Citation
Cherry Creek greenway master plan, volume 1

Material Information

Title:
Cherry Creek greenway master plan, volume 1
Creator:
BRW, Inc.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
Department of Parks and Recreation, City and County of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parks -- Planning
Outdoor recreation
Spatial Coverage:
Denver -- Cherry Creek

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
CHERRY CREEK
GREEN WAY MASTER PLAN
Volume 1 -A Concept for the Eight-Mile Corridor from
University Boulevard to the Cherry Creek Reservoir
Prepared for:
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
Department of Parks and Recreation
Transportation Planning Department the Public Works Division
Prepared By:
BRW, Inc. in association with
Shapins Associates, Inc
ERO Resources Corporation
Bramhall & Associates, Inc.
May 24, 2000


Cherry Creek Greenway Corridor
Master Plan Report
SECTION 1;
SECTION 2:
SECTION 3:
SECTION 4:
SECTION 5:
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING BACKGROUND
Purpose, Vision and Goals
History and Context
Planning Considerations and
Assumptions
Relationship to Adopted Plans
Planning Process and Approach
Corridor Issues
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS
Participation Goals and Objectives
Local Jurisdiction and Agency
Participation
General Public Participation
Newsletters, Mailings and Public
Communication
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Parks, Recreation and Open
Space
Natural Environment and Water
Resources
Transportation Patterns and
Traffic Conditions
Land Use and Neighborhood
Character
PROJECT ISSUES, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
Summary of Issues and Concerns
Related Planning and
Development Trends
Summary of Master Plan Goals
and Objectives
Master Plan Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria and Planning
Considerations
SECTION 6; "PREFERRED" MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Vision for the Corridor
Common Master Plan Elements
Reach One Master Plan
Components
Reach Two Master Plan
Components
Reach Three Master Plan
components
SECTION 7: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Magnitude of Costs of Plan
Implementation
Potential Funding Sources
Implementation Tools,
Techniques, and Strategies
Priority Action Plan and Phasing
Considerations


1
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the 12-month public
planning process for the Cherry Creek
Greenway, a variety of citizen issues
and concerns, short-term and long-term
objectives, governmental agency
positions, and neighborhood agendas
have been raised and considered. Given
this diversity of often conflicting
concerns, and in consideration of
environmental, parks and open space,
and transportation conditions within the
corridor, it would be impossible to
develop a master plan that would
completely meet all of the desires of all
stakeholders.
The ultimate challenge of the study,
however, was not a plan that balanced
issues. The primary focus of the study
was to development a long-range
greenway master plan and long-term
implementation strategy for the corridor
that best serves the overall
neighborhood and community. At the
same time, the Plan needed to provide a
sound planning framework within
which the natural environment could be
maintained and enhanced, pedestrian
and vehicular safety could be improved,
and parks and recreational resources
could be safely accessed from adjacent
neighborhoods and the community.
In working with the community
constituents involved in this planning
effort, understanding and considering
"trade-offs," therefore, became one of
the guiding principles in formulating a
plan that could win the broadest
support within the community.
Improvement of overall neighborhood
quality of life, safe access and use of
parks and recreational facilities, and
long-term solutions to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic conflicts and safety
concerns required that all parties accept
less in order to gain significantly.
1


Section Two of this Report summarizes the
assumptions under which the study was
conducted, and discusses the overall goals and
objectives, and corridor issues important in
understanding the Plan recommendations.
Section Three highlights the public engagement
process undertaken, which include participation by
hundreds of residents and business leaders who live,
work, and play in the corridor, and who have a direct
interest in how the corridor is improved. It also
discusses some of the planning issues identified by
local governmental agencies within the City and
County of Denver, Glendale, and Arapahoe County,
the three jurisdictions within the corridor, as well as
regional and state agencies that participated in the
process.
Section Four provides a summary of the significant
existing conditions that framed the Plan, including
conditions related to parks and open space, the
natural environment, transportation patterns and
traffic conditions, and land use and neighborhood
character.
Section Five provides a summary of all issues and
concerns raised by participants throughout the 12-
month public planning process, and describes three
Plan Alternatives prepared to test a variety of plan
elements for consideration in the plan development.
Section Six describes and illustrates the Preferred
Master Plan recommended by the Consultant, based
on the results of the study, with elements common to
the entire corridor, as well as plan components
identified for each of the three reaches of the
corridor.
Section Seven, then discusses probable costs for
implementation of the Plan, as well as potential
funding sources. A Priority Action Plan is also
provided that identifies priorities for planning
activities, design and engineering, and construction
of the proposed improvements. Improvements
generally include the following, elements within each
of the three planning reaches.
Plan Element by Reach l 2 3

Street Improvements Y Y Y
Increase Travel Lanes N N N
Round About Y Y N
Landscaped Median/Tum Bays Y Y N
Intersection Improvements Y Y Y
Street Vacation Y Y Y
Street Realignment Y Y N
Sidewalks Y Y Y
Commuter Bike Path Y Y Y
Recreational Path Y Y Y
Soft Trails Y Y Y
Pedestrian Bridge Y Y Y
Pedestrian Safety Improvements Y Y Y
Increased Park Acreage Y Y Y
Off-Street Parking Y Y Y
On-Street Parking Y Y Y
Open Space Acquisition N Y Y
2


PURPOSE, VISION, AND GOALS
2
PLANNING BACKGROUND
Cherry Creek, from the Cherry Creek
Reservoir to its confluence with the South
Platte River in downtown Denver, meanders
through twelve miles of diverse vegetation
and wildlife habitats, rural, suburban, and
urban developments, three governmental
jurisdictions, seven neighborhoods, and
public as well as privately-controlled lands.
As one of the last remaining natural
environments within an otherwise
urbanized setting, the Cherry Creek corridor
provides a unique opportunity to become
one of the metropolitan area's major open-
space resources connecting our
neighborhoods, providing recreational
opportunities, and helping to establish the
"sense of place" that we all seek.
The purpose of the Cherry Creek Greenway
Corridor Master Plan is to develop an
overall master plan for the eight-mile
portion of Cherry Creek between University
Boulevard and the Cherry Creek Dam that
will (1) firmly establish the long-term
protection and enhancement of its
environmental resources; (2) provide safe
and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and
recreational access into and through the
corridor; (3) expand opportunities for open
space; (4) improve transportation corridors
for safe neighborhood and local business
access and transit opportunities, and (5)
redefine the corridor as a local and
community-serving amenity for residents
and visitors.
The future "vision" of the corridor is one
that promotes a high quality of life for local
neighborhoods, not only in terms of safe
access and enjoyable use of the Cherry
Creek corridor, but also one that improves
the ability to safely travel within the
community between residential, shopping
and business locations, community facilities,
social outlets, and other nearby destinations.
Protection and enhancement of the natural
environment, as well as the creation of
convenient and safe pedestrian and
vehicular linkages to community resources,
3


serve as the guiding principals of this
planning effort.
The program for the development of the
Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan was
designed to include:
Framework Plans, to establish
approaches and concepts for:
Protection and enhancement of
environmental resources.
Coordination of parks, recreation, and
open-space resources.
Safe and efficient transportation
systems.
Appropriate land-use recommendations.
Recommended Priority Action Plan, to
consider:
Implementation tools and techniques.
Partnerships and other funding
opportunities and management.
Roles and responsibilities for
implementation.
Drive. Settlement occurred around "mile
houses," established to service travelers
along this route. Four-Mile House remains
a lasting reminder and an important historic
marker within the Greenway.
Frequent flooding of the entire area has been
documented throughout its history. The
construction of the Cherry Creek Dam,
completed in 1950, and subsequent urban
drainage stabilization projects have
significantly reduced the likelihood of
flooding. As a major responsibility of the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
and Denver Wastewater Management,
however, flood control remains one of
Cherry Creek's primary functions.
Today, Cherry Creek represents a green
"seam" that ties together a variety of
communities and resources. It is a valued
recreation area, providing trails, natural
areas, and parks considered among the most
popular in the region. It is home to diverse
wildlife and is part of a natural corridor that
supports migration of birds, waterfowl, and
small mammals.
HISTORY AND CONTEXT
Historically, Cherry Creek has served as one
of the major corridors along which the
Denver metropolitan area has developed.
As early as 1859, Cherry Creek was
established as a transportation route for
settlers and carriages travelling from the
Arkansas River to the evolving cities of
Denver and Auraria. The Middle Smoky
Hill Trail was located in the vicinity of
present-day Parker Road and Leetsdale
It also remains an important transportation
link serving local neighborhoods and the
southeast quadrant of the metro area.
Given its proximity to Glendale, Cherry
Creek Shopping Center, and various local
businesses, the corridor continues to be used
primarily as a neighborhood-serving
transportation route. Although not
designated as an regional arterial roadway,
Cherry Creek Drive is sometimes perceived
as an alternative route for residents of the
southeastern portions of the metropolitan
A


area working downtown and in other parts
of the City.1
Where once stage coaches and horses
traveled along the banks of Cherry Creek,
now automobile and bicycle commuters use
the Creek to travel to downtown
employment and local businesses, and
neighbors walk and jog the trails, walk their
dogs, and stroll with their children and
grandchildren.
Over the years, use of the corridor has
increased as growth has continued to
expand in the southeast quadrant. As a
result, local neighborhoods have been
impacted by traffic congestion, noise, and
air pollution, as well as impacts on the
corridor's natural environment from
erosion, increased passive and active
recreational activities, and incompatible
uses. In addition, these changes have raised
serious concerns about the corridor's
sustainability and pedestrian and vehicular
safety. This study, therefore, was
undertaken to address these and other
issues affecting the quality of the corridor,
reemphasizing and redefining its role as a
recreational and environmental resource
and local transportation link within the
community.
1 Traffic models conducted as part of the planning process
indicate that over__% of trips in the area are generated by local
residents, and only_% could be attributed to commuter" traffic.
5


PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND
ASSUMPTIONS
The Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan
Study focuses on the approximate eight-
mile-long portion of Cherry Creek between
University Boulevard on the west and the
Cherry Creek Reservoir on the south and
east. The study area encompasses a wide
range of environmental, recreational, land-
use, and transportation conditions and
issues. Major transportation corridors
within the study area include the following
intersections of Cherry Creek Drives North
and South: University Boulevard, Colorado
Boulevard, Cherry Street, Kentucky
Avenue, Mississippi Avenue, Holly Street,
Monaco Boulevard, Quebec Street, and Iliff
Avenue.
While other major routes in the vicinity are
taken into consideration in terms of traffic
modeling and mobility opportunities, they
are not studied in detail as part of this
planning effort. Previous studies that
addressed broader transportation issues,
however, have been considered as they
relate to the Cherry Creek corridor. These
studies include the Southeast Quadrant
Transportation Study and the Central
Denver Transportation Study. This Master
Plan Report, in fact, considers a segment of
the Central Denver Transportation Study
which was identified for more detailed
planning analysis and recommendations.2
To address the different natural and man-
made conditions and issues resulting from
those conditions, the Planning Area was
segmented into three major "reaches" as
described here:
Reach One: University Boulevard to
Colorado Boulevard a mixed-use area
with a variety of business and medium-
to high-density single-family
residential uses, where traffic and
access are primary concerns.
Reach Two: Colorado Boulevard to
Monaco Boulevard a mixed-use area
with medium- to high-density single-
family/multi-family residential uses
and a variety of business /office uses,
where safety, access, and transportation
patterns are major issues.
Reach Three: Monaco Boulevard to
Cherry Creek Dam a more suburban
residential area, with light industrial
uses, open space, and lower density
developments, where maintenance of
open space and trails are the major
issues.
2 Central Denver Transportation Study, dated May, 1998 page 67
6


Designated neighborhoods within or
adjacent to the corridor include Cherry
Creek, Belcaro, Virginia Village, Virginia
Vale, Indian Creek, and Hampden. Other
neighborhoods interested in the study
include Country Club, Capital Hill,
Washington Park, and Washington.
Governmental jurisdictions considered as
part of the study include the City and
County of Denver, City of Glendale, and
Arapahoe County. Figure 2-2 illustrates the
general area considered within the planning
effort.
Since the Cherry Creek Greenway Master
Plan was intended to provide a more in-
depth look at and specific recommendations
for an area previously addressed in the
Central Denver Transportation Study, it was
determined that this study would not make
recommendations that:
Attempt to solve park or transportation
issues outside the study area.
Alter the flood control function or
capacity of the corridor.
Revisit recent transportation studies,
conclusions, and/or decisions,
specifically the issues of:
An Alameda Bridge or Steele Street
Bridge across the Creek.
* The rerouting of traffic west of
Colorado Boulevard from Cherry
Creek South Drive to Cherry Creek
North Drive, east of Alameda
Avenue.
* An extension of Cherry Creek Drive
south of Iliff Avenue to Hampden
Boulevard.
RELATIONSHIP TO ADOPTED PLANS
Plans adopted by the City and County of
Denver, Arapahoe County, and the City of
Glendale served as a partial basis for
various study components of the Cherry
Creek Greenway Master Plan. Other
studies, although not officially adopted,
were also considered in formulation of
alternative plans for the corridor. These
include the following:
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Protecting Denver's Natural Areas -
City and County of Denver (CCD),
1995
* Natural Areas Within the Denver
Parks and Recreation System -
CCD, 1995
7


Environmental and Water Resources
Transportation
Cherry Creek Stabilization Plan -
Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District (UDFCD), 1999
Cherry Creek Flood Control and
Recreation Master Plan UDFCD,
1977
^ Denver Regional Council of
Governments Open Space Vision
2020,1999
Land Lise
City and County of Denver
Comprehensive Master Plan, 1989.
Cherry Creek Neighborhood Master
Plan Update Draft, 1999
Washington/Vixginia Vale/Virginia
Village Neighborhood Plan, 1992
Indian Creek Neighborhood Plan,
1993
* Arapahoe County Comprehensive
Plan, 1989
City of Glendale Land Use Master
Plan
DRCOG Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)
Southeast Quadrant Transportation
Study, CCD, 1989.
Central Denver Transportation
Study, CCD, 1998
Bike Depot Study CCD, 1999.
* Denver Bicycle Master Plan, 1993
PLANNING PROCESS AND APPROACH
Because of the diverse environmental
character of the corridor, the multi-
jurisdictional control, and the variety of
sensitive neighborhood, community, and
regional issues involved in the study, the
process developed by the Consultant Team
was designed to:
Integrate not "balance" critical issues
within the corridor.
Focus strongly on the neighborhoods
and quality of life issues.
Emphasize that transportation would
not be the "tail that wags the dog."
Consider and promote creative and
effective tools to achieve project goals
and objectives.
Encourage a broad and effective public
engagement process.
Evaluate conditions and obtain input by
reach in order to reflect differences within
these areas.
Consult with public agencies and
jurisdictions charged with planning,
maintenance, and funding.
Develop and test plan alternatives that
cover a range of options.
Consider trade-offs "What's best for
the community."
The 12-month public planning process was
also based on the need to:
8


Develop long-term solutions that
address critical pedestrian and vehicular
safety issues.
Understand and reflect the corridor's
"carrying capacity."
Enhance regional open space
opportunities.
Develop creative and effective
transportation solutions that address
local issues, as well as neighborhood,
community, and regional recreation
issues and concerns.
Integrate environmental, recreational,
land use and transportation issues and
needs.
CORRIDOR ISSUES
The Consultant Team recognized that
planning and design solutions that focused
on neighborhood issues and concerns would
have the best chance for gaining public
support for change. Preliminary issues
identified included:
Neighborhood Quality of Life
Local and Regional Parks and
Recreational Resources
Community and Neighborhood
Transportation Patterns
Intersection Safety
"Sense of Neighborhood"
Pedestrian/Vehicular Conflicts
Linkages to Local and Regional
Parks and Community Facilities
Appropriate and Compatible Mix of
Land Uses/Focuses
Environmental Quality and
Preservation
Flood Control and Safety
Aesthetic Value/Visual Quality
* Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
Values
Maintenance
As a basis for obtaining comments and
responses from the general public as well as
from local agencies, the following issues
were presented and discussed in a variety of
forums throughout the study:
Parks and Recreation
Recognizing the corridor's
environmental and recreational
attributes, the following were
considered:
* Appropriate "Greenway" types of
recreational uses adapted to reflect
and respond to:
Water resources
- Riparian and wildlife habitats
Neighborhood values
Availability of recreational facilities
Environmental Quality and Preservation
The need to preserve the natural
environmental quality of the corridor,
increasingly rural from Reach 1 to Reach
3, was a critical issue to all users of the
corridor, and as a result guided many of
the decisions later made related to
environmental integrity and treatment.
Environmental issues and concerns
include:
> Wildlife habitats and regional
corridors;
* Erosion control and stabilization;
> Drainage and flood control;
> Visual character and quality
9


Threat of development of existing
open space; and,
^ Existing resource enhancement
Transportation Issues and
Considerations
Although this study was not primarily a
transportation study, transportation
patterns and facilities represented a
significant component of the planning
effort, since Cherry Creek South and
North Drives parallel the corridor for
most of its eight miles. Issues related to
transportation and its impact on the
master planning of the corridor include:
Neighborhood
- Fear of the return of the Cherry
Creek Arterial Parkway concept
- Concern about increased volumes
and speeds to accommodate
commuters
- Vehicular mobility and safety
- Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and
safety, particularly at intersections
* Community
- Access to regional shopping
districts
Inter- and intra-neighborhood
access
Parks and community facilities
access
* Regional
Commuter transportation impacts
on the neighborhoods
- Regional connectivity
- Recreational use, access, and
parking
10


3
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PR.OCESS
PARTICIPATION GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
A key element in any planning study is to
gain the support of both the general public
who use the facilities and the agencies and
jurisdictions that are responsible for the
management and maintenance of resources.
It is also essential to understand the needs of
the users and receive input from them about
the corridor's strengths and weaknesses.
Given the significance of the Cherry Creek
corridor, and the variety of public-sector
and private-sector interests that would
guide the planning effort, it was recognized
that any recommendations for change
within the Cherry Creek corridor would not
come easy or without controversy. The
primary goals of the Consultant Team's
process related to winning public support
for any recommendations and, therefore,
was based on the need to:
Clearly explain the public's role and
provide a wide range of opportunities
for neighborhood and community
involvement.
Maintain clear and open lines of
communication.
Effectively inform and engage
stakeholders, including residents, land
owners, governmental agencies, the
wide variety of users, and local
businesses.
Actively engage stakeholders.
11


Maintain a 12-month public planning
process.
Establish priorities and consider trade-
offs in order to achieve success.
LOCAL JURISDICTION AND AGENCY
PARTICIPATION3
The study area established for the Cherry
Creek corridor meanders through the City
and County of Denver, the City of Glendale,
and Arapahoe County. Each entity includes
a variety of departments and agencies with
which coordination and involvement would
be essential in development of an effective
and creative Master Plan for the corridor.
To help achieve goals in this area, the
Consultant Team conducted a series of
Focus Group Workshops4 to discuss issues
and concerns related to:
Parks and Recreation
Environmental and Water Resources
Transportation
Land Use and Urban Design
3 A complete list of public-sector participants is provided in
Volume 2, Appendix A
4 A summary of issues, concerns and comments resulting from
each of the Focus Group work sessions is included in Volume 2,
Appendix B.
Public-sector entities which participated in
the study at this level included:
City and County of Denver, City of
Glendale, Arapahoe County, and other
Agencies and Departments of:
Parks and Recreation
* Transportation Planning, including
Bicycle Planning
Transportation Engineering
* Public Works Wastewater Division
Asset Management
Environmental Health
Planning and Community
Development
City of Glendale
Arapahoe County
City of Aurora Parks Department
Other Governmental Agencies
Urban Drainage and Flood Control
Denver Water Board
Four Mile Historic Park
Colorado State Parks
Cherry Creek Basin Authority
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Cherry Creek Valley Water and
Sanitation District
Colorado Department of
Transportation
Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG)
Regional Transportation District
(RTD)
12


GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5
Other City of Denver-sponsored planning
studies have depended on the involvement
of Steering Committees or Advisory Groups
for stakeholder input, often with a final
public hearing. The unique eight-mile
length of the Cherry Creek corridor and the
many issues unique within different
neighborhoods and different jurisdictions
called for a different approach and on-going
participation throughout the study. It was
considered essential to receive input from a
large and diverse number of individuals
with widely varied viewpoints in order to
achieve the best results.
The final participation process, therefore,
resulted in the active participation of a
variety of users, local residents, nearby
residents, and other interest groups. A
database of over 800 households and
individuals was developed and maintained,
and notifications were mailed prior to any
major public presentation. Meetings were
organized within the three reaches to allow
the maximum participation by the affected
neighborhoods.
The planning process and approach for
involvement and participation of the general
public included a series of neighborhood
and community meetings* 6, as well as
smaller unscheduled meetings, phone calls
and e-mails with neighborhood
organizations, individuals, bicycle riders
6 A complete list of meetings, along with summaries of those
meetings and other public engagement activities is provided in
Volume 2, Appendix C
6 Meeting dates and locations for all public meetings are listed in
Volume 2, Appendix C
(commuter and recreational) and
community facilities staff to discuss a
variety of project-relate issues.
Programmed meetings included the
following:
Three Public Forums
* Public Forum One: "An
Introduction to the Study"
Purpose of the Study and
Significance of the Corridor
- Project Schedule
Community Input and Ideas
Public Forum Two: "A Presentation
of Findings"
Summary of Issues and Concerns
- Summary of Physical Data
- Review Planning and
Constraints/Opportunities
> Public Forum Three: "A
Presentation of the Preferred Master
Plan"7
- Review "Preferred" Plan
Discussion of the Implementation
Action Plan
At the neighborhood level, the following
process for engaging public comment was
established:
A series of three meetings in each of
three "reaches" to update and discuss:
7 Channel 8 Educational Television taped the presentation and
televised the meeting on several occasions throughout the
October December, 1999 time period.
13


* Issues and concerns
* Goals and objectives
> Review of two alternative concept
plans
* Specific neighborhood planning
recommendations
"Ride the Corridor" bike trips (by each
reach) with the Consultant Team to
discuss issues and concerns
NEWSLETTERS, MAILINGS, AND PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION
Local interest in the Cherry Creek Greenway
Master Plan study has been tremendous. By
utilizing the "reach" approach for obtaining
information and comment from the public,
information about the project has been made
available to residents and landowners
throughout the corridor. Outreach activities
include the distribution of posters, postcard
mailings, press reports released to local and
neighborhood newspapers, and the
preparation of newsletters throughout the
study period. The Consultant Team
received a variety of correspondence,
including letters, phone calls, and e-mails -
all of which were documented and
considered in the development of the Master
Plan.8
In addition, participating City of Denver
Council members held work sessions with
representatives of other jurisdictions, and
the Consultant Team met with local
neighborhood groups to present the
information regarding the process and
recommendations at various points. Local
neighborhood newspapers conducted
interviews with the Consultant Team and
others involved in the process not only to
describe the project and recommendations,
but also as a way to encourage additional
input from the local neighborhoods.
8 Copies of newsletters are provided in Volume 2, Appendix C.
14


INTRODUCTION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As part of a "vision" plan for the long-term
treatment and enhancement of this segment
of the Cherry Creek corridor, the resulting
recommendations are based significantly on
neighborhood issues, concerns, goals, and
objectives to maintain and improve
community quality of life. The Plan also
reflects, however, the physical conditions
and characteristics within the corridor in
order to help ensure long-term viability of
natural systems, considering natural
vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources in
determining how the corridor should be
planned.
The following sections briefly describe the
existing conditions considered as part of this
study, including Parks, Recreation and
Open Space, Natural Environment and
Water Resources, Transportation and Traffic
Conditions, and Land Use and
Neighborhood Character. Any detailed
inventories and analysis of these conditions,
including background data used by the
Consultant Team, are provided in Volume 2,
Appendix D.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN
SPACE
Cherry Creek is part of a larger regional
greenway system that includes the Highline
Canal, the South Platte River, and Sand
Creek. The linear open space within and
adjacent to Cherry Creek provides a unique
"natural" connection between parks and
neighborhoods, and is part of a larger open
space system that supports riparian and
wildlife habitats.
Area parks serve both local and regional
residents, providing recreational trails,
volleyball courts, soccer fields, playgrounds,
recreational centers, and other facilities,
such as 4 Mile House Park. Regional
attractions, such as the Cherry Creek
Shopping Center, Cherry Creek North
Business District, and high-density
15


employment/residential centers in Denver
and Glendale, also attract a high number of
recreational users.9
Existing Parks included in the Cherry
Creek Greenway Master Plan study area
are:
^ Cherry Creek Park: Created as part
of the redevelopment of the Cherry
Creek Shopping Center, it features a
heavily used section of the Cherry
Creek trail, an outdoor activity
space, a sculpture, and gardens in
an irrigated landscape area. A
section of paved trail meanders
along the creekside. However,
Cherry Creek Park is frequently
closed due to flooding.
* Pulaski Park: This 20-acre park is
separated from the Greenway by the
heavily traveled Cherry Creek North
Drive and Steele Street. The park
includes the Gates Tennis Center.
and re-creation of a 19,h century
farm, this park is a valued and
popular destination. Currently
updating its master plan and vision,
the Park has concerns about
accessibility, visibility, and
separation from the Creek, as well
as parking for peak use and special
events.
* City of Karmiel Park: Part of the
Sister City program, this linear park
is on of several parks located along
the south side of Cherry Creek
Drive North, between the Cherry
Creek Shopping Center and
Colorado Blvd. The ongoing Sister
City park program is intended to
reflect the character or culture of an
international city and, as such, adds
interest to the corridor.
* 4 Mile House Park: With the
restored 19th century 4 Mile House
9 The Denver Department of Parks and Recreation recently
performed a trail use survey [Appendix D] that shows trail
use at peak hours exceeds 300 users per hour, exceeding
the capacity of a single multi-user trail system (ref)
16


* City of Takayama Park: This
manicured/landscaped amenity,
part of the linear park formed by
Cherry Creek North Drive between
the shopping center and Colorado
Boulevard, features a Japanese
garden, trails, benches, and picnic
tables along the north bank of the
Creek.
* City of Brest Park: This 15-acre
undefined open area between
Cherry Creek South Drive and the
Stokes Greenbower neighborhood is
a popular area for field sports by a
variety of users. At least partially
located on a former fill area, the
park has suffered from settlement
and drainage problems for a long
time. Volleyball and soccer areas
are heavily used and parking is
inadequate, often overflowing onto
neighborhood streets.
City of Potenza Park: This 5-acre
neighborhood park at the busy
intersections of Holly Street, Cherry
Creek South Drive, and Mississippi
Avenue is a passive landscaped
park.
City of Madras Park: Located near
the Indian Creek neighborhood just
east of Quebec Street, this 8-acre
passive park is separated from the
Greenway by a 10-acre privately-
owned undeveloped parcel. Since
both properties were former landfill
sites, development opportunities,
even for park uses, are limited. City
of Madras Park includes a large
open space and paved trails.
Creekside Park This City of
Glendale Park is located at the north
end of the pedestrian bridge east of
Cherry Street. The park is in the
middle of the City of Glendale's
proposed Urban Village area, a plan
supported by this study. The 4-acre
acre park includes trails, volleyball
courts, picnic areas and restrooms.
17


* Garland Park: This 45-acre
landscaped park features the
picturesque Lollipop Lake, with a
wetland environment, picnicking,
and model boat sailing. Several
volleyball and softball/baseball
fields used by the surrounding
residential community are also
included as part of this park
amenity. Kearney Street bisects the
park and provides access to the
existing parking areas (capacity: 80
cars); additional parking during
peak events often overflows onto
neighborhood streets and along the
shoulders of Cherry Creek North
Drive.
* Cook Park: An important
neighborhood and community park,
this 40-acre amenity includes a
newly renovated recreation center,
extensive active recreational
facilities, and parking for 200 cars.
The park hosts many senior
activities as well as a variety of
educational athletics and cultural
activities. The recently
reconstructed Goldsmith Gulch
drainage traverses the park,
providing a restored riparian
environment at its confluence with
Cherry Creek, just east of Monaco
Parkway.
Hentzell Park: A 60-acre passive
open space park bisected by the
Cherry Creek trail, this City of
Denver park features highly
sensitive ecological areas, including
undisturbed remnants of the native
high plains landscape vegetation.

