Document Lafayette_doc_f450955330

THE VISION DOWNTOWN a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 BY THE LAFAYETTE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 2 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Table of Contents Table of Contents 1) Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 What we heard 2) The Market 2.1 Market Summary 2.2 Retail Strategy 3) Vision 3.1 Overall Strategy 3.2 Block Plan 3.2 Kimbark to Emma 3.3 Emma to Cannon 3.5 Cannon to Simpson 3.6 Simpson to Baseline 3.7 Simpson 3.8 Overall Character 3.9 Signage/District Identifiers 4) Implementation 4.1 Priority/Action List 4.2 Zoning/ Policy Recommendations 4.3 Barriers to Implementation 4.4 Implementation Realities 4.5 Recommendations Appendices A - Market Analysis B - Zoning / Parking C - Financing D - Public Outreach Process Page 3 Page 4-5 Page 6-7 Page 8-9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 13 Page 14-19 Page 20-24 Page 26-29 Page 30-33 Page 34-36 Page 38-46 Page 47-57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62-70 ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 3 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Purpose... Purpose... Old Town Lafayette is going to realize its maximum potential. This Vision Plan identifies the heart and soul of this valued asset. It will provide community leaders with a well-defined vision and an executable strategy that will drive the incremental moves the city can make to energize Old Town Lafayette. The foundation of a successful Old Town Lafayette is a clear Vision that the public can understand and connect with emotionally. The Vision will be easily understood and championed by the residents, business owners, city staff and the evolving elected government. The Vision Plan is a document that sets forth policies for the future of downtown. The Plan is advisory and serves as a guide for public decisions related to development within the down- town area. The Vision Plan process explored four core areas. All four areas were studied simultaneously in order to better create an executable strategy that could be supported by the community, the market and realistic financial information. The four areas that make up the Vision Plan are: Engaging the community. The consultant team engaged the community in a series of focus group meetings, presenta- tions, events and interviews designed to solicit the input of residents and stakeholders and translate their ideas into the Vision for Old Town Lafayette. This Vision Plan will help the community communicate their message about who they are, how they talks about them- selves, what needs to be done and how they intend to do it. Determining Old Town Lafayette’s market niche. The consultant team studied neighboring communities in Boulder County to determine what other areas are lacking in them that could become Old Town’s market niche. Identifying and developing a market niche that will draw in outside visitors and help enhance and improve the current offerings on Public Road is a key components of the Plan. Developing the Old Town identity. The consultant team has articulated a narrative that captures the essence of Old Town Lafay- ette - the “Brand”. “The narrative establishes Old Town’s identity through overall character and district identification strategies that will ‘play to the street’ and enhance Old Town’s creative, eclectic and diverse makeup.” Creating economic, policy and financial strategies to implement the plan. The consultant team studied the existing Urban Renewal Plan, Development and Zoning Code and all past efforts to revitalize Old Town Lafayette. This information combined with an understanding of the market and desired vision was used to prepare financing and organiza- tional strategies for the Plan. Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 4 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Overview What we have heard... What we have heard... The Vision Plan is intended to provide the City and stakeholders with a guiding document that provides recommendations and strategies for an improved, revitalized Old Town that is based on market reality, community desires and economic feasibility. The public engagement process allowed the consultant team to involve the community in the visioning process, listen to stakeholders’ concerns and ideas, provide and receive information, and obtain support for implementing the Old Town Vision. The process involved integrating what was heard from the greater community with what we observed about Lafayette and surrounding communities and to inform strategies that can continually be tested. Although the consultant team met with and interviewed a wide variety of stakeholders with differing perspectives, there were several areas of agreement identified through the public engagement process. All of these key findings played a role in developing the vision for Old Town Lafayette. The following key findings represent thoughts that were heard consistently throughout the visioning process. For a full de- scription of all of the public outreach events, surveys and outcomes, please see Appendix D. Lafayette is a small town with roots. Lafayette is a small town, which one of the primary reasons that people have chosen to live here. Residents enjoy knowing their neighbors, spending time on Public Road and visiting the businesses that are located there. The continued integration of the residents into Old Town will be crucial in order for the vision to succeed. An important aspect of its small town character is embodied in the history of Old Town, Public Road and Simpson Street. The history of the Lafayette should be celebrated through the Vision Plan. Most people like the eclectic nature of Old Town. They like the variety of buildings and spaces, and the unique character that exists in some areas of Public Road. It is important for the Vision Plan to enhance these characteristics and improve the overall continuity of Public Road, rather than prescribe homogenous solutions. The length of Public Road and lack of continuity along the street is an issue. The length of Public Road is a challenge as reflected in the lack of continuity. Most people agreed that looking at “pods” or “nodes” along Public Road and Simpson Street could be beneficial and essential. Although some stakeholders do not like the low income housing, pawn shop and other dilapidated properties that add to the “lack of continuity”, most agreed that these issues could be largely resolved with aesthetic improvements. The look of these properties is perhaps more unappealing than the uses themselves. Developing a Vision Plan that identifies nodes and “connects the dots” will be critical for success. The positive reputation of Lafayette public schools is key to Public Road success. The school system is reflective of the cultural and ethnic diversity that exists within Lafayette. The schools and Public Road both stand to benefit from an improved downtown area. The public schools are already a successful component to the reason why families love Lafayette. Improving the downtown district will enhance the positive reputation of the area by attracting more families and giving them a wonderful place to be together. ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 5 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham cont’d... cont’d... Overview The cultural arts community is active and vibrant in Lafayette. The Vision Plan should continue to build on the momentum that the arts have created in Old Town to date: sculpture walk, pARTiculars art gallery, Art Night Out, Music in Festival Plaza, Museums, Mary Miller Theater, etc. There is an opportunity in Old Town to become a true “community of the arts” that will attract visitors from outside the City. There are many cultural assets in Old Town that are not connected to Public Road, and an effort should be made to improve connections. The WOW Museum and Rocky Mountain Center for Musical Arts (RM- CMA) are fabulous cultural facilities that are not connected well to Public Road at this time. Old Town needs a critical mass. When discussing the types of businesses people would like to see in Old Town, most stakeholders agree on one thing – more. There is a de- mand for both retail and additional restaurants that are open all days of the week and for additional hours. Diverse, kid-friendly, and value- oriented shops and restaurants were often mentioned and are desired by many residents. In addition, developing programs and year-round interest would benefit business owners on Public Road. What about Simpson Street? There was concern expressed regarding the future of Simpson Street. Simpson Street was the first “Main Street” in Old Town Lafayette. The area within the Urban Renewal Boundary is characterized by unique commercial buildings, quaint residential bungalows and a few di- lapidated structures. The historical shift from Simpson Street to Public Road occurred with the alignment of US Highway 287 on Public Road, and since that time it has never recovered its “Main Street” status. The consultant team presented the concept that Simpson, going forward, should continue to be a cultural hub while adding new multi-family residential and boutique office, rather than focusing on addi- tional retail, restaurant and services. The team emphasized that in order for Old Town to be successful, Public Road needs to be enhanced and focused on first. While it is possible that some retail and service oriented uses will be located on Simpson, the team does not agree that it will be the commercial core of Old Town at this time. There are some successful businesses on the street at this time, and the Vision Plan presents ideas to stimulate additional redevelopment in the area. Old Town hasn’t succeeded because of organizational and management issues. The importance of a business organization that has authority and leadership to facilitate improvements and provide assistance and edu- cation to businesses in Old Town is an important issue to address through this process. The Vision Plan will identify the organization that should be the “keepers of the Vision Plan” and be advocates for implementing the Vision. See Appendix D for details regarding the entire public outreach effort. ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 6 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Market Summary... Market Summary... Downtown Lafayette is focused on Public Road, stretching from Baseline Road to the north to South Boulder Road to the south – a 0.9 mile stretch of road. Prior to the relocation of U.S. 287, Public Road was the major north - south arterial traversing Lafayette. Public Road is supplemented by the “old” downtown centered on Simpson Road. Existing businesses are a mix of restaurants, specialty stores and associated service and civic uses have tended to group together along sections of Public Road. The redevelopment pro- gram builds on these groupings. Accordingly, five economic based groupings are proposed: • General merchandise/eclectic • Food and beverage • Artistic/creative • Service • Civic BUSINESS GENERATORS Downtown Lafayette is expected to draw business from two primary sources: • The resident population • The visitor market RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA An accompanying map illustrates the extent of the residential trade area, which is defined as a ten-minute drive time area. The trade area extends roughly 5.5 miles to the north, 8.0 miles to the east, 6.0 miles to the south, and 6.0 miles to the west of Downtown Lafayette. See Appendix A page 45 for Residential Trade Area Map • The residential trade area’s 2010 population was estimated at 94,800 persons and contained an estimated 31,000 households. • In 2010, the residential trade area’s estimated per capita income was $35,371 and the trade area’s estimated average household income was $95,555. Nationally in 2010, per capita income was estimated at $27,851 and average household income at $72,075. • According to Claritas, high incidences of households in the residential trade area are found in four PRIZM groups: Second City Society (22.4 percent of total households), City Centers (25.9 percent), Middleburbs (11.8 percent), and Elite Suburbs (8.8 percent). In addition to the above groups, higher incidences than average are found in the Landed Gentry and Micro City Blues groups. • *GAFO expenditure potential in the residential trade area grew from $247.3 million in 2000 to $382.7 million in 2010, an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. VISITOR MARKET A study prepared by Dean Runyan Associates for the Colorado Tourism Office in quanti- fies the economic impact of overnight tourism on Boulder County: • Spending in 2009 was $374.6 million, down from a peak of $411.1 million in 2008. • Tourism supported 5,370 jobs in 2009 and provided $128.9 million in earnings. • Tourists paid $13.0 million in local taxes and $10.6 million in state taxes. SALES POTENTIAL Based upon the preceding assessment of specialty retail and food and beverage market potential, Market Analysis And Research prepared the sales support and square footage estimates for Downtown Lafayette. Sales support estimates were not evaluated for the service or civic commercial areas. *GAFO- General Merchandise, Apparel and Accessories, Furniture and Other Sales (retail sales categories) Market Report & Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 7 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I In summary: Downtown Lafayette Sales Estimates SQUARE FEET 2012 2014 2016 Mil.) (Prod.) Mil.) (Prod.) Mil.) (Prod.) 1. Status Quo General Merchandise 150,500 $8.6 $57 $9.1 $61 $9.7 $65 Food & Beverage 50,000 $6.5 $130 $6.9 $138 $7.3 $146 TOTAL 200,500 $15.1 $76 $16.0 $80 $17.0 $85 2. Redeveloped General Merchandise 150,500 $19.2 $127 $20.3 $135 $21.6 $143 Food & Beverage 65,000 $13.8 $212 $14.6 $225 $15.5 $239 Galleries / Studios 20,000 $3.4 $170 $3.6 $180 $3.8 $191 TOTAL 235,500 $36.3 $154 $38.6 $164 $40.9 $174 Retail Redevelopment Program MERCHANT MIX SQUARE FEET Apparel & Accessories 30,000 Home 24,000 Specialty Retail 20,000 Food & Beverage 35,000 Spa/Health Club - 2nd Level 15,000 TOTAL 129,000 Street Level 114,000 Source: Market Analysis And Research, Inc. TerreMark Partners City of Lafayette, CO Overall, it is anticipated that the specialty tenants will capture approximately 3.4 percent of the residential trade area GAFO expenditure potential and food and beverage tenants 3.9 percent of food and beverage potential. PROS AND CONS OF DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE PROS • Affluent trade area • Growing trade area CONS • No direct freeway/U.S. highway access • Strong competitive environment CONCLUSIONS The commercial redevelopment of downtown Lafayette faces certain challenges: • The competitive retail environment and major highway network, precludes attracting national retail tenants to Public Road. • The length of Public Road precludes redeveloping the entire street at one time. However, a phased approach focusing on selective food and beverage operators that will diversify the current offerings will help anchor the redevelopment. This will also assist in upgrading the performance at existing and evolving general merchandise stores. Finally, providing an environment for artists and art studios and galleries will help provide Lafayette with a unique identity in the region. See Appendix A for the entire Market Report and Recommendations by Terremark Partners. cont’d... cont’d... Market Report & Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 8 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Retail Strategy... Retail Strategy... An experience in a streetscape environment can be an invigorating walk, a romantic stroll, a time to collect one’s thoughts. A person can have a different experience nearly every time he or she takes to the streets. Walkable urbanity starts with urban entertainment, restaurants and retail spaces that are within walking distance of one another. Local shops and service retailers provide the atmosphere and experience that make neighbor- hoods and places attractive to the consumer. Successful districts provide a broad array of expe- riential venues. Subtle clues to the connection of a district with the community include the pres- ence of local, indigenous retailers. The popularity of public markets epitomizes sensory retail as an experiential activity. CREATING AN AUTHENTIC STREET EXPERIENCE IS A KEY RETAIL STRATEGY FOR LAFAYETTE’S PUBLIC ROAD. THE MERCHANDISING STRATEGY IS BUILT UPON A FOUN- DATION OF LOCAL ARTISTS AND RETAILERS EMBELLISHED WITH DISTINCTIVE, NEW TO THE MARKET FOOD & BEVERAGE. The retail merchandising strategy is developed to play to the of existing neighbor- hoods and available niches in the market. This merchandising strategy also recommends tem- porary tenants, push carts, retail merchandising units and inline stores to assist in an incubation program primarily focused on the arts. Merchandising will focus on this richly diverse market with food & beverage which is a proven common denominator and cultural bridge, along with spe- cialty retail and various services. Coffee houses, galleries, neighborhood cafes and established restaurants will add to the cultural street experience. MERCHANDISING STRATEGY/TENANT MIX Careful consideration has been given to the effects of the development and its impact on the community. Consumer needs as well as future needs and trends should be adjusted accordingly throughout the project’s lifecycle. We propose you activate all corners on Public Road as much as possible with retail that creates walkability and shopping synergy. Our merchandising strategy has created three themed and phased districts that will cater to specific uses and tenanting strat- egies: NORTH PUBLIC ROAD / ARTS DISTRICT The arts represents an integral part of the essence of Old Town Lafayette. The retail strategy includes the integration of approximately 18,000 square feet of arts, crafts, and food & beverage all with outdoor café seating specifically programmed to take advantage of the street scene, people watching and intimate dining spaces. We will layer in traditional retail uses such as galleries, unique gifts, home décor and a variety of distinctive fashion and acces- sories. SOUTH PUBLIC ROAD The remaining retail shop square footage on South Public Road will build on an art theme anchoring the opposite end of North Public Road with additional artists’ lofts, food & bever- age and other uses such as a juice bar, and eco-conscious specialty and apparel stores. This new emerging retail trend is on target with the consumer base. MID BLOCK PUBLIC ROAD / FESTIVAL PLAZA The Festival Plaza area of the retail expansion strategy will be market driven. It is designed to grow holistically with uses such as yoga studios, martial arts studios, herb and vitamin retail- ers, and active wear apparel focused on exercise, sports and active lifestyle, with additional food & beverage. THE RETAIL PROGRAM Current existing street retail is approximately 150,500 square feet (not including vacancy). Current existing food & beverage is approximately 49,750 square feet (not including vacancy). The proposed Retail Development Program category targets (all phases) 235,500. We as- sumed work begins in 2012 with stabilization in 2015. CATEGORY GLA Specialty Retail (small shop) 20,000 (new) Specialty Retail (small shop existing) 150, 500 Food & Beverage (existing) 49,750 Food & Beverage 15,250 (new) Incubator Program (carts & kiosks) 2,000 Specialty Retail. Specialty stores - as defined by apparel stores, art galleries, unique home decor and gifts -attract a diverse client base. Food & Beverage. The Food & Beverage program includes an affordable “white-cloth” restau- rant, local restaurants and meal take-out. Outdoor “cafe” seating will be encouraged directly adjoining open spaces and activated walkways. Retail Strategy ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 9 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Service: A full-service health spa operating on a second level will provide direct access to the residential units and parking. Additional services include daily needs such as dry cleaners, postal service and tailors. Specialty Food: Juice bars, desert/bakery, coffee, food for off premises consumption such as wine and cheese, a deli and the existing groceries. Incubator program (carts and kiosks). Short- term agreements for local entrepreneurs who ordinarily would not have the opportunity to show- case in a retail environment will be encouraged. The retail incubation program will provide local retailers the opportunity to become a permanent tenant based on success. In addition, these rotating retail concepts keep the project “fresh” with a constant flow of unique merchandise. Typical uses would be: • Art and crafts featuring work product from local artisans • Seasonal and local event-related merchandise • Unique products benefitting from exposure for test marketing PHASING STRATEGY - MARKET/OPPORTUNITY DRIVEN We recommend a total retail program consisting of 225,250 square feet of ground floor retail with 50,000 square feet repositioned in the 3 areas to be implemented as follows: • North Public Road offers 24,000 square feet of retail GLA anchored by an art galleries and food & beverage. • South Public Road offers repositions approximately 14,000 - square feet with new uses. • Festival Plaza area offers an additional 12,000 square feet of retail space. It is conceivable that the retail planning could grow as a result of exceptional market acceptance. The retail development plan allows for both immediate and future expansion of retail space. LEASING & MARKETING To encourage “word of mouth” in the local and regional tenant market and stimulate interest, marketing to prospective tenants should be strategically planned to accomplish the project’s merchandising strategy. A typical plan includes: national publicity, support for local publicity, trade shows, advertising in trade publications, press conferences and announcements in the local market, and electronic and/or print sales materials and internet presence. In addition, meetings should be initiated with the local broker community. Special events at local food & beverage ven- ues will provide the retail community a “touch and feel” experience, demonstrate the quality lev- el of the operators sought and allow brokers to hear from the operators directly regarding their commitment to the project. The project should be featured at national industry events including Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers and local chapter events of each. As positive local publicity is essential to the leasing effort, the Lafayette market presents a unique opportunity to create anticipation as well as involve the consumer early in the process via an interactive web site. Consumer shopping and entertainment requests can be recorded for in- ternal use, and consumers can stay informed regarding the status of the project. As well, the site provides a source of basic information for news media. Press releases indicating the time frame of the development are targeted to both local and national media. Tenant announcements should begin almost immediately to create the sense of urgency to commit to space. SUMMARY OF STRATEGY The retail strategy will support the Community’s vision and help establish Public Road’s domi- nance in the marketplace, meeting consumer needs and preferences. The street will provide an exceptional opportunity for new and established artisans to sell product as well as create a sus- tainable tax base for future growth. STRATEGY 1. An authentic street experience augmented by three themed districts. 2. A foundation of key local retailers with focus on the arts and Food & Beverage. 3. Environmentally friendly local and regional retailers. 