetically pleasing.
Redevelopment
16. Maximize development potential within the transit station area to increase the
return on public investment and local property values.
Public investment should leverage private investment.
Value capture and higher land values increase City tax base and revenues.
Redevelopment of currently under-utilized parcels should provide the built-in
ridership needed to support transit.
Maximizing development allows investors to realize the full market potential
stimulated by the publics investment in transit.
26 Yale Station Area Study


17. Promote a mixed-use development with office and multi-family residential
development, with limited amounts of convenience and lifestyle retail. A mix of
employees and residents in the Yale Station Area will optimize transit use by generating
peak and off-peak transit trips. Providing a variety of land uses within walking distance
of each other will also reduce off-site trips and support shared parking. For instance,
retail services would provide a convenient option for transit users, employees, and
residents of adjacent neighborhoods to run daily errands without the use of a car.
18. Encourage development at the Yale Station Area that reflects its position in relation
to the larger T-REX/Southeast Corridor. The market projections for office space,
residences and retail development take into account the proximity of the Colorado
Boulevard Station, the University Hills retail center, and other nearby developments. The
projected demand for the next 10 years at the Yale Station Area is:
Office 100,000-150,000 sq. ft.
Residential 200-250 units
Retail 40,000-60,000 sq. ft.
19. Encourage multi-family housing to diversify housing options at the Yale Station
Area. Desirable types of housing for the station area are senior and assisted-living
housing. Demographic information further suggests a market for other types of one- and
two-person households.
Urban Design
20. Require pedestrian connections within and between all parcels with the
development and redevelopment of all parcels in the station area. All sidewalks must
be continuous, connecting the station platform to the existing sidewalks on Yale Avenue.
21. Provide a public open space network in the station platform, bus-boarding areas,
streets, and sidewalks. Because of the limited size of the station area, public investment
in open space should be restricted to the areas mentioned above. Additional plazas and
open space may be appropriate as components of private development.
22. Design parking lots and structures so they do not dominate the frontage of
pedestrian-oriented streets or establish impediments to pedestrian routes.
Encourage development on street-side edges of parking structures to decrease the view of
the structure.
23. Design ground floor uses of station area buildings to take advantage of their location
near an active transit station. Retail or other active uses should be located on the
ground floors of parking structures and other buildings in areas of pedestrian activity.
Where active first-floor uses are not appropriate, provide a clear demarcation between
public and private spaces.
24. Make use of site topography. Existing grade changes on the site could facilitate the
transition between the single-family houses already there and the higher-density
development coming to the site. Grade changes allow varied building heights and
Yale Station Area Study 27


entrances at different levels. Structured parking can be built into existing slopes with
parking decks at a substantial cost savings compared to underground structured parking.
Timing/Phasing
25. Encourage private property owners to direct development at the Yale Station Area.
The City of Denver does not expect to take the lead but will facilitate development at the
Yale Station Area that is compatible with the goals of transit-oriented development.
26. Promote land assemblage. Encouraging the consolidation of small lots of less than one
acre into larger parcels will increase the station areas development potential and increase
owners ability to address such issues as drainage, parking, setbacks, bulk planes, etc. If
land assemblage does not occur, ensure that incremental development by multiple owners
does not preclude long-term transit-oriented development opportunities.
27. Facilitate a long-term development strategy. Phasing development in the near-, mid-,
and long-term will enhance the financial feasibility by allowing incremental, market-
driven changes to build on each other toward a single vision. Prior to the opening of the
T-REX/ Southeast 1-25 Corridor light rail system, near-term development should
demonstrate compatibility with the future transit station and with the adjoining
neighborhood.
28. Plan surface parking lots as temporary uses. Surface parking lots should serve land-
banking functions, converting the land to other uses, such as mixed uses with
consolidated parking, in later phases of development.
Implementation
Specific actions that proactively implement the Guiding Principles are essential to the full
realization of TOD potential in the Yale Station Area. In itself, the introduction of the LRT
station could stimulate land development opportunities in and near Yale Station, but it is unlikely
to do so alone. Several other factors, such as a strong investment climate combined with flexible
public regulations, incentives and, possibly, infrastructure improvements and/or investments,
should be in place to realize the vision outlined in the Guiding Principles.
The following implementation actions describe specific private and public strategies.
1. Explore Zoning Changes that are Consistent with TOD Guiding Principles:
Properties with the greatest development and/or redevelopment potential in the Yale
Station Area are currently zoned B-2. This type of neighborhood commercial zoning
limits opportunities to develop a mix of higher-intensity transit-oriented uses that are
consistent with the Guiding Principles. For instance, B-2 parking requirements restrict
opportunities for formal shared parking arrangements. The City is in the process of
developing transit mixed use (TMU) zoning that would give teeth to the Guiding
Principles. Zoning changes should also address a provision for bonuses for higher-
intensity development, as well as a streamlining of design review and approval processes
to stimulate appropriate development.
28 Yale Station Area Study


2. Consider Public Investments in an LRT Park-n-Ride Structure: As an inevitable
property owner in the Yale Station Area, RTD has considered providing its land as a
contribution to a public/private TOD venture. While the City currently has limited
investment capabilities to finance infrastructure improvements such as a parking
structure, RTD has already committed to making an investment on the site and is
therefore better situated to participate in a joint public/private partnership.
3. Identify Additional Financing Mechanisms to Stimulate TOD Implementation: The
City currently has a limited number of tools available to promote TOD development.
The Citys existing mechanisms include planning, zoning, and infrastructure
improvements, but do not include significant financing mechanisms to engage
public/private partnerships. Implementing a combination of private and public actions
could lead to increased system ridership, help create an interesting mix of pedestrian-
friendly uses, and broaden the areas range of choices in travel, housing, work, and
shopping.
4. Study the Feasibility of a Tax Increment Financing Area: Opportunities to institute a
tax increment financing area based on property values could be used to fill the potential
profit gap of a development program.
5. Develop a Parking Management Program with Arapahoe County: Currently, patron
parking in the Yale Station Area is limited to the Study Area. With the opening of the
LRT station, however, transit station parking may overflow into surrounding Arapahoe
County neighborhoods to the north. The City and County of Denver should consider
working with Arapahoe County to develop a parking management program to address
these potential impacts.
6. Signalize the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) Intersection with Pedestrian
Crossings: The Southeast Corridor EIS noted that the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west)
intersection would require a signal to accommodate projected traffic, even without
redevelopment in the station area. In conjunction with a traffic signal, pedestrian
crossings of Yale Avenue should be provided on both sides of the intersection.
7. Determine Needed Pedestrian Improvements across 1-25: Existing pedestrian
connections between the Yale Station Area and Arapahoe County neighborhoods east of
1-25 are inadequate and potentially unsafe. In order to improve pedestrian connectivity to
the site, what types of improvements are necessary should be assisted to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle access, allowing neighborhoods on both sides of 1-25 to access the
light rail station.
8. Pursue Yale Avenue Corridor Improvements: Yale Avenue is currently an unfriendly
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. Attached sidewalks are narrow in width
and do not provide pedestrians with a sense of safety from vehicular traffic. Potential
improvements to Yale Avenue that would create a boulevard effect with safety medians
for pedestrians and detached sidewalks should be explored.
9. Reassess the Preliminary Station Design with Respect to Bus Access: Ingress
and egress for the Yale Station Area and bus circulation within the site should be
evaluated in greater detail. In addition, the proposed design for the bus
turnaround in the preliminary engineering plans does not appear to satisfy RTDs
Yale Station Area Study 29


basic guidelines for bus station design. The circular drive proposed means that
the rear door of any bus using it would be away from the curb. A design using
linear curb (rather than circular) should be developed with either an in-line or
shallow sawtooth configuration.
30 Yale Station Area Study


SECTION 4. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Circulation Analysis
Proposed Design from Southeast Corridor EIS (Carter & Burgess), 1999
The EIS site plan assumes that the existing Yale Circle alignment would remain. The traffic
analysis performed for the EIS did not assume any redevelopment in the station area or its
vicinity. That analysis also indicated that even without redevelopment, the Forest Street/Yale
Circle (west) intersection would require signalization to handle future traffic demands. The EIS
design did not address the question of how the offset between Forest Street and Yale Circle (west)
would affect operations or whether the offset should be corrected (presumably by realigning some
portion of Yale Circle (west)).
Yale Circle Alignment and Connections to Yale Avenue
East
City and County of Denver (CCD) staff has recommended examining the option that part
of Yale Circle (east) be vacated, and access to Yale Avenue be closed at that location.
This action would allow greater contiguous land area for redevelopment just north of
Yale Avenue between the 1-25 interchange and Yale Circle (west), and would concentrate
all inbound and outbound access to the station and redeveloped parcels at a single
intersection (Yale Circle (west)). The main premise supporting the closure is the
proximity of the Yale Circle (east) intersection to the 1-25 southbound interchange ramp
intersection (about 200 feet). While that proximity can be a significant issue for stopping
sight distance and for traffic progression if the intersection is signalized, those concerns
can be addressed in some cases. Here, the intersection would not be signalized.
The Total gas station parcel currently has two driveway curb cuts to Yale Avenue
between Yale Circle (east) and the ramp junction signal. When this parcel is
redeveloped, the driveways for the gas station should be closed. Adequate sight distance
can be maintained with Yale Circle (east) remaining open.
If sight distance and proximity to 1-25 continue to be significant issues for this
intersection, closure of access to certain movements should be considered. In particular,
southbound left turns would pose the biggest problem and face the most delay at the
intersection. It might also be considered that the intersection allow inbound traffic only,
consolidating all outbound traffic activity at the west intersection. Finally, restricting the
intersection to inbound transit buses only could provide opportunities for improved bus
circulation as well.
West
The CCD has suggested that the project team examine the option of realigning Yale
Circle (west) so that it intersects Yale Avenue at the same point as Forest Street to the
south. This would create a conventional four-leg intersection that would lend itself better
to signalization than the existing offset configuration. The EIS noted that the
intersection would require a signal in the proposed condition (station), even without the
consideration of redevelopment in the station area. EIS analysis also concluded that the
signal would not introduce traffic progression problems along Yale Avenue. It is likely
Yale Station Area Study 31


that the intersection would be signalized, but realignment of the Yale Circle Approach
with Forest Street is not currently being considered. Pedestrian crossings of Yale Avenue
at the intersection could be provided on both sides of the intersection.
Neighborhood Traffic South of Yale Avenue
Potential improvements for access to the Yale station area could involve restrictions to
certain left turn movements in and out of the streets that serve the neighborhood south of
Yale Avenue (primarily Glencoe and Forest Streets). For example, the signalization of
the Yale Circle (west) intersections could create a complex situation for traffic and
pedestrians if northbound left turns from Forest Street are still permitted. Also,
northbound left turns from Glencoe Street would probably be prohibited if the eastbound
left turn from Yale Avenue in to the station area (via Yale Circle (east)) is restricted to
buses only. In either case, the City and County of Denver would decide whether turn
restrictions are warranted.
Bus Access and Circulation
The proposed design for the bus stop in the preliminary engineering plans would not
appear to satisfy RTDs basic guidelines for bus station design. The circular drive
proposed means that the rear door of any bus using it would be away from the curb. A
design using linear curb (rather than circular) should be used with either an in-line or
shallow sawtooth configuration.
If buses operate on Yale Circle, on-street parking would probably be prohibited wherever
buses operate. A more secondary concern is whether the use of articulated buses would
affect the street design. If buses only use Yale Circle in one direction, on-street parking
might be permissible in the other direction. Another benefit of one-way bus circulation
(if its counter-clockwise) is that buses would not make a left turn from Yale Circle into
the station area. Eliminating this left turn (180 degrees) from the design proposed in the
preliminary engineering plans means that the bus lane at the station would not intrude as
far into the pedestrian and amenity portion of the station area.
If the east Yale Circle intersection is closed, all bus ingress and egress would occur at the
west intersection. If not, there are several alternatives for bus access. Buses from the
east would probably enter at the east intersection (right turn) and leave through the west
intersection (right turn). If one-way bus circulation on Yale Circle is desirable, buses
from the west would also enter at the east intersection (left turn) and leave at the west
intersection (left turn). If not, buses from the west might use the west intersection for
both ingress and egress. It should not be considered likely that buses would be allowed to
make a left turn out of the east intersection because it would not be signalized.
Eliminating Yale Circle
One concept that has not been explored in detail is the complete reconfiguration of the
property access that is currently provided by Yale Circle. In concept, this is what
happens if the east intersection with Yale Avenue is closed. If the street connection
between Yale Avenue and the LRT station is configured more directly, much greater
contiguous development parcel area could be achieved, and more logical parking
arrangements could be made for both tenants and station users. The feasibility of this
concept depends somewhat on the location of existing utility connections. Further
analysis is needed before determining if it is cost-prohibitive to relocate the existing
utilities that currently align with the public right-of-way of Yale Circle or if it is possible
to build around the utilities in their current location.
32 Yale Station Area Study


