Citation
Colorado Boulevard plan, 1991

Material Information

Title:
Colorado Boulevard plan, 1991
Creator:
City and County of Denver
City of Glendale
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
City and County of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Colorado Boulevard (Denver, Colo.)
City planning

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
C!TY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
CITY OF GLENDALE
AUGUST 1 991


Acknowledgement
The Boulevard Plan is a result of a
cooperative endeavor between the
Community Advisory Committee and the
City and County of Denver and the City of
Glendale. The Advisory Committee
represented various interests and
organizations including developers,
homeowners, business owners and Planning
Board/Commission members. Members of
the Community Advisory Committee were:
Glendale
Mayor Ford Wheatley, IV
Jonathan Bock
Don Shinier
John Harris
Michelle Austin
Bill Junor
Denver
Council woman Mary DeGroot
Dick Deane
Payanes Dikeou
Gary Edwards
Marilyn Stokes
Kurt Boatwright
Elizabeth Richardson
Tom Maloney
Tom Gargan
Joe Morgan
Gary Antonoff
Peter Cudlip
Dan Percefull
Chris Hoagland
Dorothy Severson
Jim May hew
Arnold Davis
George Thom
Paul Lewan
Hank Kahn
The Denver Public Works Departments
Transportation Division and Planning and
Community Development Office s Urban
Design, Neighborhood Planning and Zoning
sections and Glendales City Managers
Office and Building Department worked
with the Community Advisory Committee:
The cities provided information, analysis,
and facilitation. The following staff
members were instrumental in managing the
planning process and producing the
document. In addition, David H. Williams
Consulting provided expertise and compiled
the draft documents throughout the process.
Denver
Terry Rosapep, Project Manager
Ellen Crain-Jordan
David Wicks
David Becker
Karl Haberman
Mark Upshaw, Cover Photograph
Glendale
Gary Sears, Project Manager
Arianne Lahana
Steve Thomas
A high level of support was given by the
Denver and Glendale City Councils, the
Denver Planning Board, the Glendale
Planning Commission, and those overseeing
the project including Dick Farley, Deputy
Director of Urban Design. These agencies
also provided valuable comment the
Colorado Department of Transportation and
the Denver Parks and Recreation
Department.


A DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR SOUTH COLORADO BLVD.
Prepared By
City and County of Denver
Department of Public Works, Transportation Planning Section
Planning and Community Development Office
and
City of Glendale
City Managers Office
Building Department
with
David H. Williams Consulting
August 1991
11


Table of Contents
Section_________________________________________________________________________ Page
I. Introduction 1
n. Plan Summary 3
A. Vision 3
B. Goals ' 3
C. Recommendations Summary 4
D. Implementation Overview 8
Id. Transportation 9
A. Current and Future Conditions 9
B. Transportation Improvement Considerations 15
C. Transportation Recommendations 17
1. Intersection Improvement Program 17
2. Key Bottleneck Studies 20
3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan 21
4. AcceL/Decel. Lanes/Curb-Cuts 21
5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections 22
6. Transit 23
7. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program 25
8. TMA Task Force 26
9. Right-of-Way Maintenance 27
IV. Land Use 29
A. Current and Future Conditions 29
B. Alternative Strategies 33
C. Land Use Recommendations 35
1. Overall Development Cap 35
2. Land Use Mix 36
3. On-Site Parking 36
in


Table of Contents (Continued)
V. Urban Design 39
A. Current Conditions 39
B. Urban Design Improvement Considerations 40
C. Urban Design Recommendations 42
1. Sidewalk Standard 43
2. Street-Trees 44
3. Street Lighting 45
4. Bus Stop Improvements 45
5. Boulevard Median 46
6. Neighborhood Gateways /Local Streets 48
7. Parking Lot Screening/Entry Medians 49
8. Front Setback and Landscaping 52
9. Building Placement 53
10. Building Entrance Orientation 54
11. Building Facades 54
12. Upper Level Setback 56
13. Maximum Height Limitation 56
14. Arch. Treatment on All Sides 57
15. Rear Buffers & Screening/Alley access 59
16. Service Area Screening 61
17. Compatible Sign Codes 62
18. Ground Mounted Signs 63
19. Building Mounted Signs 64
20. Billboards 64
VI. Implementation 65
IV


THE
List of Tables
No. Title ____ __________________________Page
1. Recommendations/Action Summary 4
2. 1990 Travel Speeds and Level of Service 10
3. Estimated Intersection Level-of-Service 10
4. Transportation Demand Summary 12
5. Current and Projected Colorado Boulevard
Traffic Levels 14
6. Existing Transit Service 16
7. Recommended Intersection Improvements 18
8. Intersection LOS Comparison 19
9. Commercial Floor Space 28
10. Estimated/Projected Households and Employment
South Colorado Boulevard Influence Area 32
List of Figures
No. Title Page
1. Planning Area and Existing Zoning 2
2. Traffic Demand Categories 11
3. Southeast Quadrant Plan Area Roadway Classifications 11
4. Traffic Volumes North of Exposition Ave. 13
5. Traffic Volumes North of Mexico Ave. 13
6. Possible New Leetsdale/Virginia Connection 20
7. Existing Zoning 30
8. Generalized Land Use 31
9. Existing Building Footprints / Figure Ground 41
10. Design Standards Summary 42
11. Existing/Proposed Typical Cross Section 47
12. Surface Parking Lots 50
13. Building Heights 58
14. Implementation: Transportation Matrix 66
15. Implementation: Land Use / Urban Design Matrix 67
16. Approval / Implementation Process 68
v


I. INTRODUCTION
The Boulevard Plan outlines a vision, goals
and objectives for future development along
South Colorado Boulevard between 1st
Avenue and Biff, generally encompassing
the commercially zoned land which has
frontage along the street (See Figure 1). In
addition to establishing an overall vision
and goals, the Plan identifies individual
projects and actions recommended to
achieve them and the next step that should
be taken to implement those
recommendations.
The development of this plan is
recommended in the Comprehensive Plans
of both Denver and Glendale. The
Boulevard Plan supplements Denvers and
Glendales Comprehensive Plans, as well as
the Cherry Creek Neighborhood Plan and
other adopted sub-area and functional plans.
All of these plans address various aspects of
future development along Colorado
Boulevardhowever, the Boulevard Plan
focuses on the unique, inter-related
problems and opportunities in this 'area.
The Boulevard Plan has been developed
jointly by the cities of Glendale and Denver,
with significant input from a Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) which included
area businesses, neighborhood
representatives and elected officials.
The Plan report is organized into six
sections. This, the first section, briefly
describes the plan context. The second
section presents the overall vision and goals
which drive the plan and summarizes the
key plan recommendations. The third
section focuses on transportation. It
describes the background for the
transportation recommendations, and
presents each transportation
recommendation in detail. The fourth
section describes in general terms how the
plans land use recommendations were
derived and includes a description of them.
The fifth section includes development
criteria for public and private development
along Colorado Boulevard. The six section
describes the implementation process.
1


FIGURE 1
Potential Implementation
Study Area Boundaries

2


II. PLAN SUMMARY
A. Vision
The "vision" statement for the planning area
describes its desired role and how it is
intended to function.
This portion of South Colorado
Boulevard is, and should continue to
be, a regionally distinct transportation,
business and residential corridor
accommodating a wide range of
development types and sizes which
serve the shopping, business and
entertainment needs of nearby
residents, as well as providing
destination opportunities for a wider
community.
While serving as a gateway to the cities
of Glendale and Denver and the
Cherry Creek area, Colorado
Boulevard will provide for functional
and efficient traffic flow both within
and though the corridor. There will be
a growing role for transit and a more
friendly and safe environment for
pedestrians.
Higher standards of both public and
private urban design will create a
positive human-scale image and a
cohesiveness which will distinguish
"the Boulevard" from typical strip
commercial areas, while retaining the
separate identities of Glendale and
Denver. Design considerations will
reinforce the integrity of adjacent
residential area by enhancing their
privacy and livability.
B. Goals
The goals and objectives provide direction
for actions that should be taken to realize
the vision. Denver and Glendale, as well as
private property owners, businesses and
community groups should cooperate to
achieve this vision by:
a. ) Improving traffic flow and safety;
b. ) Taking action to retain a broad mix of
land uses that are a good neighbor to
existing uses;
c. ) Defining and reinforcing the unique
image of the corridor and ensuring that
.new development has little or no adverse
impacts on adjacent uses.
Each goal addresses a specific area of
concern: transportation, land use, and urban
design. These three areas of concern were
identified early in the process as being the
most important ones on which to focus. A
variety of individual actions has been
recommended to achieve these goals.
3


C. Recommendations Summary
As noted, the recommendations are
organized into three categories. The
recommendations in each category are
Table 1. Recommendations
summarized in Table 1. A detailed
discussion of each recommendation is
presented later in the report.
and Action Summary
RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS
TRANSPORTATION
l. Intersection Improvement Program 1. Alameda Design in 1992
2. Include in Future CIPs
2. Key Bottleneck Studies 1. Monitor Volumes
3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan 1. Complete Current Project
4. Accel./Decel. Lanes/Curb-Cuts 1. Continue Current Policy
5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections 1. Accomodate in Intersection Improvements
2. Recognize in Development Review
3. Refer to Bike Advisory Committee
6. Transit 1. Complete Evans, Mississippi, & Alameda Shelters
2. Prioritize Other Improvements
3. Recognize in Development Review
4. Monitor Use Levels
5. Plan for Rapid Transit
7. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program 1. Pursue Regional Initiative
8. Transportation Management 1. Establish in 1992
Association Task Force 2. Coordinate Transit/Rideshare Promotion in 1992
9. Right-of-Way Maintenance 1. Pursue with Transportation Management Association Task Force
$
I
&
3
8
7%
8
I
il!?
I
I
W
1
I
4


Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (continued)
RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS
LAND USE
1. Overall Development Cap 1. Recognize in Rezoning Application Reviews
2. Land Use Mix 1. Recognize in Rezoning Application Reviews
2. Work with Large Project Developers
3. On-Site Parking 1. Recognize in Development Review
2. Update Requirements Citywide
URBAN DESIGN: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
1. Sidewalk Standard 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable
2. Develop Design Guidelines
2. Street Trees 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable
2. Develop Design Guidelines
3. Continue Glendale Program & Standards
3. Street Lighting 1. Develop Lighting Plan
2. Use in Development Review as Applicable
3. Continue Glendale Programs & Standards
4. Bus Stop Improvements 1. Complete Evans,Mississippi, & Alameda
2. Develop Design Guidelines
3. Continue Glendale Program & Standards
5. Boulevard Median 1. Develop Design Guidelines
2. Left Turn Demand Studies
6. Local Street Medians 1. Develop Design Guidelines
2. Contact/Assist Neighborhood
>_.. -****--> -v.-WV ; ,
5
ifjBinrans ubij


Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (Continued)
RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS
URBAN DESIGN: PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
7. Parking Lot Screening/Entiy Medians 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines
8. Front Setback and Landscaping 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines
9. Building Placement 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines
10. Building Entrance Orientation 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements
11. Building Facades 1. Consider in New Corridor Development Requirements
12. Upper Level Setback 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines
13. Maximum Height Limitation 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Dequirements
14. Architectural Treatment on All Sides 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements

6


Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (Continued)
RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS
URBAN DESIGN: SIGNS 'f
15. Rear Buffers & Screen/Alley Access 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor
Development Requirements ?
16. Service Area Screening 1. Use in Development Review T?
as Applicable rl
2. Incorporate in New Corridor V
Development Requirements 3

17. Compatible Sign Codes 1. Joint Follow-Up Analysis 2. Update Zoning Citywide to
Require Sign Program
18. Ground Mounted Signs 1. Identify Required Vj
Implementation Mechanism
2. Use in Development Review
as Applicable
19. Building Mounted Signs 1. Identify Required (j
Implementation Mechanism
2. Use in Development Review <£j
as Applicable ;sr- !\V
20. Billboards 1. Identify Required 'iV
Implementation Mechanism '-it -Js,
2. Use in Development Review
as Applicable

7
Plan Summary


D. Implementation Overview
A variety of steps will be taken to
implement the plan. Many of the land use
and urban design recommendations will
require amendments to the ordinances and
regulations that guide private development.
Some of those can be adopted on a
corridor-specific basis, others will require
changes in requirements that apply on a
citywide basis. Additional, more detailed
studies may be required in some cases
before specific changes can be formulated.
Once the development requirements are
changed, new projects built along the
Boulevard will have to comply with those
changes. The specific recommendations
will be put in place as individual properties
along the Boulevard continue to redevelop.
Thus, it will be a long time before all
development along the Boulevard is
consistent with these recommendations.
The CAC also strongly suggested that any
future redevelopment proposals should be
encouraged to be submitted as Planned Unit
Development (PUD) rezoning. This would
allow the specific applicable elements of
this plan to be written into a binding, site
specific development plan.
Many of the transportation
recommendations will be implemented over
time as capital funds become available to
make improvements. Adopting the plan
does not guarantee that the funds will be
available. However, the plan does servers
the basis for funding requests, and projects
recommended in formally adopted plans
often have priority over those that are not
Funds for transportation projects can be
sought from a variety of sources, including
local funds from Denver and Glendale, and
state and federal funds administered by the
Colorado Department of Transportation,
and the Denver Regional Council of
Governments. Even so, implementation of
all of the projects recommended in this plan,
even under the most favorable of funding
circumstances, is expected to take ten to
twenty years.
Finally, though formal adoption of the plan
is an expression of the communitys shared
vision and goals for this area, many of the
recommendations are consistent with, or
extensions of, current practice, and will be
implemented on that basis. For example,
new developments are already required to
provide acceleration-deceleration lanes and
sidewalks. Also, Denver has successfully
sought funding assistance from the Denver
Regional Council of Governments to
develop a detailed traffic signal retiming
program. They have also successfully
sought funding from the Colorado
Department of Transportation to repave a
significant portion of the Boulevard within
the study area. However, this plan will only
strengthen and broaden the scope of the
community wide effort to improve Colorado
Boulevard.
8


III. TRANSPORTATION
The transportation-related goal is to
improve traffic flow and safety on the
Boulevard. This goal includes several
important objectives. They are:
a. ) Reduce "pressure" for Colorado
Boulevard traffic to divert to parallel
streets which cannot and should not be
expanded, such as Holly, Monaco and
University.
b. ) Improve accessibility to commercial
development along the street in Denver
and Glendale and in the Cherry Creek
area.
c. ) Support development objectives for
other areas, such as the Hale Parkway
Hospital District area served by Colorado
Boulevard, by improving conditions for
through traffic.
There is no single solution for traffic
problems on Colorado Boulevard. .Even
preventing conditions from becoming worse
than they are today will require a complex
and expensive series of coordinated projects
and policies.
A. Current and Future Conditions
South Colorado Boulevard has long been an
important transportation artery as well as a
magnet for development. It currently
experiences significant congestion and there
is a concern that, as growth continues, the
current situation may become significantly
worse.
Traffic congestion can have an adverse
effect on air quality, safety and
convenience. Growing congestion levels
may also force increasing amounts of traffic
off of Colorado Boulevard and onto
secondary streets in residential areas. At
some point, traffic congestion levels may
lead to disinvestment in the corridor, with
consequent ramifications on individual
businesses, tax base and the provision of
services to the adjacent residential
community, as well as to a decrease in the
attractiveness of the areas residential
neighborhoods.
Current Travel Times and Level of
Service
Objective traffic congestion level
measurements have been developed and are
used consistently throughout the country.
Congestion is described in terms of
Level-of-Service (LOS). There are six LOS
letter grades; "A" is the least congested, and
"F" the most. LOS "F" represents a level of
delay which has been found to be
unacceptable to most drivers. Generally,
LOS "D" is viewed as acceptable in the
peak hour.
Current traffic Levels of Service (LOS) for
Colorado Boulevard on an overall basis
through the study area are summarized in
Table 2. As can be seen, the worst overall
condition is southbound in the afternoon
rush hour, when LOS is in a D/E range.
Conditions in both directions at noontime
are LOS D, and are significantly worse than
in the morning rush hour.
9


Table 2. 1990 Travel Speeds and Level of Service
Period AM Peak Noon PM Peak
Direction SB NB SB NB SB NB
Speed (MPH) 25 23 18 20 17 22
LOS C C D D D/E C/B
Most of the peak hour delay on Colorado
Boulevard is caused by intersection
congestiontraffic between the intersections
tends to move along well. Levels of Service
at the individual intersections are actually
worse than the overall Levels of Service
described above. The current, estimated
Level of Service at major intersections in
the corridor is summarized in Table 3. As
can be seen, all of the major intersections
are currently functioning at or below LOS D.
Table 3. Estimated Intersection -r.
Level-of-Service 1990 PM Peak 1
Hour to T'1 M
Intersection LOS Jh'
Evans F
Mexico D
Florida E !5
Mississippi D S'1
CC Drive/South F
CC Drive/North E
Alameda F £
Bayaud F
1st F ?}
Traffic Sources___________________________
Traffic demand levels associated with South
Colorado Boulevard area development were
calculated for the recent Southeast Quadrant
Study, and that basic data was also used for
this analysis. As travel demand on
Colorado is affected by more than just the
immediately adjacent development, the area
included in these calculations is bounded by
lst/Alameda on the north, Evans on the
south, Monaco on the east and University
on the west.
A computer model was used to analyze
where traffic on Colorado Boulevard is
generally coming from and going to. The
largest traffic source is development in the
general vicinity of Colorado Boulevard.
The computer model indicated that about
75% of the traffic on Colorado Boulevard
has either an origin or a destination within
the influence area. (This traffic is referred
to as external-internal traffic in Figure 2.)
However, only about 5% of the traffic on
Colorado Boulevard has both an origin and
a destination in this area (internal-internal
traffic). The balance of the traffic on
Colorado Boulevard, about 20%, has both
an origin and destination somewhere
10


THE
outside the study area (external-external
traffic), although still generally within
sections of southeast Denver. The actual
percentage breakdowns from several key
sources are summarized below.
FIGURE 2
TRAFFIC DEMAND CATEGORIES
PROPORTIONS
External-Internal
These sources indicate that this section of
Colorado Blvd. plays a relatively minor role
in carrying through-traffic. Most of the
traffic is related to destinations along the
roadway. This has important implications
on the needs for acceleration/deceleration
lanes, left turn lanes, and access/curb cuts.
Figure 3 indicates the classification of
roadways in the vicinity of the study area as
recommended in the Southeast Quadrant
Plan.
FIGURE 3
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
The streets and roadways in the Southeast
Quadrant collectively function as a land
access and mobility system. Of the
estimated 810 miles of street and roadways
in the Southeast Quadrant, approximately
105 miles (13%) are primarily devoted to
traffic movement or mobility. These
facilities are typically referred to as arterials
and include both regional freeway facilities
such as 1-25 and high volume streets such
as Broadway, Colorado Boulevard and
Hampden Avenue. The remaining street
11
Transportation


mileages axe primarily devoted to serving
direct land access and local traffic
movements within neighborhoods and
activity centers. These streets arc typically
referred to as collectors and local streets.
Table 4 summarizes the total amount of
travel demand generated by development in
the influence area. Of course, not all of this
traffic utilizes Colorado Boulevard as the
area is also served by other streets. It
should also be noted that some traffic that is
on Colorado is through traffic.
Peak and Off-Peak Traffic Levels
The difference between peak hour
conditions and off-peak conditions is much
less on South Colorado Boulevard than it is
on many arterials. Because of the mixed
use, intense character of development along
Colorado, and its several traffic-carrying
roles, demand is significant throughout the
day and the noon-hour is almost as busy as
the afternoon rush hour.
Many arterial streets also have a
pronounced directional imbalance. This is
less true on Colorado Boulevard, although
traffic is somewhat heavier northbound in
the AM Peak and southbound in the PM
Peak. During the noon peak, traffic is more
balanced. These characteristics are
summarized in Figures 4 and 5 for two
representative locations.
Safety
Traffic safety issues were examined in
detail in a previous study of the Boulevard.
That study concluded: "...Colorado
Boulevard is fairly typical of urban arterials
regarding the rate of accident occurrence."
No new specific safety-related problem
areas are known to have surfaced since this
last study. The previous study found that
the highest accident locations were at the
intersections of Colorado and Cheny Creek
South Drive, Cherry Creek North Drive,
Bayaud/Leetsdale, and 1st Avenue. The
addition of turn lanes and improved signals
at these and other locations were
recommended in order to improve safety.
These improvements have been made at
Cherry Creek North and South Drives.
12


TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 4__
HOUR
Figure 5
HOUR
NORTHBOUND -h- SOUTHBOUND
13
Transportation


Largely as a result of that previous study,
the Colorado Department of Transportation
and the City of Denver have recently
initiated a program to rebuild and
modernize most traffic signals along
Colorado Boulevard in order to improve
safety.
Future Volumes____________________________
It is also helpful to have some sense of how
much worse problems may get, and how
quickly. Demand has continued to grow on
Colorado Boulevard since it was first
developed, and all indications are that
demand growth will continue. The
Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Study projected
that employment in the influence area
would increase by about forty-four percent
between the mid-1980s and 2010, and the
number of households in the area would
increase by about one-third.
The SEQ transportation system model was
used to do a detailed analysis of possible
future traffic levels on Colorado Boulevard
in the study area. The model analysis
suggests that traffic may grow at an even
faster rate in the next twenty years than it
has in the past.
Table 5 summarizes current traffic volumes
at several locations and the projected likely
range of Year 2010 volumes assuming, at
the low end, a continuation of past trends
and, at the high end, the levels projected by
the model.
It should also be noted that the reopening of
the Cherry Creek Shopping Center is
expected to affect traffic volumes in the
area. Actual levels may vary greatly in the
initial months, but several months after the
center opens, it is expected that traffic
generation levels will stabilize to levels that
were anticipated in the long range
projections, as well as in short range plans
for improvements in the area.
Table 5. Current and Projected Colorado Boulevard
Traffic Levels (in 000s) Current Projected
Average Year 2010 1
Daily Daily Traffic i ]
Location Traffic* Volume Range 1
North of Alameda 43 52 57 !
North of Exposition 64 77-81 j
South of Mississippi 57 67 68 J .
South of Mexico 72 86-91
South of 1-25 42 50 65
Represents various weekday counts taken in 1988,1989 or 1990.
14


B. Transportation Improvement
Considerations
A variety of strategies for reducing
congestion on Colorado Boulevard were
considered and are discussed in general
terms. The specific action recommendations
are discussed in section M-C.
Transportation System Management
Alternatives
Transportation System Management (TSM)
actions include lower-cost, shorter-range
measures to incrementally improve traffic
flow. Much of the traffic congestion along
Colorado Boulevard is due to congestion at
intersections; the first two strategies apply
to intersections. The third strategy is aimed
at reducing traffic conflicts between
intersections.
Signalization Modifications
Traffic flow can sometimes be improved by
revising signal coordination and adjusting
individual signal cycles to better reflect
current demand patterns. However, at some
of the busiest intersections, there may
simply be too much traffic relative to the
number of lanes, and no amount of signal
adjustment will eliminate all delay.
Intersection Modifications
In situations where signal adjustments alone
are not sufficient to reduce delay
significantly, the addition of lanes can be
consideredthough there are practical limits
to the number of lanes that can be added at a
given intersection. Also, along Colorado
Boulevard, such projects can be very
expensive due to the need to acquire new
right-of-way in heavily built-up areas.
Acceleration-Deceleration Lanes and
Access Points
Traffic flow between intersections can be
inhibited by traffic slowing down to make
right turns or speeding up after making a
right turn onto Colorado from private
driveways or intersecting streets. These
conflicts can be reduced by providing a
separate acceleration-deceleration lane for
turning vehicles.
Long Range Roadway Capacity
Alternatives
Longer range, higher cost alternatives for
adding capacity or improving traffic flow
were also considered.
New Through Lanes
The capacity of Colorado Boulevard, or of
parallel facilities, could be increased by
adding new through lanes. However, with
the exception of 1-25, Parker/Leetsdale and
sections of Quebec, such alternatives were
not recommended in the current, adopted
Southeast Quadrant Plan and were therefore
not considered in this analysis.
Building Grade-Separated Intersections
When signal timing modifications and turn
lane additions are still not sufficient to
eliminate excessive intersection congestion,
it may be appropriate to consider a
15
Transportation


grade-separation, i.e, taking one or more
movements over or under the primary
surface intersection.
Traffic Demand Management
Alternatives
Traffic Demand Management (TDM)
actions are aimed at reducing peak period
automobile traffic levels. The several
different TDM measures that were
considered include the following:
Ridesharing
Ridesharing refers to carpooling or
vanpooling. Ridesharing can be promoted
in different ways, including site-specific
measures or areawide programs. A spot
check of over 500 vehicles in the corridor
indicates that current average vehicle
occupancy is about 1.05 persons per car for
work trips and 1.3 persons per car for all
trips. It is unlikely that significant increases
in these occupancy levels can be achieved
Table 6. Existing Transit Service
Route Destination Frequency
#40/Colorado Crosstown Every 10 Minutes (Peak) Every 15 Minutes (Mid-Day) Every 30 Minutes (Evening)
#2/1 st Avenue Hilltop- Cherry Creek- Downtown Every 30 Minutes
#3/Alameda Aurora- Every 20 Minutes (Peak)
Cheny Creek- Downtown Every 30 Minutes (Off-peak)
#5/Buchtel U. Hills- Downtown Every 30 Minutes
#21/Evans Aurora- DU-Downtown Every 30 Minutes
#46 Limited Glendale- Every 20 Minutes
Cherry Creek- Downtown (Peak Only)
#79/83 Limited Nine Mile- Every 16 Minutes (Peak)
Cherry Creek- Downtown Every Hour (Off-Peak)