4. A retail development plan consisting of three phases. See Appendix A for the entire Market Report and Recommendations by Terremark Partners. cont’d... cont’d... Retail Strategy ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 10 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Lafayette is... Lafayette is... eclectic art music sculpture visual art textiles literature crafts theater creative diverse ethnic socioeconomic culture lifestyle architectural style community & business people art signage language THE VISION ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 11 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham An important part of the Vision Plan process was to determine which areas of Public Road to focus on first, and where improvements and invest- ment will be most impactful. While most ideas shown could be appropriate for a multitude of buildings located along Public Road, they may not either be applicable for the specific parcel that is highlighted or consistent with the individual property owner’s investment objectives. Public Road is nearly a mile long and quite different from South Boulder Road (south) to Baseline Road (north). Rather than spreading resources along the entire corridor, the Vision Plan color codes Public Road into block-by-block areas or nodes. In each of these block areas, several im- provements are illustrated that if accomplished would visibly improve that block, thereby improving the entire street. Old Town will evolve through an incremental execution of these improvements, or small moves, that are in service to establishing, reinforcing and communicating the story. Execution of the Vision will consist of an on-going program of moves that are in sync with the narrative, reinforce the identity of Old Town Lafayette and build a community that businesses and residents can relate to and most importantly want to be a part of. The following pages illustrate a collection of ideas that are in service to the Diverse, Creative and Eclectic qualities that Public Road can have. Ideas for individual properties are shown to communicate the overall idea, rather than to mandate what any individual property owner or busi- ness owner should do. Every idea shown could be appropriate for a multitude of buildings along Public Road and may not be appropriate for the specific piece of property that is shown, or how a land owner sees his or her investment objectives being met. The Community, the city, and the landowners need to work together to determine if the financial feasibility and notion of an idea fit with how each land owner sees their prop- erty evolving and if the returns warrant investment. What we are going to do is... play to the street a non-contrived, energy-driven, pedestrian-friendly, horizontally-walkable mixed-use environment What we are going to do is... AN OVERVIEW Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 12 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham ENLARGED AERIAL VIEW Block Plan S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. EMMA ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. W. BASELINE RD. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. REC. CENTER BILINGUAL SCHOOL CITY HALL MINER’S MUSEUM US POST OFFICE FESTIVAL PLAZA R.M.C.M.A. MARY MILLER WOW MUSEUM W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. Simpson to Baseline Cannon to Simpson Waneka to Kimbark S. Boulder to Waneka Simpson Emma to Cannon (including Festival Plaza) Kimbark to Emma ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 13 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham BLOCK PLAN with STRATEGY Areas to be Addressed S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. EMMA ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. W. BASELINE RD. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. REC. CENTER BILINGUAL SCHOOL CITY HALL MINER’S MUSEUM US POST OFFICE FESTIVAL PLAZA R.M.C.M.A. MARY MILLER WOW MUSEUM W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. Simpson to Baseline •108 N. Public – add mural along back of building •108 N. Public – food trucks •Reposition 105 N. public to artist studio or multi-family •Streetscape improvements Cannon to Simpson •101 E. Cleveland – Outdoor seating in ROW •100 S. Public - Retail reposition and landscape improvements •Art shack program at Chateau/ Travel agency •109 S. Public - Reposition building •Streetscape improvements Waneka to Kimbark •Streetscape improvements S. Boulder to Waneka •Signage improvements to S.Boulder and Public •Streetscape improvements Simpson from Public to Michigan •Improve connectivity to cultural assets – WOW, RMCMA, Miner’s Museum, •Mary Miller Theater – more walkable •Promote residential / multi-family / boutique office •Streetscape improvements Emma to Cannon (including Festival Plaza) •307 S. Public – reposition to 2 restaurant/retail spaces •Close access between 307 S. Public and park •Combine parking behind chamber’s building and 307 S. Public •Redesign lawn area at festival plaza •Streetscape improvements at corner of Chester/Public •Include building garage at 101 E. Chester in “art shack” program •Graphics / signage improvements at 300 S. Public •Umbrella tables at Festival Plaza •Streetscape improvements Kimbark to Emma •502 S. Public - Patio on Public Road •503 S. Public - Conversion of apartments to artist studios •Move trailer at 503 S. Public to face Public Road and provide outdoor seating •Climb-able art / art play at greenspace apartments / fire pit •Add better pedestrian connection at bump outs where flag poles are •Tree trimming at Post Office •610 Public road - Reposition building at Kimbark and Public Road •Streetscape improvements Baseline and Public •Signage improvements 287 and Baseline •Hwy & Old Town identifiers 287 and S. Boulder Rd. •Hwy & Old Town identifiers The map illustrates potential im- provements, block-by-block, for the length of Public Road. Ideas for individual properties are shown to communicate the over- all idea, rather than to mandate what any individual property owner or business owner should do. Every idea shown could be appropriate for a multitude of buildings along Public Road and may not be appropriate for the specific piece of property that is shown, or how a land owner sees his or her investment working. All of the strategies and solu- tions in the book are in service to the Vision - Lafayette is Cre- ative, Eclectic and Diverse. It is Home Grown. It is your Small Town. ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 14 KIMBARK TO EMMA I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Location Plan S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. There are some very successful businesses in restaurants that exist in this block already. Destination busi- nesses like Lafayette Florist, Embellishments, El Mercado and the Post Office bring people to this area for daily needs. Some simple improvements that play to the street could include: • Adding a patio at 502 S. Public Road that faces Public Road. • Moving the trailer at 503 S. Public Road to face Public Road and provide outdoor seating • Creating a park space with art play at existing apartments • Converting apartments at 503 S. Public Road to artist studios • Repositioning the building at 610 S. Public Road • Emphasize that you are entering “Old Town Lafayette” at the existing bump outs • Tree trimming at Post Office to make it more welcoming • Streetscape improvements 3 Kimbark Emma S. Public Road Legend 1. Artists Studios 2. Patio addition 3. Food Truck and seating facing Public Road 1 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 15 KIMBARK TO EMMA 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Artists Studios ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 16 KIMBARK TO EMMA I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Artists Studios ECLECTIC mix of talent Create a FUN & WHIMSICAL courtyard for local artisans Encourage COLORFUL EXPRESSIONS by artists ARTIST LAWN at front door creates a welcoming GREEN CANVAS Modern Working Studios for Local Artisans and Craftsmen ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 17 KIMBARK TO EMMA 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Patio Seating Patio seating to engage the street Charming neighborhood feeling ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 18 KIMBARK TO EMMA I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Food Cart & Patio Seating ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 19 KIMBARK TO EMMA 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Food Cart & Patio Seating View of seating concept ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 20 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 EMMA TO CANNON S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. Legend 1. Festival Plaza 2. Building at 307 S. Public 3. Pedestrian connection 1 2 3 Festival Plaza and the adjacent row of shops create a great amount of energy and activity within this block. Through minimal improvements to the existing outdoor gathering space and repositioning of some key underutilized parcels this block has the ability to become the true heart of Public Road. Some potential improvements in the block could include: • Repositioning the existing building at 307 S. Public to restaurant and retail space with outdoor seating and patio fac- ing Festival Plaza • Closing vehicular access between the building at 307 S. Public and the park to allow for a patio and increase the size of the gathering space • Combining the vehicular parking behind the Starkey building and 307 S. Public • Redesigning lawn area at festival plaza to increase pedestrian flow and active space • Removing landscape bed buffer between Public Road and festival plaza lawn • Finding a tenant or group of tenants for the building across from Festival Plaza • Including the building garage in “art shack” program • Develop signage improvements for building at 300 S. Public • Converting existing residential at SWC of Public and Cannon to a higher density residential project or mixed use • Providing umbrella tables at 401 S. Public / adjacent to Festival Plaza • Streetscape improvements Area Location Plan S. Public Road Emma Cannon ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 21 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Festival Plaza FESTIVAL PLAZA Festival Plaza as the Heart of Downtown Lafayette What it should feel like... LUSH STACKED Seasonal flower baskets and banners Signature sign element identifies district in a DISTINCT, WELCOMING way Warm and friendly, NEIGHBORHOOD AMBIANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 22 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 Festival Plaza Locate Unique Pots at Festival Plaza Creative MODERN CROSSWALKS Find spots to add unexpected COLOR 1. Feature pots unique to Festival Plaza 2. Seasonal hanging baskets and plantings 3. New public seating opportunities 4. Colorful banners & graphics 5. Bike racks 6. Highlight crosswalk 7. Public Art on every block 8. New planter beds ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 23 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Overall Plan South Public Rd Cannon St 0 20 40 80 Hanging Baskets Corner Pots Enhanced Crosswalk Urban Pendant Bike Racks Project Benches Restaurant/ Retail Parking Patio Drop-Off Scale: 1”=40’ SF-5 Festival Park Chester St Create dense, walkable sidewalk experiences Enhance the Walk Feature Pots at crosswalks Festival Plaza as the Heart of Downtown Lafayette Create a central hub and COMMUNITY GATHERING PLACE Great SOCIAL SPACES Urban Pendant STREET BOARDS STREET CHARACTER POTS add unique statement at each block FESTIVAL PLAZA ---PAGE BREAK--- EMMA TO CANNON A Downtown Vision Plan 24 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 Enlarged Plan EMMA TO CANNON planter, seat wall Drop-Off & Parking Corner Pots Enhanced Crosswalkl Urban Lantern Public Seating walk walk Art Lawn Pop-jet Shade Canopy Chester St South Public Rd 0 15 30 60 Restaurant/ Retail Alley Patio Seating Cafe Retail Patio Festival Park Great NEIGHBORHOOD PLAZA AMENITIES: kids play, places to sit, green space, lush landscape & shade Create welcoming public spots for new users Festival Plaza Pots FAMILY and COMMUNITY FRIENDLY URBAN KIDS PLAY to attract visitors & INCREASE DWELL TIME Food Tenant as destination with great street visibility Prime PATIO SCENE that is UNIQUE & MEMORABLE ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 25 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I blank ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 26 CANNON TO SIMPSON a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 A Downtown Vision Plan Location Plan S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. Legend 1. Artists Studios 2. Outdoor Seating 3. Retail Concept 1 3 2 There are several great restaurants and shops that exist in this block, including Efrain’s and Tutti’s, and many existing buildings with the eclectic character that makes Old Town unique. Some simple improve- ments that “play to the street” in this area could include: • Developing garages at 101 W. Cannon and 100 E. Cleveland into “art shack” program • Finding a tenant or group of tenants for the Chateau Salon building • Creating outdoor seating on Public Road at 101 E. Cleveland • Improving 101 E. Cleveland signage and signage at 100 S. Public Road • Repositioning retail row buildings located at 100 S. Public Road – adding landscape along the street • Repositioning building at 109 S. Public Road • Repositioning of vacant church building located behind Public Road on S. Roosevelt Ave. • Streetscape improvements S. Public Road Cannon Simpson ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 27 CANNON TO SIMPSON a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I CANNON TO SIMPSON Artists Studios Charming, Intimate Local Character ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 28 CANNON TO SIMPSON a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 Outdoor Seating Play to the Street with ‘Southwest PORCH’ Neighborhood Ambiance Screen backdrop for greater street visibility and pop of landscape color ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 29 CANNON TO SIMPSON a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Retail Concept Repaint buildings in a MODERN COLOR PALETTE Play to the Street Outdoor Room with FIREPLACE animates the street PROMINENT Signage ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 30 SIMPSON TO BASELINE a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. Legend 1. Food Truck / Mural Program 2. Artist Studios 1 2 There is a lot of opportunity within this block for repositioning of existing buildings and creating a better gateway at the corner of Baseline Road and Public Road that welcomes visitors to Old Town. The existing building at 211 N. Public Road is an excellent building with active office and restaurant use. Santiago’s and the old La Familia restau- rant can be great anchors in this block. Some potential improvements that “play to the street” for this block include: • Repositioning of the building at 105 N. Public could be converted to artist studio space or multi-family • Creating a mural along the back of the building at the Chase parking lot • Developing a food truck program at the Chase parking lot • Creating outdoor seating in ROW (on Geneseo) for restaurant space at 201 N. Public • Repositioning of 205 N. Public to artist studios or higher density multi-family • Streetscape improvements Area Location Plan S. Public Road Simpson Baseline ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 31 SIMPSON TO BASELINE a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Food Truck/ Mural Program Food Trucks and outdoor dining ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 32 SIMPSON TO BASELINE a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 Food Truck / Mural Program Modern Urban Spaces Plan of food trucks and outdoor dining Scenic Mural existing bank parking lot ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 33 SIMPSON TO BASELINE a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Residential Concept Multi family residential concept at 180 N. Public Road ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 34 SIMPSON from Public to Michigan a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. 1 2 3 Location Plan Simpson Street was the former “Main Street” of Lafayette prior to the focus shifting to Public Road / 287. Since that time, the street has continued to be a hub for cultural assets and includes many historic buildings and residences. The focus for Simpson at this time is to promote redevelopment of property that is in need of repair and to improve the overall streetscape and character. Some potential improvements that “play to the street” could include: • Improving connectivity to cultural assets – WOW, RMCMA, Miner’s, Mary Miller Theater – making the connec- tion from Public Road more walkable through character enhancements and signage improvements • Promoting development of multi-family residential and boutique office • Repositioning of the building located at 309 E. Simpson • Repositioning of the building located at 400 E. Simpson N. Public Road Simpson Michigan Legend 1. Streetscape improvements 2. District identifier at intersection of Public and Simpson 3. Potential for residential developement ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 35 SIMPSON from Public to Michigan a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Streetscape 0 20 40 80 Green Edge Green Edge Residence Concrete HC East Simpson Street West Simpson Street Lawn Trees Banner Poles Banner Poles Pots at Crosswalk Simpson Street Amenities: • banner program • pots • adirondack chair program • hanging baskets Simpson Streetscape (typical) BANNERS/FLAGS along street Replace Lawn at Street with Drought-Tolerant Grasses Hanging Baskets and Porch chairs for Houses in Historic District District Marker Use Modern “FRONT PORCH CHAIR” to add color POTS District Sidewalk Markers Home Town Experience ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 36 SIMPSON from Public to Michigan a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 Residential Concept Multi family residential concept at 309 E. Simpson Street ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 37 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I blank ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 38 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Streetscape Images OVERALL CHARACTER Create a place that is unique and unexpected ARTISTIC bike racks are beautiful and user-friendly FRESH, SMART and APPEALING use of space Add YEAR ROUND COLOR Streetscape has a DESIRABLE “REAL STREET” character & attitude LARGE POTS Add DRAMA ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 39 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Typical Street 0 20 40 80 Scale: 1”=40’ South Public Rd Restaurant & Sidewalk Patio Lawn Trees Art Pedestal Art Pedestals 12’ long x 4’ deep Bike Racks Unique Pots per block Tree Grate Urban Street Amenities: • 12’ landscape planters • benches • pots • menu boards • hanging baskets • art pedestals “SOUTH” Deck Pop-up Cafés provide outdoor public seating in the curb lane during the warm months and promote local businesses. Curb Planters with Trees Play to the Street URBAN PLANTINGS CREATE ZONES OF INTEREST ‘SOUTH DECK’ public areas Typical Sidewalk EXPERIENCE Landscape Planters SOFTEN THE STREET EDGE Unique Corner Pots Unique Corner Pots ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 40 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Streetscape/Landscape OVERALL CHARACTER LAFAYETTE BEAUTIFUL: planters create sidewalk edge Distinct metalcraft edging Use Linear planters and pop-of-color Downtown Lafayette Street Vibe: Diverse, Creative & Eclectic Planter beds create a great natural, street edge ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 41 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Streetscape/Landscape COMMUNITY ROSE GARDEN Pots and Landscape Reinforce Diverse, Creative, Eclectic Story Hometown Charm ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 42 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Streetscape Amenities OVERALL CHARACTER Sculptural and artistic expressions Items that you happen upon... that delight and inspire ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 43 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Streetscape - Retail eclectic and unconventional Expressive individual character ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 44 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Streetscape - Lighting Capturing an element of surprise Lighting - festive and unique...atypical and delightful ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 45 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Streetscape - Banner Program Banners- unify streetscape with color and graphic expression promote civic pride, announce an upcoming event, celebrate! ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 46 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham OVERALL CHARACTER Streetscape - Public Art entertain, engage and inspire murals promotes local talent Public art - delightful items that you happen upon... ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 47 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham a threshold, front door...indicating you have arrived Entry Identifier Markers, announce - “You Are Here!...Welcome” DISTRICT IDENTIFIERS - Overall Character Streetscape - District Identifiers ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 48 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. Location Key Plan South Public Road South Boulder Road North Public Road Baseline Road South District Entry North District Entry District Boundary Identification DISTRICT IDENTIFIERS - Locations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 49 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham District Identification - Proposed Methods of Identifying Perimeter Boundaries (options) 1. Identify Corners 2. Span Street 3. Engage Intersection Corner Identity option Sign spanning roadway option Suspended Element option IDENTITY - South Boulder & Public Roads District Boundary Identification Public Road South Boulder Road ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 50 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham District Identification - Proposed Methods of Identifying Perimeter Boundaries (options) 1. Identify Corners 2. Span Street 3. Engage Intersection Corner Identity option Sign spanning roadway option Suspended Element option IDENTITY - Baseline & Public Roads District Boundary Identification Public Road Baseline Road Public Road ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 51 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Design Concept - Option 1 Identify District by anchoring intersection corners with sculptural pylons Location Plan South Public Road South Boulder Road DISTRICT IDENTIFIERS - Concept District Identifier Study ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 52 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Design Concept - Option 2 Identify District by engaging intersection with suspended sculptural identificaiton above street Location Plan South Public Road South Boulder Road Signature sign element identifies district in a DISTINCT, WELCOMING way DISTRICT IDENTIFIERS - Concept District Identifier Study ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 53 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Design Concept - Option 3 Identify District by engaging intersection with sculptural pylons and spanning street Location Plan South Public Road South Boulder Road DISTRICT IDENTIFIERS - Concept District Identifier Study ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 54 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham S. PUBLIC RD. W. KIMBARK ST. W. CHESTER ST. W. CANNON ST. W. CLEVELAND ST. W. BASELINE RD. E. BASELINE RD. E. SPAULDING ST. W. SPAULDING ST. WANEKA PY. S. BOULDER RD. W. EMMA ST. N. PUBLIC RD. W. SIMPSON ST. W. GENESEO ST. E. KIMBARK ST. E. CHESTER ST. E. CANNON ST. E. CLEVELAND ST. E. EMMA ST. E. SIMPSON ST. E. GENESEO ST. Location Key Plan Design Concept Celebrating the intersection of Simpson Street & Public Road helps to continue the district’s character established at the entries. This also creates a hierarchy for Simpson Street. Street Identification SIMPSON & PUBLIC - IDENTIFICATION ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 55 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Efrains Daily Menu Speicals displayed here! Efrains Daily Menu Speicals displayed here! Senor Gomez Senor Gomez Design Concept Sidewalk sandwich board sign creates a cohesive look along street, while promoting individual businesses. ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHIC ITEMS Sandwich Board Sign Program ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 56 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Lafayette DOWNTOWN AROUND see you Lafayette DOWNTOWN AROUND see you Lafayette DOWNTOWN AROUND see you Lafayette DOWNTOWN AROUND see you Lafayette DOWNTOWN AROUND see you Promotional Banner Program ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHIC ITEMS ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 57 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Design Concept Unique sculptural tree guards, create a streetscape art installation ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHIC ITEMS Streetscape Art Installation ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 58 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Priority / Action List Priorities for Implementation... Priorities for Implementation... Physical Improvements Regulatory Financial Organizational Public Private 1. Signage A. Baseline Identifier B. 287 Identifier C. S. Boulder Road Identifier D. Simpson Directionals 1. Work with owner of 307 S. Public Road to reposition building use to restaurant / retail space with connection to Festival Plaza, im- proved and expanded parking area, etc. 1. Update Mixed Use Building Complex Resolution 2006-51 to remove non-residen- tial to residential ratio requirements 1. Develop a strategy to increase the TIF yield from the existing urban renewal area Consideration should be given to ex- panding the boundaries, resetting the base, combining the TIF districts and starting the TIF over. 1. Develop strategy for an organization to become the “keeper” of the Vision Plan including: Whomever is the “keeper of the plan” must have monetary and staff resources, be in a position to advocate exclusively, have a narrow focus, property and business owner support and be acknowledged by Council. 2. Streetscape improvements- seating, in ground planters, pots, banners, permanent art placements A. Removing the tree coffins and replacing with landscape B. Adding the pot program at the corners of the intersections C. Adding decorative benches that are part of the Urban Art Furniture 2. Adding a deck facing Public Road at 502 S. Public Road 2. Update Urban Renewal Plan to permit Multi-family residential as a use permitted by Special Review 2. Approach area banks regarding the potential to pool CRA (Community Reinvest- ment Act) dollar for use by private individu- als and organizations. 2. Based on the vision for Public Road and necessity for LURA to play a significant role in its advancement, review the appropriate- ness of Council serving as the LURA. 3. Locate specific areas for expanding the public art program. 3. Rotate vending cart at 503 S. Public Road and add street seating facing Public Road 3. Update Parking Code and Develop Shared Parking Agreement with property owners 3. Investigate the feasibility of creating a special district within the corridor to fund on-going maintenance of physical streetscape and district signage improve- ments. Note: A critical aspect of this research will include discussions with prop- erty owners and their willingness to delay passing the additional assessment along to tenants until conditions stabilize. 3. Work with Arts Community Organizations to address how to integrate the arts pro- gram into the built form and how to overlay the creative aspects of Lafayette to have the most impact on Public Road and Simpson Street 4. Open Festival Plaza park in front of Star- key building up to the street A. Festival Plaza Improvements- Lawn en- hancements, street bump-outs/pedestrian crossings, flag poles, large pendant 4. Explore opportunities for artist studios at the various potential locations along Public Road 4. Update Sign Code and develop specific signage requirements for main street com- mercial areas - Old Town 4. Study the impact of imposing a PIF (Pub- lic Improvement Fee) on Public Road and possibly South Boulder Road. 4. Develop a communications program for area stakeholders and citizens at-large that explains the role of Public Road in the local and regional economy and the impact of do- ing nothing. Once implementation efforts are underway, use this vehicle to describe accomplishments. 5. Design and execute a Sandwich Board Program 5. Create additional outdoor seating for all identified restaurant properties and increase visibility for existing restaurants (i.e. sig- nage improvements at 300 S. Public) 5. Develop incentives for adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of existing buildings on Public Road and Simpson Street including making adaptive reuse of a landmarked building a permitted use or special review use in all zoning districts. 5. Work with the City and LURA to develop a plan to set aside specified TIF dollars for façade, signage and other TIF-eligible im- provements of various dollar thresholds. 6. Develop art mural at Chase Bank Parking Lot and develop food truck program 6. Eliminate requirements for separate indi- vidual water and sewer taps for accessory dwelling units. 6. Work with local organizations to obtain other tax incentives, grant funds, etc. NOTES: With all potential private improvement suggestions, the organization will need to begin by working with landowners on the feasibility and viability of doing things like those listed. These will be very sensitive issues and need to be dealt with very carefully. ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 59 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Zoning / Policy Recommendations Zoning Recommendations... Zoning Recommendations... To implement the Old Town Lafayette Vision Plan the City must identify and eliminate barriers that exist in the current Development and Zoning Code of City’s Code of Ordinances. There are several “layers” of policy that affect potential development in Old Town: The Urban Renewal Plan is a regulatory document in the City of Lafayette and contains a list of permitted uses, permitted uses with special review, and prohibited uses. The permitted uses in the Urban Renewal Plan are different than the permitted uses in the underlying zone districts (B-1 and C-1). The Urban Renewal Plan supersedes the Zoning Code, therefore the permitted use list included in the Urban Renewal Plan regulates the permitted uses within the Vision Plan study area. In terms of implementation process, the consultant team recommends first completing a sim- plification and retooling of existing codes and ordinances to begin facilitating development of the Vision Plan recommendations. Specific potential barriers to development that have been identified through the Vision Process include: 1) Multi-family residential This is the most critical zoning code barrier to address. Multi-family residential is not an allow- able use in Old Town based on existing regulations in the Urban Renewal Plan. Multi-family is an important land use element to allow for future property tax base within the Urban Renewal Area. 2) Parking The existing parking code requirements for Old Town are too high for a downtown area. The parking code should be adjusted for properties and specific land uses within Old Town, and the City should explore a shared use agreement or parking district with owners of private parking spaces. As part of the process, a parking inventory was completed that is included in Appendix B with the full zoning recommendations report. 3) Signage The sign code doesn’t differentiate between regional commercial and main street commercial uses. The allowed sign types and square footage should not be the same for these very differ- ent uses, businesses and settings. 4) Residential Density and Building Height The allowed density and building heights for residential within the B-1 and OTR zone districts are too low. The examples shown in the Vision Plan would require a PUD Overlay allowing in- creased height and density to be built as depicted. 5) Incentives for adaptive reuse / property redevelopment The City could create some development incentives to promote reinvestment in historic, old, under-utilized or dilapidated property. Examples of incentives include density bonuses, re- duced or eliminated parking requirements, or reduction of processing and permitting fees. Appendix B outlines specific recommendations for each of these five categories. Please note that additional items have been identified that affect the implementation of the Old Town Vision Plan, but are not specific to the study area boundary of Public Road or Simpson Street. These items are listed separately and are also located in Appendix B. Urban Renewal Plan (Permitted uses supersede permitted uses in underlying zone district) Overlays (PUD) Development and Zoning Code- City’s Code of Ordinances Mixed Use Building Complex Resolution 2006-51 ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 60 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Barriers to Implementation... Barriers to Implementation... Barriers to Implementation If there is market demand, and investment is not happening, or happening in a way that is inconsistent with the community vision … there are barriers in place. Following are a list of barriers identified that impact investment and reinvestment in the Study Area. Successful advancement of the vision will be contingent on the systematic removal of these barriers. Public Road Barriers (to Investment) • Market • Physical • Financial • Regulatory • Political • Organizational Market Barriers • Market demand, but limited sales volume • Lack of “brand” or “address” • Disproportionate number of ethnic offerings • Mixed perception of Public Road offerings • Fractured property ownership • “Over-retailed, but under-stored” (more diversity) • Limited daytime population Physical Barriers • Vacant and under-utilized parcels (no critical mass) • Inconsistent appearance and use mix • Lack of gateway and streetscape improvements • Aged infrastructure and building stock • Lack of pedestrian environment (poor lighting, traffic conflicts, inconsistency in side- walks) • Lack of connection to activity centers (cultural assets) outside of the Study Area • Non-vehicular accessibility • Length of Public Road (Study Area) • Disconnects between parking inventory and existing uses and potential redevelopment opportunities • Density conflicts between historic structures and financial feasibility Financial Barriers • Market demand, but limited sales volume – translating into below market rents • Poor perception of Public Road by investment audiences • Limited investment and / or reinvestment in properties • Need for different funding sources – capital, rent assistance, building retrofits and maintenance • Few financial resources • Ability to attract investors • Existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) potential • “Affordable heart – high-value soul” • Necessary set-aside for public spaces that do not generate direct revenue • No demand for new commercial construction Regulatory Barriers • Inconsistencies among regulatory documents • Lack of zoning for mixed-use residential construction • Code violations • Design standards that are unenforceable Political Barriers (leadership- and community-driven) • Past attempts at zoning amendments (that haunt future efforts) • Limited protocol (in Study Area) for public-private partnerships • Attitudes (fears) about density and affordability • Perception that “plans” don’t get implemented • Maintaining continued support (among stakeholders) for a shared vision • Consistency among elected officials willing to advance the vision • Perception that Public Road isn’t a profitable endeavor • Make-up of existing boards and commissions • Expectations by public and private sectors of the other Organizational Barriers • Lack of leadership • No clear leader for Public Road reinvestment initiatives • Due diligence (research) not getting to the business owners Conclusions • An authentic vision will be essential for success • Vision, plans and regulations must be aligned • Parking inventory needs to be treated as a single portfolio • Not enough “margin” in operating capital to support financing mechanisms with added assessment • Phased approach to capital investments • Existing urban renewal area not large enough to generate sufficient revenue based on need • Additional residential development within the Study Area (not necessarily on Public Road) at a higher density than what exists will be a necessity See Appendix C for the entire finance Report and Recommendations by Ricker/Cunningham. ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I 61 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Implementation realities Implementation Realities... Implementation Realities... The vision for Old Town Lafayette is a diverse, creative, and eclectic environment that is more homegrown than commercially manufactured. It will have a unique identity in the region. It will be combination of public and private spaces, both residential and commercial. The community will gather in this place to observe artists at work, support the sale of local wares and see an old friend dining in a café. The emphasis will be on the pedestrian, rather than the automobile, but the bicyclists won’t be forgotten either. Public Road will be a living room, a kitchen, a work space and a front porch. Issues that will have to be addressed in order to advance this vision can be this way – attitude, leadership, money and favorable regulations. • The economy on Public Road, like that of many if not most “downtowns” has evolved over its many decades. As alternative locations have replaced it as the community’s princi- pal commercial core, its ability to compete has been challenged. Attitudes about government’s role in leveling the playing field for users on Public Road have historically been inconsistent. Understanding the importance of Public Road beyond its physical boundaries, and the high cost of “doing nothing,” will be essential for the success of the vision near- and long-term. • While numerous groups influence the uses and users on Public Road, few have it as their single priority. City Council, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Historic Preservation, Cultural Arts Commission, Public Art Committee and Lafayette-Louisville Downtown Revitalization all provide some level of funding, regulatory, and / or design oversight or assistance. LURA (Lafayette Urban Renewal Authority), given its current limited focus (in terms of planning area boundaries) provides the most funding support, LOTA provides the largest advocacy role and the Downtown Action Committee the most programming oversight. No one of these entities alone has all of the elements of an appropriate organization to advance the vision for Public Road. • Redevelopment of an existing environment can be costly, yet yield some of the highest returns of any real estate environment in a city. Having said this, there are few instances where the private sector absorbed the cost of improvements (and maintenance), alone. An adage often used in revitalization is, “Private investment follows public commitment.” The type of public commitment needed on Public Road falls all over the redevelopment “balance sheet.” The vision for Public Road includes a phased capital improvement pro- gram, aggressive marketing and recruitment agenda, and “gap” financing strategy. Each one of these elements will require multiple types of commitment – financial, regulatory, and policy – all of which translate into economic risk and return. • The final issue that makes the vision for Public Road vulnerable is the current regulatory and policy environment. Despite a long history of City support for development and re- development on Public Road, the current documents that inform investment decisions are inconsistent and incomplete. Success will be largely dependent on the introduction of multi-family residential in appropriate locations, mixed-use development at ratios reflective of current market and financial realities, densities that balance the built-environment with economies of scale, a unified parking program and preservation of historic assets – and documentation that says the same. ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 62 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 63 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 64 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 65 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 66 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 67 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 68 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan 69 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 I Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- A Downtown Vision Plan I 20, SEPTEMBER 2011 70 a presentation by 505Design + Norris Design + TerreMark + RickerICunningham Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- MARKET REPORT APPENDIX A & RECOMMENDATIONS DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE – PUBLIC ROAD, COLORADO AUGUST 2, 2011 CONFIDENTIAL ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TerreMark Partners Inc. 535 Chilhoe Drive Suite 150 Canton, Georgia 30115 Phone 770‐720‐9001 terremarkpartners.com 1 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE‐PUBLIC ROAD LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Downtown Lafayette is focused on Public Road, stretching from Baseline Road to the north to South Boulder Road to the south – a 0.9 mile stretch of highway. Prior to the expansion of U.S. 287, Public Road was the major north‐south arterial traversing Lafayette. Public Road is supplemented by the “old” downtown centered on Simpson Road. Existing businesses are a mix of restaurants, specialty stores and associated service and civic uses have tended to group together along sections of Public Road. The redevelopment program builds on these groupings. Accordingly, five economic based groupings are proposed: • General merchandise/eclectic • Food and beverage • Artistic/creative • Service • Civic BUSINESS GENERATORS Downtown Lafayette is expected to draw business from two primary sources: • The resident population • The visitor market ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TerreMark Partners Inc. 535 Chilhoe Drive Suite 150 Canton, Georgia 30115 Phone 770‐720‐9001 terremarkpartners.com 2 RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA An accompanying map illustrates the extent of the residential trade area, which is defined as a ten‐minute drive time area. The trade area extends roughly 5.5 miles to the north, 8.0 miles to the east, 6.0 miles to the south, and 6.0 miles to the west of Downtown Lafayette. • The residential trade area’s 2010 population was estimated at 94,800 persons and contained an estimated 31,000 households. • In 2010, the residential trade area’s estimated per capita income was $35,371 and the trade area’s estimated average household income was $95,555. Nationally in 2010, per capita income was estimated at $27,851 and average household income at $72,075. • According to Claritas, high incidences of households in the residential trade area are found in four PRIZM groups: Second City Society (22.4 percent of total households), City Centers (25.9 percent), Middleburbs (11.8 percent), and Elite Suburbs (8.8 percent). In addition to the above groups, higher incidences than average are found in the Landed Gentry and Micro City Blues groups. • GAFO expenditure potential in the residential trade area grew from $247.3 million in 2000 to $382.7 million in 2010, an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. VISITOR MARKET A study prepared by Dean Runyan Associates for the Colorado Tourism Office in quantifies the economic impact of overnight tourism on Boulder County: • Spending in 2009 was $374.6 million, down from a peak of $411.1 million in 2008. • Tourism supported 5,370 jobs in 2009 and provided $128.9 million in earnings. • Tourists paid $13.0 million in local taxes and $10.6 million in state taxes. SALES POTENTIAL ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TerreMark Partners Inc. 535 Chilhoe Drive Suite 150 Canton, Georgia 30115 Phone 770‐720‐9001 terremarkpartners.com 4 RETAIL REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MERCHANT MIX SQUARE FEET Apparel & Accessories 30,000 Home 24,000 Specialty Retail 20,000 Service 5,000 Food & Beverage 35,000 Spa/Health Club – 2nd Level 15,000 Total 129,000 Street Level 114,000 MARKET SHARE ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TerreMark Partners Inc. 535 Chilhoe Drive Suite 150 Canton, Georgia 30115 Phone 770‐720‐9001 terremarkpartners.com 5 Overall, it is anticipated that the specialty tenants will capture approximately 3.4 percent of the residential trade area GAFO expenditure potential and food and beverage tenants 3.9 percent of food and beverage potential. PROS AND CONS OF DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE PROS • Affluent trade area • Growing trade area CONS • No direct freeway/U.S. highway access • Strong competitive environment CONCLUSIONS The commercial redevelopment of downtown Lafayette faces certain challenges: • The competitive retail environment and major highway network, precludes attracting national retail tenants to Public Road. • The length of Public Road precludes redeveloping the street at one time. However, a phased approach focusing on selective food and beverage operators that will diversify the current offerings will help anchor the redevelopment. This will also assist in upgrading the performance at existing and evolving general merchandise stores. Finally, providing an environment for artists and art studios and galleries will help provide Lafayette with a unique identity in the region. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TerreMark Partners Inc. 535 Chilhoe Drive Suite 150 Canton, Georgia 30115 Phone 770‐720‐9001 terremarkpartners.com 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD RETAIL STRATEGY © Copyright 2008 4 As positive local publicity is essential to the leasing effort, the Lafayette market presents a unique opportunity to create anticipation as well as involve the consumer early in the process via an interactive web site. Consumer shopping and entertainment requests can be recorded for internal use, and consumers can stay informed regarding the status of the project. As well, the site provides a source of basic information for news media. Press releases indicating the time frame of the development are targeted to both local and national media. Tenant announcements should begin almost immediately to create the sense of urgency to commit to space. SUMMARY OF STRATEGY The retail strategy will support the Community’s vision and help establish Public Road’s dominance in the marketplace, meeting consumer needs and preferences. The street will provide an exceptional opportunity for new and established artisans to sell product as well as create a sustainable tax base for future growth. STRATEGY 1. An authentic street experience augmented by three themed districts. 2. A foundation of key local retailers with focus on the arts and Food & Beverage. 3. Environmentally friendly local and regional retailers. 4. A retail development plan consisting of three phases. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD SALES POTENTIAL © Copyright 2011 1 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, CO BOULDER, CO MSA RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Downtown Lafayette is focused on Public Road, stretching from Baseline Road to the north to South Boulder Road to the south – a 0.9 mile stretch of highway. Prior to the expansion of U.S. 287, Public Road was the major north‐south arterial traversing Lafayette. Public Road is supplemented by the “old” downtown centered on Simpson Road. Existing businesses on Public Road are noted in the previous section. The mix of restaurants, specialty stores and associated service and civic uses has tended to group together along sections of Public Road. The redevelopment program builds on these groupings. Accordingly, five economic based groupings (or pods) are proposed: • General merchandise/eclectic • Food and beverage • Artistic/creative • Service • Civic SALES ASSUMPTIONS In addition to the retail configuration, Market Analysis And Research assumed: • No major competitive changes throughout the study period. • The ongoing redevelopment of Public Road will be through predominantly regionally and locally owned businesses. • For the purposes of sales forecasting it is assumed that the redevelopment of Public Road will be completed in its entirety in 2012. SALES SUPPORTABILITY Based upon the preceding assessment of specialty retail and food and beverage market potential, Market Analysis And Research prepared the sales support and square footage estimates for Downtown Lafayette. Sales support estimates were not evaluated for the service or civic commercial pods. In summary: ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD SALES POTENTIAL © Copyright 2011 2 Downtown Lafayette Sales Estimates 2012‐2016 Square Feet 2012 2014 2016 Mil.) (Prod.) Mil.) (Prod.) Mil.) (Prod.) 1. Status Quo General Merch. 