Appendix B: Market and Economic Analysis
Underlying Assumptions and Considerations
Economics of Transit-Supportive Development
Perceived Higher Risk Since Limited Examples in Market
Greater Market Depth and Diversity
Lower Land Costs Per Unit
Lower Infrastructure Costs
Lower On-Going Maintenance
Higher Sales Per Square Foot
Higher Values (Including Residual)
Broader, More Balanced Tax Base
Greater Profits Over Long Term
Physical
Size Limitations of Site Ability to Accommodate Program With Identity and
Activity Generation
Stations Ability to Serve as Gateway to Area Development
Blending Urban Station Area With Suburban Development Mixed-Use, Higher
Density, Lower Parking Ratios, Pedestrian Connections
Programming Uses Which Support Multiple Markets Transit, Neighborhood, Auto
Within Confined Area
Barriers Requiring City Participation Curb Cuts, Road Alignment, Street Lights,
Orientation of Bus Drop and Platform
Regulatory (assumptions)
City Commitment to Appropriate Mix of Uses
Where Feasible, Variety of Housing Products Encouraged
Unique Financing Mechanisms and Regulatory Processes Available *
Corridor-Specific Land Use Designations Density and Compatibility Rather Than
Use Alone
High Standard of Design Consistently Maintained
Internal Regulatory Process(es) Streamlined
*Fee credits, shared parking, lower ratios
Yale Station Area Study 33


Market
Development Pressures From Interstate 25 Corridor and Southeast Metro Area
> Corridor Recognized as Linear Market With Unique Submarkets
> Principal Competition Other Stations Within Corridor, Developments Within
Impact Area 2
> Market Will Respond to Presence of Station, Yet Within Context of
Neighborhood
Relationship to Other Stations Overflow Location for Office Market at Colorado
Station
Intensification of Retail Opportunities Limited by Competition and Prevailing
Orientation
Precedence for Vertical/Dense Residential Opportunities Among Older Properties
Age of Competitive Residential Products, Limited Supply of Attached Ownership
Limitations on DRCOG Projections and Resolution with Census Figures
Fair Share Analysis From Within Impact Area (1-25 Corridor South) and Denver
County
Adjusted Supportable Space 10 years:
> Residential: 200 to 250 units (2% to 7%)
> Office: 100,000 to 150,000 sf (5% to 15%)
> Retail: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (5% to 20%)
> Flex: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (3% to 5%)
> Public Spaces, Civic Uses
2 Neighborhoods adjacent to 1-25, south of Broadway and north of Belleview.
34 Yale Station Area Study


Issues for Consideration
Physical Issues Surrounding land uses Planned station area design Parking requirements of existing uses Adjacency to 1-25 Corridor, LRT, University Hills Proximity to Colorado and Hampden stations Connections to/isolation from neighborhoods Condition of off-site improvements Environmental impacts Regulatory Issues Southeast Corridor EIS (design/build in progress) Neighborhood Plan Nature of property ownership Neighborhoods desire for weekday uses Stations role within the region (parking and/or development) Land Use & Transportation Plan Mixed-Use Area of Change Incentives for infill development Limits on growth legislation Inclusionary zoning Vacation of street Adjacent jurisdictions
Financial Issues Market Issues
Potential cost of cleanup Established perception of area
Potential for public participation in infrastructure Concentrations of middle market sf detached housing nearby
Qualifying conditions for urban renewal Established and expanding neighborhood infrastructure
Access to transportation funds Strength of Colorado Station as an office location
Increasing property values in area Proximity to University Hills
Empirical evidence: increase in value among transit served properties; Timing of improvements
higher occupancy rates; higher rates of increase in commercial rents;
increases in housing unit pricing
Potential need for additional property acquisition
Yale Station Area Study 35


Yale Station Area Study 37


Demographic Profile
CAAGR3 CAAGR 2001 Population
Population 1990 2001 2006 1990-01 2001-06 by Age <19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55> Median
Yale Trade Area 37,884 41,597 42,821 0.85% 0.58% Yale Trade Area 20.0% 4.9% 13.9% 18.8% 15.6% 26.7% 41.0
I-25 Corridor 92,519 102,388 105,688 0.93% 0.64% I-25 Corridor 19.3% 4.5% 13.9% 19.3% 16.3% 25.9% 41.0
Denver County 467,610 560,542 593,475 1.70% 1.20% Denver County 26.3% 5.1% 14.9% 17.6% 14.0% 22.0% 37.0
Denver MSA 1,622,997 2,106,181 2,276,371 2.40% 1.60% Denver MSA 28.0% 5.6% 14.3% 17.8% 14.5% 19.7% 36.2
Households 1990 2001 2006 CAAGR 1990-01 CAAGR 2001-06 Housing Units (Actual Increase) 1990-01 2001- 06
Yale Trade Area 18,900 20,976 21,714 0.95% 0.69% Yale Trade Area 2,011 827
I-25 Corridor 46,210 50,983 52,746 0.90% 0.68% i-25 Corridor 4,494 1,960
Denver County 210,952 252,897 267,768 1.70% 1.20% Denver County 42,588 16,988
Denver MSA 650,231 867,488 945,562 2.70% 1.70% Denver MSA 23,499 89,076
Average Household Size 1990 2001 2006 1990 Households by HH Type Male +0 Femal e +0 Married Other Fam Non- Fam
Yale Trade Area 1.93 1.91 1.9 Yale Trade Area 1.5% 3.6% 40.8% 3.8% 50.2%
i-25 Corridor 1.96 1.96 1.96 i-25 Corridor 1.3% 3.6% 41.6% 4.0% 49.5%
Denver County 2.17 2.18 2.18 Denver County 1.8% 4.5% 37.7% 8.3% 47.7%
Denver MSA 2.46 2.4 2.38 Denver MSA 1.5% 3.7% 52.0% 8.0% 34.8%
3 CAAGR = Compound Annual Average Growth Rate
Yale Station Area Study 39


Demographic Profile (cont.)
CAAGR4 Median HH CAAGR
Per Capita Income 1989 2001 1989-01 Income 1989 2001 1989-01
Yale Trade Area $19,417 $36,739 5.5% $30,393 $55,058 5.1%
1-25 Corridor $21,897 $42,054 5.6% $32,723 $62,176 5.5%
Denver County $15,563 $30,542 5.8% $25,142 $46,962 5.3%
Denver MSA $16,072 $30,196 5.4% $31,958 $56,419 4.9%
2001 HH by HH Income <$24,999 $25,000- $34,999 $35,000- $49,999 $50,000- $74,999 $75,000- $99,999 $100,000- $149,999 $150,000>
Yale Trade Area 18.1% 12.2% 14.7% 21.3% 13.2% 12.0% 8.6%
I-25 Corridor 14.6% 9.8% 14.5% 21.5% 14.4% 13.4% 11.9%
Denver County 25.8% 11.5% 15.0% 19.1% 11.6% 9.7% 7.2%
Denver MSA 18.8% 10.0% 14.9% 21.9% 14.6% 11.8% 8.0%
2001 Owner-Occ HH by Value <$74,999 $75,000- 99,999 $100,000- $149,999 $150,000- $199,999 $200,000- $299,999 $300,000- $499,999 $500,000>
Yale Trade Area 0.9% 2.5% 37.3% 33.6% 17.9% 6.8% 1.0%
I-25 Corridor 1.2% 2.9% 29.3% 32.1% 23.3% 8.6% 2.6%
Denver County 6.5% 14.5% 37.4% 22.5% 12.1% 4.7% 2.1%
Denver MSA 4.5% 9.5% 36.2% 25.5% 16.0% 5.9% 2.3%
4 CAAGR = Compound Annual Average Growth Rate
40 Yale Station Area Study


Market Characteristics
Commercial Retail
Supply Conditions Year-End 2000/99
Total Square Feet Vacant Square Feet
Total SF Single Ten Small Strip Large Strip Total SF Single Ten. Small Strip Large Strip
Denver Metro Area5 Southeast Submarket6 % of Total 64,748,900 4,916,700 7.6% 7,460,900 700,000 9.4% 10,720,100 1,572,900 14.7% 34,310,100 2,479,400 7.2% 3,555,600 243,900 6.9% 372,100 0 0.0% 645,100 79,000 12.3% 2,073,300 113,900 5.5%
Absorption Vacant Percent
Total SF Single Ten Small Strip Large Strip Total SF Single Ten. Small Strip Large Strip
Denver Metro Area Southeast Submarket % of Total 1,673,000 (25,800) (1.5%) 213,200 0 0.0% 82,200 22,900 27.9% 1,187,800 (23,600) (2.0%) 5.5%/5.8% 5.0%/4.4% 5.0%/6.2% 0.0%/0.0% 6.0%/5.9% 5.1 %/6.5% 6.0%/6.0% 4.6%/3.6%
Southeast Rental Rates
Small Strip $10-$20
Large Strip $12-$24
Metro Range $7-$40
Operating Expenses $2-$3
5 Denver Metro Area = 5 Counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson
6 Southeast Submarket = Area south of 6th Avenue; west of Havana; north of Hampden and east of University.
Yale Station Area Study 41


Market Characteristics
Commercial Retail
Demand 2000 Trade Area7 Households: 2005 Trade Area Households: 2010 Trade Area Households: 21,930 22,473 24,170
Household Growth: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 Annual Average HH Expenditures:* 543 1,697
2000 to 2005 ** 2005 to 2010** Aggregate Sales Potential from HH Growth: $14,700 $18,700
2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 $7,982,100 $31,733,900
Imported Sales from Outside Trade Area: 20%
Total Trade Area Sales Potential: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 $9,578,520 $38,080,680
Total Trade Area Supportable Retail SF: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 45,000 to 65,000 115,000 to 135,000
* Includes purchases for goods typically purchased within a Community Center.
** Figures adjusted to reflect inflation.
7 Includes University, University Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village and Cory-Merrill neighborhoods.
42 Yale Station Area Study


Market Characteristics
Commercial Office
Supply Conditions Year-End 2000/99
Total Square Feet
Total SF Class A Class B
Class C
Total Vacant SF
Vacant Square Feet
Class A Class B Class C
Denver Metro Area Southeast Submarket8 % of Total 78,133,300 8,887,400 11.4% 36,425,400 2,345,300 6.4% 29,296,400 1 4,546,500 15.5% 2,411,500 1,995,600 16.1% 6,438,500 764,000 11.9% 2,840,500 389,200 13.7% 2,602,900 208,700 8.0% 995.100 166.100 16.7%
Absorption Vacant Percent
Total SF Class A Class B Class C % Vacant Class A Class B Class C
Denver Metro Area Southeast Submarket % of Total 3,045,900 137,900 4.5% 3,078,600 79,900 2.6% (200,500) 27,000 % 167,800 31,000 18.5% 8.2%/8.3% 7.8%/8.2% 8.9%/7.9% 8.6%/8.5% 16,6%/14.9% 4,6%/4.7% 8.0%/9.6% 8.3%/9.9%
Owner Occupied Total SF Southeast Rental Rates
Denver Metro Area Southeast Submarket % of Total 16,705,200 1,982,000 % Class A Class B Metro Range $20-$28 $18-$22 $8-$35
Operating Expenses $5-$7
8 Southeast Submarket = Area south of 6th Avenue; west of 1-225; north of Hampden and east of Sheridan.
Yale Station Area Study 43


Market Characteristics
Commercial Office
Demand
2000 Trade Area Employment*:9 71,814
2005 Trade Area Employment*: 75,001
2010 Trade Area Employment*: 76,026
Total Employment Growth: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 3,187 1,025
Annual Average Increase: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 637 205
Annual Demand for Office Space Employees (65%): 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 414 133
Office Square Feet Per Employee: 200
Total Trade Area Annual Office Demand: 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 Includes self-employed workers. 75,000 to 100,000 25,000 to 50,000
9 Includes University, University Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village, Cory-Merrill, Hampden, Southmoor Park, and Hampden South
neighborhoods.
44 Yale Station Area Study


Market Characteristics
Industrial
Supply Conditions Year-End 2000/99
Total Square Feet Vacant Square Feet
Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D
Denver Metro Area 74,422,800 49,735,300 5,232,000 13,163,800 2,470,200 3,733,800 335,400 1,203,600
Central Submarket10 17,845,400 7,130,900 392,400 660,200 393,900 367,600 0 0
% of Total 24.0% 14.3% 7.5% 5.0% 16.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Absorption
Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D
Single/Ware
Vacant Percent
Multi/Ware Single R&D
Multi R&D
Denver Metro Area 221,500 3,659,000 9,200 661,500
Central Submarket 358,900 150,800 0 (9,100)
% of Total 162.0% 4.1% 0.0% (1.4%)
3.3%/3.4%
2.2%/4.2%
7.5%/11.2%
5.2%/7.3%
6.4%/5.9%
0.0%/0.0%
9.1 %/8.4%
8.5%/7.2%
Metro Rental Rate Range
Central Rental Rates
Single Tenant Warehouse
Multi-Tenant Warehouse
Single Tenant R&D
Multi-Tenant R&D
$2.75-$9.00
$3.00-$9.00
$4.75-$14.00
$4.25-$14.25
Single Tenant Warehouse
Multi-Tenant Warehouse
Single Tenant R&D
Multi-Tenant R&D
Operating Expenses
$2.75-$6.25
$4.00-$7.00
$4.75-$7.00
$4.25-$7.00
$2-$3
10 Central Submarket = Area south of I-76; west of Colorado Boulevard; approximately north of Alameda and east of Sheridan.
Yale Station Area Study 45


