ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA - WordPress.com...JANUARY 2017 |GV NEWSLETTER PG. 3 The Orchard Station Subarea as proposed is 60 acres (including the 15.6-acre Landmark parcel) and is located

Since the advent of light rail, Greenwood Village has beenpresented with development and redevelopmentopportunities to revitalize the I-25 Corridor. The Village’slight rail station areas (Arapahoe and Orchard) providedopportunities to create mixed use town centers that promotea sense of place by integrating residential, commercial, andretail uses in order to provide efficient connections forresidents and workers served by transit. The Village Centerarea around Arapahoe Station has been actively developingsince the opening of light rail and only a handful of infillparcels remain to achieve full build-out. The Orchard Stationarea, which is more challenging because it requiresredevelopment, only begun to generate significant interestfrom developers within the last two years.

Beginning in 2014, several developers expressed interest, andin some cases, introduced conceptual plans or evendevelopment proposals to redevelop the area in proximity tothe Orchard Light Rail Station also known as the OrchardStation Subarea. The recent interest in redeveloping this areahas encouraged the Village to further study the feasibility ofcreating an Orchard Station Subarea in the ComprehensivePlan to establish a vision.

In an effort to create a vision that guides redevelopment ofthis area, City Council has initiated a collaborative effortwith residents to consider an amendment to the Village’sComprehensive Plan for the Orchard Station Subarea. Theproposed Orchard Station Subarea is comprised ofapproximately 60 acres (44.4 excluding the Landmark) and islocated north of Orchard Road and west of I-25 in the

vicinity of the Orchard Light Rail Station. An amendment tothe Comprehensive Plan would guide future redevelopmentof aging buildings and infrastructure, and create a place thatwill complement the existing energy of the adjacentLandmark development.

At the June 11, 2016 City Council work session, CityCouncil discussed and identified some key policy questionsto be presented and studied with residents to shape CityCouncil’s future decision designating the appropriate uses ofland for this highly desired area that will benefit the Villagefor many years to come.

What is the vision for the area? What will this area look like?How will people get around? What kind of community orenvironment do we want to foster or create? How will trafficand schools be impacted? What’s the economic value to thecommunity? What type of development is appropriate tocreate a sense of community? How much green space shouldbe allocated? What mix of uses is best to drive this area to bea vibrant place? Can we create a dynamic, energized area tolive, work, shop, and dine?

In October 2016, City Council scheduled four district publiceducation, information, and input meetings to be held inJanuary 2017 to provide information and solicit input fromcitizens on the Orchard Station Subarea. Residents are invitedto attend one of four district meetings to learn about theproposed amendment for the Orchard Station Subarea andprovide comments and suggestions related to what theywould like to see in a redevelopment plan for this area.

DISTRICT 1 Councilmembers Freda Miklin and Dave Bullock Wednesday, January 18, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Aspen Academy 5859 South University Boulevard

DISTRICT 2Councilmembers Leslie Schluter and Darryl JonesThursday, January 19, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Curtis Ballroom at Comedy Works 5345 Landmark Place

DISTRICT 3 Councilmembers Steve Moran and George Lantz Tuesday, January 24, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Highline Community Church 6160 South Wabash Way

DISTRICT 4 Councilmembers T.J. Gordon and Tom Bishop Thursday, January 26, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Campus Middle School Cafeteria 4785 South Dayton Street

ORCHARD STATION SUBAREADISTRICT PUBLIC EDUCATION, INFORMATION, AND INPUT MEETINGSAll meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m.

ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA: AN INTRODUCTION

P G . 2 GV N E W S L E T T E R | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 | GV N E W S L E T T E R P G . 3

ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA BOUNDARY

The Orchard Station Subarea as proposed is 60 acres (including the 15.6-acre Landmark parcel) and is located north of Orchard Roadand west of I-25 in the vicinity of the Orchard Light Rail Station. The goal of the subarea is to guide future redevelopment in proximityto the Orchard Light Rail Station.

G O V E R N M E N T

A PLANNED CITY IS A SUCCESSFUL CITYManaging future land use anddevelopment of the Village beginswith Village planning in order to keepGreenwood Village a great place to liveand work. Effective planningrepresents a broad vision to guide howfuture development will occur, where,when, and how the community wantsto set the stage for how the Village willfunction and look decades from now.

Development in the Village is not justa result of work that happens, but isguided by community values, goals,and priorities. The Village works topursue high quality development whilemaintaining the community’s valuesystem regarding appearance,protection of the natural environment,and safety of the built environment.

ABOUT THECOMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Village’s planning vision isoutlined in the Comprehensive Plan.The purpose of the ComprehensivePlan is to set forth the goals andpolicies of the Village and to provideguidance to decision makersconcerning the future growth anddevelopment of the Village. TheComprehensive Plan contains astatement of overall goals, as well asspecific goals and policies related toland use, transportation, housing,open space, environment, utilities,parks, recreation, and growth.Essentially, the Comprehensive Plandescribes not only where developmentshould take place, but what kind ofdevelopment, what it should be, andhow it fits into the overall landscape ofthe community.

The planning areas of theComprehensive Plan depictrecommended land uses and currentzoning. Seven planning areas forresidential neighborhoods on the eastand west side of the Village aredefined, as well as two commercialplanning areas for the I-25 Corridorand Arapahoe Road.

continued on page 6



continued from page 4Each of the planning areas includes adescription of existing conditions,objectives, and policies for eachspecific planning area. In commercialareas, along both sides of I-25,

objectives of the Comprehensive Planare directed at ensuring newdevelopment and redevelopment iscompatible with adjacent uses andneighborhoods, while maintaininghigh quality development standards.

For residential, the objectives arerelated to each unique residential areain the Village.

The I-25 Corridor Planning Areagenerally includes the areas of the


I-25 CORRIDOR PLANNING AREA

Village south of Belleview Avenue,west of Yosemite Street, north ofArapahoe Road, and east of QuebecStreet. In addition, half of the DenverTechnological Center, GreenwoodPlaza, and office and mixed-use centersare located within this planning area.

The concept of the Corridor PlanningArea is to design and develop a mix ofcommercial, institutional or civic,residential, and open public gatheringspaces that attract and serve people,and help create a unique Villageidentity.

