Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/17/2004 - RESOLUTION 2004-028 ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE DO
Final Draft 01-15-2004 D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - i Downtown Strategic Plan January 2004 Prepared by: Community Planning & Environmental Services Advance Planning Department 281 N College Av/PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Tel: 970-221-6376 Email: aplanning@fcgov.com Web: www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning ii - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - iii Credits CITY COUNCIL Ray Martinez – Mayor Bill Bertschy – Mayor Pro Tem Eric Hamrick Kurt Kastein David Roy Marty Tharp Karen Weitkunat DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Chip Steiner, Executive Director Mary Brayton Kim Jordan Jason Meadors Larry Stroud Steve Taylor Carey Hewitt PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Jennifer Carpenter Glen Colton Sally Craig Jerry Gavaldon Judy Meyer Brigitte Schmidt Mikal Torgerson DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION David Short, Executive Director Darin Atteberry Laura Bremer Alex Cooke Ted Devitt Rich Harter Kevin Jones Jeff Nuttall Anita Olin Debbie Reider Ed Stoner Lee Swanson Steve Taylor David Zamzow iv - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N CITY STAFF John F. Fischbach – City Manager Greg Byrne – CPES Director Joe Frank – Advance Planning Director Cameron Gloss – Current Planning Director Claudia Haack-Benedict – GIS Manager Dennis Harrison – Chief of Police Ron Phillips – Transportation Director Mike Smith – Utilities General Manager John Stokes – Natural Resources Director Paul Eckman – Deputy City Attorney CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP Sally Craig – Planning and Zoning Board Ted Devitt – Restaurant/Downtown Business Association Dave Edwards - Resident Bob Flynn – Community Interests Jim Franzen – Resident/Office Bud Frick – Landmark Preservation Commission Tom Gleason - Banks Rick Goodale – Non-retail Professional/Downtown Development Authority Dan Gould – Transportation Board Rich Harter – Fort Collins Conventions and Visitors Bureau Maddy Weisz – Employee/Resident Carey Hewitt – Merchant/Downtown Development Authority Timothy Johnson – Transportation Board (Alternate) Les Kaplan – Commercial Property Owner Scott Leary – Entertainment and Drinking Establishments Ann Marie Merline – Neighborhood Representative Debbie Reider – Merchant/Downtown Business Association Joe Rowan - Housing Steve Slezak – Property Owner/Developer Mimi Somermeyer - Employee Steve Taylor – Restaurant/Downtown Development Authority Bill Ward – Office Business Owner David Zamzow - Office D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - v TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE City of Fort Collins Timothy Wilder, Co-Project Manager, Advance Planning Clark Mapes, Co-Project Manager, Advance Planning Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Pete Wray, Advance Planning Senior Planner Randy Hensley, Transportation Planning and Parking Manager John Daggett, (formerly) Transportation Project Manager Darin Atteberry, Assistant City Manager Frank Bruno, (formerly) Assistant City Manager Troy Jones, Current Planning City Planner Rick Richter, Transportation Engineer Roger Buffington, Utilities Development Review Supervisor Bob Micek, Utilities Planning Engineer Bob Loeven, Parks and Recreation Manager Katy Carpenter, GIS Programmer/Analyst Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations Engineer Michelle Pawar, (formerly), Natural Resources Director Jack Gianola, Operation Services Special Projects Manager Ken Mannon, Operation Services Director Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Ruthanne Kastner, Neighborhood Resources Office Manager Alan Krcmarik, Finance Office Mike Walker, Police Officer Adam McCambridge, Police Officer Mike Steele, Police Officer Garold Smith III, Transfort Planning Specialist, Chip Steiner, DDA Executive Director David Short, DBA Executive Director Consultant Team Civitas, Inc. Eric Anderson, Principal in Charge Richard Farley, Lead Urban Designer J.J. Folsom, Project Leader/Urban Designer Progressive Urban Management Associates (PUMA) Brad Segal, Principal Pamela Phox, Market Analyst Anna Jones, Research Associate Mile High Development Bill Mosher, President Urban Marketing Collaborative (UMC) Maureen Atkinson, President and Senior Consultant John Williams, Principal John Archer, Research and Analysis Design Collaborative, Inc. Elizabeth Lancaster, Public Process Leader vi - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N URS Rick Ensdorff, Senior Associate K C Collins, Transportation Planner Ed Hocker, Senior Transportation Planner Ordonez & Vogelsang, LLC Beth Ordonez, Principal – Transportation Planner Carl Walker, Inc. L. Dennis Burns, Director of Studies and Operations Consulting Mathew Inman, Planner Scot Martin, Functional Design, Project Manager S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 1 S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 2 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I – Project Summary .......................................................... 3-18 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3 The Public Process ..................................................................................................... 5 Market Summary ....................................................................................................... 6 What Is a Market-Based Plan? ........................................................................................... 6 Downtown Fort Collins and its Market: Summary of 2002-03 Market Information ................... 6 Urban Design Summary .............................................................................................. 9 Strengths......................................................................................................................... 9 Weaknesses..................................................................................................................... 9 Transportation Summary ........................................................................................... 11 Approach ....................................................................................................................... 11 Strengths.......................................................................................................................11 Weaknesses................................................................................................................... 11 Overall Conclusions .................................................................................................. 12 The Current Situation (2003) ........................................................................................... 12 The Overall Strategy of This Plan....................................................................................... 12 Top Recommendations ............................................................................................. 14 Principle 1: Protect and manage the Downtown retail/entertainment district ......................... 14 Principle 2: Utilize the energy from the core to leverage and attract new development ............ 15 Principle 3: Blend the Downtown retail/entertainment district with adjacent neighborhoods ..... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1.2 DDA Market Share* of City Net Taxable Sales Trends: 1995-2001 ...................... 8 Figure 1.3 Downtown Fort Collins Commercial Construction Activity: 1990-2002* ................ 8 Figure 1.4 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.5 Framework Diagram...................................................................................... 13 Figure 1.6 Meeting and Event Log.................................................................................. 17 S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 3 Section I – Project Summary PURPOSE In a collaborative effort in 2002-2003, the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Business Association (DBA), and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) commissioned the Downtown Strategic Plan. The first objective for the Downtown Strategic Plan was to study current conditions and trends. The second was to recommend steps the City and business leaders should take together to protect and enhance the viability and success of Downtown, with emphasis on the next five years. This plan accomplishes these objectives. This plan is intended to be used as the foundation for an update of the 1989 Downtown Plan. Recommendations from the Framework Plan in Section II are to be used to update and replace relevant policies and actions in the Downtown Plan, while the Market Analysis in Section III and Transportation Analysis in Section IV will provide background information. These Downtown Plan updates will take place shortly after Downtown Strategic Plan is finalized, and will in turn supercede and replace both this plan and the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. Downtown Fort Collins is the vibrant heart and soul of this community, with a history and neighborhood fabric warranting preservation and enhancement. Downtown is anchored by a historic retail and entertainment district (or “energy zone”), an area of unique and vital businesses located along selected blocks of College Avenue, Old Town Square and the immediate vicinity. While this central energy zone is a significant destination attraction, the future of Downtown is vulnerable due to a lack of other significant economic activities and attractions needed to support this district (see Figure 1.1). These vulnerabilities include: ! Lack of major private sector employment ! Lack of destination attractions such as cultural facilities ! Minimal private sector development activity since 1995 ! High susceptibility; the loss of four or five key retail/restaurant businesses could quickly erode vitality ! Disruptive behavior, maintenance challenges and other problems associated with several drinking establishments Public meeting. S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 4 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _____________________________________________ Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 5 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document is somewhat different than a typical land use plan. Because of the very different nature of the topics (i.e. transportation, marketing), the amount of text accompanying each one, and the fact that the Downtown Plan update will incorporate Framework Plan recommendations, each section is “stand alone” from other sections. This will enable discussion of a particular section without providing the whole plan, saving resources and time. To accomplish this, there is some duplication of text and maps between sections. The document is organized into the following sections: I. Project Summary II. Framework Plan Recommendations III. Market Analysis IV. Transportation Analysis THE PUBLIC PROCESS An open public involvement process was important for the success of this plan, given the many individuals and groups benefiting from the vibrancy of Downtown. Some of the stakeholders involved included Downtown business and property owners, residents, employees, shoppers, consumers, public officials, City staff, recreational users, and related boards and groups. A Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) was established, comprised of Downtown stakeholders and area-wide community leaders, who provided input from a variety of perspectives. A second decision-making group was a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of staff from the City, DBA and DDA. In addition, TAC held numerous individual and group interviews, presented information to many public and private groups, held 4 public open houses, held work sessions with the Planning and Zoning Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, Transportation Board, and other City boards and commissions, and lastly presented findings to City Council during study sessions. The public involvement plan involved the following individuals and groups (over 350 people) in order to gather as much input as possible: ! City Council ! DDA and DBA: via individuals, special work teams, and joint board meetings ! Planning and Zoning Board ! Landmark Preservation Commission ! Natural Resources Advisory Board ! Transportation Board ! Citizen Advisory Group (business leaders, owners, residents, community-wide representatives, etc.) ! Technical Advisory Committee ! Community members ! Residents from the Downtown, West Side and East Side Neighborhoods ! Downtown merchants See Figure 1.6 for the meeting and event log. S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 6 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N MARKET SUMMARY What Is a Market-Based Plan? Philosophy Successful Downtowns determine their competitive advantages and niches within the context of local and regional markets. A market-based plan is consumer and user focused and builds upon the inherent strengths of Downtown, as opposed to developing grand schemes or themes that aim to reinvent Downtown. An understanding of Downtown’s markets and its unique niches in the marketplace guides the crafting and implementation of strategies, incentives and capital improvements. Approach The market-based planning approach first aims to develop an understanding of: ! Economic profile and trends ! Consumer attitudes ! Stakeholder perceptions ! Retail environment ! Competition ! Regulatory environment Analysis of this information results in recommendations for: ! Downtown’s competitive advantages and niche strategies ! Development districts and opportunity sites ! Creating an environment to attract investment with tactics that include business and retail development, regulatory policies and incentives, environmental improvements including urban design, parking, marketing, management and financing. Downtown Fort Collins and its Market: Summary of 2002-03 Market Information Section III’s Market Analysis includes the following components: ! An audit of existing retail ! Intercept and telephone surveys of consumer attitudes and patterns ! A comprehensive economic profile ! Recommended niche strategy Retail Audit The retail audit consists of a space and use inventory, and a critical review of Downtown’s commercial businesses, done by Urban Marketing Collaborative (UMC) during the summer of 2002. The audit revealed the following characteristics about Downtown retail: ! There are 364 ground floor commercial businesses in Downtown Fort Collins occupying nearly 750,000 square feet of space. ! Retail vacancy rates are low, estimated at 6% (note: according to Realtec, retail vacancies dropped to approximately 4% in 2003, near the end of this planning process). ! Home and leisure products occupy more than 25% of the retail square footage. ! Eating and drinking establishments occupy 23% of the retail square footage, significantly higher than the less-than-20% found in most Downtown markets. ! The quality of operations at a majority of the Downtown stores is extremely good. Most are clean, professional, competitive, well stocked and well managed – unique characteristics for a Downtown market of this size. S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 7 ! There are no strong clusters of particular types of stores and retail operations within Downtown. Consumer Intercept and Telephone Surveys UMC conducted 100 consumer intercept and 200 Fort Collins resident telephone surveys during June and July of 2002. Key consumer attitudes revealed by the surveys included: ! Downtown is characterized as “outstanding” in its level of local customer penetration and frequency of repeat visits. Downtown attracts nearly everyone from every corner of the city, with 89% of respondents indicating that they have used Downtown within the last six months. 61% of respondents come Downtown once a week or more. ! Restaurants and bars are the key drivers for Downtown visitation – 43% of respondents indicated that this is their most important reason for visiting. ! Key Downtown activities include restaurants/bars (73%), shopping (55%) and entertainment (32%). Shopping is strongest for gifts (51%), personal services (48%), arts/crafts (42%) and books/music (41%). ! Downtown’s ambiance (48%) and physical environment (34%) are cited as key strengths. ! Downtown exceeds expectations of residents on selection of restaurants, appearance, unique businesses, being open on Sundays and activities. Economic Profile A comprehensive economic profile was completed by Progressive Urban Management Associates (PUMA). The profile, which was completed in January 2003, includes market data on demographics, sales tax, attractions, workforce, real estate indicators, traffic and crime statistics. Key findings from the economic profile included: ! Census data suggests that residents south of Prospect Road are more likely to have higher incomes; however, demographic similarities exist between north and south if student demographics are taken out of the equation. ! Downtown’s primary attractions include the main library (450,000 annual visits), Lincoln Center events (330,000 annual visits) and Downtown Business Association events (500,000 annual visits). ! Downtown’s employment is anchored by institutions -- government, education and health. Compared to other cities of similar size, Fort Collins lacks a strong private sector employment presence Downtown. ! Colorado State University students and employees are two significant market segments with considerable disposable income predisposed to patronize the Downtown. ! With the exception of Wal-Mart, which is on the fringe of Downtown, most new Downtown development over the past ten years has been dominated by public sector projects and investment. ! While Downtown sales tax receipts have continued to climb in recent years, Downtown’s overall market share in Fort Collins has decreased. Eating and drinking establishments have consistently generated about 20% of total Downtown sales tax since 1995. Recommended Niche Strategy Based upon the findings of the UMC retail audit, consumer surveys, economic profile and stakeholder interviews, the following niche strategy is recommended for Downtown Fort Collins: “Downtown is a historically authentic commercial destination with a focus on culture, entertainment and unique one-of-a-kind shopping.” S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 8 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _____________________________________________ Figure 1.2 DDA Market Share* of City Net Taxable Sales Trends: 1995-2001 Source: Tax Office, Colorado Department of Revenue *Excludes Wal-Mart 14.4% 13.6% 13.2% 13.3% 12.3% 12.0% 12.6% $0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 12.0% 12.5% 13.0% 13.5% 14.0% 14.5% % of Growth of Net Taxable Sales 15.0% Net Taxable Sales DDA Market Share _____________________________________________ Figure 1.3 Downtown Fort Collins Commercial Construction Activity: 1990-2002* Source: City of Fort Collins – Building Permits & Inspections *encompasses permits for new construction, additions and remodels $0 $3,500,000 $7,000,000 $10,500,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Valuation ($) S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 9 URBAN DESIGN SUMMARY The following urban design strengths and weaknesses were identified by the consulting team: Strengths ! High quality stock of historic buildings ! Existing streetscape adequate in condition for most of Downtown ! Walkable street grid and block size for most of Downtown ! High occupancy of on-street parking ! Healthy surrounding neighborhoods within walking distance, enhanced by large mature trees ! Old Town Square, an effective focal point and gathering space for pedestrians ! A clear sense of place ! Warm, human-scaled buildings, streetscape materials, and details ! Variety of spaces and paths – a place to explore ! Very few ‘holes’ in the street frontages (in the core area) ! Low retail vacancy rate compared to Downtowns in other communities ! Amenity of the river in close proximity to Downtown Weaknesses ! Many pedestrian crossings at street intersections, linking surrounding neighborhoods and the Poudre River corridor, are in disrepair ! Jefferson Street forms a barrier between Downtown and the Poudre River ! Wayfinding to and within Downtown is lacking ! Little sense of arrival into Downtown because of the absence of gateways ! Difficult pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Poudre River ! A lack of housing in and adjacent to the Downtown core and the kind of service-oriented businesses (such as a neighborhood market near the West Side Neighborhood, video rental, shoe repair, etc.) they bring with them ! Land uses along Jefferson Street, which is an important face to Downtown, are negatively affected by truck traffic ! No clear transition between the higher intensity commercial core and adjoining low density neighborhoods to the south and west ! Beyond the government center, a lack of large private sector office uses S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 10 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _____________________________________________ Figure 1.4 Existing Conditions S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 11 TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY A competitive, successful Downtown relies upon adequate transportation infrastructure and related services to allow people efficient, convenient access and mobility. The roadways, parking facilities, bikeways and sidewalks are the “backbone” of an economically successful Downtown. Approach Section IV – the Transportation Analysis - provides a facility inventory, an assessment of near- term and long-term development potential and system constraints, and strategies to handle future traffic, parking, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement Downtown. The elements of the transportation plan include the following: ! Above-Grade and Below-Grade Infrastructure ! Parking Facilities and Services ! Traffic Circulation ! Transit Services ! Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities ! Freight Mobility The existing conditions assessment included an inventory of above-grade and below-grade infrastructure, traffic volumes and intersection operations, existing transit services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities and routings into and around Downtown. Parking analyses were conducted of on- and off-street supply and turnover for weekdays and weekends. In addition a land use inventory and database were created as a base for parking supply and demand analysis. Plus surveys of parking users and business owners were conducted to gain feedback on on-street parking options. A freight survey was also conducted to assess the efficiency of Downtown deliveries, use of existing loading zones, and potential for improved delivery regulations. A traffic analysis was performed to evaluate total traffic volumes, directional travel patterns, and roadway capacity constraints within the study area. The existing conditions inventory revealed several important strengths and weaknesses about the Downtown transportation system: Strengths ! Most below-grade utilities are sized to accommodate future growth and do not present a barrier to Downtown development. ! Sidewalk conditions are generally in good to excellent condition, offer sufficient capacity and are a unique asset to Downtown. ! Downtown possesses a parking supply of over 9,000 spaces within the study area, many of which are underutilized throughout the day. Weaknesses ! From the standpoint of traffic mobility, the majority of traffic travels north-south on College Avenue, with limited use of the Howes/Mason couplet. ! Parking structures are underutilized at certain times while demand for on-street parking is high and turnover throughout the day is very low. ! Jefferson Street acts as a barrier to Downtown with an unfriendly pedestrian environment due to the noise, truck traffic, distance and condition of pedestrian crossings. S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 12 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N ! Sidewalks are missing along Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue, between Downtown and the Poudre River Trail. ! Discontinuous bicycle facilities within Downtown limit the effectiveness of the Downtown bicycle circulation system. ! Due to inadequate compliance, the Bicycle Dismount Zone through the core Downtown may not improve pedestrian safety. ! Current transit service in Downtown suffers from circuitous and duplicative routing, limited connections to CSU and limited service to varied attractions Downtown. ! Freight mobility and delivery Downtown is not subject to regulations on timing or location of delivery and often results in traffic congestion, ineffective use of loading zones and excessive noise and diesel fumes on Downtown streets. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The Current Situation (2003) Downtown is anchored by an existing retail and entertainment district in the historic core. This is seen as the “energy zone” -- the source and focus of Downtown’s energy – with unique and vital businesses located along several blocks of College Avenue, Old Town Square and the immediate vicinity. While this central “energy zone” is a significant destination attraction, Downtown is vulnerable due to a lack of other significant economic activities and attractions to support the core. Specific vulnerabilities include: ! Lack of major private sector employment. ! Lack of destination attractions such as cultural facilities. ! Minimal private sector development activity since 1995. ! Loss of four or five key retail/restaurant businesses could quickly erode vitality. ! Disruptive behavior, maintenance challenges and other problems associated with several drinking establishments. The Overall Strategy of This Plan The overall strategy is to protect, manage, leverage and blend the economic and cultural vitality created by the core retail and entertainment district. The strategy is defined by the 3 principles that correspond to 3 areas: the core, the infill/transition area, and the neighborhood edge. The Framework Diagram (see Figure 1.5) illustrates these 3 areas. The 3 areas are also briefly described below: Downtown Core - The core is the area to protect and manage. See Principle 1 and its recommendations on page 14. Infill Area - This area should leverage the core’s energy to attract new development that will increase the market strength of the core in turn. See Principle 2 and its recommendations on page 15. Neighborhood Edge Area - The mix of land uses and buildings in the core and infill/transition areas should blend with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The point is to protect the neighborhoods. See Principle 3 and its recommendations on page 16. S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 13 _____________________________________________ Figure 1.5 Framework Diagram S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 14 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N TOP RECOMMENDATIONS While all of this plan’s recommendations are important, the following summary lists the highest- priority, shortest-term recommendations. These recommendations will be implemented or further explored over the next three years. The agencies most responsible for implementation, along with a planning-level cost estimate, are shown. Complete recommendations constitute Section II. Principle 1: Protect and manage the Downtown retail/entertainment district Priority Recommendations for the Retail/Entertainment Core Market/Economic Development RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY COST 1.1.1 Increase the availability of existing parking for commerce by promoting higher vehicle turnover of on-street parking to enhance and sustain commercial vitality. City/DDA/Private See 1.3.1 below 1.1.2 Encourage long-term parkers, customers, and employees to better utilize existing Downtown parking structures. City/DDA/Private $50,000 - $100,000 1.1.3 Encourage active ground level uses, including fine dining, entertainment, and cultural activities, which provide a unique destination for employees, students and visitors. City/DDA/ DBA/Private $0 1.1.4 Create a unified voice and elevate the influence of Downtown property and business owners through a formal, strengthened DDA/DBA Alliance. DDA/DBA $5,000 1.1.5 Introduce a business recruitment and retention strategy. DBA/DDA Annual costs: $100,000- $150,000 1.1.6 Create a business improvement district (BID) to finance enhanced maintenance, security, marketing and business development. a. Costs to Create BID b. BID Annual Budget DBA/ DDA/City/Private a = $50,000 b = TBD 1.1.7 Support the creation of an appropriately staffed Downtown police precinct. City/DDA/DBA TBD Land Use / Urban Design 1.2.3 Develop a wayfinding plan to and within Downtown. City/DDA/Private $150,000 - $250,000 Parking/Transportation 1.3.1 Create a comprehensive parking management plan for the Downtown core. City/DDA $150,000 - $300,000 TBD = To Be Determined S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 15 Principle 2: Utilize the energy from the core to leverage and attract new development Priority Recommendations for Mason/Howes/College Infill Area Market/Economic Development RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY COST 2.1.1 The west side infill/transition area presents the best opportunity to support the core with redevelopment in the short term, and should be the primary focus of attention and effort to support redevelopment. DDA/City/Private TBD 2.1.2 Relative to the west side, the river corridor area presents a different, additional set of opportunities for supportive redevelopment, which the City and DDA should remain equally prepared to pursue or support if an initiative arises. City/DDA TBD 2.1.3 Implement an active economic development program to foster redevelopment that supports the commercial health of the retail/entertainment core by bringing more people and investment to the Downtown market. Primary prospects for beneficial redevelopment include culture, hospitality, employment, and housing. City/DDA TBD 2.1.4 The Mason Street area should be the location of significant new development to take advantage of long-term transit opportunities. City/DDA TBD 2.1.5 Support the development of a new performing arts/community center in the Mason Street area. City/DDA TBD 2.1.9 Improve the environment for attracting investment. City $0 Land Use/Urban Design 2.2.1 Continue to allow taller buildings (more than 3 stories), to support the market recommendations for redevelopment in the Infill/Transition area, and to reinforce Downtown as the primary focal point of the city from a community appearance and design standpoint. City/Private $0 2.2.2 Acknowledge taller buildings affect various interests differently, with both positive and negative effects; and set standards for scale and careful design so negative effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character, quality of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, views, and large existing trees). City $0 2.2.3 Continue to allow for modifications to standards within the framework of development review, if justified by creative, responsive design that meets the general parameters in a different way. City $0 2.2.4 Emphasize and orient redevelopment to east-west streets between the core and the West Side Neighborhood. City $0 S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 16 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Parking/Transportation 2.3.1 Develop, manage and operate parking as essential civic infrastructure, and over time create a “Park Once” environment to sustain low overall parking ratios. City/DDA Over $250,000 2.3.2 Enhance the responsiveness of the City’s parking department to effectively deal with the rapidly changing parking environment Downtown. City TBD 2.3.5 Manage future traffic circulation and minimize traffic delays Downtown. City TBD 2.3.6 Support the location and development of a future commuter rail station in Downtown Fort Collins. City/DDA/DBA (cost of study) $50,000 - $150,000 2.3.7 Make bicycle circulation an integral element of the Downtown transportation network. City TBD 2.3.8 Enhance the pedestrian environment Downtown. City/DDA/Private $150,000 - $250,000 2.3.9 Increase transit connections between the Downtown Transit Center and the Colorado State University Transit Center. City/CSU TBD TBD = To Be Determined Principle 3: Blend the Downtown retail/entertainment district with adjacent neighborhoods Priority Recommendations for the Infill-Transition Area Market/Economic Development RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY COST 3.1.3 Establish ongoing communications links to inform residents and commercial business interests of issues and activities of mutual concern and to create shared vision for Downtown development. DDA/DBA/ City/CSU 0 - $50,000 Land Use/Urban Design 3.2.3 Locate and shape larger and taller buildings in the west side infill/transition area by generally stepping down in height and scale adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and the historic core. City 0 - $50,000 S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 17 ______________________________________ Figure 1.6 Meeting and Event Log Date Event Location Primary Topic(s) 8/01 Council Growth Management Committee 281 N. College Project Initiation 9/01 Downtown Development Authority Home State Bank Project Initiation 9/01 Downtown Business Association Home State Bank Project Initiation 2/02 Council Growth Management Committee 281 N. College Project Initiation 3 – 6/02 Selection of Citizen Advisory Group N/A N/A 3/02 Gibbs Planning Group Presentation and Assessment #1 Various Issue Definition Retail Assessment 5/02 Consultant Team Selected N/A N/A 5/02 Gibbs Planning Group Presentation and Assessment #2 Various Issue Definition Retail Assessment 5/15/02 Project Kick-off Meeting 215 N. Mason Kick-Off 6/02 Consultant Retail Assessment Various Retail Stakeholder Interviews and Commercial Audit 6/26/02 Citizens Advisory Group 281 N. College Project Start-Up 7/17/02 Citizens Advisory Group 281 N. College Market Issues 7/02 Downtown Development Authority Home State Bank Project Update 7/02 Downtown Business Association Home State Bank Project Update 9/02 Citizen Planners Home State Bank Project Update 9/18/02 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Parking Issues 9/18/02 Public Meeting Lincoln Center Issues Identification and Definition 10/16/02 Technical Advisory Committee 215 N. Mason Issues Identification and Definition 10/02 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Mapping Exercise 11/20/02 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Transportation Issues Design Frameworks 11/02 Natural Resource Advisory Board 281 N. College Project Update 11/02 Downtown Development Authority/Downtown Business Association 215 N. Mason Project Update 11/02 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Project Update 11/02 Council Member Bertschy District Public Meeting Lesher JH School Neighborhood Input 12/18/02 Technical Advisory Committee 215 N. Mason Framework Plan 12/02 Planning and Zoning Board Worksession 281 N. College Project Update 12/02 Ft. Collins Chamber of Commerce LLAC The Group Project Update 1/8/03 Landmark Preservation Comm. 281 N. College Project Update 1/15/03 Neighborhood Workshop Lincoln Center Framework Plan and Neighborhood Issues 1/16/03 KCOL Talk Show Silver Grill Project Information/Q&A 1/22/03 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Framework Working Paper S E C T I O N I – p r o j e c t s u m m a r y 18 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Date Event Location Primary Topic(s) 2/19/03 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Transportation Policies 2/19/03 Natural Resources Advisory Board 281 N. College General update 2/24/03 City Manager Meeting City Hall On-Street Pay Parking 2/25/03 DDA/DBA Joint Boards Meeting City Hall Framework Working Paper; Organization issues 2/25/03 Merchants Meeting Cache Bank Framework Working Paper 2/25/03 City Council Study Session City Hall Update; Framework Working Paper 2/28/03 Planning and Zoning Board 281 N. College Transportation and Parking 5/1/03 DDA Board Meeting Home State Bank Parking 5/5/03 Staff/consultant Charrette Civitas, Denver Recommendations 5/16/03 Chamber LLAC Chamber of Commerce Framework Plan 5/21/03 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Recommendations 5/21/03 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Parking 5/27/03 City Council Study Session City Hall Parking 6/5/03 DDA Board Meeting Home State Bank Parking 6/11/03 DBA Board Meeting Home State Bank Recommendations 6/11/03 Landmark Pres. Commission 281 N. College Recommendations 6/13/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Recommendations 6/18/03 LPC/P&Z Worksession #1 281 N. College Taller Buildings 6/18/03 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Recommendations 6/18/03 Air Quality Advisory Board 215 N. Mason Parking 6/24/03 LPC/P&Z Worksession #2 281 N. College Taller Buildings 6/26/03 Citizens Advisory Group Opera Galleria Recommendations 6/26/03 Public Open House (Includes merchant/neighborhoods specific presentations) Opera Galleria Recommendations 6/26/03 DDA/DBA Joint Boards Opera Galleria Recommendations 6/27/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Ave. Recommendations 7/9/03 LPC/P&Z Worksession #3 281 N. College Taller Buildings 7/11/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Final plan review 7/18/03 Chamber LLAC Chamber of Commerce Taller Buildings 7/28/03 Owner/Developer Meeting 215 N. Mason Taller Buildings 7/28/03 Architects Meeting 215 N. Mason Taller Buildings 7/28/03 Neighborhood Meeting 215 N. Mason Taller Buildings 8/1/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Taller Buildings 8/7/03 DDA Board Meeting Home State Bank Taller Buildings 8/13/03 Landmark Preservation Commission 281 N. College Taller Buildings 8/15/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Final plan review 8/25/03 Joint Board Meeting 281 N. College Taller Buildings 9/10/03 Landmark Preservation Commission 281 N. College Taller Buildings 9/17/03 Natural Resources Advisory Board 281 N. College Final plan review 9/26/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Final plan review 10/10/03 Planning and Zoning Board (wk) 281 N. College Final plan review 10/16/03 Planning and Zoning Board (hrg) City Hall Final plan review 11/6/03 DDA Board Meeting Home State Bank Final plan review S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 59 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 60 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section III - Market Analysis .........................................................................65-116 Economic Profile .......................................................................................65 Residents................................................................................................................. 65 North vs. South ........................................................................................................ 65 Educational Attainment.............................................................................................. 68 Students.................................................................................................................. 68 Undergraduate Expenses ........................................................................................... 69 University Workforce.................................................................................................. 69 Net Taxable Sales ..................................................................................................... 72 Downtown’s Amenities............................................................................................... 74 Convention/Hotel Market ........................................................................................... 74 Employment ............................................................................................................. 75 Unemployment ......................................................................................................... 76 Office Market............................................................................................................ 77 Residential Development ........................................................................................... 78 Downtown Housing ................................................................................................... 80 Commercial Development .......................................................................................... 81 Downtown Development ............................................................................................ 83 Traffic and Commute................................................................................................. 84 Traffic Counts ........................................................................................................... 84 Crime Statistics ........................................................................................................ 86 Summary Findings .................................................................................................... 86 Consumer Surveys.....................................................................................88 Background and Methodology .................................................................................... 88 Market Penetration ................................................................................................... 88 Respondent Profiles .................................................................................................. 88 Significant Differences Summary ................................................................................ 90 Activities of Downtown Fort Collins Visitors................................................................... 90 Visitation.................................................................................................................. 91 Transportation and Parking......................................................................................... 92 Stores and Services Used .......................................................................................... 93 Summary Observations.............................................................................................. 96 Target Market Profile — 16 to 34 Years of Age ............................................................ 97 Commercial Audit ......................................................................................98 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 62 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Fort Collins Market Action Plan Points .....................................................102 Target Markets ....................................................................................................... 102 Niche .................................................................................................................... 102 Strategy................................................................................................................. 104 Support Programs ................................................................................................... 105 Retail Recruitment .................................................................................................. 106 Unified Downtown Management Structure Idea ........................................107 Land Use Assumptions.............................................................................108 Existing Land Uses .................................................................................................. 108 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3. 1 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Fort Collins, Colorado Zip Codes.......... 66 Figure 3. 2 Census Tract 1 Fort Collins’ Downtown Core............................................. 66 Figure 3. 3 Downtown Core and Fort Collins Demographic Summary: 1990-2000 ....... 67 Figure 3. 4 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Demographic Summary: 1990-2000.......................................................................................... 67 Figure 3. 5 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Age Distribution by Percent of Population: 2000 ............................................................. 68 Figure 3. 6 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Household Income by Percent of Total Households: 2001 .................................................... 68 Figure 3. 7 Average Monthly Spending by College Students: 1999 .............................. 70 Figure 3. 8 Colorado State University Total Student Population: Fall, 2001 Enrollment ............................................................................ 70 Figure 3. 9 Colorado State University Undergraduates: 2001 - 2002 School Year ........ 70 Figure 3. 10 Colorado State University Typical Undergraduate Expenses: 2002 - 2003 School Year .................................................................... 71 Figure 3. 11 Colorado State University Employee Trends: 1997- 2001 ....................... 71 Figure 3. 12 2002 Incomes of Largest CSU Workforce Groups.................................... 72 Figure 3. 13 DDA and the City of Fort Collins Net Taxable Sales* Trends: 1995 - 2002...................................................................................... 72 Figure 3. 14 DDA Market Share of City Net Taxable Sales* Trends: 1995 - 2002 ......... 73 Figure 3. 15 Net Taxable Sales Trends Eating & Drinking Establishments and Other Sales in the DDA: 1995 - 2002............................................. 73 Figure 3. 16 Downtown Fort Collins Attractions and Events......................................... 74 Figure 3. 17 Fort Collins Hotel Occupancy and Average Room Rates: 2000 - September, 2002 .................................................................... 75 Figure 3. 18 Major Employers in the Downtown Area: January 2002........................... 75 Figure 3. 19 Downtown Fort Collins Employment By Industry: 2001 ............................ 76 Figure 3. 20 Annual Unemployment Rate for Fort Collins/Loveland MSA, Colorado, and the United States: 1995 - April 2003 ............................... 76 Figure 3. 21 Fort Collins Office Vacancy Trends: 1995 - 2001................................... 77 Figure 3. 22 Fort Collins Office Market*: April 2002.................................................. 77 Figure 3. 23 Downtown and South Fort Collins Office Markets: December 2002.......... 78 Figure 3. 24 Downtown and South Fort Collins Office Lease Rates: December 2002.... 78 Figure 3. 25 Fort Collins New Housing Construction Activity: 1990 - 2002 ................... 79 Figure 3. 26 Downtown Fort Collins New Housing Construction Activity: 1990 - 2002*.. 79 Figure 3. 27 Fort Collins For Sale Housing Activity: 1992 - 2001 ............................... 79 Figure 3. 28 Old Town/Downtown For Sale Housing Activity: 2000 - 2002................... 80 Figure 3. 29 Housing Trends in Census Tract 1: 1990 - 2000 ................................... 81 Figure 3. 30 Fort Collins Commercial Construction Activity*: 1990 - 2003 ................... 82 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 64 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Figure 3. 31 Downtown Commercial Construction Activity*: 1990 - 2003 .................... 82 Figure 3. 32 Recent Downtown Development Projects: September 2003..................... 83 Figure 3. 33 Proposed Downtown Development Projects: September 2003.................. 84 Figure 3. 34 Mason Street Traffic: September 2000, 24-Hour Period .......................... 85 Figure 3. 35 College Avenue Traffic: May 1999, 24-Hour Period ................................. 85 Figure 3. 36 Other Downtown Traffic: March and May 2000, 24-Hour Period ............... 85 Figure 3. 37 Old Town Area Crime Statistics: 1997 - September 2002........................ 86 Figure 3. 38 Respondent Age Profile Comparison ...................................................... 88 Figure 3. 39 Respondent Demographics................................................................... 89 Figure 3. 40 All Reasons for Visiting Downtown Fort Collins ........................................ 91 Figure 3. 41 Downtown Fort Collins Visitation............................................................ 91 Figure 3. 42 Weekend Visitation to Downtown Fort Collins.......................................... 91 Figure 3. 43 Length of Visitation.............................................................................. 92 Figure 3. 44 Method of Transportation ..................................................................... 92 Figure 3. 45 Parking Location.................................................................................. 92 Figure 3. 46 Downtown Shopping Patterns ............................................................... 93 Figure 3. 47 Importance versus Downtown Fort Collins’s Ratings - Gap Analysis............ 95 Figure 3. 48 Retail Breakdown of First Floor Land Uses by Commercial Category........... 99 Figure 3. 49 Non-Retail Breakdown of First Floor Land Uses by Commercial Category.. 100 Figure 3. 50 First Floor Land Uses from Commercial Audit........................................ 101 Figure 3. 51 Downtown Niche Strategy................................................................... 103 Figure 3. 52 Proposed Downtown Unified Management Structure.............................. 107 Figure 3. 53 Existing Land Use Breakdown: October 2002........................................ 108 Figure 3. 54 Land Use Projections ......................................................................... 109 Figure 3. 55 Development Capacity of Infill Sites..................................................... 111 Figure 3. 56 Possible Infill Sites............................................................................. 112 Figure 3. 57 San Diego City of Villages: Creating Safe & Vibrant Places to Socialize .... 113 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 19 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 20 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N TABLE OF CONTENTS Section II – Framework Plan: Recommendations........................... 21-58 Introduction.................................................................................................. 21 Principle 1: Protect and manage the downtown retail/entertainment district........ 22 Principle 1: Protect and manage the downtown retail/entertainment district........ 23 1.1 Market............................................................................................................... 23 1.2 Urban Design...................................................................................................... 28 1.3 Transportation .................................................................................................... 30 Principle 2: Utilize the energy from the core to leverage and attract new development in the Infill/Transition Area........................................................... 33 2.1 Market............................................................................................................... 33 2.2 Urban Design...................................................................................................... 39 2.3 Transportation .................................................................................................... 41 Principle 3: Blend the downtown retail/entertainment district with adjacent neighborhoods.............................................................................................. 45 3.1 Market............................................................................................................... 45 3.2 Urban Design...................................................................................................... 45 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................... 46 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2. 1 Framework Diagram............................................................................... 22 Figure 2. 2 Downtown Market Niche Strategy............................................................ 25 Figure 2. 3 Examples of Downtown Retail Uses to Add or Strengthen........................... 25 Figure 2. 4 Proposed Downtown Unified Management Structure.................................. 26 Figure 2. 5 Potential Development Sites................................................................... 35 Figure 2. 6 Maximum Building Heights ..................................................................... 47 Figure 2. 7 Market, Transportation and Urban Design/Land Use Issues......................... 48 Figure 2. 8 Lower Downtown Good Neighbor Handbook.............................................. 51 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 21 Section II – Framework Plan: Recommendations INTRODUCTION Downtown is the heart and soul of Fort Collins. With the Downtown Plan, Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, City Plan, and many other studies and plans, this area has been scrutinized numerous times. In 2002-2003, in a collaborative effort to clarify and resolve topical downtown issues, the City of Fort Collins, the Downtown Business Association (DBA), and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) decided its purpose was to accomplish the following tasks: evaluate current conditions and trends, identify and analyze current issues facing the downtown area, establish the direction the downtown area should take to prepare for the future, and recommend specific actions to implement this direction. Three general categories were used to define issues and identify recommendations: market, land use/urban design and transportation. Because downtown’s market aspects drive its success, this planning effort has had first and foremost a market-based focus, one in which the economic health of downtown is paramount. In this context, land use/urban design and transportation have played supportive roles to the market emphasis. The objectives for the Downtown Strategic Plan were to review current conditions and trends and make recommendations for steps the City and business leaders should take together to protect and enhance the viability and success of downtown, with emphasis on the next five years. This plan accomplishes those objectives. The overriding consensus throughout this public process was downtown Fort Collins is the vibrant heart and soul of the community with a history and neighborhood fabric warranting preservation and enhancement. Downtown Fort Collins has key issues that create a vulnerability to that vibrancy: ! Lack of major private sector employment ! Lack of destination attractions such as cultural facilities ! Minimal private sector development activity since 1995 ! High susceptibility: the loss of four or five key retail/restaurant businesses could quickly erode vitality ! Disruptive behavior, maintenance challenges and other problems associated with several drinking establishments Downtown Core. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 22 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 1 Framework Diagram S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 23 PRINCIPLE 1: PROTECT AND MANAGE THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. 1.1 Market 1.1.1 Increase the availability of existing parking for commerce by promoting higher vehicle turnover of on- street parking to enhance and sustain commercial vitality. Implement an on-street parking program that meets six primary objectives: 1) manages length of stay to increase vehicle turnover in front of retail businesses; 2) is customer-friendly, particularly for downtown visitors; 3) is convenient and easy-to-use; 4) is relatively inexpensive; 5) offers long term parking options for employees; and 6) creates revenues that can be reinvested in expanding future downtown parking capacity. For more details, see 1.3.1. Options include: a. An on-street pay parking program. b. Enhanced parking enforcement program to achieve greater compliance with parking regulations. c. New on-street parking technologies and features designed to promote improved turnover and support enforcement efforts. d. A parking validation program and residential parking permit program. e. Parking “congestion” pricing designed to promote a switch from driving to alternative modes. 1.1.2. Encourage long-term parkers, customers, and employees to better utilize existing downtown parking structures. Options include: a. Having the price of parking in downtown parking structures less than the cost of on-street parking in high use areas. b. Implementing payment plans for lots and structures that encourage employees to park off-street instead of on-street in high use areas. On-street parking. Enhanced parking enforcement. New parking technologies. Civic Center Parking Structure. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 24 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 1.1.3 Encourage active ground level uses, including fine dining, entertainment, and cultural activities, which provide a unique destination for employees, students and visitors. a. Downtown is a historically authentic commercial destination with a focus on culture, entertainment and unique, one-of-a-kind shopping. Figure 2.2 should guide downtown positioning and marketing efforts. b. Pursue a commercial development strategy that will preserve and grow the existing cluster of strong retailers, and leverage that strength to create improved, complementary retail uses. The commercial development strategy is based upon the downtown niche strategy (See Figure 2.3 for examples of new downtown retail uses). To realize this commercial development strategy, the DDA should create a business support program (1.1.5) financed by a new business improvement district (1.1.6). This strategy would strengthen existing retailers, provide opportunities for retail growth with increased demand, and lessen cannibalization of existing sales to new retailers. c. Add or strengthen new retail uses identified in Figure 2.3, including convenience goods and services, specialty apparel and accessories, eating and drinking, home decor and leisure. d. Create a stronger physical and marketing link among public and private arts organizations and galleries. Building upon Fort Collins’ emerging reputation, strengthen live independent theater. CSU students add an excellent target market for the arts. Support and enhance the existing Old Town First Friday Gallery Walks promoted by the downtown (i.e., DBA, DDA, BID). e. There are business opportunities to develop more arts and culture oriented venues: galleries, one-of-a-kind art pieces, public art in restaurants, clay painting, live theater, and entertainment associated with retail (i.e., book readings, acoustic music in cafes, etc.). Active ground level uses. More active ground level uses. Encourage more art galleries. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 25 _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 2 Downtown Market Niche Strategy Downtown will be: Downtown will NOT be: Unique. An imitation of neighboring developments. Historically authentic. A regional shopping center. Known for its specialty market niche. A lifestyle-oriented commercial destination center with a focus on entertaining. A generalist (all things to all people). The cultural center for the region. The location of choice for frequent festivals, conventions, activities, events, and programs. Solely commercial uses. A secondary location choice for commercial events, festivals, etc. A place to socialize and congregate. A place for all people reflecting the diversity of the region (students, older residents, tourists, office workers). A place for only a few people. Easy to find and easy to move about with well managed parking in a pedestrian friendly environment. A hassle to use. Busy night and day, weekday and weekend, 12 months of the year. Only a daytime place. Active only in warm weather. A place where the business community and residential neighborhoods proactively work together for mutual benefit and are involved. A place of isolated businesses going in different directions. Clean and safe. An area that suffers from negative images. A compact retail environment that is linked physically, organizationally, and from a marketing perspective. Dispersed. _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 3 Examples of Downtown Retail Uses to Add or Strengthen Convenience Goods and Services Quality convenience store Drug store (emphasis on health and well-being) Specialty food/wines (butcher, cheese, bakery/café Natural/health food/green grocer Specialty travel adventure (e.g., hunting expeditions, wilderness adventures) Eating and Drinking Quality restaurants (white table cloth, ethnic) Contemporary cafes (quick lunches, salad, sandwich, coffee, using fresh ingredients, eat- in or take-out) Contemporary and jazz clubs Book store-cafes Leisure Arts and culture related stores (Western living) Sporting goods (camping, cycling, climbing, skate boarding, youth oriented stores) Sports clothing Hobby, arts and crafts (e.g. clay painting, specialized art supplies) S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 26 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 1.1.4 Create a unified voice and elevate the influence of downtown property and business owners through a formal, strengthened DDA/DBA Alliance. a. A new downtown “Alliance” should be created. The Alliance is envisioned to allow DDA and DBA officers to meet in a more formal way to determine overall vision and policies for downtown, thereby elevating the organizations’ clout and influence. b. The Alliance is envisioned to accommodate the addition of a Business Improvement District (BID) into a unified organizational structure. (See 1.1.5) c. The Alliance would become the identity for all the downtown development entities – DDA, DBA, and BID. (See Figure 2.4) d. The DBA and DDA will retain their respective functions and funding sources within the Alliance. _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 4 Proposed Downtown Unified Management Structure Example of a street banner. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 27 1.1.5 Introduce a business recruitment and retention strategy. a. Downtown needs to be more aggressive in undertaking economic development initiatives that retain, recruit and incubate businesses. An emphasis should be placed on unique, one-of-a- kind retail, limited complementary national chain retail, entertainment, and cultural uses in the core and in office housing and hotels in the infill area. b. This economic development marketing effort to reinforce downtown as a niche destination will require “hand-holding” by the DDA to direct businesses to space, market information and financing. c. The DDA, as part of the Alliance, should act as a “market information and business support portal,” providing tailored market information, leasing and finance referrals, liaison services in code and development review processes, and other extensive business support functions. d. Position the DDA as a retail development and leasing advocate that works with the City, property owners and brokers to recruit and nurture businesses in the downtown. Overall, the DDA must be more proactive to ensure that leads that come to the City are being referred to them and that they can do their best to sell downtown Fort Collins to both the prospective retailers and leasing agents. e. This function will require additional DDA staff and resources, which could be financed by a proposed BID (see 1.1.6). A new staff person must have working knowledge of real estate, leasing dynamics and retail. This person can work with the retail leads and leasing agents to bring about a deal without competing directly with the private sector. f. The DDA's ability to use tax increment financing expires in 2011. Since tax increment financing is a primary financial source for downtown projects, the City needs to insure funding resources are available and in place for any commitments extending beyond that date. 1.1.6 Create a Business Improvement District (BID) to finance enhanced maintenance, security, marketing and business development. a. With sensitivity to existing downtown assessment districts (i.e., the DDA and a General Improvement District “GID”), create a BID to provide ongoing financial resources to help improve the management and marketing of the downtown experience. b. The BID boundaries should be similar to the area identified in this plan as the Retail/Entertainment Core plus the Mason Street area. c. The annual BID budget needs to support spot maintenance (i.e., peak use times and special uses such as sidewalk cleaning), special equipment and/or resources for city police, a stronger destination marketing program and the business recruitment and retention strategy; identified in 1.1.5. d. The BID could be financed either through a mill levy or more likely a special assessment that could allow for varied services and assessments by area, based on measurements such as frontage, lot and/or building square footage. e. The DBA and DDA should jointly advance the BID concept in partnership with the City. The BID should contract with existing downtown organizations for services as opposed to creating a new entity. In addition, the DDA, DBA and City should clarify the City’s base level of downtown services. f. Study the viability of a BID in 2004, and if feasible, create it in 2005 or at the earliest possible date. 1.1.7 Support the creation of an appropriately staffed downtown police precinct. a. Downtown has special characteristics and needs that make it a different policing challenge from the rest of the community. Unique challenges include a strong pedestrian orientation, the high concentration of liquor licenses, special events crowds, and parking and traffic issues. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 28 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N b. Create a new police precinct bringing focus and neighborhood policing methods to downtown. This is particularly critical if the City decides to relocate the main police headquarters outside of downtown. The existing Precinct 1 covers a larger area than downtown. This policy statement supports the notion of a precinct more narrowly focused on downtown proper. 1.1.8 Curb disruptive behavior associated with several bars. a. The regulatory and policing efforts that have been marshaled in the last 12 months to combat disruptive behavior associated with several downtown bars should continue. b. Additional efforts to target bars who repeatedly allow patrons to become too intoxicated and disruptive should be pursued by downtown organizations. These include a) creation and enforcement of a “good neighbor” dispute resolution process between all downtown businesses; b) stronger accountability for bar employees; c) severe penalties (i.e., revoke liquor license) for establishments with a pattern of non-compliance and d) creation of the downtown police precinct (see 1.1.7). (See Figure 2.8, the Lower Downtown Denver Good Neighbor Handbook at the end of this section.) 1.1.9 Evaluate creating a high-speed public access wireless network. a. Evaluate providing a flexible, remote, high speed network and internet access targeted to businesses, residents, and visitors in downtown. A wireless network may provide incentives for attracting high-tech business into the downtown area. This internet access “umbrella” could also make downtown attractive for doing business and leisure activities on laptops, notebooks, cellular phones, PDAs, and other electronic devices. The DDA and DBA should investigate and facilitate the creation of the network. 1.2 Urban Design 1.2.1. Create gateways using redevelopment and urban design at both ends of College Avenue (Mulberry and Maple Streets and other key entry points to downtown.) a. Gateway elements can enhance the identity of downtown and strengthen the sense of place. b. Gateways may be created by larger landmark buildings, striking landscaping; monuments, public art, or special streetlights. In general, gateways should be visually creative and include an element of sufficient height and mass so as to be visible by motorists, lighted so as to be visible at night, and constructed of high quality materials such as brick, stone, concrete, stainless or painted steel, copper, brass, or glass. c. Additional gateway treatments should be located at the intersections of Mulberry and College, Mulberry and Riverside, Mulberry and Canyon, Jefferson and Lincoln, Jefferson and Linden, Cherry and College, and Mulberry and Meldrum. 1.2.2 Encourage public art, landscaping, furniture, lighting, and other street features that will create interest and delight within streets and public spaces. a. Develop a comprehensive public art program for downtown to reinforce it as the cultural heart of the city. Such an art program can also be incorporated into street elements such as manhole covers, paving design, custom bases for light fixtures, bus shelters, and bike racks among streetscape furnishings. Gateway lighting. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 29 1.2.3 Develop a wayfinding plan to and within downtown. a. A wayfinding plan offers a complete system of identity, directional, and informational signs, possibly with other thematic elements as well, for both motorists and pedestrians. b. Signs should be added on Interstate 25, near the State Highway 14 exit, to direct motorists to downtown. c. Important destinations such as parking facilities, Old Town, City and County government centers, Poudre River, and library/museum complex should be clearly identified. Future civic uses should be incorporated as built. See 1.3.2 for more discussion of parking signage. d. This should include a public information system that can be a basis for self-guided walking tours to enrich the visitor’s experience downtown. 1.2.4 Reinforce and infill the College Avenue and Old Town edges. a. Fill gaps between buildings with new development that includes pedestrian-active uses on the ground floor. b. Extend downtown streetscape enhancements to Mulberry along South College Avenue. c. Locate new development and significant redevelopment at the entry points to downtown: Mulberry to the south and Cherry to the north 1.2.5 Maintain and reinforce the visual distinctiveness of downtown. a. Downtown’s historic character and sense-of-place core should be carefully understood and preserved in all public and private actions. Example of a public sculpture. Golden CO’s Existing wayfinding informative public in Old Town. sign system. Fill gaps with new development. Existing signature building, the Linden Hotel. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 30 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 1.3 Transportation 1.3.1 Create a comprehensive parking management plan for the downtown core. Short-term Strategies – a. Pursue an enhanced enforcement program to promote turnover of short-term on-street parking spaces in the “energy zone.” Upgrade parking enforcement handheld citation devises and software to provide enforcement officers with on-line, real-time violation history data in the field. Explore, acquire and implement new information management technologies, such as license plate recognition systems and centralized data input and retrieval that allow for real time parking violation management. Strengthen parking regulations to support enforcement efforts to promote on-street parking turnover. Develop affordable parking alternatives in parking lots and structures for downtown employees (roof-top or remote parking at reduced rates, etc.) to reduce employee parking in short-term spaces. b. Develop a comprehensive parking database of all spaces in the downtown area (both public and private). Long-term Strategies – a. Pursue on-street pay parking as the primary strategy to promote parking turnover in the downtown core. 1. Evaluate both single and multi-space meter technologies 2. Evaluate on-street space management technologies to promote enhanced on-street management, track violations, discourage meter feeding and restrict parking to defined time limits. b. Consider modifying centerline parking to a parallel parking layout, achieving a safer pedestrian environment, streetscape enhancements and limited loss of centerline parking. c. Correct current “upside down” parking pricing policy. d. Examine alternative parking funding strategies for providing future parking infrastructure. 1.3.2 As part of the wayfinding plan recommended in 1.2.3, develop and implement a comprehensive parking signage system that enhances drivers’ ability to locate available downtown parking. a. Ease traffic congestion and frustration from drivers circling and searching for parking spaces throughout downtown by directing drivers directly to off-street parking facilities. b. Signage system should be recognizable and easily understandable. Directional signs should be visible to drivers upon entering downtown (see 1.2.3). 1.3.3 As part of the wayfinding plan, recommended in 1.2.3, incorporate transit stops, routes and schedules. Jefferson & Linden crossing. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 31 1.3.4 Within downtown and especially the core, the wayfinding plan (recommended in 1.2.3) should emphasize priority on pedestrian travel as the primary mode, direct pedestrians to their destinations, and offer additional information. 1.3.5 Use enhanced mid-block crossings, alleys and other shortcut opportunities to enhance pedestrian porosity at locations other than intersections, where feasible and justified by the level of pedestrian activity. Improve lighting along these pedestrian and alley-ways to increase security throughout the downtown. 1.3.6 Work with downtown merchants, delivery companies and citizens to manage freight deliveries in the downtown area. a. As problems occur with freight delivery and loading, work with downtown merchants to manage freight mobility issues, problems and procedures. b. Implement a loading zone signage standard that is consistent, understandable and easy to read. Work with downtown merchants, delivery companies and citizens to manage freight deliveries in the downtown area. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 32 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 33 PRINCIPLE 2: UTILIZE THE ENERGY FROM THE CORE TO LEVERAGE AND ATTRACT NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE INFILL/TRANSITION AREA. 2.1 Market 2.1.1 The west side Infill/Transition Area presents the best opportunity to support the core with redevelopment in the short term, and should be the primary focus of attention and effort to support redevelopment. a. Infrastructure is in place, and these blocks are directly adjacent to the core with a network of streets and sidewalks leading in. Parcels exist that have apparent potential for redevelopment. b. The recommended use mix for the area includes relatively more commercial activity to the east (closer to the retail/entertainment core), with relatively more residential to the west (closer to existing neighborhoods.) c. This recommendation is not intended to hinder any redevelopment efforts in the river corridor area or East Side Infill/Transition Area if an initiative arises. 2.1.2 Relative to the west side, the river corridor area presents a different, additional set of opportunities for supportive redevelopment, which the City and DDA should remain equally prepared to pursue or support if an initiative arises. a. The consultant team observed that this area presents greater challenges of infrastructure and parcel assembly than the west side of downtown, and is not as integrally linked with the core. For these reasons, this plan reflects a shift in emphasis toward the west side as the main priority for strategic actions in the short term. b. Nevertheless, redevelopment projects in the river area could strengthen the commercial health of downtown as well, and if a core-supportive development project or public works stimulus project emerges, it should be supported. 1. Core-supportive redevelopment projects and strategic public actions will be implemented in accordance with the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report. 2. Particular core-supportive uses include housing, employment, mixed live/work buildings, special attractions and architecture unique to the river environment and historic setting (e.g. cultural/arts venues, a restaurant with windows and outdoor spaces oriented to the river landscape, educational institutes) and small neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The intent is to bring patrons downtown with development that reinforces the unique historic and environmental character. Reuse of existing historic structure in river corridor. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 34 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2.1.3 Implement an active economic development program to foster redevelopment that supports the commercial health of the retail/entertainment core by bringing more people and investment to the downtown market. Primary prospects for beneficial redevelopment include culture, hospitality, employment, and housing. a. Create a new “downtown market information and business support portal” through the DDA to attract and direct investment. (See 1.1.5) Support appropriate redevelopment through tailored financial incentives from the City and/or DDA. Incentives should be based upon “leveling the playing field” for development between downtown and suburban areas. Critical development factors include parking, financing, and process. Different incentives fit different types of downtown uses, including: 1. Office: The key differential disadvantage for downtown is parking costs, which must be accommodated in costly structures as opposed to open land. Public parking structures, which could be built in phases as office development occurs, could be financed by the City or DDA as an incentive for office development. (See 2.3.1 for more detail) 2. Residential: Support for residential may be best directed to financing, particularly short-term subordinate construction financing offered by the DDA to address higher land cost and to mitigate the risk of leasing and/or sales. Creatively utilize DDA and City financing to help advance downtown housing projects. 3. Hotel: Two areas of incentives for a downtown hotel include: 1) parking, which could be accommodated through an existing or future public parking structure and 2) financing, particularly for meeting room space which is often considered an additional expense by hotel developers. Meeting space requirements could also be met in a joint development with a proposed downtown performing arts/community center (see 2.1.5 and 2.1.6). 2.1.4 The Mason Street area should be the location of significant new development to take advantage of long- term transit opportunities. a. Enhance the transit system along Mason Street to leverage new development adjacent to the downtown core. The majority of new development along the corridor is envisioned to include employment (office), housing and destinations, including a new performing arts/community center facility and library. b. The recommended use mix for the area concentrates more commercial activity to the east (closer to the retail/entertainment core) and residential to the west (closer to existing neighborhoods). c. Support the conversion of Mason and Howes Streets to two-way travel. Example of a downtown office. Example of a downtown residential building. Example of a downtown hotel. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 35 _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 5 Potential Development Sites S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 36 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2.1.5 Support the development of a new performing arts/community center in the Mason Street area. a. The proposed performing arts/community center facility should be elevated as the top civic project priority for strengthening downtown. It should be constructed within the next 5 years. b. The Mountain and Mason site for the performing arts/community center facility is one of the top locations, given its proximity to the retail/entertainment core, the future Mason Transportation Corridor, and existing parking. If this site is determined to not be feasible, locate the facility in close proximity to the core. 2.1.6 Encourage a hotel, with space to support conventions/conferences and tourism if possible. a. Currently, downtown has only 18 hotel rooms, (38 more were approved for the historic Armstrong Hotel building late in this planning process). There is clearly a market opportunity to develop new downtown hotel rooms. b. Efforts should be made to attract any new hotel property to downtown – either a boutique specialty hotel (50 to 80 rooms) or a conference destination facility (150 to 200 rooms), or both. The hotel would also become a major downtown employer. c. Conduct a formal feasibility study to assess the need for a downtown hotel and conference facility. 2.1.7 Treat Jefferson Street as a connection between the retail/entertainment district and the river corridor, and diminish it as a barrier. a. Jefferson Street's status as a State Highway with significant truck traffic tends to foster a perception that it is a barrier. b. Work with the Colorado Department of Transportation to consider amending the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report to 1) incorporate implementation of safe parking on Jefferson Street. c. Explore lower speed limits and ways to limit speeding on Jefferson Street. d. Textured crossing materials and other options should be implemented to encourage pedestrian access across Jefferson at Linden and Lincoln. Example of a downtown hotel. Example of a hotel street entryway. On-street parking on Jefferson street. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 37 2.1.8 Continue the centralization of the downtown government center with an official policy to consider downtown first and foremost for all appropriate future government facilities such as a main library, central offices, performing arts center, urban parks or plazas, and outdoor entertainment. a. The proposed policy would require the City to give special consideration to downtown for future civic facilities. This would not only benefit downtown by providing a long term civic commitment, but should also make fiscal sense by consolidating government functions in one location and maximizing operating efficiencies. b. The City should also request Larimer County to adopt or otherwise follow this policy for appropriate county-wide serving facilities. 2.1.9 Improve the environment for attracting investment. a. Support current planning efforts to amend the development review process to be more consistent, reliable and efficient. 1. Three code and development review issues have been identified that impede downtown development: 1) the approximately 90% engineering threshold for plan submittal; 2) the perception that it is more difficult to meet city-wide standards and to complete development review processes in downtown than in the fringe; 3) the need for a permit liaison to help downtown projects navigate the process. b. Provide more certainty regarding improvements to address transportation and utility deficiencies caused by new development, and determine an equitable funding mechanism to pay for utility upgrades. 1. Transportation: For the most part, downtown streets and intersections are constrained and cannot be widened to accommodate additional traffic. Where new development causes intersections to fall below the adopted Level of Service “E”, the development should be able to choose from a menu of mitigation measures implementing alternatives to motor vehicle travel (e.g., rideshare programs, bus passes, etc). The City’s Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual should be amended to identify this menu of mitigation measures. 2. Utilities (i.e., water, sewer, stormwater, gas, electric, fiber optic): ! Water and Sewer: The City should determine an equitable way to finance the upgrade of smaller, deteriorated lines in order to support redevelopment as well as sustain existing development. ! Gas: The City should be prepared to participate financially in the reinforcement of gas lines if warranted by increased loads in the area bounded by Cherry Street, Howes Street, Laporte Avenue and College Avenue. ! Stormwater: Raise the priority of the Oak Street Outfall Extension and Magnolia Street Outfall projects so that these projects can be completed within the next three years. ! Fiber optic/wireless: The DDA/DBA should monitor trends in the business community to determine if additional facilities and services are needed to attract new companies to locate downtown. c. Continue to seek mutual understanding among business, neighborhood, historic, and city-wide planning interests regarding the approach to downtown development recommended in this plan. The point is to bring divergent interests together in timely forums to seek common ground and compromise on civic policy and investment issues. See also 3.1.3. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 38 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N d. The City and the DDA should emphasize the value of downtown development as “smart growth”, i.e. efficient use of existing infrastructure and key to economic sustainability. 1. Encouraging new downtown development is consistent with the City’s environmental and quality of life values – it allows for new investment that utilizes existing infrastructure and discourages costly sprawl. 2.1.10 Create stronger communications and market linkages with Colorado State University to ensure cooperation on downtown/university issues and to attract students, faculty, staff, and visitors to shop and dine downtown. ! CSU offers a significant market that is predisposed to patronize the unique downtown experience. Direct marketing should be advanced to fully capitalize on this opportunity. Stronger alliances through organizations (i.e., DDA/DBA Alliance, ASCSU, Faculty Council) should be pursued. e. Pursue and coordinate implementation of 2.3.9 (Downtown Transit Center – CSU Transit Linkages) from a marketing and communications standpoint. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 39 2.2 Urban Design 2.2.1. Continue to allow taller buildings (more than 3 stories), to support the market recommendations for redevelopment in the Infill/Transition Area, and to reinforce downtown as the primary focal point of Fort Collins from a community appearance and design standpoint. a. Redevelopment will likely require new buildings that are larger than the majority of existing buildings in the area. Redevelopment is more financially feasible with relatively larger buildings, particularly if parking is to be provided in structures rather than on surface parking lots. In addition, the various transportation and market benefits of more jobs and housing close to the core are more significant with relatively larger buildings. b. As stated in previous plans and affirmed in this planning process, this area is THE primary place to allow a dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings of widely varied sizes and functions. Architecture, streets, and other spaces can be more dramatic with relatively larger buildings as suggested by market recommendations for redevelopment. 2.2.2. Acknowledge that taller buildings affect various interests differently, with both positive and negative effects; and set standards for scale and careful design so that negative effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character, quality of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, views, and large existing trees). a. Architectural creativity and individual expression should include responsiveness to a framework of thoughtful standards for height, mass, and design. The purpose being to blend recommendations for future redevelopment with the area’s defining characteristics that will remain as part of the evolving character over time. See 3.2.2 for more detail. 2.2.3. Continue to allow for modifications to standards within the framework of development review, if justified by creative, responsive designs that meet the general parameters in a different way. a. Continue to acknowledge the possibility of creative, negotiated design solutions that fulfill the purpose of a standard in a given development project, yet do not meet the letter of the standards. Emphasize east-west connection to and from the West Side Neighborhood. Opportunity for infill development on east-west streets such as Mountain Avenue. Residential entries fronting street. A transitional area mixed-use development with ground floor and upper floor residences. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 40 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2.2.4. Emphasize and orient redevelopment to east-west streets between the Core and the West Side Neighborhood. a. There is substantial opportunity for infill development between the West Side Neighborhood and downtown. New infill projects should orient their fronts and main pedestrian entrances directly to the east west streets, or to intersections. Ground level frontage should feature generous window surfaces and detailed attention to fenestration. Vehicular access should be mainly on the north-south streets. The point is to consciously form appealing street fronts leading into downtown, enticing people to walk in. b. Every effort should be made to shorten the length of pedestrian crossings at each east/west street, and to establish these crossings as clearly belonging to a pedestrian rather than vehicular realm through paving and signalization. c. Despite the main east-west focus, continue to provide a special streetscape on Mason Street to be as pedestrian friendly as possible, and to act as a catalyst for new development. This street, with its proposed future intensive transit functions, will be a crucial pedestrian environment due to the need to access the transit. d. Provide pedestrian streetscape improvements south to Laurel Street to provide a better direct connection to CSU. 2.2.5. Encourage apartments, loft units, and/or offices on upper floors of buildings. a. Any additional housing and jobs will help support the core by adding to a critical mass of people living, working, and investing in downtown. 2.2.6 Provide or enhance pedestrian linkages across Jefferson Street at Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street, and along Willow Street, Linden Street, Lincoln Avenue and Pine Street a. These linkages are crucial to the redevelopment potential of the Downtown River Corridor (see 2.1.7). The City, owners, and developers should work together to provide inviting crosswalk treatments at the above listed intersections as development occurs or strategic public works initiatives are funded. Crosswalks should be constructed of concrete, brick, stone, or stamped asphalt. Special paving may be used in intersection designs to highlight the importance of the pedestrian connection. Consistent streetscape design reflecting the eclectic character of the corridor should be implemented. b. A significant new building at the corner of Linden and Jefferson, such as housing above active ground floor uses, would help to overcome the psychological barrier of Jefferson Street, and provide reasons for people to cross it. Intersection of Jefferson and Linden Streets. Intersection treatment using colored pavement. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 41 2.3 Transportation 2.3.1 Develop, manage and operate parking as essential civic infrastructure, and over time create a “park once” environment to sustain low overall parking ratios. a. The City Parking Services should work in partnership with any other parties in interest to ensure parking resources are created and managed under a consistent set of policies. b. The “park-once” strategy means future long-term parking structures should be located on the periphery of the Core, with access to and from the structure clearly marked for both drivers and pedestrians as part of the overall wayfinding system (see 1.2.3). c. The City should offer incentives to willing owners to make surplus privately-owned parking resources available to the public. Explore using the General Improvement District (GID) property tax to fund the incentives, such as maintenance and upgrades to paving, signage, lighting, etc. The intent is to use all parking resources for the betterment of downtown as effectively as possible. d. Prohibit commercial hourly rate parking lots in downtown. The intent is for public parking to be coordinated as a unified system of civic infrastructure. Such lots tend to harm the effectiveness of coordinated infrastructure and clutter the visual environment. e. Downtown parking should have a clear, user-friendly identity achieved through a consistent, well-designed and maintained graphic system. 2.3.2 Enhance the responsiveness of City Parking Services to effectively deal with the rapidly changing parking environment Downtown. a. Increase the authority of City Parking Services to better manage parking resources, by setting permit and hourly price structures, parking time limits, locations of special use zones, and other similar management tools. 2.3.3 Increase transit ridership into and around downtown. a. Increase the frequency and direct routing of service into and out of the downtown. b. Develop and implement a demand management strategy for downtown that includes the following: 1. Fund and operate improved bus service along Mason Street and capitalize on the travel patterns of commuters into the downtown. 2. Implement a transit pass program that makes it more cost-effective and convenient for employees to travel downtown via transit. Parking signage. Current alley delivery practice. Current center lane delivery practice. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 42 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3. Encourage the development of employee carpools and vanpools through parking incentive programs. 4. Utilize parking policies and price packages as incentives to encourage multi-occupancy vehicle trips into downtown. 2.3.4 Continue to develop the vision for the Mason Transportation Corridor that is supported by the community. 2.3.5 Manage future traffic circulation and minimize traffic delays downtown. a. It is unlikely that streets can be widened. Thus, they will have to shoulder the effects of growing traffic volumes over time, due to further development and overall traffic growth. As one way to minimize these effects, convert Mason and Howes streets to two-way facilities. b. Mitigate future reduced levels of service and intersection delays for vehicles throughout downtown by fostering increased reliance on pedestrian, bicycle and transit access into downtown. c. Manage projected traffic congestion on College Avenue by increasing utilization of Mason, Howes, Remington, Olive and Magnolia. Increase travel on these streets through signage and easily accessible parking facilities. 2.3.6 Support the location and development of a future commuter rail station in downtown Fort Collins. a. Work with regional and statewide commuter rail development efforts. b. Look for opportunities to successfully design transit feeder services from adjacent neighborhoods and the Downtown Core to connect with future commuter rail operations. 2.3.7 Make bicycle circulation an integral element of the downtown transportation network. a. While acknowledging the critical function of on-street parking, enhance bicycle commuting into and around downtown by creating strong neighborhood bicycle connections. 1. Dedicate Magnolia Street as the primary east-west bike route, and Mason Street as the primary north-south bike route downtown. 2. Improve bicycle signage to direct commuters along dedicated facilities into downtown. 3. Provide bicycle lockers and other related facilities in conjunction with future office development. b. Expand recreational bicycling opportunities by improving north-south connections between downtown and the Poudre River Trail at Jefferson and Linden, and North College and Cherry. Need for pedestrian and bicycle connection on North College Avenue. Intersection paving. Streetscape serving the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 43 2.3.8 Enhance the pedestrian environment downtown. a. Improve pedestrian crossings of Mason and Howes Streets at Mountain Avenue, Oak Street, Olive Street, and Magnolia Streets with special paving and other treatments. 2.3.9 Increase transit connections between the Downtown Transit Center and the Colorado State University Transit Center. a. CSU’s population represents a significant transit market with a high demand for downtown products and services. Transit service into downtown should be geared towards students, faculty and staff by being highly visible on campus with frequent service at convenient times. b. Service should be routed to provide a direct connection between the transit centers. c. Service frequency and hours of operation should be extended with emphasis directed toward mid-day peak periods. Weekend and late evening service should be enhanced to make transit a more viable student travel alternative into downtown. 2.3.10 Create pedestrian linkages across Jefferson Street at North College and Lincoln Avenues and Linden Street. a. Recognized pedestrian connections at these locations will help to minimize Jefferson Street as a transportation barrier to the downtown retail area. Although Jefferson serves a critical transportation function as a state highway, the improvement of dedicated crossings can work within this function and still encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Poudre River Trail and pedestrian links to Old Town retail. Specific treatment of these crossings is detailed in 2.2.6. b. Phasing and implementation should coordinate with provisions of the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 44 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 45 PRINCIPLE 3: BLEND THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS 3.1 Market 3.1.1. Protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods from insensitive redevelopment by requiring careful attention to neighborhood scale, housing types, and historic integrity. 3.1.2 Encourage neighborhood-serving businesses to locate in downtown, particularly in areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. a. Typical neighborhood serving uses include neighborhood restaurants, dry cleaners, small grocery markets, personal services, small offices, bed and breakfasts, various home occupation uses, studios and live/work units, and similar uses. b. The proposed downtown “market information and business support portal” (see 1.1.5c) could be instrumental in assisting in the creation of new service businesses in the Infill/Transition Area. 3.1.3 Establish ongoing communications links to inform residents and business interests of issues and activities of mutual concern, and to foster discussion. a. Explore reciprocal agreements between the proposed Downtown Alliance and neighborhood organizations to provide meaningful involvement on committees and boards. 3.2 Urban Design 3.2.1 The Infill/Transition Areas – West Side, East Side, and Downtown River Corridor - will have their own distinctive character and identity. a. While it is important to have some continuity with the downtown study area, these ‘subareas’ should retain their unique neighborhood characteristics, including the use of distinct district names. Example of a home converted into a business in a transition area. Existing transitional area office. Enhance pedestrian crossings. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 46 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.2.2 Carefully locate and shape taller buildings (4-12 stories) in the westside Infill/Transition Area to respond to defining characteristics of the surrounding context. (The surrounding context includes both existing and emerging characteristics that are consistent with adopted plans.) a. Revise relevant Land Use Code sections with clearer standards for height and mass. Standards should be flexible enough to allow for architectural creativity, yet rigid enough to provide meaningful limits and parameters. b. Standards should describe mass reduction techniques to carefully distribute building mass to fit the local context; and to mitigate negative effects of taller buildings. Topics for standards include: 1. Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion, typically 1 or 2 stories. A cornice or roof, fenestration, materials, and colors should define the base. The ground floor of every building should be differentiated to emphasize its relationship to pedestrians. 2. Step back. Portions of the building above the base portion should be stepped back, with the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with greater height above the base portion. The reduction should be a significant aspect of the building design, related to useable indoor rooms or outdoor terraces or balconies. 3. Balconies. Balconies or terraces should be required on upper-floor residential units. 4. Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the context of each block. See Figure 2.6, Maximum Building Heights Map, representing a compromise among various interests. c. Various interests generally agree that buildings up to about 6 ½ stories (about 80’) can be acceptable throughout the area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing buildings taller than that. Standards should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly straightforward review based on the general agreement on key parameters. Standards should allow the possibility of the latter, where shown on the map, subject to more detailed consideration, public discussion, and negotiation of design solutions to decrease negative effects. Issues to consider include additional bulk reduction to avoid long, high building walls; shadow analysis; use of height to mitigate mass; and use of design to mitigate height. 1. Landscape setback. A landscaped setback should be standard on all blocks west of Mason Street. The intent is to continue the typical soft green edge that characterizes the area, and that contributes to the transition from the core area. Exceptions should be allowed at entrances, and where a building features display windows along the street sidewalk. 3.3 Transportation 3.3.1 Create characteristics that visibly distinguish residential segments of streets from more heavily used commercial segments. a. Equip key streets with decorative median and/or landscaped circular planters to uniquely signify entry to adjacent neighborhoods. b. Develop a neighborhood signage program that identifies residential streets and unique neighborhood characteristics. c. Increase neighborhood police presence and enforcement programs as needed. 3.3.2 Investigate the implementation of neighborhood residential parking permit programs to preserve on-street parking in neighborhoods for residents and their visitors, particularly in areas where parking pressure from activities in the downtown area impact adjacent neighborhoods. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 47 _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 6 Maximum Building Heights S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 48 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N ISSUE DEFINITIONS The critical elements gathered from the public process started with creating a list of issues developed under the three focal areas of the strategic plan: market, transportation, and urban design. These lists were reviewed, revised, supplemented by the public, and ranked according to priority to create key issues. While low-ranked issues are not covered, all key issues are addressed in this plan. _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 7 Market, Transportation and Urban Design/Land Use Issues MARKET ISSUES 1. Public/Private partnership is unbalanced: Private sector should be strengthened. 2. Need policies on bars. Evaluate in context of role of entertainment, then make recommendations. 3. Stronger linkage to CSU: Spending by students is big. 4. Regulatory system sometimes doesn’t support development: City development process and historic regulations need to be reviewed. 5. North/South demographic split along Prospect – South side of town disconnected from downtown? 6. Need to find balance between encouraging development and protecting environmental quality. 7. Parking management is an issue – Difficult to park at/near destination. 8. Police/safety issues: Bar activity and split police districts are issues. 9. Downtown lacks significant economic underpinnings: no large private sector employers and no destination or regional attraction. 10. Provide useful goods and services for nearby residents. 11. Hotel conference center is a viable use downtown: full service, 250-300 rooms, 20,000- 25,000 sf conference center. 12. Current vacancy rates are a concern: Vacant storefronts along College. 13. Retail Mix: Be strategic about bringing in national retail that doesn’t compete with existing local businesses. 14. Reinforce and strengthen current successful ambiance and vibrant energy that exists downtown: encourage a variety of restaurants. 15. Strengthen civic center and public facilities area downtown; Emphasize arts and cultural uses. 16. Reinforce support for small merchants and downtown. 17. Reinforce downtown as a sense of home for downtown and adjacent neighborhood residents – compatibility and transition areas with neighborhoods are important. 18. Encourage more downtown housing – Look at how and where density is appropriate. 19. Create better employment opportunities downtown-jobs influence residential uses and vice-versa. 20. Clarify role of recreation downtown- paintball, skateboarding, kayaking, boating, fishing (this is separate from entertainment). S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 49 A. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 21. The redesign and construction of Mason Street will impact access to downtown. 22. The update to the Transportation Master Plan and City Plan will affect downtown transportation. The overall City issues must be addressed. 23. Parking has always been an issue and will continue to be. Pay versus non-pay parking is a critical issue. 24. Safe pedestrian access from parking to destination is important. 25. Increase bike access to downtown, especially east/west: this is important to bring employers downtown. 26. Freight/delivery systems affect downtown; downtown management should determine when freight and deliveries can be made. 27. Location, condition, and capacity of infrastructure and utilities will affect future level of development. 28. Increased downtown development will increase overall traffic. 29. Parking management needs to be strengthened and enforced. 30. Pedestrian/bike connections to CSU have many physical barriers. This should be addressed. 31. CDOT truck traffic and traffic flow issues along Riverside Avenue are in conflict with existing on-street parking. This is an important issue to resolve relative to downtown development. 32. Commuter rail is proposed along Riverside Avenue tracks and is the proposed end-of-the- line. The connection with Mason Street station is critical. 33. Public parking facilities are important to the parking analysis. These must be kept separate from private lots and garages. 34. Provide ample amount of parking. The current 11,000 spaces are a resource for downtown success. 35. The impact of the downtown floodplain on the utilities needs to be defined and clarified. 36. Wayfinding is an issue from the south to the north end of town as well as from I-25. B. URBAN DESIGN/LAND USE ISSUES 37. Connection from downtown to area across Jefferson Street, railroad tracks, and river is important. Currently it is limited to three existing crossings. 38. Determining the best use of area east of the railroad tracks, including golf course, is critical. This area should complement, not compete with downtown. 39. Location and type of retail uses that serve downtown and neighborhood residents are important. 40. Protect and emphasize great historic architecture. The 3-4 story height of these buildings provide good pedestrian scale. Historic architecture should not minimize modern architecture; they should be integrated. 41. Building heights in downtown relative to historic buildings and allowable building heights in certain zones could be in conflict. The relationships between these areas need to be planned. 42. River guidelines determine type of development and orientation of development to the river, and, therefore, the relationship to downtown. 43. The river is a natural amenity. The plan must address how to gain pedestrian access from downtown. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 50 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 44. Plazas and public spaces are important for downtown: a better understanding of the purpose of each of these areas is important as well as to determine ways to unify their appearances. 