150,500 $ 8.6 $ 57 $ 9.1 $ 61 $ 9.7 $ 65 Food & Beverage 50,000 $ 6.5 $130 $ 6.9 $138 $ 7.3 $146 200,000 $15.1 $ 76 $16.0 $ 80 $17.0 $ 85 2. Redeveloped General Merch. 150,500 $19.2 $127 $20.3 $135 $21.6 $143 Food & Beverage 65,000 $13.8 $212 $14.6 $225 $15.5 $239 Galleries/Studios 20,000 $ 3.4 $170 $ 3.6 $180 $ 3.8 $191 235,500 $36.3 $154 $38.6 $164 $40.9 $174 Source: Market Analysis And Research, Inc. TerreMark Partners City of Lafayette, CO ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD SALES POTENTIAL © Copyright 2011 3 • Based on sales tax receipts in 2010 downtown Lafayette generated approximately $8.1 million ($54 per square foot) in general merchandise/GAFO sales and $6.1 million ($122 per square foot) in food and beverage sales. • Based on annual growth of three percent, these status quo conditions should be expected to generate $8.6 million in GAFO sales in 2012 and $9.7 million in 2016. • Similarly, food and beverage sales can be expected to advance from $6.5 million in 2012 to $7.3 million in 2016. • A focus of the redevelopment program will be to provide an environment that will increase sales at existing operators on Public Road and replace poorer performing operations with more productive units in both the general merchandise and food and beverage arenas. • Specialty retail tenants in downtown Lafayette draw from the GAFO expenditure pool estimated at $382.7 million in 2010. According to the Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers, specialty tenant sales in neighborhood shopping centers averaged $181 per square foot in 2009. Acknowledging the high levels of regional competition, it is estimated that productivity at existing and new/replacement general merchandise stores could reach $127 per square foot in 2012 ($19.2 million) and $143 per square foot in 2016 ($21.6 million). • Food and beverage potential within the residential trade area totaled $248.3 million in 2010. Median sales per square foot of food and beverage tenants in open‐air centers in the United States is $467. Reflecting the existing food and beverage base, it is estimated that as new concepts are introduced to Public Road, square footage could increase to 65,000 square feet and productivity could rise to $212 per square foot in 2012 ($13.8 million) and $239 in 2016 ($15.5 million). • Additional new gla to be added to Public Road will be the introduction of a series of art studios and associated galleries. These are anticipated to generate $3.4 million in sales in 2012 ($170 per square foot) rising to $3.8 million ($191 per square foot) in 2016. MARKET SHARE The following table illustrates the share of market projected for Public Road in 2015, and assumes Public Road is completely redeveloped. As previously reported, the residential trade area is expected to account for seventy‐five percent of center sales. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD SALES POTENTIAL © Copyright 2011 4 Share of Market 2015 RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA GAFO Expenditure Potential $461.8 Specialty Tenants 3.4 % Food and Beverage Potential $296.5 Food and Beverage Tenants 3.9% Overall, it is anticipated that the specialty tenants will capture approximately 3.4 percent of the residential trade area GAFO expenditure potential and food and beverage tenants 3.9 percent of food and beverage potential. PROS AND CONS OF DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE PROS • Affluent trade area • Growing trade area CONS • No direct freeway/U.S. highway access • Strong competitive environment ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD SALES POTENTIAL © Copyright 2011 5 CONCLUSIONS The commercial redevelopment of downtown Lafayette faces certain challenges: • The competitive retail environment and major highway network precludes attracting national retail tenants to Public Road. • The length of Public Road precludes redeveloping the street at one time. However, a phased approach focusing on selective food and beverage operators that will diversify the current offerings will help anchor the redevelopment. This will also assist in upgrading the performance at existing and evolving general merchandise stores. Finally, providing an environment for artists and art studios and galleries will help provide Lafayette with a unique identity in the region. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 1 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA REGIONAL CONTEXT Lafayette, Colorado is located 9.0 miles to the east of Boulder, Colorado. Downtown Lafayette is centered on Public Road between Baseline Road and Emma Street in Lafayette, Colorado. Market Analysis And Research examined the broader regional economy in assessing downtown Lafayette’s potential due to Downtown Lafayette’s success, to some extent, being contingent on the health of the broader regional economy The broader regional economy is defined as the Boulder, CO MSA. The Boulder metropolitan statistical area is coterminous with Boulder County. Together with the Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA and the Greely, CO MSA, the combined area comprises the Denver‐Aurora‐Boulder, CSA. The following points are abstracted from Tables 1 to 4 and summarize the main trends in the regional economy: 1. From 1990 to 2010, the Boulder metro experienced a period of steady growth in population, households, and employment. Average household income and residential construction were impacted by the recent recession. (Table 1) • In 2010, the Boulder metro was estimated to contain 334,600 persons, an increase of 108,200 persons from 1990. Over the study period, the average annual growth rate of the metro population was 2.0 percent. • The number of households increased at a faster annual rate of 2.2 percent from 1990 to 2010. In 2010, the metro was estimated to contain 136,100 households, an increase of 47,200 from 1990. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 2 • The number of persons per household in the metro remained relatively stable, and below national averages, throughout the study period. In 2010, there were 2.40 persons per household in the metro – down from 2.45 in 1990. • Total employment expanded at a faster rate than population, 2.5 percent compared to 2.0 percent, and numbered 265,500 in 2010. Employment growth continued through the recession, with the metro adding 3,800 jobs from 2008 to 2010. • Average household income, in constant 2004 dollars, increased from $73,360 in 1990 to $112,459 in 2008 before declining to $111,278 in 2010. • Residential construction activity declined significantly between 2000 and 2010 in the metro. The number of new units authorized fell from 2,780 in 2000 to 1,022 in both 2008 and 2010. The value of these new units fell from approximately $373 million in 2000 to $205 million in 2008 and $127 million in 2010. 2. From 2000 to 2010, the Boulder metro reported unemployment rates below both those in Colorado and the United States. Employment and the labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) increased steadily until 2008 before declining (Table 2) • The Boulder metro’s labor force expanded from 160,400 persons in 2000 to 173,200 persons in 2010, an average annual rate of 0.8 percent. The labor force declined from 178,800 persons in 2008 to the current 173,200 persons. • During this same period, employment increased at a slower, annual rate of 0.4 percent and total 161,000 in 2010. • The metro unemployment rate fluctuated from a low of 2.4 percent in 2000 to 5.8 percent in 2003, before falling to 4.1 percent in 2008, and then increasing to 7.0 percent in 2010. • The following table reports recent unemployment rates from regional metros and Colorado: Local and Regional Unemployment Rates MAY 2010 APRIL 2011 MAY 2011 Boulder 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield 8.7% 8.3% 8.5% Colorado 8.7% 8.3% 8.5% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY 3. According to Woods & Poole, total non‐farm employment in the Boulder metro increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent from 161,100 jobs in 1990 to 265,500 jobs in 2010. Services are, by a large margin, the largest sector of employment. (Table 3) Employment by Sector Boulder, CO MSA Source: Woods & Poole • Services (Total) is the largest employment sector in the Boulder metro accounting for 126,000 jobs (47.5 percent of total compared to 42.1 percent nationally) in 2010. The sector added jobs at an annual average rate of 3.8 percent from 1990 to 2010. Within the Services (Total) sector the largest divisions are: Professional & Tech (41,500 jobs), Health Care & Social (25,200 jobs), and Hospitality (17,900 jobs). Educational was the fastest growing division – 6.2 percent a year. • Government (Total) is the second largest employment sector with 33,300 jobs (12.5 percent of total). The vast majority of these jobs are in the State & Local division: 30,000 jobs. The State & Local division has grown at an average rate of 1.2 percent a year, while the Federal‐Military and Federal‐Civilian divisions have deceased at 0.5 and 0.6 percent a year respectively. • Trade (Total) is the next largest employment sector with 11.7 percent, 31,000 jobs, of total employment. Retail Trade accounts for 22,600 jobs and Wholesale Trade accounts for 8,400 jobs. Wholesale Trade is growing at an average 4.0 percent a year, and Retail Trade at an average of 1.2 percent a year. © Copyright 2011 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 4 • Manufacturing is the next largest employment sector. However, consistent with national trends, the sector has been contracting at 0.5 percent a year over the study period. Manufacturing is the only sector to show negative job growth over the twenty‐year period. In 2010, the sector contained 20,300 jobs (7.6 percent of total employment). • F.I.R.E. (Finance & insurance and real estate & rental & lease) is the fifth‐largest sector of employment. The sector accounts for 10,900 jobs, 4.1 percent of total, and grew at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent from 1990 to 2010. • Construction is the next largest employment sector with 10,700 jobs, 4.0 percent of total. The sector grew at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent over the study period. • The smallest sector of employment was T.C.P.U. (Utilities, transportation & warehousing, and information). The sector contained 2,000 jobs in 2010, but grew at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent from 1990 to 2010. • The following chart list the largest employers in Boulder and Broomfield counties: Private‐sector Employers Boulder and Broomfield Counties COMPANY LOCAL EMPLOYEES INDUSTRY IBM Corp. 3,400 Computers Oracle Corp. 3,300 Computers Ball Corp. 3,100 Diversified Boulder Community Hospital 2,190 Medical Level 3 Communications Inc. 2,016 Communications Covidien 1,750 Medical manufacturing UCAR 1,393 Research and development Exempla Medical Center 1,374 Medical Safeway Inc. 1,345 Grocery Wal‐mart Stores inc. 1,240 Retail Source: Boulder County Business Report, 2011 Book of lists ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 5 Major employers just beyond Boulder County include Sun Microsystems (3,000 jobs), Seagate Technology (1,500 jobs), and Amgen (1,200 jobs). 4. Woods & Poole forecast that the Boulder metro will add 41,900 jobs, at an average rate of 1.5 percent a year, from 2010 to 2020. By 2020, they forecast the metro will contain 307,400 jobs. Services, Government, and Trade will continue to provide the majority of employment. (Table 4) • Employment in the Services (Total) sector is forecast to grow at 2.0 percent a year, adding 27,200 new jobs, for a total of 153,200 in 2020. By 2020 the sector is forecast to account for 49.8 percent of total jobs in the Boulder metro. • Government (Total) is forecast to add 3,900 jobs, all in the State & Local division, for a total of 37,200 jobs (12.1 percent) by 2020. Growth in the State & Local division is forecast at an average of 1.2 percent a year. • Trade (Total) is forecast to expand at a rate of 1.6 percent a year over the study period – adding 5,500 jobs. Growth in the Wholesale Trade division is forecast at 3.0 percent a year, and growth in the Retail Trade division is forecast at 1.1 percent a year. Trade (Total) is expected to contain 11.9 percent (36,500 jobs) of the metro total in 2020. • Manufacturing is expected to increase at 2.2 percent a year from 2010 to 2020, reversing its decline from 2000 to 2010. In 2020, the sector is expected to account for 8.2 percent of total metro jobs. • The F.I.R.E. sector is forecast to expand at 1.1 percent a year, adding 1,300 jobs over the ten‐year period, for a total of 12,200 jobs (4.0 percent) in 2020. • The Construction sector is projected to see modest growth of 0.9 percent a year for a total of 11,700 jobs (3.8 percent) in 2020. • The T.C.P.U. sector is forecast to add 100 jobs, an average annual rate of 0.5 percent, for a total of 2,100 jobs (0.7 percent) in 2020. DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE Downtown Lafayette is focused on Public Road, stretching from Baseline Road to the north to South Boulder Road to the south – 0.9 mile stretch of highway. Prior to the expansion of U.S. 287, Public Road was the major north‐south arterial traversing Lafayette. Public Road is supplemented by the “old” downtown centered on Simpson Road. Existing retailers/restaurants/service establishments on Public ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 6 Road include, but are not limited to: restaurants (La Familia, Santiago, Montana, Canon Mine, and Senor Gomez); services (Maytag and Eppains); specialty retail (Lafayette Florist, Noble, Morrell’s, and Particular’s); and, civic buildings (City Hall and U.S. Post Office). REGIONAL ACCESS Lafayette is 9.0 miles to the east of Boulder, borders Louisville to the southwest, and is 12.5 miles south of Longmont. US‐287 and State Highway 7 are the major arterials providing regional access to Louisville. • Southbound US‐287 connects Lafayette to the E‐470 Denver ring road, Broomfield and US‐36 (Denver‐Boulder Turnpike). • Northbound US‐287 provides access to Longmont. • State Highway 7 connects to Boulder to the west and I‐25 to the east. • Louisville connects to Lafayette and US‐36 (Denver‐Boulder Turnpike) via South Boulder Road and McCaslin Boulevard. US‐36 connects Louisville to Denver and Boulder. • According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, in 2009 Highway 7 saw an average of 15,700 vehicles daily in Lafayette. US‐287 saw an average of 29,600 daily vehicles south of its intersection with Highway 7. BUSINESS GENERATORS FOR DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE Downtown Lafayette is expected to draw business from two primary sources: • The resident population • The visitor market RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA In defining the residential trade area for Downtown Lafayette, Market Analysis And Research considered the following: • The proximity to competitive centers • The proximity to Louisville’s town center • The available, existing square footage on Public Road ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY An accompanying map illustrates the extent of the residential trade area, which is defined as a ten‐minute drive time area. The trade area extends roughly 5.5 miles to the north, 8.0 miles to the east, 6.0 miles to the south, and 6.0 miles to the west of Downtown Lafayette. The trade area contains all or part of the following communities: Lafayette, Louisville, and Erie. The residential trade area is expected to account for 75 percent of total retail sales in Downtown Lafayette. RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS Tables 5 and 6 report the population and household characteristics of the residential trade area, the Boulder metro, the Denver metro, and the United States. Downtown Lafayette Population and Households Residential Trade Area Source: SCANUS, Market Analysis And Research © Copyright 2011 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 8 The residential trade area’s 2010 population was estimated at 94,800 persons and contained an estimated 31,000 households. From 2000 to 2010, the residential trade area’s population expanded at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent – well above the national average of 0.9 percent. In 2010, the Boulder metro was estimated to contain 299,200 persons and 114,900 households. Table 5 and 6 also report: • The residential trade area grew from 66,100 persons in 2000 to an estimated 84,500 persons in 2010: an increase of 18,400 persons at an annual rate of 2.5 percent. • In 2020, the residential trade area is projected to contain 105,200 persons, an increase of 20,700 persons from 2010. The average annual growth rate from 2010 to 2015 is forecast at 2.3 percent, and the growth rate from 2015 to 2010 is forecast at 2.1 percent. These growth rates continue to be well above national forecasts of 0.9 percent and 0.8 percent. • The residential trade area increased population at a faster rate, 2.5 percent compared to 1.0 percent, than the Boulder metro as a whole. • From 2010 to 2015, the residential trade area is forecast to add 3,900 households, for a total of 34,900 households, an average annual increase of 2.4 percent. RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Tables 7, 8 and 9 report the income characteristics of the residential trade area, the Boulder metro, the Denver metro, and the United States. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY Downtown Lafayette Income Characteristics Residential Trade Area (Current Dollars) Source: SCANUS, Market Analysis And Research In 2010, the residential trade area’s estimated per capita income was $35,371 and the trade area’s estimated average household income was $95,555. Nationally in 2010, per capita income was estimated at $27,851 and average household income at $72,075. When viewing these income numbers it is important to note that the Boulder metro has a relatively high cost of living. In the 2nd quarter of 2008, ACCRA indexed the Boulder metro’s cost of living at 122.4, or 22.4 percent above national average. Tables 7, 8 and 9 also report: • Per capita income in current dollars increased from $29,209 in 2000 to $35,371 in 2010 – an annual rate of 1.9 percent. From 2010 to 2015, per capita income is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 1.5 percent and reach $38,062 in 2015. • Per capita income in the trade area grew at a slower rate than the nation as a whole from 2000 to 2010: 1.9 percent compared to 2.4 percent. However, in 2010, the residential trade area’s per capita income was 27 percent higher than the national per capita income. © Copyright 2011 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 10 • Within the residential trade area, the average household income grew at an annual rate of 2.2 percent from $77,161 in 2000 to $95,555 in 2010. This rate of growth was below the national rate of 2.4 percent a year. In 2010, average household incomes in the trade area were 33 percent higher than the national average. • While per capita income in the trade area was below the Boulder metro as a whole ($35,371 versus $36,606), due to a higher number of persons per households, average household incomes were higher in the trade area ($95,555) than the Boulder metro ($91,632). • Within the residential trade area, 34.2 percent of total households (10,600 households) earned more than $100,000 in 2010. This is well above the national percentage of 19.9 percent. 14,800 households (47.7 percent) earned more than $75,000 in 2010. Again, well above the national percentage of 32.4 percent. • The average listing price for homes in zip codes in the Lafayette vicinity help to illustrate the income characteristics of the residential trade area. Selected Zip Codes Average Listing Price May 2011 ZIP 80026 – Lafayette $409,569 ZIP 80027 – Louisville $402,645 ZIP 80303 – Boulder $575,327 ZIP 80301 – Boulder $529,568 ZIP 80516 – Erie $376,092 ZIP 80023 – Broomfield $430,287 ZIP 80020 – Broomfield $360,646 Source: Realtor.com ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 11 RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA PRIZM PROFILE According to Claritas, high incidences of households (Relative Penetration Index > 150) in the residential trade area are found in four PRIZM groups. An RPI of 150 and above indicates an incidence of a PRIZM group in the trade area fifty percent or higher than the national average. These four groups account for 68.9 percent of total households in the residential trade area. The four groups are, in order of R.P.I., Second City Society (22.4 percent of total households), City Centers (25.9 percent), Middleburbs (11.8 percent), and Elite Suburbs (8.8 percent). In addition to the above groups, higher incidences than average are found in the Landed Gentry and Micro City Blues groups. Descriptions of the four high‐incidence groups, from Claritas are found below, and Table 10 contains a full breakdown of the residential trade area’s PRIZM profile. • Among second‐tier cities, Second City Society stands at the top of the heap, a social group consisting of the wealthiest families who live outside the nation’s metropolitan core. The three segments in this group are dominated with married couples with children, college degrees, large homes, and executive jobs. Ethnically, the residents are predominantly white with above‐average rates of Asian Americans. In the marketplace, they spend big on digital and wireless technology, business and cultural media, casual‐ dining restaurants, upscale retailers, foreign travel and luxury cars. Nationally, 4.3 percent of households are classified as belonging to the Second City Society group. • The five segments in the City Centers social group consist of a mix of Americans—old and young, homeowners and renters, families and singles—who’ve settled in the nation’s satellite cities. What they share is a middle‐class status, some college educations and a lifestyle heavy on leisure and recreation. The members of City Centers tend to be big fans of home‐centered activities: computer surfing, video renting, TV viewing and playing games and musical instruments. Outside their homes, they go to movies, museums and bowling alleys at high rates. City Centers account for 7.2 percent of households nationwide. • The five segments that comprise Middleburbs share a middle‐class, suburban perspective, but there the similarity ends. Two groups are filled with very young residents, two are filled with seniors and one is middle‐aged. In addition, Middleburbs includes a mix of both, homeowners and renters as well as high school graduates and college alums. With good jobs and money in their jeans, the members of Middleburbs tend to have plenty of discretionary income to visit and casual‐dining restaurants, shop at midscale department stores, buy dance and easy listening CDs by the dozen and travel across the U.S. and Canada. Nationally, Middleburbs account for 6.1 percent of total households. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY • Widely scattered throughout the nation, the five segments in the Landed Gentry social group consist of wealthy Americans who migrated to the smaller boomtowns beyond the nation’s beltways. Many of the households contain Boomer families and couples with college degrees, professional jobs— they’re twice as likely as average Americans to telecommute—and expansive homes. With their upscale incomes, they can afford to spend heavily on consumer electronics, wireless and computer technology, luxury cars, powerboats, books and magazines, children’s toys and exercise equipment. The Landed Gentry comprise 9.2 percent of total households nationally. RESIDENTIAL TRADE AREA GAFO EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL Table 11 reports the GAFO expenditure potential within the residential trade area of Downtown Lafayette, the Boulder metro, the Denver metro, and the United States. GAFO merchandise categories include goods sold at general merchandise stores, apparel and accessories’ stores, furniture and home furnishings retailers and miscellaneous shopping goods stores, as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Such merchandise categories disproportionately represent the types of goods sold at department stores and among retailers at regional malls, lifestyle centers and value/outlet centers. In summary: Downtown Lafayette Residential Trade Area GAFO Expenditure Potential Mil.) Source: SCANUS, Market Analysis And Research © Copyright 2011 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 13 As reported, GAFO expenditure potential in the residential trade area grew from $247.3 million in 2000 to $382.7 million in 2010, an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. GAFO expenditure potential is forecast to grow to $552.1 million in 2010, growing at an annual rate of 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2015 and 3.6 percent from 2015 to 2020. The forecast growth rate of 3.8 percent a year from 2010 to 2015 is significantly above the forecast growth rate for the Boulder metro as a whole (2.1 percent), the Denver metro (2.6 percent), and the United States (2.6 percent). Based on the 2010 Consumer Expenditure Survey, food and beverage potential is estimated at $248.3 million in 2009. Recent trends in expenditures on food away from home have been flat or in slight decline, and accordingly this level of expenditure is as assumed to be constant throughout the study period. VISITOR MARKET Colorado is a large visitor market. A study prepared by Dean Runyan Associates for the Colorado Tourism Office quantifies the economic impact of overnight tourism on Boulder County: • Spending in 2009 was $374.6 million, down from a peak of $411.1 million in 2008. • Tourism supported 5,370 jobs in 2009 and provided $128.9 million in earnings. • Tourists paid $13.0 million in local taxes and $10.6 million in state taxes. RETAIL COMPETITION Retail within the vicinity of Downtown Lafayette includes: • Retail in Lafayette has focused along the US‐287 corridor running to the west of downtown. There is a Wal‐mart anchored center at US‐287 and Baseline Road, and the Coal Creek Shopping Center at US‐287 and S Boulder Road. • Louisville’s town center includes local retailers and Food & Beverage centered along Main Street between Pine Street and Lafayette Street. Louisville’s town center is 2.5 miles to the southwest of Downtown Lafayette. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 14 • Superior Marketplace, in the southwest quadrant of US‐36 and McCaslin Boulevard contains 273,790 square feet of gla. Anchors include Whole Foods, PetSmart, Sports Authority, Ross and TJMaxx. Costco and SuperTarget are not part of the total GLA. The Centro Properties Group owned center is 5.0 miles to the southwest of downtown Lafayette. Regional centers in the Boulder metro and Bloomfield include: • Flatiron Crossing in Broomfield, is a two‐level, enclosed regional mall with a lifestyle‐ entertainment component. The 1,467,566 square foot center is owned by Macerich. The center, which serves a mid to upper price point is anchored by Macy’s, Dick’s, and Dillard’s. In‐line tenants include Coach, Apple, J. Jill, and Forever XXI. The center is located at Flatiron Crossing Drive and the Denver‐Boulder Turnpike, 5.0 miles to the south of downtown Lafayette. • Orchard Town Center is an open‐air, regional lifestyle center located at I‐25 and 144th Street in Westminster, CO. The center has 980,000 square feet of gla, and it is anchored by Macy’s, JCPenney, SuperTarget, and an AMC 12‐screen theater. National retailers include REI, Claire’s, and Zumiez. The Forest City‐owned center is located 5.5 miles to the southeast of Downtown Lafayette. • 29th Street Mall in Boulder is an 830,159 square foot lifestyle center. Tenants at the Macerich‐owned center include Macy’s, Whole Foods, Anthropologie, Apple, and Rack. The center is located at Arapahoe Avenue and US‐36 in Boulder, 9.0 miles to the west of Downtown Lafayette. • The Village is a strip‐center located opposite US‐36 from the 29th Street Mall in Boulder that includes a Gymboree and Farmers Market. • Pearl Street is the open‐air, partially pedestrian, downtown retail area in Boulder. The area contains mostly local retail, and many Food & Beverage options. • Twin Peaks Mall, is an enclosed, 550,000 square foot regional in Longmont. The mall is anchored by Dillard’s and Sears, and is located in the northeast quadrant of Highway 119 and Hover Road. The center is 10.5 miles to the north of Downtown Lafayette. Other centers on the northern side of the Denver metro include Westminster Mall and Larkridge. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC ROAD MARKET STUDY © Copyright 2011 15 METRO AREA RETAIL SALES Metro area retail sales are reported in Tables 12 to 14. Data is reported for the Boulder, CO MSA from the 2002 and 2007 Census of Retail Trade. • In 2007, total GAFO sales in for the Boulder metro were $1.3 billion, an increase of $156 million from 2002. The number of total GAFO establishments increased from 690 in 2002 to 802 in 2007. (Table 12) • Boulder has two times the number of stores per capita as the national average: 277.2 per 100,000 people compared to 138.2 nationally. This discrepancy is greatest in the Miscellaneous Shopping Goods Category (279 percent higher). The metro has 43.4 percent less General Merchandise Stores than the national per capita average. These differences portray a market that is retailed differently than most U.S. mid‐size cities. (Table 13) • For total GAFO stores, sales per capita in the Boulder metro are 18.8 percent above national average. Due to the well above average number of total GAFO stores, Sales per store are 40.8 percent below the national average. (Table 13) • The Boulder metro sees a slight import of total GAFO sales (6 percent) into the metro, which is to be expected due to tourism and the presence of the University of Colorado. Expected MSA resident GAFO sales are $1.2 billion a year and reported sales are $1.3 billion a year. (Table 14) ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 1: , 5 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM URBAN 1403157 0.0 1.21% U1 0.00% 0 04 Young Digerati 2281156 0.0 1.96% U1 0.00% 0 07 Money and Brains 2049821 0.0 1.77% U1 0.00% 0 16 Bohemian Mix 1326394 0.0 1.14% U1 0.00% 0 26 The Cosmopolitans 2466519 0.0 2.12% U1 0.00% 0 29 American Dreams 9527047 URBAN UPTOWN 0.0 8.20% U1 0 0.00% 1790485 0.0 1.54% U2 0.00% 0 31 Urban Achievers 1324822 0.0 1.14% U2 0.00% 0 40 Close-In Couples 1940720 0.0 1.67% U2 0.00% 0 54 Multi-Culti Mosiac 5056027 MIDTOWN MIX 0.0 4.35% U2 0 0.00% 1531800 0.0 1.32% U3 0.00% 0 59 Urban Elders 1315931 0.0 1.13% U3 0.00% 0 61 City Roots 1299134 0.0 1.12% U3 0.00% 0 65 Big City Blues 1684347 0.0 1.45% U3 0.00% 0 66 Low-Rise Living 5831212 URBAN CORES 0.0 5.02% U3 0 0.00% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 1 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 1: , 5 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SECOND CITIES 1454335 140.0 1.25% C1 1.75% 124 10 Second City Elite 1836440 388.0 1.58% C1 6.14% 434 12 Brite Lites, Li'l City 1957492 265.1 1.69% C1 4.47% 316 13 Upward Bound 5248267 SECOND CITY SOCIETY 273.4 4.52% C1 874 12.36% 1500105 459.7 1.29% C2 5.94% 420 24 Up-and-Comers 2270917 344.2 1.96% C2 6.73% 476 27 Middleburg Managers 1537841 422.8 1.32% C2 5.60% 396 34 White Picket Fences 1610499 319.1 1.39% C2 4.43% 313 35 Boomtown Singles 2071984 401.0 1.78% C2 7.15% 506 41 Sunset City Blues 8991346 CITY CENTERS 385.5 7.74% C2 2111 29.85% 1488786 0.0 1.28% C3 0.00% 0 47 City Startups 1501362 542.5 1.29% C3 7.01% 496 53 Mobility Blues 1327760 244.9 1.14% C3 2.80% 198 60 Park Bench Seniors 1384260 538.5 1.19% C3 6.42% 454 62 Hometown Retired 2111146 164.1 1.82% C3 2.98% 211 63 Family Thrifts 7813314 MICRO-CITY BLUES 285.6 6.73% C3 1359 19.21% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 2 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 1: , 5 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SUBURBS 1775171 44.4 1.53% S1 0.68% 48 01 Upper Crust 1131860 27.6 0.97% S1 0.27% 19 02 Blue Blood Estates 1864599 93.3 1.61% S1 1.50% 106 03 Movers and Shakers 1261540 22.1 1.09% S1 0.24% 17 06 Winner's Circle 6033170 ELITE SUBURBS 51.7 5.19% S1 190 2.69% 1060912 17.0 0.91% S2 0.16% 11 08 Executive Suites 1243807 6.6 1.07% S2 0.07% 5 14 New Empty Nests 1524743 72.2 1.31% S2 0.95% 67 15 Pools and Patios 1120820 39.6 0.97% S2 0.38% 27 17 Beltway Boomers 1876131 112.9 1.62% S2 1.82% 129 18 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs 2120256 141.7 1.83% S2 2.59% 183 19 Home Sweet Home 8946669 THE AFFLUENTIALS 77.4 7.70% S2 422 5.97% 1078939 278.5 0.93% S3 2.59% 183 21 Gray Power 1701983 23.2 1.47% S3 0.34% 24 22 Young Influentials 1521596 343.2 1.31% S3 4.50% 318 30 Suburban Sprawl 1448410 233.5 1.25% S3 2.91% 206 36 Blue-Chip Blues 1406256 23.4 1.21% S3 0.28% 20 39 Domestic Duos 7157184 MIDDLEBURBS 172.3 6.16% S3 751 10.62% 1802267 38.3 1.55% S4 0.59% 42 44 New Beginnings 1139485 0.0 0.98% S4 0.00% 0 46 Old Glories 1195760 221.1 1.03% S4 2.28% 161 49 American Classics 1219638 617.9 1.05% S4 6.49% 459 52 Suburban Pioneers 5357150 INNER SUBURBS 202.9 4.61% S4 662 9.36% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 3 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 1: , 5 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM TOWN AND RURAL 2005091 205.5 1.73% T1 3.55% 251 05 Country Squires 2492753 25.7 2.15% T1 0.55% 39 09 Big Fish, Small Pond 1689583 382.9 1.45% T1 5.57% 394 11 God's Country 1856956 0.0 1.60% T1 0.00% 0 20 Fast-Track Families 1753196 0.0 1.51% T1 0.00% 0 25 Country Casuals 9797579 LANDED GENTRY 114.6 8.44% T1 684 9.67% 1550095 12.7 1.33% T2 0.17% 12 23 Greenbelt Sports 3278185 0.0 2.82% T2 0.00% 0 28 Traditional Times 2059595 7.2 1.77% T2 0.13% 9 32 New Homesteaders 2137037 0.0 1.84% T2 0.00% 0 33 Big Sky Families 2749917 0.0 2.37% T2 0.00% 0 37 Mayberry-ville 11774829 COUNTRY COMFORT 2.9 10.14% T2 21 0.30% 2749769 0.0 2.37% T3 0.00% 0 38 Simple Pleasures 1250143 0.0 1.08% T3 0.00% 0 42 Red, White and Blues 2291305 0.0 1.97% T3 0.00% 0 43 Heartlanders 1813275 0.0 1.56% T3 0.00% 0 45 Blue Highways 1469685 0.0 1.27% T3 0.00% 0 50 Kid Country, USA 1847075 0.0 1.59% T3 0.00% 0 51 Shotguns and Pickups 11421252 MIDDLE AMERICA 0.0 9.83% T3 0 0.00% 2201477 0.0 1.90% T4 0.00% 0 48 Young and Rustic 1966235 0.0 1.69% T4 0.00% 0 55 Golden Ponds 2408121 0.0 2.07% T4 0.00% 0 56 Crossroads Villagers 1834700 0.0 1.58% T4 0.00% 0 57 Old Milltowns 2610539 0.0 2.25% T4 0.00% 0 58 Back Country Folks 2160499 0.0 1.86% T4 0.00% 0 64 Bedrock America 13181571 RUSTIC LIVING 0.0 11.35% T4 0 0.00% 100.0 100.00% 116136617 100.01% 7074 Totals Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 4 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 2: , 10 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM URBAN 1403157 0.0 1.21% U1 0.00% 0 04 Young Digerati 2281156 0.0 1.96% U1 0.00% 0 07 Money and Brains 2049821 0.0 1.77% U1 0.00% 0 16 Bohemian Mix 1326394 0.0 1.14% U1 0.00% 0 26 The Cosmopolitans 2466519 0.0 2.12% U1 0.00% 0 29 American Dreams 9527047 URBAN UPTOWN 0.0 8.20% U1 0 0.00% 1790485 0.0 1.54% U2 0.00% 0 31 Urban Achievers 1324822 0.0 1.14% U2 0.00% 0 40 Close-In Couples 1940720 0.0 1.67% U2 0.00% 0 54 Multi-Culti Mosiac 5056027 MIDTOWN MIX 0.0 4.35% U2 0 0.00% 1531800 0.0 1.32% U3 0.00% 0 59 Urban Elders 1315931 0.0 1.13% U3 0.00% 0 61 City Roots 1299134 0.0 1.12% U3 0.00% 0 65 Big City Blues 1684347 0.0 1.45% U3 0.00% 0 66 Low-Rise Living 5831212 URBAN CORES 0.0 5.02% U3 0 0.00% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 5 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 2: , 10 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SECOND CITIES 1454335 290.2 1.25% C1 3.63% 771 10 Second City Elite 1836440 461.1 1.58% C1 7.29% 1547 12 Brite Lites, Li'l City 1957492 355.7 1.69% C1 6.00% 1272 13 Upward Bound 5248267 SECOND CITY SOCIETY 374.4 4.52% C1 3590 16.92% 1500105 348.5 1.29% C2 4.50% 955 24 Up-and-Comers 2270917 317.5 1.96% C2 6.21% 1317 27 Middleburg Managers 1537841 351.3 1.32% C2 4.65% 987 34 White Picket Fences 1610499 247.1 1.39% C2 3.43% 727 35 Boomtown Singles 2071984 256.3 1.78% C2 4.57% 970 41 Sunset City Blues 8991346 CITY CENTERS 301.7 7.74% C2 4956 23.36% 1488786 0.0 1.28% C3 0.00% 0 47 City Startups 1501362 185.6 1.29% C3 2.40% 509 53 Mobility Blues 1327760 144.7 1.14% C3 1.65% 351 60 Park Bench Seniors 1384260 181.9 1.19% C3 2.17% 460 62 Hometown Retired 2111146 91.3 1.82% C3 1.66% 352 63 Family Thrifts 7813314 MICRO-CITY BLUES 117.1 6.73% C3 1672 7.88% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 6 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 2: , 10 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SUBURBS 1775171 94.4 1.53% S1 1.44% 306 01 Upper Crust 1131860 96.7 0.97% S1 0.94% 200 02 Blue Blood Estates 1864599 213.7 1.61% S1 3.43% 728 03 Movers and Shakers 1261540 171.4 1.09% S1 1.86% 395 06 Winner's Circle 6033170 ELITE SUBURBS 147.8 5.19% S1 1629 7.68% 1060912 73.8 0.91% S2 0.67% 143 08 Executive Suites 1243807 21.1 1.07% S2 0.23% 48 14 New Empty Nests 1524743 34.8 1.31% S2 0.46% 97 15 Pools and Patios 1120820 36.1 0.97% S2 0.35% 74 17 Beltway Boomers 1876131 85.2 1.62% S2 1.38% 292 18 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs 2120256 66.9 1.83% S2 1.22% 259 19 Home Sweet Home 8946669 THE AFFLUENTIALS 55.9 7.70% S2 913 4.30% 1078939 195.3 0.93% S3 1.81% 385 21 Gray Power 1701983 51.1 1.47% S3 0.75% 159 22 Young Influentials 1521596 316.9 1.31% S3 4.15% 881 30 Suburban Sprawl 1448410 263.0 1.25% S3 3.28% 696 36 Blue-Chip Blues 1406256 7.8 1.21% S3 0.09% 20 39 Domestic Duos 7157184 MIDDLEBURBS 163.7 6.16% S3 2141 10.09% 1802267 27.0 1.55% S4 0.42% 89 44 New Beginnings 1139485 6.2 0.98% S4 0.06% 13 46 Old Glories 1195760 126.3 1.03% S4 1.30% 276 49 American Classics 1219638 254.9 1.05% S4 2.68% 568 52 Suburban Pioneers 5357150 INNER SUBURBS 96.7 4.61% S4 946 4.46% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 7 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 2: , 10 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM TOWN AND RURAL 2005091 453.2 1.73% T1 7.82% 1660 05 Country Squires 2492753 124.3 2.15% T1 2.67% 566 09 Big Fish, Small Pond 1689583 768.2 1.45% T1 11.18% 2371 11 God's Country 1856956 5.6 1.60% T1 0.09% 19 20 Fast-Track Families 1753196 2.8 1.51% T1 0.04% 9 25 Country Casuals 9797579 LANDED GENTRY 258.4 8.44% T1 4625 21.80% 1550095 103.8 1.33% T2 1.39% 294 23 Greenbelt Sports 3278185 19.4 2.82% T2 0.55% 116 28 Traditional Times 2059595 31.1 1.77% T2 0.55% 117 32 New Homesteaders 2137037 0.0 1.84% T2 0.00% 0 33 Big Sky Families 2749917 7.4 2.37% T2 0.17% 37 37 Mayberry-ville 11774829 COUNTRY COMFORT 26.2 10.14% T2 564 2.66% 2749769 10.4 2.37% T3 0.25% 52 38 Simple Pleasures 1250143 12.3 1.08% T3 0.13% 28 42 Red, White and Blues 2291305 4.3 1.97% T3 0.08% 18 43 Heartlanders 1813275 0.0 1.56% T3 0.00% 0 45 Blue Highways 1469685 11.9 1.27% T3 0.15% 32 50 Kid Country, USA 1847075 0.0 1.59% T3 0.00% 0 51 Shotguns and Pickups 11421252 MIDDLE AMERICA 6.2 9.83% T3 130 0.61% 2201477 1.2 1.90% T4 0.02% 5 48 Young and Rustic 1966235 1.1 1.69% T4 0.02% 4 55 Golden Ponds 2408121 2.3 2.07% T4 0.05% 10 56 Crossroads Villagers 1834700 6.6 1.58% T4 0.10% 22 57 Old Milltowns 2610539 0.0 2.25% T4 0.00% 0 58 Back Country Folks 2160499 2.3 1.86% T4 0.04% 9 64 Bedrock America 13181571 RUSTIC LIVING 2.1 11.35% T4 50 0.24% 100.0 100.00% 116136617 100.00% 21216 Totals Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 8 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 3: , 15 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM URBAN 1403157 0.0 1.21% U1 0.00% 0 04 Young Digerati 2281156 0.0 1.96% U1 0.00% 0 07 Money and Brains 2049821 0.0 1.77% U1 0.00% 0 16 Bohemian Mix 1326394 0.0 1.14% U1 0.00% 0 26 The Cosmopolitans 2466519 0.0 2.12% U1 0.00% 0 29 American Dreams 9527047 URBAN UPTOWN 0.0 8.20% U1 0 0.00% 1790485 0.0 1.54% U2 0.00% 0 31 Urban Achievers 1324822 0.0 1.14% U2 0.00% 0 40 Close-In Couples 1940720 0.0 1.67% U2 0.00% 0 54 Multi-Culti Mosiac 5056027 MIDTOWN MIX 0.0 4.35% U2 0 0.00% 1531800 0.0 1.32% U3 0.00% 0 59 Urban Elders 1315931 0.0 1.13% U3 0.00% 0 61 City Roots 1299134 0.0 1.12% U3 0.00% 0 65 Big City Blues 1684347 0.0 1.45% U3 0.00% 0 66 Low-Rise Living 5831212 URBAN CORES 0.0 5.02% U3 0 0.00% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 9 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 3: , 15 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SECOND CITIES 1454335 192.3 1.25% C1 2.41% 1540 10 Second City Elite 1836440 442.7 1.58% C1 7.00% 4478 12 Brite Lites, Li'l City 1957492 335.6 1.69% C1 5.66% 3618 13 Upward Bound 5248267 SECOND CITY SOCIETY 333.4 4.52% C1 9636 15.06% 1500105 206.2 1.29% C2 2.66% 1704 24 Up-and-Comers 2270917 226.3 1.96% C2 4.42% 2830 27 Middleburg Managers 1537841 331.5 1.32% C2 4.39% 2808 34 White Picket Fences 1610499 215.6 1.39% C2 2.99% 1912 35 Boomtown Singles 2071984 152.1 1.78% C2 2.71% 1736 41 Sunset City Blues 8991346 CITY CENTERS 221.9 7.74% C2 10990 17.18% 1488786 6.2 1.28% C3 0.08% 51 47 City Startups 1501362 64.1 1.29% C3 0.83% 530 53 Mobility Blues 1327760 96.3 1.14% C3 1.10% 704 60 Park Bench Seniors 1384260 61.1 1.19% C3 0.73% 466 62 Hometown Retired 2111146 93.1 1.82% C3 1.69% 1083 63 Family Thrifts 7813314 MICRO-CITY BLUES 65.9 6.73% C3 2834 4.43% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 10 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 3: , 15 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM SUBURBS 1775171 100.5 1.53% S1 1.54% 983 01 Upper Crust 1131860 206.8 0.97% S1 2.02% 1289 02 Blue Blood Estates 1864599 297.1 1.61% S1 4.77% 3051 03 Movers and Shakers 1261540 386.6 1.09% S1 4.20% 2686 06 Winner's Circle 6033170 ELITE SUBURBS 241.0 5.19% S1 8009 12.52% 1060912 407.7 0.91% S2 3.72% 2382 08 Executive Suites 1243807 25.7 1.07% S2 0.28% 176 14 New Empty Nests 1524743 58.8 1.31% S2 0.77% 494 15 Pools and Patios 1120820 58.8 0.97% S2 0.57% 363 17 Beltway Boomers 1876131 178.3 1.62% S2 2.88% 1842 18 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs 2120256 151.3 1.83% S2 2.76% 1767 19 Home Sweet Home 8946669 THE AFFLUENTIALS 142.5 7.70% S2 7024 10.98% 1078939 162.4 0.93% S3 1.51% 965 21 Gray Power 1701983 119.8 1.47% S3 1.76% 1123 22 Young Influentials 1521596 377.1 1.31% S3 4.94% 3160 30 Suburban Sprawl 1448410 489.5 1.25% S3 6.11% 3905 36 Blue-Chip Blues 1406256 5.6 1.21% S3 0.07% 43 39 Domestic Duos 7157184 MIDDLEBURBS 233.3 6.16% S3 9196 14.38% 1802267 27.0 1.55% S4 0.42% 268 44 New Beginnings 1139485 14.8 0.98% S4 0.15% 93 46 Old Glories 1195760 116.9 1.03% S4 1.20% 770 49 American Classics 1219638 239.5 1.05% S4 2.52% 1609 52 Suburban Pioneers 5357150 INNER SUBURBS 92.9 4.61% S4 2740 4.28% Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 11 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette, CO PRIZM Social Group Distribution 2010 DrvTim 3: , 15 Minute(s) Total US Base Code Name Households Area Households % Group Index % PRIZM TOWN AND RURAL 2005091 299.3 1.73% T1 5.17% 3305 05 Country Squires 2492753 98.3 2.15% T1 2.11% 1349 09 Big Fish, Small Pond 1689583 559.9 1.45% T1 8.15% 5210 11 God's Country 1856956 16.5 1.60% T1 0.26% 169 20 Fast-Track Families 1753196 12.2 1.51% T1 0.18% 118 25 Country Casuals 9797579 LANDED GENTRY 188.1 8.44% T1 10151 15.87% 1550095 148.4 1.33% T2 1.98% 1267 23 Greenbelt Sports 3278185 23.1 2.82% T2 0.65% 417 28 Traditional Times 2059595 29.4 1.77% T2 0.52% 334 32 New Homesteaders 2137037 5.9 1.84% T2 0.11% 69 33 Big Sky Families 2749917 7.7 2.37% T2 0.18% 116 37 Mayberry-ville 11774829 COUNTRY COMFORT 34.0 10.14% T2 2203 3.44% 2749769 15.5 2.37% T3 0.37% 235 38 Simple Pleasures 1250143 18.4 1.08% T3 0.20% 127 42 Red, White and Blues 2291305 9.4 1.97% T3 0.19% 119 43 Heartlanders 1813275 0.4 1.56% T3 0.01% 4 45 Blue Highways 1469685 34.7 1.27% T3 0.44% 281 50 Kid Country, USA 1847075 0.3 1.59% T3 0.00% 3 51 Shotguns and Pickups 11421252 MIDDLE AMERICA 12.2 9.83% T3 769 1.20% 2201477 2.1 1.90% T4 0.04% 25 48 Young and Rustic 1966235 2.0 1.69% T4 0.03% 22 55 Golden Ponds 2408121 7.5 2.07% T4 0.15% 99 56 Crossroads Villagers 1834700 16.0 1.58% T4 0.25% 162 57 Old Milltowns 2610539 0.6 2.25% T4 0.01% 9 58 Back Country Folks 2160499 7.8 1.86% T4 0.15% 93 64 Bedrock America 13181571 RUSTIC LIVING 5.6 11.35% T4 410 0.64% 100.0 100.00% 116136617 100.00% 63962 Totals The "Index" is defined as the ratio of the percent of Households for the segment in the report's geographic area compared to the percent of Households in the U.S. for the segment, times 100. Nielsen Solution Center 1 [PHONE REDACTED] © 2011 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Prepared By: Prepared For: TerreMark Partners Project Code: Lafayette, CO 15 12 Of Page Fri Apr 22, 2011 Prepared On: ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 1 - Site & Vicinity ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 2 - Residential Trade Area ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3 - 2010 Population Density ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 4 - 2015 Population Density ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 5 - Population Change (2010 to 2015) ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 6 - 2010 Average Household Income ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 7 - Average Household Incomes > $75,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 8 - Retail Competition ---PAGE BREAK--- LAFAYETTE ‐ SALES POTENTIAL 1. EXISTING RETAIL Square Feet Prod. Sales 10 Minute Drive Time 287 Corridor 587,000 300 $ 176100 105.66 Public Road 150,500 54 $ 8100 6.885 Public Road Food & Beverage 50,000 122 $ 6100 5.185 Public Road Expanded Food & Beverage 65,000 Galleries/Studios 20,000 150 $ 3000 2.55 10 Minute Gafo 382.7 $ 10 Minute Food & Beverage 248.3 $ GAFO Potential 287 105.7 $ GAFO Potential regional leakage 229.6 $ Total 335.3 $ Balance 47.4 287 Market Share GAFO 27.6% Public Road GAFO Market Share 1.8% Public RoadMarket Share Food & Beverage 2.1% Public Road Status Quo Productivity Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 63 $ 64 $ Food & Beverage 50000 122 $ 126 $ 129 $ 133 $ 137 $ 141 $ 146 $ 200500 71 $ 73 $ 75 $ 77 $ 80 $ 82 $ 85 $ Sales Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 8.1 $ 8.3 $ 8.6 $ 8.9 $ 9.1 $ 9.4 $ 9.7 $ Food & Beverage 50000 6.1 $ 6.3 $ 6.5 $ 6.7 $ 6.9 $ 7.1 $ 7.3 $ 200500 14.2 $ 14.6 $ 15.1 $ 15.5 $ 16.0 $ 16.5 $ 17.0 $ Scenario 2 ‐ Improved Food & Beverage Existing Square Footage Productivity Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 110 $ 113 $ 117 $ 120 $ 124 $ 128 $ 131 $ Food & Beverage 50000 225 $ 232 $ 239 $ 246 $ 253 $ 261 $ 269 $ Galleriers/Studios 20000 150 $ 155 $ 159 $ 164 $ 169 $ 174 $ 179 $ 220500 140 $ 144 $ 148 $ 153 $ 157 $ 162 $ 167 $ Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 16.6 $ 17.1 $ 17.6 $ 18.1 $ 18.6 $ 19.2 $ 19.8 $ Food & Beverage 50000 11.3 $ 11.6 $ 11.9 $ 12.3 $ 12.7 $ 13.0 $ 13.4 $ Galleriers/Studios 20000 3.0 $ 3.1 $ 3.2 $ 3.3 $ 3.4 $ 3.5 $ 3.6 $ 220500 30.8 $ 31.7 $ 32.7 $ 33.7 $ 34.7 $ 35.7 $ 36.8 $ Public Road Market Share GAFO 3.7% Public Road Market Share F&B 2.2% GAFOMarket Share of Balance 34.9% Scenario 3 ‐ Expanded Food & Beverage Productivity Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 120 $ 124 $ 127 $ 131 $ 135 $ 139 $ 143 $ Food & Beverage 65000 200 $ 206 $ 212 $ 219 $ 225 $ 232 $ 239 $ Galleriers/Studios 20000 160 $ 165 $ 170 $ 175 $ 180 $ 185 $ 191 $ 235500 145 $ 150 $ 154 $ 159 $ 164 $ 169 $ 174 $ Sales Public Road Potential Sq. Feet. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GAFO 150500 18.1 $ 18.6 $ 19.2 $ 19.7 $ 20.3 $ 20.9 $ 21.6 $ Food & Beverage 65000 13.0 $ 13.4 $ 13.8 $ 14.2 $ 14.6 $ 15.1 $ 15.5 $ Galleriers/Studios 20000 3.2 $ 3.3 $ 3.4 $ 3.5 $ 3.6 $ 3.7 $ 3.8 $ 235500 34.3 $ 35.3 $ 36.3 $ 37.4 $ 38.6 $ 39.7 $ 40.9 $ Public Road Market Share GAFO 4.0% 3.4% Public Road Market Share F&B 2.5% 3.8% GAFOMarket Share of Balance 38.1% Market Analysis And Research © 2011; TerreMark Partners© 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA REGIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS 1990‐2010 TREND 1990 1995 2000 2008 2010 1990‐2010 C.A.R 1. Population (000) 226.4 11,845.1 294.3 324.5 334.6 2.0% 2. Households (000) 88.9 115.9 131.1 136.1 2.2% 3. Persons/Hhold 2.45 n/a 2.46 2.41 2.40 ‐0.1% 4. Total Employment (000) 161.1 n/a 239.7 261.7 265.5 2.5% 5. Average Hhold Income (2004 73,360 $ n/a 108,003 $ 112,459 $ 111,278 $ 2.1% TOTAL 6. Residential Construction Activity % CHGE 1990‐2008 New Units Authorized 1,460 2,780 1,022 1,022 ‐30.0% Single Family 1,014 2,474 305 657 ‐35.2% Multi Family 446 ‐ 306 717 276 ‐38.1% Value of New Units ($000) 136,978 $ 372,873 $ 205,347 $ 126,880 $ ‐7.4% Single Family 121,872 $ 351,413 $ 118,724 $ 69,128 $ ‐43.3% Multi Family 15,106 $ ‐ $ 21,460 $ 86,623 $ 57,752 $ 282.3% Source: Woods & Poole, 2010 MSA Profile US Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA ANNUAL AVERAGE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS 1995‐2009 CHANGE 2000 2003 2005 2008 2010 2000‐2010 LOS ANGELES‐LONG BEACH‐SANTA ANA, CA MSA Labor Force (000) 160.4 164.9 169.6 178.8 173.2 0.8% Employment (000) 154.6 155.4 162.0 171.4 161.0 0.4% Unemployment (000) 3.8 9.5 7.6 7.4 12.2 12.4% Unemployment Rate 2.4% 5.8% 4.5% 4.1% 7.0% 4.7% Abs. 2000‐2010 COLORADO Labor Force (000) 2,365.0 2,492.3 2,588.4 2,737.3 2,687.4 1.3% Employment (000) 2,300.2 2,339.5 2,455.8 2,605.6 2,447.7 0.6% Unemployment (000) 64.8 152.8 132.6 131.7 239.7 14.0% Unemployment Rate 2.7% 6.1% 5.1% 4.8% 8.9% 6.2% Abs. UNITED STATES Unemployment Rate 4.0% 6.0% 5.1% 5.8% 9.6% 5.6% Abs. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Market Analysis And Research ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 3 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA TOTAL NON‐FARM EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 1990‐2010 BOULDER, CO MSA SHIFT TREND 1990 2000 2010 IN MIX 1990‐2010 (000) (000) (000) 1990‐2010 (000) C.A.R. Manufacturing 22.4 13.9% 30.7 20.3 7.6% ‐6.3% ‐2.1 ‐0.5% Construction 6.1 3.8% 12.0 10.7 4.0% 0.2% 4.6 2.8% T.C.P.U.* 0.8 0.5% 2.5 2.0 0.8% 0.3% 1.2 4.7% Trade (Total) 21.7 13.5% 31.7 31.0 11.7% ‐1.8% 9.3 1.8% Wholesale 3.8 2.4% 6.5 8.4 3.2% 0.8% 4.6 4.0% Retail 17.9 11.1% 25.2 22.6 8.5% ‐2.6% 4.7 1.2% F.I.R.E.** 5.7 3.5% 8.5 10.9 4.1% 0.6% 5.2 3.3% Services (Total) 60.1 37.3% 98.2 126.0 47.5% 10.2% 65.9 3.8% Professional & Tech 18.5 11.5% 32.4 41.5 15.6% 4.1% 23.0 4.1% Mgmt & Enterprises 1.1 0.7% 1.5 3.0 1.1% 0.4% 1.9 5.1% Admin & Waste 5.6 3.5% 11.3 10.6 4.0% 0.5% 5.0 3.2% Educational 1.9 1.2% 3.4 6.3 2.4% 1.2% 4.4 6.2% Health Care & Social 11.0 6.8% 16.5 25.2 9.5% 2.7% 14.2 4.2% Arts, Ent & Rec 3.2 2.0% 5.7 7.7 2.9% 0.9% 4.5 4.5% Hospitality 11.3 7.0% 16.3 17.9 6.7% ‐0.3% 6.6 2.3% Other 7.5 4.7% 11.1 13.8 5.2% 0.5% 6.3 3.1% Government (Total) 27.4 17.0% 27.9 33.3 12.5% ‐4.5% 5.9 1.0% Federal/Civilian 2.7 1.7% 2.7 2.4 0.9% ‐0.8% ‐0.3 ‐0.6% Federal/Military 1.0 0.6% 0.9 0.9 0.3% ‐0.3% ‐0.1 ‐0.5% State & Local 23.7 14.7% 24.3 30.0 11.3% ‐3.4% 6.3 1.2% TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 161.1 239.7 265.5 104.4 2.5% Source: Woods & Poole, 2010 MSA Profile Market Analysis And Research * Utilities, transportation & warehousing, and information (previously transportation, communication & public utilitites) Finance & insurance and real estate & rental & lease ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA TOTAL NON‐FARM EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 2010‐2020 BOULDER, CO MSA SHIFT TREND 2010 2015 2020 IN MIX 2010‐2020 (000) (000) (000) 2010‐2020 (000) C.A.R. Manufacturing 20.3 7.6% 23.9 25.2 8.2% 0.6% 4.9 2.2% Construction 10.7 4.0% 11.2 11.7 3.8% ‐0.2% 1.0 0.9% T.C.P.U.* 2.0 0.8% 2.1 2.1 0.7% ‐0.1% 0.1 0.5% Trade (Total) 31.0 11.7% 33.7 36.5 11.9% 0.2% 5.5 1.6% Wholesale 8.4 3.2% 9.8 11.3 3.7% 0.5% 2.9 3.0% Retail 22.6 8.5% 23.9 25.2 8.2% ‐0.3% 2.6 1.1% F.I.R.E.** 10.9 4.1% 11.5 12.2 4.0% ‐0.1% 1.3 1.1% Services (Total) 126.0 47.5% 138.9 153.2 49.8% 2.4% 27.2 2.0% Professional & Tech 41.5 15.6% 44.7 48.1 15.6% 0.0% 6.6 1.5% Mgmt & Enterprises 3.0 1.1% 3.5 4.0 1.3% 0.2% 1.0 2.9% d Admin & Waste 10.6 4.0% 11.2 11.9 3.9% ‐0.1% 1.3 1.2% Educational 6.3 2.4% 7.2 8.3 2.7% 0.3% 2.0 2.8% Health Care & Social 25.2 9.5% 28.2 31.5 10.2% 0.8% 6.3 2.3% Arts, Ent & Rec 7.7 2.9% 9.2 11.1 3.6% 0.7% 3.4 3.7% Hospitality 17.9 6.7% 19.3 20.8 6.8% 0.0% 2.9 1.5% Other 13.8 5.2% 15.6 17.5 5.7% 0.5% 3.7 2.4% Government (Total) 33.3 12.5% 35.2 37.2 12.1% ‐0.4% 3.9 1.1% Federal/Civilian 2.4 0.9% 2.4 2.4 0.8% ‐0.1% 0.0 0.0% Federal/Military 0.9 0.3% 0.9 0.9 0.3% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% State & Local 30.0 11.3% 31.9 33.9 11.0% ‐0.3% 3.9 1.2% TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 265.5 285.6 307.4 41.9 1.5% Source: Woods & Poole, 2010 MSA Profile Market Analysis And Research * Utilities, transportation & warehousing, and information (previously transportation, communication & public utilitites) Finance & insurance and real estate & rental & lease ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 5 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS 2000 ‐ 2020 POPULATION 2000 2010 2015 2020 (000) (000) (000) (000) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 66.1 84.5 94.8 105.2 Boulder, CO MSA 269.8 299.2 319.5 340.8 Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 2,179.4 2,584.2 2,848.2 3,098.7 United States (Mil.) 281.4 308.3 322.6 335.7 GROWTH TREND (No) (No) (No) 2000 ‐ 2010 2010 ‐ 2015 2015 ‐ 2020 (No) (No) (No) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 18.4 2.5% 10.3 2.3% 10.4 2.1% Boulder, CO MSA 29.4 1.0% 20.3 1.3% 21.3 1.3% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 404.8 1.7% 264.0 2.0% 250.5 1.7% United States (Mil.) 26.9 0.9% 14.2 0.9% 13.1 0.8% Source: SCAN US Market Analysis And Research * All growth trends expressed in terms of compound annual growth rates ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 6 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS 2000 ‐ 2020 HOUSEHOLDS 2000 2010 2015 2020 (000) (000) (000) (000) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 25.0 31.0 34.9 38.9 Boulder, CO MSA 106.5 114.9 118.0 121.0 Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 852.2 978.3 1,043.2 1,101.9 United States (Mil.) 105.5 115.3 121.3 127.5 GROWTH TREND (No) (No) (No) 2000 ‐ 2010 2010 ‐ 2015 2015 ‐ 2020 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 6.0 2.2% 3.9 2.4% 4.0 2.2% Boulder, CO MSA 8.4 0.8% 3.1 0.5% 3.0 0.5% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 126.1 1.4% 64.9 1.3% 58.7 1.1% United States (Mil.) 9.8 0.9% 6.0 1.0% 6.2 1.0% Source: SCAN US Market Analysis And Research * All growth trends expressed in terms of compound annual growth rates ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 7 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA PER CAPITA INCOME GROWTH TRENDS 2000 ‐ 2015 NOMINAL GROWTH TREND 2000 2010 2015 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 PER CAPITA INCOME (000) (000) (000) (Current Dollars) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 29,209 $ 35,371 $ 38,062 $ 1.9% 1.5% Boulder, CO MSA 29,470 $ 36,606 $ 38,100 $ 2.2% 0.8% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 26,679 $ 31,676 $ 32,775 $ 1.7% 0.7% United States (Mil.) 21,944 $ 27,851 $ 30,321 $ 2.4% 1.7% PER CAPITA INCOME REAL GROWTH TREND (Constant 2010 Dollars) 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 36,913 $ 35,371 $ 33,642 $ ‐0.4% ‐1.0% Boulder, CO MSA 37,243 $ 36,606 $ 33,675 $ ‐0.2% ‐1.7% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 33,715 $ 31,676 $ 28,969 $ ‐0.6% ‐1.8% United States (Mil.) 27,732 $ 27,851 $ 26,800 $ 0.0% ‐0.8% Source: SCAN US Market Analysis And Research Note: Constant 2010 dollars reflect adjustment to exclude inflationary price movements as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' C.P.I.‐U between 2000 and March 2010 and assumed thereafter at 2.5 percent per annum, compound annual rate. ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 8 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROWTH TRENDS 2000 ‐ 2015 NOMINAL GROWTH TREND 2000 2010 2015 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME (000) (000) (000) (Current Dollars) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 77,161 $ 95,555 $ 102,612 $ 2.2% 1.4% Boulder, CO MSA 72,477 $ 91,632 $ 99,516 $ 2.4% 1.7% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 66,391 $ 82,090 $ 87,768 $ 2.1% 1.3% United States (Mil.) 56,653 $ 72,075 $ 78,123 $ 2.4% 1.6% AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME REAL GROWTH TREND (Constant 2010 Dollars) 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 97,512 $ 95,555 $ 90,695 $ ‐0.2% ‐1.0% Boulder, CO MSA 91,592 $ 91,632 $ 87,958 $ 0.0% ‐0.8% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 83,901 $ 82,090 $ 77,575 $ ‐0.2% ‐1.1% United States (Mil.) 71,595 $ 72,075 $ 69,050 $ 0.1% ‐0.9% Source: SCAN US Market Analysis And Research Note: Constant 2010 dollars reflect adjustment to exclude inflationary price movements as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' C.P.I.‐U between 2000 and March 2010 and assumed thereafter at 2.5 percent per annum, compound annual rate. ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 9 [PHONE REDACTED] DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2010 INCOME LEVEL Total Over $75,000‐ $50,000‐ $35,000‐ $20,000‐ Under 2010 Hholds $100,000 $99,999 $74,999 $49,999 $34,999 $20,000 (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 31.0 10.6 34.2% 4.2 13.5% 6.3 20.3% 3.5 11.3% 3.5 11.3% 2.9 9.4% Boulder, CO MSA 114.9 35.0 30.5% 14.4 12.5% 19.6 17.1% 13.6 11.8% 15.4 13.4% 16.9 14.7% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 978.3 258.7 26.4% 136.3 13.9% 184.4 18.8% 130.9 13.4% 130.6 13.3% 136.3 14.0% United States (Mil.) 115.3 23.0 19.9% 14.4 12.5% 21.9 19.0% 16.6 14.4% 18.6 16.1% 21.0 18.2% INCOME LEVEL Over $75,000 Over $50,000 Over $35,000 (000) (000) (000) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 14.8 47.7% 21.1 68.1% 24.6 79.4% Boulder, CO MSA 49.4 43.0% 69.0 60.1% 82.6 71.9% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 395.0 40.4% 579.4 59.2% 710.3 72.6% United States (Mil.) 37.4 32.4% 59.2 51.4% 75.8 65.7% Source: SCAN US Market Analysis And Research ---PAGE BREAK--- Sheet10 Downtown Lafayette AGGINC GAFO 2000 2010 2015 2020 2000 2010 2015 2020 10 Min 1932.1 2989.7 3608.0 4313.6 247.31 382.68 461.82 552.14 Boulder 7951.2 10954.0 12172.8 13512.4 1017.75 1402.11 1558.12 1729.58 Denver 58144.1 81858.3 93175 105163.7 7442.44 10477.86 11926.40 13460.95 US 6176119.2 8592379.8 9788003.5 11019458.4 777.50 1099.82 1252.86 1410.49 2020AGGINC GAFO GROWTH POP PCI AGGINC 2000‐10 2010‐15 2015‐20 10 Min 105.2 41004 4313.6 4.5% 3.8% 3.6% Boulder 340.8 39649 13512.4 3.3% 2.1% 2.1% Denver 3,098.7 33938 105163.7 3.5% 2.6% 2.5% Page 10 US 335,693.0 32826 11019458.4 3.5% 2.6% 2.4% Page 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 11 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA ESTIMATED GAFO EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL GROWTH TRENDS, 2000‐2020 NOMINAL GROWTH TREND GAFO EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL 2000 2010 2015 2020 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 2015‐2020 (Current Dollars) Mil.) Mil.) Mil.) Mil.) DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 247.3 $ 382.7 $ 461.8 $ 552.1 $ 4.5% 3.8% 3.6% Boulder, CO MSA 1,017.8 $ 1,402.1 $ 1,558.1 $ 1,729.6 $ 3.3% 2.1% 2.1% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 7,442.4 $ 10,477.9 $ 11,926.4 $ 13,461.0 $ 3.5% 2.6% 2.5% . United States ($Bil.) 777.5 $ 1,099.8 $ 1,252.9 $ 1,410.5 $ 3.5% 2.6% 2.4% GAFO EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL REAL GROWTH TREND (C t t 2010 D ll ) 2000 2010 2010 2015 2015 2020 (Constant 2010 Dollars) 2000‐2010 2010‐2015 2015‐2020 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE 10‐Minute Drive Time 312.5 $ 382.7 $ 408.2 $ 431.3 $ 2.0% 1.3% 1.1% Boulder, CO MSA 1,286.2 $ 1,402.1 $ 1,377.1 $ 1,351.1 $ 0.9% ‐0.4% ‐0.4% Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO MSA 9,405.3 $ 10,477.9 $ 10,541.3 $ 10,515.6 $ 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% United States ($Bil.) 982.6 $ 1,099.8 $ 1,107.4 $ 1,101.9 $ 1.1% 0.1% ‐0.1% Source SCAN US Market Analysis And Research Note: Constant 2010 dollars reflect adjustment to exclude inflationary price movements as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' C.P.I.‐U between 2000 and March 2010 and assumed thereafter at 2.5 percent per annum, compound annual rate. ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 12 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA RETAIL SALES 2002 AND 2007 BOULDER MSA Establ. Sales Establ. Sales (No.) (Mil.) (No.) (Mil.) BOULDER, CO MSA General Merchandise 25 474.2 $ 25 561.6 $ Apparel & Accessories 175 147.3 $ 155 171.4 $ Furniture & Home Furn. 103 102.7 $ 79 95.6 $ Misc. Shopping Goods 387 407.1 $ 543 458.7 $ Total GAF(O) 690 1,131.3 $ 802 1,287.3 $ 2002 Census 2007 Census Source: 2002, 2007 Census of Retail Trade ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 13 289.3 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA GAFO RETAIL MARKET STRUCTURE, 2007 BOULDER, CO MSA Boulder United Variance MSA States 1. Total General Merchandise (No) Group Stores Sales Per Store ($000) 22,452 $ 12,585 $ 9,867 $ 78.4% Sales Per Capita 1,941 $ 1,914 $ 27 $ 1.4% Stores Per 100,000 8.6 15.2 (6.6) ‐43.4% 2. Apparel & Accessories Stores Sales Per Store ($000) 1,106 $ 1,378 $ (272) $ ‐19.7% Sales Per Capita 592 $ 715 $ (123) $ ‐17.2% Stores Per 100,000 53.6 51.9 1.7 3.3% 3. Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Sales Per Store ($000) 1,215 $ 1,661 $ (446) $ ‐26.9% Boulder vs. USA Sales Per Capita 330 $ 359 $ (29) $ ‐8.1% Stores Per 100,000 27.3 21.6 5.7 26.4% 4. Miscellaneous Shopping Goods Sales Per Store ($000) 844 $ 1,536 $ (692) $ ‐45.1% Sales Per Capita 1,585 $ 760 $ 825 $ 108.6% Stores Per 100,000 187.6 49.5 138.1 279.0% 5. TOTAL GAFO STORES Sales Per Store ($000) 1,605 $ 2,712 $ (1,107) $ ‐40.8% Sales Per Capita 4,450 $ 3,747 $ 703 $ 18.8% Stores Per 100,000 277.2 138.2 139.0 100.6% Source: 2002 Census of Retail Trade ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 14 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA IMPORT ‐ EXPORT ANALYSIS Boulder, CO MSA 2007 Population (000's) 289.3 Per Capita Income 49,999 $ United States Per Capita Income 30,805 $ Per Capita Income Ratio 1.62 GAFO Sales United States Per Capita 2,577 $ Income Ratio 1.62 Expected MSA Resident Per Capita Sales 4,183 $ Expected MSA Resident GAFO Sales 1,210 $ Actual GAFO Sales (000's) 1,287 $ Expected Resident Sales % of Transacted 94% Estimated Import/Export 6% Source: 2007 Census of Retail Trade US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 10 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE, COLORADO BOULDER, CO MSA GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZM SOCIO‐ECONOMIC GROUPS, 2010 DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE USA MAJOR SOCIAL GROUPS Trade Area R.P.I (Households) U1 Urban Uptown 0 0.0% 0.0 8.3% U2 Midtown Mix 0 0.0% 0.0 4.4% U3 Urban Cores 0 0.0% 0.0 5.0% S1 Elite Suburbs 2,728 8.8% 168.3 5.2% S2 The Affluentials 1,302 4.2% 54.4 7.7% S3 Middleburbs 3,658 11.8% 192.5 6.1% S4 Inner Suburbs 1,364 4.4% 97.6 4.5% C1 Second City Society 6,944 22.4% 525.8 4.3% C2 City Centers 8,030 25.9% 358.7 7.2% C3 Micro City Blues 2,201 7.1% 116.2 6.1% T1 Landed Gentry 3,906 12.6% 137.7 9.2% T2 Country Comfort 682 2.2% 20.7 10.6% T Country Comfort 68 . % 0.7 0.6% T3 Middle America 124 0.4% 4.0 10.1% T4 Rustic Living 62 0.2% 1.8 11.3% Total 31,002 100.0% 100.0 100.0% Source: Claritas Note: The Relative Penetration Index is defined as the ratio of the percent of households for any specific market area compared to the USA in general, times 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Road Retail Lafayette, Co 7/1/2011 CATEGORY SUMMARY Scenario 3‐expanded food & beverage Public Road Market Share GAFO 4.0% Public Road Market Share F&B 2.5% Number Total Projected Sales * Total Occ. Cost/ Total Rent Occ. Cost CAM & Calculated Category of Stores Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. Gross Sales Sales Ex. Promo Per SF Tax Rec. Base Rent Street GAFO (existing) 0 105,500 Yrs. 1‐2 $127.00 $13,398,500 8.0% $1,071,880 $10.16 $2.00 $8.16 Yrs. 3‐4 $135.00 $14,242,500 $1,139,400 $10.80 $2.25 $8.55 Yrs. 5‐10 $143.00 $15,086,500 $1,206,920 $11.44 $2.63 $8.81 Specialty Retail 0 18,000 Yrs. 1‐2 $170.00 $3,400,000 8.0% $272,000 $15.11 $2.00 $13.11 Galleries/Studios Yrs. 3‐4 $160.00 $3,200,000 $256,000 $14.22 $2.25 $11.97 Yrs. 5‐10 $191.00 $3,820,000 $305,600 $16.98 $2.63 $14.35 Services 15,000 Yrs. 1‐2 $127.00 $1,905,000 10.0% $190,500 $12.70 $2.00 $10.70 Yrs. 3‐4 $135.00 $2,025,000 $202,500 $13.50 $2.25 $11.25 Yrs. 5‐10 $143.00 $2,145,000 $214,500 $14.30 $2.63 $11.67 Specialty Food 0 15,000 Yrs. 1‐2 $212.00 $3,180,000 9.0% $286,200 $19.08 $2.00 $17.08 Yrs. 3‐4 $225.00 $3,375,000 $303,750 $20.25 $2.25 $18.00 Yrs. 5‐10 $239.00 $3,585,000 $322,650 $21.51 $2.63 $18.88 Restaurant 0 69,750 Yrs. 1‐2 $212.00 $10,600,000 8.5% $901,000 $12.92 $2.00 $10.92 Yrs. 3‐4 $225.00 $11,250,000 $956,250 $13.71 $2.25 $11.46 Yrs 5‐10 $239 00 $11 950 000 $1 015 750 $14 56 $2 63 $11 93 Yrs. 5 10 $239.00 $11,950,000 $1,015,750 $14.56 $2.63 $11.93 Non Revenue 0 0 Yrs. 1‐2 $0.00 $0 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Yrs. 3‐4 $0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Yrs. 5‐10 $0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RMU/Push Carts 0 2,000 Yrs. 1‐2 $450.00 $900,000 12.0% $108,000 $54.00 $0.00 $54.00 Yrs. 3‐4 $525.00 $1,050,000 $126,000 $63.00 $0.00 $63.00 Yrs. 5‐10 $600.00 $1,200,000 $144,000 $72.00 $0.00 $72.00 GRAND TOTAL 225,250 Yrs. 1‐2 $148.21 $33,383,500 8.5% $2,829,580 $12.56 $2.00 $10.56 Yrs. 3‐4 $156.02 $35,142,500 $2,965,900 $13.17 $2.25 $10.92 Yrs. 5‐10 $167.75 $37,786,500 $3,209,420 $14.25 $2.63 $11.62 *Market Analysis and Research, Inc. 7/2011 Copy of Public Road occupancy analysis Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B - Zoning Code Recommendations & Parking Inventory City of Lafayette Old Town Visioning Plan 9.6.11 To implement the Old Town Lafayette Vision Plan the City must identify and eliminate barriers that exist in the current Development and Zoning Code of City’s Code of Ordinances. There are several “layers” of policy that affect potential development in Old Town: The Urban Renewal Plan is a regulatory document in the City of Lafayette and contains a list of permitted uses, permitted uses with special review, and prohibited uses. The permitted uses in the Urban Renewal Plan are different than the permitted uses in the underlying zone districts (B-1 and C-1). The Urban Renewal Plan supersedes the Zoning Code, therefore the permitted use list included in the Urban Renewal Plan regulates the permitted uses within the Vision Plan study area. In terms of implementation process, the consultant team recommends first completing a simplification and retooling of existing codes and ordinances to begin facilitating development of the Vision Plan recommendations. Specific potential barriers to development that have been identified through the Vision Process include: 1) Multi-family residential This is the most critical zoning code barrier to address. Multi-family residential is not an allowable use in Old Town based on existing regulations in the Urban Renewal Plan. Multi-family is an important land use element to allow for future property tax base within the Urban Renewal Area. 2) Parking The existing parking code requirements for Old Town are too high for a downtown area. The parking code should be adjusted for properties and specific land uses within Old Town, and the City should explore a shared use agreement or parking district with owners of private parking spaces. As part of the process, a parking inventory was completed that is included with this zoning recommendations report. Urban Renewal Plan (Permitted uses supersede permitted uses in underlying zone district) Zoning Code Overlays (PUD) Mixed Use Building Complex Resolution 2006-51 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3) Signage The sign code doesn’t differentiate between regional commercial and main street commercial uses. The allowed sign types and square footage should not be the same for these very different uses, businesses and settings. 4) Residential Density and Building Height The allowed density and building heights for residential within the B-1 and OTR zone districts are too low. The examples shown in the Vision Plan would require a PUD Overlay allowing increased height and density to be built as depicted. 5) Incentives for adaptive reuse / property redevelopment The City could create some development incentives to promote reinvestment in historic, old, underutilized or dilapidated property. Examples of incentives include density bonuses, reduced or eliminated parking requirements, or reduction of processing and permitting fees. The following sections outline specific recommendations for each of these five categories. Please note that additional items have been identified that affect the implementation of the Old Town Vision Plan, but are not specific to the study area boundary of Public Road or Simpson Street. These items are listed separately. 1) Multi-family Residential Recommendations A) The Urban Renewal Plan is more restrictive than the zoning code in terms of permitting multi- family residential. In the Urban Renewal Plan, multi-family is allowed as a special use review as part of a Mixed Use Building Complex (MUBC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Resolution 2006-51. Residential units that are built as part of a Mixed Use Building Complex are exempt from the City’s Residential Growth Management Ordinance. There are several issues with Resolution 2006-51 that make the development of multi-family not feasible, but with revision of these items a barrier to development could be resolved without having to change the Urban Renewal Plan. The following items should be addressed in Resolution 2006-51: 1. MUBC percentages of residential to non-residential ratio are too high. MUBC allows only 45% of the floor area within the complex to be residential, or allows 60% of the floor area residential / 40% of the floor area to be non-residential if certain PUD considerations are met. Recommendations: Update MUBC Ordinance to remove the required ratio of residential to non-residential development. The mix should be location specific and market driven. The City could allow a mix of uses based on incentives / upgrades provided by the applicant as part of the PUD application. Here is an example: Table 1 Number of Incentives % of Mixed Use 1-5% 6 6-10% 4 11-20% 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 21% + 0 Example Incentive / Upgrade Options: 1) Architecture – % Masonry 2) Architecture – % Spaces Attached Garages 3) Architecture – % Balconies / Outdoor Space 4) Architecture – Green Building 5) Public Art / Public Gathering Space 6) Units Designated for Lower Income Residents / % Affordable 7) Historic Preservation / Historic Architecture Theme 8) Redevelopment of Property that is considered blighted / non-conforming use abandonment 9) Public Parking Provided on site 10) Building Height / Density 11) Covered Bicycle Parking / Lockers 2. MUBC criteria listed under Section 8.1.1 A-E. of Resolution No. 2006-51. As currently stated, subsection A of the Resolution limits ability to develop office or community/cultural space as part of the mix of uses. Recommendations: Consider removing or changing 8.1.1 criteria to better meet goals identified through the Vision Plan, including retail, office, cultural space or public facilities as an appropriate “non-residential” component for mixed use building complexes, and include an approach like the Table 1 example. 