Kennedy Park: An 18-hole golf
course with ball fields are the
primary elements of this 200-acre
park, located at the eastern end of
the corridor south of Havana Street.
The Cherry Creek trail weaves
through a section of the golf course
sharing the underpass below
Havana Street with the golf cart
path.
18


The Cherry Creek Channel and Trail
System is primarily under the
jurisdiction of the City and County of
Denver, though portions fall under the
jurisdiction of Arapahoe County. The
Cherry Creek Channel generally
includes an area 400 feet wide horn
University Boulevard to Quebec Street,
with a few exceptions in Glendale. The
channel has an important flood control
function controlled under the
jurisdiction of Denver Wastewater and
UDFCD.
The Cherry Creek trail system is part of a
much larger regional system that includes
connections to the more urban Cherry
Creek/1st Avenue-Speer Boulevard trail
connecting to downtown Denver and to the
South Platte River Trail. It is also a part of a
system of trails through Cherry Creek State
Park that links to the new Greenwood
Village Trail, the Park loop, and the Cherry
Creek Basin Trail, currently being built
upstream of the Reservoir into Douglas
County. The trail also intersects the popular
recreational system along the High Line
Canal, as well as notable neighborhood and
City bike route connections such as those at
Hampden Heights, Cook Park/Goldsmith
Gulch, Garland Park, and Steele Street.
The Cherry Creek Trail is a very popular
and heavily utilized multi-user system.
Recognized regionally as a great place to
walk, bike, and roller blade, the concrete
and asphalt-paved trail runs continuously;
an informal network of "social" dirt
footpaths also exists through the entire
eight-mile length of the corridor. A variety
of pedestrian bridges cross the Creek at
several points. Most of the trail system is
maintained by the Denver Parks and
Recreation Department.
Several conditions that affect use and
pedestrian safety have been identified as
part of this Study, including:
Flooding occurs in the lower trail
section near the Cherry Creek Shopping
Center, causing the closure of the trail,
most often in the spring, when trail use
is at its highest. After flooding, a
significant amount of trail maintenance
is required before it can be reopened.
Other trail locations are subject to
erosion, poor alignment and grade, and
inadequate width.
Pedestrian/vehicle and
pedestrian/bicycle conflicts occur
regularly due to lack of grade separation
at certain streets and the high number of
trail users. Social and paved trails in the
floodplain have contributed to severe
erosion problems, damage to riparian
vegetation and wildlife habitat, and
safety hazards, especially in Reach 3.
Examples include the well-worn
mountain biking and jogging trail on
both sides of the Creek between Cherry
Street in Glendale, and at Quebec Street
in Arapahoe County.
Several large open space areas in
Arapahoe County are owned by Denver
Water and Cherry Creek Valley Water
District. These private properties are
crisscrossed by undefined social trails,
despite the fact that they are not open to
public access. Some portions of these
lands have been identified as some of
the most sensitive areas of ecological
diversity and importance in the study
area.
19


NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WATER
RESOURCES
Given the area's significant environmental
qualities and the uniqueness of those
characteristics in one of the region's most
popular recreational areas, the Consultant
Team 10 evaluated natural vegetation and
wildlife characteristics within the corridor.
These studies were conducted to help
determine appropriate short-term and long-
term plan recommendations for recreational
land uses, mitigation of potential impacts,
and preservation of unique resources.
Information evaluated included the
following:
Vegetation
An inventory of vegetation and
potential wildlife habitat was
undertaken simultaneously with the
Cherry Creek Corridor Master Plan
development. The purpose was to
identify opportunities and constraints
that would be used in the development
of the plan. The study indicated two
types of sensitive ecological areas within
the Master Plan area. The large majority
of open space in the corridor was not
classified as sensitive. Nearly all of the
sensitive areas were located in Reach 3,
as shown on the Master Plan.
Creek Water Flow and Quality
10 ERO provided detailed studies related to environmental
conditions and characteristics within the corridor, not only as part
of this study, but also under separate studies undertaken for the
City and County of Denver and the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District.
Although no specific testing or analysis
of water resources was undertaken as
part of this study, the water quality in
Cherry Creek is considered to be quite
high by the UDFCD. Cherry Creek
flows continuously year-round, but the
volume of flow varies considerably. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
controls the flow through releases from
the Cherry Creek Dam. Release
volumes are based on downstream
water rights, flood storage capacities,
and Creek flows.
The COE is authorized by Congress to
release up to 5,000 cubic feet per second
(CFS); however, normal releases are in
the range of five to 50 CFS. Storm and
spring releases of up to 500 CFS have
caused significant erosion along the less
channelized sections of the Creek and
silt buildup elsewhere. A 5,000-CFS
release would have a significant impact
on recreational facilities along the
Creek.
Flood Plain
The 100-year flood plain is mapped in
the 1976 Urban Drainage Flood Control
Plan. Subsequent updates have
redefined certain sections, notably
around the confluence with Goldsmith
Gulch and between Holly Street and
Monaco Parkway south of the Creek.
Aquatic Habitat
Despite relatively high water quality in
the upper reach, the Creek is not
considered suitable to support a
recreational fishery. Variations in flow
cause significant changes in aquatic
habitat. Water quality decreases farther
20


downstream as water and silt
contributions from street drainage and
water treatment facilities are
contributed to the flow.
Wildlife Habitat
Wildlife presence and impacts are
evident, especially in Reach 3. Beaver
have removed a large number of both
old growth and newly planted trees.
They have dammed portions of the
Creek, creating ponds that support very
different fish, wildlife and vegetation.
Flushing releases from the Cherry Creek
Dam periodically destroy these dams. It
has also been observed that foxes, deer,
rabbits, and urban wildlife such as
squirrels and rodents populate the creek
channel area. As in any riparian area,
various bird species are well
represented, several using the corridor
as an important part of their migration
route.
TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS AND
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Because the Cherry Creek corridor is a
community focal point and home to some of
the City's most viable neighborhoods,
shopping districts and recreation areas, it is
also a critical nexus for transportation
within the City. With the Cherry Creek
corridor serving multiple purposes,
transportation for this study was defined
broadly in terms of modes of travel, but
narrowly defined in the geographic sense.
Traffic Patterns
From the outset of this project, traffic
patterns have been observed from the
objective standpoint of both regional
travel forecasts and from site-specific
traffic counts. The study area for traffic
patterns was defined by the City and
County of Denver to include only
Cherry Creek North Drive, Cherry
Creek South Drive, and the immediately
adjacent streets (within an
approximately 1.0-mile radius). It was
expected that concurrent project tasks
and subsequent assignments related to
this study would address larger regional
travel patterns on parallel facilities.11
In part, the narrow geographic definition of
the study area arose from analyses
identifying the proportion of trips that were
regional through-trips. This corridor,
whether as a whole or on a segment-by-
segment basis, currently serves a low
proportion of regional through-trips.
Through-trips are defined as those trips that
neither originate in, nor are destined for, the
Cherry Creek corridor. The proportion of
local versus through-trips are shown by
segment below:
* University Boulevard to Alameda
Avenue currently serves 92% local
and 8% through-trips.
Alameda Avenue to Colorado
Boulevard currently serves 82 % local
and 18% through-trips.
^ Colorado Boulevard to Holly Street
currently serves 96% local and 4%
through-trips.
Holly Street to Monaco Parkway
currently serves 92% local and 8%
through-trips.
* Monaco Parkway to Iliff Avenue
currently serves 91% local and 9%
through-trips.
Congestion
People who frequent or live in the area note
that vehicular traffic congestion in the
Cherry Creek corridor occurs primarily at
11 Such facilities would include Leetsdale Drive (through
Reversible Lane Studies) and I-25 (Southeast Corridor, through
the MIS/EIS Studies).
21


intersections. Although most of the
segments of road operate well, some
intersections cause cars to queue up and
create conditions of congestion.
Importantly, considerable work was done as
part of this study to document existing
intersection operations and to quantify
and/or qualify that information.
Existing Intersection Level of Service
Analysis 12
Level of service (LOS) analyses were
conducted to establish two baselines for
the study:
1. Existing 1999 intersection LOS.
2. Improvements that would be
required to bring existing LOS to a
minimum of LOS E (minimum
threshold for acceptable operations)
and/or to improve the LOS at major
intersections to C or D.
Table 4-1 shows the results of these
analyses and presents the
improvements/changes that would be
required to meet the "target" levels of
service. The results of this analysis
were considered transportation-related
recommendations identified in the
Preferred Master Plan, described in
Section 6 of this report.
12 Prepared by Counter Measures, June 1999 See Appendix D
for complete analysis.
Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety
Safety concerns for commuter bikers,
pedestrians, roller-bladers, hikers, and other
recreational users, as well as motorists using
the corridor, were major issues throughout
the study, regardless of location. Mid-point
street crossings, intersections, and key
access points into the various city parks and
open space along the corridor all present
challenges to safety.
Consideration was given, therefore, to a
variety of planning and design tools that can
address the issue of safety, including the
following:
> Intersection improvements, including
designated crosswalks to better define
and direct travel movements.
22


> Round-abouts to effectively slow traffic
movement and designate pedestrian
crossing points.
^ Pedestrian-activated signals to improve
safety at street crossings.
^ Increased land areas adjacent to bus
stops to provide safer bus access.
* Landscaped medians to provide safe
landing "havens" for pedestrian
crossings.
* Design and alignment improvements to
improve safety at confusing and
dangerous intersections.
23


Table 4-1: Existing Level of Service Analysis
Existing intersection North-South Street/East West Street (signal control or limiting movement if unsignalized) Exist. 1999 LOS Target 1999 LOS Intersection Improvement/Change Required to Achieve Target LOS*
University/Cherry Creek S. (signalized) DID C/C Add 2nd WB RT Lane
Alameda/ Cherry Creek S. (NB LTR) FID C/B Add signalization
Colorado/Cherry Creek S. (signalized) F/F C/D Add exclusive SB RT Lane Add exclusive NB LT Lane Add 3 additional EB Lanes: 2 TH, 1 LT Add exclusive WB TH Lane
Holly/Cherry Creek N. (signalized) B/B B/B No Change.
Holly/Cherry Creek S. (signalized) C/E C/E No Change.
Monaco/Cherry Creek N. (signalized) F/F C/C Add SB TH Lane. Convert SB shared TL to LT only lane.
Monaco/Cherry Creek S. (WB L) F/F A/A Add signalization.
Quebec/Cherry Creek (signalized) F/F C/C Add one NB TH Lane. Add exclusive SB LT Lane and an additional SB TH Lane Add exclusive EB LT Lane
Iliff/Cherry Creek (NB LTR, SB L & SB TR) F/F B/A Add signalization.
* NB, SB, EB, WB = northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound, respectively
RT, LT, TH, LTR = right turn, left turn, shared lane with left through and right movements, respectively
24-


LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER
The Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan
study area is currently experiencing
significant growth and infill development
throughout the corridor. Land uses vary
from the dense urban village of Cherry
Creek, to the more commercial/industrial
sections near East Iliff Avenue; suburban
residential and open space is more
characteristic in the areas within
Arapahoe County and near Cherry Creek
State Park.
The urban edge that supports the
transitions from neighborhood to open
space is not well developed. Although
improvements to Cherry Creek South
Drive have not been completed, new
residential developments have installed
curbs, walks and landscaping, resulting in
a discordant mix of urban form that
abruptly changes to undefined street
edges.
Common Land Use Attributes
The singular identifying thematic
element of the area is the Cherry
Creek channel with its recreational
trail system and wooded riparian
environment; a large number of City
parks located near the Creek add to
this system of open space resources.
At neighborhood meetings, area
residents consistantly support t
Creek's natural character as the most
valued neighborhood asset.
Beyond the unifying Creek and the road
network that runs along it, there is little
that identifies this corridor as unique or
special from a land use perspective. With
few exceptions, urban design
improvements are sporadic, often
utilitarian and generally lacking in
aesthetic appeal. Roads are unfinished
without curb, sidewalk and tree lawns,
common throughout Denver
neighborhoods and required by the City's
development guidelines.
Poorly defined traffic lanes and the lack of
sidewalks or crosswalks make pedestrian
access to and across the Creek corridor and to
adjacent neighborhoods difficult and most
often unsafe. Bus stops are poorly located and
often unprotected from nearby traffic and the
weather. Pedestrian and vehicular bridges
that cross the Creek vary in style, width and
character, and many have very poor
pedestrian or bicycle facilities. While these
elements and characteristics are common
throughout the corridor, there are unique
characteristics evident within each of the
designed "Reaches" of the study area. These
include the following:
Reach 1 Land Use Characteristics
The Cherry Creek Shopping Center, the
major land use in Reach 1, establishes land
use character along the north side of the
Creek. The string of Sister City Parks
extends along the heavily traveled Cherry
Creek North Drive to Colorado
Boulevard. On the South side high rise
multifamily residential buildings and
expensive single family residences line the
Corridor. Some undeveloped land will be
developed with similar uses within the
next few years. City of Brest Park is an
important neighborhood open space at the
east end of the Reach.
Reach 2 Land Use Characteristics
Reach 2 includes the City of Glendale,
which has the densest population in the
area and a mix of land uses adjacent to the
25


corridor, including vacant land with
proposed hotel developments, high rise
office buildings, big box retail stores, and
a large number of apartments. Outside of
Glendale the Reach includes mostly
medium density single-family residential
neighborhoods and schools. Creekside
Park, Four Mile Historic Park, City of
Potenza Park and Garland Park are all
adjacent to the Creek.
Reach 3 Land Use Characteristics
In Reach 3 the open space of the corridor
expands and adjacent areas are less dense
characterized by large urban open spaces
such as Kennedy and Los Verdes golf
courses, suburban single and multi-family
residential developments and some
intensive commercial and industrial
developments in the Quebec to Wabash
section. Open Spaces such as Goldsmith
Gulch/Cook Park, the High Line Canal,
Hentzell and Babi-Yar Parks contribute to
the open character of this Reach.
26


5
PROJECT ISSUES, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS
Throughout the master planning process
neighborhood issues and concerns, project
goals and objectives, and other planning
parameters were identified, defined, and
modified in order to best reflect overall
community interests. In addition,
governmental agency issues and concerns
were identified through a series of Focus
Group Workshops, including sessions for
Land Use, Transportation, Parks and
Open Space, and Utilities. A summary of
these public and agency issues is provided
below, listed by major topic; comments
served as a basis for subsequent master
plan definition.
Parks and Open Space Issues and
Concerns
The corridor is recognized as one of
the last remaining natural areas
within the metropolitan area. As
such, its preservation is essential not
only for the surrounding
neighborhoods, but also for those
citywide and regional users. The
following issues and concerns evolved
out of observations and discussions
with those who use, manage, and will
be directly impacted by changes
within the corridor.
^ Cherry Creek Drive is a barrier to access
between the neighborhoods and the
corridor
27



There is no consistent Greenway
treatment; Park edges are poorly defined
and not finished.
There are not enough creek crossings or
points of physical and visual access to the
Creek.
* At grade crossings of Holly and Monaco
are dangerous to trail users
Cherry Creek Drive separates park uses
and wildlife access between the creek
corridor and Garland and Cook Parks.
Large vacant land parcels adjacent to the
corridor are under development pressure.
There is a desire for additional
recreational and open space/buffer land
in this area.
* Several of the park properties suffer from
settlement and drainage problems due to
poor subsurface soil conditions and
former landfills.
Parking for recreational use is inadequate,
and current on-street parking impacts
adjacent neighborhoods
A large network of social trails provide
access, privacy and opportunities for
alternative recreational activities in the
corridor, but are difficult to maintain,
contribute to erosion and degrade the
natural environment
There is a lack of consistent trail signage,
markings or interpretive elements
throughout the Corridor
* Some areas of the corridor are considered
unsafe, due to lack of lighting, hiding
areas, erosion and overgrowth.
Residents place a high value on the
natural character of the corridor.
Parks lack amenities such as
benches, receptacles, rest rooms
and drinking fountains
User conflicts between bike "commuters"
and recreational users create unsafe
conditions
Poor maintenance of the corridor impacts
safe and enjoyable recreational use
28


Natural Environmental and Water Resources
Issues and Concerns
The preservation of the physical condition of
the corridor and its environmental sensitivity,
its natural beauty, and its rural character was
an important issue in the process.
Preservation, conservation, and enhancement
of vegetation and wildlife habitats represented
another significant element considered
important by participants.
The following issues were identified:
Cherry Creek is a significant natural
riparian and community recreational
resource.
Low water trails flood often, causing a
maintenance burden for the Parks
Department.
* The Channel is an important flood
management system. Changes in the flood
plain have an impact on the Flood control
function. Vegetation in the Channel
impedes flood flow and is routinely
thinned as part of UDFCD maintenance.
Previous studies do not reflect all of the
recent changes to the channel.
* The extent and sustainability of the
riparian environment is subject to the
water release needs and requirements of
the Army corps of Engineers
* There is no single management entity
responsible for activities within the
Corridor
* The Corridor has the characteristics of a
"natural area" as recognized in the
City's recently adopted Natural Areas
program.
* Area residents use the Corridor for a
variety of recreational activities, and are
looking for more way to access and
recreate in the Corridor.
* Increasing amount and density of
adjacent development impacts the
natural character and function of the
Corridor.
> Wildlife has an impact on vegetation in
the corridor.
^ The State is monitoring a groundwater
organic solvent plume in the Glendale
area.
* Storm water outfalls (point source and
non-point source) to the Creek
contribute to siltation and degradation
of water quality.
^ Preservation and expansion of the
corridor's natural and rural character
Enhancement of vegetation and wildlife
habitats and access to wildlife
^ Designation of the corridor as a
"Natural Area" protected status (HB
98-1305)
* Corridor's potential for a variety of
educational purposes
* The significance of the corridor as a
drainage and flood control facility
* Creation of a "Greenway" Trust for
long term management and
maintenance programs
> Consideration of the "Carrying
Capacity"
Recreational impact
- Erosion control
Sustainability
29


Treatment of the corridor as a
continuous system
The need for an environmental impact
review for any new development within
the corridor
The need for a unified management
plan
Control of physical and visual access to
the Creek
The impact of mountain and motorized
bikes, lighting, utilities and other urban
influences on the natural qualities of the
corridor
* Grade Control (Drop) Structures are
proposed throughout the corridor to
slow flood flow and reduce erosion in
the channel. UDFCD priorities for
construction are at University Boulevard
(Denver Country Club) and south of Iliff
Avenue.
The significance of the corridor
as a drainage and flood control
facility
Consideration of the "Carrying
Capacity" (criteria)
- Recreational impact
Erosion control
- Sustainability
The impact of mountain and motorized
bikes, lighting, utilities and other urban
influences on the natural qualities of the
corridor
Transportation and Traffic Issues and
Concerns
Traffic and transportation issues were
among the most sensitive and controversial
among the study participants. While the
road network along the corridor is
incomplete and, in some cases over capacity,
it continues to provide access to some of the
most popular residential, business, and
recreational destinations in the city. The
corridor is crossed by several major north
south roadways, and interrupts the
continuity of several east west streets.
Transportation issues include the following:
> Transportation decisions have an impact
on neighborhoods, recreational facilities
and quality of life.
* There is a lack of transit options in the
Corridor. The automobile is the primary
means of transportation
30


Neighborhoods will be negatively
impacted if Cherry Creek Drives are
widened or more directly connected
Any transportation alternatives which
increase traffic will negatively impact
neighborhoods
Monaco/Cherry Creek North and
Holly/Cherry Creek South
intersections present major pedestrian
problems
* 4-laning and/or straightening of
Cherry Creek Drive South would have
negative impacts on use of the
corridor
An extension of Cherry Creek Drive
South between Holly and Monaco
would have negative impact on
neighborhood on the south
The existing bicycle trail is a
"transportation" corridor
Very few safe access points exist for
pedestrians or cyclists to safely access
the parks and trails grade-separated
crossings preferred Additional
pedestrian crossings are needed Need
"user-friendly" bus stops and shelters
in safer areas
* Develop transportation solutions
that support neighborhood quality of
life,, parks and recreation
opportunities, and preservation of the
natural environment
* Corridor mobility is important to
the economic competitiveness of
corridor retail and commercial uses;
* Strive to address corridor mobility
needs through a range of
transportation modes;
^ Focus on serving the travel demand
generated by (local) uses within the
corridor
* Disjointed nature of Cherry Creek
Drives North and South and "rush
hour" traffic potentially results in
short-cuts and impacts on adjacent
neighborhoods
Neighborhoods will be negatively
impacted if Cherry Creek Drives are
widened or more directly connected
* Commuter traffic from outlying
areas impact neighborhoods

Parking along Cherry Creek Drives
and side streets for park use is a
neighborhood concern
Any transportation alternatives which
increase traffic will negatively impact
neighborhoods
* Monaco/Cherry Creek North
and Holly/Cherry Creek South
intersections present major
automobile, bicycle and
pedestrian problems
* 4-laning and/or straightening of
Cherry Creek Drive South would
have negative impacts on use of
the corridor
> An extension of Cherry Creek
Drive South between Holly and
31


Monaco would have negative
impact on neighborhood on the
south
The existing bicycle trail is a
"transportation" corridor need
for a dedicated commuter route
for bikes
Need traffic calming alternatives
and better enforcement to control
speed
Speed-actuated devices
- Roundabout/neck downs
Need "user-friendly" bus stops
and shelters in safer areas
Incorporate bus shuttle system for
short trips within the corridor
* Commuter traffic from outlying
areas impact neighborhoods
Parking along Cherry Creek
Drives and side streets for park
use is a neighborhood concern
^ Very few safe access points exist
for pedestrians or cyclists to safely
access the parks and trails grade-
separated crossings preferred -
Additional pedestrian crossings
are needed
Land Use and Urban Design Issues and
Concerns
With a significant number of urbanized
areas included within the study,
particularly in Reaches 1 and 2 of the
corridor, the urban design treatment of
existing and proposed land uses can
add to or detract from the enjoyable use
of the corridor as a recreational
resource. The following issues and
concerns illustrate some of the more
important of these considerations.
The major land use in the Corridor
is Park and Open Space. These
areas are a valued part of the
community. The natural character
and recreational amenity is a valued
asset in the community.
^ Adjacent land uses have a
significant impact on the character
and use of the Greenway.
* Land uses in the area are changing,
trending toward infill developments
and densification.
Certain land uses within the
corridor are incompatible with the
natural character of the Greenway.
* Higher densities tend to create a
hard edge and contribute to
drainage and noise impacts to the
Creek.
* The variety of land uses in the
corridor is part of its character and
attraction.
The Corridor lacks an identifiable
image.
Elements of the Corridor are
utilitarian and not attractive
> The corridor lacks urban and
parkway amenities such as
decorative street lighting,
medians, tree lawns and site
furnishings
> Parking for recreational use is
difficult, and impacts
neighborhoods
> User conflicts between bike
"commuters" and recreational
users create unsafe conditions
> Poor maintenance of the corridor
impacts safe and enjoyable
recreational use
32


