Transforming the Front Range:

Mixed Use Districts; Reconfigured Streets;ÊPedestrian Places
William Fleissig

US 36 TMO PRESENTATION:

Transforming the Front Range:

Mixed Use Districts; Reconfigured Streets; Pedestrian Places
William Fleissig
Continuum Partners

Development Mega-trends (5+ Years)

• Dispersed, multiple centers in the metro region
• Geographic and economic segregation of old and new housing
• Continued traffic congestion causing reduced environmental quality
• Baby boom demographic bulge
• Securitization of financing sources
• Increased civic ambitions by communities
• Custom vs Formula building types

Planning Mega-trends

• Term limits shorten planning time horizons
• NIMBY’s and neighborhood organizations: impact analyses = planning ;
• Old zoning begets auto dominated development and many, many special reviews
• Significant conflict at the project approval stage (not when district plans are debated)
• Disappointment with design guidelines and city staff review
• Design-based planning vs. magic marker planning

Defining Suburban Scale

1. Predominance of single use development
   – (zoning, marketing and underwriting criteria)
2. Reliance on SOV for 95% of trips
   – (minimal transit and subsidies for road construction)
3. Large development parcels
   – (subdivision rules, parking standards, financing)
4. Lack of pedestrian destinations
   – (minimal density and mixed use)
5. Lack of walkable streets and connections
   – (road standards and few sidewalks)

Defining Suburban Scale

6. Lack of small neighborhood parks
   – (park standards)
7. Formula building and landscape design
   – (zoning, corporate branding, design guidelines)
8. Minimal sustainable design and development
   – (building codes, financing requirements)
9. Limited work-force housing
   – (city development fees, NIMBYS, employer myopia)
10. Less time and greater distances
    – (subsidized freeways, low energy costs, car advertising, WalMart effect, school location standards)

Local Interventions

• Rezone for mixed use destinations
• Create new building and park prototypes
• Add pedestrian scaled street standards
• Initiate mobility and transit improvements
• Reduce impacts of new development
  (via Local Smart Growth Program including a Smart Development Scorecard)

Typical Planning Hierarchy

Emerging Design/Policy Hierarchy

Past “Trend-bender” Prototypes

• Country Club Plaza, Kansas City — 1920’s
• Levittown, New York — 1940’s
• Southdale Center Mall, Minneapolis — 1950’s
• Sea Ranch, CA — 1960’s
• Faneuil Hall, Boston — 1970’s
• Reston Town Center, Virginia — 1980’s
• Seaside, Florida — 1990’s
• Mizner Park, Florida — 1990’s

Emerging “Trend-bender” Projects

• Suburban Refill
• Mixed-Income Housing
• Transit-Oriented, Mixed-Use Development
• “Third Sector” Master Developer
• Long-Term Value Buildings (hold position by developer)

Local Smart Growth Program

1. Smart Scale Assessment
2. Incremental Milestones
3. Community Prototypes
4. Smart Scorecard Checklist
5. Local Demonstration Projects
6. Modify Codes And Standards

Smart Scale

Incremental Milestones

• Examine assessment -- what categories are out of alignment (particularly strong or weak?)
• Realistic milestones -- in each category, what could be improved in coming 3-4 years?
• Work program -- establish sequence of tangible achievements and likely partners (including time for partnership, collaboration and education).
• Budget and schedule -- identify range of cost, likely sources and realistic timeframe.

Community Prototypes

• Typical block patterns
• Lot patterns related to house size
• Street standards
• Park and open space standards
• Landscape palette
• Parking requirements and trip generation
• Typical floor sizes and critical site dimensions
• Core/circulation elements
• Typical FAR’s
• General massing
• Floor heights
• Land costs
• Site and off site costs
• Building construction costs
• Allocation for tenant improvements
• Rental income (market standard)
• Operating expenses
• Service access
• Energy standards

Smart Scorecard Strategies

1. Should be designed as an incremental tool
2. Can be applied broadly for most plans and projects
3. Reflects appropriate scale:
        Project
        District
        Corridor

Smart Scorecard Strategies

4. Can be tailored for different physical settings:
        Center City
        Stand Alone City
        Inner Suburb
        Outer Suburb
        Small Town
5. Use a limited number of benchmark measures as milestones
6. Measures should emphasize critical relationships and characteristics

10 Critical Components Of The Smart Scorecard

1. Proximity To Existing/Future Development And Infrastructure;
2. Mix And Balance Of Uses;
3. Site Optimization And Compactness;
4. Accessibility And Mobility Choices;
5. Community Context And Site Design;
6. Fined-grained Block, Pedestrian And Park Network;
7. Environmental Quality;
8. Diversity;
9. Re-use And Redevelopment Options;
10. Process Collaboration And Predictability Of Decisions