SUBAREAS Subareas can also be illustrated in theVillage’s Comprehensive Plan asgeographic areas within a communitythat may present the opportunity tocreate a greater vision for developmentthat generally brings people togetherto a common place for a variety ofactivities. Typically, subareas affect anumber of property owners and definehow each parcel of land within thearea should be developed encouragingproperty owners to work together andbuild a vision for a cohesive andconnected development. Subareaplanning prevents piecemealdevelopment plans where each parcelof land is developed on its own andnot part of a broader vision.

Currently, there is one subarea of theCorridor Planning Area — the VillageCenter which includes the area onboth sides of I-25, adjacent to theArapahoe Light Rail Station.

Initially planned in 2000 for a transit-oriented mixed-use project featuringretail stores, office buildings,

residential living units, and culturaland entertainment facilities, theVillage Center Subarea and its 45 acresis becoming a successful officedevelopment adjacent to the ArapahoeLight Rail Station.

On the west side of I-25, the VillageCenter includes a new, three-buildingmodern office campus and the iconicPlaza Tower One building energizedby a common outdoor plaza withground level restaurants. The plazasboast three dramatic water featureswhich are set to music and lightingdisplays along with ample space toaccommodate various types of events.In addition, the daily function of theplaza provides a pedestrian connectionthrough a grand staircase from theoffice towers to the onsite light railstop. On the east side of I-25, theVillage Center Subarea will include anoffice building, a five-star hotel, andthe light rail station parking garage.The vision for the Village CenterSubarea was accomplished through apartnership between the Village andeach property owner to have a uniqueidentity while maintaining a cohesivedevelopment. The Village’s pastexperience indicates this kind ofpublic/private partnership is animportant ingredient to the success ofa significant and ambitiousdevelopment or redevelopment effort.

VillageCenterStation


ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA: CURRENT LANDSCAPEThe Orchard Station Subarea asproposed is 60 acres (including the 15acre Landmark parcel) and is locatednorth of Orchard Road and west of I-25 in the vicinity of the OrchardLight Rail Station. The goal of thesubarea is to guide futureredevelopment in proximity to theOrchard Light Rail Station.

CURRENT ZONING While the Comprehensive Planoutlines the Village’s vision, it is thezoning and development entitlementsthat create the allowance for

development to occur. In the case ofthe Orchard Station Subarea, thecurrent zoning and entitlements donot match up to the vision for theSubarea. The properties are currentlyin two different zone districts, TownCenter (TC) and Business Professional(B-1), and development is governed bythe Greenwood Plaza MasterDevelopment Plan, developed in 1977when the office park was first created.The Greenwood Plaza MasterDevelopment Plan outlinesdevelopment standards related toheight, setbacks, coverage on the lot,and density.

The TC Zone District allows for a mixof land uses, including office,residential, and supporting retail andservice uses, as well as other relateduses. The B-1 Zone District allowsoffice and supporting uses. The intentof the TC Zone District is to includeareas at a scale sufficient to allowmaster planning of activity centers andlocated adjacent to I-25 and relatedtransit facilities. The TC Districtshould be interconnected with transitstations, parks, open space, plazas, andbicycle and pedestrian paths to de-emphasize the use of automobiles.


No. Parcel Address Parcel Size Existing Development PotentialConditions Based on Zoning

Acres Building BuildingSquare Footage Square Footage

1 5400 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard (Eidos Building) 1.1 9,191 57,091

2 5450 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard(vacant) 1.0 0 51,749

3 5555 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard(vacant – Century Communities) 13.1 0 686,332

4 5500 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard(Woodside Plaza) 3.5 70,894 181,380

5 7840, 7860, 7880, 7900 Berry Place 2.6 42,759 138,2006 5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard 4.3 43,797 227,4297 5650 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard 2.4 35,283 124,8788 5654 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard

(Haynes Mechanical Building) 1.0 28,280 33,7869 7800 Dorado Place

(Copic Building) 4.7 65,611 247,61210 8081 Orchard Road

(Marilyn Hickey Ministries) 10.2 554,679 535,684Public Streets .5 0 0Totals: 44.4 850,494 2,284,141


The table outlines each parcel in the Orchard Station Subarea depicting existing conditions and what is allowed to be built todayaccording to the zoning and the Greenwood Plaza Master Development Plan. The table shows the acreage for each parcel (not includingThe Landmark, which is already developed) and then a comparison of the current building square footage (shown as gross floor area), tothe allowed building square footage. The total current building square footage in the Orchard Station Subarea, not includingLandmark, is 850,494 square feet. The total allowed to be developed under the current zoning is 2.28 million square feet.

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

P G . 1 0 GV N E W S L E T T E R | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7

ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA:THE PLANNING PROCESSOver the past 18 months, the Village has committedresources to study the feasibility of developing a vision for theOrchard Station Subarea. The Village hired a team ofconsultants to supplement staff ’s skills, expertise, andfacilitate the planning process. The consultants, throughseveral meetings, conducted 11 study sessions and publicopen houses. The purpose of the meetings was to acquire

input from City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission,residents, businesses, and staff. The consultants provided“expert” findings, recommendations, and offered concepts forthe area. Having consultants facilitate the planning of theOrchard Station Subarea offered valuable externalperspectives and resources to facilitate collaboration anddiscussions.

• 2008: Initial Planning Effort Began

• 2011: City Council and Planning & ZoningCommission Review of Orchard StationSubarea

• 2014: Multiple Developer Inquiries Received

• February/April 2015: Developers SubmitInformal Development Proposals

• July 2015: Consultant Team Hired by Village toStudy Redevelopment Opportunities andImpacts

• July 27, 2015: Joint Study Session with CityCouncil and Planning & Zoning Commission

• August 10, 2015: Subarea Property OwnerInput Meeting

• August 17, 2015: Joint Study Session with CityCouncil and Planning & Zoning Commission

• September 16, 2015: Community Open Houseto Obtain Input from Residents

• September 21, 2015: Joint Study Session withCity Council and Planning & ZoningCommission

• November/December 2015: Meeting with EightDevelopers on Subarea Plan

• January 5, 2016: Planning & ZoningCommission Study Session

• January 25, 2016: Joint Study Session withCity Council and Planning & ZoningCommission

• March 16, 2016: Second Community OpenHouse to Obtain Input from Residents

• April 18, 2016: City Council Study Session

• April 19 and May 3, 2016: Planning & ZoningCommission Study Sessions

• June 11, 2016: City Council Work Session

• June 21, 2016: Planning & Zoning CommissionStudy Session

• July 18, 2016: City Council Study Session

• July 19, 2016: Planning & Zoning CommissionPublic Hearing

• September 6, 2016: Planning & ZoningCommission Study Session

• September 20, 2016: Planning & ZoningCommission Public Hearing

• October 3, 2016: City Council Meeting

• October 18, 2016: Planning & ZoningCommission Hearing Continued

SUMMARIZED CHRONOLOGY OF THE ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA PLANNING PROCESS

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 | GV N E W S L E T T E R P G . 1 1

DETAILED CHRONOLOGY OF THE ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA PLANNING PROCESS2008 First Initial Planning Effort Began The first major planning effort for theOrchard Station Subarea was initiatedby City Council due to the advent oflight rail presenting development andredevelopment opportunities along theI-25 Corridor.