16


THE
without "proactive" steps by the public and
private sectors working together to
continually promote and support carpool
programs.
Transit
Colorado Blvd. already enjoys relatively
good transit service. (See Table 6.) The
average number of people getting on or off
buses along Colorado Boulevard in the
study area on a weekday in 1990 was about
3,500. A majority of these riders use RTD
Route 40, which is the main route serving
Colorado Blvd.. The most heavily utilized
stops were at Alameda, Mississippi and
Evans. As is the case with ridesharing,
increases in transit use are unlikely to occur
without proactive steps by the public and
private sectors to encourage such a trend.
Walking and Bicycling
A small but important portion of the travel
demand along Colorado Boulevard can be
met by walking. For example, a significant
number of lunch-hour trips appear to be
taken on foot. In addition, the convenience
of making trips on foot is an important part
of using transit, as people must walk to and
from bus stops.
Only a small number of bicyclists were
observed on Colorado Boulevard itself and
it appears that, for the most part, bicycling
does not play a significant role in meeting
travel demand in the corridor. However, it
is viewed as important to ensure that bicycle
travel in the area generally is as convenient
as possible and is safely accommodated.
Trip Reduction
Employers can reduce trips by
implementing continuing programs to
actively promote and encourage the use of
alternatives to the single-occupant
automobile. Denver required such a
program as a condition for approval of one
large project in the corridor.
The evaluation of alternative strategies has
led to the proposed recommendations
described in detail below.
C. Transportation
Recommendations
T-l. Multi-Year Intersection
Improvement Program
Description
The multi-year intersection improvement
program initially recommended in the 1984
Colorado Boulevard Corridor Study should
continue. Only a few of the improvements
recommended at that time have been
implemented. The improvements generally
consist of adding left or right turn lanes at
the most congested intersections. Recent
analysis suggests that some of the specific
improvement recommendations made in
1984 may need to be expanded. The
specific needs of each intersection should be
determined in a Preliminary Engineering
1
I
17
Transportation


Table 7. Recommended Intersection Improvements
Intersection Approach Improvement
EVANS Eastbound Additional Left Turn Lane Separate Right Turn Lane
Westbound Additional Left Turn Lane Separate Right Turn Lane
Northbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Southbound Additional Left Turn Lane
MEXICO Eastbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Westbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Southbound Additional Left Turn Lane
FLORIDA Northbound Separate Right Turn lane
Southbound Separate Right Turn lane
MISSISSIPPI Eastbound Separate Right Turn lane
Westbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Southbound Separate Right Turn lane
CHERRY CREEK DR. S. Eastbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Westbound Additional Through Lane
CHERRY CREEK DR. N. Eastbound Additional Through Lane
Westbound Additional Through Lane
Northbound Separate Right Turn Lane
Southbound Separate Right Turn Lane
ALAMEDA Westbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Northbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Southbound Additional Left Turn Lane Separate Right Turn Lane
BAYAUD Eastbound Separate Through Lane Separate Right Turn Lane
Southbound Additional Left Turn Lane
1ST Eastbound Additional Left Turn Lane
Northbound Additional Left Turn Lane
-
18


THE
Design Analysis for each individual
intersection improvement project The
improvements proposed to be considered
are identified in Table 7.
The analysis done for this study indicates
that the highest priority intersections should
be Evans and the Alameda area.
Intended Benefit
Estimated intersection Levels of Service,
with and without the improvements and
assuming 1990 traffic levels, are
summarized in Table 8. If all of the
improvements were in place today, the
average delay at these intersections would
decrease by over 50% and overall peak
hour, peak direction travel speed would
improve by 20%. However, it will take a
number of years to fund and implement
these improvements, therefore it may only
be possible to more or less keep pace with
traffic demand increasesthat is, to
maintain current overall Levels of Service
as traffic continues to increase.
Next Steps
Tl-1. Denver, Glendale and the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT)
should continue to program monies to
conduct engineering design studies for other
identified high-priority locations. Denver
Capital Improvement Funds have been
designated for design of the Alameda
intersection. Denver will request future
assistance from the Colorado Department of
Transportation for development of a
detailed improvement plan for the Colorado
and Evans intersection. The design studies
should include a community involvement
process.
Tl-2. On-going funding for this program
should be included in the Denver and
Glendale Capital Improvement Programs
and all possible state and federal funding
support should also be sought so that all of
the recommended locations can be
improved within, at most, the next ten to
fifteen years.
Table 8. Intersection LOS,
Comparison
Estimated LOS with 1990 PM Peak Volumes,
with and without Recommended Improvements
Intersection Without Improvements With Improvements
Evans F C
Mexico D C
Florida E D
Mississippi D C
CC Drive-South F D
CC Drive-North E C
Alameda F D
Bayaud F D
1st F C

19
Transportation


T-2. Key Bottleneck Studies________________
Description
The feasibility and desirability of providing
grade-separations or similar major
improvements in the long-term at Evans and
Alameda intersections should also be
considered.
The Evans feasibility study should consider
the costs and benefits of grade-separations,
as well as modifications in the
I-25/Colorado and I-25/Evans interchanges.
The feasibility study for Alameda should
consider grade separations, as well as the
costs and benefits of a new roadway
connection from Alameda west of Leetsdale
to Cherry Street, in Glendale, as illustrated
schematically in Figure 6. Such a
FIGURE 6
connection could relieve demand at several
critical bottlenecks along Colorado. The
study of this connection must consider the
impacts on residential areas east of
Colorado Boulevard.
Intended Benefit
The traffic demand projections and future
conditions analysis suggest that, even if
TSM improvements are made to the Evans
and Alameda intersections, congestion
could again reach unacceptable levels due to
continued demand growth. Specifically, it
was found that the recommended first stage
improvements at Evans could accommodate
a 20-25% increase in traffic over current
levels before the Level of Service
deteriorates to that which is presently
experienced, while the recommended first
stage improvements at Alameda could
accommodate about a 10-15% increase in
traffic. Traffic levels should be monitored
at these locations to determine the actual
rate of increase that is occurring, but the
analysis suggests that growth could
approach these levels at both locations in
the next ten to fifteen years. The proposed
major improvements described above are
intended to help preserve the benefits
achieved by other projects throughout the
corridor.
Next Steps
T2-1. Traffic volumes at Alameda and
Evans should be monitored by Denver after
the improvements proposed in T-l are
made. At such time as congestion levels, as
20


th
measured by average vehicle delay, reach
80% of the "pre-improvement" level, the
recommended major improvement
feasibility studies should be initiated.
T-3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan____________
Description
Current signal timing and coordination
should be reviewed and revised if
warranted. Timing plans should be
reviewed periodically on a continuing basis.
Intended Benefit
Analysis done for this plan suggests that
adjustments in signal timing and
coordination could lead to improved traffic
flow at a number of intersections. The
overall improvement in intersection Level
of Service estimated for T-l, above,
assumed that signal timing would be
optimized.
Next Steps
T3-1. To determine ideal traffic signal
timing it is necessary to take detailed traffic
counts at all signalized intersections,
analyze timing alternatives and then
implement and finetune the preferred plan.
Likely modifications include improved
signal progression, new signal cycle
lengths, addition or deletion of turn arrows,
or adjusted green times for individual
phases. The detailed study should also take
into account pedestrian crossing needs.
Denver has already requested the assistance
of the Denver Regional Council of
Governments in undertaking detailed
alternative timing plan analysis. Approved
timing plan changes should be implemented
upon completion of the study.
T-4. Acceleration-Deceleration/Transit
Lane and Curb Cuts ______________________
Description
All new development projects along South
Colorado Boulevard should continue to be
required to provide a right-side
acceleration-deceleration (accel./decel.)
lane. Dedicated "turn" lanes will also be
provided at intersections when they are
improved as part of T-l, above. To further
minimize traffic conflicts and allow the turn
lanes to function as intended, the number of
access points to Colorado Boulevard that
are allowed with new development should
continue to be strictly limited.
The turn lanes can also accommodate buses
slowing down or speeding up for bus stops.
Bus stops should be located adjacent to
accel./decel. lanes to avoid impeding traffic
flow in through lanes.
Intended Benefit
These lanes will accommodate traffic
slowing down to turn and speeding up after
turning onto Colorado from a side street or
driveway, so that this lower speed traffic
will not unduly impede traffic already on
the Boulevard. These lanes are also
beneficial because they provide a place for
buses to slow down, stop, and speed up
21
Transportation


without impeding through traffic. In the
long term, as private redevelopment and
public intersection improvements projects
are undertaken, the turn lane will be
continuous, and this could allow a travel
time advantage for buses.
Next Steps
T4-1. Both Denver and Glendale should
continue to require dedications of these
lanes when new development occurs, and
should commit to working closely with
individual property owners to develop
creative site-design responses to situations
in which the requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way significantly
increases the complexity of site
redevelopment.
T4-2. In order to preserve the efficiency of
the right tum/transit lane, no increase in the
numbers of private access points onto the
Boulevard should be allowed. The number
of access points associated with new
development should be strictly limited.
T-5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections
Description
The construction of sidewalks should
continue to be required along S. Colorado
Blvd. and intersecting streets as part of all
redevelopment projects. Intersection
improvement projects should provide a high
level of pedestrian protection through the
use of highly visible crosswalks (such as
"zebra" style vertical stripes), pedestrian
signal indications and appropriate signs.
Due to high automobile traffic volumes and
limited right-of-way, bicycle travel along
Colorado Boulevard itself should not be
encouraged, but bike routes should be
designated on close-by parallel streets to the
east and west. Intersecting bike routes, such
as the Cherry Creek bike path, should
continue to be improved.
Intended Benefits
A small but important proportion of travel
demand along Colorado Boulevard can be
met by walking and bicycling. For
example, a significant number of
lunch-hour trips appear to be taken on foot.
In addition, the convenience of making trips
on foot is an important part of using transit,
as people must walk to and from bus stops.
The proposed improvements are intended to
encourage additional walking and bicycling
by enhancing "user" safety and
convenience. Combined with the urban
design and land use recommendations
described below, the opportunities to make
a greater number of trips on foot should
increase significantly over time.
22


Next Steps
T5-1. Pedestrian accommodations should
be included in the preliminary engineering
design studies for intersection
improvements recommended in T-l and at
signal reconstruction projects.
T5-2. As part of the development review
process, Denver and Glendale should
encourage the provision of convenient,
direct pedestrian connections between
adjacent commercial developments as well
as to neighboring residential areas.
T5-3. As part of the development of a
City wide Bike Plan in 1992, Denvers
Bicycle Advisory Committee should, in
cooperation with Glendale, designate
appropriate bike routes parallel to Colorado
Boulevard. Consideration should also be
given to projects to widen the sidewalks
over Cherry Creek and to provide a new
ramp connection between the existing Creek
level path and southeast comer of the
intersection of Virginia and Colorado
Boulevard; and to provide a direct
connection between the Cherry Creek and
Alameda bikeways. Other possibilities for
improving intersecting east-west bike routes
may also exist and should be considered.
T-6. Transit
Description
Transit use will be encouraged as an
alternative to the single-occupant
automobile. The use of the services which
already exist should be encouraged, and
Denver and Glendale should support plans
to provide additional service. Denver and
Glendale need to work with the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) and others to:
a. ) improve accommodations for people
getting to and from bus stops,
b. ) improve the bus stops themselves,
c. ) promote transit use, and
d. ) continue to encourage the
development of rapid transit in the
southeast 1-25 corridor, and the provision
of upgraded bus service on Colorado
Boulevard to complement it.
Intended Benefits
While transit use in the corridor is already
significant, comprehensive plans for the
area call for doubling existing transit
ridership by the Year 2010. Transit use can
be encouraged by making access to it more
convenient and comfortable. In time, there
may be a need to consider the addition of a
shuttle bus, running at high frequency
between major corridor destinations. In the
interim, the Transportation Management
Association Task Force recommended
below and other appropriate groups should
consider the benefits of a comprehensive
transit promotion campaign, and/or
subsidizing transit use on a on-going or
short-term promotional basis. For example,
it may be worthwhile for area businesses
and retailers to work with RTD to offer free
noon-hour transit use to encourage people
who work in the corridor to patronize local
businesses.
23
Transportation


Another way of increasing transit use is to
improve the necessary "infrastructure."
Currently, many bus stops in the corridor
are in areas without sidewalks or with
inadequate sidewalks. Observations
indicate that many people are
uncomfortable about crossing Colorado and
some side-streets on footwhich you must
do to use transit. Finally, at present there
are a minimal number of bus shelters.
There are specific recommendations in the
urban design section about bus stop area
design.
While the level of transit use increase
expected as a result of such improvements
cannot easily be quantified, these are
normal and typical measures which will
support public and private efforts to
encourage increased transit use by those
people who currently do not find it
sufficiendy comfortable or convenient.
Next Steps-Bus Stop Improvements
T6-1. Denver and Glendale should work
with RTD to install bus shelters at the
high-volume bus stops at Evans,
Mississippi, and Alameda. The Evans and
Alameda bus-stop improvements should be
coordinated with the recommended
intersection improvement projects.
T6-2. Denver and Glendale should work
with RTD to program the provision of
shelters at other locations meeting RTDs
minimum criteria of 40 boardings/day.
T6-3. Denver and Glendale should
encourage development adjacent to existing
designated bus stops to provide a seating
area and landscaping to serve bus
patronssuch improvements should be
required as condition of new development.
Next Steps-Transit Use Promotion
T6-4. In 1992, Denver and Glendale should
establish a Task Force to work with RTD to
conduct a transit promotion campaign for
area employees. (Also see T-8, below.)
Next Steps-Longer Range Transit
Improvements
T6-5. Currently, RTDs service standards
call for adding service-capacity when
demand consistently exceeds the number of
seats. Denver and Glendale should work
with RTD to monitor ridership levels, and
when they reach 80% of seated peak
capacity, service improvements should be
considered. The improvements considered
should include a special corridor shuttle.
24


THE
T6-6. Denver and Glendale should:
1. ) continue to work with RTD, the
CDOT, and others to fund and develop a
rapid transit line along 1-25;
2. ) seek to ensure that such a line will
have convenient links to bus service on
Colorado Boulevard; and
3. ) ensure that the levels of bus service
planned for Colorado Boulevard are
consistent with the planned frequency and
capacity of the rapid transit line.
Colorado Boulevard bus service could be
upgraded through the implementation of a
new shuttle service, by increasing the
frequency of existing bus routes, and/or by
providing a reserved lane for transit use.
The reserved lane could be created by
linking individual acceleration/deceleration
lanes recommended in T-4, above.
Denver and Glendale should also consider
the feasibility of integrating the planned
1-25 rapid transit station stop at Colorado
Boulevard with a parking garage, both to
serve people getting on the system to go to
the Tech Center or Downtown, or people
working along Colorado Boulevard who
could conveniently transfer to
high-frequency bus service on Colorado. A
parking structure could be developed east of
Colorado Boulevard, on air-rights over 1-25,
or at some other appropriate location.
T-7. Employer-Based Trip Reduction
Program
Description
Denver and Glendale should encourage the
adoption of a region wide trip reduction
program requirement for major employers.
Such a program would promote commuting
alternatives in order to attain a specified
target reduction in the number of people
commuting by single-occupant automobile.
Intended Benefit
This plan and other plans such as the
recently adopted Southeast Quadrant (SEQ)
Plan assume that the proportion of transit
and ridesharing will at least double over
current levels by about the Year 2010. This
is unlikely to happen without active
promotion by both the public and private
sectors. Adoption of a regionwide
trip-reduction program should ensure that
such promotion occurs uniformly
throughout the region.
Next Steps
T7-1. It is recommended that both Denver
and Glendale work through the Denver
Regional Council of Governments, the
Regional Air Quality Council and other
regional policy forums to promote a
regional trip reduction program. If a
program is not implemented on a regional
level, Denver and Glendale should consider
implementing such a requirement on their
own. In the meantime, Denver and
Glendale should encourage businesses to
25
Transportation


implement such programs on a voluntary
basis and should help those businesses in
organizing trip reduction programs by
directing them to available resources and
providing information about programs that
have been successful in other areas. This
effort can be coordinated through the Task
Force described in T-8.
T-8. Transportation Management
Association Task Force
Description
Property owners and businesses, in
cooperation with Denver and Glendale,
should establish a Task Force to formally
consider the establishment of a
Transportation Management Association,
coordinate a rideshare and transit promotion
campaign and monitor implementation of
the transportation elements of the Boulevard
Plan.
Intended Benefit
In many parts of the country, including
Denver, businesses have joined together to
supplement the efforts of government to
meet growing transportation needs. A
generic name for such groups is a
Transportation Management Association, or
TMA.
TMAs typically undertake activities such
as:
a.) Policy leadership and advocacy
designed to affect local transportation
decision-making;
b. ) Facilitation of focused ridesharing and
transit promotion programs for
employees;
c. ) Management and operation of
transportation services such as transit
shuttles, and raising funds to make capital
funding contributions to roadway
improvements and transit-use
enhancement projects; and
d. ) Fostering a positive mobility outlook
to reassure existing and prospective
tenants and investors.
In communities in which "trip reduction"
ordinances are in effect, TMAs can be
instrumental in facilitating compliance. In
addition, transit and ridesharing
promotional campaigns are generally most
effective when focused on a group of
employers.
Next Steps
T8-1. In 1992, the costs and benefits of
forming a TMA should be studied in detail
by a Task Force composed of
representatives of property owners,
businesses, the surrounding neighborhoods
and public agencies including Denver
Transportation, Glendale, RTD, and
DRCOG RideArrangers.
First year activities should include:
a. ) Examination of organizational,
funding, and mission options;
b. ) Surveying current area employee
commuting patterns to determine baseline
26


THE
habits and evaluate program potential;
and
c.) Carrying out a rideshare/transit
promotion program.
Denver and Glendale should commit
specific staff support to this effort, and
should provide seed money for Task Force
activities. Staff and in-kind support should
be sought from RTD and DRCOG.
Property owners and businesses should also
be asked to help support first year activities.
T-9. Right-of-Way Maintenance
Description
Denver, Glendale and area businesses
should consider ways in which public area
maintenance levels can be increased.
Intended Benefit
The image of Colorado Boulevard can be
improved through stepped up maintenance
activities. In addition, maintaining good
pavement condition helps traffic to move
efficiently.
Under current practices, Denver is
responsible for providing street sweeping
services on Colorado Boulevard. Currently,
Downtown area streets and streets serving
Downtown are given a higher priority than
arterial streets such as Colorado Boulevard,
although the street is scheduled to be swept
once a week in summer and about two to
three times per month in the winter. Efforts
should be made to ensure that the targets are
met.
A more significant problem may be
cleaning the median and sidewalk areas. At
present, the sidewalk and median are
cleaned no more than three times per year.
Cleaning is done by Minor Offender crews
from the County Jail. It is recommended
that the City explore ways in which this
frequency could be increased, and that
voluntary efforts by area businesses be
encouraged through the Transportation
Management Association Task Force
discussed above, to at least keep sidewalk
areas clean. The recommended median
improvements (See Urban Design section of
this report) should be designed to minimize
the costs and difficulty of routine
maintenance and cleaning.
The Colorado Department of Transportation
is responsible for maintaining the pavement
condition on the Boulevard.
Next Steps
T9-1. The TMA Task Force should
evaluate ways to encourage private
businesses to assume increased
responsibility for litter pick-up along the
sidewalk and possibly the median and
encourage Denver to meet its once a week
street sweeping target
T9-2. Denver and Glendale should
continue to place a high priority on their
requests to CDOT for pavement
maintenance projects, including
consideration of concrete pavement

f
j.
4
i
27
Transportation


28


IV. LAND USE
The general goals with respect to land use
are:
1. ) Continue an appropriate mix of land
uses along the Boulevard; and
2. ) New development should be
compatible with existing development
Maintaining an appropriate land use mix
will help reinforce the economic vitality of
the corridor, and if the corridor remains
economically healthy on an overall basis,
there will be a stronger likelihood that
high-quality neighborhood serving uses will
continue to thrive. It also tends to reduce
traffic impacts more than if the land uses
were more homogeneous.
Table 9. South Colorado Boulevard Corridor
_________Commercial Floor Space (1)____
Category Square Feet Percent
Office 6,886,500 65%
Retail 1217,700 12%
Hotel/Motel 1,110,400 10%
Public/Quasi Public/Other 942,500 9%
Auto Sales 163,900 1%
Entertainment 262,500 3%
Total 10,583,500 100%
1. Sources: 1986 Denver Assessors Office records
provided by the Denver Planning Office and current
records provided by the Glendale Building and
Zoning Department.
A. Current and Future Conditions
Table 9 summarizes current development
levels in the general study area, i.e.,
development sites fronting or just behind
the Boulevard between 1st and Evans.
Existing zoning and land uses are depicted
in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
The most recent comprehensive analysis of
land use trends in the general area was done
as part of the Southeast Quadrant Study.
The population and employment estimates
for the South Colorado Boulevard
"influence area" for the mid-1980s, and
projections for the year 2010, are also
summarized in Table 10. Table 10 also
summarizes the development levels which
are possible if and when the current
approved zoning is built-out. As can be
seen, the build-out levels are not greatly
different from the projected 2010 levels.