RELATED PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
National trends in planning and design of
parks, open space and other "greenway"
resources have applicability to the Cherry
Creek Greenway Master Plan. For this
reason, part of the planning process dealt
with the identification of these trends and
their elements that might be considered in
formulation of the Master Plan. Potential
elements identified were then illustrated
and discussed with the general public in
order to begin to refine the potential
program for development of the Master
Plan Alternatives. A complete list of the
potential programming elements
discussed with the general public is listed
in Volume 2, Appendix__. As a result of
this planning activity, the Consultant
Team began to refine the overall Plan
objectives and specific Plan elements for
further consideration.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PLAN GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
The variety of community and
neighborhood issues, along with the
diverse natural character and quality
within each of the "Reaches" provided a
multitude of ideas, solutions, goals and
objectives for consideration. Although the
objectives of one neighborhood or interest
group often conflicted with those of
another, the Consultant Team
summarized the extensive list into
manageable categories as a partial basis
for formulation of recommendations for
the corridor. Physical opportunities and
constraints were considered accordingly
in terms of sustaining environmental
integrity, enhancement of habitats, and
mitigation of adverse environmental
conditions. The summary of master plan
objectives is provided in detail in Volume
2, Appendix E.
The following represents an summary
overview of these issues and plan
objectives for the corridor:
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and
Connections
Objective: Add to, improve,
and integrate connections
between neighborhoods and
parks and open space facilities
in the corridor
Amenity Types, character and
Locations
- Objective: Provide a unified
system of greenway amenities at
strategic locations along the
corridor
Expansion of Park Areas and Open
Space
Objective: Meet expanding
neighborhood need for natural
parks and open space uses
Shared Use
Objective: Capitalize on
existing public and private
facilities in order to preserve
limited open space and natural
areas
Trail Systems
Objective: Provide a safe and
continuous multi-user
recreational trail throughout the
corridor. Link to adjacent land
uses and neighborhood
destinations
Trail Types
- Objective: Provide a safe
hierarchical trail system for a
variety ofnon-motorized users,
33


without significantly impacting
sensitive environmental areas
Trail Locations and Alignments
- Objective: Safely
accommodate major trail user
types without conflicting with
other users or impacting
environmentally sensitive
areas
- Objective Enhance
opportunities to access
recreational and business
interests adjacent to and
across the corridor
Natural Environment and Water
Resources
Sensitive Ecological Areas
- Objective: Identify, protect
and enhance sensitive ecological
areas to promote high quality
vegetation and wildlife habitats
Wildlife Habitat
- Objective: Maintain and
expand wildlife corridors,
connected to regional open space,
that provide high quality habitat
for desirable species
Vegetation
Objective: Preserve and
expand the riparian character of
the corridor by providing
conditions in which native plant
species can flourish
Water Quality
- Objective: Preserve and
enhance vegetation and midlife
habitats by assuring availability
of water
Flood Control
- Objective: Maintain or expand
the existing flood and erosion
control function of Cherry Creek
Resource Management
- Objective: Provide a method
for implementation, maintenance
and stewardship of greenway
resources
Objective: Provide a method
for implementation, maintenance
and stewardship of greenway
resources.
Environmental Education
Objective: Increase public
awareness of the corridor's
importance as an ecological and
water resource
Transportation
Pass-Thru Commuter Traffic
Objective: Reduce, or
maintain current levels of pass-
through commuter traffic
without disrupting local
circulation
Traffic Speed and User Safety
- Objective: Reduce or eliminate
conflicts among vehicles,
pedestrians and commuter bikers
34


Intersection Operations and Mobility
- Objective: Provide
effective traffic flow at major
intersections
Alternative Means of Travel
Objective: Provide
more convenient access to
alternative travel modes
Commuter Bicycling
- Objective: Provide a
continuous system of efficient
commuter bicycle facilities
Pedestrian Circulation and Access
- Objective: Provide a safe
sidewalk system for neighborhood
access and corridor crossing
Land Use and Urban Design
Use Compatibility
- Objective: Preserve/protect
existing natural resources and
creatively develop adjacent
land to integrate and increase
open space
Land Use Relationships
- Objective: Preserve/protect
existing natural resources and
creatively develop adjacent land to
integrate and increase open space
Shared Use
- Objective Reduce the need for
duplication of parking, roadways,
park and recreation activities,
and other facilities to make
efficient use of limited resources.
Undeveloped and Vacant Land
- Objective: Preserve/protect
existing natural resources and
creatively develop adjacent land
to integrate and increase open
space
Parking
- Objective: Provide adequate
vehicular parking close to
greenway and adjacent parks
without impacting adjacent
neighborhoods
y Urban Design Treatment
- Objective: Create a consistent
identity or image for the corridor
that has a positive impact on
surrounding neighborhoods
35


MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES
In order to develop a master plan that
addressed the widest cross-section of
issues and concerns, goals and
objectives, and physical opportunities
and constraints, the Consultant Team
prepared a series of master plan
alternatives to obtain public response
and comment. While each plan
emphasized a unique approach to
corridor improvements, no one plan
was presented as a "total" plan.
Elements of one alternative, therefore,
could be recommended to be
incorporated into one or both of the
other alternatives. In this "menu-
driven" approach to the development of
alternatives, the general public could
better comment on the applicability of
the specific element, while reacting to
the overall "approach" or emphasis of
the particular alternative. As explained
to the general public, the resulting
master plan to be carried forward would
most likely be based on a combination
of elements which best addressed
specific goals and objectives of the
community, and when combined
together would provide the most overall
benefit to the community.
Common Elements
Plan elements that could be applied to
any of the three master plan
alternatives were described and
discussed as part of this process.
While each of the plan concepts
presented varied in terms of specific
elements and recommendations, a
common set of improvements applied
to all alternatives.
Common elements included the
following:
Improves the Cherry Creek Drive
Streetscape and "Creekside"
Landscape Treatment
Provides Sidewalks within the
R.O.W. Primarily for Pedestrians
Maintains the Two-Lane
Character of Cherry Creek Drive
and Alameda in the University to
Alameda Segment
Maintains the Two-Lane
Character of the Quebec to Iliff
Segment
Includes Traffic Calming Devices
Considers Transportation Impacts
on Local Neighborhoods
Increases the Number of
Pedestrian Street Crossings
Integrates with Existing Bus and
Proposed TMA Shuttle Routes
Provides Pedestrian Connections
to Access Existing Institutional,
Park, Recreation, and Other In-
Place Facilities
* Improves the use of existing
recreational trails and provides
more vehicular-free pedestrian
access throughout the corridor
Increases Pedestrian Access Points
into the Creek Bottom Area
36


Provides for a "High-Speed"
Wheel Lane (Bikes and In-Line
Roller Blades)
Provides "Soft" Trails In Areas
Not Considered Highly
Environmentally-Sensitive
* Maintains and Protects Sensitive
Environmental Areas and Natural
Character of the Corridor
Maintains Flood Control Function
of the Corridor
* Identifies opportunities for
additional open space
Alternative Plan A:
During the initial public
involvement process, many
participants suggested that
maintaining the corridor in its
current condition would have the
least impact on neighborhoods, and
result in the least amount of traffic -
that pedestrian and vehicular safety
issues, increased park and corridor
access, and overall aesthetic
improvements were less important
maintaining the status quo. Under
this Alternative, therefore, no major
changes in road patterns, street
cross-sections, aesthetic
improvements, or acquisition of
additional lands for park
development was planned.
The intent of this Alternative was to
evaluate the long-term impact on
neighborhood streets from
increased traffic from anticipated
growth in the area, without
significantly changing the existing
character or conditions of the
corridor. Pedestrian and vehicular
safety issues were addressed,
therefore, within the existing road
patterns of the corridor, and only
minor improvements related to
safety and traffic mobility were
tested. Alternative A Plan elements
included the following:
> Retains existing traffic patterns
and alignments; continuation of
the "Disconnected" road system
in order to consider its impact on
vehicular through-traffic
* Includes Traffic Calming Devices
limited to key points within the
corridor to slow traffic:
- Mid-point pedestrian crossings
- Landscaped "Neck-D.owns" at
key pedestrian crossings
- Landscaped "Neck-Downs" at
key vehicular intersections
- On-Street Parallel Parking in
selected areas
^ Adds Curbs and Gutters to
control use of adjacent areas,
water runoff, and improve
safety conditions
37


> Improve streetscape treatment
and landscaping within Right-
of-Way and creekside
* Adds on-street parallel
parking bays at selected points
to serve as an additional
"traffic calming" measure, and
to increase corridor and park
access; additional off-street
parking at selected areas
* Provides for on-street "High-
Speed" Wheel Lanes (Bikes
and In-Line Roller Blades) in
order to reduce conflicts with
pedestrians; no underpass
connections for "High Speed"
users
- Adds one (1) pedestrian
bridge to better serve Four
Mile House Historic Park
* Improves existing detached
multi-user recreational trail:
- Separates recreation from
high speed wheel uses
Provides continuous
vehicular-free recreational
access throughout the
corridor
- Minimizes vehicular conflict
* Consolidates soft trails in selected
areas outside of environmentally
sensitive areas
Designates "wayside" trails to
expand the visual and recreational
experience
Allows for "social" trails in areas
not considered as highly
environmentally sensitive
Continues use of areas for un-
programmed recreational activities,
with no added active recreation
opportunities; encourages passive
recreational use
Expands the "natural character"
within the corridor in selected
areas, predominantly on the
"creek-side" of paved trails
Does not provide activities or
facilities which would further
encumber natural and scenic
resources
Maintains existing flood control
capacity of the corridor
Maintains existing neighborhood
buffers; adds buffers at
commercial and industrial areas
to
minimize negative visual impact
Maintains existing urban design
features at major intersections; no
formal "gateways" or
image-builders
Utilizes existing vehicular and
pedestrian bridges, requiring no
major structural improvements
Makes no aesthetic or pedestrian
access improvements to vehicular
bridges only for new or
reconstruction of existing bridges
38


Alternative Plan B:
This alternative considered the need
to eliminate or reduce significant
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at key
intersections, while minimizing the
corridor as a "commuter" route.
This scenario would eliminate the
"disconnect at both Holly Street and
Monaco Blvd. by providing a "cross-
over" bridge east of Holy Street to join
with the existing Cherry Creek North
Drive; a second "cross-over" bridge
would be provided east of Monaco
Bvd. to connect vehicular traffic to
back onto Cherry Creek South Drive
east of Goldsmith Gulch.
Other elements of this alternative
included:
* Continues the 2-Lane and 4-lane
character currently existing in the
corridor, but eliminates the
"Disconnect" character of the
transportation system
* Adds Curb and Gutter to control
use of adjacent areas, water
runoff, and improve safety
conditions
* Improves streetscape treatment
and landscaping within Right-of-
Way and creekside
* Provides Traffic Calming Devices
at key points throughout the
corridor to slow traffic
- Landscaped medians, with left-
turn lanes where existing
R.O.W. permits
- Pedestrian-activated signalized
crossings at selected points
- Speed activated signals to
maintain legal limits
- Landscaped "Neck-Downs" at
key pedestrian crossings
Landscaped "Neck-Downs" at
key intersections
* Adds landscaped "Round-
Abouts" at two urban locations
Improves intersections, and
realigns segments of Cherry Creek
Drives in order to:
- Expand "Creekside" public open
space area and access
- Improve visual character
- Improve vehicular safety
conditions
- Improve pedestrian safety
conditions
* V acates Steele Street, between
Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek
South Drive to:
- Improve vehicular and pedestrian
safety conditions
- Improve north/south pedestrian
and bike access
- Provide some replacement
parking for private parking
removed from existing Cherry
Creek Drive South Right-of-Way
* Vacates portion of Harrison Street
within City of Brest Park to:
- Expand park use
- Eliminate vehicular access from
Harrison onto Cherry Creek
South Drive
* Adds on-street and off-street parking at
select areas to increase park and
corridor use; on-street parking also
serves as traffic-calming measure
* Adds two new vehicular
bridge crossings
39


- East of Monaco, utilizing
portions of Cherry Creek North
Drive and connecting to Cherry
Creek South Drive
- East of Holly, utilizing portions
of Cherry Creek South Drive
undeveloped Right-of-Way and
connecting with Cherry Creek
North Drive
* Expands Existing Parks
- Garland Park south into Cherry
Creek corridor
- Cook Park north into Cherry
Creek Corridor
Provides "High Speed" Wheel
Lanes (Bike and In-Line Roller-
Blade)
Within Right-of-Way, hut
outside of and separated from
vehicular travel lanes
- Separated from recreational
trails
- Where conditions permit,
underpass access for "no-stop"
biking and roller-blading
* Provides separate hard-surface
recreational trail system
- Adjacent to and/or within the
"natural" area of the corridor,
outside environmentally-
sensitive areas
- Continuous system (via
underpasses) to provide
vehicular-free access
throughout the corridor
- Linkages to existing cultural,
institutional, park and
recreational facilities
* Adds two (2) new pedestrian
bridges to better serve:
- City of Brest Park
- Four Mile House
* Provides network of soft trails in
designated areas only, outside of to
provide limited access to unique
and/or sensitive historic, educational,
environmental and aesthetic resources
* Creates common Greenway image
and identity gateways at key
intersections and at major north-south
crossings, including enhanced bridge
design, lighting and other image
builders
- Promotes compatible and
supportive adjacent land uses,
including neighborhood retail,
recreational service areas
(bike depot, rest areas)
AO


Alternative Plan C:
Several interest groups, including some
City and County of Denver
Transportation Engineering staff believe
that a transportation system that
allowed traffic to move more directly
and more efficiently through the
corridor would result in decreasing
traffic impact on local neighborhoods.
Under Alternative Plan C, the potential
impact of a more direct, higher volume
transportation corridor was considered
by extending a four-lane segment of
Cherry Creek Drive along the south side
of the corridor, between Alameda
Avenue and Quebec Street.
This scenario would eliminate the
"disconnect at both Holly Street and
Monaco Blvd. by aligning the new 4-
lane roadway on the south side of the
creek, between Holly and Monaco.
Other aspects of this alternative include
the following:
* Provides a 4-Lane roadway cross-
section between Quebec Street
(Reach 3) and Alameda Avenue
(Reach 1) in order to consider its
impact on the neighborhood
* Provides Curb and Gutter to control
use of adjacent areas, water runoff,
and improve safety conditions
Provides streetscape treatment and
landscaping within existing Right-
of-Way and creekside enhancement
Vacates Steele Street, between
Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek
South Drive to:
Improve vehicular and pedestrian
safety conditions
- Improve north/south pedestrian
and bike access
- Provide some replacement
parking for private parking
removed from existing Cherry
Creek Drive South Right-of-Way
* Vacates portion of Harrison Street
within City of Brest Park to:
- Expand park use
- Eliminate vehicular access from
Harrison onto Cherry Creek
Drive South
* Extension of Cherry Creek South
Drive utilizing existing roadway
Right-of-Way on the south side of
Cherry Creek, with 4 travel lanes
between Holly and Monaco, and
vacation of Cherry Creek North
Vacates Steele Street, between
Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek
South Drive to:
- Improve vehicular and pedestrian
safety conditions
- Improve north/south pedestrian
and bike access
- Provide some replacement
parking for private parking
removed from existing Cherry
Creek Drive South Right-of-Way
> Vacates portion of Harrison Street
within City of Brest Park to:
- Expand park use
- Eliminate vehicular access from
Harrison onto Cherry Creek
Drive South
Extension of Cherry Creek South
Drive utilizing existing roadway
Right-of-Way on the south side of
Cherry Creek, with 4 travel lanes
between Holly and Monaco, and
vacation of Cherry Creek North
Drive, between Holly and
Monaco, in order to:
- Increase Garland Park area and
provide direct pedestrian access
into the corridor
41


- Improve vehicular and pedestrian
safety conditions at Holly and
Monaco intersections with
Cherry Creek Drives
- Improve vehicular movements
and traffic flow; Increases level of
service at intersections
* Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Devices
- Pedestrian-activated cross-walks
- Speed-activated signals
Requires no new vehicular
bridges
^ Provides "High Speed" Wheel
Lanes (Bike and In-Line Roller-
Blade)
- Outside of Cherry Creek Drives
Right-of-Way
- Separated from recreational trails
- With underpass access for no-
stop" biking and roller-blading
* Provides separate hard-
surface recreational trail
system
- Adjacent to and/or within
the "natural" area of the
corridor, outside
environmentally sensitive
areas
- Continuous system (via
underpasses) to provide
vehicular-free access
throughout the corridor
- Linkages to existing cultural,
institutional, park and
recreational facilities
Provides network of soft trails in
designated areas only, outside of
environmentally sensitive areas, to
provide limited access to unique
and/or sensitive historic,
educational, environmental, and
aesthetic resources
Promotes Active Restoration
Program for environmentally
degraded areas
Adds common Greenway image
and "identity gateways" at key
intersections and at major
> North-south crossings, including
unique bridge design, lighting and
other "image" builders


EVALUATION CRITERIA AND
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
As a basis for plan selection and
refinement and the development of a
"Preferred" Master, a comparative
analysis of the three plan alternatives was
conducted by the Consultant Team,
considering the following:
Community and Public-Sector Issues,
Goals and Objectives
Neighborhood Quality of Life
Preservation and Enhancement of
Natural Character
Expanded and Enhanced Parks and
Recreational Resources
Improved Vehicular and Pedestrian
Safety and Access
Community and Neighborhood
Transportation Focus
"Trade-Offs" what will most benefit
the local community and surrounding
neighborhoods
As a result of this analysis, and after
continued meetings with local
neighborhoods, a "Preferred" conceptual
Master Plan for the corridor was
developed. After presentation of the
Preferred Plan to the general public 13, and
after additional meetings with
neighborhood groups, the "Preferred"
Greenway Master Plan for the Cherry
Creek corridor was refined, and is
presented here for consideration by City
and County of Denver Planning Board,
Public Works/Amenities and Special
Projects Committees of City Council,
Parks and Recreational Sub-Committees,
and City Council. Section 6, which
follows, provides a description of the
major components of the Plan, by Reach.
13 Public Hearing held September 16,1999 Denver Museum of
Natural History
43


a OVERALL VISION OF THE CORRIDOR
"A natural area with parks, walking
paths, biking trails, open areas, served
by pedestrian-friendly streets" is
perhaps the best description of the
intent and vision for the Cherry Creek
Greenway. No longer a focus of
commuter vehicular traffic into the
downtown core, the Cherry Creek
corridor is envisioned as one of the
jewels along the emerald strand of
Denver Parks and regional open space.
Not only one of the last remaining
natural buffers and continuous linkages
between developing neighborhoods, the
portion of the corridor is planned also as
an 8-mile long safe haven for the
enjoyment of natural vegetation and
wildlife, its peaceful surroundings, and
as an area for pedestrian-oriented,
people-friendly activities.
ie COMMON MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS
Many of the elements recommended in
the "Preferred" Master Plan are common
throughout the corridor, regardless of
location. Common elements, summarized
below, address not only physical aspects
of the planned improvements, but also
development strategies that will be
foEowed as part of plan implementation.
Renaming Cherry Creek South Drive
to Cherry Creek Park Drive wifl
further promote the "park" concept of
the corridor;
Continuation of existing number of
existing vehicular travel lanes will
help ensure a non-commuter
approach to traffic mobility;
Intersection improvements to
enhance traffic mobility
* A variety of traffic calming devices -
wiE better manage and slow existing
traffic movement in the corridor;
4-5


Curb and Gutter improvements will
address drainage issues, and enhance
safety;
Detached Sidewalks within the
R.O.W. will improve pedestrian
circulation along the corridor, while
increasing safety;
Vehicular-Free Commuter Bike Path
- will provide enhanced
opportunities for "wheeled"
transportation, including commuter
biking and roller-blading;
Vehicular-Free Pedestrian /
Recreational Path will improve
recreational safety and decrease
conflicts between recreational and
other non-vehicular traffic;
Continuous designated Soft Trails -
will allow continued use of the
more natural areas, without
negatively impacting sensitive
environmental areas;
Urban and "natural" Landscaping
Treatment will provide
appropriate types of landscape, and
help ensure a more natural
character throughout the corridor;
Landscaped Medians in urbanized
segments will allow for turning
bays to improve traffic mobility
within the neighborhoods, while
improving the aesthetic quality of
the corridor;
Expansion of "natural" landscape
throughout the corridor will take
advantage of opportunities for
natural open space to help ensure
long-term preservation;
Acquisition / Easements will
enable an expansion of open space
areas to help facilitate flood control,
expand habitats for vegetation and
wildlife, and help ensure the
preservation of non-urban areas;
Environmental Mitigation of
degraded natural areas will address
erosion control issues, and help
ensure preservation of vegetation and
wildlife habitats;
An on-going cooperative effort with
the neighborhoods within the Plan
area will help ensure buy-in from
local neighborhoods for "win-win"
support.
46


REACH ONE MASTER PLAN
COMPONENTS
Reach One includes the area between
University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd.
Residential development, including
higher density attached housing, as well
as single family low density housing exists
within this Reach, along with commercial
offices, a church, and City of Brest Park,
used not only by the neighborhood, but
also as a weekend destination for soccer
and other field sports.
University Boulevard to Steel Street
Segment
This western-most segment of the
corridor, which begins at the
intersection of University Boulevard
Cherry Creek Drive South,
represents the "entry" into the more
natural areas of the Cherry Creek
corridor.
Between this point and its onfluence
with the South Platte River, four
miles to the northwest, Cherry Creek
has been channelized to
accommodate flood control
measures; Speer Boulevard, a major
arterial serving the Central Business
District, borders the Creek on both
sides.
Cherry Creek Shopping Center on the north,
and in-fill attached and detached single-family
residential development south of Cherry
Creek Drive South.
The master plan for this segment of the
corridor better manages and controls current
and projected traffic volumes14, while at the
same time enhancing pedestrian access into
the Cherry Creek corridor, and east/west
pedestrian movement along the street.
Enhanced native and ornamental landscaping
in raised medians will allow Cherry Creek
Park Drive to establish a "park" quality to the
area. Specific elements of the Master Plan
include the following:
Enhanced Landscaped "Entry" at
University Blvd to serve as a
"gateway" into the park corridor
The University to Alameda Avenue segment
serves as an effective buffer between the
47
14 Year 2015 population projections provided by DRCOG


2 Vehicular Travel Lanes15 to address
pedestrian safety issues, and to maintain the
existing volumes and enhance existing and
future traffic mobility.
Generally aligned along existing south side curb
line
- Landscaped medians to provide safe landing
arms for pedestrian crossing, and to provide
additional traffic miming
Turning bays within the landscaped medians to
access south side properties and to improve
neighborhood mobility
- Increased park land on north side
Improves Pedestrian Safety and Access
- Pedestrian bridge at Clayton Street to serve
the increasing residential development in the
arm, and provide a more direct link to
continued commercial growth of the Cherry
Creek Shopping Center
- Improved pedestrian crosswalks at key
locations to improve safety
- Bike path safety improvements near the
Denver Country Club- to address potential
safety hazards
Parallel Parking hays on both the north and
south sides of Cherry Creek Park Drive to
provide residential-serving parking
opportunities for new development on the
south side of the street, and trail-head parking
for recreational users on the north side.
15 The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking bays,
sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of maintenance
and other operational needs of the street.
48


Steel Street Segment
The intersection of Steele Street with the
existing Cherry Creek South Drive, and its
relationship to the Steele Street pedestrian
bridge, presents a set of circumstances
that affect pedestrian and vehicular safety,
bicycle access and safety, and other
pedestrian/vehicular relationships. The
issues here are compounded by the
current lease arrangement between the
City of Denver and the Cherry Creek
Towers Home Owners Association for use
of a portion of the R.O.W of Cherry Creek
South Drive to accommodate the
Association's parking needs.
In order to provide a consistent roadway
cross-section, and to provide adequate
area on the north side of the roadway for
sidewalks and other pedestrian-oriented
improvements, the "Preferred" Plan calls
for elimination of a portion of the leased
parking. To minimize the impact on
Cherry Creek Towers Condominiums, the
Plan also suggests the development of two
separated parking areas within the R.O.W.
of Steele Street, between Alameda and
Cherry Creek South Drive, as illustrated
on Figure XX.
This solution would require the vacation
of Steele Street between Alameda Ave.
and Cherry Creek South Drive. Other
improvements in this segment of the
corridor includes the following:
Steele Street Pedestrian Bridge
Improvements
- Expanded Safe" zone and Landing
Arm to address safety issues and
access
- Pedestrian Overlook Area to improve
visual appreciation of the Creek's
resources
- Pedestrian Crosswalk to improve
safety and north/south pedestrian
accessibility
- Pedestrian-Activated Signal to
improve safety for pedestrians
- Improved Bus Stop/Shelter to
improve safety for transit commuters
19 Detailed design of the landscaped median will provide for an
adequate "safe haven for pedestrians crossing the street, thereby
potentially eliminating the need for a pedestrian-activated signal at
this location.
49


