Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/01/2013 - RESOLUTION 2013-086 ADOPTING THE MIDTOWN PLAN AS ADATE: October 1, 2013 STAFF: Megan Bolin Bruce Hendee AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-086 Adopting the Midtown Plan as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Midtown Plan is to create a long-term vision that will compliment current and forthcoming investment to revitalize the corridor. Midtown has been defined as the College Avenue commercial corridor between Prospect Road to the north, and Fairway Lane to the south. This approximately 3 ½ mile area has been referred to as the “community spine” in City Plan, and continues to be a targeted area for public investment. An extensive public process was undertaken to engage and solicit input from stakeholders. The Plan articulates a bold vision for Midtown that includes higher-density, transit-oriented development; recommendations for implementing the vision include concepts for improving the transportation network, buildings, and public spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Work began in summer 2012 on the Midtown Plan (formally called the Midtown Urban Design Plan). The project was managed collaboratively between the Economic Health and City Planning departments, alongside a consultant team led by Winter & Company from Boulder, CO. The purpose of the Plan is to create a long-term vision that will compliment current and forthcoming investment to revitalize the corridor. Midtown has been defined as the College Avenue commercial corridor between Prospect Road to the north, and Fairway Lane to the south. This approximately 3 ½ mile area has been referred to as the “community spine” in City Plan, and continues to be a targeted area for public investment. City Plan policy LIV 5.2 specifically states, “The ‘community spine’ shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixed-use activity centers over time” (pg. 52). An extensive public process was undertaken to engage and solicit input from a variety of stakeholders. Development of the Plan was generally divided into three phases, described below. Phase 1 (July - October 2012): included extensive information-gathering to gain an understanding of how Midtown exists today, and the greatest challenges and opportunities for the future. This included tours of the corridor and meetings with City staff, residents, property owners, business owners, City Boards/Commissions, and community organizations. Phase 2 (November - February 2013): explored preliminary design concepts for the corridor, and included an intensive, hands-on workshop that was attended by more than 70 community members. These concepts were presented and explored more thoroughly with City Council at a work session on January 8. Phase 3 (March - August 2013): developed concepts and recommendations into a draft document. Staff coordinated extensive outreach throughout the month of June to obtain feedback from stakeholders. The draft Midtown Plan was available online for public review and comment. Additionally, a public open house was held on June 27; this provided an informal, drop-in venue for community members to view major concepts and recommendations and give feedback. Plan Adoption: the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended the Plan on September 12, and City Council is asked to consider this Resolution to formally adopt the Midtown Plan. October 1, 2013 -2- ITEM 22 Major Plan Concepts and Recommendations The Midtown Plan and Appendix are provided as an attachment to this agenda item summary. Key concepts and recommendations from the Plan are summarized below. Vision and Framework: Chapter 1 establishes the primary objectives of the Plan and provides a high-level conceptual review of the key design elements. The Framework Map is a key figure, which provides the graphical representation of the major recommendations (see Appendix A-1 of the Plan). Additionally, the vision for Midtown is articulated, and can be summarized as follows: • Midtown will be a vital neighborhood with a mix of uses and activities that serve a broad spectrum of the community. • It will have a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other parts of the city and should be a destination in its own right. • Streets will be inviting to pedestrians, and public art and civic facilities will be located throughout the area. • Midtown is envisioned as an urban area with higher densities. • It will be an economic generator that is conveniently accessible from abutting residential areas, while continuing to serve the community as a whole. Mobility and Access: Chapter 2 establishes the vision for transportation-related elements including street cross- sections, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking. Important recommendations include: • Work within existing curb-to-curb dimensions when improving streets. Outside of curbs is an enhanced public realm, including wide, detached sidewalks, which sometimes suggests additional right-of-way (ROW). See Appendix A-5-8 of the Plan. • Improve frontage roads to be more bike-friendly. When frontage roads end, continue bike circulation through wide, detached sidewalks along College Avenue, similar to the approved redevelopment plans for Foothills Mall. • Construct a grand pedestrian promenade adjacent to MAX between the Spring Creek Overpass and Horsetooth MAX station. The ideal cross section allows for a 15-foot multi-use path (bikes and pedestrians only) with 15-foot landscaping and 10-foot buffer between path and buildings. Where ideal cross section does not fit, it may be more feasible to narrow the cross section, but should not be less that 10 feet for the path. The promenade concept should be continued north and south for the length of the corridor, although it may take different forms due to lack of physical space, e.g., south of Horsetooth Road, Mason Street could provide a promenade-style amenity. • Provide continuous, designated bike facilities. Where there are gaps in the current system and sufficient ROW is available, provide on-street bike lanes/buffered bike lanes/cycle tracks. Where ROW is not sufficient, use shared lane markings or bike route markers to direct cyclists. • Improve intersections: safety improvements such as signage, pavement markings, medians, signal detection, green paint, “bike boxes”, or two-stage turn boxes. • Connect to transit: bus stop designs along major east/west streets should be enhanced to match/compliment design of MAX stations, and fit within recommended streetscape palette for Midtown. • Keep parking subordinate: encourage developments to locate parking behind structures, and encourage structured parking, particularly near transit stations. Streetscapes, Signage and Wayfinding: Chapter 3 provides visual image recommendations for the urban design pallet and signage system for Midtown. • Use the recently-updated Streetscape Standards provided in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards as the guide for public realm landscaping in Midtown. • Establish three separate “Character Areas” within Midtown. Dividing the corridor in this way helps to break down its length and provide the opportunity to create and refine sub-district identity. The Plan suggests a “theme” for each area, although it is recognized the themes should evolve organically and be driven by businesses and development: N Upper Midtown = Garden theme N Central Midtown = Art/Entertainment theme N Lower Midtown = Innovation theme • Urban design elements such as benches, planters, lighting, bike racks, and signage should be made from durable, sustainable materials. While the material and style should be unified for Midtown, each Character October 1, 2013 -3- ITEM 22 Area’s theme should be incorporated into the design. Parks and Open Space: Chapter 4 provides recommendations for public spaces, including: • Provide a rich collection of outdoor places for informal and formal gathering. N Each