Action: City Council approved anamendment to the ComprehensivePlan that established policies forredevelopment. The amendmentincluded a goal and policy frameworkfor both the Orchard Station Subareaand the Village Center Subareaincluding fiscal impacts, trafficimpacts, land use, building intensity,building height and massing,architecture and design, and viewimpacts. The amendment stated thatno residential units would be allowedin the Orchard Station Subarea.Instead, new residential units weretargeted for the Village Center Subareaadjacent to the Arapahoe Road LightRail Station.

2011 City Council And Planning &Zoning Commission Review OfOrchard Station SubareaDue in large part to the recession andthe relatively high cost ofredevelopment, the 2008 amendmentgenerated little interest from thedevelopment community for theOrchard Station Subarea. ThePlanning & Zoning Commissionreviewed the 2008 ComprehensivePlan amendments and maderecommendations to City Council.

Action: Recommended by thePlanning & Zoning Commission andapproved by City Council, theOrchard Station Subarea was removedfrom the Comprehensive Plan. TheVillage Center Subarea, which wasactively being developed between 2008 and 2011, was retained in theComprehensive Plan.

ECONOMICCONDITIONS AND MARKET GENERATE INTEREST 2014 Multiple Developer Inquires Received Greenwood Village was approached bymultiple developers inquiring aboutthe redevelopment potential of thearea within and surrounding theOrchard Light Rail Station.

Action: Staff provided information toCity Council regarding thedevelopment inquiries, the existingComprehensive Plan, and the MasterDevelopment Plan in place for thearea. No policy discussion occurred ordecisions were made by City Councilduring this time.

FEBRUARY – APRIL 2015 Developers Submit InformalDevelopment Proposals To The VillageTwo developers, Alberta and CenturyCommunities, presented theirdevelopment plans for parcels withinthe Orchard Station Subarea.

Action: Staff and developers continued discussions regarding thedevelopment concepts presented andhow proposed development wouldconform to the Village’sComprehensive Plan. In addition, as aresult of concerns about consideringdevelopment proposals without anestablished vision in theComprehensive Plan, the City Council shifted discussion into abroader view of the potential toredevelop the entire Orchard Stationarea. The idea of developing anOrchard Station Subarea was revisited.

JULY 2015 Consultant Team Hired ByVillage To Study RedevelopmentOpportunities And ImpactsCity Council directed staff to retainplanning, economic, and transportationconsultants to assist in developing theOrchard Station Subarea Plan to guideredevelopment opportunities in light ofthe proximity to the light rail station,exposure to I-25, and existingunderutilized buildings.

Action: The consultants retained bythe Village to facilitate planning of theOrchard Station Subarea includedMIG/Winston (MIG), Economic &Planning Systems (EPS), and FelsburgHolt & Ullevig (FHU), collectivelyreferred to as the Consultant Team.

JULY 27, 2015 Joint Study Session To IntroduceOrchard Station Subarea City Council and Planning & ZoningCommission members were presentedwith an introduction to the OrchardStation Subarea. Several policyquestions were discussed includingestablishing a vision for the area;promoting redevelopmentopportunities; discussing ideas for amix of uses the Village would want topromote in the area; and the potentialto create a dynamic energized area.The proposed boundary of theOrchard Station Subarea was alsodiscussed.

Action: City Council directed staff tocontinue with the study of creating anOrchard Station Subarea.

AUGUST 10, 2015 Subarea Property Owner Input MeetingIntroduction of the subarea waspresented to approximately 25commercial property owners andgenerally positive feedback wasreceived for the plan.

continued on page 12

AUGUST 10, 2015 continued from page 11Action: Key points included favorablecomments about having residentialunits, the need to differentiate thesubarea from other station areas, andthe value of having redevelopmentintensity at or near the light railstation. Concerns were expressedabout current pedestrian traffic and

access impacting subarea properties.

AUGUST 17, 2015 Joint Study Session With City Council And Planning &Zoning CommissionThe Consultant Team presented anoverview of the Orchard StationSubarea Plan as a Comprehensive Planamendment to the Corridor PlanningArea; a vision for the Subarea; and

establishing a basis for a possiblefuture master plan for the subarea. Presentations also included discussionrelated to existing town center casestudies and their defining elements forsuccess; traffic modeling including tripgeneration rates for daily trips; andtraffic impacts based on hypotheticalexamples of single uses (office, retail,restaurant, and residential), mixed use,and mixed use with mass transit.


SCENARIO A (AS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 17, 2015)

Revenue impacts to the Village werepresented based on different uses andestimated Village expenditures relatedto costs for Village services to supportthe Orchard Station Subarea (e.g.police, snow removal, etc.).

Place making with a right balance/mixof uses was discussed for the OrchardStation Subarea and how the Villagecould activate the area with people and

not cars mitigating traffic impacts andshared parking opportunities. The ideaof residential and apartment units waspresented and compared to existinghigh-end apartment units in theDenver metro area.

Three development scenarios (A,B,C) were presented based onguiding principles. Alternative height regulation scenarios were

also presented.

Action: City Council gave direction toconsultants and staff to pursue aSubarea Plan similar in scope toScenario B (with some of the roadnetwork elements of Scenario C) basedon guiding principles to create avibrant town center; leverage the railstation; balance residential, retail,



SCENARIO B (AS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 17, 2015)

continued from page 13office and hospitality uses; protect andenhance the Landmark and importantviews; emphasize parks, greenways,and public space; and differentiate theOrchard Station Subarea from otherlocal and regional station areas.

SCENARIO C (AS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 17, 2015)



RADIAL HEIGHT REGULATION

I-25 HEIGHT PLANE CONCEPT

The Greenwood Plaza Master Development Plan currently regulates height based upon a radial height plane map that uses the Triadbuildings as the highest point and then gets lower as you move away from the Triad.