FIGURE 7
EXISTING ZONING
R-O, R-1 Single Family Detached low density
R-2, R-2A Multi-family Residential Low and Medium Density
R-3 Multi-family Residential High Density
R-4 Multi-family Residential, Office Very High Density, Hotels, Limited Retail
B-1 Limited Office Services
BA-2 Arterial / Tourist Service Gas, Hotels, Restaurants
B-2 Nelghborhod Business
B-3 Shoping Center Retail
BA-3 General Commercial Retail Theatres, Gas, Nightclubs
B-4 General Busslness Retail consumer and Business Services
1-0 Light Industrial
Limited Manufacturing, Retail, Office, Hotel
0-1 Open Space Parks, Recreation, Cemeteries
R-5 Institutional Hospital, Schools, Churches
PUD Planned Unit Development
P-1 Off-Street Parking
N, -
1-i ^
R-1 *:::r
PUD
30
R-^A



FIGURE 8
Generalized Land Use

!
I
31
Land Use


Table 10. Estimated/Projected Households and Employment
South Colorado Boulevard Influence Area ^
SUBAREA HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT
1985 / 2010 / BLD-OUT 1985 / 2010 / BLD-OUT
Cherry Creek 650 1100 1900 7700 12500 19000
Center West 4250 5900 6250 11900 17100 17300
Center East 9050 10750 11200 10450 14900 16750
Glendale 1150 3750 3750 8600 16600 16600
S/O Evans 2600 2600 2550 4500 6750 7750
Total 17700 24100 25650 47200 67900 77400
% Change 36% 6% 44% 14%
AVG. ANN. # 250 850
AVG. ANN. % 1.5% 1.8% --
1. Source: Southeast Quadrant Land Use and Transportation Plan, Felsburg Holt & UUevig, in association
with HOH Associates, Inc., Coley/Forrest, Inc; and Bramhall & Associates, for the City and County of Denver,
December, 1988.
The wide range of different land use types
along South Colorado Boulevard
contributes to the relatively high traffic
levels throughout the day, in contrast to the
pattern on arterial streets which serve areas
dominated by a single land use type, such as
retail, or office, or residential. If all of the
commercial development along Colorado
Boulevard were used as office, for example,
the difference between peak hour and
off-peak traffic levels would likely be
greater, and peak hour levels would be even
higher than they are.
The mix of land uses also serves to make
the traffic more manageable in other ways.
For example, people employed in the
corridor can walk to lunch and shopping
errands rather than take a car. In addition,
the peak demand is "spread out" by the fact
that some people may get to the area early
or leave late in order to shop or eat.
32


B. Alternative Strategies
Several strategies were considered for
resolving land-use related problems in the
corridor, and/or for reducing the likelihood
of future problems.
One concept considered was "downzoning."
"Downzoning" involves amending the
zoning to decrease allowed densities.
However, downzoning was felt to be
politically unrealistic.
A second land use alternative considered
was the possibility of designating "office
development nodes" at each end of the
study area. Landowners elsewhere in the
corridor would have been able to sell their
unused development rights to owners of
properties within these nodes. Owners of
land within these nodes could then have
used these rights to build office space over
and above that allowed by the base zoning
for those areas. The benefit, in theory,
would have been to encourage office space
in areas best served by the transportation
system, and to make retail development
elsewhere in the conidor more
economically viable. However, as the idea
was considered, concerns were expressed
about whether the actual impact would be to
discourage retail redevelopment, and
whether such an action was necessary to
achieve desired development patterns in
light of recent economic trends. Finally, the
transportation analysis indicated that the
intersections in the vicinity of the nodes
being considered were actually the most
congested in the corridor and encouraging
more development in the immediate vicinity
could exacerbate that congestion. The
office nodes concept has enough potential
merit, however, that it should be
reconsidered if and when rapid transit is
developed along 1-25 or parallel corridors
intersecting Colorado Boulevard.
Reconsideration of this concept may also be
warranted if there is a proliferation of large,
single building office projects throughout
the study area.
The approach recommended at the present
time is to focus on specific, achievable
responses to specific concerns, such as
limiting future development levels,
encouraging mixed use developments, and
formulating development and site guidelines
to ensure that new development will be a
good neighbor to existing residential and
other development.
Several techniques for implementing these
requirements were also considered. They
included:
1. ) amending each zone district present in
the corridor as part of a comprehensive
citywide zoning revision;
2. ) creating an overlay zone district for
the corridor;
3. ) creating a new Colorado Boulevard
zone district; and,
4. ) Using the special development
regulation authority available under
Denvers parkway and boulevard
ordinance and other sections of the City
code.
33
Land Use


These implementation alternatives apply to
the situation in Denver. In Glendale,
special requirements already exist for
properties within 600 feet of Colorado
Boulevard, and the preferred
implementation approach would be to
amend the Glendale zoning ordinance to
incorporate changes recommended in this
Plan, as appropriate.
For Denver, each of the several alternatives
has advantages and disadvantages. The first
approach is legally straightforward but
logistically complex; it would involve
amending ten different Denver zone
districts. The second approach would create
different requirements for the same zone
district in different parts of the City. The
third approach may be overkill; it has been
very difficult to create wholly new zone
districts elsewhere in the City, and the
changes that are being recommended along
the Boulevard are not as extensive as those
which needed to be implemented in those
other areas. Finally, the authority available
under the parkway and boulevard ordinance
may not be extensive enough to include all
of the recommended development
requirements.
Given recent experience, the present
recommendation is to combine elements of
the first implementation alternative,
amending the individual zone districts, and
the fourth alternative involving the parkway
and boulevard ordinance, and other sections
of the City code. The parkway and
boulevard ordinance designates certain
Denver streets as parkways/boulevards and,
within limits, allows the City to regulate the
character and placement of development
along those streets. Within the study area,
that portion of South Colorado Boulevard
between 1-25 and 44th Avenue has long
been designated as a parkway/boulevard,
although no special design regulations have
previously been developed. It should be
noted, though, that the consensus of the
CAC was that there are advantages to
consolidating the new development
requirements into an overlay zone district.
The Committee recommended that such an
approach should continue to be considered.
The CAC also strongly suggested that any
future redevelopment proposals should be
encouraged to be submitted as Planned Unit
Development (PUD) rezoning. This would
allow the specific applicable elements of
this plan to be written into a binding, site
specific development plan.
Finally, it was noted that a number of
recommendations in this plan could lead to
changes in the Denver zoning code, and that
Denver is also considering a wholesale
revision of its existing codes. If that occurs,
there may be alternative ways of
accomplishing some of the objectives of this
plan. For example, a number of CAC
members suggested that some type of
performance-based zoning could address
some of the concerns for which specific,
detailed responses have been proposed in
this plan.
34



The specific land use recommendations are
intended to preserve a mix of uses, restrain
overall development increases which could
lead to excessive traffic demand increases
and ensure that spill-over parking problems
are minimized.
C. Land Use Recommendations
LU-1. Overall Development Cap_______
Description
In general, no additional development
density should be granted over currently
approved levels, unless enforceable
commitments are made to limit traffic
generation to levels consistent with those
that would occur with the original zoning.
For example, if the current zoning on a
particular parcel would allow 100,000
square feet of office use it can be calculated
that development of that parcel to that level
would generate about 150 trips in the PM
Peak Hour. If the developer wanted
approval to build 125,000 square feet of
office, the developer would have to
"guarantee" that steps would be taken to
limit PM Peak Hour vehicle trip generation
levels to about 150 trips, or that which
would occur with the original zoning.
Intended Benefit
Analysis done for the Southeast Quadrant
Plan indicated that present zoning permits
substantially more development than now
exists along Colorado Boulevard and
elsewhere in the southeast Denver area. In
light of the extensive demands that are
already placed on the transportation system,
and the significant impact and cost of
significantly increasing the capacity of the
transportation system, overall increases in
permitted intensities are not recommended.
While no wholesale increases in overall
allowable development seem appropriate,
some increase in development intensity may
be appropriate for individual projects
because of specific site or development
proposal issues. In those cases, Denver and
Glendale should require enforceable
commitments to limit traffic generation to
levels no higher than that possible with the
prior existing zoning. This will minimize
traffic increases on Colorado Boulevard and
other area streets.
Next Steps
LU1-1. Denver and Glendale should not
approve additional development intensity in
the corridor, except under the circumstances
noted above. It should be noted that this
does not mean that no rezoning should be
considered, as some rezoning may be
sought for reasons other than an increase in
intensity. In addition, Denver and Glendale
should seek to reduce maximum intensity
levels allowed in Planned Unit Develop-
ment and Planned Site Developments in
return for other allowances.
)
35
Land Use


_\
LU-2. Land Use Mix_______________________
Description
Glendale and Denver should seek to retain
the diversity of land uses in the corridor.
Denver and Glendale should also encourage
large office projects to incorporate either
retail, residential, entertainment, lodging or
restaurant uses in addition to the primary
office use.
Intended Benefits
The mixed use character of the area is
viewed as an asset for the surrounding
community, and helps in reducing total and
peak period peak traffic loadsas compared
to the same amount of floor space
developed entirely as office. The current
diversity of zoning in Denver, as well as the
actual mix of uses permitted in Denver,
promote such diversity and the range of
permitted uses should not be substantially
altered.
Next Steps
LU2-1. Evaluate any Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Planned Site
Development (PSD) and other rezoning in
terms of the potential impact on land use
mix within the corridor.
LU2-2. Encourage developers proposing
large office projects to incorporate either
retail, residential, entertainment, lodging or
restaurant uses in addition to the primary
office use.
LU-3. On-Site Parking___________________
Description
All new development should provide
sufficient parking to meet 100% of the
projects needs on-site or in shared facilities
adjacent to the site.
Intended Benefit
Analysis of Denver and Glendales required
parking amounts as compared to typically
recommended standards showed that the
most serious deficiency was the Denver
code requirements with respect to office and
restaurant uses. Denver requires 1 space
for each 500 s.f. of office floor space, and 1
space for each 200 s.f. of restaurant space.
Many office and restaurant projects in the
corridor most likely provide parking in
excess of these minimum required ratios,
although overspill parking problems were
observed in the vicinity of some fast-food
restaurants and some offices. Some
overspill parking problems may be
exacerbated by building owners and
managers who charge tenants for parking
spaces. However, such charges act as
incentives to the use of alternatives to the
single-occupant automobile, therefore they
should not be prohibited or discouraged.
Instead, if parking overspill problems are
related solely to the presence of a fee, they
should be dealt with through parking
restrictions on affected local streets.
To avoid future problems, minimum
parking ratios should be increased for office
36


THE
and restaurant and possibly other uses.
However, the current low minimum
requirements are a problem not just in the
Colorado Boulevard corridor, but also
citywide, and changes in these ratios should
preferably be made on a citywide basis.
When they are implemented, variances from
updated minimum parking standards could
be considered if a developer implements a
trip reduction program. The developer
should also "guarantee" that no over spill
parking will result. If overspill parking
does occur, the guarantee could be enforced,
for example, by requiring the developer to
make contributions to a mitigation fund
which would be used to enforce any
necessary neighborhood parking restrictions
or provide other, off-setting improvements
or services.
Next Steps
LU3-1. Consistent with the scope of
existing authority, utilize this guideline in
the review of all new development
proposals in any PUD rezoning in the
corridor. Adequate parking requirements
are already in effect in Glendales PSD
district.
LU3-2. Update parking requirements for
office, restaurant and any other "problem"
uses on a citywide basis in Denver. An
enforcement mechanism should be created
for controlling overspill parking if variances
to minimum standards are permitted in
conjunction with a trip reduction program.
37
Land Use


38


V. URBAN DESIGN
The urban design recommendations are
intended to help create a distinctive,
unifying identity for the area which will
help it compete in a growing and
increasingly competitive regional economy,
while minimizing the adverse impacts of
new development on existing development.
The urban design recommendations are
divided into three categories:
-Public right-of-way including medians
and the sidewalk area;
-Site and building design for private
development and public facilities; and
-Commercial signs and billboards.
Objectives have been established for each of
these categories and are described below.
Objectives for Public Right-of-Way
Improvements
1. ) Provide a safe and secure walking
environment by providing separation
between automobile traffic and sidewalks
in order to encourage more people to
make trips on foot or by public
transportation.
2. ) Tie both sides of the street together
visually while defining the edges of the
street to enhance continuity of character.
Objectives for Private Development
3. ) Create lively and visually interesting
buildings.
4. ) Create a sense of place and enclosure
along the street.
5. ) Maximize the opportunities to create
retail display windows and building signs
which will be visible from the street and
sidewalk to reinforce the merchandising
character of the corridor.
6. ) Screen some parking lots by the
placement of buildings.
7. ) Scale back the mass of buildings to
reduce the intrusion into neighborhoods
and to avoid "overpowering" the street.
8. ) Ensure that adverse impacts of new
buildings on adjacent, older buildings and
residential development is minimized.
Objectives for Signs
9. ) Limit visual confusion and promote
consistency.
10. ) Equalize the competitive
environment for businesses located in
Denver and Glendale.
11. ) Reduce the intrusiveness into
residential neighborhoods and avoid
"broadcasting" the commercial nature of
the Boulevard into these adjoining areas
by the strategic placement of signs.
12. ) Integrate all signs into the overall
project design through the use of
architectural treatments and by
incorporating adequate amounts of
landscaping around monument signs.
A. Current Conditions
In the past, there has been little
39


consideration given to the development of a
cohesive urban design treatment for the
corridor, although there have been a few
positive results on a project-by-project
basis. Some of the existing, major urban
design concerns which were identified in
the planning process include:
-The overall image of much of the
corridor is that of a sea of asphaltthere
are about 20,000 surface parking spaces
in the study area adjacent to the
Boulevard.
-The wide range of zoning classifications,
existing land uses, building types and
sizes. The overall pattern of development
includes single user, individual small lots
for fast food and gas stations; larger
integrated shopping centers; individual
office buildings; and small office
complexes.
-The shallow, half-block parcels which
constrain site planning opportunities.
-The disjointed circulation patterns
including the incomplete sidewalk
network and numerous curb-cuts and
access points serving the individual
commercial uses directly from a major
regional arterial street.
-The lack of landscaping, (in spite of the
fact that most of the corridor is a
designated Denver "parkway/boulevard").
The need to accommodate increasing
amounts of traffic has had priority over
other public right-of-way improvements,
and, at the present time the existing
Colorado Boulevard right-of-way is all but
fully utilized by through-traffic lanes,
turning-lanes and sidewalk improvements.
B. Improvement Considerations
Underlying the urban design
recommendations are three primary
considerations, described below.
The Commercial/Residential Edge
In several areas, including most of the
western edge of the commercial
development along the corridor, the
boundary between the commercial
development and the established,
smaller-scaled single family residential
neighborhoods from Iliff to Cherry Creek
Drive South should be emphasized as a
distinct edge which separates the two areas.
Figure 9, which shows the "footprints" of
current buildings, illustrates one aspect of
the scale differences between the two types
of areas.
The other boundaries are less distinct, and
the development along the Boulevard
should transition into these areas and
sensitively tie the commercial areas back
into the neighborhoods.
The Gateway Function_____________________
The design of the corridor as a whole should
"welcome" motorists and pedestrians into
the citys overall urban patterns and forms
and specifically to Cherry Creek and the
City of Glendale.
40



FIGURE 9
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
Figure Ground
\ . - ; r
\ I 1
Jj
-U.*

i*

OHVMIIHM |
-"*1^ -
\i !-?GLENDALE
: | *
Uijr 3
t. -| r -
i\f1^ r
in- *
iil^N
:|j!;
|;[i T*, 7 1 >
-C :**:!
.JTfjji
; - 2= i j
E- iii-1-
3
i
*+
' ;r**rl ...
i f i i.3 rj ;r
H rlS- i
: -igr1. !?n?riiriii.
I
I
41
Urban Design


The Image of the Street Itself__________
The urban design recommendations seek to
create an improved, coordinated public
right-of-way treatment that is continuous
along Colorado Boulevard from 1-70 to the
southern Denver city limits and are more in
keeping with the long-standing designation
of much of the Boulevard as an official
Denver parkway/boulevard. However,
there can and should be "theme and
variation" type differences in the design
treatments used along the Boulevard that
respect local character. For example, there
may be differences in treatment of the tree
lawn and sidewalks in commercial versus
residential areas. ^ //
C. Urban Design
Recommendations
Figure 10 is a composite sketch illustrating
the various urban design recommendations.
The recommendations are described in
detail below.
"HALF BLOCK-
RESIDENTIAL ,
COMMERCIAL
n
STREET TREE BUFFER
WALKING ZONE
SCREEN WALLS
SIMILAR TREATMENT
ALL SIDES
BUILDING EDGE LANDSCAPING
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS FROM
BOULEVARD
BUS SHELTERS WITHIN
LANDSCAPE AREAS
BUILDINGS PLACED NEXT TO
LANDSCAPED AREAS
MONUMENT SIGNS
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRANCES ON NEXT
CONNECTING FACADE
PARKING TO SIDES OR BACKS
"FULL BLOCK"
COMMERCIAL
CROSSWALKS
FIGURE 10
DESIGN STANDARDS
42


PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
UD-1. Sidewalk Standard
Description
There should be sidewalks along both sides
of South Colorado Boulevard throughout
the corridor. The minimum width of the
clear walking surface of the sidewalk area
should be 5 in Denver and 8 in Glendale.
In Denver, the sidewalk walking area will
be separated from traffic by a 66" wide
buffer zone between the walking area and
adjacent traffic lanes. The sidewalk should
be connected to any plazas or arcades
within private development sites. The
pedestrian-crossing zone across driveways
should be delineated with a non-asphalt
paving material.
In Denver, the buffer zone should be paved
with a decorative material and all
newspaper boxes, traffic signal control
boxes, utility and possibly light poles
should be placed in this area. The buffer
zone should also include street trees (see
UD-2, below.)
Intended Benefit
A complete and "inviting" pedestrian
circulation system is essential to
encouraging the use of transit and walking
as alternatives to the automobile. To create
a comfortable walking environment
adjacent to three or more lanes of moving
traffic, there needs to be at least minimal
buffering created by width and other street
"furniture."
Next Steps
UD1-1. Apply the sidewalk standard to all
new development fronting the Boulevard in
all commercial and R-4 zones, as well as
Planned Unit Developments (Denver) and
Planned Site Developments (Glendale.)
i
i
i
!
43
Urban Design


Developers should be required to dedicate
any frontage necessary to create or upgrade
the sidewalk.
UD1-2. The Denver Planning Office will
develop detailed guidelines regarding
appropriate buffer zone paving materials,
concrete scoring patterns, and street tree
specifications.
UD-2. Street Trees
Description
Provide a row of street trees within the
sidewalk buffer zone along the Boulevard in
Denver. The buffer zone should be paved
with a decorative material and include a row
of street trees of at least 3 1/2" caliper in 5
grates or other appropriate settings spaced at
30 intervals, except where safety
considerations dictate otherwise. Selection
criteria for tree species should recognize the
need to maintain visibility of sign bands on
retail storefronts and of development
entrances.
Intended Benefit
With the limited opportunities to create
wide landscaped areas which could soften
the image of the corridor, vertical design
elements become very important. The trees
are intended to reflect the Boulevards
designation as an official Denver
parkway/boulevard and create a more
comfortable and inviting pedestrian
environment. The city of Denver must also
ensure that no trees are installed without
provisions for on-going maintenance.
Maintenance should be the responsibility of
the adjacent landowner (or of a special
district if one is formed.)
Glendale has an existing streetscape
program which is different from the
recommended approach in
Denverspecifically, there is no
requirement for a buffer zone nor for street
trees in the buffer zone. Instead, Glendale
requires trees spaced 30 on-center to be
planted in the landscaped setback behind the
sidewalk. Much of the frontage in Glendale
is already developed in this manner, and it
is recommended that Glendale continue
with this approach. This different approach
is consistent with the objective of
maintaining some distinction in design
treatments between Glendale and Denver.
Next Steps
UD2-1. Require the provision and
maintenance of street trees as part of new
development in Denver in all new
development fronting the Boulevard in all
commercial and R-4 zones, as well as
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).
UD2-2. The Denver Planning Office should
develop standard tree-planting
specifications, including identification of an
appropriate palette of species. Existing
Denver Parks Department guidelines on
irrigation and maintenance should also be
followed.
UD2-3. Glendale will continue planting
street trees at 30 intervals between the
sidewalk walking surface and building and
parking lots.
44


UD-3. Street Lighting
Description
Install new street lighting and distinctive
pedestrian lighting fixtures. Fixtures in
Denver and Glendale can be different, but
their relative placement and their scale
should be the same. Maximum height of
the pedestrian-scale lighting should be no
greater than 14 (unless some strong design
concept that relies on a greater height for a
particular coordinated effect is desired.)
The existing aluminum-colored,
"cobra-head" street lights
should be replaced with "hockey-puck"
style street lights. Parks Department
standards for designated parkways,
including using the "Federal green" color,
should be followed.
Intended Benefit
While street trees can have an effect on the
Boulevards image-at least during the
daylighting must be used to achieve
comparable results during the evening.
And, given the high evening traffic and use
levels along the Boulevard, as much
attention should be paid to the nighttime
image as to the daytime image.
Next Steps
UD3-1. The Denver Planning Office should
inventory existing corridor lighting and
develop a replacement lighting plan which
specifies poles, fixtures, type of light,
spacing and placement Replacement
lighting should be incorporated in capital
programs. In addition, there needs to be an
assessment of the financial implications of
on-going maintenance and operation of the
new lighting, and appropriate arrangements
made.
UD3-2. Adjacent landowners seeking
redevelopment approvals should be required
to provide pedestrian-scale lighting
consistent with the above plan. Any street
lights that are replaced should also be
consistent with the lighting plan. The new
lighting standards should be included in the
proposed new development requirements.
UD3-3. Glendale should continue the
installation of special lighting as part of its
already established streetscape program.
UD-4. Bus Stop Improvements
Description
Provide consistent, improved features at all
bus stops. There should be two levels of
improvements, one for high volume bus
stops including stops at which transfers
occur, and one for low volume stops. Bus
shelters, outside seating and trash
receptacles will be provided at high volume
stops. Bus benches, either stand-alone or as
part of a low wall, and trash receptacles will
be provided at low volume stops. As these
improvements are made, private bus
benches which incorporate advertising will
be prohibited.
Lighting, landscaping and paving at all
stops should be provided consistent with the
45
Urban Design


Provide pedestrian amenities at bus stops.
other streetscape standards described above.
Information signs will be provided by the
Regional Transportation District (RTD)
according to their standards. Benches and
shelters should be located in the front
setback area, behind the sidewalk and away
from the Boulevard (see UD-8.)
Developers with projects adjacent to
designated bus stops should allow bus
benches and shelters in the front setback
area, and be encouraged to provide the
improvements themselves.
Intended Benefit
Current bus-service levels are high, and the
existing level of ridership is good. By
improving the features at bus stops, as well
as the sidewalks that serve them, maximum
use of transit will be encouraged.
Next Steps
UD4-1. Assist RTD in completing designs
for transfer bus stop improvements at
Evans, Mississippi, and Alameda.
UD4-2. The Denver Planning Office will
develop recommendations for bench types
and placement at.low volume stops in
Denver. Glendale has already developed
specifications and will continue to
implement their program.
Create landscape medians, where possible
UD-5. Boulevard Median
Description
The existing median should be landscaped
in those areas where it is sufficiently wide
and long and in those areas in which the
median can be extended into unneeded left
turn storage space (which may be the case,
for example, between Kentucky and
Louisiana). Where the median is not wide
enough to be landscaped, it should be
repaved with a decorative paving material..
A specific design for a median for Colorado
Boulevard north of Alameda is now being
created by the Denver Parks Department
and consultants as part of a 1989 bond
project. The design developed for this area
can likely serve in the remainder of the
study area as well.
46


FIGURE 11
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED STREET
CROSS SECTION
47
Urban Design


PLAN
Use non-asphalt material in medians
Intended Benefit
A landscaped median will break-up the
visual impact of the wide street and improve
the image of the area.
Next Steps
UD5-1. The Denver Planning Office and the
Denver Parks Dept, will finalize the
recommended median design. Estimated
cost levels for landscaping and repaving
will be identified. Colorado
Boulevard project requests
will be included in Glendale
and Denver streetscape
improvement capital programs.
UD5-2. Denver Transportation
Division will conduct detailed
left-turn demand studies
between Kentucky and
Louisiana to identify median
widening/extension
opportunities.
UD-6. Neighborhood Gateways / Local
Streets__________________________________
Description
Small, landscaped medians should be
developed in the half block sections of
intersecting local residential streets as a
physical indication of the boundary between
the commercial frontage along Colorado
Boulevard and the adjacent residential area.
Intended Benefit
The medians will signal a change in the
character of the area, and will act to help
preserve the separate identity of the
residential areas. They may also discourage
some short-cutting traffic. The medians
should be placed between the alley and the
next street paralleling Colorado Boulevard
when commercial development extends no
further than the alley, and at the first block
away when commercial development is a
full block deep. The median design could
be similar to the one recently installed in the
48


PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
Country Club neighborhood across from the
Cherry Creek North retail area.
Complementary street edge treatments may
also be appropriate. The local street
medians will typically be developed within
the existing right-of-way and will require
the elimination of on-street parking in that
half-block section.
The costs of building numerous small
medians, and of maintaining them, could be
a problem for the City of Denver, where
most if not all of the opportunities for these
improvements in the corridor exist.
Therefore, neighborhood and homeowners
organizations may have to assume primary
responsibility for these projects if they are
to occur.
Next Steps
UD6-1. The Denver Planning Office, in
cooperation with the Denver Transportation
Division, will develop a prototype median
design and other design treatments to
demarcate commercial/residential
boundaries along local streets.
UD6-2. The Planning Office will assist
those neighborhood organizations which
wish to pursue such projects. This will
include assistance in the development of
maintenance strategies.
UD-7. Parking Lot Screening/Entry
Medians
Description
All parking lots along Colorado Blvd.
should be screened from the adjacent
sidewalks and street by a wall, hedge or
berm, placed within a front setback between
the sidewalk and the edge of the parking lot.
The height of solid walls is to be 30"-36",
measured from either side. If, due to
topographic differences between the two
sides, the maximum height on one side is to
be exceeded, the portion of the wall above
the maximum height must not be solid; it
can be constructed of wrought iron, etc..
Walls can be constructed as planters, and
plants may extend above the 36" maximum
wall height. For commercial developments
which are only one-half block deep, the
wall may be placed in a 5 landscape
setback in back of the sidewalk. The
resulting narrow strip between the sidewalk
and the wall can be paved with decorative
material or planted with groundcover and
vines. For deeper parcels, the wall should
be located in a setback at least 10 wide, and
should include trees which can be
informally clustered or planted in a manner
which is similar to the traditional Denver
street-tree pattern, at 30 on-center intervals.
There should be 3 trees per 1000 square feet
of landscaped area. Walls should be
constructed of materials similar to or the
same as that used for the primary buildings
on the site.
49
Urban Design