Va
cation of Steele Street (Alameda to Cherry
Creek Drive South)
- Landscaped and lighted Pedestrian Trail
linkage to visually enhance the link
between Alameda and Cherry Creek South
Drive, and help ensure safety
- Two Landscaped Parking Lots for Private
Use to better accommodate parking
eliminated from City R.O.Win front of
Cherry Creek Towers Condominiums
- Undergrounding of Transmission Lines -
to provide adequate area for surface
parking and pedestrian trails, as well as to
visually enhance the area and add to the
park-like setting of the area.
50


Alemeda Avenue to Colorado Boulevard Segment
I
Although this segment of the corridor
includes significant park-related
improvements, there are several key
transportation-related enhancements that will
better serve the neighborhoods and minimize
pedestrian/vehicular traffic impacts and
neighborhood mobility. With east-bound
Alameda Avenue traffic terminating at
Cherry Creek South Drive,17 and with west-
bound traffic splitting west on Alameda and
northwest along Cherry Creek south Drive,
the "Preferred" Plan recommends the
construction of a landscaped round-about at
this location. The proposed roundabout will
eliminate the potential need for a traffic signal
at this location, slow traffic through the
intersection, and interrupt the long relatively
straight road segment between University
Blvd. and Colorado Blvd., and it will provide
an aesthetic focal point from all directions.
All recommended improvements are
illustrated on Figure XX, as listed below:
17 Alameda Avenue continues east from the north side of Cherry Creek
* Landscaped Round-About at
Alameda / Cherry Creek South
intersection to improve
pedestrian safety, neighborhood
vehicular mobility, and enhance
visual quality
* Pedestrian Overlook at Round-
About to further emphasize the
natural character and physical
resources of the corridor
* 2 Vehicular Travel Lanes to
maintain the existing traffic
volumes and improve future traffic
mobility
- Landscaped medians to provide
safe landing areas fir pedestrian
crossing, and to provide additional
traffic calming
- Turning bays within landscaped
medians to access south side
properties and improve
neighborhood traffic mobility
- Additional Turn Lanes at
Colorado Blvd. to improve Level of
Service
- Pedestrian Crosswalks to address
vehicular and pedestrian safety
issues
- Improved Bus Stop / Shelter to
improve transit commuter safety
51


- South side and meandering
alignment within the R.O.W
- Pedestrian Crosswalks
- Realignment of Central
Christian Church Driveway and
Harrison St. to better intersect
with the proposed realignment of
Cherry Creek South Drive
Pedestrian Bridge between
Harrison and Garfield to be
consistent with recommendations
of the Cherry Creek
Neighborhood Master Plan18
Commuter Bike Path along the
south side of the corridor to
provide a separate non-vehicular
facility for "wheeled" traffic
Additional Parking
- On-Street Parallel Parking in
segments of south side to
accommodate the Daniel's
Building office uses and heavy
weekend recreational use of City
of Brest Park
- Off- Street in City of Brest Park
- to further accommodate heavy
weekend recreational park uses,
as well as neighborhood park
uses.
19 Approved by Denver City Council as part ol the City of Denver
Comprehensive Master Plan
52


REACH TWO MASTER PLAN
COMPONENTS
Reach Two includes the area from Colorado
Blvd. to Monaco Blvd., an area within the City
and County of Denver, as well as the City of
Glendale. The area includes a variety of
higher density residential attached single
family and multi-family housing, commercial
offices, and extensive park facilities.19
Colorado Boulevard to Cherry Street
Segment
An urban environment, with existing 4-
lane roadway, borders on the north by the
Cherry Creek channel, and on the south by
a mix of office and commercial uses.
* 4 Vehicular Travel Lanes10
- Landscaped medians to provide safe landing
areas for pedestrian crossing, and to provide
additional traffic calming
- Turning bays within landscaped medians to
access south side properties
- Turn lanes at Colorado Blvd and Cherry
Street
- Pedestrian crosswalks at Birch St. Pedestrian
Bridge
- Pedestrian-activated signal
- Increased park land on north side
- Improved Bus Stop / Shelter
19 Potenza Park, Garland Park, and Cook Park are included in
Reach 2 ot the study area.
20 The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking bays,
sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of maintenance
and other operational needs of the street.


The concept of an Urban Village, as
proposed by the City of Glendale and
supported by this Plan, will provide
creek-side commercial facilities
compatible with recreational activities,
and improve visual quality of the area,
while providing additional access into
business areas to the north. Compatible
uses envisioned include restaurants and
cafes, coffee shops, del, bakery, hotels
and other places while people can
gather to enjoy the sights and sounds of
the corridor.
56




Cherry Street to Kentucky Avenue Segment
New single family attached residential
housing has recently been developed
along this segment of the corridor, along
with a significant increase in multi-family
rental housing. Qn-street parking,
pedestrian access to the corridor, and the
impact of traffic within the corridor
directly impacts quality of life issues in
this area. Master Plan recommendations
here include the following:
Vehicular Travel Lanes
- Transition from 4 to 2 lane cross-
section
- Generally aligned with south side
curb line
- Landscaped Medians
- Turning Bays to access south side
properties
- Improved Bus Stop / Shelter
New Pedestrian Bridge at Four Mile
Park to meet the objectives of the
Bikeway Master Plan
* Landscaped round-about at Kentucky
/ Cherry Creek Drive South to
provide traffic calming, improve
pedestrian and vehicular safety, and
visually enhance the entry into this
segment of the corridor and into the
City of Glendale.
Parallel Parking bays on segments of
north and south sides
58


* Elimination of Holly / Cherry Creek
North Drive "Disconnect" to provide 4-
way intersection and pedestrian
crosswalks, south side of Creek
59


* Cross-Over" Vehicular Bridge to north
side of Garland Park21
- Elimination of western portion of Cherry
Creek North Drive
- Expanded "natural" area from Cherry
Creek north into Garland Park
- Enhanced natural" area within former
Cherry Creek South Drive R.O.W.
* Dedication of former R.O.W. as a
"Designated Natural Area" within the
Parks and Recreation Department
Continuation of 2 Vehicular Travel Lanes,
without landscaped medians22
^ Commuter Bike Path within former
R.O.W and south side of channel
Pedestrian access easements to Virginia
Village neighborhood
Improved pedestrian access and linkages
from City of Potenza Park to Cook Park
(south side of channel)
Improved pedestrian park entries (Holly
St. north and south; Monaco south)
Mid-point pedestrian / bike bridge
Parallel parking bays, north side of Cherry
Creek Park (North) Drive
21 Specific location of cross-over" bridge to be determined as part of
subsequent planning, engineering, and design
22 No landscaped medians are proposed in segments of the corridor
where park and/or undeveloped areas exist
60


Elimination of Kearney as a through street
from Cherry Creek North Drive to
serve only Garland Park recreational
facilities
* Elimination of "Disconnect" at Monaco
Blvd. / Cherry Creek Drive North to
provide 4-way intersection, north side of
Cherry Creek
* Continuation of "Cherry Creek Park
Drive" as a 2 Lane roadway, without
landscaped medians, with segments of
parallel parking bays23
23 The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking
bays, sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of
maintenance and other operational needs of the street.
61


"Cross-Over" Vehicular Bridge to
Cook Park, between Niagara
Street and Oneida24
Elimination of western portion of
Cherry Creek Drive South at
Monaco
- Dedication of former R.O.W. to
Parks and Recreation Department
- Expanded natural area
atconfluence * Vacation of Cherry Creek North Drive
- Niagara Street to Place Middle
School
* Dedication of vacated roadway to
Parks and Recreation Department
and/or Denver Public Schools
Expansion of "natural" landscape
from Cherry Creek Drive North
* Additional vehicular entrance for bus
use only to Place Middle School at
Quebec / Florida Ave. intersection
Relocated vehicular west-side non-bus
access at Florida Street
* New north side pedestrian trail
> South-side commuter bike path follows
existing trial
24 Specific location of cross-over bridge to be determined as part of
subsequent planning, engineering, and design
62


REACH THREE MASTER PLAN
COMPONENTS
Reach Three includes the area southeast of
Quebec Street to the Cherry Creek Reservoir.
Except for the area between Quebec St. and
Iliff Avenue, where a variety of office and
industrial uses exists, the area consists
primarily of natural open space, along with
several City parks and golf courses.
Residential development, including single
family and multi-family housing borders the
corridor on both sides. The "Preferred"
Master Plan focuses on the enhancement of
recreational and commuter bike paths, along
with environmental mitigation
recommendations to help ensure vegetation
and habitat sustainability. Specific elements
of the Master Plan include the following;
Quebec Street to Iliff Avenue Segment
> Termination of "Cherry Creek
Park Drive" at Quebec Street
- Vacation of Cherry Creek South
Drive (Quebec Street to Jewell)
- Dedication of roadway R.O. W. to
Parks and Recreation
Department
Additional Trail Head Parking
(CCDS at Jewell Ave, and Iliff
Ave.)
Vacation of Cherry Creek Drive
South (Trenton Street to Iliff
Ave.)
Dedication of roadway R.O.W. to
Parks and Recreation
Department
Remaining segment of Cherry Creek
Drive South serves local light
industrial/office areas east of Quebec
Street.
r~
Mm-,
-mmmsr
§HSS5!'

65


Iliff Avenue to Hampden Segment
* Recreational "soft" trial north side of
Cherry Creek to Hiff Ave.
Enhanced "Natural" landscape to
screen adjacent industrial uses
Multiple-Use paved Commuter Bike
Path/Recreational Trail south side
Acquisition of portions of Denver
Water Board property25
New south side Commuter Bike Path
(Iliff Ave. to Yale Ave.)
Pedestrian / Recreational Trail on
existing north side path
Recreational Soft Trail from Wabash
to new pedestrian bridge crossing at
Los Verdes Golf Course
Purchase, donation, and/or
Easements of Denver Water Board,
Cherry Creek Valley and other private
sector parcels
- Iliff io Los Verdes golf course
- Along Los Verdes Golf Course
- Highline Canal Crossing
* Protection and enhancement of sensitive
ecological areas
Extension of the paved Recreational
Trail through Kennedy Golf Course
Linkages to Babi-Yar Park and
Hampden Heights Neighborhood
* Soft Trails follow Cherry Creek
riparian zones
Designated Trail Head Parking at
Havan/Dartmouth intersection
* Recreational Paved Trail follows
existing trail
* Trail Parking and Access at Kennedy
Park Ball Fields
Upgrading of trail between Havana
and Kennedy Park will be
programmed when future Tollgate /
Cherry Creek State Park Trail
improvements are implemented.
25 The Denver Water Board and other private land owners in the
area have indicated a willingness to consider land sales, easements,
and dedications of land within the corridor to help implement the
Master Plan and ensure its success
66


nsw/e
wr m evt
AJAT)*£ ^U
67


68


7
FUNDING SOURCES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
m MAGNITUDE OF COSTS FOR PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Although the elements of the "Preferred"
Master Plan were not chosen based on current
cost of construction, it was considered
important to understand the magnitude of
project implementation. Conceptual costs,
therefore, were prepared for the "Preferred"
Plan using standard unit costs typical in the
area, and based on recent experience in
projects throughout the metropolitan area.
These conceptual costs were reviewed with
City and County of Denver Public Works
Division, and have been modified to reflect
the City's experience in construction and
maintaining similar improvements. It is
anticipated that more detailed cost
information would be developed for all
elements of the Plan as a part of engineering
design.
The purpose of providing this level of
information related to potential construction
costs is to assist the City in making decisions
related to implementation of the Plan. The
information also allows the City to understand
the cost implications of the recommended
improvements so that short-term and long-
term funding sources can be identified and
pursued.
71


Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs/Public Works Elements
See Notes Below
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate (Year 2000 Dollars}
Jan-00 Cost Element PUBLIC WORKS PORTION ONLY Unit Cost /Unit #Units Reach 1 Cost #Units Reach 2 Cost #Units Reach 3 Cost
Right of Way Improvements
Two Lane Road with Median/ Turn Lanes LF 777 6,4CK 54 nr? eor 4,Ton SBIIlBilliMlia 0
Two Lane Road {no Median) LF 864 ( IwWI8 2,800 5,000 5.1,320,1X10
Four Lane Road w/ Median/ Turn Lanes LF 831 i jHKraBSMl 2,000 S1 uL2 003 0 mBb81
2 Lane Bridge (50 wide) LF 10,000 ( 250 $2 hUC. HX, 250 52,500,000
Intersection Improvements (Add to Road Cast) EA 280,000 ; 5550.000 1 . S2eOGOU
Roundabout (Add to road cost) EA 200,000 - 1 $->00 or". 0
Pedestrian At Grade Crossing EA 5,000 V 9 10 ShO.OuO
Enhanced Pedestrian At Grade Crossing EA 15,000 3 545,000 - r. 10 $150,000
Pedestrian Activated Signal EA - 100,000 SIOO.O'O t SUG.L5C 1 $100,000
On Street Parallel Parking Cars 1,000 76 - $A>,0viO 75 £75 OX 30 , $30,000
Bury Electric Lines LF 300 50< $150'tvj 0 BBMbBWMB 0 SgWBHHHWi
Improve Bus Stops/ Provide Shelters EA 30,000 3 5"a0;-0 10 - $o lO.r.iK; 0
Reach Subtotal sr,n,,erHi 510,983,100 56,430,000
Project Subtotal 573,660,900
Parks and Urban Design Improvements
Bridge Pedestrian and Urban Design Improvements EA 100,000 r 5200 GuO S20u,fjCu 2 209 GOO
Reach Subtotal 5200,000 5200,000
Project Subtotal 5500.000
Open Space Protection and Improvements
Low Water Crossing EA 100,000 0 $0 5ioo,olo : 4 too 000
Channel Erosion/ Water Quality/ Wetlands LF 100 i,00r sioo.oon 2,O' £200,000 4,000 $400000
Erosion Control / Bank Stabilization LF 50 1,001 £50 000 2,000 h'CHXO 8,000 <400 01 fl
Reach Subtotal 5150,000 5100 000 51,100,000
Project Subtotal 51,650,000
Total Improvements Cost by Reach SS,597,80U 511,583,100 $7,730,0r
Contingency 25% $1,649,450 $7,895 71 j 51 932,60
Administration/ Design/ Engineering 18% 51,484,505 52,608 196 51,739,250
PROJECT COST BY REACH SI 7.085,073 511,401,750
TOTAL PROJECT COST 538,218,578
COST PER LF 6,400 51,521 10,000 51,709 24,000 $475
COST PER MILE 58,028,698 59,020,918 $2,508,385
Notes:
(1) Generally covers improvements between inside edge of south side sidewalk to inside edge of north side sidewalk (or equivalent dimensions).
(2) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conservative estimates of improvements to allow future.flexibility in design and
engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further
reflect their experience for significant plan elements.
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs/Public Works Elements


Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs/Parks and Open Space Elements
See Notes Below
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate (Year 2000 Dollars)
Jan-00 Cost Element PARKS-REC PORTION ONLY Unit Cost /Unit Reach 1 ftUnits Cost Reach 2 #Units Cost #Units Reach 3 Cost
Right of Way Improvements
Street Vacation, Removal, Landscaping LF 200 50 - $100,000 i.sool£fHl 4,300 $800,L0
Right of Way Acquisition SF 12 2,001 324,000 2,000 BHf Sa<,oco 0 $0
Berm/Sereen/Bufler Landscaping LF 100 2f40( $240,000 i.5oo|iliiii $160,(40 0
Reach Subtotal $361,000 $474,000 $860,000
Project Subtotal $1,698,000
Parks and Urban Design Improvements
Paved Recreational Trail (10 wide) LF 60 - - $6,000 4.200 MBS! IBBSl# 6,200 SKlllliililBiiif
Widened Multi-Use Trail (12 wide) LF 12 . 1,00 .. $12,000 oiiiiii issiills 4,000 $46,jOO
Paved Wheels Trail (S' wide) LF 48 5,000 .. S2.10.0M 4,ooo pliiB M2 00U 5,000 . $240 OX)
Reconstruct Trail outside of Floodplain LF 80 1,20 $06,000 WsBBBs. 0
Trail Safety Improvements at University Blvd LS 100,000 1lli8 $100,000 onfME mam. 0 illBMBIlit
Neighborhood Entry Treatment, SF 5 15,000 $75,000 15.000 Sip S'o.OOO 15,000
Urban Park Landscape improvements SF 4 40,000 '$100,000 20,000 HHI 20,030 $80X0
OH Street Parking Cars 3,000 90'. $270,000 solipipiiiii >1RJ,0C1 too S3X OX)
Pedestrian Bridge EA 200,000 zWim S4C0 00J 540)000 2 BBwre8lg
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Underpass EA 50,000 1 Sim S50 00D 7 tlUppIflll 5350,003 4 WOO 0)1'
Dlrectional/lnterpretrve Signage LF 5 6,400^: :%£; Siliill 10, SCO.OCJ 24,000 $20 OOh
Reach Subtotal SM4L000 si.joro SI 835,000
Project Subtotal
Open Space Protection and Improvements
Open Space Land Acquisition Ac 35,000 ismsi 32 $1 120 non
Open Space Easement Acquisition Ac 2,500 0 49 $122,500
Unpaved Designated Soft Trail (6' wide) LF 15 2,00! isHSaisiiii 8,< o20 000 20,000 $300,000
Enhanced Natural Area1 Butter SF 2 12O,0OC 330,! 5060 000 580,000 $1,120,000
Natural Area Protection Ac 5,000 HH&N& BMB 50
Creek Overlook/ Pocket Park EA 100,000 2 S200 JU0 S20J.JLJ 1 HiiKiliill
Picnic Area! Shelter EA 150,000 t ailillSiiilfti 'immrn 1 5150.900
Amenities LF 8 6,40C $51.00 10,( 3,500 $.fi 0C.1
Drop Structures (50% local match) EA 250,000 1 - $20(1 '.or $.) 4 S1 000,000
Reach Subtotal S771.200 SI,060,000 - $4,190,500
Project Subtotal SG,021,70p.
Total Improvements Cost by Reach $2.5/6 200 $3,113,000 S6.885 500
Contingency 25% $644,050 $778,250 $1,721.3/5
Administration/ Design/ Engineering 18% $579,615 $700 425 $1,549,238
PROJECT COST BY REACH $3. /00,B05 S4.591.675 $10,105,113
TOTAL PROJECT COST $18,547,683
COST PER LF 6,400 $584 10,000 $459 24,000 $423
COST PER MILE $3,134,913 $2,424,404 $2,234,345
Notes;
(1) Generally includes sidewalks and other improvements outside of street rights-of-way.
(2) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conservative estimates of improvements to allow future flexibility in design and
engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further
reflect their experience for significant plan elements.
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs/Parks and Open Space Elements


Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Cost Element COMBINED TOTAL COSTS
Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate (Year 2000 Dollars)
Jan-00 Cost
I Unit /Unit
#Units
Reach 1
Cost
#Units
Reach 2
Cost
Reach 3
ffUnlts Cost
Right of Way Improvements
Two Lane Road with Median/ Turn Lanes
Two Lane Road (no Median)
Four Lane Road w/ Median/ Turn Lanes
2 Lane Bridge (BO' wide)
Intersection Improvements (Add to Road Cost)
Roundabout (Add to road cost)
Pedestrian At Grade Crossing
Enhanced Pedestrian At Grade Crossrig
Pedestrian Activated Signal
On Street Parallel Parking
Street Vacation, Removal, Landscaping
Right of Way Acquisition
Bury Electric Lines
Berm/Screen/Buffer Landscaping
Improve Bus Stops/ Provide Shelters__________
Reach Subtotal
Project Subtotal
Parks and Urban Design Improvements
Paved Recreational Trail (10' wide)
Widened Muiti-Use Trail (12 wide)
Paved Wheels Trail (S wide)
Reconstruct Trail outside of Floodplain
Trail Safety Improvements at University Blvd
Neighborhood Entry Treatment
Bridge Pedestrian and Urban Design Improvements
Urban Park Landscape Improvements
Off Street Parking
Pedestrian Bridge
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Underpass
Direction al/interpretive Signage_______________
Reach Subtotal
Project Subtotal
Open Space Protection and Improvements
Open Space Land Acquisition
Open Space Easement Acquisition
Low Water Crossing
Unpaved Designated Soft Trail (S wide)
Enhanced Natural Area/ Buffer
Natural Area Protection
Channel Erosion/ Water Quality/ Wetlands
Creek Overlook/ Pocket Park
Picnic Area/ Shelter
Amenities
Drop Structures (50% local match)
Erosion Control / Bank Stabilization
Reach Subtotal
Project Subtotal
Total Improvements Cost by Reach
Contingency
Administration/ Design/ Engineering
PROJECT COST BY REACH_________
TOTAL PROJECT COST
COST PER LF
COST PER MILE
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
Cars
LF
SF
LF
LF
EA
77?
864
831
10,000
280,000
200,000
5,000
15.000
100,000
. 1,000
200
12
300
100
30.000
LF
LF
LF
LF
LS
SF
EA
SF
Care
EA
EA
LF
80
12
48
80
100,000
5
100,000
4
3,000
200,000
50,000
Ac
Ac
EA
LF
SF
Ac
LF
EA
EA
LF
EA
LF
35,000
2,500
100,000
15
2
5,000
1O0
100,000
150.000
8
250.000
50
25%
18%
8,JO SJ,972.800
0 30
t: SO
sms
so
i soon,otto
SWF .n j
-i
$24,000
. S15000C
2,4(3". ' ' S240,000
Sio.ox.
4,701
2,800jj||
2,000^8
2501111
IslS
2..;

-
m
$3*5t,JOd
S<2 bCO o> (j
$jC 3,0X1
$>300 000
5-.5 000
)
- surooo
5,Of
2
500
75- J msBSBBM
V ' SiX',000
2, ' $24 UUj
4,31
00; .
ofililllll
1,500 '
10
Slan.UOO
- aon
$12 OCll
s?4,1000
If :: _ - S,5.000
- a200 .O'-'
40,i ;. e16f.',C
i $*?( out.
:. ' .: S450.000
1 $50,000
11
1,0<
5,0(
1,2L
1 -
' ~ V.
6,400.'
--532.000
4 2UC
OB
og
o
15,000
2mm
20,000;/.*'i
(
10,000
Igllp
50

gpp
&sbh
ill o>.o
S20U
lit J.lf u
540J JuO
$:>5l ooo
A50 DO
ms
6,2001;
4,000
5,COO
0
Q.
15,1 '
20,000.
100
4
24,000
S1,779 003
12L,w
L
i,ooo_
.1
0,
6,400'
1,000
mm
Bi
IBM
So
S--
gap
;.$3(),0OQ
i$240,000
SO
iraQgf
isSlIH
§|g||||i|
$-1,200 10,000
S250.CL-0
8,000
330,000;
0
2,000 3
2,00
so
biuj.^r
Sl2o,r-x'
S660.000
WHlllS
ra§llllll
SPOOL X
SHgj
113JF
$1W. ,V'
S921.200
SI.400 000
49,174,000
42.293,500
S2.064.15U
SI 1,696,100
53,674.025
53.306.623
S >3,531.650
6,400
52,114
$11,163,611
10,000
$2,168
$11,445,323
20,000-
560,000'
50
4,000
3,500
8,000
Wmmmglsai
$9.32LMkXi
lllBllili
^,500,000
S280.000
$50 CVC
S1-5C1.0T.
3100.0X1
S'iO.ClOfi
$850,000
' '. $0
$7
$25 356.900
-JjTP.OOO
S24S.01H
gBi181
Stf.ooo
SCOO.LuO
550 LlO
svw o:o
SAiCTjO
f.itx'.ooo
$120 00(1
$2,035,000
$5 445 000
S1.120 000
SIJJ s"0
$300,000
$300,000
SI.120,000
S250.0K)
S4oo.ono
si.io.fifiri
$150 cm;
SI.JX,I(',
S'-Qj.-OQd
$5,290
$7,671.
24,000
t
$21,5b/,863
$56,766,260
$898
$4,742,730
Notes:
(1) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conservative estimates of improvements to allow future flexibility in design and
engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further
reflect their experience for significant plan elements.
Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan
Magnitude of Costs


IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS, TECHNIQUES,
AND STRATEGIES
As with other complex, long-range concept
plans, implementation will require
dedication and commitment to the
established vision. Without such a focus,
implementation would likely be fragmented,
at best, and miss opportunities for success.
Although the City and County of Denver has
significant resources and staff that might be
available to monitor and implement the
vision for this segment of Cherry Creek,
other City priorities might overshadow the
goals of this project, and result in less
expedient and/or effective implementation
of the Plan.
For these reasons, it is recommended that a
"Cherry Creek Greenway Commission" or
similar entity be formed to guide the
implementation effort. Through this group,
funding sources can be identified, specific
projects can be undertaken, and a
concentrated effort can be made to bring the
vision into reality much in the way the
Platte River Greenway Commission has
guided the improvements along the South
Platte.
Given the magnitude of costs associated with
long-term implementation of the "Preferred"
Greenway Master Plan, a variety of funding
sources will need to be investigated. Both
short-term and long-term budgets will need
to be established, and public, semi-public,
and private funds should be sought.
The list below represents an initial
investigation of potential funding sources
and/or strategies for implementation
identified by the Consultant Team,
categorized by type of improvement. A
continued effort will be needed as specific
projects come on line, and as more detailed
plans for various segments are developed.
Parks and Open Space
Capital Improvement Budget
City and County of Denver
City of Glendale
* Arapahoe County
* Conservation Trust Fund
* Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO)26
* Partnerships with public and quasi-
public entities, and private
corporations, groups and individuals
- "Pilot" projects
- Land donations and dedications
- Grants and donations
- Conservation and other
easements
- Fund raising activities
Transportation and Infrastructure
General Obligation Bonds
Capital Improvement Budgets
- City and County of Denver
- City of Glendale
- Arapahoe County
Bridge Funds (CDOT)
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District
Colorado Department of
Transportation
TEA-21
- Multi-modal
- Enhancements
- Transportation Improvement
Program (DRCOG)
26 A complete description of recent grant applications prepared and
submitted by the City and County of Denver for partial funding of
the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan is provided in Volume 2,
Appendix G.
75


While a strategy for long-term funding of the
overall project and/or components of the
project is mandatory, how and when project
components are initiated becomes equally
important. Private-sector development
activities and interests, particularly in Reach
3 areas south of Iliff Avenue might impact
the long-term goals of the study.
Tools and techniques for plan
implementation have been preliminarily
identified as part of this study. A continued
investigation of additional tools and
techniques, along with a continued analysis
of current opportunities needs to be in place
at the government level in order to help
ensure the integrity of the Master Plan is
maintained.
PRIORITY ACTION PLAN AND PHASING
CONSIDERATIONS
Based on available and programmed funding
for improvements, and on the tools and
techniques currently available for
implementation, a Priority Action Plan has
been prepared. The Priority Action Plan
recommends a series of "projects" and
phased planning activities for
implementation the Cherry Creek Greenway
Master Plan. In order to obtain support
throughout the corridor from the general
public, as well as from the three
governmental jurisdictions involved in the
project, it is considered important to include
and consider activities and projects in each of
the three "Reaches" and in each of the
jurisdictions. Recognizing that specific
actions might be undertaken by different
entities, the Priority Action Plan also
identifies responsibilities for each of the
specified action items.
While several Action Plan items have been
identified within the same Priority, it is
assumed that a phased program within each
Priority would also be established,
depending on the availability of funds from
each jurisdiction.
76


PLANNING ACTION MATRIX
^PRIORITY 1 PyMNfNGSSJONS REACH* iilESPINilBILITY FUNDING STATUS
1 * Annual GOCO Application for land acquisition of key private- sector parcels; 1,2,3 CCD Parks and Recreation; Arapahoe County; GOCO; private-sector grants and land contributions
1 Establish Cherry Creek Greenway Commission to guide and implement the vision for the corridor 1,2,3 CCD City Council To Be Determined
1 Feasibility Study, Locational Analysis, and Site Planning and Urban Design for Round-About at Alameda/Cherry Creek Park Drive intersection 1 CCD Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners To Be Determined
1 Site planning and design for planned vacation of Steele Street, between Alameda and Cherry Creek Park Drive > Plan for realignment of bicycle path near Denver County Club 1 CCD Planning Division; CCD Transportation Division; District Council Person; Neighborhood Associations and property owners; UDFCD To Be Determined
1 Planning for the vacation of Steele Street, between Alameda Ave. and Cherry Creek Park Drive; 1 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners
2 Feasibility Study and Locational Analysis for Cross-Over Bridge between Holly Street and Monaco Blvd. 2 CCD Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners To Be Determined
2 Planning for the vacation of Kearney Street South within Garland Park, to Cherry Creek North Drive 3 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners
2 Feasibility Study and Locational Analysis for Cross-Over Bridge between Monaco Blvd. and Quebec Street 3 CCD Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners To Be Determined
2 Traffle Impact Study for Lynwood Neighborhood and other related potential impact areas 2 CCD Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners To Be Determined


3 Planning for the vacation of Cherry Creek Drive South, between Quebec Street and Jeweil Avenue 3 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners
3 * Planning for the vacation of Cherry Creek Drive South, between Trenton Street and lliff Avenue 3 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners; Arapahoe County To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners
3 Planning for the vacation of Niagara St. between Cherry Creek North Drive and Magnolia St 3 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners; Lynwood Neighborhood Association To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING ACTION MATRIX
PRIORiTY DESIGN AND ENGINEERING ACTIONS iREACH- RESPONSIBILITY FUNDING STATUS
1 Cherry Creek Park Drive and adjacent areas between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd. - Two-Lane Roadway - Round-About at Aiameda/Cherry Creek park Drive intersection - Pedestrian cross walks - Landscaped medians and turning bays *- Commuter Bike Path - Recreational Trail - Landscaping 1 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Parks Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners Partially in- place and approved as part of 1997 Bond Issue for design and engineering of Cherry Creek Park Drive only; Additional funding required to meet cross-section recommendations of the Master Plan
1 > Cherry Creek Park Drive and related improvement between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Street. - 4-Land Roadway - Landscaped Median with Turn Bays - Pedestrian Cross Walks at Birch Street - Birdi Street Pedestrian Bridge Access improvements - Commuter Bike Path - Recreational Path - Landscaping 2 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Parks Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property owners; City of Glendale To Be Determined
1 Holly Street Bridge Replacement and related improvements and amenities 2 CCD Transportation Division; UDFCD, CDOT, CCD Parks Division; Neighborhood Associations To Be Determined
78


2 Round-About at Kentucky/Cherry Creek South Drive intersection 2 CCD Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners To Be Determined
2 Mississippi at Cherry Creek South Drive Intersection Improvements 2 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners
2 Monaco Bridge Replacement and related improvements and amenities 2 CCD Transportation Division; UDFCD, CDOT, CCD Parks Division; To Be Determined
CONSTRUCTION ACTION MATRIX
liHDRITY ACTION PLAN REACH RESfflNSIBlLITY FUNDING STATUS
1 Cherry Creek Park Drive and related improvements and amenities between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd. - Two-Lane Roadway - Round-About - Pedestrian cross walks - Landscaped medians and turning bays - Commuter Bike Path - Recreational Trail - Landscaping 1 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Parks and Recreation; Neighborhood Associations Partially in-place; additional funding required to meet design intent of Master Plan
1 Design elements of Site Plan prepared for former Steele Street (vacated), between Alameda Ave. and Cherry Creek Park Drive 1 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Planning Division; CCD Parte Division; adjacent property owners To Be Determined
1 Intersection Improvements at Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Creek Park Drive 1 and 2 CCD Transportation; CDOT To Be Determined
2 Cherry Creek Park Drive and related improvement between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Street - 4-Land Roadway - Landscaped Median with Turn Bays - Cross Walks at Birch Street - Birch Street Pedestrian Bridge Access Improvements - Commuter Bike Path - Recreational Path 2 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners To Be Determined
79


2 Mississippi at Cherry Creek Park Drive intersection 2 CCD Transportation Division; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners
3 "Cross-Over Bridge and related park amenities between Holly St. and Monaco Blvd. Natural" Area Park, between Holly St and Monaco Blvd., south side of Cherry Creek 2 CCD Traffic Division; CCD Parks Division; CDOT; Neighborhood Associations To Be Determined
3 Cross-Over Bridge and related park amenities between and Monaco Blvd. Wetlands expansion from Gold Smith Gulch, south side of Cherry Creek
3 Round-About at Cherry Creek Park Drive/Kentucky Intersection 2 CCD Transportation To Be Determined
80


Full Text

PAGE 1

CHERRY CREEK GREENWAY MASTER PLAN Volume 1 -A Concept for the Eight-Mile Corridor from University Boulevard to the Cherry Creek Reservoir Prepared for: THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER Department of Parks and Recreation Transportation Planning Department the Public Works Division Prepared By: SAW, Inc. in association with Shapins Associates, Inc EAO Resources Corporation Bramhall & Associates, Inc. May24, 2000

PAGE 2

Chetty Cteek G reenwqy Cotti<:lot Master Pian Report SECTION 1: SECTION 2: SECTION 3 : SECTION 4: SECTION 5: INTRODUCTION PlANNING BACKGROVND Purpose, Vision and Goals History and Context Planning Considerations and Assumptions Relationship to Adopted Plans Planning Process and Approach Corridor Issues PVBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Participation Goals and Objectives Local Jurisdiction and Agency Participation General Public Participation Newsletters, Mailings and Public Communication EXISTING CONDITIONS Parks, Recreation and Open Space Natural Environment and Water Resources Transportation Patterns and Traffic Conditions Land Use and Neighborhood Character PROJECT ISSVES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Summary of Issues and Concerns Related Planning and Development Trends Summary of Master Plan Goals and Objectives Master Plan Alternatives Evaluation Criteria and Planning Considerations SECTION 6: SECTION 7: "PREFERRED" MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Vision for the Corridor Common Master Plan Elements Reach One Master Plan Components Reach Two Master Plan Components Reach Three Master Plan components IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Magnitude of Costs of Plan Implementation Potential Funding Sources Implementation Tools, Techniques, and Strategies Priority Action Plan and Phasing Considerations

PAGE 3

1 INTRODUCTION 1 Throughout the 12-month public planning process for the Cherry Creek Greenway, a variety of citizen issues and concerns, short-term and long-term objectives, governmental agency positions, and neighborhood agendas have been raised and considered. Given this diversity of often conflicting concerns, and in consideration of environmental, parks and open space, and transportation conditions w ithin the corridor it would be impossible to develop a master plan that would completely meet all of the desires of all stakeholders. The ultimate challenge of the study, however, was not a plan that balanced issues The primary focus of the study was to development a long-range greenway master plan and long-term implementation strategy for the corridor that best serves the overall neighborhood and community. At the same time, the Plan needed to provide a sound planning framework within which the natural environment could be maintained and enhanced, pedestrian and vehicular safety could be improved, and parks and recreational resources could be safely accessed from adjacent neighborhoods and the community. In working with the community constituents involved in this planning effort, understanding and considering "trade-offs," therefore became one of the guiding principles in formulating a plan that could win the broadest support within the community. Improvement of overall n eighborhood quality of life, safe access and use of parks and recreational facilities, and long-term solutions to pedestrian and vehicular traffic conflicts and safety concerns required that all parties accept les s in order to gain significantly.

PAGE 4

Section Two of this Report summarizes the assumptions under which the study was conducted, and discusses the overall goals and objectives, and corridor issues important in understanding the Plan recommendations. Section Three highlights the public engagement process undertaken, which include participation by hundreds of residents and business leaders who live, work, and play in the corridor, and who have a direct interest in how the corridor is improved. It also discusses some of the planning issues identified by local governmental agencies within the City and County of Denver, Glendale and Arapahoe County, the three jurisdictions within the corridor, as well as regional and state agencies that participated in the process. Section Four provides a summary of the significant existing conditions that framed the Plan, i ncluding conditions related to parks and open space, the natural environment, transportation patterns and traffic conditions and land use and neighborhood character. Section Five provides a summary cif all issues and concerns raised by participants throughout the 12 month public planning process, and describes three Plan Alternatives prepared to test a variety of plan elements for consideration in the plan development. Section Six describes and illustrates the "Preferred" Master Plan recommended by the Consultant, based on the results of the study with elements common to the entire corridor, as well as plan components identified for each of the three "reaches" of the corridor. Section Seven, then discusses probable costs for implementation of the Plan, as well as potential funding sources. A Priority Action Plan is also provided that identifies priorities for planning activities, design and engineering, and construction of the proposed improvements. Improvements generally include the following, elements within each of the three planning reaches. 2 Plan Element by Reach Street Improvements Increase Travel Lanes RoundAbout Landscaped Median/Tum Bays Intersection Improvements Street Vacation Street Realignment Sidewalks Commuter Bike Path Recreational Path Soft Trails Pedestrian Bridge Pedestrian Safety Improvements Increased Park Acreage Off-Street Parking On-Street Parking Open Space Acquisition 1 2 3 '">'"' '"'"'"' "'"' y y y N N N y y N y y N y y y y y y y y N y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y N y y

PAGE 5

2 PLANNING BACKGROUND 3 PURPOSE, VISION, AND GOALS Cherry Creek, from the Cherry Creek Reservoir to its confluence with the South Platte River in downtown Denver meanders through twelve miles of diverse vegetation and wildlife habitats rural, suburban, and urban developments, three governmental jurisdictions, seven neighborhoods, and public as well as privately-controlled lands. As one of the last remaining natural environments within an otherwise urbanized setting, the Cherry Creek corridor provides a unique opportunity to become one of the metropolitan area's major open space resources connecting our neighborhoods, providing recreational opportunities, and helping to establish the "sense of place" that we all seek. The purpose of the Cherry Creek Greenway Corridor Master Plan is to develop an overall master plan for the eight-mile portion of Cherry Creek between University Boulevard and the Cherry Creek Dam that will (1) firmly establish the long-term protection and enhancement of its environmental resources; (2) provide safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and recreational access into and through the corridor; (3) expand opportunities for open space; (4) improve transportation corridors for safe neighborhood and local business access and transit opportunities, and (5) redefine the corridor as a local and community-serving amenity for residents and visitors. The future "vision" of the corridor is one that promotes a high quality of life for local neighborhoods, not only in terms of safe access and enjoyable use of the Cherry Creek corridor, but also one that improves the ability to safely travel within the community between residential, shopping and business locations, community facilities, social outlets, and other nearby destinations Protection and enhancement of the natural environment, as well as the creation of co!wenient and safe pedestrian and vehicular linkages to community resources,

PAGE 6

serve as the guiding principals of this planning effort. The program for the development of the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan was designed to include: + Framework Plans, to establish approaches and concepts for: Protection and enhancement of environmental resources. Coordination of parks, recreation, and open-space resources. Safe and efficient transportation systems Appropriate land-use recommendations. + Recommended Priority Action Plan, to consider: Implementation tools and techniques. Partnerships and other funding opportunities and management. Roles and responsibilities for implementation. HISTORY AND CONTEXT Historicall y Cherry Creek has served as one of the major corridors along which the Denver metropolitan area has developed. As early as 1859, Cherry Creek was established as a transportation route for settlers and carriages travelling from the Arkansas River to the evolving cities of Denver and Auraria. The Middle Smoky Hill Trail was located in the vicinity of present-day Parker Road and Leetsdale 4 Drive. Settlement occurred around "mile houses, established to service trav elers along this route. Four-Mile House remains a lasting reminder and an important historic marker within the Greenway. Frequent flooding of the entire area has been documented throughout its history. The construction of the Cherry Creek Dam, completed in 1950, and subsequent urban drainage stabilization projects have significantly reduced the likelihood of flooding. As a major responsibility of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and Denver Wastewater Management, however, flood control remains one of Cherry Creek's primary functions. Today, Cherry Creek represents a green "seam" that ties together a variety of communities and resources It is a valued recreation area, providing trails, natural areas, and parks considered among the most popular in the region. It is home to diverse wildlife and is part of a natural corridor that supports migration of birds, waterfowl, and small mammals. It also remains an important transportation link serving local neighborhoods and the southeast quadrant of the metro area. Given its proximity to Glendale, Cherry Creek Shopping Center, and various local businesses, the corridor continues to be used primarily as a neighborhood-serving transportation route. Although not designated as an regional arterial roadway, Cherry Creek Drive is sometimes perceived as an alternative route for residents of the southeastern portions of the metropolitan

PAGE 7

area w o r king downtown and in other parts of the City. 1 Where once stage coaches and horses traveled along the banks of Cherry Creek now automobile and bicycle commuters use the Creek to tra v el to downtown employment and local businesses, and neighbors walk and jog the trails walk their dogs and stroll with their children and grandchildren. Over the years, use of the corridor has increased as growth has continued to expand in the southeast quadr ant. As a result, local neighborhoods have been impacted by traffic congestion noise, and air pollution, as well as impacts on the corridor s natural environment from erosion, increased passive and active recreational activities, and incompatible uses In addition these changes have raised serious concerns about the corridor s sustainability and pedestrian and vehicular safety This study, therefore was undertaken to address these and other issues affecting the quality of the corridor, r eemphasizing and redefining its role as a recreational and environmental resou rce and local transportation link within the community. 1 Traffic models conducted as part of the planning process indicate t hat over_ % of trips in the area are generated by local residents, and only_% could be attributed to "commuter" t raffi c 5

PAGE 8

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan Study focuses on the approximate eight mile long portion of Cherry Creek between University Boulevard on the west and the Cherry Creek Reservoir on the south and east. The study area encompasses a wide range of environmental, recreational land use, and transportation conditions and issues. Major transportation corridors within the study area include the following intersections of Cherry Creek Drives North and South: University Boulevard, Colorado Boulevard, Cherry Street, Kentucky A venue, Mississippi A venue, Holly Street, Monaco Boulevard, Quebec Street, and Iliff Avenue. While other major routes in the vicinity are taken into consideration in terms of traffic modeling and mobility opportunities, they are not studied in detail as part of this planning effort. Previous studies that addressed broader transportation issues, however, have been considered as they relate to the Cherry Creek corridor. These studies include the Southeast Quadrant Transportation and the Central Denver Transportation Study. This Master Plan Report, in fact considers a segment of the Central Denver Transportation Study which was identified for more detailed planning analysis and recommendations. 2 To address the different natural and manmade conditions and issues resulting from those conditions the Planning Area was segmented into three major "reaches" as described here: + Reach One: University Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard-a mixed-use area with a variety of business and medium to high-density single-family residential uses, where traffic and access are primary concerns 2 Central Denver Transportation Study, dated May, 1998 page 67 6 Figure 2 1 + Reach Two: Colorado Boulevard to Monaco Boulevard-a mixed-use area with mediumto high-density single f amily /multi-family residential uses and a variety of business/ office uses, where safety, access, and transportation patterns are majo r issues. + Reach Three: Monaco Boulevard to Cherry Creek Dam-a more suburban residential area, with light industrial uses, open space, and lower density developments, where maintenance of open space and trails are the major issues

PAGE 9

Designated neighborhoods within or adjacent to the corridor include Cherry Creek, Belcaro, Virginia Village, Virginia Vale, Indian Creek, and Hampden. Other neighborhoods interested in the study include Country Club Capital Hill, Washington Park, and Washington Governmental jurisdictions considered as part of the study include the City and County of Denver, City of Glendale, and Arapahoe County. Figure 2-2 illustrates the general area considered within the planning effort. Figure 2-1 Since the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan was intended to provide a more indepth look at and specific recommendations for an area previously addressed in the Central Denver Transportation Study, it was determined that this study would not make recommendations that: + Attempt to solve park or transpo r tation issues outside the study area 7 + Alter the flood control function or capacity of the corridor + Revisit recent transportation studies, conclusions, and/ or decisions, specifically the issues of: An Alameda Bridge or Steele Street Bridge across the Creek. The r erouting of traffic west of Colorado Boulevard from Cherry Creek South Drive to Cherry Creek North Drive east of Alameda Avenue. An extension of Cherry Creek Drive south of lliff Avenue to Hampden Boulevard RELATIONSHIP TO ADOPTED PLANS Plans adopted by the City and County of Denver, Arapahoe County, and the City of Glendale served as a partial basis for various study components of the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan. Other studies, although not officially adopted, were also considered in formulation of alternative plans for the corridor. These include the following: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Protecting Denver' s Natural AreasCity and County of Denver (CCD), 1995 Natural Areas Within the Denver Parks and Recreation Systemceo 1995

PAGE 10

Environmental and Water Resources Cherry Creek Stabilization Plan Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD}, 1999 Cherry Creek Flood Control and Recreation Master Plan UDFCD, 1977 Denver Regional Council of Governments Open Space Vision 2020 1999 Land Use City and County of Denver Comprehensive Master Plan, 1989. Cherry Creek Neighborhood Master Plan UpdateDraft 1999 Washington/Virginia Vale/Virginia Village Neighborhood Plan, 1992 Indian Creek Neighborhood Plan, 1993 Arapahoe County Comprehensive Plan, 1989 C ity of Glendale Land Use Master Plan DRCOG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 8 + Transportation Southeast Quadrant Transportation Study, CCD 1989. Central Denver Transportation Study, CCD 1998 Bike Depot Study CCD, 1999 Denver Bicycle Master Plan 1993 PLANNING PROCESS AND APPROACH Because of the diverse environmental character of the corridor, the multi jurisdictional control and the variety of sensitive neighborhood, community, and regional issues involved in the study, the process developed by the Consultant Team was designed to: + Integrate -not "balance" -critical issues within the c orridor. + Focus strongly on the neighborhoods and quality of life issues + Emphasize that transportation would not be the "tail that wags the dog. + Consider and promote creative and effective tools to achieve project goals and objectives. + Encourage a broad and effective public engagement process. + Evaluate conditions and obtain input by "reach" in order t o reflect differences within these areas + Consult with public agencies and jurisdictions charged with planning, maintenance, and funding. + Develop and test plan alternatives that cover a range of options + Consider trade-offs "What's best for the community The 12-month public planning process was also based on the need to:

PAGE 11

+ Develop long-term solutions that address critical pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. + Understand and reflect the corridor's "carrying capacity." + Enhance regional open space opportunities. + Develop creative and effective transportation solutions that address local issues, as well as neighborhood, community, and regional recreation issues and concerns. + Integrate environmental, recreational, land use and transportation issues and needs. CORRIDOR ISSUES The Consultant Team recognized that planning and design solutions that focused on neighborhood issues and concerns would have the best chance for gaining public support for change. Preliminary issues identified included: + Neighborhood Quality of Life + Local and Regional Parks and Recreational Resources + Community and Neighborhood Transportation Patterns Intersection Safety + "Sense of Neighborhood" ., Pedestrian/Vehicular Conflicts ., Linkages to Local and Regional Parks and Community Facilities ., Appropriate and Compatible Mix of Land Uses/Focuses + Environmenta l Quality and Preservation Flood Control and Safety ., Aesthetic Value/Visual Quality 9 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Values ., Maintenance As a basis for obtaining comments and responses from the general public as well as from local agencies, the following issues were presented and d iscussed in a variety of forums throughout the study: + Parks and Recreation Recognizing the corridor s environmental and recreational attributes, the following were considered: Appropriate "Greenway types of recreational u ses adapted to reflect and respond to : Water resources Riparian and wildlife habitats Neighborhood values Availability of recreational facilities Environmental Quality and Preservation The need to preserve the natural environmental quality of the corridor, increasingly rural from Reach 1 to Reach 3, was a critical issue to all users of the corridor, and as a result guided many of the decisions later made related to environmental integrity and treatment. Environmental issues and concerns include: ., Wildlife habitats and regional corridors ; ., Erosion control and stabilization ; ., Drainage and flood control ; ., Visual character and quality

PAGE 12

Threat of development of existing open space; and, Existing resource enhancement + Transportation Issues and Considerations Although this study was not primarily a transportation study, transportation patterns and facilities represented a significant component of the planning effort, since Cherry Creek South and North Drives parallel the corridor for most of its eight miles. Issues related to transportation and its impact on the master planning of the corridor include: Neighborhood Fear of the return of the Cherry Creek Arterial Parkway concept Concern about increased volumes and speeds to accommodate commuters Vehicular mobility and safety Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and safety, particularly at intersections Community Access to regional shopping districts Inter-and intra-neighborhood access Parks and community facilities access Regional Commuter transportation impacts on the neighborhoods Regional connectivity Recreational use, access, and parking 10

PAGE 13

3 PVBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 11 PARTICIPATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A key element in any planning study is to gain the support of both the general public who use the facilities and the agencies and jurisdictions that are responsible for the management and maintenance of resources. It is also essential to understand the needs of the users and receive input from them about the corridor's strengths and weaknesses. Given the significance of the Cherry Creek corridor and the variety of public sector and private sector interests that would guide the p l anning effort, it was recognized thatanyrecommendationsforchange within the Cherry Creek corridor would not come easy or without controversy The primary goals of the Consultant Team s process related to winning public suppor t for any recommendations and, therefore, was based on the need to: + Clearly explain the public's role and provide a wide range of opportunities for neighborhood and community invol v ement. + Maintain clear and open lines of communication + Effectively inform and engage stakeholders, including residents land owners governmental agencies the wide variety of users, and local businesses + Active l y engage stakeholders

PAGE 14

+ Maintain a 12-month public planning process. + Establish priorities and consider tradeoffs in order to achieve success. LOCAL JURISDICTION AND AGENCY PARTICIPATIONs The study area established for the Cherry Creek corridor meanders through the City and County of Denver, the City of Glendale, and Arapahoe County. Each entity includes a variety of departments and agencies with which coordination and involvement would be essential in development of an effective and creative Master Plan for the corridor. To help achieve goals in this area, the Consultant Team conducted a ser ies of Focus Group Workshops 4 to discuss issues and concerns related to: + Parks and Recreation + Environmental and Water Resources Transportation Land Use and Urban Design a A complete list of public-sector participants is provided in Volume 2, Appendix A 4 A summary of issues, concerns and comments resulting from each of the Focus Group work sessions is included in Volume 2, Appendix B. 12 Public-sector entities which participated in the study at this level included: + City and County of Denver, City of Glendale, Arapahoe County, and other Agencies and Departments of: Parks and Recreation Transportation Planning, including Bicycle Planning Transportation Engineering Public Works Wastewater Division Asset Management Environmental Health Planning and Community Development + City of Glendale + Arapahoe County + City of Aurora Parks Department + Other Governmental Agencies Urban Drainage and Flood Control Denver Water Board Four Mile Historic Park Colorado State Parks Cherry Creek Basin Authority U .S. Corps of Engineers Colorado Division of Wildlife Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District ._ Colorado Department of Transportation Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Regional Transportation District (RTD)

PAGE 15

GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONs Other City of Denver-sponsored planning studies have depended on the involvement of Steering Committees or Advisory Groups for stakeholder input, often with a final public hearing. The unique eight-mile length of the Cherry Creek corridor and the many issues unique within different neighborhoods and different jurisdictions called for a different approach and on-going par ticipation throughout the study. It was considered essential to receive input from a large and diverse number of individuals with widely varied viewpoints in order to achieve the best results The final participation process therefore, resulted in the active participation of a variety of users, local residents nearby residents and other interest groups. A database of over 800 households and individuals was developed and maintained, and notifications were mailed prior to any major public presentation. Meetings were organized within the three reaches to allow the maximum participation by the affected neighborhoods. The planning process and approach for involvement and participation of the general public included a series of neighborhood and community meetings 6 as well as smaller unscheduled meetings, phone calls and e-mails with neighborhood organizations, individuals, bicycle riders 5 A complete list of meetings, along with summaries of those meetings and other public engagement activities is provided in Volume 2 Appendix C s Meeting dates and locations for all public meetings are listed in Volume 2, Appendix C 13 (commuter and recreational) and community facilities staff to discuss a v ariety of project-relate issues. Programmed meetings included the following: Three Public Forums Public Forum One : "An Introduction to the Study" Purpose of the Study and Significance of the Corridor Project Schedule Community Input and Ideas Public Forum Two: "A Presentation of Findings" Summary of Issues and Concerns Summary of Physical Data Review Planning and Constraints/Opportunities Public Forum Three : "A Presentation of the Preferred Master Plan" 7 Review "Preferred" Plan Discussion of the Implementation Action Plan At the neighborhood level the following process for engaging public comment was established: A series of three meetings in each of three reaches" to update and discuss: 7 ChannelS Educational Television taped the presentation and televised the meeting on several occasions throughout the October-December, 1999 time period.