The Consultant Team derived that the concept of a height plane with the tallest buildings along I-25 and then getting lower to matchthe existing building heights along Quebec Street makes more sense to apply to redevelopment in the Orchard Station Subarea.


NEEDLE TOWERS HEIGHT CONCEPT

SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 Community Open House To Obtain Input From Residents Content and results of the studysessions with City Council and thePlanning & Zoning Commission werepresented to citizens, including aconceptual plan for the Orchard Roadinterchange to mitigate traffic impactsfrom the subarea.

Input expressed by citizens includedimproving pedestrian connectionsfrom Greenwood Hills to OrchardStation; increasing the amount ofparking at Orchard Station; thepotential use of the area as a festivalsite (e.g. Cherry Creek Arts Festival);the desire for high-end mixed usedevelopment for the site; the need tolimit the height of residentialbuildings; reconfiguring the loop roadaround the Triad; the desire for highquality construction in all buildings;the desire for residential properties tobe “Greenwood Village” quality and be

to-own, not to-rent units. In addition, comments were receivedregarding adequate setbacks fromOrchard Road; public green space; thedesire for buildings to be higher nearI-25 and shorter near residentialneighborhoods; the desire to allowbuildings above 15 stories near I-25;and the sentiment that height is notthe issue, instead focus on the qualityof the design. In addition, theovercrowding of schools as a result ofthe Subarea was expressed.

Action: Input received from citizensattending the community open housewas shared with City Council and thePlanning & Zoning Commission onSeptember 21, 2015.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 Joint Study Session With City Council And Planning &Zoning Commission The Consultant Team presentedmembers with a recap of preliminary

scenarios, a summary of the publicopen house, and a refinedredevelopment concept plan alongwith impacts to economics and traffic.

In an effort for Greenwood Village tocreate a center that will distinguishitself from other local and regionalstation areas, the Consultant Teamrecommended a development programusing input from City Council and thePlanning & Zoning Commissionbased on the following guidingprinciples: create a vibrant towncenter; leverage the light rail station;balance residential, retail, office, andhospitality uses; protect and enhancethe Landmark and important views;and emphasize parks, greenways, andpublic space.

Action: City Council directed staff topursue planning around City Council’spreferred development scenario(Scenario B Modified) based on theguiding principles recommended bythe Consultant Team.

The Consultant Team further derived that a few taller tower buildings could penetrate the I-25 Height Plane. The tower buildings wouldbe similar in height to the Landmark condominium towers and the effect would maintain view corridors between the tower buildings.

SCENARIO B MODIFIED – CITY COUNCIL PREFERRED OPTION(AS PRESENTED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2015)


NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 Meeting With Eight DevelopersOn Subarea PlanStaff presented the draft OrchardStation Subarea concept plan to localreputable developers to ascertain theircomments and suggestions on thePlan’s feasibility. Some majorcomments from developers includedthe preference for a residentialneighborhood to the south of theLandmark; the preference for officebuildings and a hotel adjacent to thestation and the highway; the opinionthat traffic helps create vibrancy — itshould be routed through thedevelopment; the preference for retail

to be concentrated adjacent toOrchard Road; and the opinion thatincorporating the station within anoffice and/or hotel building is a goodidea that could differentiate thestation.

Action: Overall, the developer groupgave positive feedback to the draftSubarea plan; and reinforced thislocation as a unique opportunity forGreenwood Village to create a mixed use development at thislocation.

JANUARY 5, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Due to the appointment of new

commission members, an overview ofthe Orchard Station Subarea Plan waspresented to update the newcommission on a timeline of eventsleading up to work to date on theplan.

Action: New Planning & ZoningCommissioners now had the samebackground on the Orchard StationSubarea Plan as tenuredCommissioners.

JANUARY 25, 2016 Joint Study Session With City Council And Planning &Zoning CommissionDue to the November 2015 election offive new City Councilmembers, fourof whom previously served on the


SCENARIO B MODIFIED – CITY COUNCIL PREFERRED OPTION(AS PRESENTED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2015)

Planning &ZoningCommission, anoverview of theOrchard StationSubarea refinedconcept plan wasprovidedreaffirming CityCouncil andPlanning &ZoningCommission’svision for the area.

Summaries of thecommunity openhouse, CityCouncil andPlanning &ZoningCommissiondirection fromprevious sessions,and developerfeedback werepresented. Theconsultants alsopresented findingson why aresidentialcomponent wasimportant to theoverall subarea planas well as, an initialtraffic assessment.

Key discussionpoints surrounded

the approximate land use mix to fitthe community’s vision, the potentialfor the development to be optimizedby including housing, the preferredapproach to building height, and theappropriateness of the proposeddensity.

Action: In summary, some majorcomments that were expressed byCouncilmembers and Commissionmembers included the need to takeadvantage of the opportunity, andcontinued interest in protecting andbetter leveraging DTC and theLandmark development. There wassome desire for preliminary conceptsto include a main street feel that waswalkable and connects to the light railstation and the Landmark. The

discussion of housing revolved aroundhigh quality and a high proportion ofownership.

MARCH 16, 2016 Second Community Open House To Obtain Input From Residents Interested citizens had the opportunityto provide comments on the draftOrchard Station Subarea plan at asecond community open house hostedby the Village’s Consultant Team. Themain concerns expressed by residentsincluded increased traffic generatedfrom the development, residentialunits, building heights and views,design, and aesthetics.

Action: Based on the study and inputon the Orchard Station Subarea todate, staff prepared the initial draft ofthe Comprehensive Plan amendmenttext.

APRIL 18, 2016 City Council Study Session City Council was presented with thefirst draft of the Comprehensive Planamendment text for the OrchardStation Subarea including policiesaddressing land use; transportation;image, identity and quality of life; andopen space. An overview of theOrchard Road Interchange trafficanalysis and concept plan componentswere presented along with moreinformation on the fiscal impacts ofthe Orchard Station Subarea.

Action: City Council directed staff toproceed with refining the draft of theOrchard Station Subarea plan as anamendment to the ComprehensivePlan.

APRIL 19, 2016 AND MAY 3, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Study SessionsThe Planning & Zoning Commissionwas presented with the first draft of aComprehensive Plan amendment forthe Orchard Station Subarea. Anoverview of the Orchard RoadInterchange traffic analysis andconcept plan components werepresented along with moreinformation on the fiscal impacts ofthe Orchard Station Subarea. ThePlanning & Zoning Commissionconducted a detailed review anddiscussion of the draft subarea planover the course of two study sessions.