Market Characteristics
Industrial
Demand
2000 Trade Area Employment*:
2005 Trade Area Employment*:
2010 Trade Area Employment*:
Total Employment Growth:
2000 to 2005
2005 to 2010
Annual Average Increase:
2000 to 2005
2005 to 2010
Annual Demand for Industrial Space Employees (20%)
2000 to 2005
2005 to 2010
Industrial Square Feet Per Employee:
Total Trade Area Annual Industrial Demand:
2000 to 2005
2005 to 2010
* Includes self-employed workers.
46 Yale Station Area Study
71,814
75,001
76,026
3,187
1,025
637
205
127
41
350
40.000 to 60,000
10.000 to 30,000


Market Characteristics
Attached Ownership
Residential
Supply Conditions 2000
New Home Sales by County
Adams 16%
Arapahoe 21%
Boulder 14%
Denver 12%
Douglas 27%
Jefferson 10%
Top Selling Single Builder
Subdivisions by Zip Code Attached
Units by Avg Price
3rd -80231 $139.5
5th 80231 $136.3
7th 80231 $261.0
12th-80204 $289.3
19th-80218 $390.4
21st-80231 $155.0
27th 80203 $610.0
* Recorded Home Closings
New Home Demand by Price
Band
Under$100K 0%
$100K $125K 2%
$125K $150K 13%
$150K $175K 9%
$175K $200K 14%
$200K $225K 15%
$225K $250K 10%
$250K $300K 13%
$300K $400K 14%
$400K $500K 6%
Over $500K 5%
Top 25 Selling Zip Code
Areas *
1st 80126 10.2%
24th 80304 0.4%
80231 Lowry Field/Windsor
80204 Sun Valley
80218 Cap Hill/Cheesman Pk
80203 Civic Ctr/Cap Hill
80236 Fort Logan
29th 80204 $175.3
30th 80231 $234.5
34th 80236 $238.2
Rental Residential Denver South-Central
Supply Conditions 2000/99 Submarket Statistics
Vacancy Rate by County
Adams
Arapahoe
Boulder
Denver
Douglas
Jefferson
Metro Avg
5.2%/4.3%
5.1 %/3.9%
3.8%/8.8%
4.7%/4.3%
11.0%/3.8%
3.4%/4.6%
4.9%/4.5%
Vacancy Rate
Average Rents
1- br
2- br/1-ba
3- br
All
3.5%/2.2%
$458
$661
$823
$594
Average Rents by County and Unit
Type
Denver
Eff
1- br
2- br/1-ba
2- br/2-ba
3- br
All
Metro
Eff
1- br
2- br/1-ba
2- br/2-ba
3- br
All
Rent Per SF by County and
Unit Type
Denver
Eff
1- br
2- br/1-ba
2- br/2-ba
3- br
All
Metro
Eff
1- br
2- br/1-ba
2- br/2-ba
3- br
All
$463
$634
$751
$923
$1001
$717
$496
$655
$753
$921
$1008
$752
$1.09
$0.98
$0.86
$0.88
$0.76
$0.91
$1.10
$1.00
$0.86
$0.89
$0.83
$0.92
Yale Station Area Study 47


Market Characteristics
Attached Ownership Residential
Rental Residential
Demand
Demand
Housing Sale Price Range: $125,000 -$175,000 Housing Monthly Rent Range:
HH Income Range: $40,000- $55,000 HH Income Range:
2000 Trade Area Households:11
2005 Trade Area Households:
2010 Trade Area Households:
21,930 2000 Trade Area Households
22^473 2005 Trade Area Households
24J70 2010 Trade Area Households
Total New Trade Area Households:
2,240 Total New Trade Area Households:
Estimated Percent of New Housing Units:
30% Estimated Percent of New Housing Units:
Total Trade Area Demand for New Attached
Ownership Housing Units:
Total Trade Area Demand for New Rental
672 Housing Units:
Annual Trade Area Demand for New Attached
Ownership Housing Units:
Annual Trade Area Demand for New Rental
65 to 85 Housing Units:
$800-$1,200
$30,000- $50,000
21,930
22,473
24,170
2,240
30%
672
65 to 85
11 Includes University, University Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village and Cory-Merrill neighborhoods.
48 Yale Station Area Study


Appendix C: Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios
Several development scenarios were
produced based on projected market
demand in the area and the ability of the
site to absorb higher densities. Several
conceptual plans were prepared, refined by
the stakeholders, and evaluated through
development proformas to understand what
mix of uses that would produce a realistic
profit. The following figure conceptually
illustrates a hybrid of the scenarios
described below:
Scenario 1
Key characteristics of Scenario 1 include the following:
Existing office structures and related surface parking along the interior of Yale Circle
remain.
The strip retail center on the west comer of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle and the
church parking lot immediately north of it are redeveloped with a mix of retail and
mid-density retail uses. In this scenario, second story housing may be developed
above first floor retail stores.
Yale Station Area Study 49


The vacant land along the northwest comer of Yale Circle is developed as a park-n-
Ride, with either surface parking or a parking structure for joint use by church and
light rail patrons.
The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped with a mix of multi-story office and residential uses with associated
structured parking.
The northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped with a multi-story office building and associated structured parking.
Scenario 2
Key characteristics of Scenario 2 include the following:
The new Koelbel office structure and related surface parking north of Yale Avenue
within the interior of Yale Circle remain. The two older office buildings are
redeveloped with either multi-story office or housing with associated structured
parking.
The strip retail center on the west comer of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle remains.
The church parking lot and vacant land immediately north of the lot is redeveloped
with either surface parking or a parking structure for joint use by church and light rail
patrons.
The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped with a mix of multi-story office and residential uses with associated
structured parking.
50 Yale Station Area Study


The northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station plaza, is
developed as a park-n-Ride, with either surface parking or a parking structure for
light rail patrons.
Scenario 3
Key characteristics of Scenario 3 include the following:
The new Koelbel office structure north of Yale Avenue within the interior of Yale
Circle remains. The associated surface parking lot and remainder of land within the
interior of Yale Circle redevelops with a mix of multi-story office uses and structured
parking for joint use by office tenants and patrons and light rail patrons.
The strip retail center on the west comer of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle is
redeveloped with a mix of senior housing, retail, and associated parking.
The church parking lot immediately north of the existing retail center remains.
The vacant land along the northwest comer of Yale Circle is developed with mid-
density housing i.e., townhouses, and associated parking.
The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped with a mix of multi-story office or residential uses with associated
structured parking.
The northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped with a mix of multi-story office or residential uses with associated
structured parking.
Yale Station Area Study 51


Scenario 4
Key characteristics of Scenario 4 include the following:
The new Koelbel office structure and associated parking north of Yale Avenue within
the interior of Yale Circle remains. The remainder of land within the interior of Yale
Circle redevelops as surface parking for light rail patrons.
The strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle remains.
The church parking lot, vacant land immediately north of the lot, and vacant land
along the northwest corner of Yale Circle is redeveloped with either surface parking
or a parking structure for joint use by church and light rail patrons.
The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is
redeveloped as either surface parking or a parking structure for light rail patrons.
The Total gas station north of Yale Avenue and east of Yale Circle remains.
52 Yale Station Area Study


Full Text

PAGE 1

YALE STATION AREA STUDY Presented to the City and County of Denver January 2003 FINAL

PAGE 4

City & County of Denver Consultant Team: URS Corporation 1225 17 th Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.293.8080 ZGF Partnership Leland Consu lting

PAGE 7

Yale Station Area Study i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 HOW TO USE THIS DOCU MENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5 SECTION 1. INTRODUCT ION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7 B ACKGROUND ON THE L IGHT R AIL S TATION D EVELOPMENT P R OGRAM ................................ .................... 7 SE C ORRIDOR / T R EX P ROJECT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 P ROJECT P URPOSE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 T RANSIT O RIENTED D EVELOPMENT (TOD) ................................ ................................ ............................... 9 P LANNING P ROCESS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 Process Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 Public Involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 SECTION 2. PROJECT E LEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 S ITE A REA D ESCRIPTION AND E XISTING C ONDITIONS ................................ ................................ .............. 13 Land Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 Ownership Patterns ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 Zoning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Traffic Circulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 Pedestrian Circulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Parking ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 17 Environmental Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18 M ARKET AND E CONOMIC A NALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 O PPORTUNITIES AND C ONSTRAINTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 Opportunities: ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Constraints: ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 20 S UMMARY OF L AND U SE S CENARIOS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20 SECTION 3. CONCLUSIO NS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23 L ESSONS L EARNED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 Property Ownership and Devel opment Phasing ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Zoning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Traffic Circulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 Pedestrian Circulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 Parking ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 City Actions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 24 G UIDING P RINCIPLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Surrounding Neighborhoods ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 25 Access and Circulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 Parking ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26 Redevelopment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 Urban Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27 Timing/Phasing ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 28 I MPLEMENTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 SECTION 4. APPENDICE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 A PPENDIX A: T RAFFIC C IRCULATION A NALYSIS ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 A PPENDIX B: M ARKET AND E CONOMIC A NALYSIS ................................ ................................ .................. 33 A PPENDIX C: A NALYSIS OF A LTERNATIVE D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS ................................ ................... 49

PAGE 9

Yale Station Area Study 1 Executive Summary The Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Bluepr int Denver : An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan call for transit oriented development (TOD) around proposed light rail stations in Denver. With the direction set forth by this policy and the T Rex/Southeast Corridor light rail transit under cons truction the City and County of Denver has developed the Yale Station Area Study. The key to a successful TOD requires municipalities to plan the framework for improvements around future light rail stations early on. Therefore, the City developed the Yale Station Area Study in preparation for the 2006 opening of the Yale station on the Southeast Corridor transit line The Yale Station Area is the six acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the I 25 and Yale interchange. Bordered on the west by Grace United Methodist Church, on the east by I 25, on the north by the Arapahoe County line and on the south by Yale Avenue, the land uses consist of office buildings, a gas station, a retail strip mall, three single family homes along the northern bounda ry, and approximately two acres of vacant land. The purpose of the Study for this station area is to assist the City property owners and developers in identifying and analyzing potential development and redevelopment opportunities and to create gui ding principles for redevelopment. Metropolitan regions throughout the country are finding that building light rail transit (LRT) alone is often not enough to increase transit ridership and enhance areas around transit stations. TOD addresses this issue by helping to create transit supportive environments that encourage a mix of land uses, allowing people to live, work, and play in a community without relying on a car. This is a key element to most successful light rail programs. TOD opportunities and configurations are unique to each station in Denver, thus potential TOD at the Yale Station Area must be tailored to meet the needs and goals of the City, the neighborhood, and the businesses in the area. Meetings with stakeholders and community members early in the planning process to discuss existing conditions and issues revealed key opportunities and constraints to TOD at the Yale Station Area. These interests laid the foundation for developing a range of scenarios and guiding principles. By incorpo rating the evaluation of projected market demand, opportunities and constraints, and stakeholder input, the project team developed a range of conceptual land use scenarios for the Yale Station Area. These scenarios describe development potential at the st ation area and are based on assumptions that specific actions would be taken by the City and/or property owners. Each scenario was evaluated to ascertain its viability and to determine how well each is likely to meet the goals of TOD at the Yale Station A rea. Scenario A describes the potential result if neither the City nor the property owners proactively pursue redevelopment around the station area. While this scenario involves no risk on the Citys part, neither does it advance the Citys TOD goals. Rather, most of the site will likely be dedicated to surface parking. Scenario B illustrates the potential outcome if the City facilitates a public investment and/or urban renewal to redevelop the entire station area. While this scenario best meets the Ci tys TOD goals, a financial p r o forma concluded that it does not achieve the fiscal requirements necessary for viable development. Scenario C describes a mid range alternative in which the City provides specific entitlements to promote TOD and property own ers initiate joint development. Because this scenario

PAGE 10

2 Yale Station Area Study depends on actions by private property holders, the timing of redevelopment is unpredictable, but likely to meet some TOD goals. In developing these scenarios, the project team and City staff also pre pared Guiding Principles to help public and private entities maximize land development opportunities and evaluate any redevelopment plans around the Yale Station Area. The Guiding Principles also provide property owners and developers with clear expectati ons by which to base future development and/or redevelopment plans and embrace the most desirable characteristics of potential TOD scenarios evaluated earlier in the planning process. The Guiding Principles for the Yale Station Area are as follows: Surrou nding Neighborhoods 1. Promote development that is compatible with and complementary to surrounding residential neighborhoods. 2. Establish building heights that are appropriate for an urban village center and that transition to surrounding residen tial neighborhoods. 3. Ensure building scale, placement, design, and landscape treatment provide adequate visual and noise buffers between new development and existing adjacent neighborhoods. 4. Recognize the character of single family neighborhoods in Arapahoe County that abut the station area as a part of the overall plan Create methods to address spillover of transit station parking into surrounding neighborhoods. Access and Circulation 5. Prepare for the changing transportation patterns that the opening of ligh t rail will bring. 6. Provide safe and efficient vehicular access to the site. 7. Ensure adequate internal traffic circulation within the station area. 8. Ensure convenient bus access to the site and efficient circulation within the station area. 9. The location and d esign of parking lots should not cause conflicts with bus, bicycle and pedestrian circulation. 10. Improve pedestrian access within mile of Yale Station. 11. Provide bicycle access to Yale Station. Parking 12. Encourage the development of structured or undergrou nd parking to minimize land consumption earmarked for parking and maximize land development opportunities in those areas. 13. Design multi story parking garages to fit the scale of the surrounding buildings. 14. Encourage shared parking arrangements to make optimu m use of the site. Redevelopment 15. Maximize development potential within the transit station area to increase the return on public investment and local property values.