PAGE 16

Issues and concerns Goals and objectives Review of two alternative concept plans Specific neighborhood planning recommendations + "Ride the Corridor" bike trips (by each reach) with the Consultant Team to discuss issues and concerns NEWSLETTERS, MAILINGS, AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Local interest in the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan study has been tremendous. By utilizing the reach" approach for obtaining information and comment from the public, information about the project has been made available to residents and landowners throughout the corridor. Outreach activities include the distribution of posters, postcard mailings press reports released to local and neighborhood newspapers, and the preparation of newsletters throughout the study period. The Consultant Team received a variety of correspondence including letters, phone calls, and e-mails all of which were documented and considered in the development of the Master Plan. 8 8 Copies of newsletters are provided in Volume 2 Appendix C. 14 In addition, participating City of Denver Council members held work sessions with representatives of other jurisdictions, and the Consultant Team met with local neighborhood groups to present the information regarding the process and recommendations at various points. Local neighborhood newspapers conducted interviews with the Consultant Team and others involved in the process not only to describe the project and recommendations but also as a way to encourage additional input from the local neighborhoods

PAGE 17

4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 15 INTRODUCTION As part of a "vision" plan for the long-term treatment and enhancement of this segment of the Cherry Creek corridor, the resulting recommendations are based significantly on neighborhood issues, concerns, goals, and objectives to maintain and improve community quality of life. The Plan also reflects, however, the physical conditions and characteristics within the corridor in order to help ensure long-term viability of natural systems, consid e ring natural vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources in determining how the corridor should be planned. The following sections briefly describe the existing conditions considered as part of this study, including Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Natural Environment and Water Resources, Transportation and Traffic Conditions, and Land Use and Neighborhood Character. Any detailed inventories and analysis of these conditions, including background data used by the Consultant Team, are provided in Volume 2, Appendix D. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Cherry Creek is part of a larger regional greenway system that includes the Highline Canal, the South Platte River, and Sand Creek The linear open space within and adjacent to Cherry Creek provides a unique "natural" connection between par ks and neighborhoods, and is part of a larger open space system that supports riparian and wildlife habitats Area parks serve both local and regional residents, providing recreational trails, volleyball courts, soccer fields, playgrounds, recreational centers, and other facilities, such as 4 Mile House Park. Regional attractions, such as the Cherry Creek Shopping Center, Cherry Creek North Business District, and high-density

PAGE 18

employment/ residential centers in Denver and Glendale also attract a high number of recreational users. 9 + Existing Parks included in the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan study area are: Cherry Creek Park: Created as part of the redevelopment of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center, it features a heavily used section of the Cherry Creek trail, an outdoor activity space, a sculpture, and gardens in an irrigated landscape area. A section of paved trail meanders along the creekside. However, Cherry Creek Park is frequently closed due to flooding. Pulaski Park: This 20-acre park is separated from the Greenway by the heavily traveled Cherry Creek North Drive and Steele Street. The park includes the Gates Tennis Center. 4 Mile House Park: With the restored 19'h century 4 Mile House 9 The Denver Department of Parks and Recreation recently performed a trail use survey [Appendix D] that shows trail use at peak hours exceeds 300 users per hour, exceeding the capacity of a single multi-user trail system (ref) 16 and re-creation of a 19' h century farm, this park is a valued and popular destination Currently updating its master plan and vision, the Park has concerns about accessibility, visibility, and separation from the Creek, as well as parking for peak use and special events. City of Karmiel Park: Part of the Sister City program, this linear park is on of several parks located along the south side of Cherry Creek Drive North, between the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and Colorado Blvd. The ongoing Sister City park program is intended to reflect the character or culture of an international city and, as such, adds interest to the corridor.

PAGE 19

City of Takayama Park: This manicured/landscaped amenity, part of the linear park formed by Cherry Creek North Drive between the shopping center and Colorado Boulevard, features a Japanese garden, trails, benches, and picnic tables along the north bank of the Creek. City of Brest Park: This 15 acre undefined open area between Cherry Creek South Drive and the Stokes Greenbower neighborhood is a popular area for field sports by a variety of users. At least partially located on a former fill area, the park has suffered from settlement and drainage problems for a long tim e Volleyball and soccer areas are heavily used and parking is inadequate, often overflowing onto neighborhood streets. 17 City of Potenza Park: This 5-acre neighborhood park at the busy intersections of Holl y Street, Cherry Creek South Drive and Mississippi A venue is a passive landscaped park. City of Madras Park: Located near the Indian Creek neighborhood just east of Quebec Street, this 8-acre passive park is separated from the Greenway by a 10-acre privately owned undeveloped parceL Since both properties were former landfill sites, development opportunities, even for park uses are limited. City of Madras Park includes a large open space and paved trails. Creekside Park This City of Glendale Park is located at the north end of the pedestrian bridge east o f Cherry Street. The park is in the middle of the City of Glendale's proposed Urban Village area a plan supported by this study. The 4-acre acre park includes trails volleyball courts, pic nic areas and restrooms.

PAGE 20

Garland Park: This 45-acre landscaped park features the picturesque Lollipop Lake, with a wetland environment, picnicking, and model boat sailing. Several volleyball and softball/baseball fields used by the surrounding residential community are also included as part of this park amenity. Kearney Street bisects the park and provides access to the existing parking areas (capacity: 80 cars); additional parking during peak events often overflows onto neighborhood streets and along the shoulders of Cherry Creek North Drive. Cook Park: An important neighborhood and community park, this 40-acre amenity includes a newly renovated recreation center, ext e nsive active r ecreationa l facilities, and parking for 200 cars. The park hosts many senior activities as well as a variety of educational athletic s and cultural activities. The rec ently reconstructed Goldsmith Gulch 1 8 drainage traverses the park, providing a restored riparian environment at its confluence with Cherry Creek, just east of Monaco Parkway. Hentzell Park: A 60-acre passive open space park bisected by the Cherry Creek trail, this City of Denver park features highly sensitive ecological areas, including undisturbed remnants of the native high plains landscape vegetation. Kennedy Park: An 18-hole golf course with ball fields are the primary elements of this 200-acre park, located at the eastern end of the corridor south of Havana Street. The Cherry Creek trail weaves through a section of the golf course sharing the underpass below Havana Street with the golf cart path.

PAGE 21

The Cherry Creek Channel and Trail System is primarily under the jurisdiction of the City and County of Denver, though portions fall under the jurisdiction of Arapahoe County. The Cherry Creek Channel generally includes an area 400 feet wide from University Boulevard to Quebec Street, with a few exceptions in Glendale. The channel has an important flood control function controlled under the jurisdiction of Denver Wastewater and UDFCD. The Cherry Creek trail system is part of a much larger regional system that includes connections to the more urban Cherry Creek/1" Avenue-Speer Boulevard trail connecting to downtown Denver and to the South Platte River Trail It is also a part of a system of trails through Cherry Creek State Park that links to the new Greenwood Village Trail, the Park loop, and the Cherry Creek Basin Trail, currently being built upstream of the Reservoir into Douglas County. The trail also intersects the popular recreational system along the High Line Canal, as well as notable neighborhood and City bike route connections such as those at Hampden Heights, Cook Park/Goldsmith Gulch, Garland Park, and Steele Street. The Cherry Creek Trail is a very popular and heavily utilized multi -user system. Recognized regionally as a great place to walk, bike, and roller blade, the concrete and asphalt-paved trail runs continuously; an informal network of "social" dirt footpaths also exists through the entire eight-mile length of the corridor. A variety of pedestrian bridges cross the Creek at 19 several points. Most of the trail system is maintained b y the Denver Parks and Recreation Department. Several conditions that affect use and pedestrian safety have been identified as part of this Study, including: Flooding occurs in the lower trail section near the Cherry Creek Shopping Center causing the closure of the trail, mos t often in the spring, when trail use is at its highest. After flooding, a significant amount of trail maintenance is required before it can be reopened. Other trail locations are subject to erosion poor alignment and grade, and inadequate width. Pedestrian/vehicle and pedestrian/ bicycle conflicts occur regularly due to lack of grade separation at certain streets and the high number of trail users. Social and paved trails in the floodplain have contributed to severe erosion problems, damage to riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat and safety hazards, especially in Reach 3. Examples include the well-worn mountain biking and jogging trail on both sides of the Creek between Cherry Street in Glendale, and at Quebec Street in Arapahoe County. Several large open space areas in Arapahoe County are owned by Denver Water and Cherry Creek Valley Water District These private properties are crisscrossed by undefined social trails, despite the fact that they are not open to public access. Some portions of these lands have been identified as some of the most sensitive areas of ecological diversity and importance in the study area.

PAGE 22

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES Given the area's significant environmental qualities and the uniqueness of those characteristics in one of the region's most popular recreational areas, the Consultant Team 10 evaluated natural vegetation and wildlife characteristics within the corridor. These studies were conducted to help determine appropriate short-term and long term plan recommendations for recreational land uses, mitigation of potential impact s, and preserva tion of unique resources. Information evaluated included the following : Vegetation An inventory of vegetation and potential wildlife habitat was undertaken simultaneously with the Cherry Creek Corridor Master Plan development. The purpose was to identify opportunities and constraints that would be used in the development of the plan. The study indicated two types of sensitive ecological areas within the Master Plan area. The large majority of open space in the corridor was not classified as sensitive. Nearly all of the sensitive areas were located in Reach 3, as shown on the Master Plan. Creek Water Flow and Quality 10 ERO provided detailed studies related to environmental conditions and characteristics within the corridor, not only as part of this study, but also under separate studies undertaken for the City and County of Denver and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 20 Although no specific t esti n g or analysis of water re sources was unde rtaken as part of this study, the water quality in Cherry Creek is considered to be quite high by the UDFCD. Cherry Creek flows continuously year-round, but the volume of flow varies considerably. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) controls the flow through releases from the Cherry Creek Dam. Release volumes are based on downstream water rights flood storage capacities, and Creek flows. The COE is authorized by Congress to release up to 5,000 cubic feet per second (CFS); however, normal releases are in the range of five to 50 CFS Storm and spring releases of up to 500 CFS have caused significant erosion along the less channelized sections of the Creek and silt buildup elsewhere. A 5,000-CFS release would have a significant impact on recreational facilities along the Creek. Flood Plain The 100-year flood plain is mapped in the 1976 Urban Drainage Flood Control Plan. Subsequent updates have redefined certain sections, notab ly around the confluence with Goldsmith Gulch and between Holly Street and Monaco Parkway south of the Creek. Aquatic Habitat Despite relatively high water quality in the upper reach the Creek is not considered suitable to support a recreational fishery. Variations in flow cause significant changes in aquatic habitat. Water quality decreases farther

PAGE 23

downstream as water and silt contributions from street drainage and water treatment facilities are contributed to the flow. + Wildlife Habitat Wildlife presence and impacts are evident, especially in Reach 3. Beaver have removed a large number of both old growth and newly planted trees. They have dammed portions of the Creek, creating ponds that support very different fish, wildlife and vegetation Flushing releases from the Cherry Creek Darn periodically destroy these dams It has also been observed that foxes, deer, rabbits, and urban wildlife such as squirrels and rodents populate the creek channel area. As in any riparian area, various bird species are well represented, several using the corridor as an important part of their migration route. TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Because the Cherry Creek corridor is a community focal point and home to some of the City's most viable neighborhoods, shopping districts and recreation areas, it is also a critical nexus for transportation within the City With the Cherry Creek corridor serving multiple purposes transportation for this study was defined broadly in terms of modes of travel, but narrowly defined in the geographic sense. + Traffic Patterns From the outset of this project, traffic patterns have been observed from the objective standpoint of both regional travel forecasts and from site-specific traffic counts. The study area for traffic patterns was defined by the City and County of Denver to include only Cherry Creek North Drive, Cherry Creek South Drive, and the immediately adjacent streets (within an approximately 1.0-mile radius) It was expected that concurrent project tasks and subsequent assignments related to 21 this study would address larger regional travel patterns on parallel facilities. 11 In part, the narrow geographic definition of the study area arose from analyses identifying the proportion of trips that were regional through-trips. This corridor, whether as a whole or on a segment-by segment basis, currently serves a low proportion of regional through-trips. Through-trips are defined as those trips that neither originate in, nor are destined for the Cherry Creek corridor. The proportion of local versus through-trips are shown by segment below: University Boulevard to Alameda A venue currently serves 92% local and 8% through-trips. Alameda A venue to Colorado Boulevard currently serves 82 % local and 18% through-trips. Colorado Boulevard to Holly Street currently serves 96% local and 4% through-trips. Holly Street to Monaco Parkway currently serves 92% local and 8% through-trips Monaco Parkway to iliff Avenue currently serves 91% local and 9% through-trips. + Congestion People who frequent or live in the area note that vehicular traffic congestion in the Cherry Creek corridor occurs primarily at 11 Such facilities would include Leetsdale Drive (through Reversible Lane Studies) and 1-25 (Southeast Corridor, through the MIS/EIS Studies).

PAGE 24

intersections. Although most of the segments of road operate well, some intersections cause cars to queue up and create conditions of congestion. Importantly, considerable work was done as part of this study to document existing intersection operations and to quantify and/ or qualify that information. Existing Intersection Level of Service Analysis 12 Level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted to establish two baselines for the study: 1. Existing 1999 intersection LOS. 2. Improvements that would be required to bring existing LOS to a minimum of LOS E (minimum threshold for acceptable operations) and/ or to improve the LOS at major intersections to Cor D. Table 4-1 shows the results of these analyses and presents the improvements I changes that would be required to meet the "target" levels of service. The results of this analysis were considered transportation-related recommendations identified in the Preferred Master Plan, described in Section 6 of this report. 12 Prepared by Counter Measures, June 1999-See Appendix D for complete analysis. 22 Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Safety concerns for commuter bikers, pedestrians, roller-bladers, hikers, and other recreational users, as well as motorists using the corridor, were major issues throughout the study, regardless of location. Mid-point street crossings, intersections, and key access points into the various city parks and open space along the corridor all present challenges to safety. Consideration was given, therefore, to a variety of planning and design tools that can address the issue of safety, including the following: Intersection improvements, including designated crosswalks to better define and direct travel movements.

PAGE 25

Round-abouts to effectively slow traffic movement and designate pedestrian crossing points. Pedestrian-activated signals to improve safety at street crossings. Increased land areas adjacent to bus stops to provide safer bus access. Landscaped medians to provide safe landing "havens" for pedestrian crossings Design and alignment improvements to improve safety at confusing and dangerous intersections. 23

PAGE 26

Table 4-1: Existing Level of Service Analysis Existing Intersection Exist Target Intersection Improvement/Change 1999 1999 Required to Achieve Target LOS* North-South Street/East West Street LOS LOS (signal control or limiting movement if unsignalized) University/Cherry Creek S (signalized) DID C / C Add 2nd WB AT Lane Alameda/ Cherry Creek S. (NB L TA} F / D C / B Add signalization Colorado/Cherry Creek S. (signalized) F/F C/D Add exclusive SB RT Lane Add exclusive NB L T Lane Add 3 additional EB Lanes: 2 TH, 1 L T Add exclusive WB TH Lane Holly/Cherry Creek N (signalized} BIB BIB No C hange. Holly/Cherry Creek S. (signalized) C/E C/E No Change. Monaco/Cherry Creek N. (signalized) F/F C/C Add SB TH Lane. Convert SB shared T L t o L T only lane. Monaco/Cherry Creek S. (WB L ) F / F A/A Add signalization. Quebec/Cherry Creek (signalized) F / F C / C Add one NB TH Lane Add exclusive SB L T Lane and an additi o nal SB TH Lane Add e xclu s ive EB L T Lane Iliff/Cherry Creek (NB L TR, SB L & SB TR) F / F B / A Add s ignalization. NB, SB, EB, WB = northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound, respectively AT, L T, TH, L TR = right tum, left turn, shared lane with left through and right movements, respectively 24

PAGE 27

LANDUSEANDNBGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan study area is currently experiencing significant growth and infill development throughout the corridor. Land uses vary from the dense urban village of Cherry Creek, to the more commercial/industrial sections near East Iliff A venue; suburban residential and open space is more characteristic in the areas within Arapahoe County and near Cherry Creek State Park. The urban edge that supports the transitions from neighborhood to open space is not well developed. Although improvements to Cherry Creek South Drive have not been completed, new residential developments have installed curbs, walks and landscaping, resulting in a discordant mix of urban form that abruptly changes to undefined street edges. + Common Land Use Attributes The singular identifying thematic element of the area is the Cherry Creek channel with its recreational trail system and wooded riparian environment; a large number of City parks located near the Creek add to this system of open space resources. At neighborhood meetings, area residents consistantly support t Creek's natural character as the most valued neighborhood asset. Beyond the unifying Creek and the road network that runs along it, there is little that identifies this corridor as unique or special from a land use perspective. With few exceptions, urban design improvements are sporadic, often utilitarian and generally lacking in aesthetic appeal. Roads are unfinished without curb, sidewalk and tree lawns, common throughout Denver neighborhoods and required by the City's development guidelines. 25 Poorly defined traffic lanes and the lack of sidewalks or crosswalks make pedestrian access to and across the Creek corridor and to adjacent neighborhoods difficult and most often unsafe. Bus stops are poorly located and often unprotected from nearby traffic and the weather. Pedestrian and vehicular bridges that cross the Creek vary in style, width and character, and many have very poor pedestrian or bicycle facilities. While these elements and characteristics are common throughout the corridor, there are unique characteristics evident within each of the designed "Reaches" of the study area. These include the following: Reach 1 Land Use Characteristics The Cherry Creek Shopping Center, the major land use in Reach 1, establishes land use character along the north side of the Creek. The string of Sister City Parks extends along the heavily traveled Cherry Creek North Drive to Colorado Boulevard. On the South side high rise multifamily residential buildings and expensive single family residences line the Corridor. Some undeveloped land will be developed with similar uses within the next few years City of Brest Park is an important neighborhood open space at the east end of the Reach. Reach 2 Land Use Characteristics Reach 2 includes the City of Glendale, which has the densest population in the area and a mix of land uses adjacent to the

PAGE 28

corridor, including v acant land with proposed hotel developments, high rise office buildings, big box retail stores, and a large number of apartments Outside of Glendale the Reach includes mostly medium density single-family residential neighborhoods and schools. Creekside Park, Four Mile Historic Park, City of Potenza Park and Garland Park are all adjacent to the Creek. Reach 3 Land Use Characteristics In Reach 3 the open space of the corridor expands and adjacent areas are less dense characterized by large urban open spaces such as Kennedy and Los V erdes golf courses, suburban single and multi-family residential developments and some intensive commercial and industrial developments in the Quebec to Wabash section. Open Spaces such as Goldsmith Gulch/Cook Park the High Line Canal, Hentzell and Babi-Yar Parks contribute to the open character of this Reach. 26

PAGE 29

5 PROJECT ISSVES, GOAlS AND OBJECTIVES 27 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS Throughout the master planning process neighborhood issues and concerns, project goals and objectives, and other planning parameters were identified, defined, and modified in order to best reflect overall community interests. In addition, governmental agency issues and concerns were identified through a series of Focus Group Workshops, including sessions for Land Use, Transportation Parks and Open Space and Utilities A summary of these public and agency issues is provided below, listed by major topic; comments served as a basis for subsequent master plan definition. Parks and Open Space Issues and Concerns The corridor is recognized as one of the last remaining natural areas within the metropolitan area. As such, its preservation is essential not only for the surrounding neighborhoods, but also for those citywide and regional users The following issues and concerns evolved out of observations and discussions with those who use, manage, and will be directly impacted by changes within the corridor Cherry Creek Drive is a barrier to access between the neighborhoods and the corridor

PAGE 30

There is no consistent Greenway treatment; Park edges are poorly defined and not finished. There are not enough creek crossings or points of physical and visual access to the Creek. At grade crossings of Holly and Monaco are dangerous to trail users Cherry Creek Drive separates park uses and wildlife access between the creek corridor and Garland and Cook Parks. Large vacant land parcels adjacent to the corridor are under development pressure. There is a desire for additional recreational and open space/buffer land in this area A large network of social trails provide access, privacy and opportunities for alternative recreational activities in the corridor, but are difficult to maintain, contribute to erosion and degrade the natural environment There is a lack of consistent trail signage, markings or interpretive elements throughout the Corridor Some areas of the corridor are considered unsafe, due to lack of lighting, hiding areas, erosion and overgrowth. Residents place a high value on the natural character of the corridor. Parks lack amenities such as benches, receptacles, rest rooms and drinking fountains 28 Several of the park properties suffer from settlement and drainage problems due to poor subsurface soil conditions and former landfills. Parking for recreational use is inadequate, and current on-street parking impacts adjacent neighborhoods User conflicts between bike "commuters" and recreational users create unsafe conditions Poor maintenance of the corridor impacts safe and enjoyable recreational use

PAGE 31

Natural Environmental and Water Resources Issues and Concerns The preservation of the physical condition of the corridor and its environmental sensitivity, its natural beauty, and its rural character was an important issue in the process. Preservation, conservation, and enhancement of vegetation and wildlife habitats represented another significant element considered important by participants The following issues were identified: Cherry Creek is a significant natural riparian and community recreational resource. Low water trails flood often, causing a maintenance burden for the Parks Department. The Channel is an important flood management system. Changes in the flood plain have an impact on the Flood control function Vegetation in the Channel impedes flood flow and is routinely thinned as part of UDFCD maintenance Previous studies do not reflect all of the recent changes to the channel. The extent and sustainability of the riparian environment is subject to the water release needs and requirements of the Army corps of Engineers There is no single management entity responsible for activities within the Corridor 29 The Corridor has the characteristics of a "natural area" as recognized in the City's recently adopted Natural Areas program. Area residents use the Corridor for a variety of recreational activities, and are looking for more way to access and recreate in the Cor r idor Increasing amount and density of adjacent development impacts the natural character and function of the Corridor. Wildlife has an impact on vegetation in the corridor. The State is monitoring a groundwater organic solvent plume in the Glendale area Storm water outfalls (point source and non-point source) to the Creek contribute to siltation and degradation of water quality. Preservation and expansion of the corridor s natural and rural character Enhancement of vegetation and wildlife habitats and access to wildlife Designation of the corridor as a "Natural Area" protected status (HB 98-1305) Corridor s potential for a variety of educational purposes The signif i cance of the corridor as a drainage and flood control facility Creation of a "Greenway" Trust for long term management and maintenance programs Consideration of the "Carrying Capacity" Recreational impact Erosion control Sustainability