FIGURE 12
EXISTING SURFACE
PARKING LOTS



i
Screen parking lots with landscaping and walls.
Landscaped medians to separate entering
and exiting traffic help define traffic
patterns and should be required for all new
major curb-cuts. However, due to the
constraints of the shallow, half-block deep
commercial frontage along Colorado, they
cannot always be physically provided.
Therefore, opportunities for providing such
Use landscaping at commercial and
residential interface.
medians should be considered individually.
Intended Benefit
Parking lot screening will significantly
decrease the image of the corridor as a "sea
of asphalt." Screening of parking lots also
tends to reduce confusion about where the
street ends and the parking lot begins. It
helps to identify the location of curb-cuts.
Finally, parking lot screen walls will
provide additional security for people using
Colorado Boulevard sidewalks.
Next Steps
UD7-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD7-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements.
51
Urban Design


UD7-3. The Denver Planning Office, in
cooperation with Glendale, will identify a
limited number of equivalent
wall/landscaping alternatives from existing
examples in the city as well as new
solutions for use in the development review
process.
UD-8. Front Setback and Landscaping
Description
Provide a 10 landscaped setback strip
between the street and adjacent buildings
(in addition to the sidewalk and sidewalk
buffer described in UD-2). This front
setback area should include three trees per
1000 square feet. The trees can be placed in
informal clusters or can mimic the
traditional pattern of Denver street trees and
be planted in a 30 on-center pattern.
If the trees are planted in informal clusters,
the area under the trees should be covered in
living plant material such as sod or shrubs
so as to fully cover the ground under the
trees within five years. The area under trees
which are planted in a formal pattern can
52


UD-9. Building Placement
either be landscaped or paved in the same
material as is used for the sidewalk buffer
zonewhich could be brick or concrete
pavers. The use of stamped, patterned
concrete as a paving material is strongly
discouraged.
Intended Benefit
A softer, more appealing image can be
created by providing a landscaped buffer
between the hard expanse of the street and
the hard edge of a building or hard expanse
of a parking lot.
Next Steps
UD8-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD8-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements.
UD8-3. The Denver Planning Office should
develop prototypical alternatives for use in
the development review process.
Description
Depending on the use and size of the
project, new buildings or portions of new
buildings should be encouraged to be built
up to the proposed landscaped strip
adjacent to the sidewalk. All walls facing
Colorado Boulevard should be encouraged
to have features such as doors (other than
service entrances), display windows,
arcades and/or plazas.
Intended Benefit
Some existing buildings on the Boulevard
are built close to the street. The definition
and image of the corridor can be improved
if some buildings are built up to the front
setback edge. This will also help reduce the
perceived and actual length of trips on foot
between different developments, and reduce
the image of continuous parking lots.
PRIVATE
PROPERTY
PUBLIC
R.O.W.
I
I
I
I
53
Urban Design


Next Steps
UD9-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD9-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements. The processto
create and implement these new
requirements will begin in 1991.
UD9-3. The Denver Planning Office should
develop prototypical alternatives for use in
the development review process.
UD-10. Building Entrance Orientation
Description
Primary building entrances for buildings in
developments along Colorado Boulevard
should be located in the facade which faces
Colorado Boulevard, or in the next
connecting facade. All buildings not at the
landscaped setback edge should have a
UD-11. Building Facades
Description
Adopt and implement a process
and criteria to provide guidance
on appropriate architectural
treatments of building facades.
The guidelines presented below
are preliminary and apply more
to office than to retail
*
Colorado Boulevard
Connect Entrance to Boulevard
landscaped pedestrian connection to the
street Entrances on the sides of buildings
should be connected to the street. Larger
sites with multiple buildings should have
sidewalk-to-building connections for each
major tenant and building over 20,000
square feet. Secondary entrances from the
rear parking areas should also have a
welcoming, public design.
Intended Benefit
This intent is to ensure that development
along the corridor will present its front door
to the Boulevard, and will also support
increased pedestrian activity.
Next Steps
UD10-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard
UD10-2. Include these guidelines in the
proposed new development requirements.
54


THE
a
V)
a>
Q
a
CZ
o
u
p
development These guidelines should be
refined in a follow-up effort.
The building architecture guidelines should:
a. ) Promote the articulation of building
facades through the expression of the
entries, and the columns, bearing walls,
etc. that define the structural bays and/or
modules of leasable space.
b. ) Avoid large expanses of glazing
through the use of mullion patterns, entry
recesses, creation of individual windows
rather than continuous, undifferentiated
ribbon windows, or large infill panels, etc.
c. ) Avoid building facades composed
entirely of undifferentiated,
monotonously regular, glass curtain wall
constructionat least at lower levels.
Large glass curtain wall systems may be
appropriate above a buildings third or
fourth floor level where pedestrian scale
is less important, and where it may be
desirable to reduce the apparent bulk of
the building.
d.) Encourage the "honest" expression of
materials and systems and discourage the
use of synthetic materials/cladding
systems which imitate natural or
traditional materials; e.g., pressed fiber
designed to appear as heavily grained
wood siding; metal roof tiles that look
like wood shake shingles; concrete
patterned to look like brick or stone, etc.
Cladding systems such as precast
concrete or glass reinforced concrete are
acceptable as long as their surface does
not replicate the appearance of some other
material.
pati am ^erna
ULf- tizU Ltr
tIH L DZU bat
bPL im Lnti
OOP nrn nqt
DLL DO BHD tma
u a
aa
o
n ci
ir~rjpd
a
D tl
a u
acorn
ntc=m
ntcafl
nan
mrzaa
P-tpzU
pmrn
amu
pir=pp-tii_r
PP553 0. q.aa
inti
nLr
3ar
_cu-
I
1
1
M
Use articulated building surfaces, avoid undifferentiated glazing
55


Intended Benefit
The shallow depth of many parcels along
Colorado Boulevard places a great emphasis
on the use of high quality architectural
treatments to express the image and quality
of the area. In general, the recommended
guidelines are intended to make the area a
more inviting and comfortable environment
for pedestrians and help ensure that the
commercial development will be more in
scale with the adjacent small-scale
residential development.
Next Steps
UD11-1. Explore alternative methods for
incorporating an architectural review
process and criteria in the proposed new
development requirements. Involve
business and citizen interests in creation of
the guidelines and process.
UD-12. Upper Level Setback
Description
Adopt and implement a requirement that
buildings on parcels fronting Colorado
Boulevard and greater than 50 tall have a
significant stepback at the third or fourth
level along the side of the building facing
the Boulevard.
Intended Benefit
This recommendation is intended to
emphasize the human-scale of the corridor.
There are existing requirements regarding
the scale and bulk of buildings adjacent to
residential areas, although those need to be
re-examined in light of specific conditions
along Colorado Boulevard. It may be
appropriate to ensure transitions in height
between low scale retail and similar
development and taller buildings, but there
may be no need for transitions between
adjacent office developments. Therefore,
the existing side and rear bulk-planes which
apply when commercial development is
adjacent to commercial development should
also be re-examined.
Next Steps
UD12-1. Use this guideline in the review of
all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD12-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements.
UD12-3. In 1992, The Denver Planning
Office will examine existing bulk-plane
requirements to determine if they are
effective in preventing out-of-scale
development adjacent to low-scale
residential areas along the Boulevard, and
whether they are needed for new
developments adjacent to commercial
development. If modifications are
appropriate, they will be incorporated in the
proposed new development requirements.
UD-13. Maximum Height Limitation
Description
Adopt and utilize a guideline that the
maximum height of any building in the
study area should not exceed the tallest
56


Step back building from the street and adjacent residential
existing structures, i.e., no more than 300.
The Denver zoning ordinance was amended
in 1986 to incorporate special building
height limitations for buildings within 175
of "protected" zone districts such as R-l and
R-2.. While these limitations seem to
adequately address building heights
immediately adjacent to low density
residential areas, concerns remain about the
potential for building heights outside this
175 buffer, but within the Colorado
Boulevard corridor.
Intended Benefit
Since most land parcels adjacent to the
Boulevard are relatively small (at least in
Denver), existing bulk plane limits make
building heights of 300 or more largely
unachievable. However, there are a few
parcels large enough that such heights could
be achieved. Buildings that exceed 300 are
viewed as being incompatible with the
mixed-use, non-downtown image desired
for the area and should be prohibited.
Next Steps
UD13-1. Use this guideline in the review of
all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD13-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements. The process to
create and implement these new
requirements will begin in 1991.
UD-14. Architectural Treatment on all
Sides
Description
Adopt and implement a requirement that all
sides of commercial buildings along the
Boulevard be treated similarly in the use of
quality materials and detailing in order to
prevent having low quality, poorly designed
facades visible from adjoining residential
areas. This is not intended to require,
however, that all sides have such features as
doors and display windows.
57
Urban Design


FIGURE 13
Existing Building Heights
One or Two
Three or Four
Five or More
fc,i
BUILDING HEIGHT
NUMBER Of STOfliCa
ONE OR TWO
THREE OR FOUR
FIVE OR MORE
ili..
5 '-T
h c a
LJ ct tir.
_...ILo spl.D-.1
n* aP
...
, ;; #
v-- -
v?3 *=* ^
I,lips*
;J. f.' L'jj;
i lii kMk It i|


THE
Intended Benefit
The dimensions and setting of development
in the corridor mean that buildings will be
viewed from various sides by motorists,
pedestrians and adjacent neighbors.
Because of this, all sides of buildings need
the same attention and concern as is
traditionally given to the front elevation.
Next Steps
UD14-1. Use this guideline in the review of
all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD14-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements. The process to
create and implement these new
requirements will begin in 1991.
UD-15. Rear Buffers and
Screening/Access to Alleys
Description
Adopt and implement detailed requirements
for rear buffers and screening treatments in
order to improve the compatibility between
non-residential uses and residential uses.
There are two sets of standards; one for
full-block deep commercial development,
and the other for half-block deep
commercial development
For full-block deep commercial
developments adjacent to residentially
zoned areas with an intervening public
street:
Full commercial rear landscaping sets a
streetscape buffer to residential
Setback Buffer Width: 25
Planting Density: One tree and 8 shrubs
per 500 square feet of landscaped area.
Planting Mix: At least 60% of the total
number of trees should be evergreen.
100% of the area under deciduous trees
must be covered with living groundcover
or shrubs within 5 years of initial
planting.
Alternatively, a berm or low wall may be
utilized. If it is, it should have a
minimum height of 30" and a maximum
height of 4 above sidewalk grade, or a
slope of 3:1, and the following standards
should apply:
I
59
Urban Design


Setback Buffer Width: 15
Planting Density: One tree and two
shrubs for eveiy 500 sq. ft. of area.
Planting Mix: At least 50% of trees
must be evergreen. 100% of the ground
must be covered with living ground
cover or shrubs within 5 years of initial
planting.
For half-block commercial developments
adjacent to residential zones, with no
intervening alley or street:
Non-residential uses should be separated
from residential uses by a high quality,
solid opaque fence or wall along the
intervening property line. This fence or
wall should be constructed of durable
materials and should be at least six (6)
feet but not more than eight (8) feet high;
provided, however, that if the
non-residential zoning permits a building
wall within five (5) feet of this property
line, the building wall can serve as the
separation and can exceed this height,
consistent with bulk plane limits. In order
for a building wall to qualify as a
separation, it must not have doors,
windows or service areas.
Parking areas adjacent to residential uses
must comply with the parking lot
landscaping requirements; provided,
however, that when more restrictive
requirements are enacted in conjunction
with implementation of the Boulevard
Plan, those more restrictive requirements
shall prevail.
Alternative landscaping treatments buffer
between residential and commercial properties.
Direct access from the commercial site to
the alley should be discouraged. Alley
traffic from commercial developments
can have a significant adverse impact on
adjacent residential properties and some
sites may require additional measures to
protect adjacent residential areas from
adverse impacts of noise, light, and visual
pollution. This is particularly likely to be
the case when adequate service or site
access cannot be provided except from
the alley. Whenever possible, use of
service areas near residential development
will be restricted to the hours between
6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Intended Benefit
Many existing structures impact adjacent
residential development by casting glare
and/or shadows, by overlooking front and
backyards because they are placed too close
to property lines, by being out of character
with the yards and character of immediate
60


. area, or because of excessive noise which
spills over from the commercial area. The
recommendations are intended to ensure
that these uses can better co-exist.
Next Steps
UD15-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
Larger landscaped buffers are provided on
full-block developments.
UD15-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements.
UD-16. Service Area Screening
Description
Service areas should be screened on all
sides by walls and fences, except where
openings are required for access.
The standards reflect two different
situations: 1.) when the service area is
freestanding, and 2.) when it is attached to
the building.
1. Freestanding Service Areas
Freestanding service areas would include
such things as trash container storage
areas and transformers. The service area
should be screened by a durable, high
quality wall or fence which is at least the
same height as the object being screened.
When the service area wall is at the edge
of a required front setback or side setback
visible from a public right-of-way, the
exposed side should be landscaped.
Generally, trash containers should be
placed away from public view, such as
from alleys or Colorado Boulevard.
The landscaped area should be a
minimum 5 wide strip, planted with a
continuous row of shrubs at a maximum
screen walls.
61
Urban Design


spacing of 3* on center for the length of
the fence or wall or alternately, one tree
per side. This strip can be within any
required setback. If the exposed side
exceeds 25 in length, provide a minimum
8 wide strip with fence or wall and
shrubs as specified above, in combination
with an average of one tree every 30
linear feet for the length of the planting
unless there is a fence or wall at property
line.
2. Attached Service Areas
The service area should be screened by a
fence or wall of similar quality and
materials used on the building. The
service area may not intrude into any
required building or parking lot setbacks.
The wall should be of at least the same
height as the object to be screened.
Generally, trash containers should be
placed away from public view, such as
from alleys or Colorado Boulevard.
Intended Benefit
Screening will blend service areas into the
overall development, and minimize visual
blight, odors and noise.
Next Steps
UD16-1. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
UD16-2. Include in the proposed new
development requirements.
SIGNS
UD-17. Equalize Sign Requirements in
Denver and Glendale_____________________
Description
The Denver and Glendale sign codes that
apply along S. Colorado Boulevard should
be essentially equivalent
Intended Benefit
Preliminary research by staff, and
comments from the CAC, suggest that the
current sign codes in both cities will, over
time, lead to a higher quality image for the
corridor as new developments and signs
replace older ones. Those signs that are
now viewed as problems were generally
built before those codes were in their
present form. However, staffs should seek
to identify appropriate techniques for
encouraging high quality sign design,
perhaps through increases in allowed sign
sizes.
Next Steps
UD17-1. Prepare a joint report analyzing
the two sign and billboard codes and
suggesting actions for resolving
inconsistencies, incorporating other sign
recommendations, and providing incentives
for good design.
UD17-2. As part of the submittal
requirements for rezoning, a sign program
should be required for larger,
multiple-building projects which indicates
on a site plan the sign locations, open space
62


around monument signs, elevations of each
sign by type (i.e. project identification,
tenant, wall/building mounted, etc.) and
calculations of size, etc.
double faced signs, there should be at least
4 square feet of landscaped open space
around the base of the sign. The maximum
height of ground mounted signs should not
exceed 15 feet unless needed by larger
projects with numerous tenants for project
identification signs. For these consolidated
signs, height can be increased to no more
than 20.
Intended Benefit
This consistent treatment of ground
mounted signs is intended to create a
unifying, high quality image for the corridor.
Next Steps
UD18-1. Identify required implementing
action as part of UD17-1, above.
Consolidate ground signs
UD-18. Ground Mounted Signs
Descriptions
All ground mounted signs should be
monument-style. For each square foot of
sign face surface area, or two square feet for
UD18-2. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
Sign types and locations help to identify business but should not add to confusing clutter with their
number and placement.
63
Urban Design


UD-19. Building Mounted Signs
Description
No lighted building-mounted signs should
be permitted more than 25 above the
ground. The entire area of back-lit awnings
should be regulated as signs if they include
a graphic device or message.
Intended Benefit
Signs are an appropriate and beneficial
feature of commercial areas such as
Colorado Boulevard. However, without
clear guidelines, the number and size of
signs can proliferateto everyones ultimate
disadvantage. Recently, there has been a
trend toward the use of brightly colored
back-lit awnings that incorporate
commercial messages. These must be
recognized and treated as signs. In addition,
lighted signs which are mounted high on
buildings are inappropriate in a commercial
area which is so closely surrounded by
low-density residential neighborhoods.
Next Steps
UD19-1. Identify required implementing
action as part of UD17-1, above.
UD19-2. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zones in
the corridor.
UD-20. Billboards________________________
Description
There should be no new billboards along the
corridor, and existing ones should be taken
down if the site is redeveloped.
Intended Benefit
Over time, billboards along Colorado
Boulevard should be eliminated in order to
improve the aesthetic character of the
Boulevard.
Next Steps
UD20-1. Identify required implementation
action as part of UD17-1, above.
UD20-2. Use these guidelines in the review
of all new development proposals in
commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone
parcels fronting the Boulevard.
64


VI. IMPLEMENTATION
Following the approval of the Denver
Planning Board and the Glendale Planning
Commission the Plan was submitted to the
respective city councils. Following its
adoption by these bodies, the individual
agencies identified in the Next Steps
section of the various recommendations are
now direcdy responsible for carrying it out
Indirectly, there will be many additional
agencies (e.g., the Colorado Department of
Ttansportation, the Denver Regional
Council of Governments, the Regional
Transportation District, etc.) as well as
neighborhood organizations, businesses and
property owners that will need to work
closely with the Cities of Denver and
Glendale to implement the plan
recommendations.
There are four general categories of plan
implementation that will be pursued:
1. ordinance revision,
2. development review,
3. follow-up studies, and
4. capital project programming
Ordinance revisions will be needed to serve
as the legal and administrative basis for
carrying out a number of the land use and
urban design recommendations. Even
before that, some of the recommendations
can be carried out during the development
review processes of each city. Once the
legal basis is in place, the balance of the
recommendations can be incorporated in
that process. Some of the recommended
Next Steps are for follow-up studies of
issues that were too complex or detailed to
be resolved in this overall plan development
process. Those studies may lead to
additional action recommendations.
It was the consensus of the CAC that,
regardless of when some of the changes are
made in development requirements that
apply to projects developed under
conventional zoning, all future
redevelopment proposals along the
Boulevard in Denver be encouraged to be
submitted as Planned Unit Development
(PUD) rezoning. This will facilitate the
application of the recommendations in this
plan to all developments, even before the
recommendations are adopted as part of the
conventional development and zoning
requirements.
Of course, the specific recommendations
with respect to private development will
only be realized as individual properties
along the Boulevard redevelop. Thus, it
will be a long time before all development
along the Boulevard is consistent with these
recommendations.
Many transportation recommendations will
be implemented over time as capital funds
become available to make improvements.
Adopting.the plan does not guarantee that
the funds will be available. However, the
plan does serve as the primary basis for
funding requests, and projects
recommended in formally adopted plans
often have priority over those that are not.
Funds for transportation projects can be
sought from a variety of sources, including
local funds from Denver and Glendale, and
65


Fipnrel4 IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY(S)
Denver Public Works
. Colorado Department of Transportation
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Regional Transportation Districxt
Task Force
Denver Planning Office
Glendale
other/notes
TRANSPORTATION:
T-l Multi-Year Intersection X X X Perform Design Studies and Obtain
Improvement Program Construction Funding
T-2 Key Bottleneck Studies X X X Study Major Construction Projects if Minor Improvements Become Inadequate
T-3 Traffic Signal Timing Plan X X Comprehensive Corridor Study
T-4 Accel-Decel / Transit lanes X X Continue to Require Dedication as
and Curb Cuts Redevelopment Occurs
T-5 Pedestrian / Bicycle X X X Include in Intersecton Projects, Development
Connections Review, and Denver 1992 Citywide Bike Plan
T-6 Transit X X X X X Cities Work with RTD on bus stop Improvements; Task Force works with RTD on Promotions; Continue to seek funding for Southeast Rapit Transit
T-7 Employer Based Trip X X Continue support for regional trip reductions
Reduction program initiatives
T-8 Transportation management X X X X Cities Assist in formation of Task Force and
Organization Task Force Study Transportation Management Association Role
T-9 Right of Way Maintenance X X X X Task Force Evaluates Propery Owners role; Denver Assesses Maintenance Prioritization
66


o
a
2
a
a>
S
o
O.
S
Figure 15 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
through PUD and other rezoning
Legend 1. Primary Implementation Strategy through development review
amendments to Parkway/Blvd. ordinance (Chap 49 Art II)
2. Secondary Improvements Strategy 3. Implementation Whenever Possible amendments to building restrictions (Chap. 10)
citywide zoning revisions
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS notes
Land Use: LU-1 Overall Development Cap 1
LU-2 Land Use Mix 1 3
LU-3 On-site Parking Urban Design: UD-1 Sidewalk Standard 1 1 1 Implementation by Public Works
UD-2 Street Trees 3 3 1 Implementation by Public Works and Zoning (through parking lot landscaping requirements)
Ud-3 Street Lighting 1 Implementation by Public Works and Colorado Department of Transportation
UD-4 Bus Stop Improvements 3 3 Implementation by Planning Office and RTD; request easements from developers
UD-5 Boulevard Median Design by Planning Office and Parks Dept.; locations evaluated by Public Works; CIP
UD-6 Local Street Medians Planning Office to develop prototype; neighborhood organizations to build & maintain
UD-7a Parking Lot Screening 3 3 1
UD-7b Entry Medians 3 3
UD-8 Front Setback and Landscaping 3 3 1 Planning Office will develop prototype site layouts
UD-9 Building Placement 3 3 1
UD-10 Building Entrance Orientation 3 3 1
UD-11 Building Facades 3 1 Architectural review process to be developed by Planning Office
UD-12 Upper Level Setbacks 3 2 1 Planning Office will evaluate existing bulk plane limits
UD-13 Maximum Height Limitations 3 1
UD-14 Architectural Treatment on all Sides 3 3 1
UD-15 Rear Buffers & Screening/Alleys 3 3 1
UD-16 Service Area Screening 3 2 1
UD-17 Equalize Applicable sign Requirements, Glendale & Denver 3 2 2 Intergovernmental cooperation
UD-18 Ground-mounted Signs 3 2 2
UD-19 Building-mounted Signs 3 2 2 2
UD-20 Billboards 3 3 1
67


THE
PLAN
state and federal funds administered by the
Colorado Department of Transportation and
the Denver Regional Council of
Governments. Even so, implementation of
all of the projects recommended in this plan,
even under the most favorable of funding
circumstances, is expected to take ten to
twenty years.
Finally, though formal adoption of the plan
is an expression of the communitys shared
vision and goals for this area, many of the
recommendations are consistent with, or
extensions of, current practice, and will be
implemented on that basis. For example,
new developments are already required to
provide acceleration-deceleration lanes and
sidewalks. Also, Denver and Glendale have
successfully sought funding assistance from
the Denver Regional Council of
Governments to develop a detailed traffic
signal retiming program. They have also
successfully sought funding from the
Colorado Department of Transportation to
repave a significant portion of the
Boulevard within the study area. This plan
will only strengthen and broaden the scope
of the community wide effort to improve
Colorado Boulevard.
The general implementation process is
reflected in Figure 16.
Figure 16 Approval / Implementation Process
68