PAGE 11

Yale Station Area Study 3 16. Promote a mixed use development with office and multi family residential development, wit h limited amounts of convenience and lifestyle retail. 17. Encourage development at the Yale Station Area that reflects its position in relation to the larger T REX/Southeast Corridor. 18. Encourage multi family housing to diversify housing options at the Yale Sta tion Area. Urban Design 20. Require p edestrian connections within and between all parcels with the development and redevelopment of all parcels in the station area. 21. Provide a public open space network in the station platform, bus boarding areas, streets, and sidewalks. 22. Design parking lots and structures so they do not dominate the frontage of pedestrian oriented streets or establish impediments to pedestrian routes. 23. Design ground floor uses of station area buildings to take adv antage of their location near an active transit station. 24. Make use of site topography. Timing/Phasing 25. Encourage private property owners to direct development at the Yale Station Area. 26. Promote land assemblage. 27. Facilitate a long term development strategy. 28. Pla n surface parking lots as temporary uses. Specific actions that proactively implement the Guiding Principles are essential to the full realization of TOD potential in the Yale Station Area. In itself, the introduction of the LRT station could stimulate l and development opportunities in and near Yale Station, but it is unlikely to do so alone or in a coordinated approach. Several other factors, such as a strong investment climate combined with flexible public regulations, incentives and, possibly, infrast ructure improvements and/or investments, should be in place to realize the vision outlined in the Guiding Principles. The following implementation actions have emerged as the most promising specific private and public strategies: Explore zoning changes that are consistent with TOD guiding principles Consider public investments in an LRT park n R ide structure Identify additional f inancing m echanisms to s timulate TOD i mplementation. Study the f easibility of a t ax i ncrement f inancing d istrict. Develop a p arking m anagement p rogram with Arapahoe County. Consider a signal at the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) i ntersection with p e d estrian c rossings. Determine n eeded p edestrian i mprovements across I 25.

PAGE 12

4 Yale Station Area Study Pursue Yale Avenue c orridor i mprovements. Reassess the p reliminary s tation d esign with r espect to b us a ccess.

PAGE 13

Yale Station Area Study 5 Ho w to Use This Document The Yale Station Area Study is intended to be used by City staf f, other public agencies, property owners, and developers as a guide to future development in the area. The Study includes the following four sections: Introduction: The Introduction section of the Study identifies the context in which the Study was deve loped by providing background information on the Light Rail Station Development Program and the Southeast Corridor/T Rex Project. This section also describes Transit Oriented Development (TOD), the purpose of the Study, and the planning process. Project Elements: The Elements section of the Study provides a detailed description of the components to consider in developing a TOD at the Yale Station Area. The discussion includes an analysis of existing land use, ownership, vehicular and pedestrian access an d circulation, parking, and environmental conditions. This section also presents a summary of a market and economic analysis of the study area, a discussion of site opportunities and constraints, and a synopsis of Yale Station Area land use scenarios. Co nclusions: The Conclusions section of the Study describes the lessons learned as each Study Element was evaluated throughout the planning process. These lessons are then incorporated into a set of Guiding Principles and Recommended Actions to implement a TOD at the Yale Station Area. These Guiding Principles, which may also be useful for other station areas with context similar to the Yale Station Area, address surrounding neighborhoods, access and circulation, parking, redevelopment, urban design, and ti ming/phasing. Appendices: The Appendices contain detailed analyses of specific station area conditions and TOD scenarios for reference. This section also includes a traffic circulation analysis, a market and economic analysis, and a detailed assessment o f the Yale Station Area land use scenarios.

PAGE 15

Yale Station Area Study 7 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION Background on the Light Rail Station Development Program The 2000 Denver Comprehensive Plan (Plan 2000) identified a regional rapid transit system as the primary form of transportation to address the mobility needs of the city, while at the same time offering the greatest benefit to and protection of Denver neighborhoods. In conjunction with providing improved mobility, development of a regional light rail system is also a unique opport unity for the City to promote higher density, mixed use development patterns around rapid transit corridors and stations. To realize these goals, the City established the Light Rail Station Development Program in 1995. The program encourages Transit O riented Development (TOD) around existing and future light rail stations. With the planned extension of the existing light rail transit (LRT) system into the Southeast Corridor along I 25, described below, the program is currently focusing on creating are as around future stations that will support transit ridership while enhancing the stations surroundings. An initial assessment of the Southeast Corridor prepared in October 1999 identified the Yale/I 25 station as having some opportunity for mixed use r edevelopment in the area immediately west of the proposed station. 1 This area the Yale Station Area includes approximately six acres immediately west of the proposed Yale station and provides the greatest opportunity for redevelopment, as it sits as an isolated island of office and commercial uses surrounded by established single family neighborhoods. Accordingly, Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan identifies the Yale Station Area as an Area of Change surrounded by Are as of Stability. SE Corridor / T Rex Project The Transportation Expansion Project (T REX), formerly known as the Southeast Corridor Project, is a joint venture between RTD and CDOT to expand over 16 miles of interstate highways and to construct 19 miles o f light rail transit (LRT). (See Figure 1 .) Light rail will extend along I 25 from Broadway Boulevard in Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and along I 225 from Parker Road in Aurora to a newly configured I 25/I 225 interchange. The Yale Station will be one of 13 new stations on the Southeast Corridor light rail line. The current design for the Yale LRT platform and park n Ride calls for 161 commuter parking spaces. RTD has acquired parcels adjacent to t he future Yale Station to meet this need. Preliminary designs call for surface parking in the northeast quadrant of the station area, with a circular bus turnaround located adjacent to the station platform. 1 Southeast Corridor Light Rail Development Program, October 1999.

PAGE 16

8 Yale Station Area Study Figure 1 SE Corridor / T REX

PAGE 17

Yale Station Area Study 9 CDOT and RTD are overseeing construction of the LRT in conjunction with reconstructing and widening the I 25 and I 225 highways. When construction is complete, RTD will operate the light rail system. While responsib ilities for these projects are clearly divided between CDOT (corridor construction and long term highway operations), RTD (transit operations) and the City and County of Denver (land use decisions), the three agencies are coordinating closely to meet the T REX goals of increasing mobility, enhancing accessibility and transportation options, and improving safety in a heavily congested, growing business corridor. T REX construction began in 2001 and will be completed by late spring/early summer 2006, with th e Yale Station expected to open in 2006. Project Purpose In preparation for the 2006 opening of the Yale station on the Southeast Corridor line, the City and County of Denver has developed the Yale Station Area Study. The purpose of this plan is to assist the City and property owners in identifying and analyzing potential development and redevelopment opportunities and to create guiding principles for redevelopment. These Guiding Principles will direct future land use decisions around the transit station to promote transit oriented development, a concept that is described in detail below. Further, the guidelines will provide City staff, other public agencies, property owners, and developers with clear direction to develop and/or evaluate specific developm ent proposals for the area around Yale Station. Specifically, the Guiding Principles address surrounding neighborhoods, access and circulation, parking, redevelopment, urban design, and timing/phasing and have been developed for adoption into the Denver C omprehensive Plan. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Metropolitan regions throughout the country are finding that building a light rail alone is often not enough to increase transit ridership and enhance areas around transit stations. TOD addresses this issue by helping to create transit supportive environments by encouraging a mix of land uses that allow people to live, work, and play in a community without relying on a car, a key element to most successful light rail programs. Thus, pedestrian friendly development and design is essential. Landscape, streetscape entrances at the sidewalk, and an inviting scale are essential to this concept. Minimizing surface parking adjacent to the station encourages pedestrian activity. The intent of TOD is to promote high quality transit, bike, and pedestrian connections while encouraging a compact, mixed use development. TOD opportunities and configurations are unique to each station in Denver, thus potential TOD at the Yale Station Area must be tailor ed to meet the needs and goals of the City, the neighborhood, and the businesses in the area. While each station has a tailored program based on its character, surroundings, and potential, some key attributes of TOD commonly include: A balance of mixed uses (residential, retail, office, entertainment, public facilities, etc.). Compact, mid to high density development. Close proximity to transit, emphasizing a walkable and attractive pedestrian environment. Multi modal transportation connections (rail, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, etc.).

PAGE 18

10 Yale Station Area Study De emphasis of auto parking including reduced parking requirements and replacement of surface parking lots with structured and shared parking. Urban design guidelines and aesthetic requirements. Affordable housing opport unities. Access to open space and recreational amenities. Like other metropolitan regions, the City and County of Denver recognizes the benefits of TOD and has incorporated TOD principles into its policy documents. The Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 (Pla n 2000) calls for TOD around existing and proposed transit stations. Plan 2000 states that Transit Oriented Development concentrates an attractive mix of housing, retail, entertainment, and commercial development near transit stops. This enables residen ts to live, shop, and socialize in their immediate neighborhoods while having nearby transit access to distant urban centers. In addition, Blueprint Denver adopted in 2002, emphasizes TOD and provides key strategies and tools to implement Plan 2000 Planning Process Process Summary Since the Yale Station Area property owners must choose how, when, and if to redevelop their properties, the City chose to facilitate and encourage transit supportive development by producing conceptual development scenarios and guiding principles, laying a framework for future development. The proce ss used by the City created an atmosphere where property owners felt comfortable discussing their individual interests in exploring opportunities for mutual gains. The Yale Station Area Study process began in early 2001 with a technical analysis of existi ng conditions that addressed existing land use, ownership patterns, zoning, traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, and environmental and market conditions. The market analysis assessed the Yale Station Area in the larger context of the entire Southe ast Corridor, showing its secondary position to the Colorado Boulevard office market and the University Hills retail center. The projected market demand for the Yale Station Area included a mix of office and residential uses with limited demand for retail space. Based on a review of existing conditions and projected market demand, the project team formulated a series of land use scenarios to explore development potential at the station area. The range of scenarios covered such possibilities as laissez f aire market driven Yale Station Area Stakeholder Process Identify Existing Conditions & Opportunities for Change Review with Stakeholder Analyze Ma rket Potential Develop Alternative Scenarios Evaluate Scenarios / Outline Phasing Review with Stakeholders Draft Guiding Principles Review Development Strategy / Action Items with Stakeholders Develop Yale Station Area Study

PAGE 19

Yale Station Area Study 11 redevelopment and publicly directed urban renewal. A mid range scenario privately led redevelopment with some public sector support showed the most promise. Based on discussions of these scenarios with stakeholders and City staff, a list of Lessons Learned was developed and finally incorporated into the Guiding Principles and Implementation Actions. Public Involvement Public involvement for the project consisted of three tiers of participation, representing a cross section of commun ity interests: Tier 1: Stakeholders/Property Owners Participation by stakeholders or property owners in the immediate six acre study area was a key component of the public process. A series of meetings was held with property owners to identify their in terests and concerns, as well as to evaluate proposed development scenarios and guiding principles. Tier 2: Area Residents Residents of both Denver and Arapahoe counties from the neighborhoods surrounding the study area formed the second tier of participa nts and met with the project team on two separate occasions to discuss their issues and concerns, which primarily related to ensuring that new development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Tier 3: General Public The general public, w hich also included some overlap with Tier 2 residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, formed the third tier and participated in two public meetings during the planning process. The first public meeting was held in May 2001 to introduce the planning proc ess and information gathered on existing conditions and to provide a forum for participants to discuss site opportunities and constraints. The second public meeting, held later in the planning process in October 2001, was designed to receive input and fee dback on conceptual development scenarios and draft guiding principles.