Character Area should have one major open space; the space could be an urban plaza or urban park, verses a traditional green park. N Minor open spaces, e.g., small courtyards, plazas, dining areas, should be distributed throughout the corridor as part of private development. • Connect major and minor public spaces to the broader pedestrian circulation network in the area to ensure convenient access. Development Prototypes and Design Guidelines: Chapter 5 provides conceptual site designs for a variety of redevelopment scenarios, and Chapter 6 follows with design guidelines to aid in the implementation of the built environment vision. Key development concepts include: • Prototypes shown are “ideal scenarios” for high density development. Market conditions at the time of development and/or contextual issues specific to the site will determine the eventual outcome; however, encourage an urban form and key design principles whenever possible. • Support increased density, particularly near MAX stations. • A variety of parcel sizes and development prototypes can and should play a role in the revitalization of Midtown. New development should consist of both large-parcel, mixed-use projects and smaller, nuance site designs that will add to the overall character and charm of the corridor. • Locate buildings along street edges and parking on the interior of sites. • Give pedestrian circulation highest priority when designing site layout. • Sidewalks, promenades and other pedestrian paths should be designed to invite their use through thoughtful planning and design. • Incorporate art and creative design elements onto buildings and in other spaces viewed by the public. • Projects should be environmentally sensitive in their site design and layout. • Buildings should maximize energy efficiency and conservation, which includes addressing lighting, ventilation, alternative energy sources, and solar access. Implementation Strategy: Chapter 7 recommends several funding sources that could be available to assist with infrastructure and development/redevelopment projects. Emphasis is placed on public-private partnerships to optimize revitalization efforts. • Implementing the Plan will take a proactive effort, but it is equally as important to be responsive, and have the flexibility to react to new opportunities and changing conditions as they arise. • Both the public and private sectors must share in the responsibility of implementation. • Ongoing conversations should occur between the City, South Fort Collins Business Association, and other stakeholders to prioritize key improvements that will catalyze revitalization. • Review the Plan regularly to assure recommendations are relevant and implemented. • There are a variety of implementation tools that may be used to help achieve the vision. The Plan makes recommendations for improvements that range from project-specific, e.g., energy efficient buildings, to communitywide, e.g., enhancing the street network in Midtown to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly. It is important to consider the type of improvements when attempting to match an implementation tool or tools, so the tool and application align for an appropriate benefit. Existing and new implementation tools to consider include: Financing • Private investment • Tax increment financing (TIF) via the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority • Business Improvement District (BID) • Add Midtown projects to the Capital Improvement Project list (if not listed already) • Community Development Corporation • Property tax abatements • Revolving loan/grant fund • Metro District October 1, 2013 -4- ITEM 22 • Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 108 Loan • Private Activity Bond (PAB) • Personal property tax rebate • Manufacturing use tax rebate • Special assessment district • City of Fort Collins General Fund - Budgeting for Outcomes Process • Citywide tax initiatives, e.g., Building on Basics • Grants Policy • Zoning and Code • Design/Signage guidelines • Expedited permitting/review • Reduced development fees • Business retention/recruitment FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts as a result of adopting the Midtown Plan. Indirectly, the purpose of the Plan is to establish a vision that will encourage investment in the corridor; such investment will not only come from physical improvements and increased values, but also bringing new residents and businesses to Midtown that will support continued economic activity. Although prioritization of key improvements has yet to occur, the Plan anticipates the need for public-private financial partnerships to implement the bold vision. MAX is a prime example of public investment in the corridor, although there are additional opportunities to proactively improve some of the public infrastructure. It is anticipated that the upcoming Midtown College Avenue Corridor Plan will identify in much more detail some of the public improvements that should be pursued, particularly related to streets and intersections. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no direct environmental impacts as a result of adopting the Midtown Plan. Indirectly, the concepts and recommendations of the Plan are intended to support environmentally-conscious principles. By directing investment and development in Midtown and along MAX, the City supports a sustainable development pattern that is intended to encourage alternative modes of transportation (reducing vehicle miles traveled and associated air quality issues). The Plan speaks directly to the need for designing buildings and sites to be more energy efficient by suggesting the use of alternative energy sources, consideration of solar access, and protection and enhancement of natural resources where they exist. Bringing nature into our urban areas is also identified as a key concept, which can be accomplished by increasing the amount and quality of public spaces and incorporating natural amenities into private development, when possible. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing on September 12, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the Midtown Plan, followed directly by implementation strategies, including Land Use Code updates. This Resolution to adopt the Midtown Plan would not make any changes to the Land Use Code, primarily because existing development standards align well with the Plan’s vision, and the implementation strategy set forth is intended to take more of an incentivize/partnership approach with the private sector. While the Board acknowledged this approach, it was felt that a strong regulatory foundation would also be needed and that Code changes should be considered. Staff is recommending that a stakeholder implementation group be convened should the Plan be adopted that would include members of the South Fort Collins Business Association, Midtown property owners, and at least one member of the Planning & Zoning Board. The purpose of this group would be to prioritize needed improvements suggested by the Plan, and thoroughly vet funding and regulatory mechanisms to implement those improvements. The Board was supportive of this approach. The Board’s motion also included a recommendation to have a defining enhanced pedestrian corridor throughout the study area, connecting the northernmost boundary to the southernmost boundary. The Plan currently recommends October 1, 2013 -5- ITEM 22 a grand pedestrian promenade for the middle segment of the Plan area, and that Mason Street should be the primary north-south pedestrian connection south of Horsetooth MAX station. The Board asked that the pedestrian connection be continued to the northern boundary at Prospect Road, and south to the MAX South Transit Center. If Council agrees with the Board’s recommendation, staff would extend the line on the Plan’s Framework Map to visually represent this concept of a continuous, enhanced pedestrian connection, and add language to the Plan