ORDINANCE NO. 421
SERIES OF 1991
COUNCIL BILLNO. 396
A BILL
FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A BOULEVARD PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD, WHICH PLAN SHALL BECOME A PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41-18(c)
OF THE REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE AND OF ORDINANCE NO. 617, SERIES OF 1989.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-18(c) of the Revised Municipal Code, and by Ordinance No. 617, Series of
1989, there has been approved a Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of Denver; and
WHEREAS, said Section of the Revised Municipal Code provides for the amendment of said plan; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 617, Series of 1989, provides for the incorporation of other documents into the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, as a proposed part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Director has transmitted to the Mayor and Council for
acceptance a proposed development framework for South Colorado Boulevard for the orderly and harmonious development of South
Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and Iliff Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has approved the same; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has approved the same; and
WHEREAS, The Boulevard Plan was prepared with significant involvement of the owners and representatives of the various
interests of South Colorado Boulevard between 1 st Avenue and Hiff Avenue and has been approved by the same; and
WHEREAS, a member of City Council in whose council district the neighborhood plan is situated has monitored the process whereby
said plan was formulated.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER:
Section 1. That the proposed development framework for South Colorado Boulevard for the harmonious development of South
Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and Iliff Avenue, consisting of a document entitled 'The Boulevard Plan," filed with the
City Clerk, Ex-Officio Clerk of the City and County of Denver, on the 29th day of May, 1991, as City Clerks Filing No. 91-450, is
hereby approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 41-18(c) of the Revised Municipal Code, and Ordinance No.
617, Series of 1989. ;
Section 2. That the approval of The Boulevard Plan, and of any subsequent amendment thereto, is intended to establish the same, in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, as the official guide for officials of the City and County of Denver and private citizens
when making decisions affecting the future character of South Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and Iliff Avenue; provided,
however, that such approval shall not preempt the decision making powers vested by law or the administrative directive in the Mayor,
the Council or any other official of the City and County of Denver with respect to, but not limited to, a zoning map amendment, a
_ zoning language amendment, a dedication or vacation of a street, alley or other public way, a designation of a park, the issuance of a
revocable permit, a conveyance or the acquisition of real property by the City and County of Denver, of an appropriation for or
construction of a capital improvement; and provided, further, that it is expressly understood that judgment must be exercised in the
application of The Boulevard Plan recommendations in the decision making processes of the Mayor, Council and other officials of the


Full Text

PAGE 1

-HE _Do-uifVA-KD ___ PLAN __ A DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR SOUTH COLORADO SOUL YARD _-,--:CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER _____________ CITY 0 F C LEND ALE AUGUST 1 991

PAGE 2

THE Acknowledgement The Boulevard Plan is a result of a cooperative endeavor between the Community Advisory Committee and the City and Count)' of Denver and the City of Glendale. The Advisory Committee represented various interests and organizations including developers, homeowners, business oWners and Planning Board/Commission members. Members of the Colnmunity Advisory Committee were: Glendale Mayor Ford Wheatley, N Jonathan Bock Don Shimer John Harris Michelle Austin BillJunor Denver Councilwoman Mary DeGroot DickDeane Payanes Dikeou Gary Edwards Marilyn Stokes Kurt Boatwright Elizabeth Richardson Tom Maloney Tom Gargan JoeMorgan Gary Antonoff Peter Cudlip Dan Percefull Chris Hoagland Dorothy Severson Jim Mayhew Arnold Davis George Thorn Paul Lewan Hank Kahn The Denver PUblic Works Department's Transportation Division and Planning and Community Development Office's Urban Design, Neighborhood Planning and Zoning sections and Glendale's City Manager's Office and Building Department worked with the Community Advisory Committee: The cities provided information, analysis, and facilitation. The following staff members were instrumental in managing the planning process and producing the document. In addition, David H. Williams Consulting provided expertise and compiled the draft documents throughout the process. Denver Terry Rosapep, Project Manager Ellen Crain-Jordan David Wicks David Becker Karl Haberman .. Mark Upshaw, Cover Photograph Glendale Gary Sears, Project Manager Arianne Lahana Steve Thomas A high level of support was given by the Denver and Glendale City Councils, the Denver Planning Board, the Glendale Planning Commission, and those overseeing the project including Dick Farley, Deputy Director of Urban Design. These agencies also provided valuable comment the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Denver Parks and Recreation Department. I I I I i

PAGE 3

A DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR SOUTH COLORADO BLVD. Prepared By City and County of Denver Department of Public Works, Trans.portation Planning Section Planning and Community Development Office and City of Glendale City Manager's Office Building Department with David H. Williams Consulting August 1991 11

PAGE 4

THE Table of Contents Section I. Introduction IT. Plan Summary A. Vision B. Goals C. Recommendations Summary D. Implementation Overview Ill. Transportation A. Current and Future Conditions B. Transportation Improvement Considerations C. Transportation Recommendations 1. Intersection Improvement Program 2. Key Bottleneck Studies 3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan 4. Accel./Decel. Lanes/Curb-Cuts 5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections 6. Transit 7. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program 8. TMA Task Force 9. Right-of-Way Maintenance IV. Land Use A. Current and Future Conditions B. Alternative Strategies C. Land Use Recommendations 1. Overall Development Cap 2. Land Use Mix 3. On-Site Parking iii Page 1 3 3 3 4 8 9 9 15 17 17 20 21 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 29 33 35 35 36 36

PAGE 5

Table of Contents (Continued) V. Urban Design A. Current Conditions B. Urban Design Improvement Considerations C. Urban Design Recommendations 1. Sidewalk Standard 2. StreetTrees 3. Street Lighting 4. Bus Stop Improvements 5. Boulevard Median 6. Gateways I Local Streets 7. Parking Lot Screening/Entry Medians 8. Front Setback and Landscaping 9. Building Placement 10. Building Entrance Orientation 11. Building Facades 12. Upper Level Setback 13. Maximum Height Limitation 14. Arch. Treatment on All Sides 15. Rear Buffers & Screening/Alley access 16. Service Area Screening 17. Compatible Sign Codes 18. Ground Mounted Signs 19. Building Mounted Signs 20. Billboards VI. Implementation lV 39 39 40 42 43 44 45 45 46 48 49 52 53 54 54 56 56 57 59 61 62 63 64 64 65

PAGE 6

THE DotJU\lAlill L List of Tables No. Title Page 1. Recommendations/ Action Summary 4 2. 1990 Travel Speeds and Level of Service 10 3. Estimated Intersection Level-of-Service 10 4. Transportation Demand Summary 12 5. Current and Projected Colorado Boulevard Traffic Levels 14 6. Existing Transit Service 16 7. Recommended Intersection Improvements 18 8. Intersection LOS Comparison 19 9. Commercial Floor Space 28 10. Estimated/Projected Households and Employment South Colorado Boulevard Influence Area 32 List of Figures No. Title Page 1. Planning Area and Existing Zoning 2 2. Traffic Demand Categories 11 3. Southeast Quadrant Plan Area Roadway Classifications 11 4. Traffic Volumes North of Exposition Ave. 13 5. Traffic Volumes North of Mexico Ave. 13 6. Possible New LeetsdaleNirginia Connection 20 7. Existing Zoning 30 8. Generalized Land Use 31 9. Existing Building Footprints I Figure Ground 41 10. Design Standards Summary 42 11. Existing/Proposed Typical Cross Section 47 12. Surface Parking Lots 50 13. Building Heights 58 14. Implementation: Transportation Matrix 66 15. Implementation: Land Use I Urban Design Matrix 67 16. Approval I Implementation Process 68 v

PAGE 7

____ ....__ -.. -----. ------------------,. "---------------------------- .. ____ THE I. INTRODUCTION The Boulevard Plan outlines a vision, goals and objectives for future development along South Colorado Boulevard between 1st A venue and lliff, generally encompassing the commercially zoned land which has frontage along the street (See Figure 1). In addition to establishing an overall vision and goals, the Plan identifies individual projects and actions recommended to achieve them and the next step that should be taken to implement those recommendations. The development of this plan is recommended in the Comprehensive Plans of both Denver and Glendale. The Boulevard Plan supplements Denver's and Glendale's Comprehensive Plans, as well as the Cherry Creek Neighborhood Plan and other adopted sub-area and functional plans. All of these plans address various aspects of future development along Colorado Boulevard--however, the Boulevard Plan focuses on the unique, inter-related problems and opportunities in this 'area. 1 The Boulevard Plan has been developed jointly by the cities of Glendale and Denver, with significant input from a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) which included area businesses, neighborhood representatives and elected officials. The Plan report is organized into six sections. This, the first section, briefly describes the plan context. The second section presents the overall vision and goals which drive the plan and summarizes the key plan recommendations. The third section focuses on transportation. It describes the background for the transportation recommendations, and presents each transportation recommendation in detail. The fourth section describes in general terms how the plan's land use recommendations were derived and includes a description of them. The fifth section includes development criteria for public and private development along Colorado Boulevard. The six section describes the implementation process.

PAGE 8

FIGUREl Potential Implementation Study Area Boundaries 2

PAGE 9

THE II. PLAN SUMMARY A. Vision The "vision" statement for the planning area describes its desired role and how it is intended to function. This portion of South Colorado Boulevard is, and should continue to be, a regionally distinct transportation, business and residential corridor accommodating a wide range of development types and sizes which serve the shopping, business and entertainment needs of nearby residents, as well as providing destination opportunities for a wider community. While serving as a gateway to the cities of Glendale and Denver and the Cherry Creek area, Colorado Boulevard will provide for functional and efficient traffic flow both within and though the corridor. There will be a growing role for transit and a more friendly and safe environment for pedestrians. Higher,standards of both public and private urban design will create a positive human-scale image and a cohesiveness which will distinguish "the Boulevard" from typical strip commercial areas, while retaining the separate identities of Glendale and Denver. Design considerations will reinforce the integrity of adjacent residential area by enhancing their privacy and livability. 3 B. Goals The goals and objectives provide direction for actions that should be taken to realize the vision. Denver and Glendale, as well as private property owners, businesses and community groups should cooperate to achieve this vision by: a.) Improving traffic flow and safety; b.) Taking action to retain a broad mix of land uses that are a good neighbor to existing uses; c.) Defining and reinforcing the unique image of the corridor and ensuring that _.new development has little or no adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Each goal addresses a specific area of concern: transportation, land use, and urban design. These three areas of concern were identified early in the process as being the most important ones on which to focus. A variety of individual-actions has been recommended to achieve these goals.

PAGE 10

-------___ --------. ------------------'-------------'-----Recommendations Summary As noted, the recommendations are organized into three categories. The recommendations in each category are summarized in Table 1. A detailed discussion of each recommendation is presented later in the report. Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS TRANSPORTATION 1. Intersection Improvement Program 1. Alameda Design in 1992 2. Include in Future CIPs 2. Key Bottleneck Studies 1. Monitor Volumes 3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan 1. Complete Current Project 4. Accel./Decel. Lanes/Curb-Cuts 1. Continue Current Policy 5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections 1. Accomodate in Intersection Improvements 2. Recognize in Development Review 3. Refer to Bike Advisory Committee 6. Transit 1. Complete Evans, Mississippi, & Alameda Shelters 2. Prioritize Other Improvements 3. Recognize in Development Review 4. Monitor Use Levels 5. Plan for Rapid Transit 7. EmployerBased Trip Reduction 1. Pursue Regional Initiative Program 8. Transportation Managei11ent 1. Establish in 1992 Association Task Force 2. Coordinate Transit/Rideshare Promotion in 1992 9. Right-of-Way Maintenance 1. Pursue with Transportation Management Association TaskForce Ff.ii.;;.c, .. "". 4 I" !:-.; I'! 1-:

PAGE 11

Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (continued) RECOM:MENDA TION NEXT STEPS 1. Overall Development Cap 1. Recognize in Rezoning Application Reviews :;_: 2. Land Use Mix 1. Recognize in Rezoning Application Reviews 2. Work with Large Project Developers 3. On-Site Parking 1. Recognize in Development Review 1. Sidewalk Standard 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Develop Design Guidelines 1-------------------------------------------------------------------l ; ,, 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Develop Design Guidelines ,:: 3. Continue Glendale Program & Standards .;r.' 2. Street Trees 3. Street Lighting 4. Bus Stop Improvements 1. Develop Lighting Plan t 2. Use in Development Review as Applicable 3. Continue Glendale Programs & Standards 1. Complete Evans,Mississippi, & Alameda 2. Develop Design Guidelines 3. Continue Glendale Program & Standards 1. Develop Design Guidelines '2. Left Turn Demand Studies 5. Boulevard Median r----------------------------------------------------------------1 6. Local Street Medians 5

PAGE 12

Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (Continued) RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS URBAN DESIGN: PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT 7. Parking Lot Screening/Entry Medians 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines 8. Front Setback and Landscaping 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines 9. Building Placement 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines 10. Building Entrance Orientation 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 11. Building Facades 1. Consider in New Corridor Development Requirements 12. Upper Level Setback 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 3. Develop Design Guidelines 13. Maximum Height Limitation 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Dequirements 14. Architectural Treatment on 1. Use in Development Review All Sides as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements : .. .. ; .. .. '. ... '" 6 : _, j -1 .,. : ". l 1 .. : 1 i

PAGE 13

Table 1. Recommendations and Action Summary (Continued) RECOMMENDATION. NEXT STEPS URBAN DESIGN: SIGNS 15. Rear Buffers & Screen/Alley Access 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 16. Service Area Screening 1. Use in Development Review as Applicable 2. Incorporate in New Corridor Development Requirements 17. Compatible Sign Codes 1. Joint Follow-Up Analysis 2. Update Zoning Citywide to Require Sign Program 18. Ground Mounted Signs 1. Identify Required Implementation Mechanism 2. Use in Development Review as Applicable 19. Building Mounted Signs 1. Identify Required Implementation Mechanism 2. Use in Development Review as Applicable 20. Billboards 1. Identify Required Implementation Mechanism 2. Use in Development Review as Applicable ,. .... < .. ..,.. .. ,..._ ... r-:,. "' ... .. '.,_, .. ._ ... ... 7

PAGE 14

THE D. Implementation Overview A variety of steps will be taken to implement the plan. Many of the land use and urban design recommendations will require amendments to the ordinances and regulations that guide private development. Some of those can be adopted on a corridor-specific basis, others will require changes in requirements that apply on a citywide basis. Additional, more detailed studies may be required in some cases before specific changes can be formulated. Once the development requirements are changed, new projects built along the Boulevard will have to comply with those changes. The specific recommendations will be put in place as individual properties along the Boulevard continue to redevelop. Thus, it will be a long time before all development along the Boulevard is consistent with these recommendations. The CAC also strongly suggested that any future redevelopment proposals should be encouraged to be submitted as Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. This would allow the specific applicable elements of this plan to be written into a binding, site specific development plan. Many of the transportation recommendations will be implemented over time as capital funds become available to make improvements. Adopting the plan does not guarantee that the funds will be available. However, the plan does serveas the basis for funding requests, and projects 8 recommended in formally adopted plans often have priority over those that are not. Funds for transportation projects can be sought from a variety of sources, including local funds from Denver and Glendale, and state and federal funds administered by the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Even so, implementation of all of the projects recommended in this plan, even under the most favorable of funding circumstances, is expected to take ten to twenty years. Finally, though formal adoption of the plan is an expression of the community's shared vision and goals for this area, many of the recommendations are consistent with, or extensions of, current practice, and will be implemented on that basis. For example, new developments are already required to provide acceleration-deceleration lanes and sidewalks. Also, Denver has successfully sought funding assistance from the Denver Regional Council of Governments to develop a detailed traffic signal retiming program. They have also successfully sought funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation to repave a significant portion of the Boulevard within the study area. However, this plan will only strengthen and broaden the scope of the community wide effort to improve Colorado Boulevard.

PAGE 15

THE III. TRANSPORTATION The transportation-related goal is to improve traffic flow and safety on the Boulevard. This goal includes several important objectives. They are: a.) Reduce "pressure" for Colorado Boulevard traffic to divert to parallel streets which cannot and should not be expanded, such as Holly, Monaco and University. b.) Improve accessibility to commercial development along the street in Denver and Glendale and in the Cherry Creek area. c.) Support development objectives for other areas, such as the Hale Parkway Hospital District area served by Colorado Boulevard, by improving conditions for through traffic. There is no single solution for traffic problems on Colorado Boulevard .. Even preventing conditions from becoming worse than they are today will require a complex and expensive series of coordinated projects and policies. A. Current and Future Conditions South Colorado Boulevard has long been an important transportation artery as well as a magnet for development. It currently experiences significant congestion and there is a concern that, as growth continues, the current situation may become significantly worse. 9 Traffic congestion can have an adverse effect on air quality, safety and convenience. Growing congestion levels may also force increasing amounts of traffic off of Colorado Bouhward and onto secondary streets in residential areas. At some point, traffic congestion levels may lead to disinvestment in the corridor, with consequent ramifications on individual businesses, tax base and the provision of services to the adjacent residential community, as well as to a decrease in the attractiveness of the area's residential neighborhoods. Current Travel Times and Level of Service Objective traffic congestion level measurements have been developed and are used consistently throughout the country. Congestion is described in terms of Level-of-Service (LOS). There are six LOS letter grades; "A" is the least congested, and "F" the most. LOS "F" represents a level of delay which has been found to be unacceptable to most drivers. Generally, LOS "D" is viewed as acceptable in the peak hour. Current traffic Levels of Service (LOS) for Colorado Boulevard on an overall basis through the study area are summarized in Table 2. As can be seen, the worst overall condition is southbound in the afternoon rush hour, when LOS is in a DIE range. Conditions in both directions at noontime are LOS D, and are significantly worse than in the morning rush hour.

PAGE 16

THE PLAN Table 2. 1990 Travel Speeds and Level of Service Period AM Peak Direction SB NB Speed(MPH) 25 23 LOS c c Most of the peak hour delay on Colorado Boulevard is caused by intersection congestion--traffic between the intersections tends to move along well. Levels of Service at the individual intersections are actually worse than the overall Levels of Service described above. The current, estimated Level of Service at major intersections in the corridor is summarized in Table 3. As can be seen, all of the major intersections are currently functioning at or below LOS D. Table 3. Estimated Intersection f Level-of-Service 1990 PM Peak :t Hour Intersection LOS Evans F Mexico D Florida E Mississippi D CC Drive/South F ...... CC Drive/North E Alameda F Bayaud F 1st F .. .......... ... 10 Noon PM Peak SB NB SB NB 18 20 17 22 D D DIE C/B Traffic Sources Traffic demand levels associated with South Colorado Boulevard area development were calculated for the recent Southeast Quadrant Study, and that basic data was also used for this analysis. As travel demand on Co1orado is affected by more than just the immediately adjacent development, the area included in these calculations is bounded by 1st/Alameda on the north, Evans on the south, Monaco on the east and University on the west. A computer model was used to analyze where traffic on Colorado Boulevard is generally coming from and going to. The largest traffic source is development in the general vicinity of Colorado Boulevard. The computer model indicated that about 75% of the traffic on Colorado Boulevard has either an origin or a destination within the influence area. (This traffic is referred to as external-internal traffic in Figure 2. ) However, only about 5% of the traffic on Colorado Boulevard has both an origin and a destination in this area (internal-internal traffic). The balance of the traffic on Colorado Boulevard, about 20%, has both an origin and destination somewhere

PAGE 17

THE outside the study area (external-external traffic), although still generally within sections of southeast Denver. The actual percentage breakdowns from several key sources are summarized below. FIGURE2 TRAFFIC DEMAND CATEGORIES PROPORTIONS External-Internal 7 Internal-Internal 5% External-External 20% Thes.e sources indicate that this section of Colorado Blvd. plays a relatively minor role in carrying through-traffic. Most of the traffic is related to destinations along the roadway. This has important implications on the needs for acceleration/deceleration lanes, left turn lanes, and access/curb cuts. Figure 3 indicates the classification of roadways in the vicinity of the study area as recommended in the Southeast Quadrant Plan. 11 P 1 A 1M FIGURE3 p:: p:: !;; b f-o (I) j 8 3 8 0 0 8TH :I: lllGHWAY --ARTERIAL -COll.ECIDR STREET CLASSIFICATIONS The streets and roadways in the Southeast Quadrant collectively function as a land access and mobility system. Of the estimated 810 miles of street and roadways in the Southeast Quadrant, approximately 105 miles (13%) are primarily devoted to traffic movement or mobility. These facilities are typically referred to as arterials and include both regional freeway facilities such as I-25 and high volume streets such as Broadway, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden A venue. The remaining street

PAGE 18

THE Table 4. Transportation Demand Summary Unit 1985 2010 % Change 1985-2010 Households Employment Person Trips Vehicle Trips 17,700 47,200 456,000 331,200 mileages are primarily devoted to serving direct land access and local traffic movements within neighborhoods and activity centers. These streets are typically referred to as collectors and local streets. Table 4 summarizes the total amount of travel demand generated by development in the influence area. Of course, not all of this traffic utilizes Colorado Boulevard as the area is also served by other streets. It should also be noted that some traffic that is on Colorado is through traffic. Peak and Off-Peak Traffic Levels The difference between peak hour conditions and off-peak conditions is much less on South Colorado Boulevard than it is on many arterials. Because of the mixed use, intense character of development along Colorado, and its several traffic-carrying roles, demand is significant throughout the day and the noon-hour is almost as busy as the afternoon rush hour. Many arterial streets also have a pronounced directional imbalance. This is 12 24,100 67,900 696,400 484,200 36% 44% 53% 46% less true on Colorado Boulevard, although traffic is somewhat heavier northbound in the AM Peak and southbound in the PM Peak. During the noon peak, traffic is more balanced. These characteristics are summarized in Figures 4 and 5 for two representative locations. Safety Traffic safety issues were examined in detail in a previous study of the Boulevard. That study concluded: ... Colorado Boulevard is fairly typical of urban arterials regarding the rate of accident occurrence." No new specific safety-related problem areas are known to have surfaced since this last study. The previous study found that the highest accident locations were at the intersections of Colorado and Cherry Creek South Drive, Cherry Creek North Drive, Bayaud/Leetsdale, and 1st Avenue. The addition of turn lanes and improved signals at these and other locations were recommended in order to improve safety. These improvements have been made at Cherry Creek North and South Drives.