PAGE 21

Yale Station Area Study 13 SECTION 2. PROJECT ELEMENTS Site Area Description and Existing Conditions Land Uses The Yale Station Area is the six acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the I 25 an d Yale interchange. Bordered on the west by Grace United Methodist Church, on the east by I 25, on the north by the Arapahoe County line and on the south by Yale Avenue, the parcels land uses consist of single family homes, office buildings, a gas statio n, a retail strip mall, and approximately two acres of vacant land. Figure 2 Yale Station Area Study Area As depicted in Figure 2 the interior of Yale Circle contains two office buildi ngs and associated surface parking, with a third office structure at the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle. Land uses to the west of Yale Circle include a strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle, a church parking lot vacant land, and three single family houses located north of the vacant property. Land uses to the east of Yale Circle include a gas station on the east corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle and a vacant office building to be demol ished prior to construction of the light rail station. The northeast corner of the Yale Station Area is currently a vacant lot that has been acquired by RTD for a park n Ride with 161 surface parking spaces. A variety of uses surround the Yale S tation Area, with single family neighborhoods providing the predominant character of the area. The residential neighborhoods north and west of the Yale Station Area are located in unincorporated Arapahoe County. Other surrounding uses include mid rise ap artment buildings located just east of I 25 and north

PAGE 22

14 Yale Station Area Study of Yale. Denver Academy, a private school, is located approximately mile northwest of the proposed station and the University Hills shopping center is just beyond a half mile radius, to the west of the site. Ownership Patterns In addition to the residential properties in the northern portion of the site, additional properties in the Yale Station Area are currently owned by five major property holders: Walter Buz Koelbel: four parcels along Yale Av enue and Yale Circle (east). Legend Retail Group: medical office building on Yale Circle. Nicole Property Group: office building on Yale Circle. JDM Equities LLP: retail strip center on Yale Avenue. Grace United Methodist Church: contiguous parcels on Eudo ra Street and on Yale Circle. RTD : acquir ing rights of way along the I 25 corridor for the light rail station including two residential properties located in Arapahoe County north of the Yale Station Area. Zoning The Yale Station Area is zoned primarily B 2, neighborhood commercial, and R 1, low density residential. The following are general descriptions of the two predominant zoning categories. B 2 Neighborhood Commercial This zoning applies to all the parcels adjacent to Yale Circle. These are the key parcels in the core of the Yale Station Area with the greatest potential for redevelopment. B 2 zoning allows smaller retail uses, banks, childcare centers, medical offices, dry cleaners, grocery stores, and restaurants, in addition to single and multi f amily residential, nursing homes, offices, and schools. Figure 3 illustrates the maximum buildout potential of the Yale Station Area under current B 2 zoning. Should property owners chose to develop and/or redevel op their properties under existing zoning; the intensity of development is unlikely to change considerably. Most of the existing structures could increase in density by one to three stories. Existing gas station on southeast corner of Yale Circle Existing retail center on southwest corner of Yale Circle

PAGE 23

Yale Station Area Study 15 Figure 3 Maximum Build Out Potential B 2 Zone Neighborhood Commercial

PAGE 25

Yale Station Area Study 17 R 1 Low Density Residential Denvers R 1 zoning applies to the parcels on the perimeter of the station area. These parcels are the properties owned by Grace United Methodist Church, three single family homes, and a private tennis court. Some single family residences in Arapahoe County are also included. R 1 zoning permits single family residential and limited institutional uses such as churches, schools, libraries, and parks. The district requires a minimum lot siz e of 6,000 square feet with a 50 foot minimum lot width. Traffic Circulation Primary auto access to the Yale Station Area is provided via Yale Avenue, an east west minor arterial that carried approximately 29,000 vehicles per day in four lanes in 2001. Yale Avenues interchange with I 25 is a diamond, with I 25 over Yale. The station area north of Yale Avenue is served directly by Yale Circle, a two lane local street that forms a loop with both ends connecting directly to Yale Avenue. Both of Yale Cir cles intersections with Yale Avenue are slightly offset from the streets serving the residential area south of Yale Avenue. The nearest traffic signals are at the I 25 interchange to the east (one block) and Dahlia Street to the west (four blocks). A pr oposed traffic signal at the Forest Street/Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) intersection could handle future traffic demands for the Yale Station Area. See Appendix A for a detailed traffic analysis. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian access to the Yale Stat ion Area is limited by a lack of connections. While the street grid west of I 25 provides several access points to Yale Avenue, attached sidewalks along Yale Avenue are generally substandard. Numerous curb cuts on the north side of Yale Avenue may also d iscourage active pedestrian use. Through the interchange, fast moving traffic and multiple turn movements create hazards for pedestrians. The sidewalk under I 25 has ample width, but becomes more restricted on either side of the interchange. Within the study area, attached sidewalks are located along the interior of Yale Circle and are intermittent along the outside of Yale Circle. Parking Existing parking in the Yale Station Area is adequate to meet current needs. The on site office buildings currently have an informal reciprocal parking arrangement with Grace United Methodist Church to the west that accommodates overflow parking situations. Commercial uses occasionally overflow to the church parking lot on weekdays and, on Sundays, church patrons use the office building parking lots. On rare occasions, church parking extends onto local streets. The lack of curb and gutter and the narrow width of portions of Vassar Avenue to the north discourage on street parking. This informal parking arrangement i s likely to change when the light rail station opens and light rail patrons seek parking beyond that provided by RTD. Local residents are

PAGE 26

18 Yale Station Area Study concerned about overflow parking on residential streets. The City of Denver might explore implementing parking manag ement strategies prior to the opening of the light rail station and Arapahoe County has already expressed interest in cooperating with Denver to enforce a parking program. Environmental Conditions The physical environment of the Yale Station Area is high ly developed, with few natural conditions remaining on site. Development on the property could be affected by the possible presence of hazardous materials associated with the leaking of underground petroleum storage tanks belonging to the two gasoline sta tions on the site. Redevelopment of these lots would require that appropriate measures be taken by property owners to ensure proper environmental assessments are conducted. Market and Economic Analysis A real estate market analysis was conducted in 2001 t o determine the market potential for a variety of land uses at the Yale Station Area. This analysis took into consideration how much of the projected market demand for various uses along the Southeast corridor could reasonably be absorbed by the Yale Stat ion Area, based on the following assumptions: Development pressures from the I 25 Corridor and Southeast Denver metro area will dictate that: Principal competition for land uses at the Yale Station Area will come from other LRT stations within the corridor and development in neighborhoods adjacent to I 25, south of Broadway and north of Belleview. The corridor will remain a linear market with unique submarkets. The market will respond to the presence of the LRT station, but within the context of the surroun ding single family residential neighborhoods. Market demand at the Yale Station is affected by its relationship to other stations; demand may dictate that the station serve as an overflow location of the office market at Colorado Station. An intensificat ion of retail opportunities within the Yale Station Area is limited by competition from nearby University Hills retail center. A precedent exists for vertical/dense residential properties both east and west of the station. The Yale Station Area could meet a demand for new condominium/townhouse development, because of the aging and limited supply of competitive residential products in the Denver area in general and in the Yale Station Area in particular. Based on these assumptions and a fair share analysis from within the I 25 Corridor South impact area and Denver County, the project team projected the following market absorption:

PAGE 27

Yale Station Area Study 19 Yale Station Area Adjusted Supportable Space over 10 Years: Residential: 200 to 250 units (2% to 7% of the SE Corridor) Office : 100,000 to 150,000 sf (5% to 15% of the SE Corridor) Retail: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (5% to 20% of the SE Corridor) Flex: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (3% to 5% of the SE Corridor) Undetermined Public Spaces and Civic Uses See Appendix B for a detailed market analys is. Opportunities and Constraints Meetings with stakeholders and community members early in the planning process to discuss existing conditions and issues revealed key opportunities and constraints to TOD development at the Yale Station Area. Figure 4 illustrates several of these site characteristics. These interests laid the foundation for developing a range of scenarios and guiding principles. Figure 4 Opportunities and Constraints Opportunities: Th e Yale Station Area already has good access to I 25 and will have increased commuter access with the opening of the LRT station. Yale Avenue is currently under capacity and can therefore accommodate increased traffic volumes. Property owners have a history and experience with shared parking arrangements, which could be a key component of future TOD. The Yale Station Area is surrounded by stable residential neighborhoods.

PAGE 28

20 Yale Station Area Study The areas location between major employment centers at Colorado Boulevard and the Den ver Technological Center lends itself well to redevelopment as a secondary employment center along the Southeast Corridor. The sites topography, which rises to the northeast, may allow for increased building heights closer to the intersection of Yale Aven ue and I 25. Property owners are proactively discussing redevelopment opportunities. Constraints: Pedestrian access across Yale Avenue and under I 25 is currently difficult. Sidewalks along Yale Avenue are also inadequate. The misalignment of Yale Circle a nd Forest Street (to the south) makes safe signalization and associated pedestrian crossings difficult. The proximity of Yale Circle East limits sight lines from the interstate off ramp to the site. Existing R 1 and B 2 zoning limits the potential for TO D in the Yale Station Area. The relatively small size of the site, its configuration within and around Yale Circle, and its limited access reduce its potential for intensive uses. Multiple property ownership within the Yale Station Area requires coordinati on and cooperation among several diverse interests. The retail potential of Yale Station Area is limited by its proximity to the University Hills shopping center. The limited size of the Yale Station Area may necessitate the construction of one or more rel atively expensive parking structures or underground parking to maximize development potential. Summary of Land Use Scenarios By incorporating the evaluation of projected market demand, opportunities and constraints, and stakeholder input, the project team developed a range of conceptual land use scenarios for the Yale Station Area. These scenarios describe development potential at the station area and are based on assumptions that specific actions would be taken by the City, RTD, and/or property owners. Each scenario, as presented in the following matrix, was evaluated to ascertain its viability and to determine how well each is likely to meet the goals of TOD at the Yale Station Area. The scenarios cover a range of alternatives from laissez faire market driven redevelopment described in Scenario A to publicly directed urban renewal described in Scenario B. The mid range alternative, Scenario C (privately led redevelopment with some public sector support) shows the most promise as a politically and fisca lly viable scenario. Scenario A describes the potential result if neither the City nor the property owners proactively pursue redevelopment around the station area. While this scenario

PAGE 29

Yale Station Area Study 21 involves no risk on the Citys part, neither does it advance the Cit ys TOD goals. Rather, most of the site will likely be dedicated to surface parking. Scenario B illustrates the potential outcome if the City facilitates public investments and/or urban renewal to redevelop the entire station area. While this scenario be st meets the Citys TOD goals, a financial performa concluded that it does not achieve the fiscal requirements necessary for viable development. Scenario C describes a mid range alternative in which the City provides specific entitlements to promote TOD a nd property owners initiate joint development. Because this scenario depends on actions by private property holders, the timing of redevelopment is unpredictable, but likely to meet some TOD goals. Figure 5 3 D Views of the Yal e Station Area from the West Because Scenario C was determined to be the most viable alternative, the project team further explored potential land use mixes and phasing, including land use types, densities, and orientations on the site. As shown in Figure 5 land owners explored the potential building mass of different buildout scenarios. A more detailed analysis of Scenario C is provided in Appendix C. However, by the conclusion of the planning process, significa nt land owners were not prepared to engage a developer and initiate the process of a joint development. Therefore, while the ideas put forth in Scenario C remain viable, they are not to date being pursued. N N N N Yale Yale Yale I 25 I 25 I 25

PAGE 30

22 Yale Station Area Study Range of Development Scenarios for the Yale Stat ion Area LAND USE SCENARIO LEVEL OF CITY EFFORT DISPOSITION SO WHAT? Scenario A Status Quo/Do Nothing Church, Retail, Office, Vacant, RTD Minimum Effort: Zoning doesnt change. City offers no entitlements or public investment. NO RISK Land uses an d ownership remain as is: RTD could acquire more land. Significant land area is dedicated to surface parking. NO TOD Scenario B Redevelopment of Entire Site Church, Retail, Office, Residential, RTD Significant Effort: City rezones and provides inducements to redevelop. City provides significant public investment and/or urban renewal. HIGH RISK Redevelopment occurs through acquisition and land assemblage. City drives land use and timing of development. ACHIEVES TOD GOALS Scenario C R edevelopment of Key Parcels Church, Retail, Office, Residential, RTD Development Inducements: City rezones and provides entitlements, i.e., parking reductions, increased height, and land use intensity. City offers no public investment. LOW RISK Redevel opment occurs on its own: Potential for joint development increases between property owners. City has less control over and ability to predict development outcomes. Timing of development is variable and depends on private property owner initiatives. M EETS SOME TOD GOALS

PAGE 31

Yale Station Area Study 23 SECTION 3. CONCLUSIONS Lessons Learned As the project team worked with project stakeholders to evaluate the range of potential development scenarios and their feasibility from both a programming and a financial standpoint a ke y set of lessons learned emerged. The Lessons Learned are incorporated into the Guiding Principles which immediately follow. Land Use No relationship currently exists between the Yale Station Area and the surrounding neighborhoods. Once light rail open s, however, this will change and the relationship that develops should be a positive one. Although the City and County of Denvers jurisdiction does not extend to the north part of the study area, the success of a Study that enhances surrounding neigh borhoods is contingent on cooperation between Denver and Arapahoe County. Opportunities for cooperation include land use decisions about the appropriate transition between residential and commercial uses. Property Ownership and Development Phasing Given the multitude of interests among property owners, single owner redevelopment of the entire site is unlikely. Instead, development is likely to be incremental and occur in phases. Property owners may look to natural partners for initial development opport unities. For instance, RTD and Grace United Methodist Church would not have to tear down buildings to engage in a joint development and may therefore realize development opportunities on vacant land sooner than property owners with built structure s. Later phases of development may be realized as property owners interest levels in development increase with the opening of the light rail in 2006. Interest will be further stimulated as an increasing number of light rail passengers arrive and depart the LRT station. The final phases of development may include newer properties, such as the Koelbel office building, which is currently under construction, and the Total gas station, which has a five year lease. A development program in which individual p roperty owners work collectively to address issues such as parking and drainage would increase the areas development potential and would likely work out financially. Zoning Should property owners choose to develop and/or redevelop their properties under existing zoning, the intensity of development is unlikely to change considerably. Most of the existing structures could increase in density by one to three stories.