articulating this concept. PUBLIC OUTREACH Several different formats for obtaining public input were utilized for this planning process, including: • Small stakeholder focus groups • Online questionnaire • Large community workshop • One-on-one meetings and email communication • Presentations to stakeholder groups • Public open house • Online comment form • City Council work session Information about the project was communicated through several sources: • Project website, www.fcgov.com/midtown <http://www.fcgov.com/midtown> • News releases • City Facebook Page • Twitter • Postcard mailing • E-newsletters The following stakeholders had opportunities to provide feedback: • Bike Advisory Commission • Art in Public Places Board • Planning and Zoning Board • Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Government Affairs Committee • Economic Advisory Commission • Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Local Legislative Affairs Committee • Commission on Disability • Fort Collins Auto Dealers Association • CanDo Built Environment Work Group • Transportation Board • South Fort Collins Business Association • Parks and Recreation Board • Natural Resources Advisory Board • General public, including business/property owners and residents ATTACHMENTS 1. Midtown Plan Executive Summary 2. Midtown Plan 3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 12, 2013 4. Powerpoint presentation Plan Purpose Midtown has been defined as a portion of the College Avenue commercial corridor, spanning slightly over three miles from Prospect Road south to Fairway Lane. This has been a priority area for the City given it includes a significant portion of College Avenue and the Mason Corridor, collectively defined as the “community spine” in City Plan. Policy LIV 5.2 provides the foundation for continued focus in Midtown stating, “the ‘community spine’ shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixed- use activity centers over time” (City Plan, pg. 52). Plan objectives include: • Complement current and forthcoming investment by articulating a vision for the area • Ensure multi-modal connectivity and improved circulation throughout Midtown and promote optimum use of MAX • Craft a parking strategy that supports increased densities • Improve wayfinding and sense of identity • Identify opportunities to enhance streetscapes • Articulate design objectives through varied development prototype case studies, to guide the design of future redevelopment and reinforce the vision • Provide recommendations for financing and implementing the vision How to Use this Plan The Midtown Plan is intended to serve as a policy guide for the City, private investors, and community members as investments are made to revitalize the area. A bold vision for an urban, transit- oriented corridor is put forth, but it is recognized that implementing the vision will take time and require commitment from both the public and private sectors. Each Chapter outlines a vision and key recommendations for different topic areas, as follows: Chapter 1 – General Framework Concepts Chapter 2 – Mobility and Access Chapter 3 – Streetscapes, Signage and Wayfinding Chapter 4 – Parks and Open Space Chapter 5 – Development Prototypes Chapter 6 – Design Guidelines Chapter 7 - Implementation Streetscapes,Summary Signage and Wayfinding Midtown Plan Executive • Median landscaping is recommended to follow the recently-updated Streetscape Standards provided in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. • Establish a sense of identity for the three character areas: − Upper Midtown = Garden theme − Central Midtown = Art and Entertainment theme − Lower Midtown = Innovation The purpose of defining these three areas is to help conceptualize the area in manageable pieces; dividing the corridor into three segments helps to provide a sense of each sub-area being broader than just College Avenue. The themes should be expressed in streetscape elements in the public realm. Parks and Open Space • Provide a rich collection of outdoor places for informal and formal gathering. • Each character area should have one major open space; the space could be an urban plaza or urban park, verses a traditional green park: − Located ¼ mile from MAX station. − .5 – 2 acres, but probably not larger than 4 acres. Public Process Work began in summer 2012 on the Midtown Plan. The project was managed collaboratively between the Economic Health and City Planning departments, along with a consultant team led by Winter & Company from Boulder, CO. Information and guidance from the community was collected through various means of public outreach, which helped to shape the vision and key recommendations of the Plan. Phase 1 (July – October 2012): included extensive information gathering to gain an understanding of how Midtown exists today. This included tours of the corridor and meetings with City staff, residents, property owners, business owners, City Boards and Commissions, and other community organizations such as the South Fort Collins Business Association. Phase 2 (November – February 2013): developed preliminary design concepts for the corridor, and included an intensive, hands-on workshop that was attended by more than 70 community members. These concepts were presented and explored more thoroughly with City Council at a work session on January 8, 2013. Phase 3 (March – June 2013): incorporated feedback into a draft document. Staff coordinated extensive outreach throughout June to obtain feedback from stakeholders. The draft document was available on the project’s website and provided an opportunity to review and provide comments electronically. Additionally, a public open house was held June 27 for community members to visit with staff and review the recommendations of the plan. Triple Bottom Line The concept of sustainability is interwoven throughout the Plan, with considerations given to social, environmental, and economic factors that will make the revitalization of Midtown successful. Making the corridor accessible for all modes and abilities, increasing public spaces, and encouraging higher density and affordable housing are some of the social recommendations. Encouraging the preservation and enhancement of natural amenities, and promoting energy effi cient buildings and site design assist in furthering environmental goals. Midtown is a hub of economic activity, and the goal, through the Plan’s suggested improvements, is to continue to support investment in this vital commercial corridor. New fi nancing tools to encourage and enhance future investment are suggested to assist with the Plan’s long-term implementation, recognizing partnerships between the public and private sectors will be essential. Major Recommendations Mobility and Access • Include car and bike lanes within existing road widths. Outside of curbs is an envisioned enhanced public realm, including wide, detached sidewalks, which sometimes suggests additional right-of-way (ROW). • Improve frontage roads to be more bike-friendly. When frontage roads end, continue bike circulation through wide, detached sidewalks along College Avenue, similar to the mall’s current plans. • Construct a pedestrian promenade adjacent to MAX between the Spring Creek Overpass and Horsetooth MAX station. The ideal cross section allows for a 15' multi-use path (bikes & pedestrians only) with 15' landscaping and 10' buffer between path & buildings. Where ideal cross section doesn’t fi t, it may be more feasible to narrow the cross section, but should not be less that 10' for the path. • Provide continuous, designated bike facilities. Where gaps in current system and suffi cient ROW is available, provide on-street bike lanes/ buffered bike lanes/cycle tracks. Where ROW is not suffi cient, use shared lane markings or bike route markers to direct cyclists. • Improve intersections. Safety improvements such as signage, pavement markings, medians, signal detection, green paint, and “bike boxes” or two-stage