Modify Codes And Standards

• Identify design character that community supports
• Demonstrate how current code/standards prohibit desired outcomes
• Prepare graphic analyses of typical site developments
• Have designers, developers and residents react and make suggestions
• Modify code requirements and show what community can expect “by-right” (and overall impacts from recommended changes)
• Adopt new code, with expectation that it would come back to Planning Board in 2-3 years for fine tuning

East End Project Special Review (3+ Years)

Mixed Use Zones

• MU-X — Mixed-Use Redeveloping:
  – Offices, shops and high density housing along major transit corridor
• BMS-X — Business Main Street Redeveloping:
  – “Village center” with neighborhood services
• MU-D — Mixed Use Developing:
  – Transition between Main Street and mixed-density residential
• RMS-X — Residential Main Street Redeveloping:
  – Transition between Main Street commercial and established residential districts
• IMS-X — Industrial Main Street Redeveloping:
  – Live/Work transition between Main Street and Industrial districts

Principal Design Criteria

• Building Placement
  – Frontage requirements, Building or Courtyard
• Building Height , # Of Stories
  – Variable story setback
  – min floor-to-floor first story
• Floor Area/ Intensity Of Use
  – Split FAR for commercial and residential use
  – Keep floor area calculation simple w/o design drivers
• Parking Requirements
  – 1 per residential unit, 1 : 400 or 1 : 500 for non-residential
  – Address underground parking, perhaps with incentives
  – Allow tandem parking, particularly for residential
• Uses
  – Illustrate how uses are organized: vertical or horizontal
  – Keep uses flexible, allow market to control use
  – Investigate how change of use may cause problems: parking demand; building code
• Open Space
  – Insure that open space is well-defined, functional, accessible to public

Mixed-use Zoning Districts

Ninth and Pearl Business Main Street (BMS-X)

Eighth and Pearl Business Main Street (BMS-X)

• 5 residential units
• 11,000 SF office/retail
• 70 % Frontage within 10 feet of PL
• Parking at 1: 400
• .67 FAR comm’l.
• .33 FAR res.
• Total FAR = 1 : 1
• Site Area = 18,000 SF

Twelve Maples Mixed-Use Redeveloping (MU-X)

18th and Pearl Mixed-Use Redeveloping (MU-X)

20th and Pearl MU-X

Steel Yards IMS-X, BMS-X, TB-D

Continuum Partners:

Dedicated to Creating Human Habitats of Extraordinary Character and Enduring Value

Continuum Partners, Llc

• Developers of mixed use, urban infill projects
• Pedestrian and transit orientation
• Focus on the creation and maintenance of long term value
• Project examples – 16 Market Square, Bradburn and Belmar

16 Market Square

Bradburn – Mixed Use Village

Main Street

Site Plan

Bradburn Elevation

Old Villa Italia Shopping Mall (Circa 1967)

Belmar Mansion

Emerging Downtown District -- Belmar

Belmar Today

Major Elements

• Street grid and walkable streets
• Four anchors – 2 major retailers, cinema and grocery
• Public plaza and pedestrian main street form the heart
• Structured parking minimizes need for surface lots
• Office employment environment
• Village green and adjacent housing – a neighborhood
• Upgrading of Alameda and Wadsworth

Belmar Program

Belmar Phasing

Belmar Site Plan

Retail

Office

Residential

Mix Of Housing Types

Infrastructure Finance - Costs

• Land and related costs
  (remediation, demolition, relocation, consolidation, etc.)
  
• $25 million
• Total land, infrastructure and related soft costs
  
• $179 million
• Total bond proceeds (significant role of public parking)
  $120 million

Current Project Status

• Site acquired – September 1999
• Rezoning completed – April 2001
• Redevelopment and Public Finance Agreements – April 2002
• Tenants relocated – July 2002
• Demolition complete – August 2002
• Environmental remediation begun – August 2002
• Grading and utility construction commenced – October 2002
• Vertical construction commences – March 2003
• Phase I opening – Spring 2004

Project Collaboration – The Cornerstone Plan

• City of Lakewood
• Lakewood Redevelopment Authority
• Alameda Gateway Association (Property Owners)
• Rapid Transit District
• GSA (Federal Center)

• Consultants – Dover, Kohl Partners and Charlier Associates

Transforming the Front Range: Critical Components

• Collaborative vision and self assessment;
• Desired physical character articulated by larger community;
• Incremental milestones linked to political terms;
• Demonstration prototypes to accelerate market and policy changes (e.g. narrow streets, MXD buildings, pocket parks, jitney transit, work force housing, green development);
• Development Scorecard to help evaluate proposed projects;
• Graphic tools to help set expectations regarding code changes in redeveloping areas;
• Articulate desired building envelopes but be flexible regarding uses;
• Design “consultation” with professional assistance to follow through with details.

Back to Presentation