PAGE 32

24 Yale Station Area Study Traffic Circulation Although Yale Circle and Forest Street could be realigned to create a four way intersection, a traffic signal with pedestrian crossings on either side would suffice to handle future traffic. Reconfiguring Yale Circle might yield a larger development area, but the cost of relocating existing underground utilities on Yale Cir cle would likely preclude this realignment. The current Total gas station parcel has two driveway curb cuts to Yale Avenue between Yale Circle (east) and the ramp junction signal. When this parcel is redeveloped, the driveways for the gas station should be closed. Adequate sight distance can be maintained with Yale Circle (east) remaining open. Pedestrian Circulation A lack of pedestrian connections contributes to the isolation of the Yale Station Area from surrounding neighborhoods. Improved connectio ns should include detached sidewalks along Yale Avenue and up graded pedestrian crossings at a future traffic signal Parking Parking needs must be met at every phase of redevelopment. For structured parking to be viable and encourage maximum development on the site, parking should be centrally located and shared including parking for RTD park n Ride purposes. Structured parking will likely require dense development to justify its cost. Overflow parking associated with the light rail station should be addressed through a management program or some other means, so that it does not become a neighborhood issue. City Actions If development interest in the station area becomes more solidified, the City could consider th e establishment of an Urban Renewal Area to help facilitate the redevelopment. With the exception of the light rail, significant public investments in the station area are unlikely and, therefore, redevelopment will primarily depend on action by property owners.

PAGE 33

Yale Station Area Study 25 Guiding Principles The Guiding Principles have been prepared to help public and private entities maximize land development opportunities and evaluate any redevelopment plans around the Yale Station Area. The following set of Guiding Principles pro vides property owners and developers with clear expectations by which to base future development and/or redevelopment plans. The Guiding Principles embrace the most desirable characteristics of potential TOD scenarios evaluated earlier in the planning pro cess. Surrounding Neighborhoods 1. Promote development that is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding residential neighborhoods. According to Blueprint Denver (Denvers Land Use and Transportation Plan), the Yale Station Area is an Area of Change surrounded by Areas of Stability. The goal of this Station Area Study is to focus development at the station area, not to encourage the redevelopment of surrounding single family neighborhoods. 2. Establish building heights that are appropriate for an urb an village center and that transition to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Locating taller buildings near the eastern edge of the site will maximize visibility of the site from the interstate highway, at the same time creating a buffer between inters tate traffic and surrounding neighborhoods. Buildings on the western side of the site should step down in height to create a visual transition between higher intensity land uses adjacent to the light rail station and smaller scale residential neighborhood s to the north and west of the station area. The Yale Station Area is not located in an existing Denver View Preservation Corridor. 3. Ensure building scale, placement, design, and landscape treatment provide adequate visual and noise buffers between new development and existing adjacent neighborhoods. Seek opportunities to locate structures as buffers between I 25 and the single family residential areas. 4. Recognize the character of single family neighborhoods in Arapahoe County that abut the station ar ea as a part of the overall Study 5. Create methods to address spillover of transit station parking into surrounding neighborhoods Access and Circulation 6. Prepare for the changing transportation patterns that the opening of light rail will bring Opening day of the light rail system will bring an immediate change to transportation patterns around the station area. The introduction of light rail in combination with development on the site will increase the number of people who use the station ar ea. 7. Provide safe and efficient vehicular access to the site. Although the use of alternative modes will increase with the opening of the light rail system, private automobile access will continue to be a major transportation mode in the Yale Station Are a.

PAGE 34

26 Yale Station Area Study 8. Ensure adequate internal traffic circulation within the station area In case of traffic incidents on Yale Circle, maintain the two existing access points at Yale Circle. 9. Ensure convenient bus access to the site and efficient circulation within th e station area. Accommodate bus loading near the light rail station for passenger convenience. 10. The location and design of parking lots should not cause conflicts with bus and pedestrian circulation Entrance and exit points of parking facilities sho uld be located within safe and adequate distance from bus loading and turn around areas. Parking access should also be located to avoid areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. 11. Improve pedestrian access within mile of Yale Station. Provide signal protected access at Yale Circle and Forest Street for vehicles and pedestrians. Coordinate sidewalk improvements on Yale Avenue on east of I 25 with Arapahoe County. Improve the safety of pedestrian crossings at I 25 ramps. Encourage the constru ction of detached sidewalks on Yale Avenue and within the station area. 12. Provide bicycle access to Yale Station. The proposed traffic and pedestrian improvements near the station area should also include improvements to bicycle access to the site. Park ing 13. Encourage shared parking arrangements to make optimum use of the site. Seek opportunities to share parking for RTD park n Ride purposes (contingent on RTDs on site participation). 14. Encourage the development of structured or underground parking to m inimize land consumption and maximize land development opportunities in those areas Parking structures should be centrally located to promote shared parking and serve multiple uses. Preferably, a parking garage will serve on site employees, residents, a nd shoppers as well as park n Ride patrons. 15. Design multi story parking garages to fit the scale of the surrounding buildings. For large structures, the ground floor level facing the street could be dimensioned to accommodate retail and create a pedestria n friendly presence on the sidewalk. Architectural treatment and detailing should be used to make the structure less intrusive and more aesthetically pleasing. Redevelopment 16. Maximize development potential within the transit station area to increase the return on public investment and local property values. Public investme nt should leverage private investment. Value capture and higher land values increase City tax base and revenues. Redevelopment of currently under utilized parcels should provide the built in ridership needed to support transit. Maximizing development al lows investors to realize the full market potential stimulated by the publics investment in transit.

PAGE 35

Yale Station Area Study 27 17. Promote a mixed use development with office and multi family residential development, with limited amounts of convenience and lifestyle retail. A mix o f employees and residents in the Yale Station Area will optimize transit use by generating peak and off peak transit trips. Providing a variety of land uses within walking distance of each other will also reduce off site trips and support shared parking. For instance, retail services would provide a convenient option for transit users, employees, and residents of adjacent neighborhoods to run daily errands without the use of a car. 18. Encourage development at the Yale Station Area that reflects its positio n in relation to the larger T REX/Southeast Corridor. The market projections for office space, residences and retail development take into account the proximity of the Colorado Boulevard Station, the University Hills retail center, and other nearby develo pments. The projected demand for the next 10 years at the Yale Station Area is: Office 100,000 150,000 sq. ft. Residential 200 250 units Retail 40,000 60,000 sq. ft. 19. Encourage multi family housing to diversify housing options at the Yale Station Area. D esirable types of housing for the station area are senior and assisted living housing. Demographic information further suggests a market for other types of one and two person households. Urban Design 20. Require pedestrian connections within and between all parcels with the development and redevelopment of all parcels in the station area. All sidewalks must be continuous, connecting the station pla tform to the existing sidewalks on Yale Avenue. 21. Provide a public open space network in the station platform, bus boarding areas, streets, and sidewalks. Because of the limited size of the station area, public investment in open space should be restrict ed to the areas mentioned above. Additional plazas and open space may be appropriate as components of private development. 22. Design parking lots and structures so they do not dominate the frontage of pedestrian oriented streets or establish impediments t o pedestrian routes. Encourage development on street side edges of parking structures to decrease the view of the structure. 23. Design ground floor uses of station area buildings t o take advantage of their location near an active tran sit station. Retail or other active uses should be located on the ground floors of parking structures and other buildings in areas of pedestrian activity. Where active first floor uses are not appropriate, provide a clear demarcation between public and p rivate spaces. 24. Make use of site topography. Existing grade changes on the site could facilitate the transition between the single family houses already there and the higher density development coming to the site. Grade changes allow varied building he ights and

PAGE 36

28 Yale Station Area Study entrances at different levels. Structured parking can be built into existing slopes with parking decks at a substantial cost savings compared to underground structured parking. Timing/Phasing 25. Encourage private property owners to direct developm ent at the Yale Station Area. The City of Denver does not expect to take the lead but will facilitate development at the Yale Station Area that is compatible with the goals of transit oriented development. 26. Promote land assemblage. Encouraging the conso lidation of small lots of less than one acre into larger parcels will increase the station areas development potential and increase owners ability to address such issues as drainage, parking, setbacks, bulk planes, etc. If land assemblage does not occur ensure that incremental development by multiple owners does not preclude long term transit oriented development opportunities. 27. Facilitate a long term development strategy. Phasing development in the near mid and long term will enhance the financial feasibility by allowing incremental, market driven changes to build on each other toward a single vision. Prior to the opening of the T REX/ Southeast I 25 Corridor light rail system, near term development should demonstrate compatibility with the future transit station and with the adjoining neighborhood. 28. Plan surface parking lots as temporary uses. Surface parking lots should serve land banking functions, converting the land to other uses, such as mixed uses with consolidated parking, in later phases of development. Implementation Specific actions that proactively implement the Guiding Principles are essential to the full realization of TOD potential in the Yale Station Area. In itself, the introduction of the LRT station could stimulate land develo pment opportunities in and near Yale Station, but it is unlikely to do so alone. Several other factors, such as a strong investment climate combined with flexible public regulations, incentives and, possibly, infrastructure improvements and/or investments should be in place to realize the vision outlined in the Guiding Principles. The following implementation actions describe specific private and public strategies. 1. Explore Zoning Changes that are Consistent with TOD Guiding Principles: Properties with the greatest development and/or redevelopment potential in the Yale Station Area are currently zoned B 2. This type of neighborhood commercial zoning limits opportunities to develop a mix of higher intensity transit oriented uses that are consistent with the Guiding Principles. For instance, B 2 parking requirements restrict opportunities for formal shared parking arrangements. The City is in the process of developing transit mixed use (TMU) zoning that would give teeth to the Guiding Principles. Zoni ng changes should also address a provision for bonuses for higher intensity development, as well as a streamlining of design review and approval processes to stimulate appropriate development.

PAGE 37

Yale Station Area Study 29 2. Consider Public Investments in an LRT Park n Ride Structure: As an inevitable property owner in the Yale Station Area, RTD has considered providing its land as a contribution to a public/private TOD venture. While the City currently has limited investment capabilities to finance infrastructure improvements such as a parking structure, RTD has already committed to making an investment on the site and is therefore better situated to participate in a joint public/private partnership. 3. Identify Additional Financing Mechanisms to Stimulate TOD Implementation: The City currently has a limited number of tools available to promote TOD development. The Citys existing mechanisms include planning, zoning, and infrastructure improvements, but do not include significant financing mechanisms to engage public/private partnersh ips. Implementing a combination of private and public actions could lead to increased system ridership, help create an interesting mix of pedestrian friendly uses, and broaden the areas range of choices in travel, housing, work, and shopping. 4. Study the Feasibility of a Tax Increment Financing Area: Opportunities to institute a tax increment financing area based on property values could be used to fill the potential profit gap of a development program. 5. Develop a Parking Management Program with Arapahoe County: Currently, patron parking in the Yale Station Area is limited to the Study Area. With the opening of the LRT station, however, transit station parking may overflow into surrounding Arapahoe County neighborhoods to the north. The City and County of Denver should consider working with Arapahoe County to develop a parking management program to address these potential impacts. 6. Signalize the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) Intersection with Pedestrian Crossings: The Southeast Corridor EIS noted tha t the Yale Avenue/Yale Circle (west) intersection would require a signal to accommodate projected traffic, even without redevelopment in the station area. In conjunction with a traffic signal, pedestrian crossings of Yale Avenue should be provided on both sides of the intersection. 7. Determine Needed Pedestrian Improvements across I 25: Existing pedestrian connections between the Yale Station Area and Arapahoe County neighborhoods east of I 25 are inadequate and potentially unsafe. In order to improve pede strian connectivity to the site, what types of improvements are necessary should be assisted to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access, allowing neighborhoods on both sides of I 25 to access the light rail station. 8. Pursue Yale Avenue Corridor Improvements : Yale Avenue is currently an unfriendly environment for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. Attached sidewalks are narrow in width and do not provide pedestrians with a sense of safety from vehicular traffic. Potential improvements to Yale Avenue that wo uld create a boulevard effect with safety medians for pedestrians and detached sidewalks should be explored. 9. Reassess the Preliminary Station Design with Respect to Bus Access: Ingress and egress for the Yale Station Area and bus circulation within the site should be evaluated in greater detail. In addition, the proposed design for the bus turnaround in the preliminary engineering plans does not appear to satisfy RTDs

PAGE 38

30 Yale Station Area Study basic guidelines for bus station design. The circular drive proposed means that the rear door of any bus using it would be away from the curb. A design using linear curb (rather than circular) should be developed with either an in line or shallow sawtooth configuration.