PAGE 32

Treatment of the corridor as a continuous system The need for an environmental impact review for any new development within the corridor The need for a unified management plan Control of physical and visual access to the Creek The impact of mountain and motorized bikes, lighting, utilities and other urban influences on the natural qualities of the corridor "Reclaiming" areas lost to erosion, landfills, and other damaging activities. Grade Control (Drop) Structures are proposed throughout the corridor to slow flood flow and reduce erosion in the channel. UDFCD priorities for construction are at University Boulevard (Denver Country Club) and south of Iliff Avenue. The significance of the corridor as a drainage and flood control facility Consideration of the "Carrying Capacity" (criteria) Recreational impact Erosion control Sustainability 30 The impact of mountain and motorized bikes, lighting utilities and other urban influences on the natura l qualities of the corridor Transportation and Traffic Issues and Concerns Traffic and transportation issues were among the most sensitive and controversial among the study participants While the road network along the corridor is incomplete and, in some cases over capacity, it continues to provide access to of the most popular residential business, and recreational destinations in the city The corridor is crossed by several major north south roadways and interrupts the continuity of several east west streets Transportation issues include the following: Transportation decisions have an impact on neighborhoods recreational facilities and quality of life. There is a lack of transit options in the Corridor. The automobile is the primary means of transportation

PAGE 33

Neighborhoods will be negativel y impacted if Cherry Creek Drives are widened or more directly connected Any transportation alternatives which increase traffic will negatively impact neighborhoods Monaco I Cherry Creek North and Holly /Cherry Creek South intersections present major pedestrian problems 4-laning and/ or straightening of Cherry Creek Drive South would have negative impacts on use of the corridor An extension of Cherry Creek Drive South between Holly and Monaco would nave negative impact on neighborhood on the south The existing bicycle trail is a "transportation" corridor Commuter traffic from outlying areas impact neighborhoods Parking along Cherry Creek Drives and side streets for park use is a 31 Very few safe access points exist for pedestrians or cyclists to safely access the parks and trails-grade-separated crossings preferred Additional pedestrian crossings are needed Need "user-friendly" bus stops and shelters in safer areas Develop transportation solutions that support neighborh ood quality of life, parks and recreation opportunities, and preservation of the natural environment Corridor mobility is important to the economic competitiveness of corridor retail and commercial uses; Strive to address corridor mobility needs through a range of transportation modes; Focus on serving the travel demand generated by (local) uses within the corridor Disjointed nature of Cherry Creek Drives North and South and "rush hour" traffic potentially results in short-cuts and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods Neighborhoods will be negatively impacted if Cherry Creek Drives are widened or more directly connected Any transportation alternatives which increase traffic will negatively impact neighborhoods Monac o I Cherry Creek North and Holly /Cherry Creek South intersections present major automobile, bicycle and pedestrian problems 4-laning and/ or straightening of Cherry Creek Drive South would have negati ve impacts on use of the corridor An extension of Cherry Creek Drive South between Holly and

PAGE 34

Monaco would have negative impact on neighborhood on the south The existing bicycle trail is a transportation" corridor-need for a dedicated commuter route for bikes Need traffic cahning alternatives and better enforcement to control speed Speed-actuated devices Roundabout/neck downs Need "user-friendly" bus stops and shelters in safer areas Incorporate bus shuttle system for short trips within the corridor Commuter traffic from outlying areas impact neighborhoods Parking along Cherry Creek Drives and side streets for park use is a neighborhood concern ., Very few safe access points exist for pedestrians or cyclists to safely access the parks and trails grade separated crossings preferred Additional pedestrian crossings are needed Land Use and Urban Design Issues and Concerns With a significant number of urbanized areas included within the study, particularly in Reaches 1 and 2 of the corridor the urban design treatment of existing and proposed land uses can add to or detract from the enjoyable use of the corridor as a recreational resource. The following issues and concerns illustrate some of the more important of these considerations. The major land use in the Corridor is Park and Open Space These areas are a valued part of the 32 community. The natural character and recreational amenity is a valued asset in the community. Adjacent land uses have a significant impact on the character and use of the Green way. Land uses in the area are changing trending toward infill developments and densification. Certain land uses within the corridor are incompatible with the natural character of the Greenway. Higher densities tend to create a hard edge and contribute to drainage and noise impacts to the Creek. The variety of land uses in the corridor is part of its character and attraction. The Corridor lacks an identifiable image Elements of the Corridor are utilitarian and not attractive ., The corridor l acks urban and parkway amenities such as decorative street lighting medians, tree lawns and site furnishings Parking for recreational use is difficult and impacts neighborhoods User conflicts between bike commuters and recreational users create unsafe conditions Poor maintenance of the corridor impacts safe and enjoyable recreational use

PAGE 35

RELATED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS National trends in planning and design of parks, open space and other "greenway" resources have applicability to the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan. For this reason, part of the planning process dealt with the identification of these trends and their elements that might be considered in formulation of the Master Plan. Potential elements identified were then illustrated and discussed with the general public in order to begin to refine the potential program for development of the Master Plan Alternatives A complete list of the potential programming elements discussed with the general public is listed in Volume 2, Appendix As a result of this planning activity, the Consultant Team began to refine the overall Plan objectives and specific Plan elements for further consideration SUMMARY OF MAJOR PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The variety of community and neighborhood issues along with the diverse natural character and quality within each of the "Reaches" provided a multitude of ideas, solutions, goals and objectives for consideration. Although the objectives of one neighborhood or interest group often conflicted with those of another, the Consultant Team summarized the extensive list into manageable categories as a partial basis for formulation of recommendations for the corridor. Physical opportunities and 33 constraints were considered accordingly in terms of sustaining environmental integrity, enhancement of habitats, and mitigation of adverse environmental conditions. The summary of master plan objectives is provided in detail in Volume 2, Appendix E. The following represents an summary overview of these issues and plan objectives for the corridor: + Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Connections Objective: Add to, improve, and integrate connections between neighborhoods and parks and open space facilities in the corridor Amenity Types, character and Locations Objective: Provide a unified system of greenway amenities at strategic locations along the corridor Expansion of Park Areas and Open Space Objective: Meet expanding neighborhood need for natural parks and open space uses Shared Use Objective: Capitalize on existing public and private facilities in order to preserve limited open space and natural areas Trail Systems Objective: Provide a safe and continuous multi-user recreational trail throughout the corridor. Link to adjacent land uses and neighborhood destinations TraiiTypes Objective: Provide a safe hierarchical trail system for a variety of non-motorized users,

PAGE 36

without significantly impacting sensitive environmental areas Trail Locations and Alignments Objective: Safely accommodate major trail user types without conflicting with other users or impacting environmentally sensitive areas Objective Enhance opportunities to access recreational and business interests adjacent to and across the corridor Natural Environment and Water Resources Sensitive Ecological Areas Objective: Identify, protect and enhance sensitive ecological areas to promote high quality vegetation and wildlife habitats Wildlife Habitat Objective: Maintain and expand wildlife corridors, connected to regional open space, that provide high quality habitat for desirable species Vegetation Objective: Preserve and expand the riparian character of the corridor by providing conditions in which native plant species can flourish Water Quality Objective: Preserve and enhance vegetation and wildlife 34 habitats by assuring availability of water Flood Control Objective: Maintain or expand the existing flood and erosion control function of Cherry Creek Resource Management Objective: Provide a method for implementation, maintenance and stewardship of greenway resources Objective: Provide a method for implementation, maintenance and stewardship of greenway resources. Environmental Education Objective: Increase public awareness of the corridor' s importance as an ecological and water resource Transportation PassThru Commuter Traffic Objective: Reduce, or maintain current levels of passthrough commuter traffic without disrupting local circulation Traffic Speed and User Safety Objective: Reduce or eliminate conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians and commuter bikers

PAGE 37

Intersection Operations and Mobility Objective: Provide effective traffic flow at major intersections Alternative Means of Travel Objective: Provide more convenient access to alternative travel modes Commuter Bicycling Objective: Provide a continuous system of efficient commuter bicycle facilities Pedestrian Circulation and Access Objective: Provide a safe sidewalk system for neighborhood access and corridor crossing Land Use and Urban Design Use Compatibility Objective: Preserve/protect existing natural resources and creatively develop adjacent land to integrate and increase open space Land Use Relationships -Objective: Preserve/protect existing natural resources and creatively develop adjacent land to integrate and increase open space Shared Use Objective Reduce the need for duplication of parking, roadways, park and recreation activities, and other facilities to make efficient use of limited resources. Undeveloped and Vacant Land Objective: Preserve/Protect existing natural resources and creatively develop adjacent land to integrate and increase open space Parking Objective: Provide adequate vehicular parking close to 35 greenway and adjacent parks without impacting adjacent neighborhoods Urban Design Treatment Objective: Create a consistent identity or image for the corridor that has a positive impact on surrounding neighborhoods

PAGE 38

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES In order to develop a master plan that addressed the widest cross-section of issues and concerns, goals and objectives and physical opportunities and constraints, the Consultant Team prepared a series of master plan alternatives to obtain public response and comment. While each plan emphasized a unique approach to corridor improvements no one plan was presented as a "total plan. Elements of one alternative, therefore, could be recommended to be incorporated into one or both of the other alternatives In this "menu driven" approach to the development of alternatives, the general public could better comment on the applicability of the specific element, while reacting to the overall approach or emphasis of the particular alternative. As explained to the general public, the resulting master plan to be carried forward would most likel y be based on a combination of elements which best addressed specific goals and objectives of the community, and when combined together would provide the most overall benefit to the community. 36 Common Elements Plan e l ements tha t could b e applied to any of the three master plan alternatives were described and discussed as part of this process. While each of the plan concepts presented v aried in terms of s pecific elements and recommendations a common set of improv ements a p p lied to all al t ernatives Common elements included the following: Improves the Cherry Creek Drive Streetscape and Creekside Landscape Treatment Provides Sidewalks within the R.O.W. Primarily for Pedestrians Maintains the Two-Lane Character of Cherry Creek Drive and Alameda in the University to Alameda Segment Maintains the Two-Lane Character of the Quebec to Iliff Segment Includes Traffic Calming Dev ices Considers Transportation Impacts on Local Neighborhoods Increases the Number of Pedestrian Street Crossings Integrates with Existing Bus and Proposed TMA Shuttle Routes Provides Pedestrian Connections to Access Existing Institutional Park, Recreation and Other In Place Facilities Improves the use of existing recreational trails and provides more vehicular-free pedestrian access throughout the corridor Increases Pedestrian Access Points into the Creek Bottom Area

PAGE 39

._ Provides for a "High-Speed" Wheel Lane (Bikes and In-Line Roller Blades) ._ Provides "Soft" Trails In Areas Not Considered Highly Environmentally-Sensitive .Maintains and Protects Sensitive Environmental Areas and Natural Character of the Corridor ._ Maintains Flood Control Function of the Corridor ._ Identifies opportunities for additional open space Alternative Plan A: During the initial public involvement process, many participants suggested that maintaining the corridor in its current condition would have the least impact on neighborhoods, and result in the least amount of traffic -that pedestrian and vehicular safety issues, increased park and corridor access, and overall aesthetic improvements were less important maintaining the status quo. Under this Alternative, therefore no major changes in road patterns street cross-sections, aesthetic impro v ements or acquisition of additional lands for park development was planned. The intent of this Alternative was to evaluate the long-term impact on neighborhood streets from 37 increased traffic from anticipated growth in the area without significantly changing the existing character or conditions of the corridor Pedestrian and vehicular safety issues were addressed therefore within the existing road patterns of the corridor, and only minor improvements related to safety and traffic mobility were tested. Alternative A Plan elements included the following: .. Retains existing traffic patterns and alignments; continuation of the "Disconnected road system in order to consider its impact on vehicular through-traffic ._ Includes Traffic Calming Devices limit e d to key points within the corridor to slo w traffic: Mid-point pedestrian crossings LAndscaped "Neck-D.owns" at key pedestrian crossings LAndscaped "Neck-Downs" at key vehicular intersections On-Street Parallel Parking in selected areas ._ Adds Curbs and Gutters to control use of adjacent areas, water runoff and impro ve safety conditions

PAGE 40

Allows for social trails in areas not considered as highly environmentally sensitive Continues use of areas for unprogrammed recreational activities, with no added active" recreation opportunities; encourages passive recreational use Expands the "natural character" Improve streetscape treatment within the corridor in selected and landscaping within Rightareas predominantly on the of-Way and creekside "creek-side" of paved trails Adds on-street parallel Does not provide activities or parking bays at selected points facilities which would further to serve as an additional encumber natural and scenic "traffic calming" measure, and resources to increase corridor and park access; additional off-street Maintains existing flood control parking at selected areas capacity of the corridor Provides for on-street "High- Maintains existing neighborhood Speed" Wheel Lanes (Bikes buffers; adds buffers at and In-Line Roller Blades) in commercial and industrial areas order to reduce conflicts with to pedestrians; no underpass minimize negative visual impact connections for "High Speed users Maintains existing urban design Adds one (1) pedestrian features at major intersections; no bridge to better serve Four formal" gateways or Mile House Historic Park image-builders Improves existing detached Utilizes existing vehicular and multi-user recreational trail: pedestrian bridges, requiring no Separates recreation from major structural improvements high speed wheel uses Provides continuous Makes no aesthetic or pedestrian vehicular-free recreational access improvements to vehicular access throughout the bridges only for new or corridor reconstruction of existing bridges Minimizes vehicular conflict Consolidates soft trails in selected areas outside of enVironmentally sensitive areas Designates "wayside" trails to expand the visual and recreational experience 38

PAGE 41

Alternative Plan B: This alternative considered the need to eliminate or reduce significant pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at key intersections, while minimizing the corridor as a "commuter" route. This scenario would eliminate the "disconnect at both Holly Street and Monaco Blvd. by providing a "cross over" bridge east of Holy Street to join with the existing Cherry Creek North Drive; a secon d "cross-over" bridge would be provided east of Monaco Bvd. to connect vehicular traffic to back onto Cherry Creek South Drive east of Goldsmith Gulch. Other elements of this alternative included: Continues the 2-Lane and 4-lane character currently existing in the corridor, but eliminates the "Disconnect" character of the transportation system Adds Curb and Gutter to control use of adjacent areas, water runoff, and improve safety conditions Improves streetscape treatment and landscaping within Right-ofWay and creekside Provides Traffic Calming Devices at key points throughout the corridor to slow traffic 39 Landscaped medians, with leftturn lanes where existing R.O.W. permits Pedestrian-activated signalized crossings at selected points Speed activated signals to maintain legal limits Landscaped "Neck-Downs" at key pedestrian crossings Landscaped "Neck-Downs" at key intersections Adds landscaped "Round Abouts" at two urban locations Improves intersections, and realigns segments of Cherry Creek Drives in order to: Expand "Creekside" public open space area and access Improve visual character Improve vehicular safety conditions Improve pedestrian safety conditions Vacates Steele Street, between Alameda A venue and Cherry Creek South Drive to: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety conditions Improve north/south pedestrian and bike access Provide some replacement parking for private parking removed from existing Cherry Creek Drive South Right-of-Way Vacates portion of Harrison Street within City of Brest Park to: Expand park use Eliminate vehicular access from Harrison onto Cherry Creek South Drive Adds on-street and off-street parking at select areas to increase park and corridor use; on-street parking also serves as traffic-calming measure Adds two new vehicular bridge crossings

PAGE 42

East of Monaco, utilizing portions of Cherry Creek North Drive and connecting to Cherry Creek South Drive East of Holly utilizing portions of Cherry Creek South Drive undeveloped Right-of-Way and connecting with Cherry Creek North Drive Expands Existing Parks Garland Park south into Cherry Creek corridor Cook Park north into Cherry Creek Corridor Provides "High Speed" Wheel Lanes (Bike and In-Line Roller Blade) Within Right-of-Way but outside of and separated from vehicular travel lanes Separated from recreational trails Where conditions permit, underpass access for "no-stop" biking and roller-blading Provides separate hard-surface recreational trail system Adjacent to and/or within the natural" area of the corridor, outside environmentally sensitive areas Continuous system (via underpasses) to provide vehicular-free access throughout the corridor Linkages to existing cultural, institutional, park and recreational facilities Adds two (2) new pedestrian bridges to better serve: City of Brest Park Four Mile House Provides network of soft trails in designated areas only, outside of to provide limited access to unique and/or sensitive historic, educational environmental and aesthetic resources 40 Creates common Greenway image and "identity gateways" at key intersections and at major north-south crossings, including enhanced bridge design lighting and other image" builders Promotes compatible and supportive adjacent land uses including neighborhood retail, recreational "service" areas (bike depot, res t areas )

PAGE 43

Alternative Plan C : Several interest groups, including some City and County of Denver Transportation Engineering staff believe that a transportation system that allowed traffic to move more directly and more efficiently through the corridor would result in decreasing traffic impact on local neighborhoods. Under Alternative Plan C, the potential impact of a more direct, higher volume transportation corridor was considered by extending a four-lane segment of Cherry Creek Drive along the south side of the corridor, between Alameda A venue and Quebec Street. This scenario would eliminate the "disconnect at both Holly Street and Monaco Blvd. by aligning the new 4lane roadway on the south side of the creek, between Holly and Monaco. Other aspects of this alternative include the following: Provides a 4 Lane roadway crosssection between Quebec Street (Reach 3) and Alameda Avenue (Reach 1) in order to consider its impact on the neighborhood Provides Curb and Gutter to control use of adjacent areas, water runoff and improve safety conditions Provides streetscape treatment and landscaping within existing Right of-Way and creekside enhancement Vacates Steele Street, between Alameda A venue and Cherry Creek South Drive to: 41 Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety conditions Improve north/south pedestrian and bike access Provide some replacement par king for private parking removed from existing Cherry Creek Drive South Right-of-Way Vacates portion of Harrison Street within City of Brest Park to: Expand park use Eliminate vehicular access from Harrison onto Cherry Creek Drive South Extension of Cherry Creek South Drive utilizing existing roadway Right-of-Way on the south side of Cherry Creek, with 4 travel l anes between Holly and Monaco, and vacation of Cherry Creek North Vacates Steele Street, between Alameda A venue and Cherry Creek South Drive to: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety conditions Improve north/south pedestrian and bike access Provide some replacement parking for private parking removed from existing Cherry Creek Drive South Right-of-Way Vacates portion of Harrison Street within City of Brest Park to: Expand park use Eliminate vehicular access from Harrison onto Cherry Creek Drive South Extension of Cherry Creek South Drive utilizing existing roadway Right-of-Way on the south side of Cherry Creek, with 4 travel lanes between Holly and Monaco, and vacation of Cherry Creek North Drive, between Holly and Monaco, in order to: Increase Garland Park area and provide direct pedestrian access into the corridor

PAGE 44

Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety conditions at Holly a n d Monaco intersections with Cherry Creek Drives Improve vehicular movements and traffic flow ; Increases level of service at i nterse ctions Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Devices Pedestrian-activated cross-walks Speed-activated signals Requires no new vehicular bridges Provides "High Speed" Wheel Lanes (Bike and In-Line Roller Blade) Outside of Cherry Creek Drives Right-of-Way Separated from recreational trails With underpass access for "no stop" biking and roller-blading Provides separate hardsurface recreational trail system Adjacent to and/or within the "natural" area of the corridor, outside env ironmentally sensitiv e areas Continuous system (via underpasses) to provide vehicular-free access throughout the corridor Linkages to existing cultural, institutional, park and recreational facilities Provides network of soft trails in designated areas only, outside of environmentally sensitive areas, to provide limited access to unique and / or sensitive historic educational, environmental, and aesthetic resources Promotes Active Restoration Program for environmentally degraded areas 42 Adds common Greenway image and identity gateways at key intersections and at major North-south crossings including unique bridge design lighting and other image builders

PAGE 45

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND P LANNING CONSIDERATIONS As a basis for plan selection and refinement and the deve lopment of a "Preferred" Master, a comparative analysis of the three plan alternatives was conducted by the Consu l tant Team considering the following: Community and Public-Sector I ssues, Goals and Objectives Neighborhood Quality of Life Preservation and Enhancement of Natural Characte r Expanded and Enhanced Parks and Recreational Resources Improved Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety and Access Community and Neighborhood Transportation Focus "Trade-Offs"what will most benefit the local community and surrounding neighborhoods 43 As a r esult of this analysis, and after continued meetings with l ocal n e ighborhoods, a "Preferred" conceptual Master Plan for the corridor was developed After presentation o f the Preferred Plan to the general public 13, and after additional meetings with neighborhood groups the "Preferred" Greenway Master Plan for the Cherry Creek corridor was refined, and is presented here for cons i deration by City and County of Denver P l anning Board, Public Works / Amenities and Special Projects Committees of City Council Parks and Recreationa l Sub-Committees and City Council Section 6, which follows, provides a description of the major components of the Plan, by Reach 13 Public Hearing hel d September 16, 1999 Denver Museum of Natural H istory

PAGE 46

6 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 45 1111 OVERALL VISION OF THE CORRIDOR "A natural area with parks, walking paths, biking trails, open areas, served by pedestrian-friendly streets" is perhaps the best description of the intent and vision for the Cherry Creek Greenway. No longer a focus of commuter vehicular traffic into the downtown core, the Cherry Creek corridor is envisioned as one of the jewels along the emerald strand of Denver Parks and regional open space. Not only one of the last remaining natural buffers and continuous linkages between developing neighborhoods, the portion of the corridor is planned also as an 8-mile long safe haven for the enjoyment of natural vegetation and wildlife, its peaceful surroundings, and as an area for pedestrian-oriented, people-friendly activities. 111 COMMON MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS Many of the elements recommended in the "Preferred" Master Plan are common throughout the corridor, regardless of location. Common elements, summarized below, address not only physical aspects of the planned improvements, but also development strategies that will be followed as part of plan implementation. + Renaming Cherry Creek South Drive to Cherry Creek Park Drive will further promote the "park" concept of the corridor; + Continuation of existing number of existing vehicular travel lanes-will help ensure a non-commuter approach to traffic mobility; + Intersection improvements-to enhance traffic mobility A variety of traffic calming deviceswill better manage and slow existing traffic movement in the corridor;

PAGE 47

+ Curb and Gutter improvements-will address drainage issues, and enhance safety; Detached Sidewalks within the R.O.W.will improve pedestrian circulation along the corridor, while increasing safety; + Vehicular-Free Commuter Bike Path will provide enhanced opportunities for "wheeled" transportation, including commuter biking and roller-blading; Vehicular-Free Pedestrian I Recreational Pathwill improve recreational safety and decrease conflicts between recreational and other non-vehicular traffic; + Continuous designated Soft Trails-will allow continued use of the more natural areas, without negatively impacting sensitive environmental areas; Urban and "natural" Landscaping Treatment-will provide appropriate types of landscape, and help ensure a more natural character throughout the corridor; Landscaped Medians in urbanized segments will allow for turning bays to improve traffic mobility within the neighborhoods, while improving the aesthetic quality of the corridor; Expansion of "natural" landscape throughout the corridor-will take advantage of opportunities for natural open space to help ensure long-term preservation; Acquisition I Easements-will enable an expansion of open space areas to help facilitate flood control, expand habitats for vegetation and 46 wildlife, and help ensure the preservation of non-urban areas; + Environmental Mitigation of degraded natural areas-will address erosion control issues, and help ensure preservation of vegetation and wildlife habitats; + An on-going cooperative effort with the neighborhoods within the Plan area -will help ensure buy-in from local neighborhoods for "win-win" support.