PAGE 19

TilE DowvzutD PLAII'I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 4 3000 North of Exposition Ave. 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Figure 5 3000 2500 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 HOUR I NOIRTJHIJBOUND UTJHIJBOUND North of Mexico Ave. 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 HOUR I -NO!RTHJB01UND --+-S01U1I'HlB01UND 13

PAGE 20

THE DoW\MD I' l" Largely as a result of that previous study, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the City of Denver have recently initiated a program to rebuild and modernize most traffic signals along Colorado Boulevard in order to improve safety. Future Volumes It is also helpful to have some sense of how much worse problems may get, and how quickly. Demand has continued to grow on Colorado Boulevard since it was first developed, and all indications are that demand growth will continue. The Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Study projected that employment in the influence area would increase by about forty-four percent between the mid-1980s and 2010, and the number of households in the area would increase by about one-third. The SEQ transportation system model was used to do a detailed analysis of possible future traffic levels on Colorado Boulevard in the study area. The model analysis suggests that traffic may grow at an even faster rate in the next twenty years than it has in the past. Table 5 summarizes current traffic volumes at several locations and the projected likely range of Year 2010 volumes assuming, at the low end, a continuation of past trends and, at the high end, the levels projected by the model. It should also be noted that the reopening of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center is expected to affect traffic volumes in the area. Actual levels may vary greatly in the initial months, but several months after the center opens, it is expected that traffic generation levels will stabilize to levels that were anticipated in the long range projections, as well as in short range plans for improvements in the area. Table 5. Current and Projected Colorado Boulevard Traffic Levels (in OOOs) l Location North of Alameda North of Exposition South of Mississippi South of Mexico South of I-25 Current Average Daily Traffic* 43 64 57 72 42 *Represents various weekday counts taken in 1988, 1989 or 1990. 14 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volume Range 52--57 1 l l 1 77 --81 1 67 -68 j I 86--91 I 50-65 1 "' ---J

PAGE 21

B. Transportation Improvement Considerations A variety of strategies for reducing congestion on Colorado Boulevard were considered and are discussed in general terms. The specific action recommendations are discussed in section III-C. Transportation System Management Alternatives Transportation System Management (TSM) actions include lower-cost, shorter-range measures to incrementally improve traffic flow. Much of the traffic congestion along Colorado Boulevard is due to congestion at intersections; the first two strategies apply to intersections. The third strategy is aimed at reducing traffic conflicts between intersections. Signalization Modifications Traffic flow can sometimes be improved by revising signal coordination and adjusting individual signal cycles to better reflect current demand patterns. However, at some of the busiest intersections, there may simply be too much traffic relative to the number of lanes, and no amount of signal adjustment will eliminate all delay. Intersection Modifications In situations where signal adjustments alone are not sufficient to reduce delay significantly, the addition of lanes can be considered--though there are practical limits to the number of lanes that can be added at a 15 given intersection. Also, along Colorado Boulevard, such projects can be very expensive due to the need to acquire new right-of-way in heavily built-up areas. Acceleration-Deceleration Lanes and Access Points Traffic flow between intersections can be inhibited by traffic slowing down to make right turns or speeding up after making a right turn onto Colorado from private driveways or intersecting streets. These conflicts can be reduced by providing a separate acceleration-deceleration lane for turning vehicles. Long Range Roadway Capacity Alternatives Longer range, higher cost alternatives for adding capacity or improving traffic flow were also considered. New Through Lanes The capacity of Colorado Boulevard, or of parallel facilities, could be increased by adding new through lanes. However, with the exception of I-25, Parker/Leetsdale and sections of Quebec, such alternatives were not recommended in the current, adopted Southeast Quadrant Plan and were therefore not considered in this analysis. Building Grade-Separated Intersections When signal timing modifications and turn lane additions are still not sufficient to eliminate excessive intersection congestion, it may be appropriate to consider a

PAGE 22

THE grade-separation, i.e, taking one or more movements over or under the primary surface intersection. Traffic Demand Management Alternatives Traffic Demand Management (TDM) actions are aimed at reducing peak period automobile traffic levels. The several different TDM measures that were considered include the following: Ridesharing Ridesharing refers to carpooling or vanpooling. Ridesharing can be promoted in different ways, including site-specific measures or areawide programs. A spot check of over 500 vehicles in the corridor indicates that current average vehicle occupancy is about 1.05 persons per car for work trips and 1.3 persons per car for all trips. It is unlikely that significant increases in these occupancy levels can be achieved Table 6. Existing Transit Service Route Destination Frequency #40/Colorado Crosstown Every 10 Minutes (Peak) .1 #2/1st Avenue #3/Alameda #5/Buchtel #21/Evans #46 Limited #79/83 Limited Hilltop Cherry Creek Downtown Aurora Cherry Creek Downtown U. Hills Downtown Aurora DU-Downtown GlendaleEvery 15 Minutes (Mid-Day) Every 30 Minutes (Evening) Every 30 Minutes Every 20 Minutes (Peak) Every 30 Minutes (Off-peak) Every 30 Minutes Every 30 Minutes : : 1 Every 20 Minutes I 'i (Peak Only) 1 Nine MileEvery 16 Minutes (Peak) }_' Cherry CreekDowntown Cherry CreekEvery Hour (Off-Peak) l ........ ..: .. : c .. .... .. ;:._ ........... ........ "":"-'-' .. .... :.,c .. .. 16

PAGE 23

THE without "proactive" steps by the public and private sectors working together to continually promote and support carpool programs. Transit Colorado Blvd. already enjoys relatively good transit service. (See Table 6.) The average number of people getting on or off buses along Colorado Boulevard in the study area on a weekday in 1990 was about 3,500. A majority of these riders use RID Route 40, which is the main route serving Colorado Blvd .. The most heavily utilized stops were at Alameda, Mississippi and Evans. As is the case with ridesharing, increases in transit use are unlikely to occur without proactive steps by the public and private sectors to encourage such a trend. Walking and Bicycling A small but important portion of the travel demand along Colorado Boulevard can be met by walking. For example, a significant number of lunch-hour trips appear to be taken on foot. In addition, the convenience of making trips on foot is an important part of using transit, as people must walk to and from bus stops. Only a small number of bicyclists were observed on Colorado Boulevard itself and it appears that, for the most part, bicycling does not play a significant role in meeting travel demand in the corridor. However, it is viewed as important to ensure that bicycle travel in the area generally is as convenient 17 .. .. ., .. .. _,. ----... -... .. -.. ..:. PLAOO as possible and is safely accommodated. Trip Reduction Employers can reduce trips by implementing continuing programs to actively promote and encourage the use of alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. Denver required such a program as a condition for approval of one large project in the corridor. The evaluation of alternative strategies has led to the proposed recommendations described in detail below. C. Transportation Recommendations T-1. Multi-Year Intersection Improvement Program Description The multi-year intersection improvement program initially recommended in the 1984 Colorado Boulevard Corridor Study should continue. Only a few of the improvements recommended at that time have been implemented. The improvements generally consist of adding left or right turn lanes at the most congested intersections. Recent analysis suggests that some of the specific improvement recommendations made in 1984 may need to be expanded. The specific needs of each intersection should be determined in a Preliminary Engineering

PAGE 24

THE D WViUill 0 : :,_ ..... :i i : : : :. t Table 7. Recommended Intersection Improvements Intersection EVANS MEXICO FLORIDA MISSISSIPPI CHERRY CREEK DR. S. CHERRY CREEK DR. N. ALAMEDA BAYAUD Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Southbound 1ST Eastbound Northbound Improvement Additional Left Tum Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Separate Right Tum lane Separate Right Tum lane Separate Right Tum lane Additional Left Tum Lane Separate Right Tum lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Through Lane Additional Through Lane Additional Through Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Separate Through Lane Separate Right Tum Lane Additional Left Turn Lane Additional Left Tum Lane Additional Left Tum Lane .,..._:-., ... :.. ..... -"----... ... ... .. .. .,..._: .. .. ... .. .... _.. .. ... ... ... --.,.-... _-_,;-,_,-.. .. ,_-__ -_"'"-"---..... .. ,-.,-... "":" ... 18

PAGE 25

-----.. ; --------------______ .. ___ ......... THE Design Analysis for each individual intersection improvement project The improvements proposed to be considered are identified in Table 7. The analysis done for this study indicates that the highest priority intersections should be Evans and the Alameda area. Intended Benefit Estimated intersection Levels of Service, with and without the improvements and assuming 1990 traffic levels, are summarized in Table 8. If all of the improvements were in place today, the average delay at these intersections would decrease by over 50% and overall peak hour, peak direction travel speed would improve by 20%. However, it will take a number of years to fund and implement these improvements, therefore it may only be possible to more or less keep pace with traffic demand increases--that is, to maintain current overall Levels of Service as traffic continues to increase. Next Steps Tl-1. Denver, Glendale and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) should continue to program monies to conduct engineering design studies for other identified high-priority locations. Denver Capital Improvement Funds have been designated for design of the Alameda intersection. Denver will request future assistance from the Colorado Department of Transportation for development of a 19 detailed improvement plan for the Colorado and Evans intersection. The design studies should include a community involvement process. Tl-2. On-going funding for this program should be included in the Denver and Glendale Capital Improvement Programs and all possible state and federal funding support should also be sought so that all of the recommended locations can be improved within, at most, the next ten to fifteen years. Table 8. Intersection LOS, Comparison Estimated LOS with 1990 PM Peak Volumes, with and without Recommended Improvements Without With Intersection Improvements Improvements Evans F c Mexico D c Florida E D Mississippi D c CC Drive-South F D CC Drive-North E c Alameda F D Bayaud F D 1st F c 'l J ; '( .. -::_ _l ,. ,. .'!" ,., :;, -!:: +{ .< }

PAGE 26

THE T-2. Key Bottleneck Studies Description The feasibility and desirability of providing grade-separations or similar major improvements in the long-term at Evans and Alameda intersections should also be considered. The Evans feasibility study should consider the costs and benefits of grade-separations, as well as modifications in the I-25/Colorado and I-25/Evans interchanges. The feasibility study for Alameda should consider grade separations, as well as the costs and benefits of a new roadway connection from Alameda west of Leetsdale to Cherry Street, in Glendale, as illustrated schematically in Figure 6. Such a FIGURE 6 Possible New Leetsdale/Virginia Connection 20 PLAN connection could relieve demand at several critical bottlenecks along Colorado. The study of this connection must consider the impacts on residential areas east of Colorado Boulevard. Intended Benefit The traffic demand projections and future conditions analysis suggest that, even if TSM improvements are made to the Evans and Alameda intersections, congestion could again reach unacceptable levels due to continued demand growth. Specifically, it was found that the recommended first stage improvements at Evans could accommodate a i0-25% increase in traffic over current levels before the Level of Service deteriorates to that which is presently experienced, while the recommended first stage improvements at Alameda could accommodate about a 10-15% increase in traffic. Traffic levels should be monitored at these locations to determine the actual rate of increase that is occurring, but the analysis suggests that growth could approach these levels at both locations in the next ten to fifteen years. The proposed major improvements described 'above are intended to help preserve the benefits achieved by other projects throughout the corridor. Next Steps T2-l. Traffic volumes at Alameda and Evans should be monitored by Denver after the improvements proposed in T-1 are made. At such time as congestion levels, as

PAGE 27

-- -J- o_ -----. -------_.:.a. ..... .:__.;__ "--""--'---.. --------'"': :.. "'"_ ... --. ;. o->-r ---' ;__ .... ___ :___.,_, __ .._.,, measured by average vehicle delay, reach 80% of the "pre-improvement" level, the recommended major improvement feasibility studies should be initiated. T -3. Traffic Signal Timing Plan Description Current signal timing and coordination should be reviewed and revised if warranted. Timing plans should be reviewed periodically on a continuing basis. Intended Benefit Analysis done for this plan suggests that adjustments in signal timing and coordination could lead to improved traffic flow at a number of intersections. The overall improvement in intersection Level of Service estimated for T-1, above, assumed that signal timing would be optimized. Next Steps T3-l. To determine ideal traffic signal timing it is necessary to take detailed traffic counts at all signalized intersections, analyze timing alternatives and then implement and finetune the preferred plan. Likely modifications include improved signal progression, new signal cycle lengths, addition or deletion of turn arrows, or adjusted green times for individual phases. The detailed study should also take into account pedestrian crossing needs. Denver has already requested the assistance of the Denver Regional Council of 21 Governments in undertaking detailed alternative timing plan analysis. Approved timing plan changes should be implemented upon completion of the study. T -4. Acceleration-Deceleration!rransit Lane and Curb Cuts Description All new development projects along South Colorado Boulevard should continue to be required to provide a right-side acceleration-deceleration ( accel./decel.) lane. Dedicated "turn" lanes will also be proyided at intersections when they are improved as part ofT -1, above. To further minimize traffic conflicts and allow the turn lanes to function as intended, the number of access points to Colorado Boulevard that are allowed with new development should continue to be strictly limited. The turn lanes can also accommodate buses slowing down or speeding up for bus stops. Bus stops should be located adjacent to accel./decel. lanes to avoid impeding traffic flow in through lanes. Intended Benefit These lanes will accommodate traffic slowing down to turn and speeding up after turning onto Colorado from a side street or driveway, so that this lower speed traffic will not unduly impede traffic already on the Boulevard. These lanes are also beneficial because they provide a place for buses to slow down, stop, and speed up

PAGE 28

__ ,:..,_ __ ._. _________ -...: .. ---THE without impeding through traffic. In the long term, as private redevelopment and public intersection improvements projects are undertaken, the turn lane will be continuous, and this could allow a travel time advantage for buses. Next Steps T4-1. Both Denver and Glendale should continue to require dedications of these lanes when new development occurs, and should commit to working closely with individual property owners to develop creative site-design responses to situations in which the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way significantly increases the complexity of site redevelopment. T4-2. In order to preserve the efficiency of the right tum/transit lane, no increase in the numbers of private access points onto the Boulevard should be allowed. The number of access points associated with new development should be strictly limited. 22 T -5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections Description The construction of sidewalks should continue to be required along S. Colorado Blvd. and intersecting streets as part of all redevelopment projects. Intersection improvement projects should provide a high level of pedestrian protection through the use of highly visible crosswalks (such as "zebra"-style vertical stripes), pedestrian signal indications and appropriate signs. Due to high automobile traffic volumes and limited right-of-way, bicycle travel along Colorado Boulevard itself should not be encouraged, but bike routes should be designated on close-by parallel streets to the east and west. Intersecting bike routes, such as the Cherry Creek bike path, should continue to be improved. Intended Benefits A small but important proportion of travel demand along Colorado Boulevard can be met by walking and bicycling. For example, a significant number of lunch-hour trips appear to be taken on foot. In addition, the convenience of making trips ... on foot is an important part of using transit, as people must walk to and from bus stops. The proposed improvements are intended to encourage additional walking and bicycling by enhancing "user" safety and convenience. Combined with the urban design and land use recommendations described below, the opportunities to make a greater number of trips on foot should increase significantly over time.

PAGE 29

THE DotJLE\iMill L Next Steps TS-1. Pedestrian accommodations should be included in the preliminary engineering design studies for intersection improvements recommended in T-1 and at signal reconstruction projects. TS-2. As part of the development review process, Denver and Glendale should encourage the provision of convenient, direct pedestrian connections between adjacent commercial developments as well as to neighboring residential areas. TS-3. As part of the development of a Citywide Bike Plan in 1992, Denver's Bicycle Advisory Committee should, in cooperation with Glendale, designate appropriate bike routes parallel to Colorado Boulevard. Consideration should also be given to projects to widen the sidewalks over Cherry Creek and to provide a new ramp connection between the existing Creek level path and southeast corner of the intersection of Virginia and Colorado Boulevard; and to provide a direct connection between the Cherry Creek and Alameda bikeways. Other possibilities for improving intersecting east-west bike routes may also exist and should be considered. T -6. Transit Description Transit use will be encouraged as an alternative to the single-occupant automobile. The use of the services which already exist should be encouraged, and 23 Denver and Glendale should support plans to provide additional service. Denver and Glendale need to work with the Regional Transportation District (RID) and others to: a.) improve accommodations for people getting to and from bus stops, b.) improve the bus stops themselves, c.) promote transit use, and d.) continue to encourage the development of rapid transit in the southeast 1-25 corridor, and the provision of upgraded bus service on Colorado Boulevard to complement it. Intended Benefits While transit use in the corridor is already significant, comprehensive plans for the area call for doubling existing transit ridership by the Year 2010. Transit use can be encouraged by making access to it more convenient and comfortable. In time, there may be a need to consider the addition of a shuttle bus, running at high frequency between major corridor destinations. In the interim, the Transportation Management Association Task Force recommended below and other appropriate groups should consider the benefits of a comprehensive transit promotion campaign, and/or subsidizing transit use on a on-going or short-term promotional basis. For example, it may be worthwhile for area businesses and retailers to work with RID to offer free noon-hour transit use to encourage people who work in the corridor to patronize local businesses.

PAGE 30

. ._,_ ... -____ ........ :-... _____ .._.. ___ ...;.. ----------------------------.. Another way of increasing transit use is to improve the necessary "infrastructure." Currently, many bus stops in the corridor are in areas without sidewalks or with inadequate sidewalks. Observations indicate that many people are uncomfortable about crossing Colorado and some side-streets on foot--which you must do to use transit. Finally, at present there are a minimal number of bus shelters. There are specific recommendations in the urban design section about bus stop area design. While the level of transit use increase expected as a result of such improvements cannot easily be quantified, these are normal and typical measures which will support public and private efforts to encourage increased transit use by those people who currently do not find it sufficiently comfortable or convenient. 24 PLAIM Next Steps-Bus Stop Improvements T6-1. Denver and Glendale should work with RTD to install bus shelters at the high-volume bus stops at Evans, Mississippi, and Alameda. The Evans and Alameda bus-stop improvements should be coordinated with the recommended intersection improvement projects. T6-2. Denver and Glendale should work with RTD to program the provision of shelters at other locations meeting RID's minimum criteria of 40 hoardings/day. T6-3. Denver and Glendale should encourage development adjacent to existing designated bus stops to provide a seating area and landscaping to serve bus patrons--such improvements should be required as -condition of new development. Next Steps-Transit Use Promotion T6-4. In 1992, Denver and Glendale should establish a Task Force to work with RTD to conduct a transit promotion campaign for area employees. (Also see T-8, below.) Next Steps-Longer Range Transit Improvements T6-5. Currently, RID's service standards call for adding service-capacity when demand consistently exceeds the number of seats. Denver and Glendale should work with RTD to monitor ridership levels, and when they reach 80% of seated peak capacity, service improvements should be considered. The improvements considered should include a special corridor shuttle.

PAGE 31

THE T6-6. Denver and Glendale should: 1.) continue to work with RID, the CDOT, and others to fund and develop a rapid transit line along I-25; 2.) seek to ensure that such a line will have convenient links to bus service on Colorado Boulevard; and 3.) ensure that the levels of bus service planned for Colorado Boulevard are consistent with the planned frequency and capacity of the rapid transit line. Colorado Boulevard bus service could be upgraded through the implementation of a new shuttle service, by increasing the frequency of existing bus routes, and/or by providing a reserved lane for transit use. The reserved lane could be created by linking individual acceleration/deceleration lanes recommended in T-4, above. Denver and Glendale should also consider the feasibility of integrating the planned I-25 rapid transit station stop at Colorado Boulevard with a parking garage, both to serve people getting on the system to go to the Tech Center or Downtown, or people working along Colorado Boulevard who could conveniently transfer to high-frequency bus service on Colorado. A parking structure could be developed east of Colorado Boulevard, on air-rights over I-25, or at some other appropriate location. 25 T-7. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program Description Denver and Glendale should encourage the adoption of a region wide trip reduction program requirement for major employers. Such a program would promote commuting alternatives in order to attain a specified target reduction in the number of people commuting by single-occupant automobile. Intended Benefit This plan and other plans such as the recently adopted Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Plari assume that the proportion of transit and ridesharing will at least double over current levels by about the Year 2010. This is unlikely to happen without active promotion by both the public and private sectors. Adoption of a regionwide trip-reduction program should ensure that such promotion occurs uniformly throughout the region. Next Steps T7-1. It is recommended that both Denver and Glendale work through the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Regional Air Quality Council and other regional policy forums to promote a regional trip reduction program. If a program is not implemented on a regional level, Denver and Glendale should consider implementing such a requirement on their own. In the meantime, Denver and Glendale should encourage businesses to

PAGE 32

.;.....--'-- _: __ ___ ---- -'--"--THE DoiJU\TMtD P L A I implement such programs on a voluntary basis and should help those businesses in organizing trip reduction programs by directing them to available resources and providing information about programs that have been successful in other areas. This effort can be coordinated through the Task Force described in T-8. T -8. Transportation Management Association Task Force Description Property owners and businesses, in cooperation with Denver and Glendale, should establish a Task Force to formally consider the establishment of a Transportation Management Association, coordinate a rideshare and transit promotion campaign and monitor implementation of the transportation elements of the Boulevard Plan. Intended Benefit In many parts of the country, including Denver, businesses have joined together to supplement the efforts of government to meet growing transportation needs. A generic name for such groups is a Transportation Management Association, or TMA. TMA's typically undertake activities such as: a.) Policy leadership and advocacy designed to affect local transportation decision-making; 26 b.) Facilitation of focused ridesharing and transit promotion programs for employees; c.) Management and operation of transportation services such as transit shuttles, and raising funds to make capital funding contributions to roadway improvements and transit-use enhancement projects; and d.) Fostering a positive mobility outlook to reassure existing and prospective tenants and investors. In communities in which "trip reduction" ordinances are in effect, TMAs can be instrumental in facilitating compliance. In addition, transit and ridesharing promotional campaigns are generally most effective when focused on a group of employers. Next Steps TB-1. In 1992, the costs and benefits of forming a TMA should be studied in detail by a Task Force composed of representatives of property owners, businesses, the surrounding neighborhoods and public agencies including Denver Transportation, Glendale, RTD, and DRCOG RideArrangers. First year activities should include: a.) Examination of organizational, funding, and mission options; b.) Surveying current area employee commuting patterns to determine baseline

PAGE 33

THE .habits and evaluate program potential; and c.) Carrying out a rideshare/transit promotion program Denver and Glendale should commit specific staff support to this effort, and should provide seed money for Task Force activities. Staff and in-kind support should be sought from RID and DRCOG. Property owners and businesses should also be asked to help support first year activities. T-9. Right-of-Way Maintenance Description Denver, Glendale and area businesses should consider ways in which public area maintenance levels can be increased. Intended Benefit The image of Colorado Boulevard can be improved through stepped up maintenance activities. In addition, maintaining good pavement condition helps traffic to move efficiently. Under current practices, Denver is responsible for providing street sweeping services on Colorado Boulevard. Currently, Downtown area streets and streets serving Downtown are given a higher priority than arterial streets such as Colorado Boulevard, although the street is scheduled to be swept once a week in suillii1er and about two to three times per month in the winter. Efforts should be made to ensure that the targets are 27 met. A more significant problem may be cleaning the median and sidewalk areas. At present, the sidewalk and median are cleaned no more than three times per year. Cleaning is done by Minor Offender crews from the County Jail. It is recommended that the City explore ways in which this frequency could be increased, and that voluntary efforts by area businesses be encouraged through the Transportation Management Association Task Force discussed above, to at least keep sidewalk areas clean. The recommended median improvements (See Urban Design section of this report) should be designed to minimize the costs and difficulty of routine maintenance and cleaning. The Colorado Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining the pavement condition on the Boulevard. Next Steps T9-1. The TMA Task Force should evaluate ways to encourage private businesses to assume increased responsibility for litter pick-up along the sidewalk and possibly the median and encourage Denver to meet its once a week street sweeping target T9-2. Denver and Glendale should continue to place a high priority on their requests to CDOT for pavement maintenance projects, including consideration of concrete pavement

PAGE 34

------.------------__ __ .... _,_ _______ ,__;; J __: __ ...... _._ ________ __;_ __ ..........:... _. 28

PAGE 35

THE DoWV!Uill .. 1 IV. LAND USE The general goals with respect to land use are: 1.) Continue an appropriate mix of land uses along the Boulevard; and 2.) New development should be compatible with existing development Maintaining an appropriate land use mix will help reinforce the economic vitality of the corridor, and if the corridor remains economically healthy on an overall basis, there will be a stronger likelihood that high-quality neighborhood serving uses will continue to thrive. It also tends to reduce traffic impacts more than if the land uses were more homogeneous. Table 9. South Colorado Boulevard Corridor Commercial Floor S ace (1) Cate or S uare Feet Percent Office 6,886,500 65% Retail 1,217,700 12% Hotel/Motel 1,110,400 10% Public/Quasi Public/Other 942,500 9% Auto Sales 163,900 1% Entertainment 262,500 3% Total 10,583,500 100% 1. Sources: 1986 Denver Assessor's Office records provided by the Denver Planning Office and current records provided by the Glendale Building and Zoning Department. 29 A. Current and Future Conditions Table 9 summarizes current development levels in the general study area, i.e., development sites fronting or just behind the Boulevard between 1st and Evans. Existing zoning and land uses are depicted in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The most recent comprehensive analysis of land use trends in the general area was done as part of the Southeast Quadrant Study. The population and employment estimates for the South Colorado Boulevard "influence area" for the mid-1980s, and projections for the year 2010, are also surriinarized in Table 10. Table 10 also summarizes the development levels which are possible if and when the current approved zoning is built-out. As can be seen, the build-out levels are not greatly different from the projected 2010 levels. YAlE B CHERRY CREEK b::;;:=::::l GlENDAI...E ffiii] S/0 EVANS l!mJ CENTER WEST CENTER EAST Influence Area/Subareas

PAGE 36

FIGURE7 EXISTING ZONING R-0, R-1 Single Family Detached low density R-2, R-2A Multi-family Residential Low and Medium Density R-3 Multi-family Residential High Density R-4 Multi-family Residential, Office Very High Density, Hotels, Limited Retail B-1 Limited Office Services BA-2 Arterial/ Tourist Service Gas, Hotels, Restaurants B-2 Nelghborhod Business B-3 Shoplng Center Retail BA-3 B-4 1-0 0-1 R-5 PUD P-1 General Commercial Retail Theatres, Gas, Nightclubs General Busslness Retail consumer and Business Services Light Industrial Limited Manufacturing, Retail, Office, Hotel Open Space Parks, Recreation, Cemeteries Institutional Hospital, Schools, Churches Planned Unit Development Off-Street Parking ..... .. ... ., R-1 30 u l. .. 'R-2-A

PAGE 37

FIGURES Generalized Land Use 31

PAGE 38

PLAOO Table 10. Estimated/Projected Households and Employment South Colorado Boulevard Influence Area (l) HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT SUBAREA 1985 I 2010 I BLD-OUT 1985 I 2010 I BLD-OUT Cherry Creek 650 1100 1900 7700 12500 19000 Center West 4250 5900 6250 11900 17100 17300 Center East 9050 10750 11200 10450 14900 16750 Glendale 1150 3750 3750 8600 16600 16600 S/0 Evans 2600 2600 2550 4500 6750 7750 Total 17700 24100 25650 47200 67900 77400 %Change --36% 6% --44% 14% AVG.ANN.# -250 ---850 --AVG. ANN.% 1.5% ----1.8% --1. Source: Southeast Quadrant Land Use and Transportation Plan, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, in association with HOH Associates, Inc., Coley /Forrest, Inc; and Bramhall & Associates, for the City and County of Denver, December, 1988. The wide range of different land use types along South Colorado Boulevard contributes to the relatively high traffic levels throughout the day, in contrast to the pattern on arterial streets which serve areas dominated by a single land use type; such as retail, or office, or residential. If all of the commercial development along Colorado Boulevard were used as office, for example, the difference between peak hour and off-peak traffic levels would likely be 32 greater, and peak hour levels would be even higher than they are. The mix of land uses also serves to make the traffic more manageable in other ways. For example, people employed in the corridor can walk to lunch and shopping errands rather than take a car. In addition, the peak demand is "spread out" by the fact that some people may get to the area early or leave late in order to shop or eat.