PAGE 39

Yale Station Area Study 31 SECTION 4. APPENDICES Appendix A: Traffic Circulation Analysis Proposed Design from Southeast Corridor EIS (Carter & Burgess), 1999 The EIS site plan assumes that the existing Yale Circle alignment would remain. The traffic analysis performed for the EIS did not assume any redevelopment in the station area or its vi cinity. That analysis also indicated that even without redevelopment, the Forest Street/Yale Circle (west) intersection would require signalization to handle future traffic demands. The EIS design did not address the question of how the offset between Fo rest Street and Yale Circle (west) would affect operations or whether the offset should be corrected (presumably by realigning some portion of Yale Circle (west)). Yale Circle Alignment and Connections to Yale Avenue East City and County of Denver (CCD) s taff has recommended examining the option that part of Yale Circle (east) be vacated, and access to Yale Avenue be closed at that location. This action would allow greater contiguous land area for redevelopment just north of Yale Avenue between the I 25 i nterchange and Yale Circle (west), and would concentrate all inbound and outbound access to the station and redeveloped parcels at a single intersection (Yale Circle (west)). The main premise supporting the closure is the proximity of the Yale Circle (eas t) intersection to the I 25 southbound interchange ramp intersection (about 200 feet). While that proximity can be a significant issue for stopping sight distance and for traffic progression if the intersection is signalized, those concerns can be address ed in some cases. Here, the intersection would not be signalized. The Total gas station parcel currently has two driveway curb cuts to Yale Avenue between Yale Circle (east) and the ramp junction signal. When this parcel is redeveloped, the driveways f or the gas station should be closed. Adequate sight distance can be maintained with Yale Circle (east) remaining open. If sight distance and proximity to I 25 continue to be significant issues for this intersection, closure of access to certain movement s should be considered. In particular, southbound left turns would pose the biggest problem and face the most delay at the intersection. It might also be considered that the intersection allow inbound traffic only, consolidating all outbound traffic acti vity at the west intersection. Finally, restricting the intersection to inbound transit buses only could provide opportunities for improved bus circulation as well. West The CCD has suggested that the project team examine the option of realigning Yale Cir cle (west) so that it intersects Yale Avenue at the same point as Forest Street to the south. This would create a conventional four leg intersection that would lend itself better to signalization than the existing offset configuration. The EIS noted th at the intersection would require a signal in the proposed condition (station), even without the consideration of redevelopment in the station area. EIS analysis also concluded that the signal would not introduce traffic progression problems along Yale Av enue. It is likely

PAGE 40

32 Yale Stat ion Area Study that the intersection would be signalized, but realignment of the Yale Circle Approach with Forest Street is not currently being considered. Pedestrian crossings of Yale Avenue at the intersection could be provided on both sides of the i ntersection. Neighborhood Traffic South of Yale Avenue Potential improvements for access to the Yale station area could involve restrictions to certain left turn movements in and out of the streets that serve the neighborhood south of Yale Avenue (primari ly Glencoe and Forest Streets). For example, the signalization of the Yale Circle (west) intersections could create a complex situation for traffic and pedestrians if northbound left turns from Forest Street are still permitted. Also, northbound left turns from Glencoe Street would probably be prohibited if the eastbound left turn from Yale Avenue in to the station area (via Yale Circle (east)) is restricted to buses only. In either case, the City and County of Denver would decide whether turn restrictions are warranted. Bus Access and Circulation The proposed design for the bus stop in the preliminary engineering plans would not appear to satisfy RTDs basic guidelines for bus station design. The circular drive proposed means that the rear door of any bus using it would be away from the curb. A design using linear curb (rather than circular) should be used with either an in line or shallow sawtooth configuration. If buses operate on Yale Circle, on street parking would probably be prohibited wherever buses operate. A more secondary concern is whether the use of articulated buses would affect the street design. If buses only use Yale Circle in one direction, on street parking might be permissible in the other direction. Another benefit of one way bus circulation (if its counter clockwise) is that buses would not make a left turn from Yale Circle into the station area. Eliminating this left turn (180 degrees) from the design proposed in the preliminary engineering plans means that the bus lane at the station would not intrude as far into the pedestrian and amenity portion of the station area. If the east Yale Circle intersection is closed, all bus ingress and egress would occur at the west intersection. If not, there are several alternatives for bu s access. Buses from the east would probably enter at the east intersection (right turn) and leave through the west intersection (right turn). If one way bus circulation on Yale Circle is desirable, buses from the west would also enter at the east inters ection (left turn) and leave at the west intersection (left turn). If not, buses from the west might use the west intersection for both ingress and egress. It should not be considered likely that buses would be allowed to make a left turn out of the east intersection because it would not be signalized. Eliminating Yale Circle One concept that has not been explored in detail is the complete reconfiguration of the property access that is currently provided by Yale Circle. In concept, this is what happens if the east intersection with Yale Avenue is closed. If the street connection between Yale Avenue and the LRT station is configured more directly, much greater contiguous development parcel area could be achieved, and more logical parking arrangements cou ld be made for both tenants and station users. The feasibility of this concept depends somewhat on the location of existing utility connections. Further analysis is needed before determining if it is cost prohibitive to relocate the existing utilities th at currently align with the public right of way of Yale Circle or if it is possible to build around the utilities in their current location.

PAGE 41

Yale Station Area Study 33 Appendix B: Market and Economic Analysis Underlying Assumptions and Considerations Economics of Transit Suppor tive Development Perceived Higher Risk Since Limited Examples in Market Greater Market Depth and Diversity Lower Land Costs Per Unit Lower Infrastructure Costs Lower On Going Maintenance Higher Sales Per Square Foot Higher Values (Including Residual) Broa der, More Balanced Tax Base Greater Profits Over Long Term Physical Size Limitations of Site Ability to Accommodate Program With Identity and Activity Generation Stations Ability to Serve as Gateway to Area Development Blending Urban Station Area With Suburban Development -Mixed Use, Higher Density, Lower Parking Ratios, Pedestrian Connections Programming Uses Which Support Multiple Markets Transit, Neighborhood, Auto Within Confined Area Barriers Requiring City Participation Curb Cuts, Road Alignment, Street Lights, Orientation of Bus Drop and Platform Regulatory (assumptions) City Commitment to Appropriate Mix of Uses Where Feasible, Variety of Housing Products Encouraged Unique Financing Mechanisms and Regulatory Processes Available Cor ridor Specific Land Use Designations -Density and Compatibility Rather Than Use Alone High Standard of Design Consistently Maintained Internal Regulatory Process(es) Streamlined *Fee credits, shared parking, lower ratios

PAGE 42

34 Yale Stat ion Area Study Market Development Pressure s From Interstate 25 Corridor and Southeast Metro Area Corridor Recognized as Linear Market With Unique Submarkets Principal Competition -Other Stations Within Corridor, Developments Within Impact Area 2 Market Will Respond to Presence of Station, Yet W ithin Context of Neighborhood Relationship to Other Stations Overflow Location for Office Market at Colorado Station Intensification of Retail Opportunities Limited by Competition and Prevailing Orientation Precedence for Vertical/Dense Residential Oppo rtunities Among Older Properties Age of Competitive Residential Products, Limited Supply of Attached Ownership Limitations on DRCOG Projections and Resolution with Census Figures Fair Share Analysis From Within Impact Area (I 25 Corridor South) and Denve r County Adjusted Supportable Space 10 years: Residential: 200 to 250 units (2% to 7%) Office: 100,000 to 150,000 sf (5% to 15%) Retail: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (5% to 20%) Flex: 40,000 to 60,000 sf (3% to 5%) Public Spaces, Civic Uses 2 Neighborhoods adjacent to I 25, south of Broadway and north of Belleview.

PAGE 43

Yale Station Area Study 35 Issues for Co nsideration Physical Issues Surrounding land uses Planned station area design Parking requirements of existing uses Adjacency to I 25 Corridor, LRT, University Hills Proximity to Colorado and Hampden stations Connections to/isolation from neighborhoods Co ndition of off site improvements Environmental impacts Regulatory Issues Southeast Corridor EIS (design/build in progress) Neighborhood Plan Nature of property ownership Neighborhoods desire for weekday uses Stations role within the region (parking an d/or development) Land Use & Transportation Plan Mixed Use Area of Change Incentives for infill development Limits on growth legislation Inclusionary zoning Vacation of street Adjacent jurisdictions Financial Issues Potential cost of cleanup Potenti al for public participation in infrastructure Qualifying conditions for urban renewal Access to transportation funds Increasing property values in area Empirical evidence: increase in value among transit served properties; higher occupancy rates; higher r ates of increase in commercial rents; increases in housing unit pricing Potential need for additional property acquisition Market Issues Established perception of area Concentrations of middle market sf detached housing nearby Established and expanding ne ighborhood infrastructure Strength of Colorado Station as an office location Proximity to University Hills Timing of improvements

PAGE 45

Yale Station Area Study 37

PAGE 47

Yale Station Area Study 39 D EMOGRAPHIC P ROFILE Population 1990 2001 2006 CAAGR 3 1990 01 CAAGR 2001 06 2001 Population by Age <19 20 24 25 34 3 5 44 45 54 55> Median Yale Trade Area 37,884 41,597 42,821 0.85% 0.58% Yale Trade Area 20.0% 4.9% 13.9% 18.8% 15.6% 26.7% 41.0 I 25 Corridor 92,519 102,388 105,688 0.93% 0.64% I 25 Corridor 19.3% 4.5% 13.9% 19.3% 16.3% 25.9% 41.0 Denver County 467,610 560,542 593,475 1.70% 1.20% Denver County 26.3% 5.1% 14.9% 17.6% 14.0% 22.0% 37.0 Denver MSA 1,622,997 2,106,181 2,276,371 2.40% 1.60% Denver MSA 28.0% 5.6% 14.3% 17.8% 14.5% 19.7% 36.2 Households 1990 2001 2006 CAAGR 1 990 01 CAAGR 2001 06 Housing Units (Actual Increase) 1990 01 2001 06 Yale Trade Area 18,900 20,976 21,714 0.95% 0.69% Yale Trade Area 2,011 827 I 25 Corridor 46,210 50,983 52,746 0.90% 0.68% I 25 Corridor 4,494 1,960 Denver County 210 ,952 252,897 267,768 1.70% 1.20% Denver County 42,588 16,988 Denver MSA 650,231 867,488 945,562 2.70% 1.70% Denver MSA 23,499 89,076 Average Household Size 1990 2001 2006 1990 Households by HH Type Male +0 Femal e +0 Marrie d Other Fam Non Fam Yale Trade Area 1.93 1.91 1.9 Yale Trade Area 1.5% 3.6% 40.8% 3.8% 50.2% I 25 Corridor 1.96 1.96 1.96 I 25 Corridor 1.3% 3.6% 41.6% 4.0% 49.5% Denver County 2.17 2.18 2.18 Denver County 1.8% 4.5% 37.7% 8.3% 47.7% De nver MSA 2.46 2.4 2.38 Denver MSA 1.5% 3.7% 52.0% 8.0% 34.8% 3 CAAGR = Compound Annual Ave rage Growth Rate

PAGE 48

40 Yale Station Area Study D EMOGRAPHIC P ROFILE ( CONT .) P ER C APITA I NCOME 1989 2001 CAAGR 4 1989 01 Median HH Income 1989 2001 CAAGR 1989 01 Yale Trade Area $19,417 $36,739 5.5% $30,3 93 $55,058 5.1% I 25 Corridor $21,897 $42,054 5.6% $32,723 $62,176 5.5% Denver County $15,563 $30,542 5.8% $25,142 $46,962 5.3% Denver MSA $16,072 $30,196 5.4% $31,958 $56,419 4.9% 2001 HH by HH Income <$24,999 $25,000 $34,999 $3 5,000 $49,999 $50,000 $74,999 $75,000 $99,999 $100,000 $149,999 $150,000> Yale Trade Area 18.1% 12.2% 14.7% 21.3% 13.2% 12.0% 8.6% I 25 Corridor 14.6% 9.8% 14.5% 21.5% 14.4% 13.4% 11.9% Denver County 25.8% 11.5% 15.0% 19.1% 11.6% 9.7% 7.2% Denver MSA 18.8% 10.0% 14.9% 21.9% 14.6% 11.8% 8.0% 2001 Owner Occ HH by Value <$74,999 $75,000 99,999 $100,000 $149,999 $150,000 $199,999 $200,000 $299,999 $300,000 $499,999 $500,000> Yale Trade Area 0.9% 2.5% 37. 3% 33.6% 17.9% 6.8% 1.0% I 25 Corridor 1.2% 2.9% 29.3% 32.1% 23.3% 8.6% 2.6% Denver County 6.5% 14.5% 37.4% 22.5% 12.1% 4.7% 2.1% Denver MSA 4.5% 9.5% 36.2% 25.5% 16.0% 5.9% 2.3% 4 CAAGR = Compound Annual Average Growth Rate

PAGE 49

Yale Station Area Study 41 M ARKET C HARACTERISTICS Commercial Retail Supply Conditions Y ear End 2000/99 Total Square Feet Vacant Square Feet Total SF Single Ten Small Strip Large Strip Total SF Single Ten. Small Strip Large Strip Denver Metro Area 5 64,748,900 7,460,900 10,720,100 34,310,100 3,555,600 372,100 645,100 2,073,300 Southeast Submarket 6 4,916,700 700,000 1,572,900 2,479,400 243,900 0 79,000 113,900 % of Total 7.6% 9.4% 14.7% 7.2% 6.9% 0.0% 12.3% 5.5% Absorption Vacant Percent Total SF Single Ten Small Strip Large Strip Total SF Single Ten. Small Strip Large Strip Denver Metro Area 1,673,000 213,200 82,200 1,187,800 5.5%/5.8% 5.0%/6.2% 6.0%/5.9% 6.0%/6.0% Southeast Submarket (25,800) 0 22,900 (23,600) 5.0%/4.4% 0.0%/0.0% 5.1%/6.5% 4.6%/3.6% % of Total (1.5%) 0.0% 27.9% (2.0%) ----Southeast Rental Rates S mall Strip $10 $20 Large Strip $12 $24 Metro Range $7 $40 Operating Expenses $2 $3 5 Denver Metro Area = 5 Counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson 6 Southeast Submarket = Area south of 6 th Avenue; west of Havana; north of Hampden and east of University.