Action: The Planning & ZoningCommission provided feedback onchanges to the draft ComprehensivePlan amendment for the OrchardStation Subarea.

JUNE 11, 2016 City Council Work Session The full day work session began with apresentation by Innovation Pavilionregarding the demographics of



Scenario B Modified Square Feet

Office 1,230,000Retail 120,000Lodging 125,000Residential – Condo 1,150,000Residential – Townhomes 300,000(960 Residential Units)

Total Square Feet: 2,925,000

SCENARIO B MODIFIED – CITY COUNCIL PREFERRED OPTION


continued from page 19employees that are sought bybusinesses in and around the DenverTechnological Center. Next, a paneldiscussion was moderated by theVillage’s planning and designconsultants which included metroDenver developers. Lastly, a facilitateddiscussion with City Council occurredto further explore the vision for theOrchard Station Subarea. To concludethe meeting, some Councilmembersand staff went on a driving tour of theSubarea and viewed the area fromupper floors of the Landmarkbuilding.

Action: City Council discussed thevision for the Orchard Station Subareaand identified key policy issues to bepresented and studied to help plan forfuture development of the area.

JUNE 21, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Study SessionA redlined draft of the OrchardStation Subarea Plan was presented bystaff to the Planning & ZoningCommission. The Planning & ZoningCommission conducted a detailedreview and discussion of the draftsubarea plan. The Commission alsodiscussed changes to the proposedsubarea boundary to exclude propertythat is unlikely to redevelop in thenear term, including the Triadbuildings, the Doubletree Hotel, anddeveloped parcels to the south andwest. They also discussed including theLandmark as an example of the visionfor the subarea.

Action: The Planning & ZoningCommission revised the draft OrchardStation Subarea text and boundarymap.

JULY 18, 2016 City Council Study SessionThis study session served as preview toCity Council of the Planning &Zoning Commission hearing scheduledfor the next evening. Staff presented anoverview of the proposed OrchardStation Subarea text and boundary map

and summarized work to date on thesubarea planning process. Discussionfocused around the Orchard Stationvision; proposed subarea boundary; andorganization of the plan into fourgeneral categories applicable to theSubarea including: land use;transportation; image, identity, andquality of life; and public space.

Action: City Council did not directstaff to make any additional changes tothe draft Orchard Station Subarea planbefore the Planning & ZoningCommission public hearing.

JULY 19, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing Staff presented a draft plan of theOrchard Station Subarea amendment,as well as a rezoning application tobring the entire Orchard StationSubarea into the same zone district.The rezoning application requiredrezoning a number of properties fromBusiness Professional (B-1) to TownCenter (TC). Town Center is theVillage’s mixed-use district andtherefore, was the best fit to match thevision for the Orchard StationSubarea. As part of the presentation,the Comprehensive Plan was discussedrelated to corridor land use;transportation; image, identity, andquality of life; and public space.

Action: After public testimony andCommission deliberation, theCommission did not forward arecommendation to City Council toapprove the subarea plan. TheCommission requested additional timeto get more public input on theproposed amendments.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session The Commission discussed theproposed Orchard Station Subareaplan with staff and made additions/deletions to the proposedamendments.

Action: The Commission directed

staff to schedule another publichearing on the Orchard StationSubarea Plan amendments to theComprehensive Plan.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing The Planning & Zoning Commissionhosted a public hearing for citizens toprovide input on the amendments tothe Comprehensive Plan for theOrchard Station Subarea.

Action: The Commission postponedits deliberations on the draft OrchardStation Subarea, and continued thepublic hearing to October 18, 2016.

OCTOBER 3, 2016 City Council Meeting At the Council meeting, City Councildiscussed a motion regarding theoutcome of the Planning & ZoningCommission’s public hearing on theproposed amendment for the OrchardStation Subarea.

Action: City Council approved amotion stating, “If the Planning andZoning Commission makes arecommendation to City Council toadopt an amendment to theComprehensive Plan for the OrchardStation Subarea, public education,information, and input meetings willbe held in each Council District beforethe plan is heard and voted upon byCity Council.”

OCTOBER 18, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing ContinuedThe Planning & Zoning Commissioncontinued the public hearing fromSeptember 20th regarding theproposed amendment to the Village’sComprehensive Plan to create theOrchard Station Subarea.

Action: The Planning & ZoningCommission recommended approvalto City Council of the OrchardStation Subarea as an amendment tothe Comprehensive Plan.


ORCHARD STATION SUBAREARECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 18, 2016

The Greenwood Village communitydesires an identifiable center in theCorridor Planning Area that serves as asocial gathering place for allGreenwood Village residents. TheOrchard Light Rail Station presents anopportunity to explore and evaluateoptions for transit-orientedredevelopment that can achieve thevision of a gathering place for theVillage. In order to attract the bestworkers, employers are seeking workenvironments with more amenities,activity, and experiences. Theredevelopment of the subarea is anopportunity to both create acommunity gathering place andcontinue to attract high qualityemployers and jobs to GreenwoodVillage.

The primary goal of the OrchardStation Subarea is to create a vibrant,active focal point that leverages theexisting light rail stop. The Villagebelieves that this will best beaccomplished by the development of abalanced mix of uses, including office,residential, hospitality, and retail. Thefirst phase of this balanced mix of useswas established with the Landmarkdevelopment at the northern edge ofthe subarea. The Orchard StationSubarea Plan seeks to build upon andenhance the success of Landmark.

Orchard Station should be uniquewhen compared to transit-orienteddevelopment within the Denver RTDsystem in terms of both userexperience and visual character. At thesame time, all aspects of the builtenvironment should be of the highestquality to ensure that the subarea isreflective of Greenwood Village designvalues. The greatest emphasis on theexperience, character, and qualityshould be found in a network of greatpublic spaces, streetscapes, parks,plazas, and greenways. Any public

space can be well-designed, but it onlybecomes truly great when it attractsand is activated by people on a regularbasis. The Orchard Station Subareashould be activated by a balanced mixof workers and residents in the area toensure vitality and safety within acomfortable environment. The publicspaces within Orchard Station shouldaddress key qualities of successfulpublic spaces: access and linkages,amenities, sense of place, uses andactivities, and opportunities tosocialize.

The goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Corridor Planning Area shallgenerally apply to the Orchard StationSubarea. However, when a goal,objective, or policy of this subarea is inconflict with the Corridor PlanningArea, the subarea plan shall prevail.The use of the term “public space”throughout the subarea plan applies tospaces intended for the enjoyment anduse of the public regardless ofownership or management.

LAND USE 1a. The subarea shall contain an

appropriate mix of uses to includeoffice, retail, and hospitality, withthe potential for residential.• Civic uses should also be

considered if they would makea positive contribution to thevibrancy of the subarea.

• Office and retail uses should bebalanced with residential toensure a positive revenuebenefit to the Village.

1b. The zoning of the subarea shouldallow the prescribed mix of uses.

1c. Ground floors adjacent to publicspaces should incorporatecombinations of uses, includingretail, restaurants, and bars,amenities, and architectural designthat activate the public space.Where active ground floor uses are

desired but not immediatelymarketable, buildings should bedesigned so that ground floors canbe converted to those uses in thefuture.

1d. The development of the subareashall be phased to generallybalance the pace of commercialand residential uses.

1e. Residential use within the subareamay consist of a variety of multi-family housing densities and unittypes. For sale housing is stronglypreferred.

1f. The focus of land use intensity andactivity should be the transitstation.

TRANSPORTATION 2a. Redevelopment of the subarea

should support and leverage theexisting transit service.

2b. Proposed development shallprovide mitigation for impacts onthe transportation network asdetermined by a traffic impactstudy. Development intensity shallbe limited by the roadway networkcapacity, as enhanced by proposedinfrastructure improvements.

2c. Development proposals shouldinclude a comprehensive andprogressive plan for transportationdemand management (TDM).This plan should include strategiesto maximize incentives for usingtransit and other alternative modesof transportation among thepeople who will live, work, andshop within the subarea.

2d. The subarea shall include acontinuous network of pedestrianand bicycle ways of a size andquantity to fully meet the needs ofanticipated pedestrian and bicycleactivity. The network shall makeappropriate connections at theperimeter of the subarea and



continued from page 21ensure easy access to the light railstation.

2e. Redevelopment of the subareashould include a finer grain ofstreets and blocks to enhancevehicular and pedestrianconnectivity. The large blockpattern that was established withinitial development of the subareashould be broken down intosmaller blocks with additionalstreets.

2f. Streets, whether public or private,should be designed toaccommodate different modes oftransportation and to supportactive street life. The use of theterm public space throughout thisplan is intended to apply to streets.

2g. Developers should seekopportunities to incorporatewayfinding elements into thedesign and detailing of bothbuildings and public spaces. Thegoal is to provide navigationmarkers to the public in order toease wayfinding and minimize theuse of signage.

IMAGE, IDENTITY, ANDQUALITY OF LIFE 3a. A variety of densities are

anticipated with redevelopment ofthe subarea and therefore it shouldexhibit the best qualities of formand character.

3b. Building setbacks, height and massshould be appropriately designedfor the Village setting and providegood transitions between land useintensity.

3c. The impacts of the height andmassing of new buildings shall beconsidered in developmentproposals in the subarea. In orderto fully understand and appreciateview impacts, proposeddevelopment shall be required tomodel the impacts of thedevelopment on properties withinthe view plane from multiplevantage points. Taller buildingsshould be separated from oneanother to avoid the appearance of a wall of buildings adjacent to

I-25. Building heights should becompatible with existing buildingsalong the Corridor. Developmentadjacent to The Landmarkresidential towers should preserveexisting views.

3d. Design and construction withinthe subarea should minimize theimpact of highway traffic noisewithin both interior and exteriorenvironments.

3e. Design and detailing of buildingground floors and public spacesshould encourage activity andvibrancy.

3f. Development proposals forindividual parcels shoulddemonstrate how they fit into acohesive plan for the overallsubarea.

3g. Where parking structures arevisible to public spaces, the visualimpact of the structure should bemitigated by wrapping thestructure with active uses,screening the structure, and/oremploying alternative creativedesign techniques.

3h. Architectural and landscape designwithin the subarea should be ofthe highest quality. Architectureshould be functional, well-constructed, emotionally resonant,timeless, and beautiful.Architectural materials forbuildings and public spaces shouldbe authentic with a high degree ofdurability.

3i. Site planning, architecture, andlandscape design should strive tocreate comfortable microclimatesin public spaces throughout thesubarea.

3j. Refer development applications toCherry Creek School District andconsider the District’s commentsin development decisions tomaintain the high quality ofeducation.

3k. Ensure that new development isdesigned in a manner that isrespectful of and compatible withthe natural environment. Newdevelopment is encouraged to usesustainable developmenttechnologies.

PUBLIC SPACE 4a. The subarea should contain a

variety of high quality publicspaces that vary in size, use, andexperience. They should include acombination of more naturalsoftscape spaces and hardscapecourts, plazas, and promenades.

4b. The size and configuration ofpublic spaces should be suitable fora variety of activities, including,but not limited to, performances,markets, exhibits, and celebrations.

4c. Public spaces should be located ina strategic and purposeful manner.The location and design of publicspaces should encourage use byresidents, workers, shoppers, andtransit riders. Public spaces shouldbe connected to one another bytrails and well-designed sidewalkswith high quality pedestrianfurnishings and amenities.

4d. Public space should be provided inan amount that is appropriate forthe Subarea. The vast majority ofopen space shall include areas thatare usable and effective for theusage described in this section.

4e. Public space amenities should beevenly distributed and connectedto each other by clear pedestrianpromenades that promote easywayfinding throughout thesubarea.

4f. Public spaces should be enhancedwith public art and/or other visualamenities.

4g. Public spaces should be madecomfortable and desirable places tospend time by ensuring they aresafe and clean, and contain avariety of seating options.

THE CONSULTANT TEAMMIG/WINSTON MIG/Winston (MIG) was the lead consultant for theVillage and is a national planning and design firm. MIGwas retained to conduct a planning process to explore thecreation of a subarea plan for Orchard Station as anamendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The process wouldinclude documentation and analysis of existing conditions,presentations and work sessions with the Planning &Zoning Commission and City Council, public open houses,and production of land use and concept plans. MIG alsoproduced a high level 3D conceptual model of the OrchardRoad Subarea to assess appropriate height, massing,transitions to existing development and neighborhoods, andviews. Additionally, a land use concept plan was createdrecommending a general development program.

ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS (EPS) EPS was hired by the Village to provide an economic andmarket framework for redevelopment of the subarea. This

included insight on development trends and forecasts foroffice, retail, and high density development over the next10 years for the South I-25 Corridor. Forecasts fordevelopment within the Orchard Station Subarea would beprovided based on land availability including vacant andredevelopment sites. In addition, EPS would provideredevelopment and financing requirements of therecommended plan and implementation options.

FELSBURG, HOLT AND ULLEVIG (FHU) FHU, one of the Village’s primary transportationconsultants over the past 20 years, was tasked withdeveloping and evaluating alternative roadway networkconfigurations providing traffic projections for alternativeland use plans and determining the amount of traffic thatOrchard Road can realistically absorb given the necessaryroadway improvements to support the final Orchard StationSubarea plan. Roadways improvements would includeexpansion of the Orchard Road and I-25 Interchange.

When development is proposed inGreenwood Village, the Village must addressthe effects of traffic on neighborhoods, whilepromoting easy access to and from theVillage’s commercial areas. Developmentapplications must undergo a transportationanalysis to ensure measures are in place tomove traffic generated from the developmentin and out of the Village in the most efficientand least impactful manner.

There are several layers of transportationplanning in the Village that study andimplement traffic measures at the regional,local and project levels.

The Village’s Comprehensive Plan guidesland use decisions and sets the overarchinggoals of the Village to guide developmentand growth that is expected in the future. Inaddition, the Comprehensive Plan providesbroad goals related to transportation.

The Village’s Transportation Plan, adopted in1999, develops objectives and projects thatachieve the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan.These objectives include future roadway improvements, newpedestrian and bicycle facilities, and opportunities toparticipate in regional transportation solutions like the

Arapahoe Road/I-25 interchange reconstruction project. Boththe Comprehensive and Transportation Plans help the Villageguide land use decisions by connecting land use with thetransportation infrastructure.


TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC:A PRIMARY CONCERN


TRANSPORTATION GOALSESTABLISHED INCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Because traffic management is a

critical concern of the Village, theTransportation Plan should beaggressively implemented; thetenets of the plan should berigorously applied to newdevelopment. • In order to understand the full

impacts and implications ofdevelopment staff will continueto assess traffic impacts basedon an impact radius consideredappropriate.

• Level of Service (LOS)standards shall not be the soledeterminant of whether tomitigate a traffic impactresulting from a development.LOS should continue to be onefactor in determiningappropriate exactions anddedications expected from adevelopment.

• Impact assessments shouldconsider the net differencebetween the market occupancyof an existing buildingcompared to what is proposed.

2. Protect the Village’s residentialneighborhoods by minimizing theincursion of commercial andtransient traffic into residentialneighborhoods.

3. Accommodate anticipatedcommercial development byfacilitating commercial traffic flowalong arterial streets supported byother means of transportation.

4. Provide convenient access to theVillage’s residential neighborhoodsfor local traffic.

5. Encourage non-motorized travelthroughout the Village byproviding safe, convenient/bicycleroutes.

6. Minimize non-local traffic aroundthe Village’s public areas such asschools and neighborhood parks.

7. Encourage implementation ofmass transit systems and otheralternatives to single occupantvehicles.

8. Maintain designated truck routes

throughout the Village using sizeand weight limitations.

9. Provide convenient and safebicycle access to all Village

recreation areas and schools fromall part of the Village.

10. Street and traffic impacts adjacentto a proposed development should

2011 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL ROADWAY WIDENING —

be addressed subject to the trafficimpact assessment discussionnoted above.

11. The Village should strengthen

working relationships withadjacent municipalities to addresstraffic issues of mutual concern.

12. To make certain that new

development does not adverselyimpact the quality and character ofthe Village, the exaction and



NG — REFER TO PAGE 31


continued from page 25dedication impact radius shouldinclude infrastructureimprovements consistent with theproximity and proportionallyrequirements of the law and theunique circumstances of eachdevelopment.

13. Seek grade separated crossings ofbusy roadways for bicycles andpedestrians to improve safety andenhance access, especially to thelight rail stations.

CORRIDOR PLANNINGAREA TRANSPORTATIONGOALS INCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goals/Objectives • Promote pedestrian and bike

linkages to and throughout theplanning area.

• Promote connectivity of Village andneighborhood pedestrian facilitiesby providing pedestrian and vehiclecrossings over I-25 and other busyroadways.

• Provide for integration of multiplemodes of transportation attransportation centers.

• Provide for safe, pedestrianaccessibility in theconstruction/reconstruction ofmajor interchanges.

• Improve connections within theplanning area to regional masstransit.

• Improve planning area accessibilitythrough high quality circulator busservice.

• Minimize traffic congestion on the

periphery of the planning area.

Policies• Promote land use patterns, parking

policies, and traffic managementmethods that support transit, andefficient roadway system, andbicycle and pedestrian travel.

• Provide an interconnected networkof narrow, tree-lined streets that tieinto the surroundingneighborhoods, allowingconvenient and safe automobile,pedestrian, and bicycle travel fromone end of the Corridor PlanningArea to another.

• Promote structured parking lots toreduce land devoted to surfaceparking lots

• Require existing surface parking to continued on page 28

2011 IDENTIFIED INTERSECTION DELAYS — REFER TO PAGE 31


Submitted by Cherry Creek School District A question we’ve been getting a lot lately is, how does theCherry Creek School District plan for and manage growth inour schools?

First of all, we don’t determine growth. That’s the purview ofcities and counties. What we do is monitor growth and planfor changes we project based on several factors.

We begin by meeting with city and county planners,developers and home builders. We also work with a companycalled Metro Study, a data-driven consultant that compilesdata from a variety of sources, including birth and deathrates, residents new to Colorado and people leaving the state.

The Cherry Creek School District Planning & InteragencyRelations then analyzes all of the data and makes projectionsfor enrollment at each of our 63 schools.

That information is presented to our Long Range FacilityPlanning Committee (LRFPC), which is composed of tworesidents from each director district and five at-largecommunity members appointed by the Cherry Creek SchoolDistrict Board of Education, along with residentrepresentatives of the Home Builders Association and areaRealtors. The committee also includes a member of theschool board and staff from schools and the district’s FacilitySupport Services department.

The LRFPC is tasked with coming up with a one-year, three-year or five-year plan to manage the projected growth. Thereare several ways that the school district can manage newenrollment and fill empty seats at schools with lowerenrollment.