45. Maintenance and cleanliness downtown are ongoing issues that need to be addressed. 46. Wayfinding into downtown from I-25 is not clear. The plan must address where the downtown gateway should be. Address wayfinding route from south and north Fort Collins as well. 47. Define how the 100-year Floodplain Area influences future downtown development, especially across railroad tracks, across river and at golf course. The floodplain has two different regulatory agencies. 48. Civic and public facilities are important to downtown. These must be included within the project analysis. 49. Connection with CSU is important: determine how to gain pedestrian access between campus and downtown. 50. Public restrooms downtown are highly needed. 51. Consistent street/streetscape design criteria does not exist; this would help unify downtown. 52. Homeless issues -- relative to where they congregate and shoppers’ perceptions -- needs to be reviewed. This may be a downtown businesses management issue. 53. Update to City Plan is currently being completed. This plan must keep overall City issues in mind. S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 51 _____________________________________________ Figure 2. 8 Lower Downtown Good Neighbor Handbook S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 52 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 53 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 54 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 55 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 56 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 57 S E C T I O N I I – f r a m e w o r k p l a n 58 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 65 Section III - Market Analysis ECONOMIC PROFILE An analysis of the demographic composition of neighborhood area residents and employees provides the most accurate description of the target markets generating the demand for Downtown’s business products and services. The following analysis is based upon recent data compiled from Fort Collins zip codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 and Census Tract 1 (Figure 3.1). The Downtown Strategic Plan study area boundaries are roughly Whitcomb Street on the west, Vine Drive on the north, Linden Street, Buckingham Street, 1st Street, East Lincoln Avenue, and Lemay Avenue on the east and Mulberry Street on the south. Census Tract 1, which falls mostly within the study area boundary with the exception of eight blocks to the south of Mulberry Street, will be used to define the Downtown area for the purposes of this analysis (Figure 3.2). Residents Between 1990 and 2000, the Downtown area population increased by 8.8%. During the same period, Fort Collins grew by 35.2%, or an average of 2.9% annually. The City estimated the 2002 Fort Collins population at 126,848. Citywide household growth of 36.1% far outpaced the 1.6% growth of the Downtown core. Household sizes did not change between 1990 and 2000, with smaller households (1.7 persons), and a city household size of 2.4 persons. Within the Downtown core, the population is getting younger, moving from a median age of 29.5 in 1990 to 28.4 in 2000. The Downtown female population decreased by 3%. African American, American Indian and Hispanic populations increased, yet are a very small segment of the Downtown population. Additionally, the Downtown Asian population decreased by 25%, but grew by 40.5% throughout the city. The city’s Hispanic population grew by nearly 68%, reflecting a statewide increase. The median age of Fort Collins residents is 28 (Figure 3.3). North vs. South An analysis of the north and south districts of Fort Collins (as defined by zip codes 80521 and 80524 located north of Prospect Road, and zip codes 80525 and 80526 located south of Prospect Road) shows the population south of Prospect growing by nearly 39% between 1990 and 2000, more than twice the growth of the northern part of the city. During the last decade, much residential and commercial growth occurred in the southern part of the city. Households south of Prospect tend to be slightly larger than those to the north. The four zip codes encompass a larger area than census-defined city boundaries, yet certain trends are evident through comparison of north and south (Figure 3.4). The presence of a large number of 18- to 24-year olds attending CSU and living in the immediate area of the university is reflected in the median age for zip codes north of Prospect Road. South of Prospect Road, at least 20% of the population is under 15 years of age (Figure 3.5). North of Prospect Road, median household incomes fall below the Fort Collins median, while those incomes to the south are at least 22% higher than the city median (Figure 3.6). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 66 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 1 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Fort Collins, Colorado Zip Codes Source: 2000 Census _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 2 Census Tract 1 Fort Collins’ Downtown Core Source: 2000 Census S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 67 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 3 Downtown Core and Fort Collins Demographic Summary: 1990-2000 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census Downtown Core Fort Collins Colorado 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 % Chan ge 19 90 200 0 % Cha nge 1990 2000 % Chan ge Population 2,284 2,485 +8.8% 87,758 118,652 +35.2% 3,294,394 4,301,261 30.6% Households 1,333 1,355 +1.6% 33,689 45,882 +36.1% 1,282,489 1,658,238 29.3% Average HH Size 1.7 1.7 0% 2.4 2.4 0% 2.5 2.5 0% Median Age 29.5 28.4 -1.1% 27.8 28.2 +0.4% 32.5 34.3 +1.8% Gender Male 1,089 1,326 +21.7% 43,512 59,593 +36.9% 1,631,295 2,165,983 +32.7% Female 1,195 1,159 -3.0% 44,246 59,059 +33.4% 1,663,099 2,135,278 +25.8% Race & Ethnicity White 2,139 2,219 +3.7% 81,877 106,347 +29.8% 2,905,474 3,560,005 +22.5% African American 12 32 +166..7% 856 1,213 +41.7% 133,146 165,063 +23.9% American Indian 12 22 +83.4% 459 715 +55.7% 27,776 44,241 +59.2% Asian 44 33 -25.0% 2,098 3,091 +40.5% 59,862 99,834 +66.7% Other 77 179 +132.4% 2,468 7,286 +195.2% 168,136 309,931 +84.3% Hispanic Origin 183 242 +32.7% 6,197 10,402 +67.8% 424,302 735,601 +73.3% _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 4 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Demographic Summary: 1990- 2000 Source: 1993 and 2002 ESRI BIS Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics North of Prospect Road South of Prospect Road 1990 2000 % Change 1990 2000 % Change Population 51,263 60,883 +18.7% 60,408 83,912 38.9% Households 19,321 23,203 +20.0% 23,244 32,578 +40.1% Average HH Size 2.4 2.4 0% **2.6 ***2.5 -0.1% Race & Ethnicity White 47,146 53,372 +13.2% 57,362 76,738 +33.7% African American 548 572 +4.3% 365 713 +95.3% Asian 1,186 1,245 +4.9% 1,110 1,973 +77.7 Other* 2,383 5,694 +138.9% 1,571 4,488 +185.6% Hispanic Origin 4,773 7,589 +59.0% 3,372 5,787 +71.6% *Includes American Indian. **1992 estimates. * **2001 estimates S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 68 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 5 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Age Distribution by Percent of Population: 2000 Source: 2000 Census North of Prospect Road South of Prospect Road 80521 80524 80525 80526 Under 15 11.9% 18.6% 20.7% 21.5% 15 to 24 years 44.1% 16.1% 15.4% 19.6% 25 to 34 years 16.7% 15.5% 15.4% 16.4% 35 to 44 years 10.3% 15.4% 16.6% 17.1% 45 to 54 years 7.6% 14.4% 15.2% 13.5% 55 to 64 years 3.6% 8.8% 7.1% 5.7% 65 and over 5.9% 11.3% 9.7% 6.0% Median Age 23.3 34.9 33.9 29.9 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 6 Zip Codes 80521, 80524, 80525 and 80526 Household Income by Percent of Total Households: 2001 Source: 2002 ESRI BIS Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics North of Prospect Road South of Prospect Road *Fort Collins 80521 80524 80525 80526 $100,000 or More 6.8% 11.0% 23.2% 18.9% 12.5% $50,000 to $99,999 21.8% 27.9% 34.6% 35.5% 32.0% $25,000 to $49,999 24.9% 27.9% 23.3% 24.4% 28.1% $15,000 to $24,999 13.3% 13.0% 8.8% 8.5% 12.8% Less Than $15,000 33.2% 20.3% 10.0% 12.7% 14.6% Median HH Income $27,790 $38,027 $58,786 $54,343 $44,459 Per Capita Income $14,824 $21,061 $30,145 $26,100 **$29,178 *2000 Census. **2000 Bureau of Economic Analysis. Educational Attainment Fort Collin’s population is highly educated. According to recent Census information, 48.3% of those 25 years and over have earned a bachelors degree or higher. Students The current generation of Colorado State University (CSU) students brings the most disposable income and sophisticated spending patterns in CSU’s history. According to Campus Concepts, a Baltimore college marketing and advertising firm, the spending power of college students nationwide is estimated at more than $90 billion. Full-time, four-year enrollees spend an estimated $30 billion, including $23 billion on essential purchases, such as rent, food, transportation and tuition, and $7 billion on nonessential “beer and pizza” discretionary items. In 1999, the Student Monitor, a nationally syndicated market research study, found the average American university student bought items shown in Figure 3.7. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 69 National surveys have also found increasing sophistication levels among the products consumed by college students. According to the publisher of The Source, a college-oriented cultural magazine, college students will remark, “I want the best shirt. Not just a shirt, but the best shirt – They don’t want just jeans and a T-shirt.” Surveys by CollegeTrack, a marketing firm, conclude that “College students are consumers just like any other adults, but marketers don’t see them in that way.” Between 1997 and 2001, the total CSU student population grew by 7.8% to 23,934. 7,044 students enrolled for the 2001 summer session. Graduate and professional veterinary medicine students accounted for roughly 17% of the total student population. During the same period, minority student populations increased by 0.7% to 11.5% (Figure 3.8). In Fall 2001, 92% of the 3,720 newly-enrolled, first-year freshmen and 24% of the undergraduates lived on-campus, while 76% of undergraduates lived off-campus. The average age of a full-time, first year student was 18, while the average age of all undergraduate students was 21 (Figure 3.9). Undergraduate Expenses A full-time student can expect to spend anywhere from $12,000 to over $22,000 per 9-month academic year on school-related expenses (Figure 3.10). University Workforce Between 1997 and 2000, the university workforce increased by 9.7% to 5,700. State classified employees, who make up roughly 39% of CSU’s workforce, fill administrative, technical, trade and professional positions. For 12 months out of the year and during a normal workweek, this group of employees is the most likely to be on campus full-time, (Figure 3.11). Between 1997 and 2001, this employee category grew by more than 20%. State Classified employees median incomes range from $28,938 to $46,980. Faculty makes up 27% of the employee population. The mean salary range for full, associate and assistant professors combined on regular, tenure-track appointments was $69,211 for a 9-month basis of service and $89,992 for a 12-month basis of service. Taken as a whole, the employee groups have some potential for spending for Downtown shops, services and restaurants (Figure 3.12). A mid-90s study, which attempted to measure CSU’s impact on the Fort Collins metro area economy, found CSU pumped an estimated $530 million into the local economy by way of university spending, employee and student household spending, visitor spending, and various taxes. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 70 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 7 Average Monthly Spending by College Students: 1999 Source: American Demographics/Student Monitor 1999 Item Avg Spent per Month Apparel $68 Dining Out $56 Entertainment $55 Food at Home $42 Music $26 Books/Leisure $23 Toiletries/Personal Care $22 School Supplies $18 Software $10 Cleaning Supplies $9 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 8 Colorado State University Total Student Population: Fall, 2001 Enrollment Source: Colorado State University Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis Ethnicity Enrolled Students Percentage of Total Population Asian American 638 2.6% African American 415 1.7% Hispanic 1,312 5.4% Native American 279 1.1% Other 784 3.2% White 19,591 81.8% International 915 3.8% Total 23,934 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 9 Colorado State University Undergraduates: 2001 - 2002 School Year Source: Colorado State University Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis First-time, first- year (freshman) Undergraduate students Live in college-owned, -operated or -affiliated housing 92% 24% Live off campus or commute 8% 76% Students age 25 and older 0% 12% Average age of full-time students 18 21 Average age of all students (full- and part-time) 18 21 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 71 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 10 Colorado State University Typical Undergraduate Expenses: 2002 - 2003 School Year Source: Colorado State University Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis Resident Nonresident Tuition and General Fees $3,435 $12,705 Charges for Technology $160 $160 Room and Board (on campus) $5,920 $5,920 Books/Supplies (average) $900 $900 Miscellaneous (average) $2,000 $2,700 Total $12,415 $22,385 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 11 Colorado State University Employee Trends: 1997- 2001 Source: Colorado State University Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis 0 575 1,150 1,725 2,300 Other Employees State Classified Research Associates Administrative Professionals Temporary Faculty Special Faculty Tenure-Track Faculty Administrative Faculty University Employees 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 72 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 12 2002 Incomes of Largest CSU Workforce Groups Source: Colorado State University Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis Group Median Income Faculty (All Ranks) Twelve-Month Basis of Service $89,992 Nine-Month Basis of Service $69,211 State Classified Employees Class H $46,980 Class C $34,968 Class G $34,032 Class B $32,994 Class D $28,938 Net Taxable Sales Between 1995 and 2001, net taxable sales for the City of Fort Collins and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) increased 67% and 20% respectively, while decreasing several percentage points between 2001 and 2002 (Figure 3.13). As net taxable sales increased through 2001, Downtown’s market share of net taxable sales decreased from 10.6% in 1995 to 7.7% in 2002 (Figure 3.14). Between 1995 and 2002, Downtown eating and drinking establishments consistently averaged around 30% of annual net taxable sales (Figure 3.15). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 13 DDA and the City of Fort Collins Net Taxable Sales* Trends: 1995 - 2002 Source: City of Fort Collins Sales Tax Office, Colorado Department of Revenue $125,000,000 $495,000,000 $865,000,000 $1,235,000,000 $1,605,000,000 $1,975,000,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 DDA City of Fort Collins *does not include Super Wal-Mart % Annual Growth of Net Taxable Sales +6.4% +6.4% +9.7% +8.6% +8.3% +9.5% -3% +5% +5% +4% +5% -1.5% +.8% -2.2% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 73 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 14 DDA Market Share of City Net Taxable Sales* Trends: 1995 - 2002 Sources: City of Fort Collins Sales Tax Office, Colorado Department of Revenue $10,000,000 $30,000,000 $50,000,000 $70,000,000 $90,000,000 $110,000,000 $130,000,000 $150,000,000 $170,000,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 7.00% 7.50% 8.00% 8.50% 9.00% 9.50% 10.00% 10.50% 11.00% Net Taxable Sales DDA Market Share % Annual Growth of Net Taxable Sales -.8% +5% +5% +4% +5% -1.5% -2.2% *does not include Super Wal-Mart _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 15 Net Taxable Sales Trends Eating & Drinking Establishments and Other Sales in the DDA: 1995 - 2002 Source: City of Fort Collins Sales Tax Office $0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Other Sales Eating and Drinking Establishments *does not include Super Wal-Mart S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 74 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Downtown’s Amenities Downtown Fort Collins has no single major attraction, but is home to a variety of unique attractions and events, providing opportunities for social, educational and cultural interaction against an attractive, historic backdrop (Figure 3.16). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 16 Downtown Fort Collins Attractions and Events Sources: various Fort Collins Museum A regional center focusing on area history and culture. 2000 attendance: 24,579. Fort Collins Main Library 2001 building traffic: 449,740. Lincoln Center A 1,500-seat performing arts center, home to the opera, theatrical performances and the chorale, contains three art galleries and conference facilities. 2001 attendance including events: 329,503, plus 75,600 visits to the Mulberry Pool on the same site. Museum of Contemporary Art Features two art galleries in a renovated 1911 post office. 2001 attendance: 15,000. Old Town Square Boutiques and retail services, eating and drinking establishments, and professional office space surround a public plaza in a renovated historic setting. Colorado State University 23,000 students attend graduate and undergraduate courses; also known for agricultural, engineering and veterinary sciences research. Downtown Business Association Events DBA annually produces over 52 promotional event days: Colorado Brewer’s Festival, First Night Fort Collins, New WestFest, afternoon and evening concert series, parades, and other activities; attracting over 500,000 people to Downtown from across the region. Fort Collins Municipal Railway The only original restored streetcar in operation in the western US. Annually carries 8,000 riders between City Park and Downtown. The Farm at Lee Martinez Park Depicts life on early 1900s farm; features farm animals, a farm museum, educational programming and horse and pony rides. Annually attracts 96,000 visitors. Northside Aztlan Community Center Community, recreation, and group activities annually draw about 157,000 visitors. New 2007 facility expects to draw 225,000. Public Parks Within walking distance of Downtown; Lee Martinez, library, Buckingham and Fort Collins Heritage Parks. Parks comprise 113 acres of green space. Cache la Poudre River Colorado’s only nationally-designated “wild and scenic” river provides recreational opportunities as well as an attractive Downtown feature. Convention/Hotel Market Fort Collins has 28 hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities with a total of 1,991 rooms. Only 18 rooms, available in 5 bed and breakfasts, are in Downtown Fort Collins. Currently, several outlying hotels, CSU facilities, (which include a stadium and arena) and the Lincoln Center provide the largest meeting and reception spaces near Downtown. A new hotel, with facilities to accommodate meetings in a unique, Downtown environment, could prove to be an asset. Demand for such a hotel could come from “intellectual tourists” attending conferences and seminars at CSU, business, and other visitors. A logical next step would be a formal feasibility study to adequately assess the need for a Downtown hotel and conference facility (Figure 3.17). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 75 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 17 Fort Collins Hotel Occupancy and Average Room Rates: 2000 - September, 2002 Source: Rocky Mountain Lodging Report $77.09 $79.98 $71.24 60.3% 56.1% 58.6% $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 2000 2001 Through September, 2002 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% Average Room Rate Occupancy % Employment According to the 2000 Census, the education, health and manufacturing sectors combined to employ over 50% of Fort Collins’ 66,000-person workforce. CSU and Poudre Valley Hospital, which are within several miles of the Downtown core, are among the largest employers. Fort Collins experienced a 5.1% employment growth rate through May 2002 (Figure 3.18). Approximately 650 businesses, employing 8,300 employees, or roughly 12% of the Fort Collins workforce, are located within Downtown. City, county and federal government, professional and business services firms, and eating and drinking establishments employ 75% of all Downtown workers (Figure 3.19). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 18 Major Employers in the Downtown Area: January 2002 Source: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department Employer Name Employees Product/Service Colorado State University *6,905 undergraduate and postgraduate university Larimer County 1,300 county government City of Fort Collins 1,300 city government First National Bank 320 banking Qwest Communications 227 telephone utility Wells Fargo Banks 135 banking *includes graduate assistants S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 76 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 19 Downtown Fort Collins Employment By Industry: 2001 Source: ES202, 3rd Qtr. 2001, Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Education, Health & Social Services 4% Other Services 3% Professional, Scientific, Management & Administrative Arts, Entertainment/Recreation, 27% Lodging & Food Services 19% Public Administration 26% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 9% Agriculture, Forestry & Mining 0% Information 1% Wholesale Trade 3% Construction 3% Manufacturing 4% Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 1% Unemployment Fort Collins/Loveland MSA and Colorado annual employment rates mirrored each other through 2001, with both staying below national unemployment rate levels. The national rate has continued to rise, and in January 2002, Colorado’s 5.7% unemployment rate surpassed the national unemployment rate (5.6%) for the first time in 12 years. In April 2003, Colorado and national unemployment rates were at 6%, and the Fort Collins/Loveland MSA followed the upward trend to 5.4% (Figure 3.20). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 20 Annual Unemployment Rate for Fort Collins/Loveland MSA, Colorado, and the United States: 1995 - April 2003 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 5.4% 5.2% 3.9 3.8 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.8 5.7% 6.0% 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.8 2.9 2.7 3.7 5.8% 6.0% 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.8 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 April, 2003 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 77 Office Market Within the last two years, the Fort Collins office market expanded by nearly 700,000 square feet. The largest major new office project was a 58,000 square foot project in south Fort Collins. Corporate downsizing and the subsequent availability of sublease space have moderately increased vacancies (Figure 3.21). The rapid growth of suburban office parks has created strong competition for the Downtown office market (Figure 3.22). Downtown Fort Collins was the region’s first employment center. A component of office supply in the Downtown core is the “second floor” office space found within older buildings. September 2002 estimates (sources: the County Assessor, Urban Marketing Collaborative and the City) show office/financial uses within the study area account for 1,006,663 square feet (17.1%), and that government uses account for 1,198,016 square feet (20.3%). Between 2002 and 2003, Downtown retail vacancies have remained at 4%. In June, 2003, Realtec reported a Downtown office vacancy rate of 9.75%. A December 2002 survey showed the Downtown submarket to be an affordable alternative (Figure 3.23 and 3.24). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 21 Fort Collins Office Vacancy Trends: 1995 - 2001 Source: Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services 9.6 10.4 14 13.1 8.7 7.4 6.7 0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0% 15.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 22 Fort Collins Office Market*: April 2002 Source: Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services Gross Square Feet 4,800,000 sf Vacancy Rate (April 2002) 9.6% Vacancy Rate (April 2001) 8.7% Vacancy Percent Change 2001 - 2002 +0.9% Average Lease Rates (January 2001 to April 2002) $12.84/sf NNN $13.61/sf +Utilities $15.68/sf Gross *established buildings S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 78 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 23 Downtown and South Fort Collins Office Markets: December 2002 Source: Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services Downtown* South Vacancy Rate: 10.01% Vacancy Rate: 17.40% 555 S Howes St 31,485 sf 2900/3000 S College Av 22,000 total sf 123 N College Av 16,174 sf 3702 Automation Wy 16,960 sf 23-25 Old Town Sq 10,000 sf 4512 McMurray Av 45,786 sf Total sf 57,659 sf 2057 Vermont Dr 24,886 sf 4800 Wheaton Dr 50,000 sf 2809 Harmony Rd 36,778 sf Total sf 196,410 sf *Realtec’s Downtown area varies from this plan’s study area. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 24 Downtown and South Fort Collins Office Lease Rates: December 2002 Source: Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services Downtown* Lease Rates Gross Plus Utilities Triple Net 1 year average $14.21/sf $10.21/sf $9.72/sf 2 year average $14.19/sf $10.73/sf $10.43/sf South Lease Rates 1 year average $17.52/sf $15.92/sf $15.42/sf 2 year average $18.26/sf $15.42/sf $15.38/sf *Realtec’s downtown area varies from this plan’s study area. Residential Development Fort Collins home sales grew steadily throughout the 1990s. In May 2002, the City issued 171 single-family home permits, more than double the number issued in April, and 39% more than the 123 permits issued one year earlier. Southeast Fort Collins accounted for almost 20% of all home sales and over one-third of new home sales (Figure 3.25). Downtown Fort Collins housing growth represents a very small segment of the total housing market. The definition of “housing unit” can, in some instances, refer to the rehabilitation of pre-existing units. During 2002, no new units were built in Downtown (Figure 3.26). In Fort Collins, the average sale price of homes has steadily increased, with significant increases between 1992 and 1995 and 1998 to 2000. The main factor in the price increase has been the escalating costs of new construction. The average sale price includes single- and multi-family sales of resale homes and new construction (Figure 3.27). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 79 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 25 Fort Collins New Housing Construction Activity: 1990 - 2002 Source: City of Fort Collins Building Permits and Inspections 0 475 950 1,425 1,900 1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002 HOUSING UNITS $0 $47,500,000 $95,000,000 $142,500,000 $190,000,000 VALUATION Housing Units Valuation ($) _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 26 Downtown Fort Collins New Housing Construction Activity: 1990 - 2002* Source: City of Fort Collins Building Permits and Inspections 0 20 40 60 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 HOUSING UNITS $0 $1,250,000 $2,500,000 $3,750,000 $5,000,000 VALUATION Housing Units Valuation ($) _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 27 Fort Collins For Sale Housing Activity: 1992 - 2001 Source: IRES Year Total Units Sold % Change Avg Sale Price % Change Sales Volume % Change 1992 3,268 +23% $102,989 +9% $336,566,838 +34% 1993 3,131 -4% $115,980 +13% $363,134,564 +8% 1994 2,947 -6% $137,412 +18% $404,952,842 +12% 1995 2,833 -4% $143,245 +4% $405,812,631 0-% 1996 3,104 +9% $148,686 +4% $460,000,000 +14% 1997 3,165 +2% $153,748 +3% $486,000,000 +6% 1998 3,828 +21% $159,680 +4% $611,000,000 + 26% 1999 3,880 +1% $175,534 +10% $681,000,000 +11% 2000 3,700 -4% $194,500 +11% $720,000,000 +6% 2001 4,054 +9% $213,227 +9% $864,000,000 +19% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 80 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Downtown Housing Downtown Fort Collins is considered to be a desirable place to live. One Realtor defines the “Old Town” area as Taft Hill Road on the west, Cherry Street, Jefferson Street and Smith Street on the north and east and Prospect Road/Laurel Street and Mulberry Street on the south. The older houses, parks, mature trees and landscaping, and the proximity to restaurants and cultural and educational amenities attract prospective homebuyers. According to the Realtor, homes on the east side of College Avenue do not achieve the premium prices of those sold on the other side of College Avenue. Families seeking homes in the Downtown area find that more often than not, they get more for their money in the neighborhoods to the south of Downtown. Consequently, many Downtown core dwellers tend to be single, mostly couples without children and/or empty nesters. Each year in the Downtown area, multi-family and single family home sales activity (units sold and average days on market) appears to decelerate through third quarter, 2002. The median price of a condominium increased 11.5% between 2001 and 2002, declining from a 2000 – 2001 increase of 18.8%. This trend may be indicative of resistance in the market. On the other hand, the median sales price of single-family homes increased 14.5% between 2001 and third quarter, 2002, compared to an 8% increase between 2000 and 2001 (Figure 3.28). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 28 Old Town/Downtown For Sale Housing Activity: 2000 - 2002 Source: IRES Units Sold Sales Volume Average Price Median Price Average Days on Market 2000 26 $2,131,350 $81,975 $79,900 33 2001 34 $3,190,125 $93,827 $95,000 33 Condominiums 2002* 15 $1,499,080 $99,938 $106,000 55 2000 176 $31,517,106 $179,074 $160,000 32 2001 197 $38,090,796 $193,354 $172,900 49 Single Family 2002* 138 $29,884,783 $216,556 $198,000 57 *thru 3rd quarter During August 2002, the Fort Collins Chapter of the Colorado Apartment Association conducted an informal survey to collect rental data. They found an 11.5% citywide vacancy rate, indicating a rental market that had softened a great deal. Recent high-tech layoffs, with job seekers leaving town and placing their homes on the rental market, and new apartment construction are factors in increasing vacancy rates. The climate of low interest rates, also a factor, has spurred some homeowners to upgrade first homes for income property, while purchasing another, better, home in which to live. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 81 Additionally, the survey uncovered a trend whereby parents of college students, also taking advantage of low interest rates, are purchasing rental income properties as housing for their children. In February of 2002, the Multi-family Rental Housing and Vacancy Survey, prepared for The Division of Housing for the State of Colorado, showed the northeast quadrant of Fort Collins (north of Prospect Street and east of College Avenue) had a vacancy rate of 4.8% and an average rent of $731.57. The northwest quadrant (west of College Avenue and north of Prospect Street) had a vacancy rate of 3.1% and an average rent of $776.46. This survey also reported the 5% vacancy rate is considered to be an equilibrium rate for the market. Recent US Census figures show no change in the number of housing units within the Downtown core between 1990 and 2000. Renter-occupied units represent a relatively high proportion of total units (77%) due to CSU’s influence on the market (Figure 3.29). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 29 Housing Trends in Census Tract 1: 1990 - 2000 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census 1990 2000 % Change Total Housing Units 1,417 1,417 0% Occupied Housing Units 1,333 1,355 +1.6% Owner-Occupied Units 24.2% 23% -1.2% Renter-Occupied Units 75.8% 77% +1.2% Rental Vacancy Rate 4.9% 3% -1.9% Commercial Development New space delivered in 2001 expanded the Fort Collins retail market to over 4.8 million square feet. The largest major new retail project was a 58,000 square foot project in south Fort Collins. 2001 marked the end of the largest five-year construction period in Fort Collins’ retail history. 1.3 million square feet of new retail space was added to the Fort Collins market in the last five years. Again, most of this development took place in the south end of town. New retail development slowed in 2002 and 2003 (Figure 3.30). Within Downtown Fort Collins, recent retail projects included a 4,600 square foot retail/office complex, the Northern Hotel mixed-use development, and a 221,255 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter at the Mulberry and Lemay Crossing shopping center. Permit valuation for new construction is high in 1999 and 2000 due to the initiation of construction of the new County Justice Center construction in 1999 and the City’s new office building at 215 North Mason Street in 2000. No permits were issued for new Downtown commercial construction during 2002 and 2003 (Figure 3.31). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 82 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 30 Fort Collins Commercial Construction Activity*: 1990 - 2003 Source: City of Fort Collins Building Permits and Inspections $0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 *permits for new construction through September 2003. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 31 Downtown Commercial Construction Activity*: 1990 - 2003 Source: City of Fort Collins Building Permits and Inspections $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 Remodel New Remodel $61 $29 $49 $12 $0 $144 $677 $224 $589 $5,308 $5,021 $2,084 $1,540 $1,665 New $8 $85 $7 $0 $0 $149 $488 $1 $273 $37,54 $6,251 $282 $0 $0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 *permits for new construction, additions and remodels through September 2003. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 83 Downtown Development Recent Downtown residential development includes 130 housing units incorporated into mixed- use projects. Housing types range from affordable senior apartment housing to single family homes and lofts. Public sector projects represent a substantial portion of recent new Downtown development (Figure 3.32). More public sector projects including a new library, a performing arts center and a community center are proposed for Downtown Fort Collins. Several mixed-use developments, including more than 500 housing units, are also proposed (Figure 3.33). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 32 Recent Downtown Development Projects: September 2003 Source: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department Project Name and/or Address Description Housing Units Commercial Square Feet Status 401 W Mountain Av 14,200 sf mixed-use project 2 13,407 complete Northern Hotel 172 N College Av Senior housing/mixed-use project 47 10,000 complete Martinez Park PUD Cherry St & Mason Ct Townhomes, single-family homes, lofts and offices 74 17,524 TH, SF units complete Home State Bank 303 E Mountain Av Mixed-use/bank 7 10,300 complete 185 N College Av Retail/office bldg. 4,600 complete Civic Center Parking Structure SWC Mason and Laporte 903 parking spaces, totaling 305,600 sf 69,033 complete City of Fort Collins Office Bldg. 215 N Mason St Public facility 71,515 complete Downtown Transit Center 250 N Mason St Transit facility 6,010 complete Larimer County Courthouse 200 W Oak St Public facility with offices 150,000 complete Larimer County Justice Center 201 Laporte Av Public facility 70,000 complete Total 130 422,389 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 84 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 33 Proposed Downtown Development Projects: September 2003 Source: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department Project Name/ Address Description Housing Units Commercial Square Feet Status Mountain Avenue Residences SWC Mountain Av & Howes St Mixed-use project 166 20,241 on hold Old Town North College Av & Vine Dr Mixed-use project 320 unknown (several mixed-use buildings) approved Mason Street North Mason Ct & Cherry St 42,000 sf mixed- use project 20 16,684 approved Cortina Canyon Av & Howes St Mixed-use project 21 22,706 approved Pine Street Lofts 251 Pine St Residential project 14 none proposed New Main Library Laporte Av & Howes St New main library 0 150,000 proposed Performing Arts Center Mountain Av & Howes St New performing arts center 0 80,000 proposed Northside Aztlan Community Center 112 Willow St Demolish/replace existing center 0 40,000 proposed Traffic and Commute According to the 2000 Census, slightly more than 64,500 Fort Collins workers, age 16 and over, averaged 18.5 minutes driving to work; 75.3% of all drivers drove alone, 10.1% carpooled, 4.9% used other means, 3.6% walked, 1.6% used public transportation to get to work, and the remaining 4.5% worked at home. According to Transfort, the Downtown Transit Center at 250 N. Mason Street averages daily, weekday transit ridership for City bus routes of 2,200 passengers, and roughly 300 daily long distance bus service passengers. Traffic Counts College and Mountain Avenues represent Downtown’s major intersection. Old Town Square is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. The City’s weekday traffic counts show vehicular traffic averaging 24,000 cars per day, traveling in both directions along College Avenue. The highest counts, taken for traffic traveling north and south along College Avenue, occur at the intersection of Olive Street, averaging 26,400 cars per day travel (Figures 3.34 – 3.37). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 85 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 34 Mason Street Traffic: September 2000, 24-Hour Period Source: City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Mason Street @ Northbound Eastbound Westbound East/West Total Laporte Avenue 4,100 3,100 3,400 6,500 Mountain Avenue 5,200 4,200 4,200 8,400 Oak Street 5,600 1,300 800 2,100 Olive Street 5,500 2,000 2,100 4,100 Average 5,100 2,650 2,625 5,275 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 35 College Avenue Traffic: May 1999, 24-Hour Period Source: City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations North/South East/West College Avenue @ Northbound Southbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total Maple Street 9,200 14,100 23,300 1,600 4,100 9,800 Laporte Avenue 11,700 10,400 22,100 4,900 2,900 7,800 Mountain Avenue 12,300 11,900 24,200 5,200 4,700 9,900 Olive Street 12,200 14,200 26,400 2,400 1,800 4,200 Average 11,350 12,650 24,000 3,525 3,375 7,925 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 36 Other Downtown Traffic: March and May 2000, 24-Hour Period Source: City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations North/South East/West Northbound Southbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total Linden St & Jefferson St 1,900 2,000 3,900 6,400 6,700 13,100 Riverside Av & Lincoln/Mountain Av 8,400 7,000 15,400 5,100 2,500 7,600 Mathews St & Mountain Av 1,000 2,200 3,200 5,400 4,400 9,800 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 86 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Crime Statistics During 2001, total crimes committed within Downtown Fort Collins represented 6.8% of crimes committed citywide. Crimes against persons were driven by assaults, while theft, excluding motor vehicles, drove the crimes against property category. Increased activity, and intensified enforcement measures by the police, account for an upturn during 2002 (Figure 3.37). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 37 Old Town Area Crime Statistics: 1997 - September 2002 Source: Fort Collins Police 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YTD 2002 Crimes Against Persons Crimes Against Property Summary Findings Tale of Two Cities Census data suggests a north/south economic divide at Prospect Road. Residents in the rapidly growing southern portion of the city are more likely to have higher household incomes than those to the north, but there are demographic similarities between north and south (age and racial composition) particularly if student demographics are taken out of the equation. Attractions and Events In addition to Downtown itself, top destination attractions are the Main Library (annual building traffic 450,000), Lincoln Center (annual attendance 330,000), and events produced by the Downtown Business Association (over 500,000 annually). Institution-Dominated Employment Downtown-area employment is dominated by the government sector, demonstrating the relative weakness of the private sector in terms of Downtown job creation. Student and University Employee Spending Potential According to a recent national study, the current generation of university students brings more disposable income and sophisticated spending patterns than any that preceded it. Between 1990 and 2001, the Colorado State University student population grew by 15.1%. University employees also constitute an important market segment with significant disposable income that is predisposed to patronize the Downtown. These captive markets reside and/or work within walking distance of the Downtown business district. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 87 Downtown vs. Citywide Development Patterns Downtown residential and commercial development represents a fraction of the development occurring within Fort Collins. A handful of major public-sector projects, including a parking structure, office buildings, and a transit facility, and the new Super Wal-Mart complex represent a substantial portion of recent Downtown commercial development. Adjusting for these large projects since 1995, Downtown development has been less than what would be expected during an era of relative economic prosperity and growth. Sales Tax Trends While Downtown Fort Collins’ net taxable sales increased by 38.4% between 1995 and 2001, Downtown has been losing its market share of Fort Collins, decreasing from 14.4% in 1995 to 12% in 2001. Eating and drinking establishments have consistently averaged 20% of Downtown annual net taxable sales through 2001. Trends do not include Super Wal-Mart. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 88 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N CONSUMER SURVEYS Background and Methodology Two consumer surveys were conducted as part of required research to understand the consumer market situation in Downtown Fort Collins; including its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as it relates to developing a strategic action plan. The Downtown Fort Collins Consumer Intercept Survey queried 100 people present in the Downtown area from June 12-22, 2002. The second survey, the Downtown Fort Collins Trade Area Telephone Survey, took telephone interviews from June 30 to July 10, 2002. Of the 200 people interviewed, 178 respondents (89%) had visited Downtown in the past 6 months, and only 11% had not visited. The 2 consumer surveys are summarized in this section and respondents are broken into 2 groups: 1. Intercept – respondents of the Downtown Fort Collins Consumer Intercept Survey. 1. Phone – respondents of the telephone survey. Visitors refer to those who visited Downtown within the past 6 months, while Non-visitors refer to those who have not. Market Penetration The Primary Trade Area includes the built-up areas of Fort Collins, including zip codes 80521, 80524, 80525, and 80526. Of the Primary Trade Area’s total household population of 55,781, 89% had visited Downtown in the past six months. This is equivalent to 49,645 households. This is extremely high and reflects the general overall appeal of Downtown to the general population. Respondent Profiles Before proceeding to analyze these survey results, it is important to understand the way in which the profile of the various survey respondents differ from one another, and from the population of Fort Collins. Differences in demographic characteristics offer important insights and can help explain survey results. A Fort Collins base population of 144,795 was compared to the 100 intercept respondents and 178 visitor-only phone respondents (Figures 3.38 and 3.39). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 38 Respondent Age Profile Comparison 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YTD 2002 Crimes Against Persons Crimes Against Property S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 89 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 39 Respondent Demographics Demographic Intercept Phone (Visitors only) Fort Collins Caucasian/White 95% 94% 90% Asian 2% 4% 3% African American/Black 2% 1% 1% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 1% 1% 9% Under $15,000 25% 11% 15% $15,000 to $24,999 8% 10% 13% $25,000 to $49,999 33% 33% 28% $50,000 to $99,999 22% 33% 32% Household Income $100,000 or more 12% 13% 13% Working full-time 51% 54% n/a Working part-time 23% 17% n/a Student 8% 7% n/a Retired 9% 16% n/a Homemaker 5% 1% n/a Employment Status Not working 4% 5% n/a Professional/Managerial 23% 34% n/a Sales and Service 36% 20% n/a Clerical/Administrative 18% 16% n/a Technical 10% 16% n/a Construction/Factory 5% 10% n/a Farming 3% 1% n/a Occupation Other 3% 3% n/a Married/Living with Partner 45% 50% n/a Single 46% 35% n/a Marital Status Separated, Widowed, Divorced 9% 14% n/a 0 73% 69% n/a 1 11% 14% n/a 2 11% 10% n/a No of Children Per Household 3+ 5% 7% n/a Classic, conservative look 39% 67% n/a Contemporary, current 38% 24% n/a Fashion Attitude Update often, avant garde 23% 9% n/a S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 90 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Significant Differences Summary Visitors ! are slightly older than the market ! mirror the market in the terms of most variables, including race and ethnicity, household income, employment status, and marital status. This reflects the fact Downtown Fort Collins has a broad spectrum of local residents. Non-visitors While Downtown Fort Collins attracts all types of demographic groups, those who have a greater probability of not visiting Downtown include a significant proportion of: ! men; ! over 55 years of age and retirees; ! from southern ends of the city; ! education attainment: high school graduates only; ! employed in technical and construction trades; and ! low income households and very high income households. The main reasons why residents do not visit Downtown include the following: ! not convenient to get to (32%), ! nothing to do there (14%), ! too much traffic (9%), ! prefer shopping closer to home (9%), and ! don’t like to shop (9%). Improvements and related comments include: ! more theaters/arts center (14%), and ! larger stores, mass merchants (13%). Activities of Downtown Fort Collins Visitors People who visit Downtown Fort Collins primarily come for shopping, eating or drinking, work or other local activities, services, and entertainment. The top primary reasons include: Downtown Fort Collins Intercept Respondents ! shopping (35%) ! eating or drinking (31%) ! local reasons (work, resident) (15%) ! services (5%) Downtown Fort Collins Telephone Respondents ! eating or drinking (43%) ! shopping (26%) ! entertainment (10%) ! local reasons (work, resident) (9%) Restaurants and bars are the most important drivers of visits from residents. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 91 Visitation While telephone respondents visit Downtown Fort Collins less frequently than intercept respondents, due primarily to the fact that more workers, students, and Downtown residents were included in the sample, Downtown is a frequent place to visit for most residents. Over 60% of respondents visit Downtown at least once per week. In addition, Downtown is a strong weekend destination. (Figures 3.40 to 3.43). Almost half (47%) of the residents spend 1 to 2 hours Downtown while just under one-third (32% to 33%) spend 2 to 4 hours Downtown. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 40 All Reasons for Visiting Downtown Fort Collins Reason Intercept Phone (Visitor only) Eating and drinking 82% 76% Shopping 60% 55% Entertainment 27% 32% Local reasons (work, resident) 26% 16% Services 16% 15% Government, Post Office 7% 8% Other 25% 23% _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 41 Downtown Fort Collins Visitation Survey question: “How often do you come to Downtown Fort Collins?” Intercept Phone (Visitor only) Daily 9% 11% 2 Times a Week or More 23% 33% Once a Week 29% 19% Between Once a Week and Once a Month 20% 12% Once a Month 11% 8% Less than Once a Month 9% 13% First Time 0% 4% _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 42 Weekend Visitation to Downtown Fort Collins Survey question: “How often do you visit Downtown Fort Collins on weekends?” Intercept Telephone (Visitor) 2 Times a Weekend or More 5% 16% Once a Weekend 29% 20% Between Once a Weekend and Once a Month 22% 16% Once a Month 15% 14% Less than Once a Month 23% 20% Never 6% 14% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 92 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 43 Length of Visitation Survey question: “When you come to Downtown Fort Collins, how long do you stay on average?” Intercept Telephone (Visitor) Less than 1 hour 9% 11% 1 to 2 hours 47% 47% 2 to 3 hours 33% 32% 4 or more hours 11% 10% Transportation and Parking A large percentage of both Intercept and Telephone Visitors drive to Downtown. Vehicular accessibility is extremely important to visitors. For nearby visitors, however, walking and bicycle are methods used by a significant number of visitors (Figure 3.44). On-street parking in Downtown or on a nearby side street is the most popular choice. 72% of area telephone respondents park along College Street or nearby on one of the side streets (Figure 3.45). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 44 Method of Transportation Survey question: “How did you arrive in Downtown Fort Collins?” Intercept Telephone (Visitor) Car/Motor Vehicle 69% 84% Walk 13% 8% Bicycle 9% 5% Obtained ride 5% 2% Public transportation 3% 1% Other 1% 0% _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 45 Parking Location Survey question: “Where did you park? Intercept Telephone (Visitor) On-street 47% 32% Side street 9% 40% Municipal parking lot 23% 16% Private parking lot 21% 12% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 93 Stores and Services Used From a stores and services list, visitors were asked to name which types of stores and services they used in the past 3 months. Shopping choice behavior was monitored for respondents. In the past 3 months, bar, restaurant, and casual dining were the most often cited activities in Downtown Fort Collins. Downtown was considered the top place to go for a number of stores and services (Figure 3.46). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 46 Downtown Shopping Patterns Survey question asked about purchases made in the past 3 months. 84% 78% 54% 54% 44% 43% 40% 35% 28% 27% 26% 0% 82% 63% 36% 48% 42% 23% 29% 51% 41% 16% 19% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Bar Restaurant Fast Food/Casual Personal Services Arts/Crafts Movies/Entertainment Apparel/Footware Gifts Books/Music Grocery Drug Professional Services Phone Intercept S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 94 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Shopping Priorities and Downtown Fort Collins Ratings Downtown Fort Collins visitors were asked to rate the most important factors in determining where to shop or eat (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important). These same respondents were then asked to rate Downtown Fort Collins on the same factors. The following figures summarize the answers to these questions. Strengths and Weaknesses Among the Intercept respondents, ratings for Downtown Fort Collins were average (hovering around 3), cultural venues and a wide selection of restaurants were given the highest ratings. Telephone respondents rated Downtown slightly more positive than Intercept respondents. Restaurant attributes were given the most positive ratings. Downtown Fort Collins achieves the highest ratings for: Downtown Fort Collins Intercept Respondents ! Appearance of the area (4.15) ! Clean, up-to-date businesses (4.03) ! Cost of parking (3.95) ! Safe and secure (3.92) ! Quality of businesses (3.91) Downtown Fort Collins Telephone Respondents ! Safe and secure (4.22) ! Clean, up-to-date businesses (4.11) ! Wide selection of restaurants 4.11) ! Quality of businesses (4.03) ! Helpful staff (4.02) In addition to the above listed strengths, Downtown Fort Collins respondents like the following points most about Downtown: ! ambiance ! stores ! physical environment ! people ! convenience ! entertainment As Downtown is a small geographic area, respondents appreciate the fact that everything is within walking distance. Downtown’s architecture and physical environment is a draw, as well as the quality of the retail offerings and the eating and drinking operations. Overall, Downtown is considered friendly, personable, safe, and clean. The attributes, rated most important to Downtown respondents in regards to where they shop and eat, however, are different from the top ratings for Downtown Fort Collins. An analysis of the gap between importance ratings and Downtown’s actual rankings can be used to compare strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The analysis helps to pinpoint where resources are needed for immediate and drastic changes (e.g., parking), and where smaller minor changes are needed to help improve upon a strength (e.g., enhancing the quality of the restaurants) (Figure 3.47). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 95 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 47 Importance versus Downtown Fort Collins’s Ratings - Gap Analysis Downtown Fort Collins Intercept Respondents Downtown Fort Collins Telephone Respondents Factor Importance Downtown Fort Collins Rating Gap Importance Downtown Fort Collins Rating Gap Easy to get to 4.13 3.86 -0.27 3.8 3.65 -0.15 Close to home/work 3.8 3.55 -0.25 3.49 3.45 -0.04 Convenient parking 3.9 3.66 -0.24 3.89 3.16 -0.73 Safe and secure 4.13 3.92 -0.21 4.32 4.22 -0.1 Helpful staff 4.05 3.89 -0.16 4.29 4.02 -0.27 Quality 4.04 3.91 -0.13 4.37 4.03 -0.34 Clean 4.04 4.03 -0.01 4.29 4.11 -0.18 Recognizable Chains 2.84 2.87 0.03 2.35 2.34 -0.01 Wide selection of stores 3.51 3.54 0.03 3.87 3.84 -0.03 Cost of parking 3.87 3.95 0.08 3.4 3.33 -0.07 Appearance 3.96 4.15 0.19 3.88 3.95 0.07 Open evenings 3.59 3.84 0.25 3.83 3.69 -0.14 Wide selection of restaurants 3.47 3.84 0.37 3.92 4.11 0.19 Unique businesses 3.27 3.8 0.53 3.51 3.81 0.3 Open Sundays 2.96 3.51 0.55 2.98 3.26 0.28 Activities 3.03 3.64 0.61 2.98 3.66 0.68 Downtown rating 3.94 4.03 The following are top attributes respondents use to determine where to shop, eat, or go for entertainment and cultural activities. Downtown Fort Collins Intercept Respondents ! Easy to get to (4.13) ! Safe and secure (4.13) ! Helpful staff (4.05) ! Clean, up-to-date businesses (4.04) ! Quality of businesses (4.04) Downtown Fort Collins Telephone Respondents ! Quality of businesses (4.37) ! Safe and secure (4.32) ! Clean, up-to-date business (4.29) ! Helpful staff (4.29) ! Convenient parking (3.89) A safe and secure feeling, the quality of businesses, and clean, up-to-date businesses were the most important attributes for both intercept and telephone respondents. In addition, parking appears to be an issue for both, in terms of cost and convenience. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 96 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Downtown Fort Collins’s greatest perceived weaknesses, as measured by the gap between the importance factor and the Downtown rating, include: Downtown Fort Collins Intercept Respondents ! Easy to get to (-0.27) ! Close to home/work (-0.25) ! Convenient parking (-0.24) ! Safe and secure (-0.21) ! Helpful staff (-0.16) Downtown Fort Collins Telephone Respondents ! Convenient parking (-0.73) ! Quality of businesses (-0.34) ! Clean, up-to-date businesses (-0.31) ! Helpful staff (-0.27) ! Easy to get to (-0.15) Traffic and parking are key negative issues, along with the quality of service delivered by the businesses. There are additional issues concerning safety and the quality of some of the businesses. For many of these issues, the gap is relatively small, requiring minor improvements to these issues. The factor which was considered the most out of line was convenient parking. Other comments by respondents related to Downtown Fort Collins’s weaknesses, beyond those listed above include: ! Traffic/parking ! Type of people Downtown ! Expensive stores and bars ! Lack of activities Summary Observations The following are observations from the intercept and telephone respondents: ! Downtown Fort Collins attracts almost everyone in Fort Collins. ! Compared to other Downtowns, both the penetration and the frequency are very high. ! Restaurants and bars are key drivers of Downtown traffic. ! Shopping benefits from the outstanding strength of restaurants and bars, as does entertainment. ! Shopping outside of eating and drinking is strongest for gifts, personal services, arts and crafts, and books and music. ! A key strength is the environment of Downtown, including the physical environment and ambiance. ! Downtown Fort Collins exceeds the expectations of residents on: o selection of restaurants o appearance o unique businesses o activities o Sunday shopping ! Although most visitors come by car, traffic and parking are issues more for those who come less frequently. ! In general, less frequent visitors are more critical of Downtown Fort Collins. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 97 Target Market Profile — 16 to 34 Years of Age Salient Features from Surveys Young visitors to Downtown Fort Collins, between the 16 to 34 years of age, were examined to determine if there were significant differences. When possible, finer details on the 16 to 24 age segment were supplied. An index was used as a comparative measure against all users to point to strengths and weaknesses. For example, if the index for the 16 to 25 age segment for coming to Downtown to dine in a restaurant is 126, this means that this group is 26% more likely to come Downtown to dine than all of the respondents combined. Socio-Demographic Characteristics ! Younger visitors tend to have resided for a shorter time at their current address. Visitors 16 to 34 years of age are 68% more likely to have only lived at their current address 1 to 3 years. Visitors over 55 years of age are only half as likely as all visitors to have been in their home for 1 to 3 years. ! The younger the age group, the more likely they are to spend more time Downtown. 52% of 16- to 34-year-olds spend more than 2 hours Downtown on average. ! Younger visitors tend to be more fashion-conscious than other visitors. Downtown Fort Collins Visitation Characteristics ! Eating and drinking, regardless of whether it was fast food or restaurant dining, was the most popular reason across all age segments. Younger visitors, however, were 29% more likely to visit for drinking-related purposes, and 26% more likely to visit for eating. ! Attending a special event or concert was 70% more likely among those between 16 to 34 years of age, and 37% less likely for visitors between 35 and 54 years of age. ! The younger age segment was also more likely to work Downtown Fort than the older age segment. ! Younger visitors tend to shop more frequently at the following stores: 1. apparel and footwear 2. books and music 3. sporting goods 4. gifts 5. movies/entertainment 6. nightclub/bar 7. restaurants 8. fast food ! Younger visitor likes include special events and activities along with the restaurants and bars, and compared to other age groups, tend to dislike parking problems most. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 98 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N COMMERCIAL AUDIT An audit of the existing study area commercial businesses was conducted during the month of June 2002 in order to understand the area’s current retail situation. While there are numerous offices and multi-story buildings, only ground floor professional services (lawyers, accountants) were estimated in the inventory. A more complete inventory which includes figures from the Commercial Audit is contained under land use assumptions. The figures below are drawn from the Commercial Audit only (Figures 3.48 – 3.50). Religious institutions, social and cultural institutions, residential buildings, and office buildings were noted for their number only. In completing this inventory, the strengths and weaknesses of the Downtown’s business mix were identified. The following are the most salient findings based on this audit. ! There are 364 ground-floor, commercial businesses in Downtown. There is a further 149 “other” ground-floor building uses in the study area excluding residential. ! The total ground-floor, commercial square footage is estimated to be over 745,000. ! There are 26 vacant businesses or approximately 44,000 square feet. This is equivalent to a 6% vacancy rate which is not excessively large. Please note in 2003 the retail vacancy rate was estimated at 4%. ! Just less than one-third of the commercial businesses are retail merchandise related. Eating and drinking establishments occupy a significant 23% of the total square footage. This is high compared to other Downtowns, which are typically less than 20%. ! There is approximately 400,000 square feet of home, leisure, sporting goods, and eating establishments ! Home and leisure products together occupy over 25% of the total square footage. ! Within the eating and drinking category, restaurants and restaurant/bars occupy the majority of the space. There are relatively few cafes. ! Professional services dominate the service category. However, there are a number of small personal services that complement the existing retailers and help to draw consumers to the area. ! Within the leisure category, specialty stores and sporting goods stores are the most prevalent. The range of products and services available is quite extensive, including toys, music, hobby, art galleries, antiques, pet stores, and sporting goods. ! The apparel category is small but there are some well-run stores. There are relatively few men’s stores or shoe stores in Downtown. Other issues affecting retail in Downtown: ! The main intersection of College Avenue and Mountain Avenue is highly visible and includes both convenience goods and services (drug store and bank) along with destination and convenient eating and drinking operations. ! Many of the restaurants are traditional to contemporary in their style and food offerings. ! While the streets are quite wide along College Avenue, the median parking helps to connect the two sides and assists in retail cohesiveness. ! There is almost solid street-front retail along College Avenue from Laporte Avenue to Olive Street and along Old Town Square and Linden Street to Jefferson Street. ! South of Olive Street, retail becomes more highway commercial with greater disruptions in the retail continuity of the street. The area contains a number of professional offices and destination retailers and eating and drinking operations (e.g. Wells Fargo Bank, Perkins, and Safeway). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 99 ! The quality of operations at a majority of the stores located in the Downtown is extremely good. Most are clean, professional, competitive, well stocked, and well managed. This is a unique situation for Downtowns particularly of this size. There is ample pedestrian traffic throughout the day and into the evening. There are some examples of poorly run stores and those that require assistance. Some of these are bars. ! There are no strong clusters of particular stores. West Oak Street has a number of eating and drinking operations. Retail operations within Downtown Fort Collins are fairly compact with good linkages within the core area. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 48 Retail Breakdown of First Floor Land Uses by Commercial Category Number of Businesses Square Footage Number % of Total Total % of Total RETAIL MERCHANDISE Women's 11 3.0% 14,400 1.9% Men's 1 0.3% 1,500 0.2% Family 6 1.6% 9,100 1.2% Children 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Used Clothing 2 0.5% 2,700 0.4% Shoe Store 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Jewelry 7 1.9% 8,700 1.2% Apparel and Accessories Total 27 7.4% 36,400 4.9% Electronics 9 2.5% 13,500 1.8% Furniture 2 0.5% 3,000 0.4% Home Furnishings 7 1.9% 17,800 2.4% Home Improvement 7 1.9% 27,800 3.7% Home Total 25 6.9% 62,100 8.3% Antiques 4 1.1% 5,700 0.8% Art Gallery 7 1.9% 9,400 1.3% Book Store 6 1.6% 5,600 0.8% Framing 3 0.8% 3,600 0.5% Hobby 7 1.9% 14,600 2.0% Music 3 0.8% 4,800 0.6% Pet Supply 2 0.5% 5,500 0.7% Specialty Store 28 7.7% 39,700 5.3% Sporting Goods 9 2.5% 32,900 4.4% Toys 1 0.3% 3,500 0.5% Leisure Total 70 19.2% 125,300 16.8% Optical 3 0.8% 4,700 0.6% Florist 3 0.8% 5,200 0.7% Other General Merchandise 4 1.1% 9,700 1.3% Other General Merchandise Total 10 2.7% 19,600 2.6% TOTAL RETAIL MERCHANDISE 132 36.3% 243,400 32.6% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 100 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 49 Non-Retail Breakdown of First Floor Land Uses by Commercial Category Number of Businesses Square Footage Number % of Total Total % of Total CONVENIENCE – FOOD AND DRUG Convenience Store 2 0.5% 2,400 0.3% Drug Store 1 0.3% 3,000 0.4% Grocery 2 0.5% 24,000 3.2% Specialty Food 7 1.9% 8,100 1.1% Total 12 3.3% 37,500 5.0% EATING AND DRINKING Café 12 3.3% 13,550 1.8% Fast Food 6 1.6% 8,600 1.2% Restaurant 23 6.3% 52,700 7.1% Restaurant/Bar 17 4.7% 56,500 7.6% Bar 11 3.0% 36,864 4.9% Event Center 1 0.3% 4,000 0.5% Total 70 19.2% 172,214 23.1% SERVICES Beauty 17 4.7% 16,550 2.2% Travel 2 0.5% 2,800 0.4% Other Services 9 2.5% 11,900 1.6% Personal Total Personal Services 28 7.7% 31,250 4.2% Financial Services 9 2.5% 28,300 3.8% Professional Services (single tenant) 57 15.7% 98,900 13.3% Other Services 2 0.5% 10,200 1.4% Misc. TOTAL 96 26.4% 168,650 22.6% OTHER RETAIL Automotive 28 7.7% 79,6000 10.7% TOTAL OCCUPIED COMMERCIAL 338 92.9% 701,364 94.0% VACANT COMMERCIAL 26 7.1% 44,385 6.0% TOTAL COMMERCIAL 364 100.0% 745,749 100.0% S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 101 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 50 First Floor Land Uses from Commercial Audit S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 102 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N FORT COLLINS MARKET ACTION PLAN POINTS Target Markets Various target markets have been identified in terms of their importance to Downtown. Downtown Fort Collins should focus on: Target Market Demographics Types of Stores Nearby Residential 2,485 residents Convenience goods and services Some restaurants and shopping goods Office Workers Over 9,231 (includes CSU and Poudre Valley Hospital) Lunch-style cafes, restaurants Convenience goods and services Students 23,934 students Estimated to spend up to $4,000/year on eating and general merchandise Leisure goods and services (books, CDs, sporting goods, etc.) Restaurants and drinking Fort Collins Residential – particularly encourage south end residents to visit 126,848 total population Eating and drinking Specialized retail Tourists – added bonus to retail sales Over 1 million visitors Eating and drinking Specialized unique retail Downtown needs to maintain its strength in eating and drinking, as well as expand home decorating and leisure goods. There exists limited opportunity for apparel stores, with the exception of highly specialized retailers that offer unique products (e.g. Urban Outfitters, Hollister). Niche It is important to approach Downtown commercial development from a business-plan model. Like any marketed product, Downtown contains a number of unique and important elements central to achieving the vision: a strong restaurant and entertainment component, sought-after destination retailers with a focus on leisure activities, many local heritage reminders, and a young, contemporary, and creative population base (including CSU). These unique elements are further accentuated by the physical advantages of Downtown including its location on Northern Colorado’s Front Range, the Cache la Poudre River, and its growing workforce and population base. Tying these elements together makes a solid cultural base providing the necessary roots for successful commercial development opportunities. Downtown’s physical appearance and the unique specialty stores are its most important features. As such, the existing unique attributes, in terms of architectural style and independent merchants, need to be preserved. Almost all consumers agree, Downtown’s ambiance is one of the defining aspects drawing residents/visitors to the area. In terms of a commercial niche for Downtown, it will be a place to eat or shop for interesting things. Overall, Downtown will be Northern Colorado’s inspiration for entertaining ideas. This definition is not limited to the idea of bars and restaurants but encompasses a whole range of leisure-oriented stores, restaurants, and service providers, with a central focus on providing inspiration for making people’s home, work, and social life more enjoyable. In addition, there is the double meaning which revolves around Downtown’s place as a more cultured and sophisticated regional location. This theme S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 103 helps to reinforce Downtown’s higher quality-of-life features, and ties in with institutions of higher learning, like CSU. Store examples include: ! culinary supply store, offering a complete range of kitchen utensils marketed and showcased, to entice everyone to cook/bake more often (i.e. making the store more experiential) ! music and bookstores to inspire and entertain people ! art work ! unique specialty apparel stores to make shoppers feel distinctive ! home furnishings to allow shoppers to showcase their decorating style to guests ! do-it-yourself home improvement stores ! contemporary garden ideas and supplies ! sporting goods stores to provide an adrenalin rush ! grocery items to conveniently help create great-tasting, complete meals Downtown will not be bland and banal, but unique, interesting, and entertaining. There is opportunity for Downtown to be more contemporary in the commercial business offerings, but not too excessive. Downtown should become a regional commercial development leader by offering new products and services first. Key aspects of Downtown’s vision -- essential towards building-off of these distinguishing attributes to create a sought-after commercial environment -- are summarized (Figure 3.51). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 51 Downtown Niche Strategy Downtown will be: Downtown will not be: Unique. An imitation of neighboring developments. Historically authentic. A regional shopping center. Known for its specialty market niche. A lifestyle-oriented commercial destination center with a focus on entertaining. A generalist (all things to all people). The cultural center for the region. The location of choice for frequent festivals, conventions, activities, events, and programs. Solely commercial uses. A secondary location choice for commercial events, festivals, etc. A place to socialize and congregate. A place for all people reflecting the diversity of the region (students, older residents, tourists, office workers). A place for only a few people. Easy to find and easy to move about with well managed parking in a pedestrian friendly environment. A hassle to use. Busy night and day, weekday and weekend, year-round. Only a daytime place. Active only in warm weather. A place where the business community and residential neighborhoods are involved and proactively work together for mutual benefit. A place of isolated businesses going in different directions. Clean and safe. An area that suffers from negative images. A compact retail environment that is linked physically, organizationally, and from a marketing perspective. Dispersed. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 104 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Strategy The strategy for Downtown will be to selectively increase the commercial square footage and to analyze redevelopment opportunities. The focus of the commercial strategy will be to preserve and grow the existing cluster of strong retailers, and leverage that strength to create improved, complementary retail uses. In this manner, commercial sales will not be cannibalized by new developments, and retail will grow with increased demand. College Avenue will be the principle commercial corridor with different commercial nodes branching off of it (e.g. West Oak Street, East Mountain Avenue). In terms of importance, Downtown should concentrate on the following areas: 1. Continue commercial development along College Avenue up to Jefferson Street on both sides of the street. The redevelopment should be built to suit and could be attractive to some national/regional chains. 2. The area north of Jefferson should not contain a major commercial development. A large- scale development would detract from the Downtown and it is unlikely that it would be successful. 3. Retail can be used to help infill areas located near proposed redevelopment sites to help ensure they are linked in with existing retail and complement the new uses. Some of the service uses on East Mountain Avenue can be redeveloped as retail uses as demand increases. In addition, there are some commercial development opportunities near the Wells Fargo building and the bank buildings on Mason Street. 4. The current Safeway grocery store may need to be redeveloped in the mid- to long -term. Other new uses could include a large-scale drug store with a strong emphasis on well-being and health, Whole Foods, or other natural-based food operation. 5. The Farmers Market should be used to generate interest in shopping in Downtown. The market needs to be linked from a physical standpoint (i.e. situated in close proximity to College Avenue) and from a marketing standpoint. Some retail store types (not an exhaustive list, and some already exist Downtown) supporting this strategy are: Convenience Goods and Services ! quality convenience store ! drug store (emphasis on health and well-being) ! specialty food (butcher, bakery/café e.g. Panera Bread) ! wine shop ! natural/health food/green grocer (e.g. Whole Foods, Wild Oats) ! florist ! specialty travel adventure (e.g. hunting expeditions, wilderness adventures, etc.) Specialty Apparel and Accessories ! Urban Outfitters and Abercrombie & Fitch ! bridal/formal wear ! western wear ! work wear (Caterpillar, Wolverine, Wrangler, etc) ! lingerie ! cosmetics (e.g. Aveda, MAC, The Body Shop) ! contemporary jewelry S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 105 Eating and Drinking ! quality restaurants (white table cloth, ethnic such as Japanese) ! contemporary cafes (quick lunches/café – salad, sandwich, coffee using fresh, unique ingredients, eat-in or take-out) ! contemporary drinking (jazz club) ! book store/cafes Home Decorating ! kitchen and gift ! furniture (e.g. Pier One, local independents) ! lighting ! bedding and linen ! bathroom fixtures ! garden and landscaping ! floor covering (rugs, tile) ! fabric and wall covering ! home improvement ! home furnishings (Crate and Barrel, Pottery Barn) ! imports (e.g. teak imports, Asian Bazaar) Leisure ! arts and culture related stores (Western living) ! sporting goods (high-end camping, cycling, climbing, skate boarding) ! sports clothing ! hobby, arts and crafts (e.g. clay painting, specialized art supplies) ! pet store Other ! office supplies ! cooking school ! caterers ! interior designers It is important to remember that recruiting national and regional chains will help Downtown but Downtown should not be so focused, that it misses opportunities for independent retailers. Support Programs At the beginning of the Downtown Strategic Plan process, two major issues needed to be addressed: 1. Real and perceived parking problems in order to discourage long-term parking in the commercial core and encouraging higher turnover. 2. The disorderly behavior by some bar patrons. Increased police presence and more effective policies beginning in 2002 have helped to address this issue. Downtown needs to ensure there is not only ample parking, but also sufficient parking turnover to accommodate shoppers. Downtown relies on having convenient parking. Both intercept and telephone survey respondents considered parking to be an important factor in deciding where to shop. Parking, however, is also important from an investment point of view. Retailers and developers will not only analyze the parking supply nearby, but the parking turnover. According S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 106 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N to retail studies, a parking space can be worth the equivalent of $60,000 per year to retailers. This is only true if there is ample turnover of spaces to allow for a consistent flow of shoppers to use the area. Paid, on-street parking helps to encourage efficient turnover of spaces. Long term, cheaper, off-street parking can be used for employees, and those who wish to stay for longer visits. One of the major principles behind Downtown’s commercial development is that safety and parking perceptions must be positive and constantly reinforced. This is as much a public relations campaign (i.e. marketing, education, etc.) as physical and program improvements (i.e. ensure a police presence in the Downtown, on-street parking is preserved for shoppers, etc.). For an example of policy and strategy statements concerning bar and restaurant nuisance issues, please see Figure 3.57, San Diego City of Villages’, “Creating Safe and Vibrant Places to Socialize.” Retail Recruitment The City of Fort Collins should not become involved in recruiting retail uses. Either the DDA or DBA should work as facilitators concerning the retail vision for Downtown. The DDA or DBA should dedicate an individual who can answer questions concerning vision, future development, and act as a welcoming committee. This person should be familiar with current and potential vacant sites, parcels suitable for (re)development, property owner identities, and properties changing hands, among other things. In addition, this person should be able to make the connection between the business people and the vacant (or soon-to-be-vacant) spaces. In addition, Downtown should have a well-organized, current market information package about Downtown’s commercial potential for distribution to developers and the brokerage community. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 107 UNIFIED DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IDEA The following recommendations are for an initial corporate structure idea that could: ! not change how the DDA/DBA boards operate, which works well; ! unify and elevate the influence of the DDA/DBA boards in advocacy; ! allow for organizational growth, including the creation of a BID; ! simplify the Downtown organizational structure in the eyes of the DDA/DBA constituencies and the public at-large. In addition to the existing DDA and DBA, the idea anticipates the creation of a BID and proposes an initially informal entity called the “Alliance” to hold the pieces together. Here is how the new entities are envisioned: ! BID: In its purest form, a BID is simply a source of revenue. By state statute, it requires a governing board and its annual budgets require approval from the City. This plan proposes a BID that would raise revenue for maintenance, security and marketing. The DBA could, on a contract basis, provide staff support for the BID, thus there is no need for a new organization or duplication of staff to support it. The BID could also provide a source of revenue for a new business recruitment program that is consistent with the DDA’s overall development mission. ! Alliance: The Alliance is envisioned as the glue holding the 3 major pieces together. The key to the Alliance is to create a structure whereby the officers from the 3 entities get together on a periodic basis, possibly quarterly, to deal with advocacy, planning and coordination. The Alliance could initially be created by an informal “memorandum of understanding” with the option to become a more formal incorporated entity later. The Alliance would be the central identity for all of the Downtown parts. Using a website as an analogy, the Alliance is the home page while the BID, DBA and DDA are parts within (Figure 3.52). _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 52 Proposed Downtown Unified Management Structure S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 108 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Existing Land Uses There are approximately 6 million square feet of building space within this study area. The 3 largest land uses are residential, government and financial/office uses. Residential use percentages are high because the boundary includes all of the East Side Neighborhood, north of Mulberry Street, and several blocks of the West Side Neighborhood. If residential uses west of Meldrum Street and east of Mathews/south of Oak are excluded, then residential uses make up 10% of the total land use (533,000 square feet). For more detail on first-floor uses, refer to Figures 3.53 and 3.54. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 53 Existing Land Use Breakdown: October 2002 Source: Urban Marketing Collaborative (1st Floor uses only); Larimer County Assessor; City of Fort Collins Land Use Square Feet Percent of Space Residential 1,240,948 21.0% Government 1,201,146 20.3% Financial/Office 1,006,663 17.0% Retail Merchandise 497,075 8.4% Industrial/Warehouse 439,152 7.4% Parking Structures 400,000 6.8% Eating and Drinking 276,818 4.7% Social Institutions/ Religious 263,390 4.5% Automotive 125,530 2.1% Service 79,785 1.4% Convenience/ Food and Drug 72,345 1.2% Recreation/ Entertainment 69,170 1.2% Accommodation 6,419 0.1% Other 39,097 0.7% Total Occupied 5,717,538 96.8% Vacant 190,894 3.2% Total 5,908,432 100.0% Future Land Use Demand This Downtown Strategic Plan’s recommendations describe catalyst developments supporting (and needing support) of the retail core. These developments include (1) a new performing arts center in close proximity to the retail core, (2) a new main library, (3) new office and residential uses, and (4) one or more hotels. The greatest concentration of new development will be within the Mason Street area, with a transition downwards in height and scale to existing residential neighborhoods and the historic core. Through a rough market assessment by staff and consultants, short-term development projections were prepared. The projections assume the catalyst developments listed above are implemented in the next 5–7 years. Long term development projections were derived from City Plan’s 2003 market analysis. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 109 The short-term increase is ambitious: 250,000 square feet of new office, 400 new units and 25,000 square feet of new retail. A 150-room hotel is included, along with an 80,000 square foot performing arts center and a new 150,000 square foot main library. Office space and housing are projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. The average increase of office space per year would be approximately 39,000 square feet. For housing, the increase would be 55 units per year. For retail, the increase would be 5,000 square feet per year. All of the figures assume existing uses are not replaced, and increases are cumulative over the existing figures. _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 54 Land Use Projections Source: PUMA, Mile High Development, City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department Use Unit Type Existing Short-term (5-7 years) increase Long-term (20 years) increase* Total Existing + Future % Increase office square feet 2,288,000 250,000 771,000 3,059,000 34% housing units 714 400 1,100 1,814 154% retail square feet 1,041,000 25,000 100,000 1,141,000 10% hotel rooms 18 150 150 168 833% performing arts center square feet 48,000 80,000 80,000 128,000 170% main library square feet N/A 150,000 150,000 150,000 N/A *Includes short-term increase. Assumptions: 1. Office uses include financial, multi-tenant office buildings, personal services, professional services, and government. 2. Through 2025, citywide projected office increase is 2,028,300 square feet (Source: 2003 market analysis for City Plan, EPS). Downtown assumed to remain 38% of Fort Collins’ total in 2025. 3. Current housing figures are only those within the infill/transition areas and the core. Housing projection is based on 40% of total city redevelopment. Total city redevelopment is assumed to be 10% of new housing units (approx. 2,800 units) Source: 2003 market analysis for City Plan, EPS). 4. Retail uses include automotive, convenience food/drug, eating/drinking, retail, and recreation/ entertainment. 5. Through 2025, projected increase for Downtown retail assumed to be an increase of 25,000 square feet every 5 years, for a total of 100,000 square feet. This represents 5% of the projected total new retail citywide (2,029,311 square feet). 6. Through 2025, total employees added to Downtown: 870,754 square feet new office & retail space / 300 square feet per job = 2,902 new jobs created. 7. According to redevelopment site analysis, buildout of Downtown: 2,180,972 square feet new commercial, 1,400 new housing units. As compared with recent trends, these increases would be dramatic. Most of the large Downtown office buildings (e.g., Key Bank, First National Bank, Rocky Mountain Building, etc.) were built in the 1970s. Since then, few new office buildings have been constructed. The latest office space increases were Larimer County Justice Center (2000), City of Fort Collins Office Building at 215 North Mason (2001), and the Larimer County Courthouse Offices (2003). S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 110 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N As a point of comparison to the estimates, the new 5-story Larimer County Courthouse Offices are approximately 170,000 square feet in size. Thus, Downtown could expect about 5 new buildings the size of this one over the next 20 years. Although several large residential projects of more than a couple units have been proposed recently, like office space, very few new residential projects have been built since the 1970s. Parkland Towers is one of the largest residential buildings Downtown with 181 condominium units. The DMA Plaza has 126 studio and 1-bedroom apartments. The figures for new housing include new units constructed not only in the infill/transition area and the core, but also east of Jefferson Street on both sides of the Poudre River. Large infill sites with the potential to add significant new housing include the Oxbow and the Link-N-Greens sites. It’s estimated these sites could add about 200 total new units. The greatest need for the Downtown market is for new office and housing uses to support the retail core. For this reason, retail uses are expected to increase only modestly over the next 20 years. One or more hotels are expected to be constructed over the next 5–7 years. No additional hotel rooms for Downtown are projected. New Development Capacity City staff assessed the capacity of existing land to accommodate the amount of projected growth described in the last section. The first step in this analysis was the identification of possible Downtown infill/redevelopment sites. The choice of infill sites was subjective, and involved a simple assessment of where existing land uses were underutilized compared to the possible future intensity of the parcel. Thus, potential infill sites include vacant lots and sites with large parking lots, outdated, non-historic buildings, and proposed projects. These sites are highlighted with cross-hatching on the Possible Infill Sites Map, see Figure 3.56. Please note these sites are not necessarily targeted by the City for new development. Instead, the sites are simply used as a way to estimate development capacity. The next step in the capacity analysis involved applying assumptions from 3 levels of intensity to each site in order to generate a range of land use intensities. The varying levels were reflected in a range of higher to low floor area ratios (FAR; determined by dividing the floor area of a specified building on a lot by the lot area) applied to each site. The maximum FAR level represents sites developed to their highest intensity based on the tallest possible building heights and full utilization of land for buildings. Each site was also assumed to have a certain proportion of residential and commercial land uses. Site specific floor area ratios and land use proportions were influenced by a site’s location Downtown, meaning location determined the market potential (e.g., land nearer to the fringe of the Infill/Transition Area had higher proportions of residential than land in the Mason/Howes and core areas), development regulations (e.g., maximum heights, permitted land uses, etc.) and constraints (e.g., natural feature buffers). Table 3.55 shows the projected level of demand for housing and commercial square footage can easily be accommodated on the identified infill sites. S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 111 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 55 Development Capacity of Infill Sites Level of Development Type of Development High Medium Low Housing Units 3,700 1,300 800 Commercial Square Footage 6,000,000 2,200,000 1,300,000 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 112 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 56 Possible Infill Sites S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 113 _________________________________________________ Figure 3. 57 San Diego City of Villages: Creating Safe & Vibrant Places to Socialize S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 114 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 115 S E C T I O N I I I – m a r k e t a n a l y s I s 116 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 117 118 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 119 Table of Contents Section I - Introduction ................................................................................................. 123 Section 2 – Transportation............................................................................................ 125 2.1 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 125 Infrastructure Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 125 Roadway Infrastructure....................................................................................... 126 Wireless............................................................................................................ 134 2.2 Traffic................................................................................................................ 135 Traffic Circulation Existing Conditions.................................................................... 135 Strategies to Alleviate Potential Traffic Problems.................................................... 140 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF) and the Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual Impacts on Future Development ....................................... 141 2.3 Bicycle .............................................................................................................. 143 Bicycle Circulation Existing Conditions .................................................................. 143 Bicycle Circulation Strategies .............................................................................. 145 2.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................................... 148 Pedestrian Facilities Existing Conditions................................................................ 148 Pedestrian Strategies ......................................................................................... 151 Jefferson Street Pedestrian Environment............................................................... 155 2.5 Transit............................................................................................................... 156 Existing Transit Services and Facilities .................................................................. 156 The Context for Future Transit Services in Downtown.............................................. 158 Strategies, Goals, and Recommendations for Transit in Downtown Fort Collins.......... 158 Transit and Travel Demand Management .............................................................. 162 Future Commuter Rail ........................................................................................ 162 2.6 Freight & Mobility................................................................................................ 163 Existing Freight & Mobility ................................................................................... 163 Freight Survey ................................................................................................... 164 Summary of Findings.......................................................................................... 164 Freight Recommendations .................................................................................. 167 Freight and Mobility Strategies ............................................................................ 167 120 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Section 3 – Parking ...................................................................................................... 169 3.1 Current Parking Program Overview ........................................................................ 169 Parking System Organization ............................................................................... 169 Current Parking Program Components – Overview.................................................. 170 Parking Program Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement ............................... 173 3.2 Customer and Business Parking Surveys ............................................................... 174 Survey Methodologies ........................................................................................ 174 Summary of Results - Customer Survey................................................................ 175 Summary of Results - Business Surveys ............................................................... 178 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 185 3.3 Parking Supply ................................................................................................... 186 3.4 Parking Occupancy ............................................................................................. 190 3.5 Design - Day Parking Conditions........................................................................... 193 3.6 Effective Parking Supply ...................................................................................... 193 3.7 Current Parking Adequacy.................................................................................... 193 3.8 Land Uses ......................................................................................................... 194 3.9 Parking Turnover and Duration ............................................................................. 194 3.10 Near-Term (5 to 7 Years) Development and Parking Adequacy................................. 195 3.11 Future 2025 Development and Parking Adequacy .................................................. 196 3.12 Key Parking Problem Identification........................................................................ 198 Turnover ........................................................................................................... 198 Pricing Policy is Upside-down .............................................................................. 199 Insufficient Regulations and Technologies............................................................. 199 Long-term Parkers in Short-term Spaces .............................................................. 199 3.13 Parking Peer City Review ..................................................................................... 200 Boise, ID........................................................................................................... 201 Eugene, OR....................................................................................................... 201 Spokane, WA .................................................................................................... 202 Tempe, AZ ........................................................................................................ 202 3.14 Recommended Future Parking Development Strategies .......................................... 203 Park Once/Pedestrian First Concept ..................................................................... 203 Core Periphery Parking Concept........................................................................... 204 Parking Signage and Wayfinding .......................................................................... 205 On-Street Parking Management Strategies ........................................................... 206 College and Mountain Avenues - Centerline Parking............................................... 209 Recommended Future Parking Development Strategies.......................................... 212 Fee In-Lieu of Parking......................................................................................... 213 3.15 Recommended Parking Management Strategies .................................................... 217 Parking Guiding Principles................................................................................... 217 Alignment of Parking Strategies with the Downtown Strategic Plan .......................... 219 Transportation Appendix A ............................................................................................ 221 Transportation Appendix B ............................................................................................ 235 D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 121 FIGURES Figure 4.1 Infrastructure Capacity Table: 2002....................................................... 125 Figure 4.2 Downtown Pavement Conditions: 2002.................................................. 127 Figure 4.3 Old Town Floodplain: 2002................................................................... 131 Figure 4.4 Proposed Old Town Basin Improvements: 2002 ...................................... 132 Figure 4.5 Poudre River Floodplain: 2002.............................................................. 133 Figure 4.6 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes: 1999-2001 ............................................. 135 Figure 4.7 Daily Volume Entering & Exiting Study Area By Direction: 1999-2001........ 136 Figure 4.8 Daily Volume Entering & Exiting Study Area By Street: 1999-2001........... 136 Figure 4.9 Barriers to Travel Into and Through Downtown......................................... 137 Figure 4.10 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes: 2025.................................................... 138 Figure 4.11 Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison: 2003 and 2025................................. 139 Figure 4.12 College Avenue, Mason Street & Howes Street Conditions: 2025.............. 140 Figure 4.13 Motor Vehicle LOS – Study Intersections: 2025 ...................................... 142 Figure 4.14 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities: Existing & Proposed ................................. 144 Figure 4.15 Downtown Sidewalk Network: 2002....................................................... 149 Figure 4.16 Typical Urban Commercial Sidewalk Zones ............................................. 150 Figure 4.17 Urban Commercial Sidewalk ................................................................. 150 Figure 4.18 Integrated Pedestrian Infrastructure ....................................................... 152 Figure 4.19 Integrated Pedestrian Network .............................................................. 154 Figure 4.20 Enhanced Alley-ways............................................................................ 155 Figure 4.21 Downtown Transit Service: 2003 ........................................................... 157 Figure 4.22 Public Transit LOS, Standards & Ratings: by 2015................................... 159 Figure 4.23 LOS Ratings: by 2015.......................................................................... 159 Figure 4.24 Proposed Downtown Fare-Free Zone...................................................... 160 Figure 4.25 Existing Freight Delivery Locations: 2002................................................ 163 Figure 4.26 Survey Questions Pertaining to Business Type and Location: 2002............ 165 Figure 4.27 Survey Questions Pertaining to Freight Access: 2002............................... 165 Figure 4.28 Survey Questions Pertaining to Freight Issues: 2002................................ 166 Figure 4.29 City of Fort Collins Parking Division: 2002 .............................................. 169 Figure 4.30 City of Fort Collins Parking & Loading Areas: 2003 .................................. 170 Figure 4.31 Primary Purpose of Visit to Downtown: December, 2002.......................... 175 Figure 4.32 How Long Do _____________?: December, 2002 ................................... 176 Figure 4.33 Does This Space __________________?: December, 2002 ...................... 177 Figure 4.34 Are You Willing to Use Off-Street Parking?: December, 2002.................... 177 Figure 4.35 Are You Willing to Pay for Off-Street Parking?: December, 2002 ............... 178 Figure 4.36 High Demand Parking Areas: April and June 2003................................... 179 Figure 4.37 Respondents by Business Type: April and June 2003............................... 180 Figure 4.38 Parking Policy Business Preferences: April and June 2003 ....................... 181 Figure 4.39 Combined Parking Policy Business Preference: April and June 2003.......... 182 Figure 4.40 Parking Policy Preferences By Business Type: April and June 2003 ........... 183 Figure 4.41 Parking Policy Preference By Business Type and Zone, High Demand Areas: April and June 2003 .............................................. 184 Figure 4.42 Policy Preference By Business Type and Zone, Low Demand Areas: April and June 2003 .................................................................. 184 Figure 4.43 Downtown Parking Block Map: 2002 ..................................................... 186 Figure 4.44 Public Off-Street Parking Supply: 2002 .................................................. 187 Figure 4.45 Off-Street and On-Street Parking: 2002 ................................................. 188 Figure 4.46 Public/Private Parking: 2002................................................................. 189 122 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Figure 4.47 Parking Occupancies: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm ........................................... 191 Figure 4.48 Parking Occupancies: 3:00 pm – 8:00 pm ............................................. 192 Figure 4.49 Downtown Land Use: 2002 .................................................................. 194 Figure 4.50 Parking Conditions by TAZ: Near Term (5-7 Years) ................................... 196 Figure 4.51 Parking Conditions by TAZ: Future 2025................................................. 197 Figure 4.52 Parking Hot Zone: 2002....................................................................... 198 Figure 4.53 How Far Should Patrons Have To Walk After They Park?: 2002................. 204 Figure 4.54 Recommended Escalation On-Street Parking Fine Structure ..................... 207 Figure 4.55 Program Options to Improve On-Street Parking Turnover........................... 208 Figure 4.56 College Avenue Cross Section, 100 Block of North College: 2002............. 210 Figure 4.57 College Avenue Cross Section, 100 Block of North College: Proposed ....... 210 Figure 4.58 Centerline Parallel Parking & Promenade: 100 Block of N College Av......... 211 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 123 Section I - Introduction A successful vision of Downtown relies upon, among other things, the adequacy of the transportation infrastructure and related services that allow people to access and move around Downtown efficiently and conveniently. The roadways, parking facilities, transit facilities, bikeways and sidewalks are essential elements of an economically successful Downtown. The integration of these components is the “backbone” to the successful implementation of the land use recommendations of the Downtown Plan. The future mix of land uses and levels of projected growth Downtown will mean significantly higher Downtown traffic and parking demand. The Downtown traffic network will be expected to carry a higher volume with higher congestion levels on all streets. Existing parking facilities will be inadequate to accommodate the parking demand created by the office, retail and other related growth over the next 20 years. In order to effectively deal with rising congestion in the Downtown area, an integrated approach to transportation must be developed. Residents and visitors to Downtown must embrace the idea of accessing the core of this popular area by walking, bicycling, and riding transit in addition to driving an automobile. It will also become important for other transportation modes to capture a greater share of total travel volume than they do today. Increasing the multi-modal share of trips into Downtown will include increasing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel into and around the Downtown area. This study addresses effective incentives and actions for increasing mode share splits. Increased travel demand and a greater use of multiple transportation modes, among other factors, will mean higher levels of activity on the streets of Downtown Fort Collins, which in turn will support the economic vitality of the area. This analysis identifies recommended transportation strategies and improvements needed to support Downtown’s growth and achieve the most balanced utilization of the Downtown transportation system. This section is subdivided into two main parts: transportation and parking. The transportation section includes 7 areas: 1) Infrastructure, 2) Land Use, 3) Traffic Circulation, 4) Bicycle, 5) Pedestrian, 6) Transit Service and Facilities, and 7) Freight. Each area describes the existing condition followed by the future condition with recommendations. The parking section deals with the parking planning elements. A more detailed analysis of parking management and operations was also conducted as part of a separate document called the Parking Operations and Management Analysis. The Parking Operations and Management Analysis is a tool to assist Parking Services in developing new parking management strategies and improving existing operations. The parking section of this document provides an analysis of the current parking program, including the parking organization, on- and off-street parking resources, customer services, operations, enforcement, community education, and the parking program’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. The section also discusses two outreach surveys performed in 124 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2002. One survey identified the attitudes and practices of Downtown area customers, and the second measured the perspective of area businesses. The parking section also provides information about current and projected parking supply and demand. An analysis of parking occupancy and turnover (behavior) is provided. Projections of parking supply requirements for near-term (5-7 years) and long-range (20 years) time periods are identified. An identification of the primary parking problems facing Downtown Fort Collins and remedies are detailed in this section. A peer review, comparing Fort Collins with other comparable cities, has also been compiled. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 125 Section 2 – Transportation 2.1 INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure Existing Conditions A review of existing and planned infrastructure in Downtown Fort Collins indicates that the general condition and capacity are adequate to meet today’s needs, and flexible enough to accommodate future Downtown growth. Some improvements have been identified, however, that will prove essential to the smooth development of Downtown Fort Collins. It is important to note that the basic provision of infrastructure is a building block for the success of future retail, residential or employment growth. It was, therefore, a starting point for the transportation evaluation. Figure 4.1 summarizes the general findings. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.1 Infrastructure Capacity Table: 2002 Source: URS. Utility Existing Condition Future Capacity Comments Electric Good – Excellent 10 years Providing additional power lines from development sites to the Linden Street facilities would be a potential consideration for larger projects that require higher levels of energy. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas & Electric) Good 5 years Plans for reinforcement over the next few years will improve the state of the distribution system. ATT Broad Band/Cable Adequate Less than 5 years Ongoing merger with ComCast could impact service; rapid technological changes require updating of equipment frequently. Qwest/Telephone Good – Excellent 20 – 30 years Assuming periodic upgrades take place. Water/Wastewater Adequate Depends on redevelopment If re-development occurs at a greater intensity than existing situation, capacity of systems will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for specific locations and project needs. Stormwater Adequate 20 – 30 years Howes Street and Oak Street Outfall projects have improved drainage significantly. Some localized flooding will still occur due to elevations of existing buildings. Sidewalk Pavements Good 5 years plus Sidewalk condition and capacity is generally good throughout the Downtown area. Street Pavement Surfacing Fair 5-10 Years Overall assessment - average. Future traffic demand will warrant improved conditions. 126 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Roadway Infrastructure STREET PAVEMENT CONDITIONS The street pavement conditions in Downtown Fort Collins are generally good to excellent. Poor conditions exist along Mulberry Street east of Whitcomb Street for a half block (repaired 2002), Sherwood Street between Olive and Magnolia, and Olive Street between Matthews and Peterson. Street pavement and operational conditions are maintained by the City of Fort Collins and improvements can be made in conjunction with Downtown growth, although the City’s Pavement Management Program will address ongoing maintenance issues associated with these streets. See Figure 4.2. The City Pavement Management Program ensures that streets, sidewalks, curbs, and bike lanes in the Downtown area will remain in an acceptable level of repair regardless of use as long as ongoing funding is made available for this purpose. The Pavement Management Program improves concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, constructs handicap access ramps, repairs deteriorating asphalt, and reconstructs, overlays or sealcoats existing streets. The program encompasses approximately 15 to 20 miles of streets in Fort Collins annually. In conjunction with the City Streets Department, routine patching and crack- sealing operations improve another 20 miles of the street system. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 127 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.2 Downtown Pavement Conditions: 2002 128 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Below-Grade Infrastructure Facilities ELECTRIC The capacity of existing electrical facilities is sufficient to accommodate the next ten years of potential growth. In particular, the electric lines that run under Linden Street carry adequate capacity to accommodate additional power lines from future development projects, a consideration for larger projects that require higher levels of energy. The City’s Utility Department has completed a preliminary assessment of the area bounded by Mulberry Street, College Avenue, Cherry Street, and Howes Street for the impact of potential redevelopment on electric infrastructure. Additional electric loads from redevelopment can be added to the three main circuits currently serving the area. The load increase is divided almost equally between the circuits and would bring them near their design limits. If the entire 1.2 million square feet is built at the average load density for office space, the Electric Utility would install an additional main circuit through an existing duct bank to accommodate contingency needs. City Utilities does not consider an improvement of this type a restriction or an impediment to redevelopment in the area. City Utilities assesses development fees to recover future costs associated with growth related improvements. Utility’s building site charge is assessed based on the customer's new electric panel size, and provides the funding mechanism to build additional circuits and other capacity related improvements. As a rough estimate, the City would collect approximately $350,000 from this charge for the potential redevelopment of the above mentioned area and spend approximately $200,000 for the new circuit based on current schedules. The remaining $150,000 would be used to pay for new distribution transformers for the redeveloped sites and existing substation capacity. XCEL ENERGY – NATURAL GAS Xcel Energy has completed a Downtown Fort Collins gas system study. The study tested capacity by replacing existing loads with the estimated new gas loads. The results of the study follow. Overall, the system is very strong, with no reinforcements needed. The additional loads, however, cause an adverse affect in the area of North Sherwood Street near Sycamore and Elm Streets. This will be an area to watch, and the utility may need to reinforce the system when and if the loads warrant. Any reinforcements required due to additional customer(s) coming on line would be paid for by those customer(s). The area of development that actually creates the problem in the area on North Sherwood is the 4-block region bounded by Cherry Street, Laporte Avenue, College Avenue, and Howes Street. The potential growth areas north and east of the Poudre River are on a different gas system (pounds medium) than the rest of the Downtown area, and currently has some excess capacity. The projected growth in that area should be able to connect to the existing system with little or no reinforcement necessary. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 129 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Both AT&T and Qwest existing service lines are sufficient to meet existing demand and future demand will be accommodated as expansion occurs. Both telecommunication providers indicated that information regarding expansion plans is proprietary in nature and cannot be shared with the public. Telecommunication utilities would most likely be provided as needed on a case by case basis. WATER AND SEWER Water and sewer utilities are generally adequate to serve existing Downtown uses. There is significant uncertainty, however, regarding what improvements are needed to upgrade utilities in response to new development. What is known is that eventually most if not all smaller capacity lines (i.e., 4” water lines and 6” sewer) will need to be replaced due to deterioration. Fort Collins Utilities generally upgrades the lines as opportunities arise (i.e., street projects or new development) at either the City’s expense or the developer’s expense, but City Utilities has no mechanism to pay for large scale, long-term replacements. Since entire utility lines may be deficient, it is unclear whether new development will be required to pay for all of the improvements required to upgrade an existing line. The City Utility will need to determine an equitable way to finance future deficiencies. STORM WATER This Downtown Plan boundary is located mainly in the Old Town and Poudre River drainage basins. Drainage patterns on the south side of the Poudre River are mainly to the east, while drainage patterns on the north side of the river are mainly to the south. Except for the Poudre River there are no stream channels or creeks in the study area. Urbanization since the turn of the century took place without the regard of storm runoff from upstream properties to the west causing storm runoff to flow overland along city streets or across city blocks before it reaches the Poudre River. The existing storm sewer, constructed with the urbanization, has little capacity and is often exceeded with even the minor storm event. Damages, from frequent afternoon thunderstorms, are common. Because natural stream corridors do not exist any reduction to the floodplain must be accomplished by installing very large and expensive storm sewers to carry the runoff underground. Old Town Drainage Basin Three major stormwater capital improvements have been completed in the Old Town Basin since 1997, including two in the Downtown area named the Oak Street Outfall and the Howes Street Outfall. These projects significantly reduced flooding problems in the Downtown area and removed hundreds of properties from the risk of flooding and the mapped floodplain. Due to the high cost the projects were constructed from the river to the west side of Mason Street. In general, the projects did not reduce flooding west of Mason Street. Many properties remain in the floodplain outside of these capital project areas. Future extensions of the newly constructed storm sewers were identified in the recently completed draft stormwater master plan. This basin has three predominant floodplains within this plan’s study area. One area contains the blocks between Olive and Mulberry, west of College Avenue to Whitcomb Street. This area is 130 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N critical because the framework plan emphasizes redevelopment opportunities in the Mason Street and Canyon Avenue areas. Two other areas are within the floodplain, one between Maple Street and LaPorte Avenue west of Mason Street, and the other in the vicinity of Riverside Avenue/Whedbee Street. These areas are of lesser importance to this plan because they do not appear to contain significant redevelopment opportunities. For those properties that remain in the floodplain, redevelopment must comply with floodplain regulations which require buildings to be elevated and/or flood-proofed above the flood elevation. These improvements can add costs to redevelopment of the property. See Figure 4.3. In addition, the floodplains in the Old Town Basin are generally along street rights-of-way. In the past the entire floodplain was considered a no-rise floodplain, meaning that areas within the floodplain before they would be allowed to develop would have to offset the impacts the development would have on flood elevations through either offsite improvements or compensation to adjacent properties for increased flood heights. With the development of the revised draft stormwater master plan more detailed floodplain mapping has been performed and along with the floodplain a floodway has been identified. Floodways are considered to be the highest risk and are characterized as having the greatest depths and fastest velocities of storm runoff. Because of their nature, floodways have the most restrictive regulations and in the Old Town basin are predominantly along city street rights-of-way. Mapping of the floodways has allowed for a lessening of the floodplain regulations for those properties outside of the floodway. Redevelopment outside of the floodway, however, would still have to comply with regulation of requiring building elevation or flood-proofing above the flood elevation. Removal of the remaining properties from the risk of flooding or from the requirement of compliance of floodplain regulations through additional capital projects has been identified in the revised draft of the Stormwater Master Plan. See Figure 4.4. The following is a list of proposed improvements in the plan’s study area: • Cherry Street Storm Sewer • Laporte Avenue Storm Sewer • Whedbee Street Storm Sewer The Oak Street Outfall Extension and the Magnolia Street Outfall projects would do the most to reduce flooding on potential redevelopment sites in the Mason Street area. Because stormwater capital projects are funded citywide, the determination of which project are built first must be fair and must consider which project creates the greatest benefit to the community compared to other recommended projects. The prioritization of stormwater capital projects takes into consideration key factors to determine that priority. The number of properties removed from the floodplain is a factor that identifies the number of properties that the project removes from the risk of flooding and/or compliance with floodplain regulations. The second factor is the cost effectiveness of the project which compares the benefits of the project with the cost of the project. The third and final factor considers the reduction in the amount of runoff across streets to reflect the need to keep these streets open for emergency response personnel. During the bi-annual budget process the prioritization process determines which projects are recommended for funding. Any new development or redevelopment must detain storm runoff for any increase in impervious area. • Oak Street Outfall Storm Sewer Extension • Magnolia Street Outfall Storm Sewer • Mulberry Street / Riverside Avenue Storm Sewer S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 131 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.3 Old Town Floodplain: 2002 132 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.4 Proposed Old Town Basin Improvements: 2002 Poudre River Drainage Basin One significant development site within the Poudre River Basin is the parcel known as the “Oxbow Site” between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue just east of the river. This area will be removed from the floodplain upon construction of a levee near the river and is currently scheduled for completion in 2005. The primary purpose of the levee is to remove existing residential structures in the Buckingham neighborhood and commercial structures along Lincoln Avenue from the Poudre River floodplain. See Figure 4.5. Also within the Poudre River floodplain, the acquisition of private property has been identified as a way to reduce the risk of flooding and the resulting damages. It will also reduce the demands on emergency response personnel during flooding events. Premised on the concept of the “willing seller” – “willing buyer” approach, the acquisition of properties is anticipated to take a number of years as private property owners propose the acquisition of their property to the City. Once acquired, structures are removed from the property and the property is re-vegetated with native plants. Residential properties located in the Poudre River’s floodway and product corridor are considered the highest priority. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 133 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.5 Poudre River Floodplain: 2002 134 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Wireless There has been a continuous trend throughout downtowns in the United States to establish high- frequency wireless networks (also known as “Wi-Fi” for “Wireless Fidelity”). These networks provide internet access to visitors, businesses, employees, and residents of downtowns or other areas which have pursued the wireless technology. Wireless appears to be the emerging technology of the future. Ground-based wireless networks are established through towers which broadcast within a certain range. Towers or receivers within a line of site typically can communicate with each other at much faster speeds than land lines. Wireless is also more flexible because it does not require infrastructure changes in order to accommodate it. Businesses with wireless hubs can let people within their facilities connect to the Internet wirelessly. Nationally, coffee shops and book stores seem to be a hot spot for public wireless Internet deployment. Companies such as Starbucks and Borders are now deploying T-Mobile wireless Internet hubs to their locations. These hubs allow customers to connect to the Internet for a fee, either subscribing to the service or paying a one-time fee for use. The advantage of wireless internet is flexibility. The technology provides some cost savings because it has fewer infrastructure requirements. Some complications, however, exist in wireless deployment. Basically, good engineering is required to make sure these complications don’t become problems. With the support of the City, the Downtown Development Authority and the Downtown Business Association should explore an analysis of what is working in downtowns across the country. Assuming the results of that effort are generally positive, these organizations should investigate and pursue the Downtown deployment of wireless networks. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 135 2.2 TRAFFIC Traffic Circulation Existing Conditions As part of the existing conditions analysis, traffic data for the study area was analyzed to identify traffic patterns and existing traffic issues and opportunities. Traffic count data from 1999, 2000 and 2001 was used in this analysis. Figure 4.6 shows the existing daily traffic volumes on Downtown roadways where there were count locations. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.6 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes: 1999-2001 136 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.7 Daily Volume Entering & Exiting Study Area By Direction: 1999-2001 25.4% 18.2% 19.7% 36.7% 26.1% 16.5% 19.4% 38.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% From West From North From East From South Entering Exiting _________________________________________________ Figure 4.8 Daily Volume Entering & Exiting Study Area By Street: 1999-2001 12.8% 2.1% 5.6% 4.8% 18.2% 2.6% 3.3% 13.9% 8.6% 2.4% 21.2% 4.6% 0.0% 13.2% 5.9% 4.7% 16.5% 6.1% 10.9% 10.1% 4.7% 17.7% 5.6% 0.0% 2.3% 2.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% W Mulberry Magnolia S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 137 This data shows College Avenue and Mulberry Street currently carry the bulk of the traffic into and out of Downtown. Analysis of individual intersections showed that the intersection of South College Avenue and Mulberry Street and the intersection of Jefferson Street and East Mulberry Street were operating at over capacity conditions during the peak hours. This is not surprising since most traffic is to and from the south and College Avenue carries the majority of traffic into and out of Downtown. Another area of importance is access into and out of Downtown. There are significant barriers to getting into and out of Downtown including the rail line along Jefferson Street, the rail line within Mason Street, the rail infrastructure on the north side of Downtown, the CSU campus to the south of Downtown, and the Poudre River. See Figure 4.9. The result is that traffic is concentrated on the few continuous routes that cross these barriers, especially College Avenue. Mason and Howes Streets are generally underutilized due to their discontinuity outside of Downtown. Finally, the "Two-way Conversion Analysis of the Mason Street/Howes Street One-Way Couplet" draft document produced in January of 2003 was reviewed to identify other Downtown transportation issues. One of the interesting discoveries was the fact that the AM and PM peak hours on Mason and Howes Streets are carrying roughly 5% and 7% of the daily traffic respectively. A usual rule of thumb is that the peak hour carries approximately 9% or 10% of the daily traffic. This suggests traffic is more spread out and nearly as high throughout the day as during the peak hours. Additionally, there is not a large difference in the number of northbound and southbound vehicles traveling along College Avenue in the peak hours. This suggests there are many origins and destinations along College Avenue. No single origin or destination dominates the travel patterns into and out of Downtown. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.9 Barriers to Travel Into and Through Downtown 138 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N TRAFFIC ANALYSIS In order to determine the future traffic conditions in the Downtown area, projections of the future traffic demand and patterns were made. The City’s 2025 traffic model was updated with the latest Downtown land use projections to estimate future traffic volumes. Roadway changes such as the conversion of Howes Street and Mason Street to two-way operations were included in the model. In addition, the traffic modeling employed a method (NCHRP 255) that uses existing ground counts as a base for future forecasts. The method was applied in a post processing element of the model, employing both the model’s forecasting and the base empirical data to project future daily forecasts for streets in the Downtown area. A final step involving smoothing unusually high or low link volumes was applied, providing consistency throughout the future network. The resulting daily traffic volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 4.10. __________________________________________ Figure 4.10 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes: 2025 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 139 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.11 Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison: 2003 and 2025 Roadway Year 2003 Daily Volume Year 2025 Daily Volume Percent Change College Avenue between Mountain and Laporte 26,650 28,500 6.90% Mason Street between Mountain and Laporte 4,100 12,000 192.7% Howes Street between Mountain and Laporte 3,800 6,400 68.40% Mountain Avenue between Howes and Mason 9,100 14,300 57.10% Riverside/Jefferson between Mountain and Linden 15,900 25,900 62.90% Laporte Avenue between Howes and Mason 7,000 13,600 94.30% Figure 4.11 illustrates the percent change between existing daily traffic and year 2025 daily traffic on major streets in the Downtown area. Traffic will grow substantially on all roadways in Downtown but most significantly on Mason Street. This is due in part to the fact that College Avenue is nearly at capacity today and won’t be able to accommodate much additional traffic. Traffic therefore will shift to Mason Street. The busiest roadways in Downtown in the future are College Avenue, Mason Street, Jefferson Street, Laporte Avenue, and Mountain Avenue. Howes Street is an underutilized north/south transportation corridor in the future model. The most intense land use changes are expected to be along the Mason/Howes corridor. As shown in Figure 4.12, this corridor generally has slightly lower projected traffic volumes than other portions of Downtown. It also has a potentially underutilized access route via Howes Street. In order to determine how well the primary access routes (College, Mason and Howes) will support new, intense land uses, hourly volume – to – capacity ratios were projected for these routes. The volume to capacity ratio measures potential congestion of a roadway. The closer the ratio is to 1.0, the more congestion the roadway is likely to experience. Figure 4.12 shows the ratio of volume to capacity on an hourly basis in the future on College Avenue. Both Mason Street and Howes Street offer alternatives to College for accessing Downtown. Mason Street is projected to be at capacity during the peak hours in the future. Howes Street, however, is projected to have surplus capacity to move traffic into and out of Downtown. Howes Street could help alleviate congestion if demand could be moved to that corridor from College Avenue and Mason Street. Potential strategies to achieve both a reduction in traffic and a redirection of traffic demand to underutilized routes are discussed below. 140 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.12 College Avenue, Mason Street & Howes Street Conditions: 2025 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIME VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO College Mason Howes Strategies to Alleviate Potential Traffic Problems Actions can be taken to attempt to change the future traffic patterns to alleviate or manage congestion on College Avenue and Mason Street. Potential actions are listed below: CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT The de-coupling of Mason and Howes will allow traffic to circulate through the western side of Downtown more easily and diminish re-circulating traffic. Under this strategy, Mason Street will likely become more heavily traveled than today and Howes Street will remain underutilized unless other actions are taken to promote the use of Howes Street. These actions could include encouragement of new land uses in the Howes Street corridor, enhancement of the urban design elements of the corridor that link the Downtown with Colorado State University, and using wayfinding techniques to encourage through movement on Howes Street. Another potential strategy to address the limited through routes could be signal timing and phasing strategies as well as specific intersection related improvements. These improvements could create a virtual continuous arterial formed of College Avenue, an east-west street such as Mulberry Street, and Howes Street. Assigning more time to signal phases that allow this connection, less time to the straight through movement on College, and potentially adding turning lane capacity to the required movements could encourage drivers to more fully utilize Howes Street. In addition, signage could be added to the other improvements to help create the virtual arterial. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 141 LAND USE The least utilized direction of travel into and out of Downtown today is from the north. It would be desirable to have more of the future traffic come to and from the north. Achieving a balanced directional distribution into and out of Downtown would more evenly distribute traffic and roadway capacity would be more fully utilized. Buildout of the northeast part of the city will improve a balance in travel demand accessing Downtown. New and denser land uses along the Mason/Howes corridor also will encourage greater use of both Howes Street and travel to and from the north and west to access these land uses. This will be beneficial in helping to spread traffic among all viable routes. PARKING LOT AND ENTRANCE LOCATIONS The general strategy of having parking structures at the periphery of the core to catch vehicles before they enter Downtown is a good one However, a significant portion of traffic will still attempt to access parking resources as close as possible to new land uses in the Mason/Howes corridor and those in the Downtown’s core. Parking lot access should be oriented to Howes Street as much as possible. The automobile entrances should be located on Howes Street whenever possible and away from street intersections. This strategy will help avoid turning conflicts and capacity degradation issues as well as provide destinations along Howes that draw traffic. This approach requires the coordination of pedestrian facilities. Each parking facility will need to construct and orient pedestrian facilities toward major destinations in the vicinity of the structures and generally toward the Downtown’s core. The “Park Once, Pedestrian First” concept allows for this integration by creating as many pedestrian ways and pedestrian options as possible, see the following section, 2.4 Pedestrian. ALTERNATE MODES Rather than concentrating on vehicular through movements, Downtown should be viewed as a destination. As such, focus should be placed on the storage of vehicles while their owners are living, working or visiting the Downtown. Alternate modes can be effective at providing choices for commuters helping to lessen traffic congestion. Transit, carpooling, and vanpooling services should be concentrated on the Downtown and the university. As the density of development and intensity of activity increase, the travel characteristics of Downtown will begin to resemble those of the university campus to the south. Concentrating transit services into the Downtown at peak commute hours will alleviate more automobile congestion than in other areas of the community. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF) and the Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual Impacts on Future Development Typically, when new development is projected to cause public facilities (roads, sewers, etc.) to fail, the developer is required to make improvements to address the problem. The City’s adequate public facilities ordinance requires that adequate public facilities be available concurrently with the impacts of development. Improvements to roads that address deficiencies in motor vehicle level of service are generally things such as adding a left or right turn bay, adding a travel lane, adding acceleration or deceleration lanes, or otherwise improving capacity. For the most part, very few opportunities 142 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N exist Downtown to make these kind of improvements. In light of these constraints, it is important to provide some alternatives that can be used by a developer of a major project in the Downtown area. The City’s Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual allows activity centers to operate at a level of service (LOS) E and below (see Figure 4.13). Therefore no capital improvement is required by new development. However, the manual states, ”Intersections falling below LOS E will require identification of specific strategies for mitigation of congestion through alternatives to motor vehicle travel." No strategies for mitigation are defined. This leaves too much room for interpretation as what may constitute an acceptable level of mitigation. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.13 Motor Vehicle LOS – Study Intersections: 2025 *Intersections falling below LOS E will require identification of specific strategies for mitigation of congestion through alternatives to motor vehicle travel." Land Use (from Structure Plan) Other Corridors Within Intersection Type Commercial Corridors Mixed Use Districts Low Density Mixed Residential All Other Areas Signalized Intersections D E* D D Stop Sign Control (arterial/local) N/A E* E* E Stop Sign Control (collector/local) N/A C C C Given that the Downtown area is constrained by existing development and that most roadway intersections are failing today or projected to fail in the future, any significant new development will cause transportation facilities to exceed the motor vehicle LOS. Having a clear definition of the acceptable mitigation options available using alternative modes will enhance the likelihood a developer can be successful Downtown. Mitigation options will likely include but not be limited to strategies such as purchasing unlimited annual bus passes for all employees or residents in a new building, installing facilities such as showers/dressing rooms for bicyclists, or committing to providing the building with an employee or resident transportation coordinator. Other options for mitigation might include education and marketing activities, installation of transit stops, or Downtown bike stations. In any event, these mitigation options should be defined in such a way to provide clarity during the development application process. Some groups that reviewed this analysis felt that priorities for mitigation measures should focus on improvements to pedestrian porosity and transit in the Downtown area. Difficulties arise not only due to the ambiguity of acceptable mitigation options, but also because the developer is often not the building manager or owner of the property. Agreements involving non-structural mitigation strategies made prior to pulling building permits must be legally tied to the property to have any lasting positive effect on mitigating congestion downtown. An examination of the administrative procedures used to secure these agreements and the Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual need immediate attention to remedy these inadequacies. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 143 2.3 BICYCLE Bicycle Circulation Existing Conditions Fort Collins has designated a significant number of bicycle routes into Downtown. The Fort Collins Bicycle Vision Plan (1995) breaks down bicycle facilities into four categories: major on- street bicycle arterials, scenic routes, back street bikeways, and planned regional facilities. The majority of routes into and around the Downtown are categorized as on-street bicycle facilities or back-street bikeways. North-south bicycle traffic is carried by Howes, Mason and Remington. South of Olive, Peterson is a designated north-south bike route, although it stops before reaching the core activity area. Through east-west traffic is accommodated on Cherry Street and Laporte Avenue. While Mountain Avenue, Olive Street, and Magnolia Street are also designated east-west bicycle facilities, they do not connect with the Downtown core, leaving cyclists with discontinuous routes through the Downtown area. The Linden Street route provides a connection to the Poudre River Trail. Discontinuous east-west bicycle routes make it extremely difficult for cyclists from west side neighborhoods to get to Downtown for work or entertainment. Lack of signage and visible connections make bicycle commuting a poor alternative. The Linden Street bicycle route lacks a safe, convenient and recognizable crossing at Jefferson, making links to recreational facilities difficult from Downtown. See Figure 4.14. 144 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.14 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities: Existing & Proposed S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 145 Bicycle Circulation Strategies Over the next 5-10 years, the Downtown bike system should become an integral part of the transportation network. The projected travel, of nearly 100,000 daily vehicle trips into and out of Downtown, will necessitate a shift from vehicular travel to multi-modal alternatives. Bicycle commuting can be a viable alternative given appropriate facilities, amenities, encouragement, and transportation environment. Better connections between north-south and east-west bicycle routes will help to create a comprehensive system that can carry cyclists Downtown from any area of Fort Collins. The recommended primary bicycle routes through Downtown are: 1) the Mason Corridor for north/south travel and 2) Magnolia Street for east/west travel. The future Mason Street bicycle corridor will create a significant link with the south end of town, expanding opportunity for bicyclists to commute to a growing job base in Downtown Fort Collins. East-west links, currently absent in the system would help connect residents to Downtown destinations and employment areas. Recreational bicycling opportunities could be expanded by improving north-south connections between Downtown and the Poudre River Trail at Jefferson and Linden, and N. College and Cherry. See Figure 4.14 for a map illustrating these links. Discontinuous bicycle lanes, as found on Oak, Magnolia and Cherry streets should be improved. An additional route should be added on Jefferson Street. On many neighborhood streets, bicycle operation is impaired by on-street parking and sidewalks. A dedicated bike lane should be established on Magnolia where parallel parking exists along the length of the street. This east-west connection will be complimented by a strong north-south connection on Mason Street. These two connections will go a long way in establishing a more comprehensive and viable bicycle network Downtown. As bike lanes are accommodated on streets with on-street parking, careful consideration should be given to the safety of cyclists in proximity to opening car doors. Traffic calming measures to slow travel speeds should be utilized to better accommodate cyclists in these striped lanes, or even within the existing travel lane, where appropriate. Cycling on sidewalks should not be considered a viable option as it creates conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, as well as turning motorists. Bike lane along Cherry Street. Cyclists should be easily visible to drivers in parked or moving vehicles. On street bike route. 146 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N ENCOURAGING BICYCLE USAGE The presence of bicyclists and pedestrians helps to maintain an active and vibrant Downtown environment that in turn, generates stronger support for Downtown businesses. Bicycling can be not only a component of the transportation network, but an energetic and exciting element of the Downtown fabric. The following provisions can increase bicycle usage. CROSSING DESIGN Specific design elements or roadway markings will increase bicycle visibility. Street crossing design should be safe and easily recognizable, making designated routes and crossings apparent not only to the cyclists but to the motorist, as well. Focus should be made to construct clear and unambiguous routes, pathways, and trails that lead cyclists in both the northeast and northwest parts of the Downtown to the Poudre River bicycle facilities. SIGNAGE A comprehensive signage system for bicycle travel should be developed. A recognizable signage system should be present on every major street with bicycle facilities in Downtown Fort Collins. Sign design should clearly notify motorists of the need to safely share the roadway with cyclists and other modes of transportation. The design and marking of bicycle facilities Downtown becomes part of the Downtown identity and establishes an awareness of the level of bike activity associated with Downtown. Directional signage Downtown should also indicate access points to both local and regional cycling facilities. MARKETING Bike system maps and informational brochures should be available to the public at informational kiosks throughout Downtown. Marketing efforts about commuter and recreational facilities will increase the awareness of local and regional biking opportunities as an amenity of the Downtown area. Workplace commuter bike programs might offer assistance to commuters in choosing appropriate travel routes or provide educational sessions on bike maintenance or healthy biking. A marketing campaign can encourage more bicycling by getting those who don't currently ride to try bicycling or to at least to think positively about bicycling. Specific media days such as “bike to work” day or week or the organization of a recreational Downtown bike ride can go a long way in creating a positive public perception of biking as a transportation alternative. Formation of formal Downtown bicycling groups/coalitions can help planners, engineers, and policy makers develop bicycling facilities and programs. Planners and engineers could participate in group rides with bicycle club members to discover and assess the positive and negative aspects of the current system. Well-striped bike lane. Sign to raise awareness between bicycling and other transportation modes. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 147 BIKE AMENITIES Bike racks on streets should be located so as to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and so that parked bicycles don't block the pedestrian path. Ideally, they would be located in the “furnishings zone” as defined in the sidewalk standards, see Figure 4.16. Bicycle parking should take into account the following: • Access- Bicycle parking should be convenient to building entrances and street access, but away from normal pedestrian and auto traffic. Avoid locations that require bicycles to travel over stairs. • Security - Parking should be located so that it is in the public view, that illegal behavior is easily recognizable, and bikes can be easily locked by their owners. • Lighting - Bicycle parking areas should be well lit for theft protection, personal security and accident prevention. • Protection - Preferably an overhang or covered walkway is available in bicycle parking areas to protect the bike and cyclist from the weather. The City currently generally requires bicycle parking be provided at a rate of 5% of the amount of parking provided for automobiles in new developments. In Downtown, accommodation for bicycle parking is actually more difficult to ensure as only residential development has a parking requirement. Retail development may forego building new parking altogether, relying solely on public parking resources to meet their bicycle parking needs. Therefore, bicycle parking in Downtown must be coordinated by the City and its bicycle and transportation demand management programs (i.e. SmartTrips) or it may otherwise be deficient in supply. A future bike station should be considered as bicycle commuting grows in popularity. A location near the Downtown Transit Center would be ideal, allowing commuters an easy way to combine the use of alternative modes. Transfort buses are equipped with bike racks, making the transfer between modes easy. A station facility might include showers and changing rooms, long-term secure bike parking, minor repair services and system information. These types of amenities make it more feasible for residents to depart from their automobiles and consider their travel options. 148 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2.4 PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian Facilities Existing Conditions Downtown’s sidewalk network is illustrated in Figure 4.15. The City’s recent sidewalk inventory and condition assessment indicates the majority of the study area’s sidewalks are in good condition. The primary pedestrian connections along College Avenue offer adequate capacity to carry pedestrians, shoppers and visitors. Conditions along Jefferson, just east of Old Town are categorized as fair. Pedestrian movement along this busy roadway is uncomfortable due to the proximity of trucks and higher speeds and the lack of a sidewalk buffer. East of Jefferson the availability of adequate sidewalks deteriorates. In the northwest section of Downtown, sidewalk conditions are fair to poor, making pedestrian connections from adjacent neighborhoods into Downtown and to the Downtown Transit Center on Mason Street more difficult. The absence of sidewalk facilities on the northern most block of Mason Street is particularly troubling as direct connections from Downtown to the Poudre River corridor need to be made. While the availability and condition of sidewalks comprise the physical infrastructure of the Downtown pedestrian system, amenities associated with those sidewalks round out the pedestrian experience. These amenities include wide sidewalks, tree lined streets, benches and active ground level store fronts and make for a comfortable and safe environment on the majority of Downtown streets within the retail core. New context sensitive standards for Downtown streets and sidewalks are needed in the City Code to ensure that sidewalks are built to a standard that promotes and enhances the pedestrian experience. Urban commercial sidewalks allow for four primary uses to take place in a common corridor: 1) a frontage zone, 2) a through pedestrian zone, 3) a furnishings zone, and 4) the curb zone (see Figure 4.16). Each zone serves a function in the design of the sidewalk. The frontage zone incorporates the need to browse storefronts, for commercial displays, for planters or benches associated with a business, outdoor sales activity, and other related uses. The through pedestrian zone is the primary movement area of the urban commercial sidewalk. The furnishings zone is a space reserved for street trees, signage, lamp posts, benches, parking meters, bicycle racks, newspaper stands, public phones, and other items that furnish the sidewalk. The last zone, the curb zone, is the transition to the street and generally separates the pedestrian from the automobile. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 149 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.15 Downtown Sidewalk Network: 2002 150 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.16 Typical Urban Commercial Sidewalk Zones A 16’ cross section ensures ample room for the sidewalk to function adequately in an urban commercial environment. The frontage zone should be no more than 3.5’. The through pedestrian zone should be between 7’ and 8’, depending upon the level of activity. The furnishing zone should be kept to 4’ where possible and allowed to reach a maximum of 5’ only in unusual circumstances. The curb zone is generally kept to 6”. Figure 4.17 illustrates a typical urban commercial sidewalk cross-section. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.17 Urban Commercial Sidewalk Care should be taken not to over design sidewalks. Emphasis should remain on two primary functions: 1) business access and product merchandising and 2) pedestrian travel. One final point should be made on sidewalk design and use. A recent trend has been to provide outdoor seating for restaurants during good weather months. It adds to the street life and ambience of the urban commercial sidewalk. Care should be taken, however, when designing such areas as in many instances they impede the functioning of the sidewalk itself. It is important the through pedestrian zone be maintained as straight and unimpeded as possible. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 151 Pedestrian Strategies It is important to note that new development will significantly increase traffic volumes and these volumes cannot be accommodated solely on College Avenue. Traffic volumes on portions of Mason Street are anticipated to reach daily levels near 15,000. Increased land use development will slow traffic and cause additional traffic congestion. The pedestrian mode of travel should be maintained as the primary mode in Downtown Fort Collins and efforts should be made to protect it from the ill effects of too much focus on traffic flow. Although Downtown possesses adequate sidewalks and amenities as part of its pedestrian infrastructure, the connectivity of various land uses and activities and the quality of the pedestrian infrastructure needs to be ensured as infill development and redevelopment occurs. The future pedestrian environment will need to promote pedestrian access as the primary mode of transportation, whether as a commuting option from adjacent neighborhoods or as a means of getting around within the Downtown area. Pedestrians will need to feel that they are connected to employment, retail, dining and residential opportunities. EAST-WEST CONNECTIVITY East-west pedestrian connectivity from the neighborhoods east toward the Downtown core will be essential to supporting north-south access. These east-west connections should move commuters and also bring residents across Mason Street from adjacent neighborhoods. Intersections should be enhanced with recognizable pedestrian crossings at the corners of both Mason and Howes Streets with Olive, Oak, Magnolia and Mountain. CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Improved crossings are an important part of enhancing the pedestrian environment and connectivity. Raised, textured or colored pavers within the crosswalk increase visibility and raise motorist awareness of the crossing. Crosswalks should be well-lit or utilize embedded lighting to create an effect. Because Mason Street and Howes Street rights-of-way are very wide, shortening of the pedestrian crossings may be appropriate. Bulb-outs shorten pedestrian crossing distances, improve their visibility to motorists and widen the sidewalk to increase room for other amenities. Bulb outs should be as wide as the parking lane so pedestrians are visible to motorists and cyclists. Whatever the design treatment, all Mason and Howes street pedestrian crossings should be consistent for easy identification. The location of bulb-outs on Mason, Howes, or College should occur in conjunction with on- street parking and should not inhibit left-hand turning movements. On Mason and Howes streets, bulb-outs should occur at Magnolia, Olive, Oak, and Mountain. On Mason, north of Laporte Avenue, traffic volumes decrease due to the left-hand turn movements at that intersection. Pedestrian refuges at Maple Street may ease pedestrian crossings to the Downtown Transit Center, between City office buildings, and to a new main library building. Pedestrian crossing design example. 152 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Mid-block crossings should be examined depending on the type and location of future development. Key pedestrian destinations located on both sides of the street may drive the need to designate a mid-block crossing. An example of such an opportunity exists on the 100 block of North College Avenue. Many Downtown visitors park their cars at the Civic Center Parking Structure. The primary destination for many of these people is the College Avenue corridor and Old Town retail establishments. Getting from the Civic Center Parking Structure to Old Town can be dramatically enhanced by focused pedestrian improvements, specifically: 1) a mid-block crossing in the 100 block of College Avenue and 2) improvements to the alley-way that runs east to the Old Town Square. These improvements would provide a direct, pedestrian friendly, connection between the Civic Center Parking Structure through the Opera Galleria across College Avenue along Trimble Court to Old Town Square, as shown on Figure 4.18. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.18 Integrated Pedestrian Infrastructure Consideration should be given to the signage, lighting and loss of on-street parking spaces that would be associated with the implementation of additional crossings. Marking and signage of these crossings will increase pedestrian awareness to their crossing options. Downtown’s existing centerline parking on College and Mountain Avenues is considered both unique and desirable. This parking design, however, forces those parking to walk across two lanes of heavy traffic. One idea, which needs further investigation, is to change the design from diagonal to parallel parking. This would allow the creation of a continuous refuge for pedestrians and formalize mid-block crossings. See Figure 4.57 for more information. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 153 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAGE A “pedestrian priority” signage system throughout Downtown should be easily recognized, provide direction and educational information about Downtown venues. As development increases Downtown, improvements to streetscape and ground level retail/business activity will help to create a vibrant pedestrian environment. The addition of distinct pedestrian signs will make pedestrians and motorists aware of the need to acknowledge and accommodate pedestrians as the primary travel mode in the city’s largest activity center. If signage systems direct motorists to parking lots/structures, then additional directional signage or decorative kiosks should highlight sidewalk connections from these parking facilities to various Downtown destinations. INTEGRATED PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS There are a series of opportunities in the Downtown area to create and enhance informal and infrequently used facilities for pedestrian use. These facilities, which include alley-ways, integrated walkways (e.g., Opera Galleria), and mid-block crossings, can connect various activities in Downtown and provide a systemic approach to pedestrian porosity. They can also provide additional opportunities for commerce, enhance parking locations, and reduce the need for automobile travel. Pedestrian connections should be established along every block in the Downtown area at a maximum of every 350’. Alley-ways are traditionally used only for vehicular access to Downtown buildings. However, a multi-use approach that creates more pedestrian opportunities can dramatically enhance commercial activity through the orientation of businesses to both the street-side and alley-side of buildings. Alley-ways provide a way to increase connectivity between a mix of residential and retail uses, allowing pedestrians to avoid street crossings at busy intersections. Lighting and signage improvements at these locations will increase security for pedestrians. An integrated pedestrian network approach to pedestrian travel in the Downtown improves both the viability and use of more distant on- and off- street parking resources. The primary goal of parkers in Downtown is to park as close to their destinations as possible. Without exception, increased pedestrian porosity provides shorter direct routes between parking resources and the many Downtown destinations expanding the perceived current parking supply. See Figure 4.19. Pedestrian walkway between shops. Pedestrian alley. Example of an inviting alleyway Alley adjacent to Civic Center Parking Structure 154 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Both existing parking structures have adjacent alley-ways that need improvement. The alley-way adjacent to the Old Town structure should be improved to acceptable standards for safety, lighting, cleanliness, and design to accommodate foot traffic between the structure and Library Park, as shown on Figure 4.20. Improvements to the alley-ways east and south of the Civic Center Parking Structure (beyond the Opera Galleria entrances) would provide additional porosity throughout the Downtown area. An integrated pedestrian network will need to be formally planned and engineered. It should also become a high ranking component to the City’s Capital Improvement Program. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.19 Integrated Pedestrian Network S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 155 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.20 Enhanced Alley-ways Jefferson Street Pedestrian Environment Jefferson Street is often considered a barrier to the Downtown core. A number of factors contribute to this image. Jefferson Street serves as a state designated truck route. Current traffic volumes are 15,000 vehicles per day. Vehicle and truck traffic are projected to increase to roughly 24,000 vehicles through the Downtown portion of State Highway 14. There are 40 public and private driveways and other access points in this area. One of the primary objectives of the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report is to efficiently and safely move people and goods through the corridor. However, vehicular safety and mobility needs should be balanced with the need to provide for the safety and comfort of pedestrians. Implementation of the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report should account for not only regional travel needs but local travel as well. The best way to minimize the effects of Jefferson is to create identifiable access points through this barrier. Linden Street is ideally suited to move pedestrians and bicyclists across Jefferson towards the Poudre River. Lincoln/Mountain Avenue is another good crossing point. Colored, textured or raised markings, lighting improvements and signage are all important elements of a safer and more comfortable pedestrian crossing. 