PAGE 50

42 Yale Station Area Study M ARKET C HARACTERISTICS Commercial Retail Demand 2000 Trade Area 7 Households: 21,930 2005 Trade Area Households: 22,473 2010 Trade Area Households: 24,170 Hou sehold Growth: 2000 to 2005 543 2005 to 2010 1,697 Annual Average HH Expenditures:* 2000 to 2005 ** $14,700 2005 to 2010 ** $18,700 Aggregate Sales Potential from HH Growth: 2000 to 2005 $7,982,100 2005 to 2010 $31,733,900 Imported Sales from Ou tside Trade Area: 20% Total Trade Area Sales Potential: 2000 to 2005 $9,578,520 2005 to 2010 $38,080,680 Total Trade Area Supportable Retail SF: 2000 to 2005 45,000 to 65,000 2005 to 2010 115,000 to 135,000 Includes purchases for goods typic ally purchased within a Community Center. ** Figures adjusted to reflect inflation. 7 Includes University, University Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village and Cory Merrill neighborhoods.

PAGE 51

Yale Station Area Study 43 Market Characteristics Commercial Office Supply Conditions Year End 2000/99 Total Square Feet Vacant Square Feet Total SF Class A Class B Class C Total Vacant SF Cl ass A Class B Class C Denver Metro Area 78,133,300 36,425,400 29,296,400 12,411,500 6,438,500 2,840,500 2,602,900 995,100 Southeast Submarket 8 8,887,400 2,345,300 4,546,500 1,995,600 764,000 389,200 208,700 166,100 % of Total 11.4% 6.4% 15.5% 16.1% 11.9% 13.7% 8.0% 16.7% Absorption Vacant Percent Total SF Class A Class B Class C % Vacant Class A Class B Class C Denver Metro Area 3,045,900 3,078,600 (200,500) 167,800 8.2%/8.3% 7.8%/8.2% 8.9%/7.9% 8.0%/9.6% Southeast Submarket 137,900 79,900 27,000 31 ,000 8.6%/8.5% 16.6%/14.9% 4.6%/4.7% 8.3%/9.9% % of Total 4.5% 2.6% % 18.5% ----Owner Occupied Total SF Southeast Rental Rates Denver Metro Area 16,705,200 Class A $20 $28 Southeast Submarket 1,982,000 Class B $18 $22 % of Total % Metro Range $8 $35 Operating Expenses $5 $7 8 Southeast Submarket = Area south of 6 th Avenue; west of I 225; north of Hampden and east of Sheridan.

PAGE 52

44 Yale Station Area Study M ARKET C HARACTERISTICS Commercial Office Demand 2000 Trade Area Employment*: 9 71,814 2005 Trade Area Employment*: 75,001 2010 Trade Area Employment*: 76,026 Total Employment Growth: 2000 to 2005 3,187 2005 to 2010 1,025 Annual Average Increase: 2000 to 2005 637 2005 to 2010 205 Annual Demand for Office Space Employees (65%): 2000 to 2005 414 2005 to 2010 133 Office Square Feet Per Employee: 200 Total Trade Area Annual Office Demand: 2000 to 2005 75,000 to 100,000 2005 to 2010 25,000 to 50,000 Includes self employed workers 9 Includes University, Un iversity Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village, Cory Merrill, Hampden, Southmoor Park, and Hampden South neighborhoods.

PAGE 53

Yale Station Area Study 45 M ARKET C HARACTERISTICS Industrial Supply Conditions Year End 2000/99 Total Square Feet Vacant Square Feet Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Mult i R&D Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D Denver Metro Area 74,422,800 49,735,300 5,232,000 13,163,800 2,470,200 3,733,800 335,400 1,203,600 Central Submarket 10 17,845,400 7,130,900 392,400 660,200 393,900 367,600 0 0 % of Total 24.0% 14.3% 7.5% 5.0% 16.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% Absorption Vacant Percent Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D Single/Ware Multi/Ware Single R&D Multi R&D Denver Metro Area 221,500 3,659,000 9,200 661,500 3.3%/3.4% 7.5%/11.2% 6.4%/5.9% 9.1%/8.4% Centr al Submarket 358,900 150,800 0 (9,100) 2.2%/4.2% 5.2%/7.3% 0.0%/0.0% 8.5%/7.2% % of Total 162.0% 4.1% 0.0% (1.4%) ----Metro Rental Rate Range Central Rental Rates Single Tenant Warehouse $2.75 $9.00 Single Tenant Warehouse $2.75 $6.25 Multi Tenant Warehouse $3.00 $9.00 Multi Tenant Warehouse $4.00 $7.00 Single Tenant R&D $4.75 $14.00 Single Tenant R&D $4.75 $7.00 Multi Tenant R&D $4.25 $14.25 Multi Tenant R&D $4.25 $7.00 Operating Expenses $2 $3 10 Central Submarket = Area south of I 76; west of Colorado Boulevard; approximately north of Alameda and east o f Sheridan.

PAGE 54

46 Yale Station Area Study M ARKET C HARACTE RISTICS Industrial Demand 2000 Trade Area Employment*: 71,814 2005 Trade Area Employment*: 75,001 2010 Trade Area Employment*: 76,026 Total Employment Growth: 2000 to 2005 3,187 2005 to 2010 1,025 Annual Average Increase: 2000 to 2005 637 20 05 to 2010 205 Annual Demand for Industrial Space Employees (20%): 2000 to 2005 127 2005 to 2010 41 Industrial Square Feet Per Employee: 350 Total Trade Area Annual Industrial Demand: 2000 to 2005 40,000 to 60,000 2005 to 2010 10,000 to 30,000 Includes self employed workers.

PAGE 55

Yale Station Area Study 47 Market Characteristics Attached Ownership Residential Supply Conditions 2000 New Home Sales by County Adams 16% Arapahoe 21% Boulder 14% Denver 12% Douglas 27% Jefferson 10% Top Selling Single Builder Subdivisions by Zip Code Attached Units by Avg Price 3 rd 80231 $139.5 5 th 80231 $136.3 7 th 80231 $261.0 12 th 80204 $289.3 19 th 80218 $390.4 21 st 80231 $155.0 27 th 80203 $610.0 Recorded Home Closings New Home Demand by Price Band Under $100K 0% $100K $125K 2% $125K $150K 13% $150K $175K 9% $175K $200K 14% $200K $225K 15% $2 25K $250K 10% $250K $300K 13% $300K $400K 14% $400K $500K 6% Over $500K 5% Top 25 Selling Zip Code Areas 1st 80126 10.2% 24th 80304 0.4% 80231 Lowry Field/ W indsor 80204 Sun Valley 80218 Cap Hi ll/Cheesman Pk 80203 Civic Ctr/Cap Hill 80236 Fort Logan 29 th 80204 $175.3 30 th 80231 $234.5 34 th 80236 $238.2 Rental Residential Supply Conditions 2000/99 Vacancy Rate by County Adams 5.2%/4.3% Arapahoe 5.1%/3.9% Boulder 3.8%/8.8% Denver 4.7%/4.3% Douglas 11.0%/3.8% Jefferson 3.4%/4.6% Metro Avg 4.9%/4.5% Average Rents by County and Unit Type Denver Eff $46 3 1 br $634 2 br/1 ba $751 2 br/2 ba $923 3 br $1001 All $717 Metro Eff $496 1 br $655 2 br/1 ba $753 2 br/2 ba $921 3 br $1 008 All $752 Denver South Central Submarket Statistics Vacancy Rate 3.5%/2.2% Average Rents 1 br $458 2 br/1 ba $661 3 br $823 All $594 Rent P er SF by County and Unit Type Denver Eff $1.09 1 br $0.98 2 br/1 ba $0.86 2 br/2 ba $0.88 3 br $0.76 All $0.91 Metro Eff $1.10 1 br $1.00 2 br/1 ba $0.86 2 br/2 ba $0.89 3 br $0.83 All $0.92

PAGE 56

48 Yale Station Area Study M ARKET C HARACTERISTICS Attached Ownership Residential Demand Housing Sale Price Range: $125,000 $ 175,000 HH Income Range: $40,000 $55,000 2000 Trade Area Households: 11 21,930 2005 Trade Area Households: 22,473 2010 Trade Area Households: 24,170 Total New Trade Area Households: 2,240 Estimated Percent of New Housing Units: 30% Total Trade Area Demand for New Attached Ownership Housing Units: 672 Annual Trade Area Demand for New Attached Ownership Housing Units: 65 to 85 Rental Residential Demand Housing Monthly Rent Rang e: $800 $1,200 HH Income Range: $30,000 $50,000 2000 Trade Area Households: 21,930 2005 Trade Area Households: 22,473 2010 Trade Area Households: 24,170 Total New Trade Area Households: 2,240 Estimated Percent of New Housing Units: 30% Total Trade Area Demand for New Rental Housing Units: 672 Annual Trade Area Demand for New Rental Housing Units: 65 to 85 11 Includes University, University Park, Wellshire, University Hills, Goldsmith, Virginia Village and Cory Merrill neighborhoods.

PAGE 57

Yale Station Area Study 49 Appendix C: Analysis o f Alternative Development Scenarios Several development scenarios were produced based on projected market demand in the area and the ability of the site to absorb higher densities. Several conceptual plans were prepared, refined by the stakeholders, and e valuated through development proformas to understand what mix of uses that would produce a realistic profit. The following figure conceptually illustrates a hybrid of the scenarios described below: Scenario 1 Key characteristics of Scenario 1 include th e following: Existing office structures and related surface parking along the interior of Yale Circle remain. The strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle and the church parking lot immediately north of it are redeveloped w ith a mix of retail and mid density retail uses. In this scenario, second story housing may be developed above first floor retail stores.

PAGE 58

50 Yale Station Area Study The vacant land along the northwest corner of Yale Circle is developed as a park n Ride, with either surface parking or a parking structure for joint use by church and light rail patrons. The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped with a mix of multi story office and residential uses with associated structured parking. T he northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped with a multi story office building and associated structured parking. Scenario 2 Key characteristics of Scenario 2 include the following: The new Koelbel office structure and related surface parking north of Yale Avenue within the interior of Yale Circle remain. The two older office buildings are redeveloped with either multi story office or housing with associated structured parking. The strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle remains. The church parking lot and vacant land immediately north of the lot is redeveloped with either surface parking or a parking structure for joint use by church and light rail patrons. The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped with a mix of multi story office and residential uses with associated structured parking.

PAGE 59

Yale Station Area Study 51 The northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station p laza, is developed as a park n Ride, with either surface parking or a parking structure for light rail patrons. Scenario 3 Key characteristics of Scenario 3 include the following: The new Koelbel office structure north of Yale Avenue within the interior of Yale Circle remains. The associated surface parking lot and remainder of land within the interior of Yale Circle redevelops with a mix of multi story office uses and structured parking for joint use by office tenants and patrons and light rail patrons. The strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle is redeveloped with a mix of senior housing, retail, and associated parking. The church parking lot immediately north of the existing retail center remains. The vacant land along the northwest corner of Yale Circle is developed with mid density housing i.e., townhouses, and associated parking. The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped with a mix of multi story office or resident ial uses with associated structured parking. The northeast corner of Yale Circle, immediately north of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped with a mix of multi story office or residential uses with associated structured parking.

PAGE 60

52 Yale Station Area Study Scenario 4 Key char acteristics of Scenario 4 include the following: The new Koelbel office structure and associated parking north of Yale Avenue within the interior of Yale Circle remains. The remainder of land within the interior of Yale Circle redevelops as surface parking for light rail patrons. The strip retail center on the west corner of Yale Avenue and Yale Circle remains. The church parking lot, vacant land immediately north of the lot, and vacant land along the northwest corner of Yale Circle is redeveloped with either surface parking or a parking structure for joint use by church and light rail patrons. The area east of Yale Circle, immediately south of a light rail station plaza, is redeveloped as either surface parking or a parking structure for light rail pat rons. The Total gas station north of Yale Avenue and east of Yale Circle remains.