PAGE 39

.;:..,; _____ -'-----,.__ ______ .,;_; ____ .._.., _________ ...,._ ____ .o; ___ ------------------------__ _. ___ ._ -----------THE B. Alternative Strategies Several strategies were considered for resolving land-use related problems in the corridor, and/or for reducing the likelihood of future problems. One concept considered was "downzoning." "Downzoning" involves amending the zoning to decrease allowed densities. However, downzoning was felt to be politically unrealistic. A second land use alternative considered was the possibility of designating "office development nodes" at each end of the study area. Landowners elsewhere in the corridor would have been able to sell their unused development rights to owners of properties within these nodes. Owners of land within these nodes could then have used these rights to build office space over and above that allowed by the base zoning for those areas. The benefit, in theory, would have been to encourage office space in areas best served by the transportation system, and to make retail development elsewhere in the corridor more economically viable. However, as the idea was considered, concerns were expressed about whether the actual impact would be to discourage retail redevelopment, and whether such an action was necessary to achieve desired development patterns in light of recent economic trends. Finally, the transportation analysis indicated that the intersections in the vicinity of the nodes being considered were actually the most congested in the corridor and encouraging 33 more development in the immediate vicinity could exacerbate that congestion. The office nodes concept has enough potential merit, however, that it should be reconsidered if and when rapid transit is developed along I-25 or parallel corridors intersecting Colorado Boulevard. Reconsideration of this concept may also be warranted if there is a proliferation of large, single building office projects throughout the study area. The approach recommended at the present time is to focus on specific, achievable responses to specific concerns, such as limiting future development levels, encouraging mixed use developments, and formulating development and site guidelines to ensure that new development will be a good neighbor to existing residential and other development. Several techniques for implementing these requirements were also considered. They included: 1.) amending each zone district present in the corridor as part of a comprehensive citywide zoning revision; 2.) creating an overlay zone district for the corridor; 3.) creating a new Colorado Boulevard zone district; and, 4.) Using the special development regulation authority available under Denver's parkway and boulevard ordinance and other sections of the City code.

PAGE 40

_,.__:._ __ _.:._ ... : .. _;.._,..:' ______ _._,.._ __ ... THE These implementation alternatives apply to the situation in Denver. In Glendale, special requirements already exist for properties within 600 feet of Colorado Boulevard, and the preferred implementation approach would be to amend the Glendale zoning ordinance to incorporate changes recommended in this Plan, as appropriate. For Denver, each of the several alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. The first approach is legally straightforward but logistically complex; it would involve ten different Denver zone districts. The second approach would create different requirements for the same zone district in different parts of the City. The third approach may be overkill; it has been very difficult to create wholly new zone districts elsewhere in the City, and the changes that are being recommended along the Boulevard are not as extensive as those which needed to be implemented in those other areas. Finally, the authority available under the parkway and boulevard ordinance may not be extensive enough to include all of the recommended development requirements. Given recent experience, the present recommendation is to combine elements of the first implementation alternative, amending the individual zone districts, and the fourth alternative involving the parkway and boulevard ordinance, and other sections of the City code. The parkway and 34 boulevard ordinance designates certain Denver streets as parkways/boulevards and, within limits, allows the City to regulate the character and placement of development along those streets. Within the study area, that portion of South Colorado Boulevard between I-25 and 44th Avenue has long been designated as a parkway/boulevard, although no special design regulations have previously been developed. It should be noted, though, that the consensus of the CAC was that there are advantages to consolidating the new development requirements into an overlay zone district. The Committee recommended that such an approach should continue to be considered. The CAC also strongly suggested that any future redevelopment proposals should be encouraged to be submitted as Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. This would allow the specific applicable elements of this plan to be written into a binding, site specific development plan. Finally, it was noted that a number of recommendations in this plan could lead to changes in the Denver zoning code, and that Denver is also considering a wholesale revision of its existing codes. If that occurs, there may be alternative ways of accomplishing some of the objectives of this plan. For example, a number of CAC members suggested that some type of performance-based zoning could address some of the concerns for which specific, detailed responses have been proposed in this plan.

PAGE 41

THE The specific land use recommendations are intended to preserve a mix of uses, restrain overall development increases which could lead to excessive traffic demand increases and ensure that spill-over parking problems are minimized. C. Land Use Recommendations LU-1. Overall Development Cap Description In general, no additional development density should be granted over currently approved levels, commitments are made to limit traffic generation to levels consistent with those that would occur with the original zoning. For example, if the current zoning on a particular parcel would allow 100,000 square feet of office use it can be calculated that development of that parcel to that level would generate about 150 trips in the PM Peak Hour. If the developer wanted approval to build 125,000 square feet of office, the developer would have to "guarantee" that steps would be taken to limit PM Peak Hour vehicle trip generation levels to about 150 trips, or that which would occur with the original zoning. Intended Benefit Analysis done for the Southeast Quadrant Plan indicated that present zoning permits 35 substantially more development than now exists along Colorado Boulevard and elsewhere in the southeast Denver area. In light of the extensive demands that are already placed on the transportation system, and the significant impact and cost of significantly increasing the capacity of the transportation system, overall increases in permitted intensities are not recommended. While no wholesale increases in overall allowable development seem appropriate, some increase in development intensity may be appropriate for individual projects because of specific site or development proposal issues. In those cases, Denver and Glendale should require enforceable commitments to limit traffic generation to levels no higher than that possible with the prior existing zoning. This will minimize traffic increases on Colorado Boulevard and other area streets. Next Steps LUl-l. Denver and Glendale should not approve additional development intensity in the corridor, except under the circumstances noted above. It should be noted that this does not mean that no rezoning should be considered, as some rezoning may be sought for reasons other than an increase in intensity. In addition, Denver and Glendale should seek to reduce maximum intensity levels allowed in Planned Unit Develop ment and Planned Site Developments in return for other allowances.

PAGE 42

_I THE LU-2. Land Use Mix Description Glendale and Denver should seek to retain the diversity of land uses in the corridor. Denver and Glendale should also encourage large office projects to incorporate either retail, residential, entertainment, lodging or restaurant uses in addition to the primary office use. Intended Benefits The mixed use character of the area is viewed as an asset for the surrounding community, and helps in reducing total and peak period peak traffic loads--as compared to the same amount of floor space developed entirely as office. The current diversity of zoning in Denver, as well as the actual mix of uses pennitted in Denver, promote such diversity and the range of pennitted uses should not be substantially altered. Next Steps LU2-l. Evaluate any Planned Unit Development (PUD), Planned Site Development (PSD) and other rezoning in terms of the potential impact on land use mix within the corridor. LU2-2. Encourage developers proposing large office projects to incorporate either retail, residential, entertainment, lodging or restaurant uses in addition to the primary office use. 36 LU-3. On-Site Parking Description All new development should provide sufficient parking to meet 100% of the project's needs on-site or in shared facilities adjacent to the site. Intended Benefit Analysis of Denver and Glendale's required parking amounts as compared to typically recommended standards showed that the most serious deficiency was the Denver code requirements with respect to office and restaurant uses. Denver requires 1 space for each 500 s.f. of office floor space, and 1 space for each 200 s.f. of restaurant space. Many office and restaurant projects in the corridor most likely provide parking in excess of these minimum required ratios, although overspill parking problems were observed in the vicinity of some fast-food restaurants and some offices. Some overspill parking problems may be exacerbated by building owners and managers who charge tenants for parking spaces. However, such charges act as incentives to the use of alternatives to the single-occupant automobile, therefore they should not be prohibited or discouraged. Instead, if parking overs pill problems are related solely to the presence of a fee, they should be dealt with through parking restrictions on affected local streets. To avoid future problems, minimum parking ratios should be increased for office

PAGE 43

THE Dowmill I' L .. oo and restaurant and possibly other uses. However, the current low minimum requirements are a problem not just in the Colorado Boulevard corridor, but also citywide, and changes in these ratios should preferably be made on a citywide basis. When they are implemented, variances from updated minimum parking standards could be considered if a developer implements a trip reduction program. The developer should also "guarantee" that no over spill parking will result. If overspill parking does occur, the guarantee could be enforced, for example, by requiring the developer to make contributions to a mitigation fund which would be used to enforce any necessary neighborhood parking restrictions or provide other, off-setting improvements or services. 37 Next Steps LU3-l. Consistent with the scope of existing authority, utilize this guideline in the review of all new development proposals in any PUD rezoning in the corridor. Adequate parking requirements are already in effect in Glendale's PSD district. LU3-2. Update parking requirements for office, restaurant and any other "problem" uses on a citywide basis in Denver. An enforcement mechanism should be created for controlling overspill parking if variances to minimum standards are permitted in conjunction with a trip reduction program.

PAGE 44

,_..._,.:_ ___ -.!...: ... --___ .. :. --:...... ----------.----_.._ ___ ----01.---. ----38

PAGE 45

---THE V. URBAN DESIGN The urban design recommendations are intended to help create a distinctive, unifying identity for the area which will help it compete in a growing and increasingly competitive regional economy, while minimizing the adverse impacts of new development on existing development. The urban design recommendations are divided into three categories: -Public right-of-way including medians and the sidewalk area; -Site and building design for private development and public facilities; and -Commercial signs and billboards. Objectives have been established for each of these categories and are described below. Objectives for Public Right-of"Way Improvements 1.) Provide a safe and secure walking environment by providing separation between automobile traffic and sidewalks in order to encourage more people to make trips on foot or by public transportation. 2.) Tie both sides of the street together visually while defining the edges of the street to enhance continuity of character. Objectives for Private Development 3.) Create lively and visually interesting buildings. 4.) Create a sense of place and enclosure along the street. 39 5.) Maximize the opportunities to create retail display windows and building signs which will be visible from the street and sidewalk to reinforce the merchandising character of the corridor. 6.) Screen some parking lots by the placement of buildings. 7.) Scale back the mass of buildings to reduce the intrusion into neighborhoods and to avoid "overpowering" the street. 8.) Ensure that adverse impacts of new buildings on adjacent, older buildings and residential development is minimized. Objectives for Signs 9.) Limit visual confusion and promote consistency. 10.) Equalize the competitive environment for businesses located in Denver and Glendale. 11.) Reduce the intrusiveness into residential neighborhoods and avoid "broadcasting" the commercial nature of the Boulevard into these adjoining areas by the strategic placement of signs. 12.) Integrate all signs into the overall project design through the use of architectural treatments and by incorporating adequate amounts of landscaping around monument signs. A. Current Conditions In the past, there has been little

PAGE 46

---., _______ ...:._. ---------::..-----'-------'-----_________ ___ ,:_., ___ THE consideration given to the development of a cohesive urban design treatment for the corridor, although there have been a few positive results on a project-by-project basis. Some of the existing, major urban design concerns which were identified in the planning process include: -The overall image of much of the corridor is that of a sea of asphalt--there are about 20,000 surface parking spaces in the study area adjacent to the Boulevard. -The wide range of zoning classifications, existing land uses, building types and sizes. The overall pattern of development includes single user, individual small lots for fast food and gas stations; larger integrated shopping centers; individual office buildings; and small office complexes. -The shallow, halfblock parcels which constrain site planning opportunities. -The disjointed circulation patterns including the incomplete sidewalk network and numerous curb-cuts and access points serving the individual commercial uses directly from a major regional
PAGE 47

FIGURE9 BUll.DING FOOTPRINT Figure -Ground :.r-I ., !J I II I W- ., j I I .. "' rr. -I r : = --.. ill ....... : ii : d ........ ,.., ,.._ .. .:.: r ... r a -- -...... 4 ._. 1 : "; .:11 II il II -' 11' I -: i. !1, ..... :;! :h ..... ... ... :! .... J -:: .......... 41

PAGE 48

VHE L The Image of the Street Itself The urban design recommendations seek to create an improved, coordinated public right-of-way treatment that is continuous along Colorado Boulevard from 1-70 to the southern Denver city limits and are more in keeping with the long-standing designation of much of the Boulevard as an official Denver parkway/boulevard. However, there can and should be "theme and variation" type differences in the design treatments used along the Boulevard that respect local character. For example, there may be differences in treatment of the tree lawn and sidewalks in commercial versus residential areas. C. Urban Design Recommendations Figure 10 is a composite sketch illustrating the various urban design recommendations. The recommendations are described in detail below. STREET TREE BUFFER WALKING ZONE SIMILAR TREATMENT ALL SIDES BUILDING EDGE LANDSCAPING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS FROM BOULEVARD BUS SHELTERS WITHIN LANDSCAPE AREAS BUILDINGS PLACED NEXT TO LANDSCAPED AREAS ENTRANCES ON NEXT CONNECTING FACADE -.:;:_,,;;::.._.:.:::::,.,..,..:.:Jt::m::=-PARKING TO SIDES OR BACKS "FULL BLOCK" COMMERCIAL \CROSSWALKS FIGURE 10 DESIGN STANDARDS 42

PAGE 49

--... ------......... -.. __ ....... _.._ _____ ....:.;:__ .. .__._ --------,, __ __ .__:. ___ __________ ---'. --'" ---------------------------__,_ THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY UD-1. Sidewalk Standard Description There should be sidewalks along both sides of South Colorado Boulevard throughout the conidor. The minimum width of the clear walking surface of the sidewalk area should be 5' in Denver and 8' in Glendale. In Denver, the sidewalk walking area will be separated from traffic by a 6'6" wide buffer zone between the walking area and adjacent traffic lanes. The sidewalk should be connected to any plazas or arcades within private development sites. The pedestrian-crossing zone across driveways should be delineated with a non-asphalt paving material. In Denver, the buffer zone should be paved with a decorative material and all newspaper boxes, traffic signal control .. ..... "' .. boxes, utility and possibly light poles should be placed in this area. The buffer zone should also include street trees (see UD-2, below.) Intended Benefit A complete and "inviting" pedestrian circulation system is essential to encouraging the use of transit and walking as alternatives to the automobile. To create a comfortable walking environment adjacent to three or more lanes of moving traffic, there needs to be at least minimal buffering created by width and other street "furniture." Next Steps UDl-1. Apply the sidewalk standard to all new development fronting the Boulevard in all commercial and R-4 zones, as well as Planned Unit Developments (Denver) and Planned Site Developments (Glendale.) """"l \I/ J-\ H rt r-2'6"'-6"' -7" "-+----s ---1-6'6 .. PAAKINC LOT WALL LANDSCAPING SIDEWALK STREET TREE COLORADO BOULEVARD .----10' ---i BUFFER SETBACK 43

PAGE 50

THE Developers should be required to dedicate any frontage necessary to create or upgrade the sidewalk. UDl-2. The Denver Planning Office will develop detailed guidelines regarding appropriate buffer zone paving materials, concrete scoring patterns, and street tree specifications. UD-2. Street Trees Description Provide a row of street trees within the sidewalk buffer zone along the Boulevard in Denver. The buffer zone should be paved with a decorative material and include a row of street trees of at least 3 1/2" caliper in 5' grates or other appropriate settings spaced at 30' intervals, except where safety considerations dictate otherwise. Selection criteria for tree species should recognize the need to maintain visibility of sign bands on retail storefronts and of development entrances. Intended Benefit With the limited opportunities to create wide landscaped areas which could soften the image of the corridor, vertical design elements become very important. The trees are intended to reflect the Boulevard's designation as an official Denver parkway/boulevard and create a more comfortable and inviting pedestrian environment. The city of Denver must also ensure that no trees are installed without provisions for on-going maintenance. Maintenance should be the responsibility of 44 the adjacent landowner (or of a special district if one is formed.) Glendale has an existing streetscape program which is different from the recommended approach in Denver--specifically, there is no requirement for a buffer zone nor for street trees in the buffer zone. Instead, Glendale requires trees spaced 30' on-center to be planted in the landscaped setback behind the sidewalk. Much of the frontage in Glendale is already developed in this manner, and it is recommended that Glendale continue with this approach. This different approach is consistent with the objective of maintaining some distinction in design treatments between Glendale and Denver. Next Steps UD2-l. Require the provision and maintenance of street trees as part of new development in Denver in all new development fronting the Boulevard in all commercial and R-4 zones, as well as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). UD2-2. The Denver Planning Office should develop standard tree-planting specifications, including identification of an appropriate palette of species. Existing Denver Parks Department guidelines on irrigation and maintenance should also be followed. UD2-3. Glendale will continue planting street trees at 30' intervals between the sidewalk walking surface and building and parking lots.

PAGE 51

THE UD-3. Street Lighting Description Install new street lighting and distinctive pedestrian lighting fixtures. Fixtures in Denver and Glendale can be different, but their relative placement and their scale should be the same. Maximum height of the pedestrian-scale lighting should be no greater than 14' (unless some strong design concept that relies on a greater height for a particular coordinated effect is desired.) The existing aluminum-colored, "cobra-head" street lights should be replaced with "hockey-puck" style street lights. Parks Department standards for designated parkways, including using the "Federal green" color, should be followed. Intended Benefit While street trees can have an effect on the Boulevard's image--at least during the day--lighting must be used to achieve comparable results during the evening. And, given the high evening traffic and use levels along the Boulevard, as much attention should be paid to the nighttime image as to the daytime image. Next Steps UD3-l. The Denver Planning Office should inventory existing corridor lighting and develop a replacement lighting plan which specifies poles, fixtures, type of light, spacing and placement Replacement lighting should be incorporated in capital 45 p l 00 programs. In addition, there needs to be an assessment of the financial implications of on-going maintenance and operation of the new lighting, and appropriate arrangements made. UD3-2. Adjacent landowners seeking redevelopment approvals should be required to provide pedestrian-scale lighting consistent with the above plan. Any street lights that are replaced should also be consistent with the lighting plan. The new lighting standards should be included in the proposed new development requirements. U.D3-3. Glendale should continue the installation of special lighting as part of its already established streetscape program. UD-4. Bus Stop Improvements Description Provide consistent, improved features at all bus stops. There should be two levels of improvements, one for high volume bus stops including stops at which transfers occur, and one for low volume stops. Bus shelters, outside seating and trash receptacles will be provided at high volume stops. Bus benches, either stand-alone or as part of a low wall, and trash receptacles will be provided at low volume stops. As these improvements are made, private bus benches which incorporate advertising will be prohibited. Lighting, landscaping and paving at all stops should be provided consistent with the

PAGE 52

- ---.......;;. .J ... ---- DoWVJ\lill L .. tl Provide pedestrian amenities at bus stops. other streetscape standards described above. Information signs will be provided by the Regional Transportation District (RID) according to their standards. Benches and shelters should be located in the front setback area, behind the sidewalk and away from the Boulevard (see UD-8.) Developers with projects adjacent to designated bus stops should allow bus benches and shelters in the front setback area, and be encouraged to provide the improvements themselves. Intended Benefit Current bus-service levels are high, and the existing level of ridership is good. By improving the features at bus stops, as well as the sidewalks that serve them, maximum use of transit will be encouraged. Next Steps UD4-1. Assist RID in completing designs for transfer bus stop improvements at Evans, Mississippi, and Alameda. 46 UD4-2. The Denver Planning Office will develop recommendations for bench types and placement at .low volume stops in Denver. Glendale has already developed specifications and will continue to implement their program. Create landscape medians, where possible UD-5. Boulevard Median Description The existing median should be landscaped in those areas where it is sufficiently wide and long and in those areas in which the median can be extended into unneeded left turn storage space (which may be the case, for example, between Kentucky and Louisiana). Where the median is not wide enough to be landscaped, it should be repaved with a decorative paving material .. A specific design for a median for Colorado Boulevard north of Alameda is now being created by the Denver Parks Department and consultants as part of a 1989 bond project. The design developed for this area can likely serve in the remainder of the study area as well.

PAGE 53

EXISTING SECTION ---25"---s---10'64 --13.,.. ---11---13'4"-----lo---13'4"---'''"" --15'4" ---s 20" ------2A" SlOE OR FRONT YARD SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE 3 TRAVEL LANES STRIP MEDIAN LEFT TURN LANE PROPOSED SECTION 3 TRAVEl lANES SIDEWALK PARKING I TWO.WAY ACCESS IN PARKING (j '"t:l ti1 lo%j 1-4 0@ &1 en tr.! 0 Ben S Ztr.t 1-3 20". --. PARKING --------6"6"--s---6"6"---1:t----,. ____ ,. ____ 12" --u---12----,. ____ ,. ___ l:t---6"6"-s---,--1o----20" ---------35 BUILDING LANDSCAPE SOWAU< TREE ACCELERATION 3 TRAVEL lANES MEDIAN 3 TRAVEL LANES ACCELERATION TREE SCEWAU< TREE. lAWN PARKING TREE LAWN DECELERATION DECELERATION LAWN SCREEN WALL LAWN OR LANE OR GRATE GRAIT ACCESS IN PARKING I 1lte ecuL.I!\.I'H> -Pl-Ul "'"' -.Sf1"1a:-t c..o-o;..s --1 Urban Design I I'

PAGE 54

Intended Benefit A landscaped median will break-up the visual impact of the wide street and improve the image of the area. Next Steps UDS-1. The Denver Planning Office and the Denver Parks Dept. will finalize the recommended median design. Estimated cost levels for landscaping and repaving will be identified. Colorado Boulevard project requests will be included in Glendale and Denver streetscape improvement capital programs. UDS-2. Denver Transportation Division will conduct detailed left-tum demand studies between Kentucky and Louisiana to identify median widening/extension opportunities. UD-6. Neighborhood Gateways I Local Streets Description Small, landscaped medians should be developed in the half block sections of intersecting local residential streets as a physical indication of the boundary between the commercial frontage along Colorado Boulevard and the adjacent residential area. Intended Benefit The medians will signal a change in the character of the area, and will act to help preserve the separate identity of the residential areas. They may also discourage some short-cutting traffic. The medians should be placed between the alley and the next street paralleling Colorado Boulevard when commercial development extends no further than the alley, and at the frrst block away when commercial development is a full block deep. The median design could be similar to the one recently installed in the Create gateways into adjacent neighborhoods 48

PAGE 55

Country Club neighborhood across from the Cherry Creek North retail area. Complementary street edge treatments may also be appropriate. The local street medians will typically be developed within the existing right-of-way and will require the elimination of on-street parking in that half-block section. The costs of building numerous small medians, and of maintaining them, could be a problem for the City of Denver, where most if not all of the opportunities for these improvements in the corridor exist. Therefore, neighborhood and homeowners organizations may have to assume primary responsibility for these projects if they are to occur. Next Steps UD6-1. The Denver Planning Office, in cooperation with the Denver Transportation Division, will develop a prototype median design and other design treatments to demarcate commercial/residential boundaries along local streets. UD6-2. The Planning Office will assist those neighborhood organizations which wish to pursue such projects. This will include assistance in the development of maintenance strategies. 49 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT UD-7. Parking Lot Screening/Entry Medians Description All parking lots along Colorado Blvd. should be screened from the adjacent sidewalks and street by a wall, hedge or berm, placed within a front setback between the sidewalk and the edge of the parking lot. The height of solid walls is to be 30"-36", measured from either side. If, due to topographic differences between the two sides, the maximum height on one side is to be exceeded, the portion of the wall above the maximum height must not be solid; it can be constructed of wrought iron, etc .. Walls can be constructed as planters, and plants may extend above the 36" maximum wall height. For commercial developments which are only one-half block deep, the wall may be placed in a 5' landscape setback in back of the sidewalk. The resulting narrow strip between the sidewalk and the wall can be paved with decorative material or planted with groundcover and vines. For deeper parcels, the wall should be located in a setback at least 10' wide, and should include trees which can be informally clustered or planted in a manner which is similar to the traditional Denver street-tree pattern, at 30' on-center intervals. There should be 3 trees per 1000 square feet of landscaped area. Walls should be constructed of materials similar to or the same as that used for the primary buildings on the site.

PAGE 56

FIGURE12 EXISTING SURF ACE PARKING LOTS 50

PAGE 57

THE / -;1 r-1 Screen Street J Parking Wall Landscaping Sidewalk Trees Colorado Boulevard .. Screen parking lots with landscaping and walls. Landscaped medians to separate entering medians should be considered individually. and exiting traffic help define traffic patterns and should be required for all new major curb-cuts. However, due to the constraints of the shallow, half-block deep commercial frontage along Colorado, they cannot always be physically provided. Therefore, opportunities for providing such Use landscaping at commercial and residential interface. 51 Intended Benefit Parking lot screening will significantly decrease the image of the corridor as a "sea of asphalt." Screening of parking lots also tends to reduce confusion about where the street ends and the parking lot begins. It helps to identify the location of curb-cuts. Finally, parking lot screen walls will provide additional security for people using Colorado Boulevard sidewalks. Next Steps UD7 -1. Use these guidelines in the reyiew of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UD7-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements.