In areas of increasing enrollment, the district can ask votersto approve a bond issue to fund construction of new schoolsor an expansion of existing buildings, adjust boundaries fornewer students, add mobile classrooms or change to a year-round calendar, which allows schools to operate with just75% of its enrollment in classes at one time.

In schools where enrollment is decreasing because of agingneighborhoods, principals can accept students from otherschools in the district, or admit students from other schooldistricts. When students come to Cherry Creek Schools fromother school districts, the funding from the state followsthem. But if there is a renewed demand for the seats fromstudents living within the school’s boundaries, out-of-boundary students must return to their home schools ordistricts.

The size and growth of a school do not impact class size.Principals use a staffing formula to hire the number ofteachers needed to maintain district-determined class sizes.

At the request of the City of Greenwood Village, the districtlooked at the potential impact of the proposed OrchardStation mixed use development.

For example, using national standards, the total impact of1,000 high-rise/mid-rise multi-family units is approximately200 total students. The impact of 100 townhomes isapproximately 50 total students.

Assuming development occurs in Orchard Stationsimultaneously over a seven to fifteen year period, the annualimpact upon the Cherry Creek District is estimated toaverage 25 students. Based upon available capacities atGreenwood Elementary, West Middle, and Cherry CreekHigh schools, they could easily accommodate new studentsresulting from development occurring on both parcels. Theaverage annual impact per grade would be two students. Thechart below shows the number of seats available at schools onthe west side of the district.

School Capacity Current in Available inboundary boundary

enrollment seatsCherry CreekHigh School 3,735 3,400 335West MiddleSchool 1,590 1,148 442GreenwoodElementarySchool 467 272 167HeritageElementarySchool 429 264 203HomesteadElementarySchool 582 335 247

1,394

The first priority of the Cherry Creek School District now iswhat it has always been — to provide the best possibleeducation opportunities for all students to succeed. Ourplanning process has enabled us to do that throughout ourhistory and we will continue to use the best tools available toplan for the future.

CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS:PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE


continued from page 26be broken up into smaller lots andpermit vehicles to park along thestreets, providing a buffer between

the pedestrians on sidewalks andmoving automobiles. Promote theredevelopment of existing parkingsurface lots with buildings and

structured parking. • Reduce the parking ratio

requirements for new developmentsand encourage joint-use parking

CONSULTANT IDENTIFIED RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

lots and structures with staggeredpeak demands that will efficientlyserve retail, office, public andentertainment uses, thus reducing

the amount of land required forseparate parking for each land use.

• Promote the RTD call-n-Ride areasfor servicing the DTC, Greenwood

Plaza, the Village Center, and othersurrounding office and retaildevelopment to each other and to



continued from page 29the existing Arapahoe park-n-Ride,the Ulster/Tufts Transfer Station,and the Orchard and ArapahoeLight Rail Stations.

• Encourage shared parking whenpeak periods of demand arestaggered for adjacent uses.Encourage parking structures, withwrap-around retail, whereverpossible within the district.Discourage parking areas betweenprimary, “front” building facadesand the street.

AREA PLANNING In 2009, the Village completed the I-25 Corridor Transportation Plan, astudy for the two commercial areas inthe Village along the I-25 Corridor. In

2011, a study was completed on thesouth I-25 Corridor. Both of thesestudies further refined the Village’sTransportation Plan for specific areasof the Village to identify potentialtransportation improvements based onfuture land use demands in the area.

Transportation Impact Study Process While the Comprehensive andTransportation Plans and area studieslook at the Village or larger areas ofthe Village when a development isconsidered, a detailed analysis oftransportation is required.

Transportation planning in the Villagerequires a transportation impact study(TIS) for proposed development. ATIS is a study which assesses theeffects that a development’s traffic will

have on the overall transportationsystem and the community. The studyassesses the traffic impacts of aproposed development, anddetermines necessary improvements toaccommodate the new developmentminimizing impacts to the Villagetransportation network andneighborhoods. The study alsoevaluates the existing traffic within theVillage and its surroundingcommunities. The Village generallyrequires TIS studies if the proposeddevelopment generates more than 100 trips per day or more than 40trips during peak hours; proposes new access for an arterial street,indicates safety/capacity concerns;and/or has the potential to impactadjacent neighborhoods.


CONSULTANT IDENTIFIED RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS


ORCHARD STATIONSUBAREATRANSPORTATIONANALYSIS TO DATE As changes to the Comprehensive Planin the Orchard Station Subarea areconsidered, a high level traffic analysiswas conducted by the ConsultantTeam and reviewed by staff. A mix ofland uses was assumed in the OrchardStation Subarea, and the traffic thatwas created by these uses was added tothe existing and estimated futuretraffic volumes on the surroundingroadway network. Based on previouslyidentified improvements in 2009 and2011, the Consultant Team refined thetransportation system improvements

for the Orchard Station Subarea.

Initial Findings AndRecommendations In order to maintain a functionaltransportation system, potentialimprovements were identified for theOrchard Road Corridor from QuebecStreet to DTC Boulevard/YosemiteStreet, and improvements to theOrchard and I-25 Interchange.

Based on high level analysis, additionaldevelopment could be accommodatedwith the potential improvements tothe transportation system. The keyanalysis related to the subarea plan isthe impact of mixed use developmenton traffic. The existing roadwaynetwork is near or at capacity duringthe peak hours (rush hour in morning

and evening), while the remaininghours of the day have adequatecapacity to accommodate additionaltraffic. By developing the area withmultiple land uses that produce trafficat different times and in differentpatterns than a single use, andimplementing appropriate roadwayimprovements, it was determined thatadditional new development in thearea could be accommodated.

As development projects are submittedto the Village, a more detailed trafficimpact study analysis will beconducted to determine the impact ofindividual developments ontransportation and improvements toaccommodate any increased traffic.

Ron [email protected]

6060 South Quebec StreetGreenwood Village, Colorado 80111-4591

Leslie [email protected]

T.J. [email protected]

DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4

Dave [email protected]

Darryl [email protected]

George [email protected]

Steve [email protected]

Freda [email protected]

Tom [email protected]

MAYOR AND CITYcouncil

Documents

ORCHARD STATION SUBAREA - WordPress.com...JANUARY 2017 |GV NEWSLETTER PG. 3 The Orchard Station Subarea as proposed is 60 acres (including the 15.6-acre Landmark parcel) and is located