turn boxes. • Connect to transit. Bus stop designs along major east/west streets Due to the large file size of the Midtown Plan, it cannot be displayed with the agenda materials. The Midtown Plan can be accessed at http://www.fcgov.com/mason/midtown.php Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes September 19, 2013 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Bolin, Hendee, Lorson, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review Planning Services Manager Cameron Gloss reviewed the agenda. Chair Smith provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non-agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the August 8, 2013 Hearing Member Schneider made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the August 8, 2013 Hearing. Member Heinz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. ATTACHMENT 3 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 2. Midtown Plan _______ Project: Midtown Plan Project Description: The Midtown Plan establishes a long-term urban design vision to revitalize the College Avenue corridor between Prospect Road and the South Transit Center. It is intended to support current and forthcoming investment by identifying key design principles that will help transform the corridor into a more urban, transit- and pedestrian-friendly environment in support of MAX. Staff has worked collaboratively with a consultant team to develop the Plan over the past year with extensive outreach to community stakeholders. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council Adoption of the Midtown Plan Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Assistant City Manager Bruce Hendee said with the MAX Rapid Transit system and the Midtown Plan are an opportunity for the community to provide for a long term vision. Midtown is envisioned as an urban area with higher densities. It will be an economic generator that is conveniently accessible from abutting residential areas while continuing to serve the community as a whole from an economic, social and environmental sustainability perspective. He said it has been identified in City Plan as a high priority area for redevelopment. Economic Health Analyst Megan Bolin said provided a map that showed boundary areas. It follows the commercial area of College from Prospect to the South Transit Center. She described the process used for the developing the plan including identifying existing conditions, developing design concepts, and drafting the plan. Bolin described the vision and how multi-modal (bikes, pedestrians, bikes, transit and vehicles) was incorporated. She also described how the Plan calls for: • A pedestrian promenade will run parallel in the central part of the Plan between the MAX Spring Creek and Horsetooth Stations. • The use of a combination of frontage roads and wide, detached paths will promote biking along College Avenue. • Improved intersections will reduce conflicts by increasing visibility, predictability and awareness of other road users. • Character Areas will reinforce a theme for the overall district and use symbols such as garden, arts, and innovation symbols made of punched steel streetscape furnishings in each Character Area. It will reinforce a theme for the overall district. They propose public spaces with a network of interconnected walkways and smaller courtyards and plazas. Additionally, Bolin described site design features such as articulated buildings close to the street, internal circulation, outdoor courtyards, and surface parking behind frontage buildings. Design principles include: proved excellence in design, creativity, open spaces and habitat, enhanced pedestrian experience and keeping automobiles subordinate. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 3 The implementation strategy has been to promote the Midtown’s vision, engage the private sector, incentivize new investment (with financing and regulatory tools) and set priorities for implementation such as continued coordination with the South Fort Collins Business Association. Bolin said City Council will consider adoption of the Midtown Plan at their October 1 Council meeting. Staff asks the Board for their recommendation to City Council to adopt the Plan. Public Input Mike Scheckel with King Soopers Real Estate Department, 65 Tejon Street, Denver said they are very much in support of the Plan. They understand the Plan and have worked with the team at various stages. He said the letter the Board received in their read before materials from King Soopers is from Randall Wright, the Director of Real Estate. He speaks to how they have 11.15 acres within the boundaries of the proposed Plan. Their property is bordered by College, Drake and the Mason Corridor. He said it’s currently the site of a 90,000 square foot Kmart Store, a Loaf n Jug fuel center, and a multi- tenant retail building. Scheckel reinforce the message in Mr. Wright letter, specifically: “…King Soopers has a long-term commitment to the City of Fort, to the existing neighborhood, and the future growth of this area. In an effort to provide a quality shopping experience by redevelopment and revitalization, King Soopers asks that the supermarket use be specifically acknowledges in the Plan as a necessary and complementary commercial use in the Plan area and that flexibility be built into the Plan for supermarket and large retail uses in connection with the building forms, setbacks, parking, urban form, etc. We are confident that King Soopers’ conceptual redevelopment plans discussed with City staff can incorporate many of the guidelines of the Plan and that the redevelopment would not compromise the ability of the remainder of the parcels in the Plan area to develop or redevelop consistent with the Plan objectives.” Scheckel said as it moves forward to adoption, they ask it maintains the flexibility that staff has been discussing with them. They’d like to be able to keep their options open should they have the opportunity to redevelop. If the market drives the required density, they will embrace it. End of Public Input Staff Response Bolin said staff has had several different meetings with King Soopers throughout the timeframe in which they’ve been working on the Plan. She said the Plan is a policy level document. The design guidelines and the development prototypes are conceptual/ideal design scenarios. They are not regulatory. Bolin said ultimately the Land Use Code (LUC) is the regulatory document that would dictate what occurs with a specific development proposal. She said the LUC does provide for modifications should there be a conflict that wouldn’t work well for any development they were proposing. Staff has also had discussions with them relative to the urban renewal tax increment financing available for the Plan area. Chair Smith asked Bolin to respond to the points made in Les Kaplan’s letter relative to visibility. Bolin said from what she understands is he is the new owner of the ToysRUs site and his concerns are related to the visual experience of midtown. Hendee said this is not the first time they’ve heard this from the business community. Their concerns have to do with the visibility of signage. He said the major challenge comes from the Austrian Pines planted 30 years ago. Nobody knew how wide they would get or how they would branch low. He thinks we need to acknowledge the problem and be conscious of that as we move forward with this Plan – he recommends we work with the individual business owners as the issues come up. Board Questions Member Hart said with regard to Mark Lueker’s email, he thinks the issues raised by him about architectural guidelines are implementation issues that are best addressed in the implementation phase. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 4 Is that how staff sees it? Bolin said yes. The Design Guidelines that have been established in the Plan do encourage better articulation and the use of a variety of high quality materials whenever possible. Bolin said with regard to implementation, the next step would be to look at the design guidelines and the LUC to see if there are ways to help strengthen the regulatory framework for those types of projects. Member Heinz asked where the pedestrian mall starts and stops. Bolin said the promenade is on the east side of MAX from the Spring Creek Station on the north to the Horsetooth Station on the south. Bolin said there is a portion where it would jog over to McClelland. In that case, it would be more of an enhanced sidewalk. Hendee said there are two parts—one is what the College Avenue frontage would look like where vehicles are allowed. The other side (of buildings on College) is the promenade. Its intended use is for pedestrians and bicycles. Chair Smith asked if funds were made available, could the promenade run from Prospect to Harmony. Bolin said initially they intended for it to run the length of the plan area but upon further evaluation there are issues related to grade changes and the space available between MAX and existing buildings. Bolin said on the south end, the parcels are very small and deep so there’s not a lot of space. To implement the promenade would take right-of-way potentially making them undevelopable. Bolin said the team thought rather than creating a separate promenade, it would be preferable to direct the pedestrians to Mason Street in the southern portion of the Plan area. Smith said it would be nice if the opportunities were available-- where we’d have a Plan which would create the opportunity to walk great distances. He said it would also encourage development along the promenade. Member Kirkpatrick said it appears the border for the study area does not include the Mason Trail. Is that because we believe the connectivity to the Mason Trail from MAX is already sufficient? Bolin said they’ve always assumed it would be a part of the Plan area. They consider the Mason Trail to be the expressway for pedestrians and bikes through midtown. It will still be there and it will continue to be a very important connector. Kirkpatrick said she was thinking about the connectivity from the Mason Trail to the enhanced corridor the Plan will provide. Member Kirkpatrick asked about efforts around Bike Share. Will we be providing a lot of enhanced connectivity to the proposed Bike Share stations? Bolin said she’s not completely up to speed on the most recent developments of Bike Share. Bolin said they could probably add language to the Plan to make sure the Bike Share Program that is coming will be made available. Member Kirkpatrick said the board can only really require what’s in the Land Use Code (LUC). She was curious in the smaller public space section how that might be required in the LUC. Planner Seth Lorson said with regard to the requirement for courtyards, the LUC already requires them. Kirkpatrick asked about scale—requirements for small, medium and large parcels. Lorson said we do not have size specific requirements when it comes to plazas and pedestrian gathering spaces. Chair Smith said in the implementation of this Plan, there would a desire on the board’s part to see something above and beyond what is already required. They may be tiered (depending on their proximity to pedestrian spaces) but that the spaces would be larger than normal. Member Kirkpatrick said she would agree with that but that she certainly can appreciate that we want to see economic reinvestment in this corridor and that business owners want to see some degree of flexibility. She said there probably is some ‘sweet spot’ where we’re providing incentives and flexibility and also meeting at least the baseline for this vision. She said she believes we have a world class horizontal land use code but we may have room for improvement for our vertical land use code. Hendee said we’re right in the middle of a series of meetings with business owners to discuss how we can move the Plan forward and still allow some flexibility. He said Kirkpatrick’s comment about the sweet spot might be exactly what they would come up with. He said the long term vision may be one Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 5 generation of buildings away from what exists now and yet we really want to provide the setting for that to happen as clearly and as quickly as we can. He said to ask them to come in and level a perfectly good building to start over from scratch is not really going to work very well. He said we have to find that sweet spot where we find that adaptive reuse. Eventually the value of the land will be reached where we can vertically make this happen and he anticipates that will happen with a series of LUC change recommendations. Member Kirkpatrick said the innovation character area symbol sort of looks like Wayfinding and is sort of distracting. Bolin thank her for her feedback. Chair Smith said with regard to King Soopers, Les Kaplan and what Hendee just said; he thinks it’s important for the city to acknowledge that financially in order to facilitate the development pattern that this vision calls for. He said when we talk about the overall investment of MAX, it makes sense to protect that investment by spending some money up front to catalyze. He said he was speaking from the private sector perspective about phases to get there (not necessarily the larger public improvements like the promenade or how we design bike lanes). He thinks we should be flexible initially. He said once we prove the concept, we can ratchet up standards. Member Carpenter said she knows the Downtown URA (Urban Renewal Authority) has been instrumental in allowing us to have old town the way we want it. Have we thought of anything like that? Hendee said the URA is certainly the appropriate mechanism to use for financing and for trying to make these projects happen. Funds have been budgeted for gateway development. Hendee said in the long term there may be a Business Improvement District very similar to how the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) operates. He said there are 440+ businesses along this stretch of College Avenue so it may take some time to get enough members. He said in the short term they are exploring business strategies that incorporate the use of MAX to create marketing opportunities for businesses along that corridor. Chair Smith asked if the South College Business Association (SCBA) took a formal position on the Plan. Bolin said no. She said they are in general support of the vision. Member Heinz asked if there would be regional rail along Highway 287 from Fort Collins to Denver in the next 50 years. Could this Plan support that? Hendee said CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) did an Environmental Impact Study that evaluated different options for transit along I-25 and along the historic cores. Based on their findings they said that any rail that would happen would go along community corridors. In the long term, there may be a great opportunity for rail. Chair Smith asked about the possibility of siting new public facilities along this corridor to help stimulate activity and be catalyst projects. Could this be a part of the BOB (Building on Basics) II discussion? Hendee said there is one item under discussion that he thinks is a real possibility and that is an early childhood care center that would provide transit for folks along the corridor. That’s the only public facility he knows of this point. Chair Smith said the discussion that Creekside Park in upper mid-town may become a main civic focus. He thinks it would be constrained with Highway 287 – College Avenue on the east and the railroad tracks on the west . Is it really feasible for enhanced programming such as summer concerts at that location? Would it make more sense to site it elsewhere? Bolin said the Plan talks about one large civic place within each of the Character Areas so Creekside Park could serve as a smaller venue for public open space. Smith applicants many time offer proposals based on documents such as this Plan. He’d like to suggest we loosen or tighten up Plan specifics to aid the process of implementation. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 6 Member Schneider asked what the timeframe would be for staff’s recommendations for Land Use Code (LUC) amendments related to this Plan. Bolin said a specific work plan has not been but she thinks it could happen within the next few months. Schneider asked what projects are in the pipeline for that area. Hendee said the only one that comes to mind already fits – Prospect Station (housing on the west side of the tracks). He said Les Kaplan would like to move forward with the ToysRUs project and the Everett Companies have some redevelopment work they’re doing. Member Heinz said when it comes to open space are there plans by the City to purchase some of those parcels? Bolin said the areas noted in the plan are conceptual. She said for he large civic spaces, it is intended for the City will be the owner and developer. Member Kirkpatrick said with regard to plazas and open space, where would the Summit (at College near Stuart) pedestrian plaza or corridor connectivity be. Bolin said she cannot speak to how that particular development fits the LUC. She can only speak to the site plan. Their courtyards and public spaces face west (toward the railroad tracks). She said they connect via a pathway down to the Spring Creek Trail. Kirkpatrick asked if that was considered public space. City Planner Seth Lorson said he does know but when they were talking about the promenade extension, they saw there was a pretty nice connection with green space and trails along where the MAX will run. Lorson said as to plaza space, the LUC does require plaza space. He said it would be a cooperative effort by separate land owners to make a combined larger space. Lorson said the city is also getting started on a Nature in the City project that could ‘help inform’ this concept of plazas and open space in these areas. Kirkpatrick asked if the Summit has public access ‘guaranteed’. Lorson said he’s not familiar enough with that particular project. It would, however, require a public access easement. Member Hart said it seems to him that what we are talking about is what we want to see in the next phase of the Plan. The Summit was built before we have the Plan. He said if we recommend this Plan for adoption and Council adopts it, we will have at least a policy document in place to fall back even if we don’t have LUC requirements. He thinks what we really have to do tonight is to adopt the vision and work on these details in the future. Chair Smith said we’ll probably recommend adoption but he thinks it’s important for the board to not wait to weigh in on enhancements to their recommendation. Member Carpenter said we believe in this vision and we recognize as development proposals come forward that we have the necessary tools. She said we don’t want this Plan to just go on the shelf. She said we’re going to see a lot of change quickly when MAX goes in so it’s very important to the board that we move directly into an implementation stage where the board gets the required tools. She recognizes we need flexibility. She said it’s sort of like the carrot and stick. You need to incentivize but without a little bit of a stick (to make it happen), it’s not going to happen. Chair Smith asked how Creek Side Park, Spring Creek Trail, and Johnson Street connect to the MAX Spring Creek Station. What’s the pedestrian connection there? Bolin said the Mason Trail would be the most direct way. She said they’re also considering a direct pedestrian connection with a pedestrian bridge that would connect to a small residential street – making a mid-block connection to the Spring Creek Trail. Chair Smith asked is parking intended on smaller street like drives that run north/south between the College Avenue frontage and the MAX corridor—buildings ‘bookending’ center parking? Bolin said it’s not shown on the circulation map primarily because it’s intended to be part of a private development but ultimately that would be the ideal. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 7 Board discussion Member Kirkpatrick moved to recommend approval of the Midtown Plan by City Council followed directly by implementation strategies including Land Use Code updates. We recommend a defining enhanced pedestrian corridor throughout the study area connecting the northernmost boundary to the southernmost boundary. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Chair Smith said this is where he’d like to add some comments. He’d like to recommend a friendly amendment that we see the Grand Promenade contained within the Plan with a goal that it extend from Harmony to Prospect. He thinks that it defines the whole corridor. Member Kirkpatrick said she likes the idea but from her experience with Transportation Planning, she thinks that corridor is really constrained and she has a hard time seeing how we can do it with right-of- way and the business parcels in place. She thinks it’s not included for good reasons. Member Hart asked if Chair Smith would be willing to qualify with a “if possible, if practicable”. Smith said some of this is already practicable – it’s policy. There may be some pieces that are not feasible due to practical limitations. He’d be great to have the language in the Plan, however, to provide the vision. Member Schneider said he doesn’t disagree and the issue is Mason Street. He said if you look at the distance between Mason Street and MAX, he doesn’t think it’s physically feasible. He said all of a sudden, you’re limiting what can be done on that narrow section. Are we creating a dis-service because we’re trying to push too hard for something that is unattainable for that section? Smith said if it’s left open, it could jog some in the mid-block street like drives and there would be some continuity of a promenade. Member Hart asked if you could have it on parcels between College Avenue and Mason. Chair Smith asked staff what they thought. Lorson said staff considered a promenade the full length and then they started to look at the actual dimensions of the lots next to the MAX line south of Horsetooth. They are very narrow. From a practical standpoint it didn’t make sense. Lorson said you can have a really vibrant pedestrian environment from the promenade to Mason Street across from the Mid-town Art Center all the way down to Harmony. Bolin said this particular section is intended to be grand promenade with Mason Street the southern pedestrian connection. Member Kirkpatrick asked Chair Smith if it would be okay if instead of showing it as an internal circulation opportunity it showed as an enhanced pedestrian feature. Smith said he likes the promenade because it has a distinct feel to it and defines the corridor. He thinks south of Horsetooth feels very different than the northern two-thirds of this corridor. His sense is this is a way to really making three distinct character areas. He thinks there should be some unifying themes in the built environment. This is one way to do that. We’ve been talking about how you get to the College Avenue Boulevard Plan--how the different right-of-way discussions will occur. He doesn’t think anything gets implemented unless it’s contained in a policy document. He said we can always get pushed off for practical reasons but he thinks the devil is in the details. Member Carpenter said that Mason from south of Horsetooth would continue with the feel of the grand promenade. What if we recommended that once it got south of Horsetooth, it shifts over to Mason Street? Smith said yes, the way it can be done is a lighter version. He thinks this is good urban design if it conveys the same feeling similar to a ‘light version’ addition to a historic structure. He’d like to see it extended in that fashion from Prospect to Harmony—it’s unifying. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 8 Member Schneider asked if doing this you see existing buildings being torn down and rebuilt in order to accommodate this vision. He said one thing we don’t want to do is completely bulldoze everything just to rebuild these bigger buildings. He wouldn’t like to see us push too hard. Hendee said you almost have to put on your 50 to100 year glasses to what you’d ultimately like to see. It’s a hard one because of the block scale today. It would be pretty easy to say it doesn’t fit. Hendee said the team struggled with it so they really welcome the board’s thoughts on it. He said he can see it going along from Horsetooth to Harmony and that it will be difficult, generational, and in the future. He used examples of how the San Antonio River Walk and the strand along the Pacific coast beach homes were built in phases. Chair Smith said the hallmark of the Mason Corridor is economic development but it’s also the promotion of multi-modal transportation. Smith said because we’re talking at a policy level he’d like to leave it open to staff’s creativity. It may come back as not possible but let’s work from what’s possible at the policy level and figure out how later. Carpenter said when we get to the implementation we probably ought to say a little bit more about that. She said the promenade is being defined as not an actual street. Member Hart said we’re talked about MAX as multi-modal transportation but what we’re really dealing with is a ‘people place’. Certainly, if you have some type of pedestrian activity throughout the corridor, it’ll be a much better people place. If we want to have something that talks about ‘within the limit of the area’ to have a pedestrian corridor from north to south, that would be great. That makes a lot of sense. Member Carpenter said we may have a better chance of getting the first part of the implementation of that feeling if we did it along Mason between Horsetooth and Harmony. That could happen pretty quickly because so much of it is already there. Member Heinz asked why we’re stopping at Harmony, why can’t we go all the way to the South Transit Center if we’re looking at ‘super long term’. Kirkpatrick agreed. Carpenter said she’d like to see it where’s it’s more feasible before ‘super long term’. Smith said he’d be okay with that and that the amendment to the motion would be the promenade would be extended from Prospect to the South Transit Center. Member Carpenter said she’s not sure she’s comfortable with that and the reason is the practical side of her has a hard time looking at something that she doesn’t think is feasible. Carpenter said if we can make it a way that it’s feasible and you still get that feel, then she’d be comfortable with recommending that to City Council. Hendee said the team has really looked at the pragmatic reality of doing this based on the lot dimensions. He has a little reticence in suggesting going south without taking that into consideration. Hendee said one of the interesting things about district formation is the change in character—it’s not having everything the same. If the promenade shifts over to Mason when you get south of Horsetooth, it creates a whole different character which might be a little intriguing. If we took that idea and really embellished it, that would still give the lot owners the dimension they’d need. Hendee said that’s not to say we couldn’t create some connection points over the Mason Trail and the MAX station. It might be a good idea actually to shift this over, change the character, and give the district a whole new reason for being. That way we could carry Chair Smith’s idea down further to the south without discounting it. Chair Smith said we encourage sidewalks that have a meandering characteristic. Member Carpenter said maybe a bit wider sidewalk would be good. Planning Manager Cameron Gloss said it sounds as if the board would like to promote a high quality pedestrian experience and the form is not as critical as you go to the south portion of the promenade. Maybe the promenade is very specifically defined but as you go south it’s really about the pedestrian experience. Member Schneider said he’d be more in favor of that—he’d rather not say promenade character. Smith said as much promenade character as possible. Carpenter thinks there’s space along Mason Street and it’s practical. Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 9 Member Hart asked if they wanted to limit it to Mason Street—maybe something else would work and we should say within the boundaries of the corridor. Heinz agreed. Chair Smith summarized—within the boundaries of the corridor that some enhanced pedestrian connection be made from the north and south ends of the promenade—all the way from Prospect to the South Transit Center in a character similar to the promenade itself. Member Kirkpatrick said what if we recommend that is a defining enhanced pedestrian corridor throughout the study area connecting the northernmost boundary to the southernmost boundary. Heinz and Schneider agreed. Carpenter agreed. (The language was added to the motion shown above.) Hendee asked if it would be okay if they took the ‘red line’ and shifted it over and drew it south as a schematic to add onto the Plan visually, it would carry the board’s intent forward. Smith said yes – at that point it’s almost a bubble diagram and tight enough for their purposes. Hendee said it would carry the board’s idea on the Plan. Chair Smith asked when we get into implementation will there be certain timeframes when we’d measure success. Bolin said that’s definitely the intent. It’s not specifically called out in the Plan but in all the implementation discussions they’ve had with the South Fort Collins Business Association (SFCBA), they recognize this is going to be a responsive plan as conditions change over time. Hendee asked if it would make sense to provide a specific period of time like 3 or 5 years in which it gets revisited. Smith said he’d just like to know the thinking about predetermined monitoring. When will we come back and check on the status of the Plan with tangible measurements? Chair Smith said he feels strongly about the concerns that King Soopers and Les Kaplan had. Between the two of them, they speak for a lot of property owners. They are probably not the only folks with those concerns. There needs to be some flexibility to some of the standards at least early on. He’s not saying we throw away the Code but we acknowledge that in order to really activate the corridor and its economic viability, there be some flexibility applied. Member Kirkpatrick thinks is a great plan and she hope it comes to life. Member Hatfield said no matter what we approve, things will change anyway because things are always changing. Member Schneider said he thinks the vision is there. It’s good to see thoughts for the future. He wants to be cognizant of the redevelopment aspects and also what can and cannot be done from a practical standpoint. He thinks we’re on the right track having the pedestrian experience from north to south. He also thinks the promenade center needs to be its own entity because that’s going to redevelop faster and not take as much URA or tax increment financing – it can be done through the private sector. He thinks staff has done a good job. He said keep up the good work; he looks forward to seeing the Land Use Code changes coming back. Chair Smith said he really believes that areas revitalize quickest and best when the interface between the public and private realm is activated. He said the human experience is something to celebrate. He thinks about all the great things in our community that people write home about or take visitors to. They’re all focused on people. They are unique and they were bold at conception. He thinks it’s important to recognize the interface between the public and private realm all the way down the spine as the greatest source of opportunity to revitalize the whole corridor. It’ll ‘bleed out’ east and west of there. He’s