PAGE 48

1111 REACH ONE MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS Reach One includes the area between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd. Residential development, including higher density attached housing, as well as single family low density housing exists within this Reach, along with commercial offices, a church, and City of Brest Park, used not only by the neighborhood, but also as a weekend destination for soccer and other field sports. + University Boulevard to Steel Street Segment This western-most segment of the corridor, which begins at the intersection of University Boulevard Cherry Creek Drive South, represents the "entry" into the more natural areas of the Cherry Creek corridor. Between this point and its onfluence with the South Platte River, four miles to the northwest, Cherry Creek has been channelized to accommodate flood control measures; Speer Boulevard, a major arterial serving the Central Business District, borders the Creek on both sides. The University to Alameda Avenue segment serves as an effective buffer between the 47 Cherry Creek Shopping Center on the north, and in-fill attached and detached single-family residential development south of Cherry Creek Drive South. The master plan for this segment of the corridor better manages and controls current and projected traffic volumes", while at the same time enhancing pedestrian access into the Cherry Creek corridor, and east/west pedestrian movement along the street. Enhanced native and ornamental landscaping in raised medians will allow Cherry Creek Park Drive to establish a "park" quality to the area. Specific elements of the Master Plan include the following: Enhanced Landscaped "Entry" at University Blvd-to serve as a "gateway" into the park corridor 14 Year2015 population projections provided by DRCOG

PAGE 49

2 Vehicular Travel Lanes"to address pedestrian safety issues, and to maintain the existing volumes and enhance existing and future traffic mobility. Generally aligned along existing south side curb line Landscaped medians to provide safe landing areas for pedestrian crossing, and to provide additional traffic calming Turning bays within the landscaped medians to access south side properties and to improve neighborhood mobility Increased park land on north side Improves Pedestrian Safety and Access Pedestrian bridge at Clayton Street-to serve the increasing residential development in the area, and provide a more direct link to continued commercial growth of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center Improved pedestrian crosswalks at key locations to improve safety Bike path safety improvements near the Denver Country Club-to address potential safety hazards Parallel Parking bays on both the north and south sides of Cherry Creek Park Drive to provide residential-serving parking opportunities for new development on the south side of the street, and trail-head parking for recreational users on the north side. The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking bays, sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of maintenance and other operational needs of the street. 48

PAGE 50

Steel Street Segment The intersection of Steele Street with the existing Cherry Creek South Drive, and its relationship to the Steele Street pedestrian bridge, presents a set of circumstances that affect pedestrian and vehicular safety, bicycle access and safety, and other pedestrian/vehicular relationships. The issues here are compounded by the current lease arrangement between the City of Denver and the Cherry Creek Towers Horne Owners Association for use of a portion of the R.O.W of Cherry Creek South Drive to accommodate the Association's parking needs. In order to provide a consistent roadway cross-section, and to provide adequate area on the north side of the roadway for sidewalks and other pedestrian-oriented improvements, the "Preferred" Plan calls for elimination of a portion of the leased parking. To minimize the impact on Cherry Creek Towers Condominiums, the Plan also suggests the development of two separated parking areas within the R.O.W. of Steele Street, between Alameda and Cherry Creek South Drive, as illustrated on Figure XX. 49 This solution would require the vacation of Steele Street between Alameda Ave. and Cherry Creek South Drive. Other improvements in this segment of the corridor includes the following: Steele Street Pedestrian Bridge Improvements Expanded "Safe" zone and Limding Area-to address safety issues and access Pedestrian Overlook Area to improve visual appreciation of the Creek's resources Pedestrian Crosswalkto improve safety and north/south pedestrian accessibility Pedestrian-Activated Signalto improve safety for pedestrians Improved Bus Stop/Shelterto improve safety for transit commuters 16 Detailed design of the landscaped median will provide for an adequate "safe haven" for pedestrtans crossing the street, thereby potentially eliminating the need for a pedestrtanactivated signal at this location.

PAGE 51

Va cation of Steele Street (Alameda to Cherry Creek Drive South) Li!ndscaped and lighted Pedestrian Trail linkage -to visually enhance the link between Alameda and Cherry Creek South Drive, and help ensure safety Two Li!ndscaped Parking Lots for Private Use-to better accommodate parking eliminated from City R.O. Win front of Cherry Creek Towers Condominiums Undergrounding of Transmission Linesto provide adequate area for surface parking and pedestrian trails, as well as to visually enhance the area and add to the park-like setting of the area. 50

PAGE 52

Alemeda Avenue to Colorado Boulevard Segment Although this segment of the corridor includes significant park-related improvements, there are several key transportation-related enhancements that will better serve the neighborhoods and minimize pedestrian/vehicular traffic impacts and neighborhood mobility. With east-bound Alameda Avenue traffic terminating at Cherry Creek South Drive, 17 and with westbound traffic splitting west on Alameda and northwest along Cherry Creek south Drive, the "Preferred" Plan recommends the construction of a landscaped round-about at this location. The proposed roundabout will eliminate the potential need for a traffic signal at this location, slow traffic through the intersection, and interrupt the long relatively straight road segment between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd., and it will provide an aesthetic focal point from all directions. All recommended improvements are illustrated on Figure XX, as listed below: 17 Alameda Avenue continues east from the north side of Cherry Creek 51 Landscaped Round-About at Alameda I Cherry Creek South intersection-to improve pedestrian safety, neighborhood vehicular mobility, and enhance visual quality Pedestrian Overlook at RoundAbout-to further emphasize the natural character and physical resources of the corridor 2 Vehicular Travel Lanes-to maintain the existing traffic volumes and improve future traffic mobility Landscaped medians to provide safe landing areas for pedestrian crossing, and to provide additional traffic calming Turning bays within landscaped medians to access south side properties and improve neighborhood traffic mobility Additional Turn Lanes at Colorado Blvd. to improve lzvel of Service Pedestrian Crosswalks.:. to address vehicular and pedestrian safety issues Improved Bus Stop I Shelter-to improve transit commuter safety

PAGE 53

Minor realignment of Cherry Creek Drive South-to increase natural areas and improve safety conditions along Cherry Creek South Drive South side and meandering alignment within the R.O. W Pedestrian Crosswalks Realignment of Central Christian Church Driveway and Harrison St. -to better intersect with the proposed realignment of Cherry Creek South Drive Pedestrian Bridge between Harrison and Garfield to be consistent with recommendations of the Cherry Creek Neighborhood Master Plan 18 Corrunuter Bike Pathalong the south side of the corridor-to provide a separate non-vehicular facility for "wheeled" traffic Additional Parking On-Street Parallel Parking in segments of south side -to accommodate the Daniel's Building office uses and heavy weekend recreational use of City of Brest Park OffStreet in City of Brest Park -to further accommodate heavy weekend recreational park uses, as well as neighborhood park uses. Approved by Denver City Council as part of the City of Denver Comprehensive Master Plan 52

PAGE 54

1111 REACH TWO MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS Reach Two includes the area from Colorado Blvd. to Monaco Blvd., an area within the City and County of Denver, as well as the City of Glendale. The area includes a variety of higher density residential attached single family and multi-family housing, commercial offices, and extensive park facilities. 19 + Colorado Boulevard to Cherry Street Segment An urban environment, with existing 4-lane roadway, borders on the north by the Cherry Creek channel, and on the south by a mix of office and commercial uses. "Potenza Park, Garland Park, and Cook Park are included in Reach 2 of the study area. 55 4 Vehicular Travel Lanes 20 Landscaped medians to provide safe landing areas for pedestrian crossing, and to provide additional traffic calming Turning bays within landscaped medians to access south side properties Turn lanes at Colorado Blvd and Cherry Street Pedestrian crosswalks at Birch St. Pedestrian Bridge Pedestrian-activated signal Increased park land on north side Improved Bus Stop I Shelter 20 The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking bays, sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of maintenance and other operational needs of the street.

PAGE 55

+ The concept of an Urban Village, as proposed by the City of Glendale and supported by this Plan, will provide creek-side commercial facilities compatible with recreational activities, and improve visual quality of the area, while providing additional access into business areas to the north. Compatible uses envisioned include restaurants and cafes, coffee shops, deli, bakery, hotels and other places while people can gather to enjoy the sights and sounds of the corridor. 56

PAGE 56

57

PAGE 57

Cherry Street to Kentucky Avenue Segment New single family attached residential housing has recently been developed along this segment of the corridor, along with a significant increase in multi-family rental housing. On-street parking, pedestrian access to the corridor, and the impact of traffic within the corridor directly impacts quality of life issues in this area. Master Plan recommendations here include the following: Vehicular Travel Lanes Transition from 4 to 2 lane crosssection Generally aligned with south side curb line Landscaped Medians Turning Bays to access south side properties Improved Bus Stop I Shelter New Pedestrian Bridge at Four Mile Parkto meet the objectives of the Bikeway Master Plan Landscaped round-about at Kentucky I Cherry Creek Drive South to provide traffic calming, improve pedestrian and vehicular safety, and visually enhance the entry into this segment of the corridor and into the City of Glendale. Parallel Parking bays on segments of north and south sides 58

PAGE 58

Elimination of Holly I Cherry Creek North Drive "Disconnect"to provide 4-way intersection and pedestrian crosswalks, south side of Creek 59

PAGE 59

Cross-Over" Vehicular Bridge to north side of Garland Park" Elimination of western portion of Cherry Creek North Drive Expanded "natural" area from Cherry Creek north into Garland Park Enhanced "natural" area within former Cherry Creek South Drive R.O. W. Dedication of former RO.W. as a "Designated Natural Area" within the Parks and Recreation Department Continuation of 2 Vehicular Travel Lanes, without landscaped medians" Commuter Bike Path within former RO.W and south side of channel Pedestrian access easements to Virginia Village neighborhood Improved pedestrian access and linkages from City of Potenza Park to Cook Park (south side of channel) Specific location of "cross-ove( bridge to be determined as part of subsequent planning, engineering, and design No landscaped medians are proposed in segments of the corridor where park and/or undeveloped areas exist 60 Improved pedestrian park entries (Holly St. north and south; Monaco south) Mid-point pedestrian I bike bridge Parallel parking bays, north side of Cherry Creek Park (North) Drive

PAGE 60

Elimination of Kearney as a through street from Cherry Creek North Drive to serve only Garland Park recreational facilities Elimination of "Disconnect" at Monaco Blvd. I Cherry Creek Drive North to provide 4-way intersection, north side of Cherry Creek Continuation of "Cherry Creek Park Drive" as a 2 Lane roadway, without landscaped medians, with segments of parallel parking bays 23 23 The planning and design of roadway widths, parallel parking bays, sidewalks, and/or bike paths will consider the issue of maintenance and other operational needs of the street. 61

PAGE 61

"Cross-Over" Vehicular Bridge to Cook Park, between Niagara Street and Oneida Elimination of western portion of Cherry Creek Drive South at Monaco Dedication of former R.O.W. to Parks and Recreation Department Expanded "natural" area atconfiuence of Goldsmith Gulch Vacation of Cherry Creek North Drive Niagara Street to Place Middle School Dedication of vacated roadway to Parks and Recreation Department and/ or Denver Public Schools Expansion of "natural" landscape from Cherry Creek Drive North 24 Specific location of "cross-over brtdge to be determined as part of subsequent planning, engineertng, and design 62 Additional vehicular entrance for bus use only to Place Middle School at Quebec I Florida Ave. intersection Relocated vehicular west-side non-bus access at Florida Street New north side pedestrian trail South-side commuter bike path follows existing trial

PAGE 62

1111 REACH THREE MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS Reach Three includes the area southeast of Quebec Street to the Cherry Creek Reservoir. Except for the area between Quebec St. and Iliff Avenue, where a variety of office and industrial uses exists, the area consists primarily of natural open space, along with several City parks and golf courses. Residential development, including single family and multi-family housing borders the corridor on both sides. The "Preferred" Master Plan focuses on the enhancement of recreational and commuter bike paths, along with environmental mitigation recommendations to help ensure vegetation and habitat sustainability. Specific elements of the Master Plan include the following: Quebec Street to Iliff Avenue Segment Termination of "Cherry Creek Park Drive" at Quebec Street Vacation of Cherry Creek South Drive (Quebec Street to Jewell) Dedication of roadway R.O. W. to Parks and Recreation Department 65 Additional Trail Head Parking (CCDS at Jewell Ave. and Iliff Ave.) Vacation of Cherry Creek Drive South (Trenton Street to Iliff Ave.) Dedication of roadway R.O. W. to Parks and Recreation Department Remaining segment of Cherry Creek Drive South serves local light industrial/office areas east of Quebec Street.

PAGE 63

Iliff Avenue to Hampden Segment Recreational "soft" trial north side of Cherry Creek to iliff Ave. Enhanced "Natural" landscape to screen adjacent industrial uses Multiple-Use paved Commuter Bike Path/Recreational Trail south side Acquisition of portions of Denver Water Board property 25 New south side Commuter Bike Path (Iliff Ave. to Yale Ave.) Pedestrian I Recreational Trail on existing north side path Recreational Soft Trail from Wabash to new pedestrian bridge crossing at Los Verdes Golf Course Purchase, donation, and/ or Easements of Denver Water Board, Cherry Creek Valley and other private sector parcels Iliff to Los Verdes golf course Along Los Verdes Golf Course Highline Canal Crossing Protection and enhancement of sensitive ecological areas Extension of the paved Recreational Trail through Kennedy Golf Course Linkages to Babi-Yar Park and Hampden Heights Neighborhood Soft Trails follow Cherry Creek riparian zones 25 The Denver Water Board and other private land owners in the area have indicated a willingness to consider land sales, easements, and dedications of land within the corridor to help implement the Master Plan and ensure its success 66 Designated Trail Head Parking at Havan/Dartrnouth intersection Recreational Paved Trail follows existing trail Trail Parking and Access at Kennedy Park Ball Fields Upgrading of trail between Havana and Kennedy Park will be programmed when future Tollgate I Cherry Creek State Park Trail improvements are implemented.

PAGE 64

67

PAGE 65

68

PAGE 66

7 FUNDING SOURCES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 71 111 MAGNITUDE OF COSTS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Although the elements of the "Preferred" Master Plan were not chosen based on current cost of construction, it was considered important to understand the magnitude of project implementation. Conceptual costs, therefore, were prepared for the "Preferred" Plan using standard unit costs typical in the area, and based oil recent experience in projects throughout the metropolitan area. These conceptual costs were reviewed with City and County of Denver Public Works Division, and have been modified to reflect the City's experience in construction and maintaining similar improvements. It is anticipated that more detailed cost information would be developed for all elements of the Plan as a part of engineering design. The purpose of providing this level of information related to potential construction costs is to assist the City in making decisions related to implementation of the Plan. The information also allows the City to understand the cost implications of the recommended improvements so that short-term and long term funding sources can be identified and pursued.

PAGE 67

Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Magnitude of Costs/Public Works Elements See Notes Below Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Cost Right of Way Improvements Two Lane Road with Median/ Turn Lanes Two Lane Road (no Median) Four Lane Road w/ Median/ Turn Lanes 2 Lane Bridge (50' wide) ONLY Intersection Improvements (Add to Road Cost) Roundabout (Add to road cost) Pedestrian At Grade Crossing Enhanced Pedestrian At Grade Crossing Pedestrian Activated Signal On Street Parallel Parking Bury Electric Lines I Parks and Urban Design Improvements I Open Space Protection and Improvements Low Water Crossing Channel Erosion/ Water Quality/ Wetlands Contingency Administration/ Design/ Engineering COST TOTAL PROJECT COST COST PER LF COST PER MILE Order of M''""'ltude Cost Estimate (Year 2000 Dollars) Cost Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 (1) Generally covers improvements between inside edge of south side sidewalk to inside edge of north side sidewalk (or equivalent dimensions). (2) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conseJVative estimates of improvements to allow future .flexibility in design and engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further reflect their experience for signiTicant plan elements. Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Magnitude ot Costs/Public Works Elements

PAGE 68

Cherry Creek Corridor-Preferred Plan Magnitude of Costs/Parks and Open Space Elements See Notes Below Cherry Creek Corridor-Preferred Plan Order of Ma,,gn.ltude Cost Estimate (YeaC:20C'O Dollars) Cost Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Right of Way Improvements Street Vacation, Removal, Landscaping Right of Way Acquisition Berm/Screen/Buffer Landscaping Parks and Urban Design Improvements Paved Recreational Trail (10' wide) Widened Multi-Use Trail-(12' wide) Paved Wheels Trail(8' wide) Reconstruct Trail outside of Floodplain Reach Trail Safety Improvements at University Blvd Neighborhood Entry Treatment Urban Park Landscape Improvements Off Street Parking Pedestrian Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Underpass I Reach Project Open Space Protection and Improvements Open Space Land Acquisition Open Space Easement Acquisition Unpaved Designated Soft Trail (6' wide) Enhanced Natural Areal Buffer Natural Area Protection Creek Overlook/ Pocket Park Picnic Areal Shelter Amenities Cost by Contingency Administration/ Design/ Engineering TOTAL PROJECT COST COST PER LF COST PER MILE Reach Project 25% 18% 6,400 (1) Generally includes sidewalks and other improvements outside of street rights-of-way. 10,000 (2) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conservative estimates of improvements to allow future flexibility in design and engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further reflect their experience for significant plan elements. Cherry Creek CorridorPreferred Plan Magnitude of Costs/Parks and Open Space Elements $18,547,683 $423 $2,234,345

PAGE 69

Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Cherry Creek Corridor Preferred Plan Magnitude of Costs Order of M:gnitode Co" EUm"''' ('1"'""00 Dollars) Reach 2 Reach 3 Cost I Right of Way Improvements Two Lane Road with Median! Tum Lanes Two lane Road (no Median) Four lane Road wf Median/ Tum Lanes 2Lane Bridge (50' wide) Intersection Improvements (Add to Road Cost) Roundabout (Add to road cost) Pedestrian At Grade Crossing Enhanced Pedestrian At Grade Crossing Pedestrian Activated Signal On Street Parallel Parking Street Vacation, Removal, Landscaping Right of Way Acquisition Bury Electric Lines Parks and Urban Design Improvements Paved Recreational Trail (10' wide) Widened Multi-Use Trail (12' wide) Paved Wheels Trail(8' wide) Reconstruct Trail outside of Floodplain Trail Safety Improvements at University Blvd Neighborhood Entry Treatment Bridge Pedestrian and Urban Design Improvements Urban Park Landscape Improvements Off Street Parking Pedestn'an Bridge Open Space Protection and Improvements Open Space Land Acquisition Open Space Easement Acquisition low Water Crossing Unpaved Designated Soft Trail (6' wide) Enhanced Natural Areal Buffer Natural Area Protection Channel Erosion/ Water Quality/ Wetlands Creek Overlook/ Pocket Park Picnic Areal Shelter Amenities Drop Structures (50% local match) Erosion Control/ Bank Stabilization Total Improvements Cost by Reach Contingency Administration/ Design/ Engineering TOTAL PROJECT COST COST PER LF COST PER MILE Cost 6,400 10,000 (1) Magnitude of costs is based on current dollar values and conservative estimates of improvements to allow future flexibility in design and engineering options. BRW estimates have been increased by City of Denver Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to further reflect their experience for significant plan elements. Cherry Creek CorridorPreferred Plan Magnitude of Costs $56,766,260 $898 $4,742,730

PAGE 70

Ill IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS, TECHNIQUES, AND STRATEGIES As with other complex, long-range concept plans, implementation will require dedication and commitment to the established vision. Without such a focus, implementation would likely be fragmented, at best, and miss opportunities for success. Although the City and County of Denver has significant resources and staff that might be available to monitor and implement the vision for this segment of Cherry Creek, other City priorities might overshadow the goals of this project, and result in less expedient and/ or effective implementation of the Plan. For these reasons, it is recommended that a "Cherry Creek Greenway Commission" or similar entity be formed to guide the implementation effort. Through this group, funding sources can be identified, specific projects can be undertaken, and a concentrated effort can be made to bring the vision into reality-much in the way the Platte River Greenway Commission has guided the improvements along the South Platte. Given the magnitude of costs associated with long-term implementation of the "Preferred" Greenway Master Plan, a variety of funding sources will need to be investigated. Both short-term and long-term budgets will need to be established, and public, semi-public, and private funds should be sought. 75 The list below represents an initial investigation of potential funding sources and/ or strategies for implementation identified by .the Consultant Team, categorized by type of improvement. A continued effort will be needed as specific projects come on line, and as more detailed plans for various segments are developed. + Parks and Open Space Capital Improvement Budget City and County of Denver City of Glendale Arapahoe County Conservation Trust Fund Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) 26 Partnerships with public and quasipublic entities, and private corporations, groups and individuals "Pilot" projects Land donations and dedications Grants and donations Conservation and other easements Fund raising activities + Transportation and Infrastructure General Obligation Bonds Capital Improvement Budgets City and County of Denver City of Glendale Arapahoe County Bridge Funds (COOT) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Colorado Department of Transportation TEA-21 Multi-modal Enhancements Transportation Improvement Program (DRCOG) "A complete description of recent grant applications prepared and submitted by the City and County of Denver for partial funding of the Cherry Craek Greenway Master Plan is provided in Volume 2, Appendix G.

PAGE 71

While a strategy for long-term funding of the overall project and I or components of the project is mandatory, how and when project components are initiated becomes equally important. Private-sector development activities and interests, particularly in Reach 3 areas south of Iliff Avenue might impact the long-term goals of the study. Tools and techniques for plan implementation have been preliminarily identified as part of this study. A continued investigation of additional tools and techniques, along with a continued analysis of current opportunities needs to be in place at the government level in order to help ensure the integrity of the Master Plan is maintained. 76 PRIORITY ACTION PLAN AND PHASING CONSIDERATIONS Based on available and programmed funding for improvements, and on the tools and techniques currently available for implementation, a Priority Action Plan has been prepared. The Priority Action Plan recommends a series of "projects" and phased planning activities for implementation the Cherry Creek Greenway Master Plan. In order to obtain support throughout the corridor from the general public, as well as from the three governmental jurisdictions involved in the project, it is considered important to include and consider activities and projects in each of the three "Reaches" and in each of the jurisdictions. Recognizing that specific actions might be undertaken by different entities, the Priority Action Plan also identifies responsibilities for each of the specified action items. While several Action Plan items have been identified within the same Priority, it is assumed that a phased program within each Priority would also be established, depending on the availability of funds from each jurisdiction.

PAGE 72

PlANNING ACTION MATRIX 2 2 2 Annual GOGO Application for land acquisition of key private-Analysis, and Planning and Urban Design for Round-About at Alameda/Cherry Creek Park Drive intersection Site planning and design for planned vacation of Steele Street, between Alameda and Cherry Creek Park Drive Plan for realignment of bicycle Feasibility Study and Analysis for "Cross-Over" Bridge between Holly Street and Monaco Blvd. i for the Kearney Street South within Garland Park, to Cherry Creek North Drive Feasibility Study and Locational Analysis for "Cross-Over'' Bridge between Monaco Blvd. and Quebec Street. Lynwood and other related potential impact areas 1 ,2,3 CCD Parks and Recreation; Arapahoe 3 77 Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners I CCD Transportation Division; District Council Person; Neighborhood Associations and property owners; UDFCD Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Division; Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners and land contributions owners To Be

PAGE 73

3 Planning for the vacation of Cherry Creek Drive South, between Quebec Street and Jewell Avenue 3 Planning for the vacation of Cherry Creek Drive South, between Trenton Street and Iliff Avenue 3 Planning for the vacation of Niagara St. between Cherry Creek North Drive and Magnolia St. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING ACTION MATRIX Cherry Creek Park Drive and adjacent areas between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd. Two-Lane Roadway Round-About at Alameda/Cherry Creek park Drive intersection Pedestrian cross walks Landscaped medians and turning bays Commuter Bike Path Recreational Trail i related improvement between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Street. -4-Land Roadway -Landscaped Median with Turn Bays -Pedestrian Cross Walks at Birch Street -Birch Street Pedestrian Bridge Access Improvements -Commuter Bike Path -Recreational Path -Landscaping related improvements and amenities 78 3 3 3 CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners; Arapahoe County CCD Planning Division; Adjacent property owners; Lynwood Neighborhood Association Division; Parks Division; UDFCD; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners ceo Division; CCD Parks Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property owners; City of Glendale ceo Division; UDFCD, COOT, CCD Parks Division; Neighborhood To Be Negotiated between ceo and adjacent property owners To Be Negotiated between CCD and adjacent property owners To Be Negotiated between ceo and adjacent property owners approved as part of I 997 Bond Issue for design and engineering of Cherry Creek Park Drive only; Additional funding required to meet cross-section recommendations of the Master Plan Determined Determined

PAGE 74

2 Round-About at Kentucky/Cherry Creek South Drive intersection 2 Mississippi at Cherry Creek South Drive Intersection Improvements 2 Monaco Bridge Replacement and related improvements and amenities CONSTRUCTION ACTION MATRIX 1 2 Cherry Creek Park Drive and related improvements and amenities between University Blvd. and Colorado Blvd. Two-Lane Roadway Round-About Pedestrian cross walks Landscaped medians and turning bays Commuter Bike Path Recreational Trail Design I prepared for former Steele Street (vacated), between Alameda Ave. and Cherry Creek Park Drive Intersection Improvements at Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Creek Park Drive Cherry Creek Park Drive and related improvement between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Street. -4-Land Roadway -Landscaped Median with Turn Bays -Cross Walks at Birch Street -Birch Street Pedestrian Bridge Access Improvements -Commuter Bike Path Recreational Path 2 2 2 CCC Transportation Division; District Council Persons; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; Property Owners CCD Transportation Division; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners CCD Transportation Division; UDFCD, COOT, CCD Parks Division; Division; Parks and Recreation; Neighborhood Associations Division; CCO Planning Division; CCD Parks Division; adjacent property owners To Be Determined To Be Determined funding required to meet design intent of Master Plan 1 and 2 CCD Transportation; To Be Determined COOT 2 79 Division; Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners

PAGE 75

2 Mississippi at Cherry Creek 2 CCD Transportation Park Drive intersection Division; CCD Planning Division; Neighborhood Associations; City of Glendale; Property Owners 3 "Cross-Over" Bridge and related 2 CCD Traffic Division; To Be Determined park amenities between Holly CCD Parks Division; St. and Monaco Blvd. COOT; Neighborhood "Natural" Alea Park, between Associations Holly St. and Monaco Blvd., south side of Cherry Creek 3 "Cross-Over" Bridge and related park amenities between and Monaco Blvd. Wetlands expansion from Gold Smith Gulch, south side of Cherry Creek 3 Round-About at Cherry Creek 2 CCD Transportation To Be Determined Park Drive/Kentucky Intersection so