156 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2.5 TRANSIT Existing Transit Services and Facilities Six daily routes currently serve the Downtown. Each route serves distinct areas of Fort Collins and enters the Downtown from a unique direction. The pattern of transit service suggests that Transfort provides adequate service coverage within easy walking distance for most patrons in Downtown (see Figure 4.21). At present, the use of these local routes as transit circulators within Downtown is unrealistic. The local transit service that brings people into the Downtown area does not currently have frequencies that would support extensive short-trip use in the Downtown area. Currently TNM&O/Greyhound provides regional service that links Fort Collins to other cities such as Denver, Boulder or Longmont. In addition, Transfort’s Foxtrot provides service between Fort Collins and Loveland which can be accessed via Routes 1 or 5 (one transfer) through the Downtown and South transit centers. The Transfort system provides service through three timed transfer facilities: 1) the Downtown Transit Center (DTC), 2) the CSU Transit Center (CTC), and 3) the South Transit Center (STC). These centers are connected to each other through transit service that generally connects two of the three sites. For example, Routes 1 and 5 connect the Downtown Transit Center with the South Transit Center. These routes operate on 20-minute and 60-minute frequencies respectively and direct transfers are available to other routes from each transit center. Connection to Colorado State University (CSU) is made via Route 15. Currently, Route 15 is the only daily route in the system providing direct connections between the DTC and the CTC. The route operates on 20-minute headways and direct transfers are available to other routes from these transit centers. Coordinated transfer times are typically only available once each hour and wait times vary by run. Night service operates on two routes into the Downtown area. Funded by a contract with CSU students, the routes only operate when CSU is in session during the regular school year (no summers or session breaks). Service is available on weekdays until 12:40 a.m. and on weekends until 2:40 a.m. Municipal transit funding remains a critical issue in Fort Collins. Without a designated revenue source, the transit agency lacks substantial funding to support an expansion of services (routes) or an improvement in frequency for current service. Downtown Transit Center. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 157 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.21 Downtown Transit Service: 2003 158 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N A trolley service operated by the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society, a voluntary organization, runs between City Park and Downtown. The Society currently has an agreement with the City to operate Car 21 on scheduled weekends and to operate special excursions during off hours. The trolley is used as a historic attraction rather than as a component of the transit system. Fort Collins, including Downtown, is served by one taxi-cab company. Services are available seven days each week, twenty-four hours a day. The Context for Future Transit Services in Downtown The context for future transit in the Downtown area assumes a number of transportation and demographic attributes that do not exist today. Downtown traffic volumes will increase dramatically. Within the next twenty years, it is expected that the level of service on most streets in the Downtown area during the peak travel period will be at LOS F and that the peak travel period will be considerably longer in duration than it is today. In addition, the demand for parking will also increase dramatically. It has been projected that the increase in the number of households alone will produce a need for parking equivalent to the Civic Center Parking Structure. The area immediately to the west of the core is assumed to substantially increase in residential units and jobs over the next 20 years. The increase of residents and commuters is ideal for establishing a higher level of pedestrian activity Downtown and generating demand for local transit services. As a result, the provision of transit service will become a more fundamental component of the overall transportation network for Downtown. Transit service will enjoy a greater role in providing access into this popular, but congested area of Fort Collins. Strategies, Goals, and Recommendations for Transit in Downtown Fort Collins As with all of the other transportation modes identified in this effort, the primary focus of the strategies, goals, and recommendations for transit is to promote economic growth and support a sustainable economically vital Downtown. Although there may be many additional themes and elements needed to support a healthy overall transit system, those identified below are those most important to supporting Downtown. IMPLEMENT THE MASON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The Mason Transportation Corridor is the single most important long-term transit improvement that the City can make in support of Downtown. This corridor, and more importantly, its service, will provide mobility and access into and out of Downtown to meet the travel needs of the Downtown workers and residents in the future. It is clear with the recent results from elections to fund the Mason Transportation Corridor that an interim or incremental plan towards achieving full implementation is an important consideration. One of the best interim steps is to increase the frequency on Route 1. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 159 DEVELOP A DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE Transfort is in a small, unique group of transit agencies in the United States without a dedicated funding source. Although not uncommon to Colorado, the lack of regular operating funds inhibits the transit agency from implementing publicly adopted plans and operating its service within a true business context. A dedicated funding source would enable the transit agency to implement the programs, build the facilities, and add the services necessary to support building a sustainable transportation network Downtown. BRING TRANSIT SERVICES SERVING DOWNTOWN TO ADOPTED STANDARDS Transit service standards are found in the adopted Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual. This manual delineates the standards for all modes, but most other modes are treated quite differently than transit. The pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic (roadways) improvements required by this manual and the development process tend to be capital improvements and have traditionally been easier to implement for modes other than transit. Transit improvements called for in the Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual are service-based and tend to be the responsibility of the City and not the developer. Although the provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile related improvements have kept pace with development, the City has fallen behind improving transit service as development has occurred. Over the next 20 years, the City could continue to fall behind as development occurs and the problems of congestion and air quality rise. Figures 4.22 and 4.23 describe how level of service is determined for transit. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.22 Public Transit LOS, Standards & Ratings: by 2015 Service level standards: (by 2015) Mixed use centers and commercial corridors Remainder of service area Hours of weekday service 18 hours 16 hours Weekday frequency of service 15 minutes 20 minutes Travel time factor 2.0X 2.0X Peak load factor <1.2 <1.2 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.23 LOS Ratings: by 2015 LOS Ratings: All 4 3 or 4 2 of 4 1 of 4 None Areas within 1,320' of transit routes A B D E F Areas within 2,640‘ of transit routes B C D E F Achieving these standards would greatly benefit the future Downtown by providing peak hour frequencies of 15 to 20 minutes for all routes serving the Downtown area. These standards would also increase the hours of service to 16 to 18 hours a day. 160 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N PROVIDE CIRCULATOR SERVICES THROUGH LOCAL TRANSIT ROUTES Circulator services generally require high frequencies and directional routing to be effective. Implementing an independent circulator service for the Downtown area will likely be unproductive and expensive. Many of the intersections in the popular areas of Downtown are expected to fail during the peak travel periods, suggesting that circulator buses will be trapped in congested traffic throughout most of the day. A dedicated circulator service would need to employ many vehicles to achieve even modest frequencies. A patron’s experience may prove frustrating due to the amount of time required to traverse short distances. A better, more viable alternative is to provide transit circulation throughout Downtown through local routes that meet service standards and the establishment of a fare-free zone. FARE-FREE ZONE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA A fare-free zone means that all transit rides beginning and ending within a zone (e.g., Downtown) require no fare. Although a fare-free zone is patron-friendly, it is not free to the provider. A financing source would need to be identified to help offset the loss in revenue incurred by the transit system caused by the fare-free zone. One positive aspect of this is that the revenue loss will be small and the cost to those covering the loss should be minimal. Figure 4.24 identifies the suggested fare-free zone boundaries __________________________________________ Figure 4.24 Proposed Downtown Fare-Free Zone S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 161 PROVIDE HIGH LEVELS OF SERVICE TO CSU DURING MID-DAY Colorado State University represents the single largest market for the good and services provided by Downtown merchants, restaurants, and service professionals. Understanding the nature of the parking situation on campus and the perceived “distance” to Downtown is essential to understanding how to tap this lucrative market. There is a surplus of parking spaces on campus yet most are perceived to be inconvenient (much like Downtown). Therefore, once parked, the parker on campus will avoid moving their car. Downtown, however, is viewed as “too far away” to walk even though the distance from the north side of campus to Mountain and College is only six blocks. Certainly, Downtown may indeed be too far to walk in a lunch hour. Today, few members of the CSU community frequent Downtown for shopping or dining during the school day. High frequency direct transit service could help move large numbers of CSU students, faculty, and staff to and from Downtown during those days when the university is in session. The Mason Transportation Corridor service can provide this service at some point in the future. However, the City and the Downtown community should not wait for the Mason Transportation Corridor’s implementation. A targeted direct service connecting the Downtown Transit Center and the CSU Transit Center between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. via a redesigned Route 15 is recommended. This service should concentrate on providing the most direct routing between the two transit centers and have a frequency no less than service every 7.5 minutes. In order to be successful, this service will require an ongoing coordinated marketing effort. In addition, Mason and Howes Streets between Laurel and Cherry should be converted to two-way facilities. This service will directly benefit the Downtown economy. These expenses should be paid by the Downtown community. This program of transit service can be instituted as a pilot, but should be operated for a minimum of eighteen months. DOWNTOWN BUS STOP PROGRAM Transfort, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Downtown Business Association should institute a program to enhance and upgrade Downtown area bus stops. These stops should be viewed as an integral element of the urban fabric of Downtown. As urban design, the bus stops should function with a theme consistent with the part of Downtown in which they are located. Perhaps these bus stops can be viewed and funded as “Art in Public Places”. In any event, they should not contain any commercial advertisements. WAYFINDING SYSTEM Wayfinding is a primary recommendation that crosses all modes of transportation. Parkers, automobile drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit patrons all need practical, clear, and useful directional signage. Transfort staff and management need to make participating in the development of a wayfinding system and its implementation a high priority for transit. Transit professionals have a wealth of experience to offer as the Downtown community and the City develop a wayfinding system. A wayfinding system that starts with the schedule brochure 162 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N and continues through to a Downtown destination makes for a rewarding trip using Transfort and will directly increase the number of transit riders. Transit and Travel Demand Management A strong transit program is also an essential element of an effective travel demand management strategy for Downtown which recognizes the links between various transportation modes. Effective transit alternatives directly reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles on the roadways, which in turn reduces traffic congestion, the demand for long-term parking and the burden on employers to provide safe and convenient parking. Several elements comprise the recommended demand management strategy. • Increase the frequency of transit service in to and out of the Downtown Transit Center. Bring all routes serving the Downtown area to a headway of no greater than 30 minutes and achieve service standards if possible. • Fund and operate improved bus service along Mason Street and capitalize on the travel patterns of commuters into the Downtown. • Utilize parking policies and pay structures as incentives to encourage multi-occupancy vehicle trips into Downtown. • Enhance the “walkable” elements of the Downtown environment with safe and convenient pedestrian access to all venues and places of employment. • Implement a wayfinding system focusing on pedestrian information needs built to a pedestrian scale. • Implement carpool and vanpool programs in conjunction with transit service to decrease travel demand into Downtown. The effectiveness of these programs will grow as the size and number of employers in Downtown increases. • Implement a transit employee annual pass program for all Downtown employees. This could be initiated through a joint agreement between the Downtown Business Association and Transfort. Future Commuter Rail Transportation alternative studies for the I-25 corridor currently recommend commuter rail operations between Downtown Fort Collins and Denver Union Station in Downtown Denver. Although the implementation horizon for such services is likely 10-15 or more years away, it is important that the possibility be considered in designing an effective and comfortable Downtown environment. The Colorado Department of Transportation has initiated an I-25 Environmental Impact Statement process that will affect the timing and viability of rail service to northern Colorado. The Fort Collins community and professional staff should engage this opportunity to participate whenever and wherever possible. It is anticipated that the future and timing of rail between Denver and Fort Collins may be determined through this process. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 163 2.6 FREIGHT & MOBILITY Existing Freight & Mobility The freight and mobility portion of this study was conducted to identify specific issues and/or concerns about freight delivery within Downtown Fort Collins, and to determine if the current freight delivery system is working effectively. An existing conditions assessment and a user survey were conducted to evaluate the current system and to identify what improvements and/or regulatory policies should be pursued. Citizens and Downtown business owners experience a number of delays and inconveniences associated with the current freight and delivery. People perceive that deliveries impede Downtown traffic flow, block alleyways, and inhibit pedestrian visibility. In addition, business owners note that delivery truck staging areas have been lost due to new construction throughout Downtown. Current loading zones, indicated in Figure 4.25, are inadequate in number and inconveniently located to benefit many businesses. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.25 Existing Freight Delivery Locations: 2002 164 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Freight Survey The Freight Delivery & Mobility Survey (August 15 and 16, 2002) surveyed randomly chosen Downtown business establishments. The survey was designed to identify and document the issues surrounding freight delivery in the study area, as well as attitudes regarding potential delivery regulations. The results reflect the needs and opinions of business owners and operators in the study area, not necessarily the public at large or other stakeholders. This survey was an important component of an effort to form partnerships with Downtown businesses so as to develop a plan that is best supportive of the community’s goals. The survey was administered as a personal interview with businesses No confidential information was required. The survey focused on identifying delivery problems, delivery volumes, obtaining suggested improvements, and determining reactions to sample policies proposed that would either restrict or limit delivery times. The survey form was broken down into 3 sections: Location, Freight Access, and Issues. A copy of the survey form is provided in Appendix B. Location asked general questions about the type of business and their location. Freight access survey questions outlined the location and quality of freight access (for both pick up and drop off) for the businesses questioned. The issues section asked business owners/representatives to indicate if they experienced certain issues and asked them to rate their support for or against various regulatory approaches to address the issues. Summary of Findings Figures 4.26, 4.27, and 4.28 summarize the results of the survey. Delivery trucks lining up in alleyways cause minor delivery delays. Passenger vehicle parking in alleyways was identified as in issue. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 165 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.26 Survey Questions Pertaining to Business Type and Location: 2002 Survey was based on responses from 20 businesses. Question Response Retail Service Eat & Drink Other 1. What is your type of business? 63% 16% 11% 11% 2. Do you operate your own delivery Yes No Don’t Know fleet? 26% 74% 0% 3. Please estimate the number of non- 0 1-2 4-10 15-20 185 UPS/FedEx deliveries per week. 21% 37% 21% 16% 5% 4. Please estimate the number of 1-3 4-8 10-12 20-30 UPS/FedEx deliveries per week. 16% 58% 16% 11% 5. Do you have a nearby parcel drop Yes No Don’t Know box? 53% 32% 16% 6. What time of day do most Morning AM & PM Afternoon Evenly Distributed deliveries occur? 42% 26% 21% 11% 7. What time of day do most N/A Afternoon Evenly Distributed outbound shipments occur? 16% 68% 16% 8. Do you use on-site loading docks Yes No How Many? or areas? 32% 68% 0% 9. Do you use an on-street loading Yes No Don’t Know zone near your business? 11% 84% 5% 10. Do you commonly ship or receive Yes No Don’t Know hazardous materials? 5% 90% 5% _________________________________________________ Figure 4.27 Survey Questions Pertaining to Freight Access: 2002 Survey was based on responses from 20 businesses. Question Response 1. Freight access to your loading Alley Street Parking Lot areas is from: 63% 21% 16% 2. What local street do shippers use for direct access to your loading area? 26% of respondents listed Mason, 16% listed Remington, Magnolia and Walnut; 5% mentioned either Mountain, Oak, College, Matthews, Linden, Laporte, Canyon, or Olive. (Responses were not always mutually exclusive.) 3. What major arterial do shippers use for direct access to your loading area? 84% of respondents listed Mulberry; 16% listed Jefferson/Riverside; 11% listed either Mountain or College; 5% were unknown. 4. Is a left turn across traffic Yes No Don’t Know required for access to or from your primary loading area? 16% 58% 26% Always Sometimes Never N/A 5. When trucks turn into your loading area, do they have problems such as driving up on the curb, having to back up and reposition, etc? 11% 47% 26% 16% Always Heavy Sometimes Heavy Moderate 166 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.28 Survey Questions Pertaining to Freight Issues: 2002 Survey was based on responses from 20 businesses. Question Response Yes No Don’t Know 16% 79% 5% 1. Has freight access to your business changed recently? In what way? Comments: (1) More dumpsters in the alley have made it difficult for trucks to pass through; (2) Increased congestion in the alley due to construction of new Civic Center parking lot; (3) Access changes occurred only when it was construction related. Yes No Other Don’t Know 2. Does traffic congestion in the immediate area of your business negatively affect your freight shipping? 21% 68% 5% - minor delays 5% 3. How critical to your business is time of Very Somewhat Not Very Not at All delivery? 21% 16% 32% 32% 4. Rate your degree of support for the following policies using the following scale: Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose Oppose a. Restrict deliveries during peak travel times. 5% 0% 42% 16% 37% b. Time restrictions on street parking for loading/unloading during peak travel times. 11% 26% 37% 11% 16% c. Restrictions on mid-street loading/unloading during peak travel times. 5% 32% 21% 21% 21% d. No mid-street loading/unloading. 0% 16% 26% 16% 42% e. Noise limits on late night deliveries. 11% 26% 53% 11% 0% f. Restrictions on truck size on some streets. 11% 37% 32% 11% 11% g. No trucks on certain streets 16% 11% 37% 16% 21% 5. Please describe other issues regarding freight that restrict the success of your business. 32% had no comment; 11% indicated that time restrictions would hurt their business; 11% indicated that current construction projects have caused more problems than freight; Other comments include: (1) Request that cars not be allowed in alleys – keep alleys for delivery area only – cars parked in back makes deliveries impossible; (2) Mid-street parking obstructs traffic; (3) Late deliveries hinder business – cars parked in alleyways and dumpsters block trucks; (4) There is no nearby loading zone; (5) Balance customer parking/ with business deliveries – food/beer trucks stack up daily; (6) Rear entrance to loading sometimes blocked by restaurant delivery trucks in the AM; (7) General lack of parking; (8) Congestion makes delivery parking difficult; (9) Two-hour parking limits are not customer friendly. 6. What could be done by the City to improve freight access to your business? 32% had no comment; 16% requested more loading zones. Other comments received: (1) Restrict private vehicles from alleyways; (2) Limit construction to support businesses; (3) Allow deliveries to occur as they do now; (4) Do not restrict access for delivery times; (5) Need better access from the back of the store; (6) Provide routine maintenance in alleys – improve enforcement of parking policies; (7) Limit access on major arterials for larger trucks during peak hours – need more public S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 167 Freight Recommendations The following general observations were made during the course of this study: • Freight access to Downtown businesses ranges from poor to excellent, depending on the following factors: Availability of functional alley access Availability of nearby loading zones Proximity to the Downtown core/ Historic Old Town • Most businesses have multiple shipments every day, with little flexibility in the time of delivery. • Most businesses experience some degree of difficulty with access to their individual site. • While there is a perception of at least minor negative impacts from local congestion on delivery and shipping schedules, freight movements do occur on a regular schedule, despite any difficulties and are critical to business success. • There is more likely a negative impact on local traffic from freight movements than vice versa, resulting from mid-street parking, double parking, backing out of alleys, etc. • Very limited support exists for policies that would restrict freight deliveries such as timing, truck size, or prohibitions on trucks from the nearest street. These would not be seen as supportive of commercial activity. Acknowledgement exists that established truck routes are necessary, but that flexibility is required in order for businesses to receive and ship goods. Freight and Mobility Strategies Because the movement of goods and services is essential to the economic viability of Downtown, freight delivery trucks are an inevitable component of Downtown business. Freight movements can often create an environment in conflict with pedestrians, shoppers, diners and workers, the essential customers of a vibrant Downtown. Fortunately for Downtown businesses, State Highway 14 serves as a designated truck route, an alternative to Downtown streets for thru truck traffic. Because of this, the majority of Downtown truck traffic is related to the delivery of goods to local businesses. Today’s delivery patterns and practices often impede local vehicle mobility, increase traffic congestion and cause diesel fumes and noise on city streets. Deliveries often block alley access when unable to utilize loading zones. Centerline parking creates confusion and congestion for traffic and pedestrians. As new commercial uses are created, the demand for daily deliveries will rise. If the existing loading facilities are inadequate to accommodate current delivery demands, then future delivery demands will be substantially underserved. It is important that freight delivery issues be addressed in relation to future Downtown growth. If residential and employment populations significantly increase, in addition to commercial services, then the impact of growing freight operations on the number of residents or visitors Downtown increases as well. Truck signage 168 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Although freight traffic cannot be removed from Downtown, its effects can be minimized through coordinated efforts among Downtown businesses. Potential strategies for addressing delivery problems include the following: • Sidewalk improvements such as tree canopies, benches and other amenities help to create a more secure environment for pedestrians, buffered from the movement of freight vehicles on the roadway. • Additional on-street loading zones are an example of actions that would support rather than inhibit commerce, while at the same time helping to improve local traffic flow. These loading zones should be developed in conjunction with new business development in order to mitigate delivery problems as demand grows. They should be distinctively marked with unique signs that are consistent, understandable and easy to read. • Designated delivery hours for all businesses in the Downtown would minimize the effects on peak period traffic congestion. However, most businesses indicated that they were not in favor of restricting freight deliveries to certain hours of the day (see paragraph below). Most traffic congestion and delivery delays were identified in high traffic areas such as along College Avenue and Mason Street and in alleyways adjacent to these busy streets. • The movement of trucks through Downtown should rely on the well-developed Downtown street system, offering alternate routes to the arterial or collector routes used by local passenger traffic. The utilization of alternate routes during peak period times can substantially reduce traffic congestion associated with parking and delivery. According to the survey results, local businesses recognize the critical nature of delivery timing and shipping and therefore do not want to restrict delivery times. Nonetheless, as the number of businesses grows and the impacts on local traffic and pedestrians increases, these sentiments may change. The City should continue to monitor freight issues and work with Downtown businesses over time to determine if delivery problems worsen. In addition, the City should address the freight delivery needs and issues of new businesses at the development review stage. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 169 Section 3 – Parking 3.1 CURRENT PARKING PROGRAM OVERVIEW Parking System Organization The City’s Parking Services Division is divided into 3 operational sections: Parking Enforcement, Customer Service, and Parking Operations. The Parking Enforcement section is tasked with enforcement related duties including issuing parking citations, vehicle immobilization, vehicle impoundment, and field representation. Employees assigned to the Parking Enforcement section also provide assistance to the other two department sections. The Customer Service section is responsible for parking facility operations including cashiering, monthly and temporary parking permit issuance, cash handling and auditing, general bookkeeping, minor equipment maintenance, and front desk operations. Finally, the Parking Operations section is responsible for handling facility maintenance issues and managing parking service agreements (e.g. facility security). The three main operational sections, and the financial section, report to the Transportation Planning and Parking Manager. Figure 4.29 illustrates the current reporting relationships. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.29 City of Fort Collins Parking Division: 2002 170 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Current Parking Program Components – Overview This section provides a brief overview of the separate components of the current Fort Collins parking program. OFF-STREET PARKING Downtown, the City of Fort Collins currently provides off-street parking in two parking structures and seven surface parking lots. All of the parking facilities, except the Justice Center and City 215 N. Mason office building lots, provide parking for transient and monthly customers. The Justice Center and City office building lots provide transient parking only. See Figure 4.30. Pay-by-space parking is provided in the Mason Street surface parking lot. The transient parking provided in the other parking lots is time-restricted (two hours) except for the Jefferson lot, which is open, free all-day parking. The City currently operates two Downtown parking structures, the Civic Center Parking Structure and Old Town Parking Structure. There are currently 12 full-time and part-time parking attendants. Parking structure hours of operation are 7:30 am to 10:00 pm, Monday through Wednesday and 7:30 am to 2:00 am, Thursday through Sunday. Parking rates in the parking structures are $.50 for the first 2 hours and $.50 for each additional hour. In 2004 the rates will change to $.50 per hour. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.30 City of Fort Collins Parking & Loading Areas: 2003 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 171 ON-STREET PARKING The City provides on-street parking throughout the Downtown area. The on-street parking located in the core is provided free to transient parkers for up to two hours. The on-street parking located on the periphery of Downtown is provided to transient parkers without a time limit. CUSTOMER SERVICES The customer services section encompasses visitor parking operations (attendants, etc.), the monthly permit parking program, and the administrative front desk. Visitor parking operations refers to hourly (or transient) off-street facility operations. According to the Cashier Training Manual, the visitor parking operations portion of Customer Services has adopted the following goals: • To provide a parking system that benefits customers, businesses, employees, and the general community. • To provide quality customer service while handling multiple tasks in the booth. • To work effectively as a team, both with crew and other members of Parking Services. • To provide consistent, friendly, courteous, personalized community service. The Customer Services section also manages the monthly permit parking program for the City. Monthly parking is provided in both City owned parking structures, as well as three surface lots. The parking structures use an Amano Cincinnati, Inc (ACI) parking access and revenue control system with proximity card readers. Rooftop parking is provided in both structures at a reduced rate. Monthly parking prices in the structures are currently set at $18 per month for rooftop parking and $36 per month for covered parking. Monthly parking spaces are designated for permit only parking from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. All monthly parking spaces become transient spaces after 5:00 pm and on weekends Finally, the Customer Services section also operates the administrative front desk for the Parking Division. The administrative front desk provides service to walk-up and telephone customers including monthly parking permit sales/service, temporary permit sales, parking citation payment, answering telephones, and customer billings. PARKING OPERATIONS The Parking Operations section is responsible for parking facility and equipment maintenance. One Parking Operations Coordinator and one maintenance worker, responsible for managing the maintenance and security contracts for the Parking Division, staff this section. The Parking Operations Coordinator is also responsible for the creation of Requests for Proposals or other bid documents for needed equipment or services. In the past, the Parking Division contracted with outside vendors to provide facility cleaning and maintenance services. Currently, a full-time staff member performs these functions. Parking Operations utilizes a maintenance and cleaning checklist to ensure all daily, weekly, and monthly maintenance issues are addressed. The checklist also specifies semi-annual and annual maintenance issues. Separate outside vendors are used for elevator maintenance, fire system maintenance, and pigeon control. The Parking Division also works with other City departments to provide snow removal as required. Parking Operations also manages the Parking Division’s contract for security services. The security contractor currently provides 56 hours of officer time each week for each facility. 172 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Current security officer hours are: Sunday through Wednesday 7:00 pm to 3:00 am, and Thursday through Saturday 8:00 pm to 4:00 am. The security coverage from the contractor includes a patrol vehicle (Civic Center Parking Structure only) and officer cellular phones. PARKING ENFORCEMENT City Parking Enforcement Officer positions are sworn and uniformed. Enforcement officers are issued complete uniforms by the Parking Division, and are required to be in uniform while on duty. Enforcement officers are also issued handheld citation computers, tire chalking supplies, digital cameras, and cellular phones (for field communications). According to the City’s Parking Services Enforcement Officer Training Manual, the Enforcement Section operates under the following mission statement: “Parking Services provides customer friendly enforcement of the City of Fort Collins parking codes in Old Town and neighborhoods north of the CSU campus for timed street parking and maintained city lots and facilities.” To support the specified mission of the section, the Parking Enforcement unit has five full-time enforcement officers and one enforcement supervisor. Enforcement officers are assigned to specific areas, and their assigned areas are rotated throughout the week. There are currently five enforcement zones in the Downtown area, and one in the mid-town area north of the Colorado State University campus. Parking citations are issued using a handheld enforcement system. Most of the on-street public parking in Downtown Fort Collins is time limited. Enforcement officers chalk the tires of vehicles located in timed parking zones, and record license plate information in the handheld citation computers. The Enforcement Section has the authority to immobilize and/or impound vehicles. If a vehicle is identified as having four or more outstanding citations, or citations totaling $75.00 or more, and the vehicle owner has been given at least one mailed notice, the vehicle can be immobilized using a wheel clamp (or vehicle immobilizer). The owner of the vehicle will then be required to pay all necessary fees before the clamp is removed. If the vehicle remains immobilized for over seventy-two hours, the vehicle will be impounded. The Enforcement Section can also impound abandoned vehicles, if the vehicle has not moved in three consecutive days. The enforcement officers assist other areas of the parking operation. Other areas of assignment include: • Collecting funds from citation payment drop boxes and surface lot pay stations. • Assisting the Parking Services Division front desk. If the front desk is short-handed or busy, enforcement officers can be called to assist with phones to decrease customer wait times. • Providing parking facility cashier breaks. When needed, enforcement officers can act as break attendants, giving morning, lunch and restroom breaks to the regular cashiers. • Issuing Obstruction Permits. Enforcement officers can be responsible for issuing obstruction permits, or permits that allow for extended parking in timed parking spaces. • Assisting with Snow Removal. Enforcement officers occasionally assist with shoveling/sweeping and chemical deicer applications in parking lots and structures. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 173 PARKING PLANNING As part of the Transportation Service Area, the Parking Services Division is actively involved with parking planning in Downtown Fort Collins. Parking Services, working in conjunction with Transportation Planning, provides parking planning guidance and recommendations. COMMUNITY EDUCATION Parking Services helps to educate the Downtown community about parking related issues through meetings with Downtown stakeholders (e.g. the Downtown Business Association, Downtown Development Authority, business owners, individual customers, etc.), printed marketing materials, and other informational outlets. Parking Program Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement There are several areas where the current Parking Services Division has positioned itself to provide a high level of service and support. STRENGTHS • Capable Staff – Parking Services has an experienced, capable staff. The department continually works to provide a positive work environment (as evidenced by relatively low staff turnover in full-time administration and customer service positions), as well as providing learning opportunities (e.g. cross training, sending staff to parking conferences, etc.) • Strong Planning Capabilities and Support – As part of the Transportation Planning Division, Parking Services has the staff and tools needed to provide competent parking planning services. Also, the department has the ability to use advanced planning tools such as GIS to enhance planning capabilities. • Facility Maintenance – Parking Services has improved facility maintenance through several initiatives. The department has taken an active role in planning for major maintenance through the commission of a facility condition appraisal. The department has also taken major steps in improving facility cleanliness and facility safety (through improved lighting and painting facility interiors white). • Integration of Parking and Transportation Components – The department has actively sought ways to integrate parking and transportation alternatives through several means. For example, bike lockers are provided in each parking structure and the new Civic Center Parking Structure was located adjacent to the new Transit Center. • Technology Planning – The department looks for new technologies to improve customer service and operational efficiency. For example, the department’s use of Digital Pioneer technology (Intella-Pay Payment Station) has helped improve revenue control and customer convenience, while minimizing operating and maintenance costs. • Consolidated Program – Parking Services is responsible for all facets of parking Downtown. The department manages on-street parking, several off-street facilities, parking enforcement, and parking planning. This consolidated program approach better allows the department to direct Downtown parking goals to meet customer and business needs. • Community Outreach – The Parking Services Division actively works with the Downtown community to provide thoughtful and effective parking solutions. Working with Downtown business and development associations, as well as an increasing number of individual business and customers, the department effectively listens and responds to community concerns. The strong public input process for this study exemplifies the department’s commitment to community involvement. 174 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT • While Parking Services has improved technologies in several areas to enhance operations and service levels, the parking enforcement computer system has lagged behind. The current system provides for the issuance of parking citations using handheld computer terminals, as well as citation tracking. The manufacturer no longer supports the system (the manufacturer no longer exists), and system documentation is poor. Therefore, the current parking enforcement computer system cannot be used to its stated capabilities, and significant downtime occasionally occurs when the system malfunctions. • The current parking signage and wayfinding system in Downtown Fort Collins should be improved to better communicate parking facility locations and availability. Improvements could be made to clarify information and improve the readability and appearance of the signage. • The current parking pricing structure is not consistent with the goal of creating turnover of on-street spaces and increasing the utilization of off-street spaces. It is generally recommended to make on-street parking more expensive than off-street parking (on an hourly basis). This will make off-street spaces more attractive to parkers, and free up on- street spaces for short-term parking. In Fort Collins, the on-street parking is free and the off-street parking generally has a fee associated with it. • It is widely acknowledged that the turnover of on-street spaces in Downtown Fort Collins needs to be improved. The current level of turnover is low, due to the usage of spaces by Downtown employees and a lack of incentives (or disincentives) designed to encourage short-term usage. • The importance of parking as a vital component of the Downtown infrastructure and a key element in business attraction and retention is underappreciated. This has lead to a reduced focus on parking issues and concerns. Parking issues need to be elevated to better support the goals and objectives of the Downtown Strategic Plan. 3.2 CUSTOMER AND BUSINESS PARKING SURVEYS Two surveys were completed as a part of the parking element of the Transportation Analysis. The purpose of the surveys was two fold: 1) to acquire attitudinal and behavioral information about customers, business owners and employees that park in the Downtown and 2) to understand parking policy preferences of those doing business in Downtown. Survey Methodologies The Customer Survey was conducted between December 9 and 13, 2002. It was conducted as an intercept survey. Intercept surveys are conducted in public and generally involve contacting people directly, intercepting them during their regular daily routines. In this instance, parkers were “intercepted” as they parked their cars on-street in Downtown Fort Collins. Those who agreed to participate were asked a short series of questions related to their parking experiences and habits. The Business Survey was conducted between April 1 and June 8, 2003. It was conducted as a written questionnaire/mail-back survey. Each business in the Downtown was mailed a questionnaire, asked to answer a series of ten questions, and return the completed form in a prepaid envelope. The business survey focused on the issues related to increasing parking turnover in the Downtown area. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 175 Summary of Results - Customer Survey A total of 500 people were approached during this intercept survey. Of those, 382 agreed to participate in the survey and answered some or part of the questions posed to them. More than one-fifth of those contacted declined to answer survey questions. The following figures represent the answers provided by those participating in the survey. A primary question asked of all respondents was, “What brings you Downtown today?” Nearly half the respondents stated they were Downtown to shop. One-fifth of the respondents were Downtown to work. While 11% of the respondents were Downtown to eat at a restaurant and another 11% were in the Downtown area for business. The remaining 10% of the respondents were Downtown as business owners, to do governmental business, or for other reasons. See Figure 4.31. When respondents were asked how long they needed to park in the Downtown, a majority (nearly two-thirds) said two hours or less. It appears, therefore, that the common on-street two- hour time limit meets most of the respondents’ needs. What is not clear is whether that is actually the time needed or whether the time limit has molded parking behavior. Another series of questions was asked later in the survey about this question. See Figure 4.32. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.31 Primary Purpose of Visit to Downtown: December, 2002 49% 11% 1% 11% 20% 2% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Shopper Restaurant Gov Business Business Employment Owner Other 176 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.32 How Long Do _____________?: December, 2002 32% 34% 21% 14% 37% 37% 24% 3% 12% 53% 26% 9% 18% 17% 21% 44% 50% 38% 7% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Less tha 1 hour 1-2 hours 2-4 Hours Over 4 hours YOU need to park? SHOPPERS need to park? DINERS need to park? WORKERS need to park? YOU need to park to do BUSINESS? A closer look at the length of time needed to park by trip purpose provides an interesting perspective for the three main groups of users in the Downtown. Those groups are 1) shoppers, 2) diners, and 3) workers. As illustrated in Figure 4.32, the shopper identified in the survey generally makes shorter stays in Downtown. Nearly three-quarters of all shoppers surveyed indicated their parking needs can be met by the existing two-hour on-street parking resources in the Downtown core. Diners demonstrate a different set of time needs to park their vehicles in the Downtown area. Nearly 80% of the respondents surveyed, who indicated that their primary purpose for visiting Downtown was dining, suggested that their needs encompassed a longer time frame than the shopper: between one and four hours. Figure 4.32 also describes an interesting pattern of parking needs for respondents who said their primary purpose for being in the Downtown was to work. Surprisingly, more than half the respondents indicated the time they needed to park was four hours or less, with nearly two- thirds of those requiring less than two hours. Still, 44% of all those who said their primary purpose for being Downtown was to work, required more than four hours to park. Figure 4.32 suggests that those doing business in the Downtown area require two hours or less to complete that business transaction. Although no attempt was made to delineate the types of business these respondents were engaged in, one could speculate that this category of respondents ran the gamut from those visiting professional services (such as legal, counseling, S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 177 banking, and accounting services) to those providing business services in the Downtown (e.g., sales). Figure 4.33 addresses the responses about how well parking locations are meeting customer needs, and demonstrates that 71% of respondents were satisfied with the amount of time the space allowed. 91% of the respondents felt that the space they were parking in was “close enough” to their destination. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.33 Does This Space __________________?: December, 2002 71% 91% 29% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Does this space allow you to park as long as you need? Is this space close enough to your destination? Yes No _________________________________________________ Figure 4.34 Are You Willing to Use Off-Street Parking?: December, 2002 35% 9% 0% 7% 14% 2% 3% 13% 2% 0% 2% 7% 0% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Shopper Restaurant Gov Business Business Work Owner Other Yes 178 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Although not presented in graph form, 71% of all respondents indicated that they would be willing to park in parking structures or other off-street parking resources. Figure 4.34 breaks down this analysis one step further to show the corresponding percent share by trip purpose. 73% of shoppers and 75% of people doing business in the Downtown said they would be willing to use parking structures and lots. These two categories of respondents are those that indicated they needed the least amount of time when parking. Those respondents whose primary purposes were dining and work indicated that they would be willing to use parking structures and lots at 80% and 58% respectively. Finally, when asked if they would be willing to consider a small fee for on-street parking to be able to park near their destination for as long as they desired, 44% of respondents said they would be willing to do so. Figure 4.35 displays the answer to this question by trip purpose, and suggests most of the respondents felt the same way regardless of why they traveled to Downtown, with the exception of those dining. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.35 Are You Willing to Pay for Off-Street Parking?: December, 2002 47% 26% 50% 54% 43% 43% 41% 53% 74% 50% 46% 57% 57% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Shopper Restaurant Gov Business Business Work Owner Other Yes No Summary of Results - Business Surveys A total of 531 businesses were mailed the Downtown Business Parking Survey. Of those, 217 returned a completed survey, and answered some or part of the questions posed to them. Although more than half of those contacted declined to answer survey questions, the 41% return on a mail survey is nearly twice the normal return rate for surveys of this kind. The following figures represent the answers provided by those responding to the survey. For the purpose of this survey, the Downtown was divided into high demand and lower demand areas based upon on-street parking demand. In Figure 4.36, the high demand areas are those on-street areas inside the black polygon (roughly corresponding to the Downtown core). This high demand area includes the on-street parking areas in the Downtown core. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 179 The primary benefit of identifying a high demand zone is that those businesses that are experiencing high parking demand often can be expected to have a different set of responses to questions about parking than those whose employees and customers can park with relative ease. Of interest in the Downtown Business Parking Survey were the general attitudes about how on- street parking is being managed in Downtown Fort Collins. Of specific interest was the question of which method(s) Downtown businesses preferred to use to address the problem of parking availability and turnover in the high demand area. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.36 High Demand Parking Areas: April and June 2003 Figure 4.37 represents the distribution of all businesses responding to the survey. The predominant business type is professional/service. Over half the respondents were this business type. This type includes those in the business of offering customers services such as legal, accounting, banking, counseling, dry cleaning, repair, day care and etc. The second most prominent group, represented in the survey, was retailers. More than a quarter of all responding businesses belonged to this group. Restaurants and an “other” category made up most of the rest of the sample. 180 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.37 Respondents by Business Type: April and June 2003 2% 51% 11% 26% 8% 1% 4% 37% 16% 37% 4% 1% 1% 7% 12% 12% 1% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Entertain/Bar Prof/Service Restaurant Retail Other No Answer Respondents Businesses in High Demand Areas Businesses in Low Demand Areas Figure 4.37 shows a distinct difference between the high and lower use areas of downtown in the composition of business types. In the areas where there is substantially higher parking demand (high use area), there is a more balanced mix of respondents to the survey. The professional/service and retail business categories are represented equally in the survey at 37% of respondents respectively. The other significant contributor from this area of Downtown is restaurants at 16%. In the areas where there is a significantly lower level of demand for parking (lower use area), the make up of the respondents was considerably different. Responses in the lower use area were dominated by the professional/service category of businesses. In fact, this category accounted for two-thirds of all of the responses from the lower use area. Making up the majority of the rest of the respondents from this area were retailers (12%) and respondents in the “other” category (12%). This variation in type of respondent by area is significant in that their respective parking needs are distinctively different. As the results are presented throughout the remainder of this section, the reader should keep in mind the differences in parking needs between retailers, restaurants, and professional/service businesses. In short, parking turnover and the availability of a close-in space is crucial for the retailer’s clientele, less so for someone dining at a restaurant, and only somewhat important for professional/service business customers. The Downtown Business Parking Survey examined the responses from area businesses to capture a general sense of the attitudes towards a policy change that would promote increased parking turnover in the Downtown. There were six possible responses to this series of questions in the survey. They included: 1) continue the current parking policies and programs, 2) implement an enhanced enforcement program (make it more likely parking violators will receive S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 181 tickets for infractions), 3) implement on-street pay parking (parking machines or meters), 4) implement a combination of increased enforcement and on-street pay parking, 5) make all parking free in the Downtown area, and 6) no preference. Figure 4.38 shows that, when all responses are examined without regard for the location or type of business of the respondent, 35% indicated they would like to continue with the current policies and programs. On-street pay parking and a combination approach each received 17% of the responses, while an enhanced enforcement program was preferred by 14% of the respondents. Ten percent of the respondents had no preference and 8% chose having free parking as their preferred answer. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.38 Parking Policy Business Preferences: April and June 2003 35% 14% 17% 17% 8% 10% 31% 15% 22% 16% 4% 11% 43% 13% 19% 12% 8% 13% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Continue Enhanced Pay Parking Combine Free No Preference Preference High Demand Areas Low Demand Areas However, when one examines the six alternative responses, three of them certainly indicate a managed approach to the on-street parking supply in the Downtown. Those three responses are: 1) implement an enhanced enforcement program, 2) implement on-street pay parking, and 3) implement a combination of increased enforcement and on-street pay parking. Figure 4.39 presents the same data (all respondents) in this combined form, making it easier to identify those who support a change from current practice. 182 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.39 Combined Parking Policy Business Preference: April and June 2003 8% 35% 10% 47% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Free Same Managed No Preference If responses are controlled for by location, the responses from those who would be directly affected by any change in policy (high use areas) and those affected only indirectly (lower use areas) are more clearly described. Figure 4.40 shows that in areas where there would be an enhanced level of parking enforcement, an on-street pay parking program, or some combination of both, more than half the respondents indicated a clear preference for change from the current parking policies and practices. Less than a third of those responding to the survey from this area preferred leaving parking policies and programs unchanged. Only a small percentage of respondents chose either free parking or had no preference. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 183 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.40 Parking Policy Preferences By Business Type: April and June 2003 2% 51% 11% 26% 8% 1% 4% 37% 16% 37% 4% 1% 1% 7% 12% 12% 1% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Entertain/Bar Prof/Service Restaurant Retail Other No Answer Total Responses High Demand Areas Low Demand Areas A look at the responses from the group of businesses that would only be indirectly affected by a change in the parking program (lower use area) provides an interesting comparison. Figure 4.40 shows the preferences from the lower use area respondents. Even in the lower use area, 42% of respondents preferred a change from existing parking policies and programs. These respondents preferred an enforced level of parking enforcement, an on-street pay parking program, or some combination of both. Although 18% preferred free parking or had no preference, a large group of respondents (40%) preferred to stay with current policies and programs. The significance of these findings is that regardless of location, a majority of businesses responding to the survey preferred that something be done about the current parking situation in Downtown Fort Collins. By controlling the responses for the type of business responding to the survey (Figure 4.41), the reader can see that the entertainment/bar, professional/service, and other categories all show a relatively even split between staying with the current parking policies and programs or choosing some form of managed change in the parking situation in the Downtown area. Restaurants show a slight preference, and retailers show a strong preference for the managed approach to changing the current parking policies and programs. 184 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.41 Parking Policy Preference By Business Type and Zone, High Demand Areas: April and June 2003 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 13% 4% 8% 3% 1% 2% 15% 9% 26% 1% 0% 0% 7% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Entertain/Bar Prof/Service Restaurant Retail Other No Answer Free Same Managed No Preference _________________________________________________ Figure 4.42 Policy Preference By Business Type and Zone, Low Demand Areas: April and June 2003 1% 7% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 29% 3% 5% 4% 0% 0% 26% 3% 6% 6% S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 185 Figures 4.42 and 4.43 show the survey results of when responses were controlled for both business type and location. Figure 4.42 shows the responses in the lower use area by business type. Most of the responses show a fairly even split between those businesses that prefer staying with the same parking policies and programs and those that prefer some form of managed change in the current parking policies and programs. Figure 4.41, however, shows a clear preference for changing the current parking policies and programs by businesses in the high use area of Downtown. In nearly every category of business, respondents indicate a preference for managed change. Conclusions The Parking User Survey suggests that a majority of parking users are satisfied with the current on-street parking resources they are able to use. The system appears to satisfy their need for both time (length of time) and location (distance to their destination). The survey results also indicate that most parking users were reluctant to agree to pay for on-street parking. The Downtown Business Parking Survey indicated that a majority of businesses in Downtown Fort Collins agree that there needs to be change in the way parking supply is managed in Downtown. Although there appears to be a consensus that change is needed, businesses differed on their preferred approach to producing that change. A measured and progressive approach, moving from the least intrusive (enhanced enforcement) to the most (a combination of enhanced enforcement and on-street pay parking) is most likely the right path for parking in Downtown. Implementing parking policy and programmatic change starting with enhanced enforcement, and progressing through on-street pay parking at some point in the future, appears to be the approach favored by most businesses in Downtown. 186 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.3 PARKING SUPPLY One of the fundamental elements of this study is an update of current parking supply and demand conditions in the Downtown study area. The study area boundaries and parking block numbers defined for this study are depicted in the Figure 4.43. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.43 Downtown Parking Block Map: 2002 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 187 There are 9,711 parking spaces within the 48-block Downtown parking study area (Blocks 4 – 51). Of these, 3,149 are on-street spaces (32%) and 6,562 are off-street spaces (68%). Downtown Fort Collins has a high percentage of on-street spaces compared to other mid-size cities studied by the project team. Of the 6,562 off-street spaces within the study area, 1,697 (26%) are public spaces as indicated in Figure 4.44. __________________________________________ Figure 4.44 Public Off-Street Parking Supply: 2002 Name Parking Spaces Old Town Parking Structure (pay parking) 323 Civic Center Parking Structure (pay parking) 903 City Building Lot 62 Mason Street Lot (pay parking) 56 Justice Center Lot 32 Oak/Remington Lot (some permit spaces) 151 Jefferson Street Lot (some permit spaces) 57 Chestnut Lot (some permit spaces) 59 DMA Lot (some permit spaces) 54 Total 1,697 The public parking supply of 4,733 spaces (1,697 off-street spaces + 3,036 on-street spaces) represents 49% of the total parking supply within the study area. The parking supply is illustrated in Figures 4.45 and 4.46. (Also see Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix A.) 188 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.45 Off-Street and On-Street Parking: 2002 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 189 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.46 Public/Private Parking: 2002 190 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.4 PARKING OCCUPANCY Parking occupancy counts were conducted on the following 4 days in 2002, as part of this study: 1. Thursday, May 2, 2002 from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Appendix - Tables 3 and 3A) 2. Thursday, May 9, 2002 from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Appendix - Tables 4 and 4A) 3. Friday, May 3, 2002 from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM (Appendix - Tables 5 and 5A) 4. Saturday, May 4, 2002 from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Appendix - Tables 6 and 6A) Thursday is regarded as the busiest day of the week in Downtown Fort Collins. The peak hour for parking on Thursday, May 2nd was 12:00 Noon when 5,452 vehicles were parked in 9,358 spaces (58.3% occupancy level). The on-street spaces were 64.3% occupied and the off-street spaces were 55.2% occupied at that time. The peak hour for parking on Thursday, May 9th was also 12:00 Noon when 5,370 vehicles were parked in 8,912 spaces (60.3% occupancy level). The on-street spaces were 63.7% occupied and the off-street spaces were 58.6% occupied. 18 blocks were included in a survey of parking occupancy on Friday evening, May 3rd from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM (Blocks 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 50). These blocks are primarily in Old Town and along College Avenue. The peak hour for parking was 8:00 PM when 2,735 of 4,372 spaces were occupied (62.6% occupancy level). The on-street spaces were 77.4% occupied and the off-street spaces were 56.6% occupied. The same 18 blocks were slightly busier at 12:00 Noon on May 9th when 2,734 vehicles were parked in 4,342 spaces (63.0% occupancy level). However, nine of the 18 blocks surveyed (14, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34, 37, 42 and 50) were busier in the evening on May 3rd than at 12:00 Noon on May 9th. The peak hour for parking on Saturday, May 4th was 5:00 PM when 3,267 vehicles were parked in 9,553 spaces (34.2% occupancy level). The on-street spaces were 45.2% occupied and the off-street spaces were 28.9% occupied. With the exception of Friday evening (May 3rd), when the public off-street parking included in the occupancy survey was filled to near capacity, the public off-street parking and private off- street parking had similar utilization levels. While overall parking occupancy levels are well below parking capacity, there are parking “Hot Spots” Downtown that are graphically illustrated in Figures 4.47 to 4.48. Block faces and parking facilities are color coded to reflect documented hourly occupancy levels from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm and at 8:00 pm. Dark orange areas are 81% to 90% occupied and red areas are 91% to 100% occupied. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 191 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.47 Parking Occupancies: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm 192 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.48 Parking Occupancies: 3:00 pm – 8:00 pm S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 193 3.5 DESIGN - DAY PARKING CONDITIONS Design-day parking conditions represent typical peak activity that may be exceeded occasionally during the year. It is neither practical nor economical to design for the absolute peak of activity. An analysis of hourly parking revenues by month for the city’s pay parking facilities indicates that May (the survey month) is a peak month for parking activity. Therefore, the maximum observed peak-hour parking occupancy from both Thursdays (May 2nd and May 9th) is used to represent “design-day” parking conditions in Downtown Fort Collins (refer to Appendix A - Table 7). At 12:00 Noon on the design day there is estimated demand for 6,251 spaces. This represents a 64.4% occupancy level based on the current parking supply. 3.6 EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY The Downtown parking system should be evaluated from the perspective of its “effective” capacity. A parking system is considered at optimum efficiency when occupancy is at a level below its absolute capacity. This “effective supply cushion” keeps the time required to find a parking space within acceptable levels and reduces the perception of a “parking shortage”. The margin also allows for: (1) the activity of vehicles moving in and out of parking stalls during busy periods; (2) surges in short-term parking activity; (3) the unavailability of private parking and reserved spaces to the general public; and (4) the temporary loss of spaces due to improperly parked vehicles, construction activity, snow piling, etc. When parking occupancy exceeds these levels, there may be delays and frustration in finding a space. To avoid delays, parkers may be forced to use a space that is too far from their destination or does not offer a comfortable walking distance. For this study, an effective parking supply of 75% of the actual supply is recommended for the private off-street parking, 90% is suggested for the public off-street parking, and 85% is recommended for the on-street parking. 3.7 CURRENT PARKING ADEQUACY Adequate parking exists to support current levels of activity in Downtown Fort Collins. The effective parking supply of 8,150 spaces exceeds design-day demand of 6,251 spaces by 1,899 spaces (refer to Appendix A - Table 8). Only 7 of the 48 blocks in the study area have parking deficits. For the purposes of analyzing land-use data, other transportation elements, and future parking demand, the study area was divided into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). As shown in Figure 4.50, there are 6 TAZs within the parking study area (101, 102, 103, 105, 108 and 141). There are parking surpluses ranging from 53 to 641 spaces in five of the six TAZs. There is an 83-space deficit currently in TAZ 103 (refer to Appendix A - Table 9). 194 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.8 LAND USES There are approximately 3.8 million square feet of occupied space within the parking study area (please note that this area is different from the Downtown Plan boundary). Currently, there is only a 4% vacancy rate within the study area. The occupied square footage by land-use category is presented in Figure 4.49. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.49 Downtown Land Use: 2002 Use Square Feet Percent Government 1,154,098 30% Office/Financial 909,126 24% Retail 476,314 13% Residential 475,182 12% Eating/Drinking 245,927 12% Social/Religious 186,810 5% Service 79,785 2% Recreation/Entertainment 69,170. 2% Automotive 66,909 2% Convenience 66,156 2% Industrial/Warehouse 50,392 1% Other 20,009 <1% Total: 3,804,878 100% The current parking demand for 6,251 spaces represents a parking demand ratio of 1.64 spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied space (6,251 ÷ 3,804.9 = 1.64). The overall parking demand ratio provides an indication of the appropriate ratios to use when projecting future parking demand by land-use category in Downtown. 3.9 PARKING TURNOVER AND DURATION License plate numbers were recorded each hour on 1,011 spaces on May 2nd and 867 spaces on May 9th to determine parking turnover and duration of stay (refer to Appendix A - Tables 10 and 11). The majority of the spaces surveyed had two-hour limits. This represents most of the parking in the central Downtown area. Because an hourly survey does not provide an accurate indication of turnover for the 20- and 30-minute spaces, an additional survey of the short-term spaces was conducted June 21st (refer to Appendix A - Table 12). There was definite abuse of short-term spaces by long-term parkers (employees and business owners) on the survey days, as indicated below: 20-min. spaces: 2 spaces on 6/21/02 had 5 violations representing 3.64 hours ÷ .33 hour (20 minutes) = 11 more vehicles could have been accommodated. 30-min. spaces: 8 spaces on 6/21/02 had 22 violations representing 34.5 hours ÷ .50 hour (30 minutes) = 69 more vehicles could have been accommodated 2-hr. spaces: 865 spaces on 5/2/02 had 288 violations representing 1,132 hours ÷ 2 hours = 566 more vehicles could have been accommodated. 2-hr. spaces 763 spaces on 5/9/02 had 276 violations representing 1,038 hours ÷ 2 hours = 519 more vehicles could have been accommodated. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 195 The analysis indicates approximately 8% abuse of the two-hour spaces by long-term parkers. However, several block faces and center-street parking areas exhibited much higher abuse of the two-hour spaces by long-term parkers. The block faces with the highest levels of abuse were, not surprisingly, along College Avenue and in Old Town. These surveys observed, but did not track the moving of vehicles to avoid parking enforcement, so actual abuse is undoubtedly higher than the data indicates. 3.10 NEAR-TERM (5 TO 7 YEARS) DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING ADEQUACY There are numerous development projects planned within the parking study area for the next five to seven years. Information on future development is shown by TAZ. For modeling purposes, near-term projects are predicted for TAZs 102, 104, 105, 108 and 127. These anticipated developments include 400 housing units, 150 hotel rooms, a 120,000 square foot Performing Arts Center, 53,000 square feet of retail space, and 260,000 square feet of non-retail space. For modeling future parking demand, TAZ 102 was identified as a hotel site. In addition, a new Performing Arts Center is identified for TAZ 105, and various residential, retail and non-retail projects are anticipated in each of the TAZs (refer to Appendix A - Table 13). The listed developments are projected to generate the demand for 1,362 more parking spaces based on the parking demand ratios listed in the Figure 4.50. The existing peak-hour (12:00 Noon) parking surplus of 1,899 spaces will decrease to 713 spaces with the development of these projects (refer to Appendix A - Table 14). Deficits totaling 254 spaces are indicated in TAZs 103, 105 and 108. The remaining TAZs within the study area have near-term parking surpluses ranging from 53 to 353 spaces. The analysis does not take into account the loss of parking associated with new development, as exact locations for new parking facilities have not been determined. Existing surface lots can often provide prime development sites. 196 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.50 Parking Conditions by TAZ: Near Term (5-7 Years) 3.11 FUTURE 2025 DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING ADEQUACY Long term land use projections were made for modeling purposes. New development is projected to include 1,073 housing units and 2,240,034 square feet of non-retail space in TAZs 101, 102, 105, 108 and 141 by 2025. These projects are estimated to generate the demand for 5,788 more parking spaces, and will have a significant impact on parking in Downtown (refer to Appendix A - Table 15). By 2025 there will be an estimated overall parking deficit of 5,075 spaces if these development assumptions are realized. Large deficits are projected for TAZs 102, 105 and 108 (refer to Appendix A - Table 16). Moderate parking surpluses are projected for the remaining TAZs. The analysis does not take into account the loss of parking associated with this development on pre-existing surface parking lots. See Figure 4.51. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 197 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.51 Parking Conditions by TAZ: Future 2025 198 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.12 KEY PARKING PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION As stated in the previous section, parking supply is adequate to meet the current demands in Downtown; in fact there is a surplus of approximately 1,899 spaces overall. Over the next five to seven years this surplus will decrease to approximately 713 spaces based on development assumptions. However, there are “hot spots” where parking demand approaches or exceeds available supply. Of immediate concern is the need to address the issues related to the parking “hot zone,” see Figure 4.52. In this area there are four key, interrelated parking issues: turnover, pricing policy, regulations/technology and long-term parking in short-term spaces. A brief discussion of each issue is provided below. Turnover Parking, transportation, land-use and marketing experts agree that improving parking turnover of the on-street parking spaces in the Downtown core (College Avenue and Mountain Avenue) is of vital importance to business retention and attraction. This area of high parking utilization is called the “hot zone”. City Council discussed options for increasing on-street parking turnover at a Study Session in May, 2003. The direction from this meeting was to pursue a short-term strategy of providing enhanced and more aggressive parking enforcement to better promote parking space turnover. Long-term, a strategy involving implementation of pay on-street parking could be considered. A recommended on-street parking strategy will be discussed later in this document. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.52 Parking Hot Zone: 2002 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 199 Pricing Policy is Upside-down A significant issue facing the Fort Collins parking program is the fact that the most convenient and valuable parking spaces are free while there is a charge to park in the less convenient off- street parking spaces. In other words, the parking pricing policy is “upside-down”. There is a direct relationship between parking pricing policies and promoting the parking behaviors that are in the best interest of a healthy and vital Downtown activity center. Two advantages that Fort Collins has over some peer cities are the facts that the City has an integrated parking program i.e., the City manages both on and off street parking programs, and the City currently owns a significant percentage of the parking in the Downtown area. Insufficient Regulations and Technologies Another critical piece of this puzzle is the need to strengthen the regulations and technologies related to on-street parking enforcement. The goal is to provide the Parking Services Division with the tools required to legally and practically implement a program that will provide the desired results in support of the Downtown Plan goals and objectives. Long-term Parkers in Short-term Spaces Based on the results of the parking turnover analysis discussed earlier, discouraging employees and business owners from parking all day in on-street spaces is a key priority. This common Downtown parking problem requires a combination of incentives and disincentives to be effectively resolved. Requiring a fee for on-street parking, while taking advantage of advances in parking enforcement and on-street parking management systems, are strategies that can reduce abuse of short-term parking spaces. However, reasonably priced and reasonably convenient employee parking must be provided by the City simultaneously to ensure an effective and sustainable system. All of these problems are inter-related, and therefore the recommended solutions are also linked. Developing a long-range on-street pay parking program will help correct the upside-down pricing policy. In the short-term, revising parking statutory regulations in conjunction with enhanced on-street parking management tools and improved enforcement technology, puts in place mechanisms to improve enforcement program effectiveness without risking the perception of being overly aggressive in the eyes of Downtown visitors. Creating cost effective and convenient parking options for Downtown employees (along with disincentives to using valuable on-street parking spaces) rounds out the recommended parking strategy that is discussed in the following section, 3.14 Recommended Future Parking Development Strategies. 200 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 3.13 PARKING PEER CITY REVIEW A review of parking programs in peer cities was conducted to assess Fort Collins’ parking system related to other cities and to identify potential improvements. The general criteria used to identify peer cities included: • Location in the West • Similar or slightly larger urbanized area population • Presence of major university in proximity to Downtown • Parking programs with at least one public parking structure • Parking programs with on-street parking resources • Cities with innovative parking programs The selected peer cities included: • Boise, ID • Eugene, OR • Spokane, WA • Tempe, AZ Other cities reviewed because of their innovative programs included: • Kalamazoo, MI • Portland, OR • Santa Monica, CA A brief overview of each city is given below. A few recommendations related to the on-going use of the peer city data include: 1. Establish a limited parking benchmarking program with these peer cities related to key operational elements such as operating costs per space in off-street facilities, maintenance costs per space in off-street facilities, parking space turnover for on-street spaces, parking citation collection ratios, etc. 2. Establish relationships between the parking managers in these cities to develop a networking resource for sharing of experiences and lessons learned among parking professionals in similar environments. Conduct reciprocal “program peer reviews” of parking operations. This is a cost effective means of enhancing parking peer relationships and improving parking operations. An outside objective assessment of a city’s parking operation almost always identifies opportunities for improvement or generates new ideas for program enhancements. The “lessons learned” from failed or modified program initiatives and experiences related to the implementation of new technologies can be very valuable. The following is brief overview of areas of interest related to each peer city. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 201 Boise, ID The off-street component of the Downtown public parking system in Boise is managed by the urban renewal agency known as the Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC). The on-street program is managed by the City of Boise. The Capital City Development Corporation has an impressive record not only of spurring development in the Downtown area, but also of using Tax Increment Financing funds to develop well planned and strategically located public parking facilities as an incentive to attract additional development. With over 5,000 structured parking spaces in the Downtown core (75% of which are public facilities), Downtown Boise has seen significant growth over the past decade. The on-street program, which has over 1,100 metered parking spaces, recently upgraded their meters to new POM electronic meters. These meters feature a 20-minute free button and a smart-card payment option. On-street and off-street rates are calibrated to make long-term parking more attractive in the off-street resources thereby promoting increased turnover and utilization of on-street spaces. Although Boise has some of the cleanest and best managed facilities in the country, the CCDC is embarking on a new program to focus on: enhancing customer service programs, revision of their parking validation program, upgrading parking system technology to improve management information, strengthening communications with key Downtown stakeholders, and creating a positive parking public information and marketing program. A long-term challenge for the Boise parking system is to integrate the on-street and off-street parking programs. Eugene, OR Eugene has an urbanized area population of approximately 140,000 and a Downtown office worker population of approximately 4,000. With the University of Oregon campus (enrollment of nearly 19,100) nearby, Eugene most closely resembles Fort Collins of the selected peer cities. Like Fort Collins, Eugene was also involved in the development a Downtown strategic/master plan in 2003. Eugene’s off-street parking system has approximately 3,200 spaces with only one public parking structure. The on-street parking program has a total of 3,840 spaces. Of this total, 1,217 spaces (primarily located in the Downtown core) are metered. Duncan single-space meters are currently used. The City performs the overall parking system planning and management, but they contract with a private parking operator, Diamond Parking System, to provide day-to-day transient and monthly parking revenue collections. Parking fees are set by Downtown Boise 202 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N the City at a rate to cover parking system operating expenses as well as to generate reserve funds to meet future capital project needs. Spokane, WA Spokane is a city pursuing a revitalization of Downtown partially through an aggressive Downtown mall project known as River Park Square. The River Park Square project, although successful in many ways, became somewhat infamous due to lawsuits resulting from the inability of the parking structure to generate the revenues originally projected. Based on the projected revenues, the City pledged on-street parking system revenues (from 2,500 metered parking spaces) to guarantee bond payments, and is now involved on on-going legal actions to recover these funds. On-street parking rates in Spokane ($0.75/hr.) are 50% lower than off-street parking rates ($1.50/hr.) contributing to a lower- than-desired turnover rate for on-street spaces. Spokane has a combined public/private management approach to its Downtown parking system. Tempe, AZ The Business Improvement District known as Downtown Tempe Community, Inc. (DTC) manages the parking system in Tempe. DTC has consolidated virtually all private parking in the Downtown to be managed as a comprehensive parking system to meet the needs of Downtown businesses and municipal buildings. The City does not own any public parking structures. The DTC has succeeded in turning a collection of individually owned private parking lots and parking structures and City owned on-street parking spaces into a cohesive and seamlessly run parking system, complete with a successful validation program common to all facilities and an integrated marketing and promotional campaign. The parking system has over 9,300 off-street parking spaces and over 600 metered spaces. Of particular interest in Tempe is their experience with on-street parking system technologies. A few years ago DTC launched a program to convert all on-street and many off-street parking lots to a pay-by-space payment system based on “multi-space meter technology” (VenTech). This technology, while much improved in recent years, is still considered fairly progressive and can be difficult to use and understand. Tempe did an excellent job of educating the public and marketing the new concept. Overall, the program worked well but always suffered from one major complaint –inconvenience for the customers. Tempe has recently made the decision to abandon multi-space meters, in favor of dual headed, single space electronic Duncan parking meters. The bottom-line advantage, according to DTC Executive Director Rod Keeling, is that everyone intuitively understands standard single-space parking meters and the convenience to his customers cannot be matched by the multi-space meter technologies. Downtown Spokane Downtown Tempe S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 203 3.14 RECOMMENDED FUTURE PARKING DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES During this study, several strategies emerged regarding how parking should be integrated into the larger Downtown development picture. This section will discuss the various recommended concepts. Park Once/Pedestrian First Concept The vision of integrating transportation and parking elements as part of the larger strategic vision for Downtown supports a “Park Once – Pedestrian First” planning concept. Three key elements make up this concept: 1. Modify Downtown streets and sidewalks to serve the needs of pedestrians, transit users, bicyclists and cars with the focus on serving pedestrians first. This planning element is supported by the following actions: • Creation of safe, attractive and inviting pedestrian linkages to connect and extend Downtown “energy zones”. • Identify and improve key alleyways to enhance pedestrian connectivity within the Downtown and to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. • “Pedestrian priority” signage installed throughout the Downtown. • Fund and operate a Downtown transit route within the Downtown core. The route is envisioned as being bi-directional free, and fun, while providing high service levels (5-10 minute headways). • Amenities such as improved lighting, signage, street furniture, or landscaping, provided in public rights-of-way to support and encourage pedestrian activity. • Bicycle racks, lockers, bike racks on busses and other bicycle friendly facilities provided throughout the Downtown. 2. Develop, manage and operate parking as an essential civic infrastructure, and reduce overall parking ratios over time to create a “Park Once” environment. This planning element is supported by the following actions: • Develop and institute a “Park-Once Strategy” which includes a “shared use” parking program for both public and private structures/lots, and which investigates the most effective way to provide and manage parking facilities throughout Downtown (both public and private). • Maximize on-street parking throughout the Downtown; in the long-term, support the installation of parking meters to promote customer (as opposed to employee) use of on-street spaces, and encourage turnover of this critical parking resource for the Downtown businesses. • Locate future long-term parking structures near entrances to the core and strategically locate short-term parking throughout the Downtown district. • Incorporate ground floor commercial activity into all new parking structures. 204 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N • Institute a prohibition on new revenue-generating commercial surface parking lots in the Downtown core. (An exception to this recommendation is the Downtown Parking Cooperative, discussed in the following section 3.15 Recommended Parking Management Strategies.) • Improve existing surface parking lots in the Downtown (paving, landscaping, lighting, etc.). 3. Enhance the accessibility into Downtown and publicly promote its transportation options. This planning element is supported by the following actions: • Actively promote new Downtown attractions and developments including parking availability, parking validation programs and intermodal transportation options. • Establish and promote an express shuttle between Downtown and Colorado State University. • Fund and operate improved bus service along the Mason Transportation Corridor connecting suburban Fort Collins (from a transit center south of Harmony Road) to Downtown. • Develop and implement a Downtown informational and directional (wayfinding) signage program with a special emphasis on available parking resources. Core Periphery Parking Concept As development projects increase the need for more parking, new parking facilities should be located along the periphery of the core. Close proximity to businesses is critical to attracting new business and retaining existing businesses. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.53 How Far Should Patrons Have To Walk After They Park?: 2002 Source: Parking Structures, Third Edition, Chest, Smith, Bhuyan, Monahan, Iqbal. Level of Services Conditions Environment A B C D Climate Controlled 1,000’ 2,400’ 3,800’ 5.200’ Outdoor Covered 500’ 1,000’ 1,500’ 2,000’ Outdoor Uncovered 400’ 800’ 1,200’ 1,600’ Through Surface Lot 350’ 700’ 1,050’ 1,400’ Inside Parking Facility 300’ 600’ 900’ 1,200’ As shown in Figure 4.53, the issue of walking distance is affected by two primary factors: environment and desired level of service. Environment includes such factors as climate, topography, surroundings, and area interest (walking past interesting retail shops vs. traversing a blighted area). In a Downtown environment such as Fort Collins a “Level of Service” A is generally recommended. The Downtown environment can generally be characterized as “outdoors, uncovered, level terrain, with comfortable sidewalks, interesting street level retail and well-landscaped areas”. A walking distance from parking to most destinations should not exceed 600 - 800 feet. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 205 Parking Signage and Wayfinding One element that needs improvement in Fort Collins is directional signage to off-street parking facilities. Many people using College Avenue are unaware that there are parking structures with available parking within two blocks. The existing signage is not easy to read and is not readily identifiable as parking directional signage. The City should develop and implement a comprehensive parking signage system that enhances drivers’ abilities to locate available Downtown parking resources. Directional signs should be visible to patrons upon entering Downtown. With a signage system that provides clear direction to parking facilities, patrons planning to visit Downtown for longer periods of time can avoid congestion, reduce their travel time, and park for longer periods. The signage system should be designed as part of the comprehensive wayfinding plan as well as recognizable and easily understandable. An improved parking directional signage system will reduce traffic congestion caused by drivers circling and searching for parking spaces throughout Downtown by re-directing drivers directly from primary thoroughfares to off-street parking facilities. Examples of other municipal parking signage programs are described below. The first photo is the new parking facility identification sign type being adopted by the Capital City Development Corporation for the Downtown public parking system in Boise, Idaho. This distinctive sign clearly identifies the structure as one the facilities in the public parking system. The second photo is part of the new Downtown comprehensive signage plan developed for Kalamazoo, Michigan. Here, the Downtown has been divided into “districts”, each with its own unique character: Arcadia, South Town, Haywood, Bronson Park, etc. This concept is similar to Fort Collins’ Old Town. The sign to the right is from the Arcadia district. Existing Parking Signage Boise, Idaho. Arcadia District, Kalamazoo, MI. 206 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N On-Street Parking Management Strategies When long-term parkers park in short-term spaces, the lost revenues to Downtown merchants can be significant. The following example, conservatively developed to fit the Fort Collins environment, illustrates the point: • There are approximately 8,400 employees in Downtown. • If only 5% of those workers use customer parking spaces, 420 spaces would be unavailable to shoppers. • If each space turned over four times per day, they would accommodate 1,680 personal trips. • If each car carried 1.5 customers, there would be 2,520 customers. • If a quarter those customers went elsewhere to shop and each customer spent $10.00, the total loss per day would be $6,300. • Annualized at six shopping days each week, the total loss would amount to nearly $2 million in Downtown revenue. As discussed earlier, the Fort Collins City Council was presented with the issues related to the need to improve on-street parking turnover in the core area on May 27, 2003. Council was presented with three basic options: The Null Alternative (Maintain Current Approach) Pursue Enhanced Enforcement as a means to achieve the desired turnover. Implement On-street Pay Parking Council expressed significant concerns over the budget limitations, and directed staff to pursue a short-term strategy of evaluating enhanced enforcement technologies and a more aggressive approach to parking enforcement to better promote parking space turnover. Long-term, a strategy involving implementation of on-street pay parking could be considered. SHORT-TERM STRATEGY - ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT Two key elements are needed to enhance enforcement in the near-term: 1. Computerized Parking Enforcement System Based on a review of parking system technologies, the parking enforcement computer system currently in use in Fort Collins is inadequate to meet current needs. Pursuing an enhanced enforcement strategy, at a minimum, requires replacement of the current system with a newer system that incorporates the latest advances in parking enforcement software and wireless communications capabilities. The best system is one that provides for the issuance of parking citations using downloadable handheld computer terminals, on-line, real-time (in the field) citation history tracking, and direct communications to the centralized enforcement database. The manufacturer of the City’s current system is no longer in business and original system documentation is poor. Therefore, the current parking enforcement computer system cannot be used to its full capabilities, and significant downtime occurs due to system malfunctions. 2. Escalating Fine Structure Figure 4.54 shows a recommended escalating on-street parking fine structure for Fort Collins. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 207 _________________________________________________ Figure 4.54 Recommended Escalation On-Street Parking Fine Structure Number of overtime violations within last 180 days Proposed Amount After 8 days, fine increase to: First Warning n/a Second $10 $20 Third $25 $50 Fourth $50 $75 Fifth or more $100 $150 3. Other potential elements of an enhanced enforcement program might include: • Longer hours of enforcement (evenings, Sundays, holidays), although this option generally is not favored by most Downtown businesses. • More geographical coverage of enforcement. There are many areas Downtown where the Parking Services Division has received requests for additional enforcement, but the resources to provide that enforcement do not currently exist. • More parking enforcement officers. LONG-TERM STRATEGY – ON-STREET PAY PARKING On-street pay parking in not a recommendation in this plan, but it is a strategy that could be considered in the future. On-street pay parking does offer some solutions to the parking issues that exist Downtown, but it must also fit with the overall direction and philosophy of the Downtown economic community. At this point in time, most members of that community feel that on-street pay parking is premature. The following discussion is offered as educational information so that when it is time to consider on- street pay parking, enough background information will be available to evaluate all the options. When considering implementation of an on-street pay parking program to better manage on-street parking resources, the first step is to conduct an extensive technology review. The first decision in on-street parking technologies is whether to invest in single space or multi-space meter technologies. Figure 4.55 compares these two technology options based on several evaluation criteria. Parking meter technologies 208 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N _________________________________________________ Figure 4.55 Program Options to Improve On-Street Parking Turnover. On-Street Pay Parking Program Features/ Objectives Current Program Enhanced Enforcement Single Space Electronic Meters Multi-Space Meters Easy to understand/use High Med High Low Effectively promotes space turnover Low Med High High Requires add’l signage and/or pavement markings No Yes On-meter only Yes Initial capital investment n/a Med Med High Programmable rates n/a No Yes Yes Allows multiple payment options (cash, smartcards, etc.) n/a n/a Yes Yes Corrects upside down rate condition No Yes via fines Yes Yes Generates add’l parking system revenue No Yes via fines Yes Yes Less confrontation with parkers n/a No Yes Yes Can provide improved management data n/a Yes Yes Yes Customer convenience High High High Med Confusing to first-time users No No No Yes If maintenance problems occur, it affects multiple spaces n/a n/a No Yes Maintenance costs n/a Minimal Low Med Streetscape clutter Low Med Med Med Improves enforcement efficiency No No Yes Yes On-going operating expenses Low Med Med Med Potential advertisement/promotional opportunity No No Yes No ON-STREET PAY PARKING STRATEGY FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION The future on-street pay parking strategy for Fort Collins may include the following: Utilize single space electronic parking meters, mounted two meters per pole. (Another option would be to employ a technology that uses one meter to serve two adjacent spaces. The user selects an arrow pointing to the correct space.) Rationale: • Single space meters are extremely convenient for users as they are located immediately in front of the parking stall. • Customers intuitively know that there is a fee required and they intuitively understand how to use the meters. • Electronic meters have extremely flexible rate schedules and can even give the first ten or fifteen minutes free, if desired. • Alternative payment methods are possible (smart cards, “Cash Key”, etc.) • Dual mounting on a single meter pole reduces the perceived streetscape clutter. • Single space meters do not require additional signage or pavement markings. • These meters come with an optional, attached signage frame that can be used to promote the Downtown area or local businesses. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 209 Incorporate vehicle detection technology for on-street metered spaces. There are two primary system options: Induction loop technology (Suggested vendor: InnovaPark), and wireless cellular based technology (Suggested vendor: VehicleSense). Rationale: • These systems provide detailed on-street parking management information including parking duration and turnover, number, location and extent of over-time violations, etc. • These systems also help combat potential “meter feeding”. Vehicles must be relocated after the maximum time-limit has been reached. • Revenue can be increased without raising rates. When a vehicle leaves the space the meter resets time to zero. 1. Incorporate decorative meter pole coverings. Rationale: • These meter pole covers are attractive and complement the overall image of Downtown Fort Collins. • The meter pole coverings also act as a deterrent to meter theft. College and Mountain Avenues - Centerline Parking If the on-street pay parking ideas above are pursued, the layout of the centerline parking in the Downtown core becomes problematic. The current configuration does not lend itself to single space meter use. Keeping the centerline parking as time-limited parking is not recommended, as there would be two systems which could be confusing to visitors. Multi-space meters could be incorporated in all areas, but we feel this technology is not as user friendly, and using multi-space meters for the centerline parking and single space meters for the curbside parking again requires multiple systems. There are three general possible solutions to this problem: 1. Reconfigure the centerline parking from angled spaces to parallel spaces on both sides of the centerline. This option is neutral regarding the number of spaces available when compared to today’s diagonal parking design. This design can accommodate single or dual space meters along a centerline promenade. See Hermosa Beach, CA Photo. 2. Reconfigure the centerline parking from angled spaces to parallel spaces on one side of the centerline, using the excess room for either a wider curb/sidewalk that could function as a pedestrian walk and a landscaped planting strip. This option would decrease the number of spaces, but would accommodate single space meters. 3. Eliminate the centerline parking altogether and use the space to beautify the Downtown environment. This option, if politically unfeasible now, might be considered in the future as additional convenient off-street parking is developed. Hermosa Beach, CA. 210 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N A combination of elements is shown on a cross section of College Avenue (100 block north) in Figure 4.56. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.56 College Avenue Cross Section, 100 Block of North College: 2002 Even without adjusting the size of the travel lanes on College which are each 12’ wide, there is ample room to incorporate changes in the design of the centerline parking along College and Mountain Avenues. The proposed changes include eliminating the centerline diagonal parking and replacing it with two 8’ wide parallel parking lanes, 6” curbs, and an 8’ wide tree-lined promenade. The new cross section is reflected in the Figure 4.57. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.57 College Avenue Cross Section, 100 Block of North College: Proposed In Figure 4.58, the centerline diagonal parking has been converted to parallel with an 8’ promenade added. This design which includes a mid-block crossing has a number of benefits when compared to the current design. Those benefits include: • Increased Safety – The center promenade allows automobile drivers and passengers the opportunity to funnel to the corners or the mid-block to cross traffic on College or Mountain Avenues. Although this design does not offer a fool proof way of managing pedestrians, it is a significant improvement over the current “all block crossing” created with diagonal centerline parking. 9’ S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 211 • Increased Parking Capacity – The current count of 29 parking spaces in the test block (100 N. College Avenue) increases to approximately 30-32 spaces, even with the installation of a new mid-block crossing. • Traffic Friction – Although some additional friction will occur as a result of the parallel parking routine, other friction in traffic will be reduced by the elimination of cut-through traffic using diagonal parking spaces. • Future On-Street Pay Parking – The new design accommodates on-street pay parking machines such as meters for the centerline spaces supporting the long-term goal of on- street pay parking for the parking system in Downtown. • Beautification and Urban Design – Implementing this design dramatically enhances the urban design in Downtown to include more livable space, more natural features, and more opportunities for human interaction. The development of centerline promenades throughout Downtown will also dramatically enhance the beauty of Downtown Fort Collins. The centerline parking described in this section is still conceptual and currently is not a recommendation. A more thorough study and public outreach process is needed if and when on-street pay parking is recommended, or if safety and urban design issues warrant further consideration of this idea. _________________________________________________ Figure 4.58 Centerline Parallel Parking & Promenade: 100 Block of N College Av 212 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N OFF-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Even though the overall current supply of parking spaces in Downtown is sufficient to meet overall demand, certain areas do, in fact, experience parking shortages. These areas are primarily in the core of Downtown, and are what staff refers to as the “hot zone.” The hot zone includes the areas around the intersection of College Avenue and Mountain Avenue, as well as the Old Town areas on Linden Street, Walnut Street, Remington Avenue and Pine Street. Within these areas, additional short-term strategies need to be combined with the “enhanced enforcement” recommendations of this plan in order to meet parking demand. Enhanced enforcement is a way to implicitly increase parking supply by increasing parking space turnover. A more direct way to increase parking supply could be achieved through a concept that staff has informally labeled the “Downtown Parking Cooperative.” This concept recognizes that most parking spaces in the Downtown core are privately owned and underutilized, and the potential exists for public/private partnerships to make the spaces more usable. The occupancy studies that were done as part of this plan suggest that most of the private lots in the Downtown core are, on average, about half full most of the time. These lots, which predominantly are found in alleys behind retail establishments, are for the most part owned by businesses that use them for their own employees. The lots are generally substandard in design and appearance, and are underutilized because they are reserved for the employees of the business that owns them, and there are not enough employees at that business to fill the lot. The “Downtown Parking Cooperative” would encourage owners of these private lots to partner with the City to upgrade the lots and make them available to a larger number of users. Business that agreed to be part of the parking cooperative would receive a guarantee that their needs would be met. Any additional spaces would be managed by the cooperative and sold through a parking permit program to employees of other Downtown businesses. The revenue stream generated by the permit sales would be used to upgrade the lots, adding amenities like paving, lights, signs, and pedestrian linkages to places of employment. The advantages of a “Downtown Parking Cooperative” are many. It would expand the parking supply, improve the appearance of blighted areas in the alleyways of Downtown, and create a sense of community between business and government in the parking arena that does not always exist in the current adversarial parking climate. Recommended Future Parking Development Strategies The following strategies related to future parking development are recommended: • Pursue parking in conjunction with development projects. • Support the formation of public/private partnerships between the City and developers to construct parking supply for public use in conjunction with Downtown development. • Promote maximization of potential shared-use parking opportunities among retail, non- retail and residential uses. • In identifying land parcels for potential parking development, recognize that while these parcels may begin as surface parking lots, they may in the future evolve into sites for structured parking. With this in mind, establish site footprint criteria that could result in the development of efficiently designed parking structures. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 213 For example, consider a 1,000 space parking structure constructed at $25/square foot. An efficient design that achieves 300 sq. ft. per car would save the City $1,250,000 in design efficiency alone when compared to the same structure at 350 sq. ft per car. Fee In-Lieu of Parking Another concept, for consideration regarding future parking development, is “Fee In-Lieu of Parking”. Some cities allow developers the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking spaces required by zoning ordinances, and use this revenue to finance public parking spaces to replace the private parking spaces the developers would have been required to provide. These in-lieu programs can reduce the cost of development, encourage shared parking, improve urban design, support historic preservation, and allow development of sites that cannot physically accommodate the required parking. Establishment of in-lieu fees also reveals that the cost of complying with minimum parking requirements is more than four times the cost of the impact fees that cities levy for all other public purposes combined. The high cost of meeting parking requirements suggests other promising in-lieu policy options that allow developers to reduce parking demand rather than increase the parking supply and provide a mechanism to support alternative transportation modes that help accomplish that goal. Reducing parking demand can cost far less than increasing the parking supply. However, for Fort Collins’ Downtown, a fee-in-lieu would have some major limitations. First and foremost is the fact the there are no parking requirements for non-residential projects Downtown. A fee-in-lieu would be an option only if the City established a minimum parking requirement for non-residential projects. While parking may be a requirement of private development financing, there is no guarantee that a developer could use a fee-in-lieu to forego the parking requirements of private financing. Second, a fee-in-lieu would probably have to be prohibitively high in order to generate enough revenue to fund even one parking structure. For instance, the Civic Center Parking Structure cost approximately $10 million. Using a liberal estimate of twenty new development projects of the same size, the fee would need to be about $500,000 for each project to fund the structure. Lastly, the fee-in-lieu would increase risk for the developer or the City/DDA. Because the actual number of new development projects would not be known, the City could not provide certainty over when the new parking would be constructed. In addition, the developer could not be certain whether the parking would be conveniently located near the project. On the other hand, if the City or DDA were to construct the parking and attempt to reimburse the funding through the fee-in-lieu, then the City/DDA would be at risk if the fee is insufficient to retire the debt. ADVANTAGES OF IN-LIEU FEES In-lieu fees have five major advantages for both cities and developers. 1. In-lieu fees give developers an alternative to meeting the parking requirements on sites where providing all the required parking spaces would be difficult or extremely expensive. However, as mentioned above, in Fort Collins this is less of an advantage for non- residential developments because there are no existing parking requirements. 214 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N 2. Shared parking. Public parking spaces allow shared use among different sites where the peak parking demands occur at different times. Shared public parking is more efficient and cost effective than single-use private parking because fewer spaces are needed to meet the total peak parking demand. Shared parking also allows visitors to leave their cars parked while making multiple trips on foot, and is one of the easiest ways to make better use of scarce urban land. 3. Better urban design. Cities can put public parking lots and structures where they have the lowest impact on vehicle and pedestrian circulation. Less on-site parking allows continuous storefronts without "dead" gaps for adjacent surface parking lots. To improve the streetscape, some cities dedicate the first floor of the public parking structures to retail uses. Developers can undertake infill projects without assembling large sites to accommodate on-site parking, and architects have a greater range of design options that can translate into more attractive buildings. 4. Fewer variances. Developers often request parking variances when providing the required parking would be difficult. These variances create unearned economic windfalls, granted to some but denied to others. If developers can pay cash rather than provide the required parking, cities do not have to grant parking variances and can therefore treat all developers consistently. 5. Historic preservation. In-lieu fees allow adaptive reuse of historic buildings where the new use requires additional parking that is difficult to provide. The in-lieu policy therefore makes it easier to preserve historic buildings and rehabilitate historic areas. DISADVANTAGES OF IN-LIEU FEES Officials in many cities recommended in-lieu fees, but some report that developers were initially skeptical. The following four points summarize the potential disadvantages mentioned by developers. 1. Lack of on-site parking. Parking is a valuable asset for any development. A lack of on- site, owner-controlled parking can reduce a development's attractiveness to tenants and customers. While a lack of on-site parking is a real disadvantage, developers who are concerned about this problem can normally provide the parking rather than pay the fee. 2. High fees. Cities may not construct and operate parking facilities as efficiently as the private sector. For example, cities may pay extra to improve the architectural design of parking lots and structures. The resulting in-lieu fees may be high. Although some cities charge high in-lieu fees, most set their in-lieu fees lower than the market cost of providing a public parking space. Because the fixed cost for ramps, elevators, stairwells, and curb cuts can be spread among more spaces in large public parking structures, economies of scale in building these structures can further reduce the in-lieu fees. 3. No guarantees. Cities may intend to use the in-lieu fee revenue to finance public parking, but they do not guarantee when or where the parking spaces will be provided. To address this concern, some cities build public parking structures before receiving the in-lieu fees. The in-lieu fees are then used to retire the debt incurred to finance the structures. Other cities return the in-lieu fees if they do not provide the parking within a certain time. A city can also delay collecting the in-lieu fees until the revenue is needed to construct the public parking. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 215 4. Fewer parking spaces. In-lieu fees will reduce the parking supply if cities provide fewer than one public parking space for each in-lieu fee paid. A smaller parking supply can put an area at a competitive disadvantage. Cities may not provide one public parking space for each in-lieu fee paid, but if a city uses in-lieu fees to build public parking spaces rather than grant variances to reduce parking requirements, the in-lieu policy will increase rather than decrease the parking supply. Even if an in-lieu policy does reduce the parking supply, shared public parking reduces the parking supply needed to meet the sum of all individual peak parking demands. (Note, in Fort Collins, this issue applies only to residential projects Downtown.) While the developers' concerns cannot be ignored, officials in most of the surveyed cities said that the fees had become a form of administrative relief for developers who do not want to provide the required parking spaces. In practice, the in-lieu fees have benefited developers by offering them an alternative to building expensive parking spaces. FEE IN-LIEU PARKING PROGRAM EXAMPLES Miami’s Coconut Grove, Florida (an upscale neighborhood in Miami) Coconut Grove adopted a fee-in-lieu program in 1993 and has experienced considerable success. The fee is $10,000 per stall, or payments of $50/month/stall. Developers have opted out of 938 spaces, generating approximately $3 million in revenues. The majority of the funds were used to develop a 416-space structure with ground floor retail. The fund also paid for a $250,000 study for a Downtown circulator, and $100,000 for a Parking Mitigation Project, that included landscaping changes and installation of traffic control devices to improve parking and pedestrian access. Business licenses can be revoked after 90 days of non-payment. Lake Forest, Illinois Lake Forest has had a fee-in-lieu policy for about 15 years. All funds generated must pay for parking acquisition or development. The impetus was a desire to preserve the historic character of the Downtown. The fee was recently increased from $14,000 to $22,000 per stall. The parking requirements are also relatively high in Lake Forest, at four spaces per thousand. Still, developers want to use the option because of the scarcity of developable land. The City considers the program effective, and developers use the option frequently. Originally, it was an automatic opportunity for developers to pay instead of building. However, due to limited opportunities for the city to provide new facilities, they recently restricted the fee-in-lieu option to a special use permit. Jackson, Wyoming Jackson, Wyoming adopted a fee-in-lieu policy in 1994, in conjunction with a new Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of parking minimums. The fee-in-lieu option was in response to concerns that the parking minimums would hinder economic development. The per- stall fee ranges from $1,000 (up to four stalls) to $10,000 (more than 41 stalls), depending on the number of stalls being opted out. The City does not have a specific obligation regarding timeline or proximity of new parking, but the funds raised are restricted to construction of parking only. The policy is used frequently. When the fee-in-lieu was adopted, existing properties that did not have parking were given transferable parking credits, so that even as the properties have been 216 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N redeveloped, there has been no parking requirement. The City Planner interviewed felt that a Local Improvement District would have been more effective for providing parking. Bend, Oregon Bend’s policy was adopted in 1992. It was initiated due to concerns about constrained land for development. Developers have the option of building, leasing off-site, or paying the fee. The option has been used frequently but the fee was set very low ($510 per stall). There are no specific obligations regarding timeline or proximity, but the fees must go into the parking fund and can pay for parking only (no TDM) either in, or adjacent to, the CBD. They are currently having their policy evaluated, with consideration of increased fees. The limited funds generated have become problematic with expectations from property owners for the city to provide for parking. Skokie, Illinois Skokie adopted its fee-in-lieu policy in 1976. It was used primarily in the early 1980s, and once in the 90s, but not since. The city has high Downtown vacancy rates (up to 40%), and parking shortages were not severe. The impetus for the policy was a desire to maintain the urban landscape, and to encourage employee parking in the periphery of the core. The fee was set at $3,500, which most businesses consider “outrageous”. There were no specific guarantees regarding proximity, timeline, etc, but the money was limited to parking only. Developers do not have an option to variance out: they must either build parking or pay the fee. With adoption of a Downtown redevelopment plan, the parking requirements were modified to a uniform requirement of one stall per 400 sq. ft. (commercial) and one per unit (residential). Most of the development recently has been mixed-use with residential, so developers have provided the required parking. Kirkland, Washington The City of Kirkland adopted a fee-in-lieu policy in the late 1970’s for use in the Downtown core. The fee is set at $6,000 per stall, and has generated approximately $300,000. Some of the funds were used to conduct various parking studies. In addition, a portion of the funds was contributed to a parking structure the city recently built, but it was not a significant share. The city has no specific obligations regarding proximity or timeline, but has not had problems with expectations on the part of property owners. The impetus was to create shared parking facilities. The primary use of the program has been for changes in existing properties to uses that require more parking (such as changing retail to restaurant). It has not been used for new development or redevelopment projects, and therefore the funds generated have been limited. City of Parksville, BC, Canada The City of Parksville adopted the following specific amendments to their cash-in-lieu parking program: Within the area identified as "Downtown core" in the Official Community Plan, the Municipal Council will accept cash payment in lieu of the provision of on-site parking in the amount of $9,800 per space. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 100% of the parking requirement may be met through cash-in- lieu payment, or a combination of cash payment in lieu of parking and the provision of on-site parking is acceptable. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 217 All monies received pursuant to the requirements of this Section shall be placed in a reserve fund established under Section 378 of the Municipal Act for the provision of new and existing off-street parking space, and the City is mandated to use such funds only for that purpose. Sources (Fee In-Lieu Section): • Excerpts from: Journal of Planning Education and Research 18:307-320. © 1999 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Donald C. Shoup • Carl Walker, Inc. Database 3.15 RECOMMENDED PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Parking Guiding Principles Create a Downtown parking system built around the following principles: • The Downtown parking system should be customer-oriented, not violator- or revenue- oriented (although parking revenue and enforcement are still important). If customers see the system as fair and friendly, visits to Downtown will increase, Downtown vitality will be increased and parking revenues will be enhanced. • The Downtown parking system should seek to provide customers with “an experience worth having.” All aspects of Downtown parking should reflect an understanding of what the Downtown customer desires in terms of a positive and memorable Downtown experience. Parking should be friendly, not free. • The Downtown parking system should be seen as an essential and integral part of the community’s economic vitality strategies and programs. • The Downtown parking system should be better promoted and marketed. The investments in parking infrastructure should be actively promoted and celebrated. • Develop a set of “Guiding Principles” for the parking system to address the following areas: • Alignment of Parking Division mission with Downtown Plan objectives • Parking System funding strategies • Inter-institution and inter-departmental relationships • Responsibility/authority for parking operations • Rate setting guidelines and methodologies • Options for allocating and developing parking resources • Inclusion of parking in strategic and master planning processes • Evaluation and effective use of new technologies • Procedures for managing losses of parking supply (both temporary and long- term) • Implementing integrated and complementary parking and transportation demand management strategies • Definition and communication of parking rules and regulations • Parking marketing and promotion (within the larger context of Downtown Marketing efforts) 218 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N • Enforcing and adjudicating parking rules and regulations consistent with promotion of larger Downtown Plan Objectives • Effective parking facility maintenance • Insuring parking facility security • Cooperatively addressing special event parking needs; including coordination with private parking operators in the Downtown • Fort Collins should set its sights high – in other words, seek to create an award- winning “best-in-class” parking system CITY OF FORT COLLINS - PARKING PRINCIPLES 1. Parking services shall be considered a key public infrastructure for the Downtown. As such, parking will be subsidized by the City, the County, and the Downtown Development Authority for the purpose of covering capital costs for new parking facilities. Whenever possible, the City will use public/private partnerships to fund parking facility capital costs. Aside from capital cost obligations, Parking will generate revenues sufficient to cover its operating and maintenance expenses, including the funding of parking facility capital maintenance reserve funds. 2. The Downtown parking system shall continue to be customer-oriented, not violator- or revenue-oriented. The Downtown parking system should be seen as an essential and integral part of the community’s economic vitality strategies and programs. 3. The Downtown parking system shall continue its consolidated, centralized management structure (i.e., manages on-street, off-street, parking enforcement and planning elements). Parking should continue to be recognized as an important component in the health and vitality of the Downtown area. 4. Operational funding shall be addressed through price structures of monthly parking permits, visitor rates, service charges, fines and ultimately through the implementation of on-street pay parking. To support the investment in parking as a public infrastructure, to promote the strategic location of parking facilities that can leverage maximum shared parking efficiencies, and in recognition of the desire to offer an alternative to parking development requirements Downtown, a parking “fee in-lieu-of” and other financing programs should be investigated. 5. The Parking Services Division shall administer all public parking services in Downtown Fort Collins; other City departments will not run their own public parking operations. 6. Transient, monthly and special events parking rates will be variable, based on time, demand, location, or the service provided. Parking rates shall be established to cover direct and indirect parking costs. Parking rates shall be consistent with local market rates. Parking rates shall be at levels that will encourage rather than discourage access to the Downtown. In the long-term, on-street parking rates should be higher than off- street parking rates to promote turnover of on-street spaces. 7. Other City departments and Downtown businesses may participate in daily and/or hourly validation programs for their visitors and patrons. The cost of validation programs may be discounted to promote program use and active business participation and promotion. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 219 8. The Parking Division shall be included in all long-range Downtown strategic planning. Temporary and permanent parking revenue losses due to construction and new development shall be addressed in the planning process. 9. Fines shall be established to discourage illegal parking and promote on-street parking turnover. The Parking Division will review peer city parking fine rates when recommending modifications to the City of Fort Collins parking fine structure. 10. City departments and other entities that sponsor events in the Downtown will pay the actual direct and indirect costs associated with requested parking services as determined by the Parking Division and verified through the annual budget process. A sponsoring department shall notify the Parking Division of the services required for a scheduled event no less than thirty days preceding the date of the event, and shall pay within thirty days upon receiving a bill for those services. 11. The Parking Division shall work towards the creation of a public/private partnership that can manage and/or influence the entire Downtown parking system – both public and private. 12. The Parking Division will work closely with the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the community at large to develop programs that meet the strategic goals of the Downtown as well as the customer expectations of the Downtown community. The Parking Division will promote and market parking services in Downtown Fort Collins. The Parking Division will strive to create a “best in class” parking program. 13. At some point in the future, when long-term on-street pay-parking strategies are implemented, the Parking Division will work to establish a self-sufficient budget (excluding debt-service obligations) so that revenues from fines and fees are sufficient to support the costs of operating the Parking Division. 14. The Parking Division will actively pursue staff development and training to improve the level of staff knowledge, professionalism and efficiency. Alignment of Parking Strategies with the Downtown Strategic Plan In the context of the Downtown Plan, different areas will require different parking management strategies including different management approaches, programs and levels of intensity. The following are examples of specific parking management programs by area. This is not intended to an exhaustive or definitive list; but is simply illustrative of the types of parking management programs that might be required. 220 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N PROTECT AND MANAGE CORE – COLLEGE AVENUE/OLD TOWN • In the long-term, consider implementation of on-street pay parking to actively promote parking space turnover and discourage long-term on-street employee parking. • Provide reduced-cost long-term parking for Downtown employees as an incentive to use structured parking or reduced-rate surface lots. • Construct a parking pricing strategy to provide Downtown employees multiple cost options. Pricing levels should directly correspond to location/convenience/amenities. • Recognize that to achieve the goals of protecting the most convenient spaces (on-street) for the benefit of the Downtown merchants, a consistent, fair, and relatively high profile parking enforcement program is essential. • Improve the overall consistency, utilization and identification of on-street parking spaces in the Downtown. • In the long-term, use a portion of potential new revenues generated by a possible on- street parking program to support other Downtown goals, such as Downtown marketing programs, improved signage, streetscape amenities, and future parking facility development. LEVERAGE POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS DOWNTOWN GROWTH AREAS – COLLEGE AVENUE TO HOWES ST. / CHERRY ST. TO MULBERRY ST. • Consider the proactive development of new parking resources in infill areas as a strategy to stimulate development. • In identifying land parcels for potential parking development, recognize that while these parcels may begin as surface parking lots, they may in the future evolve into sites for structured parking. With this in mind establish site footprint criteria that could result in the development of efficiently designed parking structures. • The City’s parking program should have the administrative authority to structure and implement certain management practices, including setting permit and hourly price structures, parking time limits, locations of special use zones (in consultation with the City Traffic Engineer), and other management tools, in a manner that reflects the rapidly changing parking environment in the Downtown area. BLEND WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS INFILL DEVELOPMENT AREAS – APPROXIMATELY TWO BLOCKS IN ALL DIRECTIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, INCLUDING JEFFERSON ST. TO THE RIVER • Investigate the implementation of neighborhood (residential) parking permit programs to preserve on-street parking in neighborhoods for residents and their visitors, particularly in areas where parking pressure from activities in the Downtown area impact adjacent neighborhoods. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 221 Transportation Appendix A Table 2. Parking: Public/Private Block # Public Private Total 4 45 50 95 5 25 31 56 6 17 41 58 7 146 94 240 8 71 175 246 9 65 182 247 10 95 43 138 11 86 78 164 12 55 34 89 13 93 116 209 14 111 119 230 15 75 12 87 16 81 56 137 17 76 66 142 18 108 48 156 19 1,013 49 1,062 20 60 12 72 21 37 17 54 22 68 203 271 23 54 244 298 24 67 0 67 25 157 77 234 26 58 66 124 27 385 62 447 28 96 152 248 29 74 70 144 30 56 83 139 31 36 20 56 32 88 211 299 33 87 119 206 34 201 20 221 35 72 73 145 36 46 19 65 37 47 79 126 38 49 174 223 39 73 138 211 40 76 230 306 41 68 152 220 42 65 188 253 43 51 159 210 44 32 168 200 45 0 203 203 46 51 139 190 47 60 115 175 48 79 187 266 49 78 152 230 50 53 242 295 51 147 10 157 Total 4,733 4,978 9,711 Percent 49% 51% 100% Table 1. Parking: On-Street/Off-Street Block # On-Street Off-Street Total 4 45 50 95 222 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 3. Parking Occupancy by Hour (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM) Thursday, May 2, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total (3,118 Spaces) (6,240 Spaces) (9,358 Spaces) Hour Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied 10:00 AM 1,822 58.4% 3,090 49.5% 4,912 52.5% 11:00 AM 1,934 62.0% 3,407 54.6% 5,341 57.1% 12:00 PM 2,006 64.3% 3,446 55.2% 5,452 58.3% 1:00 PM 1,907 61.2% 3,476 55.7% 5,383 57.5% 2:00 PM 1,840 59.0% 3,385 54.2% 5,225 55.8% 3:00 PM 1,772 56.8% 3,291 52.7% 5,063 54.1% 4:00 PM 1,605 51.5% 3,088 49.5% 4,693 50.1% 5:00 PM 1,440 46.2% 2,253 36.1% 3,693 39.5% Table 4. Parking Occupancy by Hour (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM) Thursday, May 9, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total (2,896 Spaces) (6,016 Spaces) (8,912 Spaces) Hour Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied 10:00 AM 1,567 54.1% 2,946 49.0% 4,513 50.6% 11:00 AM 1,736 59.9% 3,445 57.3% 5,181 58.1% 12:00 PM 1,846 63.7% 3,524 58.6% 5,370 60.3% 1:00 PM 1,801 62.2% 3,383 56.2% 5,184 58.2% 2:00 PM 1,724 59.5% 3,407 56.6% 5,131 57.6% 3:00 PM 1,637 56.5% 3,283 54.6% 4,920 55.2% 4:00 PM 1,624 56.1% 2,963 49.3% 4,587 51.5% 5:00 PM 1,437 49.6% 2,378 39.5% 3,815 42.8% S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 223 Table 3A. Peak-Hour (12:00 Noon) Parking Occupancy by Block Thursday, May 2, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total Block # Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied 4 45 20 44.4% 50 26 52.0% 95 46 48.4% 5 25 20 80.0% 31 25 80.6% 56 45 80.4% 6 17 15 88.2% 41 24 58.5% 58 39 67.2% 7 89 64 71.9% 107 84 78.5% 196 148 75.5% 8 71 15 21.1% 175 66 37.7% 246 81 32.9% 9 65 28 43.1% 182 102 56.0% 247 130 52.6% 10 33 29 87.9% 62 58 93.5% 95 87 91.6% 11 71 49 69.0% 78 74 94.9% 149 123 82.6% 12 55 53 96.4% 34 24 70.6% 89 77 86.5% 13 93 83 89.2% 98 50 51.0% 191 133 69.6% 14 111 88 79.3% 119 84 70.6% 230 172 74.8% 15 75 41 54.7% 12 3 25.0% 87 44 50.6% 16 81 50 61.7% 56 15 26.8% 137 65 47.4% 17 76 39 51.3% 59 39 66.1% 135 78 57.8% 18 76 25 32.9% 80 54 67.5% 156 79 50.6% 19 110 108 98.2% 934 503 53.9% 1,044 611 58.5% 20 60 57 95.0% 12 12 100.0% 72 69 95.8% 21 37 37 100.0% 37 37 100.0% 22 68 41 60.3% 203 99 48.8% 271 140 51.7% 23 54 23 42.6% 125 63 50.4% 179 86 48.0% 24 64 55 85.9% 0 0 0.0% 64 55 85.9% 25 101 90 89.1% 133 113 85.0% 234 203 86.8% 26 58 51 87.9% 66 49 74.2% 124 100 80.6% 27 62 43 69.4% 385 204 53.0% 447 247 55.3% 28 96 51 53.1% 119 63 52.9% 215 114 53.0% 29 74 20 27.0% 70 60 85.7% 144 80 55.6% 30 56 37 66.1% 83 55 66.3% 139 92 66.2% 31 36 11 30.6% 20 12 60.0% 56 23 41.1% 32 88 43 48.9% 211 127 60.2% 299 170 56.9% 33 87 78 89.7% 119 89 74.8% 206 167 81.1% 34 50 42 84.0% 171 70 40.9% 221 112 50.7% 35 72 43 59.7% 73 36 49.3% 145 79 54.5% 36 46 10 21.7% 19 12 63.2% 65 22 33.8% 37 47 18 38.3% 79 46 58.2% 126 64 50.8% 38 36 18 50.0% 174 106 60.9% 210 124 59.0% 39 73 20 27.4% 134 83 61.9% 207 103 49.8% 40 76 47 61.8% 223 84 37.7% 299 131 43.8% 41 68 44 64.7% 152 104 68.4% 220 148 67.3% 42 65 45 69.2% 188 81 43.1% 253 126 49.8% 43 51 26 51.0% 159 89 56.0% 210 115 54.8% 44 32 8 25.0% 168 53 31.5% 200 61 30.5% 45 0 0 0.0% 203 73 36.0% 203 73 36.0% 46 51 45 88.2% 139 51 36.7% 190 96 50.5% 47 60 36 60.0% 115 51 44.3% 175 87 49.7% 48 79 52 65.8% 187 157 84.0% 266 209 78.6% 49 78 48 61.5% 140 55 39.3% 218 103 47.2% 50 53 31 58.5% 242 111 45.9% 295 142 48.1% 51 147 109 74.1% 10 7 70.0% 157 116 73.9% Total 3,118 2,006 64.3% 6,240 3,446 55.2% 9,358 5,452 58.3% 224 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 4A. Peak-Hour (12:00 Noon) Parking Occupancy by Block Thursday, May 9, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total Block # Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied 4 45 21 46.7% 50 21 42.0% 95 42 44.2% 5 6 7 8 9 65 30 46.2% 182 120 65.9% 247 150 60.7% 10 33 26 78.8% 105 41 39.0% 138 67 48.6% 11 86 53 61.6% 78 52 66.7% 164 105 64.0% 12 55 35 63.6% 34 13 38.2% 89 48 53.9% 13 93 81 87.1% 116 69 59.5% 209 150 71.8% 14 111 82 73.9% 119 93 78.2% 230 175 76.1% 15 75 53 70.7% 12 3 25.0% 87 56 64.4% 16 81 43 53.1% 56 16 28.6% 137 59 43.1% 17 76 34 44.7% 59 44 74.6% 135 78 57.8% 18 76 48 63.2% 80 36 45.0% 156 84 53.8% 19 110 105 95.5% 934 500 53.5% 1,044 605 58.0% 20 60 59 98.3% 12 12 100.0% 72 71 98.6% 21 37 31 83.8% 17 10 58.8% 54 41 75.9% 22 68 43 63.2% 203 104 51.2% 271 147 54.2% 23 54 15 27.8% 244 68 27.9% 298 83 27.9% 24 67 44 65.7% 0 0 0.0% 67 44 65.7% 25 101 89 88.1% 133 114 85.7% 234 203 86.8% 26 58 39 67.2% 66 46 69.7% 124 85 68.5% 27 58 43 74.1% 355 196 55.2% 413 239 57.9% 28 96 61 63.5% 152 81 53.3% 248 142 57.3% 29 74 27 36.5% 70 53 75.7% 144 80 55.6% 30 56 32 57.1% 83 63 75.9% 139 95 68.3% 31 36 11 30.6% 20 17 85.0% 56 28 50.0% 32 88 47 53.4% 211 109 51.7% 299 156 52.2% 33 87 82 94.3% 119 89 74.8% 206 171 83.0% 34 50 32 64.0% 171 136 79.5% 221 168 76.0% 35 72 56 77.8% 73 29 39.7% 145 85 58.6% 36 46 11 23.9% 19 10 52.6% 65 21 32.3% 37 33 9 27.3% 79 60 75.9% 112 69 61.6% 38 49 15 30.6% 174 112 64.4% 223 127 57.0% 39 73 23 31.5% 138 80 58.0% 211 103 48.8% 40 76 30 39.5% 223 96 43.0% 299 126 42.1% 41 68 38 55.9% 152 140 92.1% 220 178 80.9% 42 49 28 57.1% 114 48 42.1% 163 76 46.6% 43 34 1 2.9% 159 86 54.1% 193 87 45.1% 44 32 3 9.4% 168 53 31.5% 200 56 28.0% 45 0 0 0.0% 203 79 38.9% 203 79 38.9% 46 51 28 54.9% 139 119 85.6% 190 147 77.4% 47 60 50 83.3% 115 95 82.6% 175 145 82.9% 48 79 79 100.0% 187 176 94.1% 266 255 95.9% 49 78 78 100.0% 140 129 92.1% 218 207 95.0% 50 53 25 47.2% 242 97 40.1% 295 122 41.4% 51 147 106 72.1% 10 9 90.0% 157 115 73.2% Total 2,896 1,846 63.7% 6,016 3,524 58.6% 8,912 5,370 60.3% S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 225 Table 5. Parking Occupancy by Hour (5:00 PM to 9:00 PM) Friday, May 3, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total (1,255 Spaces) (3,117 Spaces) (4,372 Spaces) Hour Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied 5:00 PM 830 66.1% 1,260 40.4% 2,090 47.8% 6:00 PM 814 64.9% 1,388 44.5% 2,202 50.4% 7:00 PM 929 74.0% 1,569 5.0% 2,498 57.1% 8:00 PM 971 77.4% 1,764 56.6% 2,735 62.6% 9:00 PM 922 73.5% 1,630 52.3% 2,552 58.4% Table 5A. Peak-Hour (8:00 PM) Parking Occupancy by Block Friday, May 3, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total Block # Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Occupied % Occupied 13 93 68 73.1% 98 25 25.5% 191 93 48.7% 14 111 94 84.7% 119 99 83.2% 230 193 83.9% 18 76 38 50.0% 66 24 36.4% 142 62 43.7% 19 110 111 100.9% 934 375 40.1% 1,044 486 46.6% 20 60 57 95.0% 12 10 83.3% 72 67 93.1% 21 37 37 100.0% 17 14 82.4% 54 51 94.4% 24 64 54 84.4% 0 0 0.0% 64 54 84.4% 25 101 81 80.2% 133 124 93.2% 234 205 87.6% 26 58 36 62.1% 66 39 59.1% 124 75 60.5% 27 62 45 72.6% 385 332 86.2% 447 377 84.3% 33 75 65 86.7% 119 85 71.4% 194 150 77.3% 34 50 45 90.0% 171 164 95.9% 221 209 94.6% 37 47 39 83.0% 79 48 60.8% 126 87 69.0% 38 49 16 32.7% 174 73 42.0% 223 89 39.9% 40 76 50 65.8% 216 10 4.6% 292 60 20.5% 41 68 46 67.6% 152 85 55.9% 220 131 59.5% 42 65 57 87.7% 134 111 82.8% 199 168 84.4% 50 53 32 60.4% 242 146 60.3% 295 178 60.3% Total 1,255 971 77.4% 3,117 1,764 56.6% 4,372 2,735 62.6% 226 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 6. Parking Occupancy by Hour (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM) Saturday, May 4, 2002 On-Street Off-Street Total (3,127 Spaces) (6,426 Spaces) (9,553 Spaces) Hour Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied Occupied % Occupied 10:00 AM 1,198 38.3% 1,534 23.9% 2,732 28.6% 11:00 AM 1,295 41.4% 1,669 26.0% 2,964 31.0% 12:00 PM 1,406 45.0% 1,836 28.6% 3,242 33.9% 1:00 PM 1,374 43.9% 1,783 27.7% 3,157 33.0% 2:00 PM 1,395 44.6% 1,802 28.0% 3,197 33.5% 3:00 PM 1,373 43.9% 1,780 27.7% 3,153 33.0% 4:00 PM 1,412 45.2% 1,834 28.5% 3,246 34.0% 5:00 PM 1,412 45.2% 1,855 28.9% 3,267 34.2% S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 227 Table 7. Maximum Observed Peak-Hour (12:00 Noon) Parking Occupancy On-Street Off-Street Total Maximum Maximum Estimated Parking Observed Occupied Parking Observed Occupied Parking Percent Block # Supply Occupancy Spaces Supply Occupancy Spaces Demand Occupied 4 45 46.67% 21 50 52.00% 26 47 49.5% 5 25 80.00% 20 31 80.65% 25 45 80.4% 6 17 88.24% 15 41 58.54% 24 39 67.2% 7 89 71.91% 64 151 78.50% 119 183 76.3% 8 71 21.13% 15 175 37.71% 66 81 32.9% 9 65 46.15% 30 182 65.93% 120 150 60.7% 10 33 87.88% 29 105 93.55% 98 127 92.0% 11 86 69.01% 59 78 94.87% 74 133 81.1% 12 55 96.36% 53 34 70.59% 24 77 86.5% 13 93 89.25% 83 116 59.48% 69 152 72.7% 14 111 79.28% 88 119 78.15% 93 181 78.7% 15 75 70.67% 53 12 25.00% 3 56 64.4% 16 81 61.73% 50 56 28.57% 16 66 48.2% 17 76 51.32% 39 66 74.58% 49 88 62.0% 18 76 63.16% 48 80 67.50% 54 102 65.4% 19 110 98.18% 108 952 53.85% 513 621 58.5% 20 60 98.33% 59 12 100.00% 12 71 98.6% 21 37 100.00% 37 17 58.82% 10 47 87.0% 22 68 63.24% 43 203 51.23% 104 147 54.2% 23 54 42.59% 23 244 50.40% 123 146 49.0% 24 67 85.94% 58 0 0.00% 0 58 86.6% 25 101 89.11% 90 133 85.71% 114 204 87.2% 26 58 87.93% 51 66 74.24% 49 100 80.6% 27 62 74.14% 46 385 55.21% 213 259 57.9% 28 96 63.54% 61 152 53.29% 81 142 57.3% 29 74 36.49% 27 70 85.71% 60 87 60.4% 30 56 66.07% 37 83 75.90% 63 100 71.9% 31 36 30.56% 11 20 85.00% 17 28 50.0% 32 88 53.41% 47 211 60.19% 127 174 58.2% 33 87 94.25% 82 119 74.79% 89 171 83.0% 34 50 84.00% 42 171 79.53% 136 178 80.5% 35 72 77.78% 56 73 49.32% 36 92 63.4% 36 46 23.91% 11 19 63.16% 12 23 35.4% 37 47 38.30% 18 79 75.95% 60 78 61.9% 38 49 50.00% 25 174 64.37% 112 137 61.4% 39 73 31.51% 23 138 61.94% 85 108 51.2% 40 76 61.84% 47 230 43.05% 99 146 47.7% 41 68 64.71% 44 152 92.11% 140 184 83.6% 42 65 69.23% 45 188 43.09% 81 126 49.8% 43 51 50.98% 26 159 55.97% 89 115 54.8% 44 32 25.00% 8 168 31.55% 53 61 30.5% 45 0 0.00% 0 203 38.92% 79 79 38.9% 46 51 88.24% 45 139 85.61% 119 164 86.3% 47 60 83.33% 50 115 82.61% 95 145 82.9% 48 79 100.00% 79 187 94.12% 176 255 95.9% 49 78 100.00% 78 152 92.14% 140 218 94.8% 50 53 58.49% 31 242 45.87% 111 142 48.1% 51 147 74.15% 109 10 90.00% 9 118 75.2% Total 3,149 69.36% 2,184 6,562 61.98% 4,067 6,251 64.4% 228 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 8. Current Parking Adequacy by Block Design-Day Parking Parking Effective Surplus/ Block # Demand Supply Supply (1) Deficit 4 47 95 80 33 5 45 56 47 2 6 39 58 47 8 7 183 240 206 23 8 81 246 199 118 9 150 247 198 48 10 127 138 119 -8 11 133 164 140 7 12 77 89 78 1 13 152 209 175 23 14 181 230 195 14 15 56 87 80 24 16 66 137 119 53 17 88 142 122 34 18 102 156 137 35 19 621 1,062 954 333 20 71 72 66 -5 21 47 54 48 1 22 147 271 217 70 23 146 298 234 88 24 58 67 64 6 25 204 234 204 0 26 100 124 105 5 27 259 447 396 137 28 142 248 205 63 29 87 144 123 36 30 100 139 115 15 31 28 56 49 21 32 174 299 242 68 33 171 206 172 1 34 178 221 198 20 35 92 145 123 31 36 23 65 58 35 37 78 126 104 26 38 137 223 177 40 39 108 211 173 65 40 146 306 245 99 41 184 220 179 -5 42 126 253 203 77 43 115 210 168 53 44 61 200 156 95 45 79 203 152 73 46 164 190 153 -11 47 145 175 143 -2 48 255 266 215 -40 49 218 230 188 -30 50 142 295 232 90 51 118 157 147 29 Total 6,251 9,711 8,150 1,899 (1) On-street parking supply x 0.95, public off-street parking supply x 0.90, and private off-street parking supply x 0.75. S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 229 Table 9. Existing Parking Conditions by TAZ Study Area Parking Parking Effective Surplus/ TAZ Blocks Demand Supply Supply Deficit 100 16 66 137 119 53 101 22, 29, 36, 37, 42 461 859 705 244 102 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 50 1,590 2,744 2,231 641 103 46, 47, 48, 49 782 861 699 -83 104 None 105 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 1,352 2,118 1,844 492 108 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 848 1,227 1,047 199 127 None 141 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 45, 51 1,152 1,765 1,505 353 Total 6,251 9,711 8,150 1,899 Table 10. Summary of Parking Turnover and Duration Thursday, May 2, 2002 Average Total Total Average Duration Type of Number Vehicles Duration Turnover Per Space Space of Spaces Parked (Hours) Per Space (Hours) 20-minute 2 10 16 5.00 1.60 30-minute 10 45 60 4.50 1.33 2-Hour 865 3,502 5,091 4.05 1.45 Loading 4 8 11 2.00 1.38 Accessible 26 57 105 2.19 1.84 Permit 34 34 174 1.00 5.12 Reserved 4 5 12 1.25 2.40 Unrestricted 66 126 405 1.91 3.21 Total 1,011 3,787 5,874 3.75 1.55 230 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 11. Summary of Parking Turnover and Duration Thursday, May 9, 2002 Average Total Total Average Duration Type of Number Vehicles Duration Turnover Per Space Space of Spaces Parked (Hours) Per Space (Hours) 20-minute 2 14 14 7.00 1.00 30-minute 7 36 44 5.14 1.22 2-Hour 763 3,418 4,891 4.48 1.43 Loading 6 16 18 2.67 1.13 Accessible 22 39 59 1.77 1.51 Permit 34 30 166 0.88 5.53 Reserved 6 12 27 2.00 2.25 Unrestricted 27 58 168 2.15 2.90 Total 867 3,623 5,387 4.18 1.49 Table 12. Parking Turnover and Duration at Short-Term Spaces Friday, June 21, 2002 Average Length of Stay Total Total Average Duration Type of 0.33 0.66 1.0 Vehicles Duration Turnover Per Space Space 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Parked (Hours) Per Space (Hours) 20-minute 14 14 4.7 14.0 0.33 20-minute 4 4 1 9 5.0 9.0 0.56 Total 18 4 1 0 0 0 23 9.7 11.5 0.42 30-minute 5 1 1 7 5.0 7.0 0.71 30-minute 5 1 6 5.0 6.0 0.83 30-minute 4 1 1 1 7 7.0 7.0 1.00 30-minute 9 1 1 11 7.5 11.0 0.68 30-minute 2 2 1 5 8.0 5.0 1.60 30-minute 1 2 1 1 5 7.0 5.0 1.40 30-minute 2 3 1 6 5.5 6.0 0.92 30-minute 2 1 3 3.5 3.0 1.17 Total 28 10 4 4 3 1 50 48.5 6.25 0.97 Loading 1 1 2 3.0 2.0 1.50 Loading 5 5 2.5 5.0 0.50 Loading 2 1 3 2.0 3.0 0.67 Loading 5 1 6 4.5 6.0 0.75 Loading 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.00 Loading 4 1 5 3.0 5.0 0.60 Total 16 4 0 2 0 0 22 16.0 3.67 0.73 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 231 Table 14. Near-Term (5 - 7 Years) Parking Conditions by TAZ Study Area Parking Effective Surplus/ TAZ Blocks Demand Supply Deficit 100 16 66 119 53 101 22, 29, 36, 37, 42 461 705 244 102 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 50 1,914 2,231 317 103 46, 47, 48, 49 782 699 -83 104 None 105 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 1,994 1,844 -150 108 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 1,068 1,047 -21 127 None 141 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 45, 51 1,152 1,505 353 Total 7,437 8,150 713 Table 13. Near-Term (5 - 7 Years) Development and Estimated Parking Demand Development Performing Housing Hotel Arts Center Retail Non-Retail TAZ (Units) (Rooms) (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) 102 51 150 94,500 104 12 13,000 25,000 105 203 120,000 20,000 65,500 108 134 20,000 35,000 127 40,000 Total 400 150 120,000 53,000 260,000 Estimated Parking Demand Parking Demand Ratios TAZ 0.80 space per unit 0.50 space per room 2.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. 1.8 spaces per 1,000 s.f. 2.2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Estimated Parking Demand 102 41 75 0 0 208 324 104 10 0 0 23 55 88 105 162 0 300 36 144 642 108 107 0 0 36 77 220 232 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 15. Future (2025) Development and Estimated Parking Demand Development Housing Non-Retail TAZ (Units) (Sq. Ft.) 101 61 35,340 102 289 963,480 105 280 755,326 108 331 403,363 141 112 82,525 Total 1,073 2,240,034 Estimated Parking Demand Parking Demand Ratios TAZ 0.80 space per unit 2.2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Estimated Parking Demand 101 49 78 127 102 231 2,120 2,351 105 224 1,662 1,886 108 265 887 1,152 141 90 182 272 Total 859 4,929 5,788 Table 16. Future (2025) Parking Conditions by TAZ Study Area Parking Effective Surplus/ TAZ Blocks Demand Supply Deficit 100 16 66 119 53 101 22, 29, 36, 37, 42 588 705 117 102 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 50 4,265 2,231 -2,034 103 46, 47, 48, 49 782 699 -83 104 None 105 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 3,880 1,844 -2,036 108 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 2,220 1,047 -1,173 127 None 141 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 45, 51 1,424 1,505 81 Total 13,225 8,150 -5,075 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 233 Table 17 – Cost/Revenue Comparison – One-time Capital Costs The following spreadsheets/graphs represent an analysis that was completed comparing two parking management options to the current parking program. The two alternatives analyzed were: 1) Time Limits with Enhanced Enforcement and 2) On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement. In both instances, a progressive fine structure was imposed upon repeat offenders. Net Revenues- Expenditures $0 -$207,800 -$551,600 $0 $30,200 $60,110 $0 $27,200 $76,606 $0 $26,200 $92,876 $0 $39,200 $113,910 Total Incremental Revenue $0 $92,200 $134,200 $0 $30,200 $150,200 $0 $27,200 $171,200 $0 $26,200 $192,200 $0 $39,200 $218,200 Incremental Revenue Old Town $0 $18,800 $20,800 $0 $21,800 $22,800 $0 $23,800 $26,800 $0 $25,800 $34,800 $0 $27,800 $43,800 Increment 234 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N Table 18 – Cost/Revenue Comparison – Annual Capital Costs Net Revenues- Expenditures $0 $32,200 $8,400 $0 -$29,800 $20,110 $0 -$32,800 $36,606 $0 -$33,800 $52,876 $0 -$20,800 $73,910 Total Incremental Revenue $0 -$92,200 -$34,200 $0 $30,200 $150,200 $0 $27,200 $171,200 $0 $26,200 $192,200 $0 $39,200 $128,200 Incremental Revenue Old Town $0 $18,800 $20,800 $0 $21,800 $22,800 $0 $23,800 $26,800 $0 $25,800 $34,800 $0 $27,800 $43,800 Incrementa l Revenue Civic Center $0 S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 235 Transportation Appendix B Freight Mobility Survey Purpose The purpose of the Freight Mobility Survey is to assess the existing conditions, adequacy, growth potential, access and regulatory issues regarding freight mobility and loading facilities in the Downtown Ft. Collins area. The results of the survey will be used in conjunction with the balance of the Downtown Strategic Plan to determine what the area needs in order to remain up-to-date, competitive, and attractive to desired uses. Further, the survey will help determine if a conflict exists between existing and envisioned uses. Methodology The survey is being administered as a personal interview with selected businesses in the Downtown area. Fort Collins is actively engaged with the business community to develop a plan that is supportive of business and accommodating to a healthy Downtown over the long-term. A summary of the results of the survey will be freely available. However, no confidential information will be required and information linked to a specific business will not be publicly available. This survey is an important component of our effort to form partnerships with Downtown businesses so as to develop a plan that is best supportive of the community’s goals. The survey is expected to take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your Help Is Needed! Please take a few minutes to answer some questions about your needs and issues regarding the delivery of freight in the Downtown area. This will help us all as we plan to move our city to the next level of success. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please call one of our Co- Project Managers: Timothy Wilder, City Planner Advance Planning Department 221-6756 Clark Mapes, City Planner Advance Planning Department 221-6225 Thanks for your help! 236 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N YOUR LOCATION 1. Business Name ! Address ! Type of business " Retail " Convenience Food " Eating and Drinking " Services " Other ! What general type of commodity is most commonly shipped or received 2. Do you operate your own delivery fleet? Yes " No " Don’t know " 3. Please estimate the total number deliveries/shipments per week, not including package delivery services such as Federal Express, UPS, etc. 4. Please estimate the total # of package deliveries per week such as Federal Express, UPS, etc. 5. Do you have nearby access to a parcel drop box? Yes " No " Don’t know " 6. What time of day do most of your deliveries occur? " Morning " Afternoon " Evening " Night " Weekends " Evenly distributed or unpredictable 7. What time of day do most of your outbound shipments occur? " Morning " Afternoon " Evening " Night " Weekends " Evenly distributed or unpredictable 8. Do you use on-site loading docks or areas? Yes " No " How many? 9. Do you use an on-street loading zone near your business? Yes " No " Don’t know " 10. Do you commonly ship or receive hazardous materials? Yes " No " Don’t know " S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 237 ACCESS 1. Freight access to your loading area is from: " Alley " Your Parking Lot " Neighboring Properties " Street " Other 2. What local street do shippers use for direct access to your loading area? 3. What major arterial do shippers use to access the highway system from the Downtown area? 4. Is a left turn across traffic required for ingress/egress to your primary loading area? Yes " No " Don’t know " 5. When trucks turn into your loading area, do they have problems such as driving up on the curb, having to back up and reposition, etc? " 1 - Always " 2 - Sometimes " 3 - Never " 4 - Does not apply 6. In your opinion, what is the level of congestion on nearby access routes to your location? " 1 – Heavy congestion usually or always delays or prevents timely deliveries throughout the day " 2 - Heavy congestion sometimes delays or prevents timely deliveries " 3 – Congestion is moderate and sometimes affects our deliveries " 4 – Occasional light congestion has little effect on our deliveries " 5 – Congestion has no effect on our deliveries 7. In your opinion, what is the quality of freight access to your location? " 1 – Problems occur every day and my business suffers financially and operationally because of them " 2 – Frequent problems regularly disrupt my business operations " 3 – Occasional problems cause some interference with my business operations " 4 – There are infrequent minor problems that are easily handled " 5 – No problems – trucks can easily access, park, unload/load without restriction 238 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N ISSUES 1. Has freight access to your business changed recently? Yes " No " Don’t know " In what way? ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Does traffic congestion in the immediate area of your business negatively affect your freight shipping? Yes " No " Don’t know " Explain: Shipments take longer Timing of shipments has been adjusted Costs have escalated due to increased shipping times Other? Describe ___________________________________________________ 3. How critical to your business is time of delivery? " 1 – Our products must be delivered/shipped on demand " 2 – Our products must be delivered/shipped frequently and at a certain time of day " 3 - We have deliveries/shipments every day, but the specific time is less important " 4 – Deliveries/shipments are not particularly time-sensitive 4. Rate your degree of support for the following policies using the following scale: 1 – I totally support this 2 - I somewhat support this 3 – Neutral 4 - I somewhat oppose this 5 – I totally oppose this Restrictions on deliveries during peak travel times Time restrictions on street parking for deliveries during peak travel times Restrictions on mid-street loading/unloading during peak travel times No mid-street loading/unloading Noise limits on late night deliveries Restrictions on truck size on some streets No trucks on certain streets S E C T I O N I V – t r a n s p o r t a t I o n D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N - 239 5. Please briefly describe other issues regarding freight shipping that restrict the success of your business. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 6. What could be done by the City to improve freight access to your business? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 240 - D O W N T O W N S T R A T E G I C P L A N $36,400 $36,400 $0 $41.400 $41,400 $0 $45,400 $55,400 $0 $49,400 $62,400 $0 $54,400 $79,400 Incremental Revenue Operations $0 $37,000 $77,000 $0 -$33,000 $83,000 $0 -$42,000 $89,000 $0 -$49,000 $95,000 $0 -$43,000 $95,000 Total Incremental Costs $0 -$60,000 -$125,800 $0 -$60,000 -$130,090 $0 -$60,000 -$134,595 $0 -$60,000 -$139,324 $0 -$60,000 -$144,290 Total Incremental Capital Costs $0 -$60,000 -$40,000 $0 -$60,000 -$40,000 $0 -$60,000 -$40,000 $0 -$60,000 -$40,000 $0 -$60,000 -$40,000 Incremental Operating & Maintenance Costs $0 $0 -$85,800 $0 $0 -$90,090 $0 $0 -$94,595 $0 $0 -$99,324 $0 $0 -$104,290 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 al Revenue Civic Center $0 $36,400 $36,400 $0 $41,400 $44,400 $0 $45,400 $55,400 $0 $49,400 $62,400 $0 $54,400 $79,400 Incremental Revenue Operations $0 $37,000 $77,000 $0 -$33,000 $83,000 $0 -$42,000 $89,000 $0 -$49,000 $95,000 $0 -$43,000 $95,000 Total Incremental Costs $0 -$300,000 -$685,800 $0 $0 -$90,090 $0 $0 -$94,595 $0 $0 -$99,324 $0 $0 -$104,290 Total Incremental Capital Costs $0 -$300,000 -$600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Operating & Maintenance Costs $0 $0 -$85,800 $0 $0 -$90,090 $0 $0 -$94,595 $0 $0 -$99,324 $0 $0 -$104,290 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 1. Null Alternative - Continue Today's Parking Program 2. Time Limits with Enhanced Parking Enforcement 3. On-Street Pay Parking with Moderate Enforcement 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 127 0 0 0 0 88 88 Total 320 75 300 95 572 1,362 5 25 31 56 6 17 41 58 7 89 151 240 8 71 175 246 9 65 182 247 10 33 105 138 11 86 78 164 12 55 34 89 13 93 116 209 14 111 119 230 15 75 12 87 16 81 56 137 17 76 66 142 18 76 80 156 19 110 952 1,062 20 60 12 72 21 37 17 54 22 68 203 271 23 54 244 298 24 67 0 67 25 101 133 234 26 58 66 124 27 62 385 447 28 96 152 248 29 74 70 144 30 56 83 139 31 36 20 56 32 88 211 299 33 87 119 206 34 50 171 221 35 72 73 145 36 46 19 65 37 47 79 126 38 49 174 223 39 73 138 211 40 76 230 306 41 68 152 220 42 65 188 253 43 51 159 210 44 32 168 200 45 0 203 203 46 51 139 190 47 60 115 175 48 79 187 266 49 78 152 230 50 53 242 295 51 147 10 157 Total 3,149 6,562 9,711 Percent 32% 68% 100% 1% 0% 5% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Entertain/Bar Prof/Service Restaurant Retail Other No Answer Free Same Managed No Preference No parking lots; (8) Need a bypass; (9) Future development should require off-street delivery access; (10) Improvements for left turns at Mountain and Remington; (11) Provide free or inexpensive parking for Downtown employees (e.g. weekly/monthly parking rate equals cost of one parking ticket) in the Downtown parking structures. Sometimes Light Sometimes No effect 6. In your opinion, what is the level of congestion on nearby access routes to your location? 5% 11% 16% 47% 21% Problems Every day Frequent problems Occasional problems Infrequent problems No problems 7. In your opinion, what is the quality of freight access to your location? 0% 0% 32% 47% 21% Mountain Laporte N College Linden E. Lincoln E. Mulberry Jefferson Remington S College Mason Howes Entering Exiting One of the most important roles of the analysis is to determine how people are accessing Downtown and what streets are being over or under utilized. The directional distribution of traffic entering and leaving Downtown on a daily basis is shown in Figure 4.7. The data show that the majority of traffic enters and exits to the south. Less traffic enters and exits on the north side of Downtown. The entry and exit patterns were also more closely analyzed on a street by street basis to determine not only what direction of travel traffic is using but also what streets are carrying the most traffic into and out of Downtown. Figure 4.8 shows the percent of total daily traffic entering and exiting Downtown by street. Fort Collins/Loveland MSA Colorado *United States Pet store Specialty Apparel and Accessories Urban apparel Bridal/formal wear or lingerie Western wear Work wear Cosmetics Contemporary jewelry Home Decorating Kitchen and gift Furniture Lighting Bedding and linen Bathroom fixtures Garden and landscaping Coverings (floor, rugs, tile, fabric, wall) Home improvement & interior designers Home furnishings Imports Other Office supplies Cooking school Caterers 11/12/03 DBA Board Meeting Home State Bank Final plan review 12/17/03 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Final plan review 1/08/04 DDA Board Meeting 281 N. College Final plan review 2/3/03 City Council Hearing City Hall Final plan review wk = Work Session. hrg = Hearing 1/22/03 Community Workshop Lincoln Center Framework Working Paper 1/22/03 DDA/DBA Subcommittee 215 N. Mason Organization Issues 1/31/03 Planning and Zoning Board 281 N. College Framework Diagram 2/4/03 Growth Management Lead Team 281 N. College Ave Process Issues 2/12/03 DBA Board Meeting Home State Bank On-Street Pay Parking 2/14/03 Planning and Zoning Board 281 N. College