grateful we have city staff that embraces bold thinking and the notion that we can build a world Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 10 class city. This is one of those fun times to be a Planning and Zoning Board member and a part of something like this. The motion was passed 7:0. Other None The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Cameron Gloss, Planning Services Manager Andy Smith, Chair 1 City Council October 1, 2013 Midtown Plan An Urban Design Vision for a Revitalized Corridor ATTACHMENT 4 2 Tonight’s Action  Resolution to adopt the Midtown Plan 3 Plan Area North Boundary: Prospect Road South Boundary: ¼ mile south of Harmony Road East Boundary: Commercial on east side of College Avenue West Boundary: Mason Corridor 4 Why Midtown? City Plan Mason Corridor MAX Bus Rapid Transit 2010 Redevelopment Study Transit Oriented Development Overlay Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Midtown Plan 5 Process Existing Conditions • July – October 2012 • Tour the corridor • Stakeholder outreach Design Concepts • November – January • Community workshop • City Council work session Draft Plan • February – June • Stakeholder outreach • Public open house Adopt Plan • October 2013 6 Vision Vibrant Urban Destination Transit- & Pedestrian- Oriented 7 Pedestrian Promenade • Parallel to MAX • Future redevelopment orients to promenade • Dotted line = pedestrian connection, not full promenade 8 Frontage Roads Use combination of frontage roads and wide, detached paths for north-south biking along College Avenue Create alternative design for frontage roads that allows cars, bikes, and pedestrians to share the street 9 Improved Intersections Reduce conflicts by increasing visibility, predictability and awareness with other road users 10 Character Areas Gardens Arts & Entertainment Innovation • Break down length of corridor • Unique design themes for each expressed through: • Signs • Benches • Planters • Bike Racks 11 Public Space 1 large public space per Character Area Network of interconnected walkways, smaller courtyards & plazas 12 Site Design • Achieve excellence in design • Promote creativity • Provide open spaces and habitat • Enhance pedestrian experience • Keep automobile subordinate 13 Implementation Strategy • Promote Midtown’s vision • Engage the private sector – coordination between public and private entities essential • Incentivize new investment – Financing and regulatory tools • Set priorities for implementation – Continue coordination with the South Fort Collins Business Association 14 Board Recommendation  Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommends adoption of the Plan 15 Thank You RESOLUTION 2013-086 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE MIDTOWN PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, in 2010, the City Council adopted Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan called “City Plan”; and WHEREAS, “Midtown” Fort Collins is identified as the College Avenue commercial corridor between Prospect Road on the north and Fairway Lane on the south, including the MAX Bus Rapid Transit System, which corridor is defined as the “community spine” in City Plan; and WHEREAS, policy LIV 5.2 of City Plan supports continued community focus on Midtown, stating that “the ‘community spine’ shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixed-use activity centers over time”; and WHEREAS, the Midtown Plan was developed using an extensive public process to serve as a policy guide for infill development and redevelopment projects within Midtown; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended that the City Council adopt the Midtown Plan as an element of the City’s comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the Midtown Plan as an element of the City’s comprehensive plan is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Midtown Plan dated September 2013, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s office, is hereby adopted as an element of the City’s comprehensive plan. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st day of October, A.D. 2013. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk should be enhanced to match quality of MAX stations, and fi t within recommended streetscape palette for Midtown. • Keep parking subordinate by encouraging developments to locate parking behind structures, and use structured parking as an incentive for increased density. The Framework Map The Framework Map (left) is a graphical representation of the high-level design concepts and recommendations of the Midtown Plan. The promenade is envisioned as a grand public space adjacent to MAX to be used solely by bikes and pedestrians. Existing and new development is encouraged to front onto the promenade, thus creating a second entrance for businesses or new residential in the corridor. Midtown Public Workshop image – A “game piece” activity took place at a November, 2012 workshop where residents cut out various conceptual land typologies and placed them on maps to envision what redevelopment scenarios could look like. • Minor open spaces, e.g., small courtyards, plazas, dining areas, should be distributed throughout the corridor: − Network, accessible to general public and connected to larger pedestrian/bike network. − Built and managed by private owners. Development and Design Principles • Support increased density, particularly near MAX stations. • Locate buildings along street edges and parking on the interior of sites. • Give pedestrian circulation highest priority when designing site layout. • A variety of parcel sizes and development prototypes can and should play a role in the revitalization of Midtown. New development should consist of both large-parcel, mixed-use projects and smaller, nuance site designs that will add to the overall character and charm of the corridor. • New development can be phased to allow funds to be secured and projects to be built realistically over time. • Sidewalks, promenades and other pedestrian paths should be designed to invite their use through thoughtful planning and design. • Incorporate art and creative design elements onto buildings and in other spaces viewed by the public. • Projects should be environmentally sensitive in their site design and layout. • Buildings should maximize energy efficiency and conservation, which includes addressing lighting, ventilation, alternative energy sources, and solar access. Implementation • Implementing the Plan will take proactive efforts, which must also be responsive and react to new opportunities and changing conditions as they arise. • Both the public and private sectors must share in the responsibility of implementation, e.g., funding. Vision Midtown will be a vital corridor with a mix of uses and activities that serve a broad spectrum of the community. It will have a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other parts of the city and should be a destination in its own right. Streets will be inviting to pedestrians, and public art and civic facilities will be located throughout the area. Midtown is envisioned as an urban area with higher densities. It will be an economic generator that is conveniently accessible from abutting residential areas, while continuing to serve the community as a whole. On-site swales act as creative stormwater management techniques and could provide pleasant landscape amenities. Street Street MAX Street Street Street Illustration of a conceptual redevelopment showing direct pedestrian connection to a MAX station, aligning buildings to the streets, and locating parking internally on the site. Plazas could serve as an entryway to residential buildings, or as a resting place for buildings’ employees. They should provide places for people to sit and feel welcoming to the general public, and use natural amenities such as water features and pleasant landscaping. Use outdoor dining areas and sidewalk cafes to animate public space in Midtown. ATTACHMENT 1