PAGE 58

-30' --'---30' ----'---30' --Formal Plantings Provide street trees and front setback landscaping to creae Boulevard image. UD7 -3. The Denver Planning Office, in cooperation with Glendale, will identify a limited number of equivalent wall/landscaping alternatives from existing examples in the city as well as new solutions for use in the development review process. 52 UD-8. Front Setback and Landscaping Description Provide a 10' landscaped setback strip between the street and adjacent buildings (in addition to the sidewalk and sidewalk buffer described in UD-2). This front setback area should include three trees per 1000 square feet. The trees can be placed in informal clusters or can mimic the traditional pattern of Denver street trees and be planted in a 30' on-center pattern. If the trees are planted in informal clusters, the area under the trees should be covered in living plant material such as sod or shrubs so as to fully cover the ground under the trees within five years. The area under trees which are planted in a formal pattern can

PAGE 59

either be landscaped or paved in the same material as is used for the sidewalk buffer zone--which could be brick or concrete pavers. The use of stamped, patterned concrete as a paving material is strongly discouraged. Intended Benefit A softer, more appealing image can be created by providing a landscaped buffer between the hard expanse of the street and the hard edge of a building or hard expanse of a parking lot. Next Steps UDS-1. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UDS-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. UDS-3. The Denver Planning Office should develop prototypical alternatives for use in the development review process. T PRIVATE PROPERTY PUBLIC R.9:_W. UD-9. Building Placement Description Depending on the use and size of the project, new buildings or portions of new buildings should be encouraged to be built up to the proposed landscaped strip adjacent to the sidewalk. All walls facing Colorado Boulevard should be encouraged to have features such as doors (other than service entrances), display windows, arcades and/or plazas. Intended Benefit Some existing buildings on the Boulevard are built close to the street. The definition and image of the corridor can be improved if some buildings are built up to the front setback edge. This will also help reduce the perceived and actual length of trips on foot between different developments, and reduce the image of continuous parking lots. R.O.W. ===================== 1 53

PAGE 60

Next Steps UD9-l. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UD9-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. The processto create and implement these new requirements will begin in 1991. UD9-3. The Denver Planning Office should develop prototypical alternatives for use in the development review process. UD-10. Building Entrance Orientation Description Primary building entrances for buildings in developments along Colorado Boulevard should be located in the facade which faces Colorado Boulevard, or in the next connecting facade. All buildings not at the landscaped setback edge should have a landscaped pedestrian connection to the street Entrances on the sides of buildings should be connected to the street. Larger sites with multiple buildings should have sidewalk-to-building connections for each major tenant and building over 20,000 square feet. Secondary entrances from the rear parking areas should also have a welcoming, public design. Intended Benefit This intent is to ensure that development along the corridor will present its front door to the Boulevard, and will also support increased pedestrian activity. Next Steps UD10-1. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard UD10-2. Include these guidelines in the proposed new development requirements. UD-11. Building Facades Description Colorado Boulevard Adopt and implement a process and criteria to provide guidance on appropriate architectural treatments of building facades. The guidelines presented below are preliminary and apply more to office than to retail Connect Entrance Boulevard 54

PAGE 61

-----. ______ .. ____ ----.. : .. --------------------. THE development These guidelines should be refined in a follow-up effort. The building architecture guidelines should: a.) Promote the articulation of building facades through the expression of the entries, and the columns, bearing walls, etc. that define the structural bays and/or modules of leasable space. b.) A void large expanses of glazing through the use of mullion patterns, entry recesses, creation of individual windows rather than continuous, undifferentiated ribbon windows, or large infill panels, etc. c.) Avoid building facades composed entirely of undifferentiated, monotonously regular, glass curtain wall construction--at least at lower levels. Large glass curtain wall systems may be appropriate above a building's third or fourth floor level where pedestrian scale is less important, and where it may be desirable to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. d.) Encourage the "honest" expression of materials and systems and discourage the use of synthetic materials/cladding systems which imitate natural or traditional materials; e.g., pressed fiber designed to appear as heavily grained wood siding; metal roof tiles that look like wood shake shingles; concrete patterned to look like brick or stone, etc. Cladding systems such as precast concrete or glass reinforced concrete are acceptable as long as their surface does not replicate the appearance of some other material. Use articulated building surfaces, avoid undifferentiated glazing 55

PAGE 62

., __ ,_....:, ----'--J.:: _;;:. __ .. -_.._.._ ____ .. ....--___ .; __ ,_ THE Intended Benefit The shallow depth of many parcels along Colorado Boulevard places a great emphasis on the use of high quality architectural treatments to express the image and quality of the area. In general, the recommended guidelines are intended to make the area a more inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians and help ensure that the commercial development will be more in scale with the adjacent small-scale residential development. Next Steps UDll-1. Explore alternative methods for incorporating an architectural review process and criteria in the proposed new development requirements. Involve business and citizen interests in creation of the guidelines and process. UD-12. Upper Level Setback Description Adopt and implement a requirement that buildings on parcels fronting Colorado Boulevard and greater than 50' tall have a significant step back at the third or fourth level along the side of the building facing the Boulevard. Intended Benefit This recommendation is intended to emphasize the human-scale of the corridor. There are existing requirements regarding the scale and bulk of buildings adjacent to residential areas, although those to be 56 re-examined in light of specific conditions along Colorado Boulevard. It may be appropriate to ensure transitions in height between low scale retail and similar development and taller buildings, but there may be no need for transitions between adjacent office developments. Therefore, the existing side and rear bulk-planes which apply when commercial development is adjacent to commercial development should also be re-examined. Next Steps UD12-l. Use this guideline in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UD12-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. UD12-3. In 1992, The Denver Planning Office will examine existing bulk-plane requirements to determine if they are effective in preventing out-of-scale development adjacent to low-scale residential areas along the Boulevard, and whether they are needed for new developments adjacent to commercial development. If modifications are appropriate, they will be incorporated in the proposed new development requirements. UD-13. Maximum Height Limitation Description Adopt and utilize a guideline that the maximum height of any building in the study area should not exceed the tallest

PAGE 63

THm existing structures, i.e., no more than 300'. The Denver zoning ordinance was amended in 1986 to incorporate special building height limitations for buildings within 175' of "protected" zone districts such as R-1 and R-2 .. While these limitations seem to adequately address building heights immediately adjacent to low density residential areas, concerns remain about the potential for building heights outside this 175' buffer, but within the Colorado Boulevard corridor. Intended Benefit Since most land parcels adjacent to the Boulevard are relatively small (at least in Denver), existing bulk plane limits make building heights of 300' or more largely unachievable. However, there are a few parcels large enough that such heights could be achieved. Buildings that exceed 300' are viewed as being incompatible with the mixed-use, non-downtown image desired for the area and should be prohibited. 57 ---- __ ..._ _..,........__.__:__ <... _.;. P L 00 Next Steps UD13-1. Use this guideline in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UD13-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. The process to create and implement these new requirements will begin in 1991. UD-14. Architectural Treatment on all Sides Description Adopt and implement a requirement that all sides of commercial buildings along the Boulevard be treated similarly in the use of quality materials and detailing in order to prevent having low quality, poorly designed facades visible from adjoining residential areas. This is not intended to require, however, that all sides have such features as doors and display windows.

PAGE 64

--"-----. ___ .. '"'-" _;._:.:.:..,: ---------:._ FIGURE13 Existing Building Heights I I -One or Two Three or Four Five or More BUILDING HEIGHT NLIWBER Of STORES c===J "'"'""""' r:::::J ll
PAGE 65

----------------____ :,. .. __ ......... -.. ... _.____:.._._.....; __ .., __ THE .Intended Benefit The dimensions and setting of development in the corridor mean that buildings will be viewed from various sides by motorists, pedestrians and adjacent neighbors. Because of this, all sides of buildings need the same attention and concern as is traditionally given to the front elevation. Next Steps UD14-1. Use this guideline in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard UD14-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. The process to create and implement these new requirements will begin in 1991. UD-15. Rear Buffers and Screening/ Access to Alleys Description Adopt and implement detailed requirements for rear buffers and screening treatments in order to improve the compatibility between non-residential uses and residential uses. There are two sets of standards; one for full-block deep commercial development, and the other for half-block deep commercial development For full-block deep commercial developments adjacent to residentially zoned areas with an intervening public street: 59 l 1 ;1 1 'j :l ,1 .j ------l bBJ ------J :._. __ --=-.... .,_._. ..... :. ---J Full commercial rear landscaping sets a streetscape buffer to residential Setback Buffer Width: 25' Planting Density: One tree and 8 shrubs per 500 square feet of landscaped area. Planting Mix: At least 60% of the total number of trees should be evergreen. 100% of the area under deciduous trees must be covered.with living groundcover or shrubs within 5 years of initial planting. Alternatively, a berm or low wall may be utilized. If it is, it should have a minimum height of 3 '0" and a maximum height of 4' above sidewalk grade, or a slope of 3: 1, and the following standards should apply:

PAGE 66

'<-- ---- : -- W o ___ : : "-'----" _...::..... .... --"; __ ...... ...... _. ----A" -voom Setback Buffer Width: 15' Planting Density: One tree and two shrubs for every 500 sq. ft. of area. Planting Mix: At least 50% of trees must be evergreen. 100% of the ground must be covered with living ground cover or shrubs within 5 years of initial planting. For half-block commercial developments adjacent to residential zones, with no intervening alley or street: Non-residential uses should be separated from residential uses by a high quality, solid opaque fence or wall along the intervening property line. This fence or wall should be constructed of durable materials and should be at least six ( 6) feet but not more than eight (8) feet high; provided, however, that if the non-residential zoning permits a building wall within five (5) feet of this property line, the building wall can serve as the separation and can exceed this height, consistent with bulk plane limits. In order for a building wall to qualify as a separation, it must not have doors, windows or service areas. Parking areas adjacent to residential uses must comply with the parking lot landscaping requirements; provided, however, that when more restrictive requirements are enacted in conjunction with implementation of the Boulevard Plan, those more restrictive requirements shall prevail. 60 Alternative landscaping treatments buJjer between residential and commercial properties. Pirect access from the commercial site to the alley should be discouraged. Alley traffic from commercial developments can have a significant adverse impact on adjacent residential properties and some sites may require additional measures to protect adjacent residential areas from adverse impacts of noise, light, and visual pollution. This is particularly likely to be the case when adequate service or site access cannot be provided except from the alley. Whenever possible, use of service areas near residential development will be restricted to the hours between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Intended Benefit Many existing structures impact adjacent residential development by casting glare and/or shadows, by overlooking front and backyards because they are placed too close to property lines, by being out of character with the yards and character of immediate

PAGE 67

' -----------______ :_ __ ___ ------------___ ...,._ -______ :._,. ______ ..;_ ____ _.:, ---.:.. ... :.-__,_, _______ _.;...._:. __ .:__ ___ _.:__. _____ -....<-------------------_______ --__ .::.. __ -----------.. area, or because of excessive noise which spills over from the commercial area. The recommendations are intended to ensure that these uses can better co-exist. Next Steps UD15-1. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. Larger landscaped btiffers are provided on full-block developments. UD15-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. UD-16. Service Area Screening Description Service areas should be screened on all sides by walls and fences, except where openings are required for access. The standards reflect two different situations: 1.) when the service area is 61 freestanding, and 2.) when it is attached to the building. 1. Freestanding Service Areas Freestanding service areas would include such things as trash container storage areas and transformers. The service area should be screened by a durable, high quality wall or fence which is at least the same height as the object being screened. When the service area wall is at the edge of a required front setback or side setback visible from a public right-of-way, the exposed side should be landscaped. Generally, trash containers should be placed away from public view, such as from alleys or Colorado Boulevard. The landscaped area should be a minimum 5' wide strip, planted with a continuous row of shrubs at a maximum rn Provide landscaping around trash enclosure screen walls.

PAGE 68

: ... __ _:._, _____ .. ---.__:_: ...:.:.: ......... .............. ..... ----.... ...., .. -----------------. -------------... ...,,_ -----spacing of 3' on center for the length of the fence or wall or alternately, one tree per side. This strip can be within any required setback. If the exposed side exceeds 25' in length, provide a minimum 8' wide strip with fence or wall and shrubs as specified above, in combination with an average of one tree every 30 linear feet for the length of the planting unless there is a fence or wall at property line. 2. Attached Service Areas The service area should be screened by a fence or wall of similar quality and materials used on the building. The service area may not intrude into any required building or parking lot setbacks. The wall should be. of at least the same height as the object to be Generally, trash containers should be placed away from public view, such as from alleys or Colorado Boulevard. Intended Benefit Screening will blend service areas into the overall development, and minimize visual blight, odors and noise. Next Steps UD 16-1. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard. UD16-2. Include in the proposed new development requirements. 62 SIGNS UD-17. Equalize Sign Requirements in Denver and Glendale Description The Denver and Glendale sign codes that apply along S. Colorado Boulevard should be essentially equivalent Intended Benefit Preliminary research by staff, and comments from the CAC, suggest that the current sign codes in both cities will, over time, lead to a higher quality image for the corridor as new developments and signs replace older ones. Those signs that are now viewed as problems were generally built before those codes were in their present form. However, staffs should seek to identify appropriate techniques for encouraging high quality sign design, perhaps through increases in allowed sign sizes. Next Steps UD17-1. Prepare a joint report analyzing the two sign and billboard codes and suggesting actions for resolving inconsistencies, incorporating other sign recommendations, and providing incentives for good design. UD17-2. As part of the submittal requirements for rezoning, a sign program should be required for larger, multiple-building projects which indicates on a site plan the sign locations, open space

PAGE 69

. around monument signs, elevations of each sign by type (i.e. project identification, tenant, wall/building mounted, etc.) and calculations of size, etc. Consolidate ground signs UD-18. Ground Mounted Signs Descriptions All ground mounted signs should be monument-style. For each square foot of sign face surface area, or two square feet for SIGN double faced signs, there should be at least 4 square feet of landscaped open space around the base of the sign. The maximum height of ground mounted signs should not exceed 15 feet unless needed by larger projects with numerous tenants for project identification signs. For these consolidated signs, height can be increased to no more than 20'. Intended Benefit This consistent treatment of ground mounted signs is intended to create a unifying, high quality image for the corridor. Next Steps UD18-l. Identify required implementing action as part of UD 17-1, above. UD18-2. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parc;els fronting the Boulevard. Sign types and locations help to identify business but should not add to confusing clutter with their number and placement. 63

PAGE 70

THE UD-19. Building Mounted Signs Description No lighted building-mounted signs should be pennitted more than 25' above the ground. The entire area of back-lit awnings should be regulated as signs if they include a graphic device or message. Intended Benefit Signs are an appropriate and beneficial feature of commercial areas such as Colorado Boulevard. However, without clear guidelines, the number and size of signs can proliferate--to everyone's ultimate disadvantage. Recently, there has been a trend toward the use of brightly colored back-lit awnings that incorporate commercial messages. These must be recognized and treated as signs. In addition, lighted signs which are mounted high on buildings are inappropriate in a commercial area which is so closely surrounded by low-density residential neighborhoods. Next Steps UD19-l. Identify required implementing action as part of UD 17-1, above. UD19-2. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zones in the corridor. 64 UD-20. Billboards Description There should be no new billboards along the corridor, and existing ones should be taken down if the site is redeveloped. Intended Benefit Over time, billboards along Colorado Boulevard should be eliminated in order to improve the aesthetic character of the Boulevard. Next Steps UD20-1. Identify required implementation action as part of UD 17-1, above. UD20-2. Use these guidelines in the review of all new development proposals in commercial, R-4, PUD and PSD zone parcels fronting the Boulevard.

PAGE 71

THE VI. IMPLEMENTATION Following the approval of the Denver Planning Board and the Glendale Planning Commission the Plan was submitted to the respective city councils. Following its adoption by these bodies, the' individual agencies identified in the Next Steps section of the various recommendations are now directly responsible for carrying it out Indirectly, there will be many additional agencies (e.g., the Colorado Department of Ttansportation, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Regional Transportation District, etc.) as well as neighborhood organizations, businesses and property owners that will need to work closely with the Cities of Denver and Glendale to implement the plan recommendations. There are four general categories of plan implementation that will be pursued: 1. ordinance revision, 2. development review, 3. follow-up studies, and 4. capital project programming Ordinance revisions will be needed to serve as the legal and administrative basis for carrying out a number of the land use and urban design recommendations. Even before that, some of the recommendations can be carried out during the development review processes of each city. Once the legal basis is in place, the balance of the recommendations can be incorporated in that process. Some of the recommended Next Steps are for follow-up studies of issues that were too complex or detailed to 65 be resolved in this overall plan development process. Those studies may lead to additional action recommendations. It was the consensus of the CAC that, regardless of when some of the changes are made in development requirements that apply to projects developed under conventional zoning, all future redevelopment proposals along the Boulevard in Denver be encouraged to be submitted as Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. This will facilitate the application of the recommendations in this plan to all developments, even before the recommendations are adopted as part of the conventional development and zoning requirements. Of course, the specific recommendations with respect to private development will only be realized as individual properties along the Boulevard redevelop. Thus, it will be a long time before all development along the Boulevard is consistent with these recommendations. Many transportation recommendations will be implemented over time as capital funds become available to make improvements. Adopting. the plan does not guarantee that the funds will be available. However, the plan does serve as the primary basis for funding requests, and projects recommended in formally adopted plans often have priority over those that are not. Funds for transportation projects can be sought from a variety of sources, including local funds from Denver and Glendale, and

PAGE 72

------; _____ --------...... .. -------------Pl A 00 Figure 14 IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY(S) Denver Public Works Colorado Department of Transportation Denver Regional Council of Governments Regional Transportation Districxt TaskForce Denver Planning Office Glendale other/notes TRANSPORTATION: T-1 Multi-Year Intersection X X X Perfonn Design Studies and Obtain Improvement Program Construction Funding T-2 Key Bottleneck Studies X X X Study Major Construction Projects if Minor Improvements Become Inadequate T-3 Traffic Signal Timing Plan X X Comprehensive Corridor Study T-4 Accel-Decel I Transit lanes X X Continue to Require Dedication as and Curb Cuts Redevelopment Occurs T-5 Pedestrian I Bicycle X X X Include in Intersecton Projects, Development Connections Review, and Denver 1992 Citywide Bike Plan T-6 Transit X X X X X Cities Work with RID on bus stop Improvements; Task Force works with RTD on Promotions; Continue to seek funding for Southeast Rapit Transit T-7 Employer Based Trip X X Continue support for regional trip reductions Reduction program initiatives T-8 Transportation management X X X X Cities Assist in fonnation of Task Force and Organization Task Force Study Transportation Management Association Role T-9 Right of Way Maintenance X X X X Task Force Evaluates Propery Owners' role; Denver Assesses Maintenance Prioritization 66

PAGE 73

P L 00 Figure 15 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES through PUD and other rezoning Legend through development review 1. Primary Implementation Strategy amendments to Parkway/Blvd. ordinance (Chap 49 Art II) 2. Secondary Improvements Strategy amendments to building restrictions (Chap. 10) 3. Implementation Whenever Possible citywide zoning revisions PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS notes Land Use: LU-1 Overall Development Cap 1 LU-2 Land Use Mix 1 3 LU-3 On-site Parking 1 1 Urban Design: UD-1 Sidewalk Standard 1 Implementation by Public Works UD-2 Street Trees 3 3 1 Implementation by Public Works and Zoning (through parking lot landscaping requirements) Ud-3 Street Lighting 1 Implementation by Public Works and Colorado Department of Transportation UD-4 Bus Stop Improvements 3 3 Implementation by Planning Office and RTD; request easements from developers UD-5 Boulevard Median Design by Planning Office and Parks Dept.; locations evaluated by Public Works; CIP UD-6 Local Street Medians Planning Office to develop prototype; neighborhood organizations to build & maintain UD-7a Parking Lot Screening 3 3 1 UD-7b Entry Medians 3 3 UD-8 Front Setback and Landscaping 3 3 1 Planning Office will develop prototype site layouts UD-9 Building Placement 3 3 1 UD-10 Building Entrance Orientation 3 3 1 UD-11 Building Facades 3 1 Architectural review process to be developed by Planning Office UD-12 Upper Level Setbacks 3 2 1 Planning Office will evaluate existing bulk plane limits UD-13 Maximum Height Limitations 3 1 UD-14 Architectural Treatment on all Sides 3 3 1 UD-15 Rear Buffers & Screening/Alleys 3 3 1 UD-16 Service Area Screening 3 2 1 UD-17 Equalize Applicable sign Requirements, Glendale & Denver 3 2 2 Intergovernmental cooperation UD-18 Ground-mounted Signs 3 2 2 UD-19 Building-mounted Signs 3 2 2 2 UD-20 Billboards 3 3 1 67

PAGE 74

THE state and federal funds administered by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Even so, implementation of all of the projects recommended in this plan, even under the most favorable of funding circumstances, is expected to take ten to twenty years. Finally, though formal adoption of the plan is an expression of the community's shared vision and goals for this area, many of the recommendations are consistent with, or extensions of, current practice, and will be implemented on that basis. For example, new developments are already required to provide acceleration-deceleration lanes and sidewalks. Also, Denver and Glendale have successfully sought funding assistance from the Denver Regional Council of Governments to develop a detailed traffic signal retiming program. They have also successfully sought funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation to repave a significant portion of the Boulevard within the study area. This plan will only strengthen and broaden the scope of the communitywide effort to improve Colorado Boulevard. The general implementation process is reflec.ted in Figure 16. Figure 16 Approval I Implementation Process I COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMIITEE I 1 I PUBLIC REVIEW I 1 I PLANNING BOARD/COMMISSION I I l CITY COUNCIL(S) I 1 I IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES I _l I I l I ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOW-UP I. CAPITAL REVISION REVIEW STUDIES PROGRAMS 68

PAGE 75

ORDINANCE NO. 421 SERIES OF 1991 A BILL COUNCIL BILL NO. 396 FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A BOULEVARD PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD, WIDCH PLAN SHALL BECOME A PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41-18(c) OF THE REVISEUMUNICIPAL CODE AND OF ORDINANCE NO. 617, SERIES OF 1989. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-18(c) of the Revised Municipal Code, and by Ordinance No. 617, Series of 1989, there has been approved a Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of Denver; and WHEREAS, said Section of the Revised Municipal Code provides for the amendment of said plan; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 617, Series of 1989, provides for the incorporation of other documents into the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, as a proposed part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Director has transmitted to the Mayor and Council for acceptance a proposed development framework for South Colorado Boulevard for the orderly and harmonious development of South Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and Iliff Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Mayor has approved the same; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has approved the same; and .. WHEREAS, The Boulevard Plan was prepared with significant involvement of the owners and representatives of the various interests of South Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and lliff Avenue and has been approved by the same; and WHEREAS, a member of City Council in whose council district the neighborhood plan is has the process whereby said plan was formulated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER: Section 1. .That the proposed development framework for South Colorado Boulevard for the harmonious development of South Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and lliff Avenue, consisting of a document entitled 'The Boulevard Plan," filed with the City Clerk, Ex-Officio Clerk of the City and County of Denver, on the 29th day of 1991, as City Clerk's Filing No. 91-450, is hereby approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 41-18( c) of the Revised Municipal Code, and Ordinance No. 617, Series of1989. Section 2. the approval of The Boulevard Plan, and of any subsequent amendment thereto, is intended to establish the same, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, as the official guide for officials of the City and County of Denver and private citizens when making decisions affecting the future character of South Colorado Boulevard between 1st Avenue and lliff Avenue; provided, however, that such approval shall not preempt the decision making powers vested by law or the administrative directive in the Mayor, the Council or any other official of the City and County of Denver with respect to, but not limited to, a zoning map amendment, a zoning language a dedication or vacation of a street, alley or other public way, a designation of a park, the issuance of a revocable permit, a conveyance or the acquisition of real property by the City and County of Denver, of an appropriation for or construction of a capital improvement; and provided, further,. that it is expressly understood that judgment must be exercised in the application of The Boulevard Plan recommendations in the decision making processes of the Mayor, Council and other officials of the City and County of Denver. PASSED BY V. PRESIDENT APPROVED: -'MAYOR /K AND RECORDER, EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE 1991 CITY AND COUNTY 0 DENVER PUBLISHED IN 1991 1991 PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 5/29/91 REVIEWED CITY ATTORNEY ::j8 1991 SPONSORED BY