3. MUBC Public Land Dedication Requirement as stated in Section 4 of the resolution is confusing, and too high for properties within the Urban Renewal Area. Although it is not be required for properties already platted, it is very confusing as currently stated. Recommendation: The statement should be rewritten to differentiate between greenfield development and infill development within the URD. Code Sections 26-19-21 and 26-19-22 already allow for private amenities to count towards public land dedication (plazas, public art, and bicycle storage) and allow for fees-in-lieu of land. 4. MUBC Section 8.1.2 regarding allowing shared and or reduced parking requirements should be allowed without requiring the parking within a certain distance of any shared use. Recommendation: The shared parking requirement regarding parking reductions or shared parking within 150 feet of the shared use is arbitrary. Eliminate this requirement and recommend that as part of development review, applicant proposes parking ratio that is driven by product type (i.e. townhomes / row homes) and mix of uses, not a distance. Develop this as part of a new parking requirement in the MUBC or update the multi-family parking requirement in the parking code. B) In the Urban Renewal Plan, multi-family is permitted as part of a Mixed Use Building Complex as a Special Review Use, but no “stand alone” multi-family residential is allowed. If the City does not want to change the MUBC ratios as outlined under Section A above, the Urban Renewal Plan could be updated to allow multi-family as a stand alone use by Special Use Review. This process may be more difficult and/or time consuming, because it requires the Urban Renewal Plan to be updated. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Multi-family and other types of residential uses are allowed as a stand alone use in the B-1 District as a Special Review Use, but are a prohibited use by the Urban Renewal Plan. Recommendation: Update Urban Renewal Plan to allow multi-family as Special Review Use. Continue to prohibit single and two-family home development in B-1. 2. If stand alone residential is allowed as a Special Review Use the use would still be restricted by the Residential Growth Management Ordinance. Recommendations: This may not be an issue, as many parcels in the downtown core are small and may require a minimal amount of permits. To be exempt, applicants can apply for Mixed Use Building Complex PUD. See additional recommendations regarding MUBC in Section A above. 2) Parking Code Recommendations There are currently about 317 public parking spaces and 1,272 private parking spaces located in Old Town (see Parking Inventory for map and location by property address). The proposed market conditions report includes an estimated total build out of 235,500 square feet of retail, food and beverage space – which primarily includes a repositioning of existing space with limited new additional retail, food and beverage space. Based on an average estimate of about 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the area may need a minimum of 700 parking spaces total for retail, food and beverage uses. There is ample parking in the study area to accommodate this need through a shared agreement with owners of privately held parking spaces and utilization of existing public parking spaces. Parking for any new residential development should be provided on site by the residential developer. A) Although the City may not enforce the total number of spaces required for development or redevelopment in the downtown core of Old Town, the code should be updated to reflect a new standard that is feasible and more realistic for development. 1. Create a parking district. Recommendation: There are many privately owned surface parking lots in Old Town with excess parking (see Parking Inventory). The City could develop an agreement with private parking lot owners to maintain the parking lots in exchange for a certain number of spaces signed as public parking. 2. Consider not requiring parking for certain types of uses in the downtown core. Recommendation: The code currently exempts parking requirements for some properties within OTR [Section 26.20-2(a)], and the same could be applied to commercial property within the URD. The code should be flexible to the type of use proposed and number of spaces required. For example, certain types of office may not have regular visiting customers or a high number of employees, and requiring 1 space / 300 square feet may not be appropriate. Many restaurants will also not be able to achieve a requirement of 1 space / 150 square feet in Old Town. ---PAGE BREAK--- Continue to require a standard amount of parking for residential uses, although the total quantity required should be reduced due to proximity to transit, ability to walk to every day needs and downtown uses, etc. 3. Mixed use and shared use parking calculation is different in the parking regulations of the Development and Zoning Code than it is in the MUBC. Recommendation: The mixed use parking calculation in the code allows the planning director to allow joint / shared use, which is a great tool for achieving flexibility and providing adequate spaces, but within the MUBC Resolution in order for the shared use parking to apply the spaces must be within 150 of the shared use.. Update the MUBC Resolution or eliminate the requirement from the MUBC Resolution. The code should promote joint use / shared parking throughout the Downtown Core. 3) Sign Code Recommendations A) There is no differentiation between regional and neighborhood commercial/main street businesses for allowed signage. 1. The total type and amount of square footage allowed for neighborhood/main street commercial signage is too high and too variable. Recommendation: In the Sign Code, differentiate allowed types and square footage for regional commercial (along 287, S. Boulder, Baseline, etc.) and neighborhood/main street commercial (Public Road, Simpson Street). This sentiment is alluded to in the opening statement of the Sign Code (26-21-1) which discusses traffic speeds as a factor for determining signage size, but is not written as such in the actual regulations. 2. Allowed freestanding signage is too large and type of signage allowed is inappropriate for a main street setting. Recommendation: Change size of freestanding signs allowed within the URD for B-1 zoning district (Community Business District) versus the C-1 zoning district (Regional Business District); or consider eliminating free-standing signage as an allowed sign for certain areas within the URD, with additional building signage options (marquees, corner signs, additional awning/window signage, etc.) For example, in downtown Louisville the maximum size for a freestanding sign is 9 square feet per side. The current Lafayette code allows 50 square feet for freestanding signs. If free standing signs are continued to be allowed, do not allow standard internally illuminated box type signage on certain areas of Public Road. Allow freestanding signs when creative, artistic freestanding signage is proposed and reduce the size permitted. Internally Illuminated Box Sign Example – should not be allowed on main street ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Electronic Reader Board Signage Recommendation: Not appropriate in a main street setting on parts of the downtown core on Public Road or Simpson Street. 4) Residential Density and Building Height A) To allow for multi-family development the building height and density allowed needs to be increased. For example, the Chase lot is 0.33 acres and is zoned B-1. B-1 allows 10 du/ac and 35’ building height. If multi-family residential was allowed to be built on this parcel, a developer could build only 3.3 units – this is not feasible. The example shown in the Vision Plan for this parcel shows approximately 12 units, a density of 36 du/ac on this parcel. The example does meet the building height requirement of 35’, but in many instances a developer may want to increase the number of units on the parcel to achieve a higher yield, which would require an additional floor. 1. The building height and density are controlled by the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning (B-1 and OTR) allowed height and density is too low: B-1 allows 10 du/ac and 35’ height, OTR allows 13 du/ac and 27’ height. Recommendations: The City can continue to determine what is appropriate for each individual property as part of a PUD process. Density and building height can be very controversial issues, and the Vision Plan shows an example of density and building height that the Planning Commission and City Council can reference when reviewing developer proposals. If the City would like to establish set criteria and / or incentives for increased height and density, this could either be incorporated into an overlay district or a new zone district that establishes a new building height and allowed density for properties within the downtown core of Old Town. The City could also consider creating incentives for additional height – excellent design, mix of uses, tax revenue generation, etc. B) There are few required architectural standards for multi-family and mixed use development. 1. Create guidelines and standards that provide more direction for new construction of multi-family and mixed use buildings. Recommendation: Use Old Town Lafayette Design Resource Book and LURA Architecture Standards as a starting point to develop architectural and site design standards that meet vision of a Diverse-Creative-Eclectic Old Town. Standards should not be too stringent in terms of architectural style, color and finish, but should provide more direction (and include more requirements) than existing guidelines. 5) Adaptive Reuse / Incentives for Reinvestment of Historic, Old, Underutilized or A) There are many attractive old buildings in Old Town that are in need of renovation or could greatly be improved with façade upgrades or additions of decks and patios. 1. The vision plan proposes the use of existing garages (accessory buildings) on Public Road as artist studio space. Potential changes in use may trigger ---PAGE BREAK--- improvement of other building systems in the garages (i.e. electric system, sanitary systems) by proposing renovations / improvements / additions for a new certificate of occupancy. Recommendation: Consider each building individually in regard to existing facility systems and potential health and safety concerns, and potential to share some facilities, such as restrooms, with principal structure in an agreement. Provide financial incentives for renovation of existing buildings that improve character of Old Town (i.e. waiving of building permit fees or other development fees.) B) There are many historic buildings in Old Town that could be landmarked and rehabilitated. Historic properties add value to main street districts and can increase heritage tourism and cultural visits to Old Town. 1. Allowed Uses / Adaptive Reuse Recommendation: Make adaptive reuse of a landmarked building a permitted use or special review use in all zoning districts. Define adaptive reuse as any use that uses a landmarked building. Provide financial incentives for renovation of existing buildings that improve character of Old Town (i.e. waiving of building permit fees or other development fees.) 6) Other / Implementation Ideas Heard Through Process 1) There is some potential for property assemblage and mixed use development along Public Road which would be in two different underlying zoning districts (B-1 and OTR). The process for developing a mixed use project within two different zone districts is confusing and requires multiple processes. Recommendation: Consider allowing PUD Overlays to go across more than one zone district. 2) The OTR zone district allows accessory dwelling units (keeping the principal structure in the front of the lot and a 750 sf max unit in the rear of the lot) but the costs of the water and sewer tap have made this prohibitive. The costs for water and sewer tap for an accessory unit are cost prohibitive. Recommendation: Consider changing the fees for water and sewer taps for accessory units. 7) Additional items have been identified through the Vision Process that can assist in achieving the goals are identified below. A. The consultant team heard that these items be prioritized in future Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs): 1) Bicycle Connections Emma Street from Waneka Lake to Public Road Baseline Road from US 287 to Public Road 2) Vehicular Connections Simpson Street connection eastbound to Baseline Rd. or 120th Street ---PAGE BREAK--- S. Boulder Road connection eastbound to 120th Street 3) Alley Paving Recommend paving alley aprons that access Public Road B) The following policies should be considered because of their potential impacts on development around or near the study area. 1) Growth Management Multi-family is market driven and it is different than pacing growth of single-family detached – consider exempting it from growth management, or allocating a separate amount of permits for residential that are multi-family within Downtown Core. 2) Nuisance Violations / Code Enforcement Many residents and business owners voiced concerns over nuisance violation and lack of code enforcement around Old Town. 3) Phasing out of existing non-conforming uses – building code violations Older motor homes / recreational vehicles Pawn shops ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning Parking Inventory 7/12/2011 Total Parking Spaces Public Private Baseline to Simpson 31 174 Simpson to Chester 86 165 Chester to Kimbark 33 291 Kimbark to Waneka 8 355 Waneka to S. Boulder 120 214 Simpson from Public to Michigan 39 73 TOTAL 317 1272 Notes: The number of spaces was determined using the following methods. Count is approximate. 1) Counting painted spaces on site. 2) Counting potential spaces on site (non-painted). 3) Counting painted spaces from aerial map. 4) Counting potential spaces (non-painted) from aerial map. 5) Comparing with previously developed City parking inventory. ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning Parking Inventory 7/12/2011 Simpson to Baseline Public Spaces Quantity 7 On Street Public 16 On Street Geneseo 8 On Street Simpson 31 Private Spaces Quantity Owner West Side 20 102 Baseline Rd Elmore, Stanley - lock and key 28 211 N. Public Bishop, Axel - Mojo's, Pinochio's, Design Concepts 10 205 N. Public Cruz, Lupe - apartments 5 201 N. Public La Familia - Rai Vhim Raj Kumar & Kamala Gimire 12 111 N. Public Babcock, Nancy and Cox, Jack - insurance / storage 6 109 N. Public Fong Chen - Lafayette Liquors 10 105 N. Public Brown, Robert Wayne - apartments / smoke shack 15 103 N. Public Sportsmen's Property LLC - Chips, Sportsmens East Side 7 210 N. Public Food Mart / Gas - Singh Makan 15 200 N. Public First National Bank of Lafayette 37 108 N. Public First National Bank of Lafayette 0 104 N. Public Santiago's - Casados, Eric 9 100 N. Public Santiago's - Casados, Eric 174 Simpson to Chester Public Spaces Quantity 47 On Street Public 12 On Street Cleveland 11 On Street Cannon 10 On Street Chester 6 Festival Plaza / Starkey Building 86 Location Location Location ---PAGE BREAK--- Private Spaces Quantity Owner West Side 20 101 S. Public Aspach, Darlyn - jewelers, salon 4 103 S. Public Tebo, Steven (Tutti) 9 107 S. Public Colins, Joan - Real Estate 5 109 S. Public Archuleta, Frank - building with tree in it 12 111 S. Public Morrell, Gerry (Montanas) 7 100 W. Cleveland WOJCIECHOWSKI JOE G - residence/travel agency 5 101 W. Cannon D'Oronzio, Peter - Chateau 100 W. Cannon NAJERA JOSEPHINE J - residence 15 307 S. Public Foothills Appliance - Pache, Jerry East Side 16 100 S. Public Armijo, Jimmy - retail row / budget glass, salon 18 101 E. Cleveland Efrains - Andazola, Jorge 19 100 E. Cleveland Warren Trust - insurance / former res 9 206 S. Public Billings, Robert - Bob's new and used, skateboards 0 210 S. Public Cannon Mine - Perkins, David 23 300 S. Public James Building Partnership - Angelo's, Edward Jones 3 101 E. Chester Smith, Joseph - historic building 165 Chester to Kimbark Public Spaces Quantity 21 On Street Public 8 On Street Emma 4 On Street Kimbark 33 Private Spaces Quantity Owner West Side 10 401 S. Public Nancy West - Eats and Sweets, Noble 9 409 S. Public Nancy West - Particulars, Uniquely Natural 41 105 W. Emma VFW 24 503 S. Public Armijo, Jimmy - apartments / Mercado 39 605 S. Public USPS - Brunsdale Development, LP 20 607 S. Public Embellishments - Sniff, Kenneth 15 109 Kimbark USPS - Peas, Jack East Side 4 100 E. Chester R & R Lane Properties - insurance 13 406 S. Public EZ Pawn 8 500 S. Public SBT GILL PORTFOLIO LLC - gas 42 502 S. Public Senor Gomez - Casa Alvarez LLC and Public Road Investment LLC 61 600 S. Public Lafayette Florist - Yoshihada, Evenlyn and Eugene 5 610 S. Public Banecks 291 Location Location Location ---PAGE BREAK--- Kimbark to Waneka Pkwy Public Spaces Quantity 8 On Street Public 0 On Street Spaulding 0 On Street Waneka Parkway 8 Private Spaces Quantity Owner West Side 0 701 S. Public Levy, Gene - residence 6 705 S. Public Morrell, Gerry - Rocky Mtn Legal Center 4 707 S. Public Morrell, Gerry 709 S. Public Morrell Family Trust - Delux Liquors, Barber Shop 711 S. Public 10 801 S. Public CE LLC - for sale - tattoo shop / office 8 805 S. Public 805 S. Public LLC - Veterniary Hospital 54 811 S. Public Great Western Bank 27 905 S. Public Cooper, Dennis and Kathy - Cooper's Auto 24 50 Waneka Pkwy Karz Drive In East Side 62 802 S. Public Red Rocks Property, LLC - Asian Grill, Hannas Foods, Martial Arts 806 S. Public Toro Investment Co - Office 808 S. Public Toro Investment Co - Office 97 990 S. Public 990 Investment Group, LLC - Morrell Graphics 355 Location 18 45 Location ---PAGE BREAK--- Waneka Pkwy to S. Boulder Rd. Public Spaces Quantity 0 On Street 120 1290 S. Public - City Hall 120 Private Spaces Quantity Owner West Side 120 RTD Park N Ride East Side 47 1005 S. Public Coin Laundry, Pho Café, Los Tapatios, Nails, Game Force 26 1265 S. Public Ting's Place, Tin Kao Chien 21 1285 S. Public CSK Auto Inc, Peterson Equities LLC - O'Reilly Auto Parts 214 Simpson Street from Public to Michigan Public Spaces On Street Simpson On Street Harrison On Street Gough On Street Iowa 14 400 E. Simpson St. Boulder County Building - Family Services 20 103 S. Iowa Ave City of Lafayette 5 300 E. Simpson St. City of Lafayette - Theater 0 108 E. Simpson St. City of Lafayette - Museum 39 Private Spaces (Non-Residential Properties Only) Quantity Owner 12 405 E. Simpson St. Virginia Neal 8 418 E. Simpson St. Alderson Family LLC - Soul Tree Yoga, FX Corp 4 403 E. Simpson St. Church 32 309 E. Simpson St. 309 Simpson LLC - Old Sister Carmen 2 301 E. Simpson St. Slamon, Dennis L - Blue Mountain Plumbing 2 304 E. Simpson St. Buehler and Larsen - Photographer 2 308 E. Simpson St Simpson Street LLC - Kennedy Law Firm 5 211 E. Simpson St. Venture 211 LLC - Tri County Instruments 6 201 E. Simpson St. Offices 0 103 E. Simpson St. Playa Lakes Joint Venture - Chiropractor, Therapuetics 0 105 E. Simpson St. Weeks, Sandra - Childrens Center 73 Location Location Location ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 1 E. Baseline Rd. (Hwy 7) 174 - Privately Owned 31 - On Street N. Public Rd. Geneseo St. Simpson St. 7 28 10 5 12 6 10 15 3 2 2 15 37 9 20 211 8 8 4 3 3 1 1 205 201 111 109 105 103 210 200 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 2 165 - Privately Owned 80 - On Street / 6 Public S. Public Rd. 9 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 6 6 16 18 12 5 9 4 20 19 9 7 5 13 3 15 Simpson St. Cannon St. Chester St. Plaza Cleveland St. 5 5 4 3 2 2 5 3 4 101 103 107 111 100 101 100 307 100 101 100 206 210 300 10 101 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 3 291 - Privately Owned 33 - On Street S. Public Rd. 3 4 4 13 8 42 39 42 20 Plaza Chester St. Emma St. Kimbark St. 5 9 24 9 10 8 4 41 19 15 401 409 105 503 605 607 109 610 100 406 500 502 600 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 4 355 - Privately Owned 8 - On Street Spaulding St. 18 54 27 45 62 97 12 8 5 3 Kimbark St. 701 705 6 707 4 709 711 801 805 811 905 50 24 802 806 808 990 Waneka Parkway ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 5 214 - Privately Owned 120 - Public Waneka Parkway 1005 125 S. Boulder Road City Center Dr. RTD 120 1290 1265 1285 47 26 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lafayette Old Town Visioning July 7, 2011 N 6 Spaulding St. Simpson St. 103 14 N. Public Rd. S. Public Rd. N. Harrison St. N. Gough Ave. N. Iowa Ave. N. Michigan Ave. 105 201 211 301 309 418 400 8 405 12 403 4 32 2 5 6 108 300 5 304 2 2 308 103 20 73 - Privately Owned 39 - Public ---PAGE BREAK--- Old Town Lafayette Vision Plan Financial Analysis – Appendix C Lafayette, Colorado September 2011 Prepared for: Lafayette Urban Renewal Authority Prepared by: RickerΙCunningham 8200 South Quebec Street Suite A3-104 Centennial, Colorado 80112 [PHONE REDACTED] phone [PHONE REDACTED] fax www.rickercunningham.com ---PAGE BREAK--- C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s 1 O l d T o w n L a f a y e t t e V i s i o n P l a n T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m TO: Lafayette Urban Renewal Authority Lafayette City Council FROM: Anne Ricker DATE: 19 September 2011 SUBJECT: Old Town Lafayette Financial Analysis Historically, the planning, financing and implementation of projects in the downtown market were the primary responsibility of public sector entities. The city was understood to have the largest and longest term interest and responsibility for downtown, making it the obvious lead in any revitalization or reinvestment effort. It was also understood to be the logical conduit for local, regional, state and federal funding sources. In Lafayette, while the public sector has been identified as playing a significant role in Old Town’s renaissance, it will be equally important that the private sector, along with various advocacy groups, partner with them and assist them in their efforts. Leveraging of scarce resources will be essential as no one entity, either public or private, has the means alone to sustain a long- term downtown improvement effort. As explained in the implementation discussion presented in the full document, the resources needed for Public Road are multiplicative – financial, regulatory, and policy – all of which translate into economic risk and return. Financial resources, in particular, will be essential for removing barriers to investment, capitalizing on market opportunities and leveling the redevelopment balance sheet. Among the barriers contributing to economic inequities in the Study Area (as reported in the full document) are: Financial Barriers  Market demand, but limited sales volume (translating into below market rents)  Poor perception of Public Road by investment audiences  Limited investment and / or reinvestment in properties  Need for different funding sources – capital, operational and maintenance  Few financial resources  Inability to attract investors  Existing urban renewal area with limited Tax Increment Financing (TIF) potential  “Affordable heart – high-value soul”  Necessity for public spaces that do not generate direct revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s 2  Limited demand for new commercial construction Market Opportunities Among the market conditions contributing to economic inequities in the Study Area (as reported in the full document) are: Trade Area (10 mile drive time), in 2010, comprised – 94,800 persons and 31,000 households $35,371 per capita income compared to a national per capita income of $27,851 $95,555 average household income compared to a national average household income of $72,075 Public Road (Study Area) has an existing inventory of – 150,500 square feet of GAFO* sales tax generating space 49,750 square feet of Food and Beverage sales tax generating space 15,000 square feet of Food and Beverage non-sales tax generating space (vacant) GAFO = General Merchandise, Apparel, Accessories, Furniture and Other Trade Area (10 mile drive time), in 2010 had – GAFO sales of $383 million Food and Beverage sales of $248 million Public Road (Study Area), in 2010, had – GAFO sales of $8.6 million (2.3% of trade area sales) Food and Beverage sales of $6.5 million (2.6% of trade area sales) Public Road (Study Area), in 2010, had – GAFO sales of $57 per square foot (compared to Highway 287 sales of $300 psf) Food and Beverage sales of $130 per square foot (compared to Highway 287 sales of $500 psf) Public Road (Study Area) has the potential to grow (by 2016) – GAFO sales to $21.6 million (5.6% of expanded trade area sales) Food and Beverage sales to $15.5 million (6.2% of expanded trade area sales) and add - Gallery and Studio sales of $3.8 million These estimates assume – No net new commercial or gallery space on the corridor Reconstituted existing operators New operators in existing uses Conversions of existing spaces for gallery and studio space Reinvestment and new investment beginning in 2012 and uses stabilizing in 2015 Redevelopment Balance Sheet While all of the factors presented above (barriers and conditions) contribute to an imbalance on the Public Road redevelopment balance sheet, those that had the most significant influence on the sources and uses identified to advance the vision included: ---PAGE BREAK--- C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s 3  Limited TIF potential  No need for new commercial space  No new residential (regulation preclude)  High base  Limited life  Market under-served by existing tenant mix  Low sales performance and market capture The Old Town Lafayette Vision balance is summarized as follows:  Uses  Public Road capital expenses $1.0m - $3.0m  Building retrofits $6m to $10m ($300m through stabilization)  Maintenance of public spaces $250K per year  Sources  CRA dollars  Loan pool  City grants / loans  Special district (5 mils) $80K per year  Public Improvement Fee  Reconstituted TIF  Reset the base and start over  Combine TIF districts ($11.6m property, $7.5m sales)  Residential uses ($6.4m property) Assumptions inherent in the figures presented above include:  Public Road improvements will be phased  Public sector will participate in the adaptation of existing buildings for future tenants  Property owners in the Study Area will fund the on-going maintenance of public spaces  Tax Increment Financing will be a primary funding source, but that the projected revenue stream within the existing urban renewal area will have to increase (either by redefining its boundaries, resetting the base, starting the TIF clock over, combining existing districts and / or introducing new residential products) Note: The impact of increasing TIF revenue through these means is summarized in the tables below. The detailed analysis that supports these figures is attached to this memo. ---PAGE BREAK--- C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s 4 Downtown redevelopment is never easy, but always exciting. It is challenging, and as such requires higher levels of analysis, planning and assistance, in order to attract the right type of investment and developer interest. Downtown, while the heart of the community, is but one subset of a larger market, and as such, has which can be capitalized on and limitations which should be overcome. These limitations, referred to in this report as barriers, pose unique obstacles which require unique solutions. Downtown has a tremendous influence on the economic well-being of the entire region. Regions with stronger downtowns have stronger regional economies. Therefore, it is widely accepted that early projects in any revitalization effort should be assisted at least until market conditions reach levels where new construction can more than support itself. The goal of this financing strategy for the Old Town Lafayette Vision is to assemble a variety of resources that can be used for different line items in the pre-development, development and operating spreadsheets. ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1 LAFAYETTE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE POTENTIAL TIF ESTIMATES AUGUST 2011 Cumulative Total By: Downtown Lafayette Urban Renewal Area 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 Incremental Property Tax Revenues $93,856 $1,171,788 $3,704,469 $7,383,240 $11,601,929 Incremental Sales Tax Revenues $78,045 $966,641 $2,913,126 $5,133,916 $7,467,990 Total Tax Revenue Increment $171,901 $2,138,429 $6,617,595 $12,517,156 $19,069,918 Source: Ricker+Cunningham. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 LAFAYETTE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE POTENTIAL TIF ESTIMATES AUGUST 2011 Development Program Building New Redevelopment: SF/Units Retail 50,000 Office/Employment 50,000 Residential (2/3 Ownership; 1/3 Rental) 400 Annual Property Tax Revenue Estimates Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Estimated Cumulative Development Demand: Retail 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 Office/Employment 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 Residential (High-Density) 0 15 30 45 60 80 100 120 140 Estimated Development Market Value: Retail $120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,725 $1,261,212 $2,547,648 $2,573,125 $3,898,284 Office/Employment $120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,725 $1,261,212 $2,547,648 $2,573,125 $3,898,284 Residential (High-Density) $160,000 $0 $2,424,000 $4,896,480 $7,418,167 $9,989,798 $13,452,929 $16,984,322 $20,584,999 $24,255,990 Estimated Development Assessed Value: Retail 29% $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,130 $365,751 $738,818 $746,206 $1,130,502 Office/Employment 29% $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,130 $365,751 $738,818 $746,206 $1,130,502 Residential (High-Density) 7.96% $0 $192,950 $389,760 $590,486 $795,188 $1,070,853 $1,351,952 $1,638,566 $1,930,777 Estimated Development Property Tax Revenues (80 mills): Retail 0.08000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,970 $29,260 $59,105 $59,696 Office/Employment 0.08000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,970 $29,260 $59,105 $59,696 Residential (High-Density) 0.08000 $0 $0 $15,436 $31,181 $47,239 $63,615 $85,668 $108,156 $131,085 Total Property Tax Revenues from New Development: $0 $0 $15,436 $31,181 $47,239 $121,556 $144,188 $226,367 $250,478 Total Property Tax Revenues from Existing Development: $1,331,382 $1,344,696 $1,344,696 $1,358,143 $1,358,143 $1,371,724 $1,371,724 $1,385,441 $1,385,441 Total Property Tax Revenues: $1,331,382 $1,344,696 $1,360,132 $1,389,324 $1,405,382 $1,493,280 $1,515,913 $1,611,808 $1,635,920 Existing Property Tax Base: $1,331,382 $1,344,696 $1,344,696 $1,358,143 $1,358,143 $1,371,724 $1,371,724 $1,385,441 $1,385,441 Total Property Tax Increment: $0 $0 $15,436 $31,181 $47,239 $121,556 $144,188 $226,367 $250,478 Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimates Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Estimated Cumulative Retail Development: 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 Estimated Taxable Retail Sales from New Development: $250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,601,510 $2,627,525 $5,307,601 $5,360,677 $8,121,425 Total Sales Tax Revenues from New Development: 3.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,045 $78,826 $159,228 $160,820 $243,643 Total Sales Tax Revenue from Existing Development: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Sales Tax Revenues: $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,045 $78,826 $159,228 $160,820 $243,643 Existing Sales Tax Base: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Sales Tax Increment: $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,045 $78,826 $159,228 $160,820 $243,643 Source: Ricker+Cunningham. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 LAFAYETTE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE POTENTIAL TIF ESTIMATES AUGUST 2011 Development Program Building New Redevelopment: SF/Units Retail 50,000 Office/Employment 50,000 Residential (2/3 Ownership; 1/3 Rental) 400 Annual Property Tax Revenue Estimates Estimated Cumulative Development Demand: Retail Office/Employment Residential (High-Density) Estimated Development Market Value: Retail $120 Office/Employment $120 Residential (High-Density) $160,000 Estimated Development Assessed Value: Retail 29% Office/Employment 29% Residential (High-Density) 7.96% Estimated Development Property Tax Revenues (80 mills): Retail 0.08000 Office/Employment 0.08000 Residential (High-Density) 0.08000 Total Property Tax Revenues from New Development: Total Property Tax Revenues from Existing Development: Total Property Tax Revenues: Existing Property Tax Base: Total Property Tax Increment: Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimates Estimated Cumulative Retail Development: Estimated Taxable Retail Sales from New Development: $250 Total Sales Tax Revenues from New Development: 3.00% Total Sales Tax Revenue from Existing Development: Total Sales Tax Revenues: Existing Sales Tax Base: Total Sales Tax Increment: Source: Ricker+Cunningham. Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 30,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 165 190 215 240 265 290 315 340 $3,937,267 $5,302,186 $5,355,208 $6,760,950 $6,828,560 $6,896,845 $6,965,814 $7,035,472 $3,937,267 $5,302,186 $5,355,208 $6,760,950 $6,828,560 $6,896,845 $6,965,814 $7,035,472 $28,873,291 $33,580,513 $38,378,991 $43,270,081 $48,255,155 $53,335,603 $58,512,835 $63,788,278 $1,141,807 $1,537,634 $1,553,010 $1,960,676 $1,980,282 $2,000,085 $2,020,086 $2,040,287 $1,141,807 $1,537,634 $1,553,010 $1,960,676 $1,980,282 $2,000,085 $2,020,086 $2,040,287 $2,298,314 $2,673,009 $3,054,968 $3,444,298 $3,841,110 $4,245,514 $4,657,622 $5,077,547 $90,440 $91,345 $123,011 $124,241 $156,854 $158,423 $160,007 $161,607 $90,440 $91,345 $123,011 $124,241 $156,854 $158,423 $160,007 $161,607 $154,462 $183,865 $213,841 $244,397 $275,544 $307,289 $339,641 $372,610 $335,343 $366,554 $459,862 $492,879 $589,252 $624,134 $659,655 $695,823 $1,399,296 $1,399,296 $1,413,289 $1,413,289 $1,427,422 $1,427,422 $1,441,696 $1,441,696 $1,734,638 $1,765,850 $1,873,151 $1,906,168 $2,016,674 $2,051,556 $2,101,351 $2,137,519 $1,399,296 $1,399,296 $1,413,289 $1,413,289 $1,427,422 $1,427,422 $1,441,696 $1,441,696 $335,343 $366,554 $459,862 $492,879 $589,252 $624,134 $659,655 $695,823 Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 30,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $8,202,640 $11,046,221 $11,156,683 $14,085,313 $14,226,166 $14,368,428 $14,512,112 $14,657,233 $246,079 $331,387 $334,701 $422,559 $426,785 $431,053 $435,363 $439,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $246,079 $331,387 $334,701 $422,559 $426,785 $431,053 $435,363 $439,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $246,079 $331,387 $334,701 $422,559 $426,785 $431,053 $435,363 $439,717 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 LAFAYETTE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE POTENTIAL TIF ESTIMATES AUGUST 2011 Development Program Building New Redevelopment: SF/Units Retail 50,000 Office/Employment 50,000 Residential (2/3 Ownership; 1/3 Rental) 400 Annual Property Tax Revenue Estimates Estimated Cumulative Development Demand: Retail Office/Employment Residential (High-Density) Estimated Development Market Value: Retail $120 Office/Employment $120 Residential (High-Density) $160,000 Estimated Development Assessed Value: Retail 29% Office/Employment 29% Residential (High-Density) 7.96% Estimated Development Property Tax Revenues (80 mills): Retail 0.08000 Office/Employment 0.08000 Residential (High-Density) 0.08000 Total Property Tax Revenues from New Development: Total Property Tax Revenues from Existing Development: Total Property Tax Revenues: Existing Property Tax Base: Total Property Tax Increment: Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimates Estimated Cumulative Retail Development: Estimated Taxable Retail Sales from New Development: $250 Total Sales Tax Revenues from New Development: 3.00% Total Sales Tax Revenue from Existing Development: Total Sales Tax Revenues: Existing Sales Tax Base: Total Sales Tax Increment: Source: Ricker+Cunningham. Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 365 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 $7,105,827 $7,176,885 $7,248,654 $7,321,140 $7,394,352 $7,468,295 $7,542,978 $7,618,408 $7,105,827 $7,176,885 $7,248,654 $7,321,140 $7,394,352 $7,468,295 $7,542,978 $7,618,408 $69,163,379 $76,553,438 $77,318,973 $78,092,163 $78,873,084 $79,661,815 $80,458,433 $81,263,018 $2,060,690 $2,081,297 $2,102,110 $2,123,131 $2,144,362 $2,165,806 $2,187,464 $2,209,338 $2,060,690 $2,081,297 $2,102,110 $2,123,131 $2,144,362 $2,165,806 $2,187,464 $2,209,338 $5,505,405 $6,093,654 $6,154,590 $6,216,136 $6,278,298 $6,341,080 $6,404,491 $6,468,536 $163,223 $164,855 $166,504 $168,169 $169,850 $171,549 $173,264 $173,264 $163,223 $164,855 $166,504 $168,169 $169,850 $171,549 $173,264 $173,264 $406,204 $440,432 $487,492 $492,367 $497,291 $502,264 $507,286 $507,286 $732,650 $770,143 $820,500 $828,705 $836,992 $845,362 $853,815 $853,815 $1,456,113 $1,456,113 $1,470,674 $1,470,674 $1,485,381 $1,485,381 $1,500,235 $1,500,235 $2,188,763 $2,226,256 $2,291,174 $2,299,379 $2,322,373 $2,330,742 $2,354,050 $2,354,050 $1,456,113 $1,456,113 $1,470,674 $1,470,674 $1,485,381 $1,485,381 $1,500,235 $1,500,235 $732,650 $770,143 $820,500 $828,705 $836,992 $845,362 $853,815 $853,815 Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $14,803,805 $14,951,843 $15,101,362 $15,252,375 $15,404,899 $15,558,948 $15,714,538 $15,871,683 $444,114 $448,555 $453,041 $457,571 $462,147 $466,768 $471,436 $476,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $444,114 $448,555 $453,041 $457,571 $462,147 $466,768 $471,436 $476,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $444,114 $448,555 $453,041 $457,571 $462,147 $466,768 $471,436 $476,150 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D - Public Outreach Process Lafayette Old Town Visioning Project 9.6.11 Public Engagement Process Approach The Vision Plan is intended to provide the City and stakeholders with a guiding document that provides recommendations and strategies for an improved, revitalized Old Town that is based on market reality, community sentiment and economic feasibility. The public engagement process was a way for the consultant team to involve the community in the visioning process, listen to stakeholders, provide and receive information, and obtain support for implementing the Old Town vision. Our process involved integrating what we heard from the greater community, observations about Lafayette and surrounding communities and generating strategies that are continually tested with the community. The consultant team’s approach to the public engagement process was unique, including both traditional and non-traditional methods of stakeholder involvement. Traditionally, the public engagement process includes focus group meetings and public open houses or presentations. Our inclusion of non-traditional methods allowed us to connect with the community by coming to them, rather than requiring attendance at a traditional public meeting. As part of this effort, we attended community events, held one-on-one interviews with stakeholders at their place of business or at a coffee shop, and visited restaurants and retail shops in Old Town to speak with owners and employees. The following chart summarizes all of the public meetings that were held throughout the Visioning process. Date(s) Meeting Description 3/23 Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting #1 4/5 LURA / DAC Meeting (Open to the public) 4/15 – 4/16 Attended Art Night Out at Festival Plaza (Open to the public) Attended Easter Egg Hunt at Waneka Lake and Festival Plaza (Open to the public) 4/20 – 4/21 Interviews with City Staff and Stakeholders These were one-on-one opportunities for staff and stakeholders to meet with consultants in their place of business, City Hall or at the local coffee shops. 4/25 - 4/26 Focus group meetings #1 (met with all 5 groups over these two dates) Focus Groups 1. Boards / Commissions 2. Old Town Businesses and Landowners 3. Residential – Old Town 4. Residential – Non-Old Town 5. Non-Profits / Community Organizations ---PAGE BREAK--- 4/26 Public Open House #1 This public meeting was an informal open house opportunity to discuss the Visioning Project with the public at large at the Library. (Open to the public) 4/27 Steering Committee Meeting #2 This meeting gave the consultant team an opportunity to share what we’ve heard with the Steering Committee and discuss next steps. 5/16 Steering Committee Meeting #3 Met with SC to discuss upcoming public meetings and focus groups, initial visioning thoughts from the team, etc. 6/8 Focus Group Meetings #2 Met with the Old Town Businesses and Landowners and Old Town Residential groups on this date. These focus group meetings included a presentation of initial market findings, vision concepts and proposed block plan strategy. 6/8 Public Meeting #2 This public meeting was a formal presentation of initial market findings, vision concepts and proposed block plan strategy. Held at the public library. (Open to the public) 7/6 Steering Committee Meeting #4 Met with SC to discuss process, update schedule and initial vision concepts, market findings and block plan strategy. 7/26 Steering Committee Meeting #5 Presented draft Vision Plan. 8/3 Focus Group Meetings #3 Met with the Old Town Businesses and Landowners and Old Town Residential groups on this date. At this meeting team presented final concepts, vision and strategy. 8/3 Public Meeting #3 This public meeting was a formal presentation of market findings, vision concepts and implementation strategy. Held at the public library. (Open to the public) ---PAGE BREAK--- 9/1 Final Steering Committee Meeting 9/13 LURA Special Meeting (Open to the public) 9/20 Final LURA Presentation (Open to the public) April 15th – April 26th Public Meetings Community Event Attendance On April 15th, members of the consultant team attended the Art Night Out event on Public Road. An information table was set up in Festival Plaza from 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm, with information about the visioning project and getting involved, an email sign in sheet and LOTA brochures and maps. The team was able to speak to 15-20 event attendees and received input regarding Art Night Out’s success, Public Road needs and Lafayette identity. On April 16th, members of the consultant team attended the Easter Egg Hunt at both Waneka Lake and Festival Plaza. An information table was set up at both events. Team members spoke to 10-15 event attendees, including children and parents. Input received at these events was quite different from Art Night Out, as parents and children have different needs, priorities and concerns than those heard the previous evening. In general, both groups enjoyed the events that the City sponsored and would encourage additional events geared to multiple age groups. One-on-One Interviews On April 20th and 21st members of the consultant team attended several one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders who had been identified by the Steering Committee. Interviews were conducted with business owners, community board members and residents. Input received from these interviews is included in Tables 1 – 5. In addition, two meetings were held with City Staff. City staff shared their vision for Old Town, Public Road, Simpson Street, existing community facilities and their role in Old Town events, planning, engineering and maintenance. Many staff members are also residents, and were able to share their views of Old Town from that perspective as well. Staff’s greatest concerns were achieving continuity on Public Road, both from a land use and maintenance perspective, creation of additional density in Old Town while preserving historic character, and access - vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and meeting ADA requirements. Traditional Public Input Methods On April 25th and 26th City of Lafayette staff, Old Town business owners, residents, elected officials, community organization members and boards and commission members were provided a number of opportunities in which to provide input on this planning effort. These forums included five focus group meetings and a public open house. The focus group meetings are summarized below, and in Tables 1-5. Focus Groups Business Owners and Landowners – Business owners and landowners from Public Road, Simpson Street and Baseline Road attended the focus group meeting. The group generally agreed that the pod concept presented by the consultant team could be successful for the Vision Plan, if implemented correctly. The group had concerns that the “difficult questions” that have held up processes in the past could continue to stall progress in Old Town if not dealt with directly. ---PAGE BREAK--- Some business owners feel that the lack of consistency in shopping and dining out is one of the greatest issues facing the success of Old Town. Although events put on by the City are a great boon to the local economy, business owners need more consistent traffic on Public Road to be successful. There are many great destination retailers and restaurants that already exist in the area, but a more critical mass is needed to attract additional customers. There was also a discussion of Simpson Road and its future, including the potential addition of more high-density residential and roadway connections. Community Organizations – The consultant team met with representatives from Sister Carmen, WOW Museum and the Rocky Mountain Center for Musical Arts (RMCMA). Both the WOW Museum and RMCMA are regional destinations and draw visitors from many surrounding communities. Many families visit the museums and attend concerts, and establishing additional family-friendly, value-oriented restaurants and shops that support these uses should be a priority for Old Town, according to the focus group attendees. Sister Carmen also draws visitors from surrounding areas, although approximately 65% of their services are provided to Lafayette residents and most of their visitors are low income. Several ideas for the Vision Plan emerged from this meeting, including marketing the community as a green town / resale hot spot, providing more kid-centric shops and restaurants, providing transit specific to Old Town, and playing up the diverse, historic character of the community. Non-Old Town Residents – No one attended this focus group meeting. Input received via email from one Indian Peaks resident exemplified the possible misconceptions about Old Town that exist today outside of the town core. This Vision Plan can be an opportunity for a new public relations campaign that discusses the great shops, restaurants, events and public facilities available in Old Town. The consultant team and City staff developed a short survey that was sent via email to several Indian Peaks residents to obtain more feedback, along with South Pointe residents and Flatirons Church members. Results from these surveys are located at the end of Appendix D. Old Town Residents – Several Old Town residents attended this focus group meeting, along with the Public Open House held that same evening. Residents shared their vision and ideas for Old Town and the reasons why they chose to live in the community. Friendly neighbors, walkability, public facilities, affordability, proximity to work (Denver/Boulder), diversity and the arts are some of the many reasons that residents find Old Town appealing. Generally, the group agreed that Old Town’s identity is not just about Public Road, but also the residential community that is so connected to the commercial street. Old Town residents had several ideas for the future of Old Town, including more musical and arts based events, providing diverse opportunities for seniors, kids and ethnic groups, improving Old Town marketing and improving the aesthetics along Public Road and Simpson Street. Boards and Commissions - The meeting included board members from the Lafayette Cultural Arts Committee, Public Art Committee, Seniors Board, Library Board, and Youth Advisory Board. Many members of this group see Old Town Lafayette as a diverse community of the arts, a blending of cultures and comfortable small town. The Arts Committees have created partnerships with the recreation center and library and are looking for additional public space in Old Town for events. Many residents, especially seniors, are on fixed incomes so the inclusion of more affordable restaurants and shops would be welcomed. Accessibility into Old Town is important for seniors, as well as youth. Public Meeting Open House‐ The consultant team held an open house on the evening of April 26th at the library. The team had stations set up for attendees to meet different members of the consultant team and discuss Lafayette identity, the market, zoning and land use. Attendees were able to contribute their ideas for Old Town through comment cards and discussion. The meeting was well attended and the team had a lot of good feedback and discussion with community members. ---PAGE BREAK--- The public input received at the meetings and events attended between April 15th and April 26th are summarized in the following sections and in Tables 1 - 5. Public Comment Summary Tables 1-5 Table 1: of Old Town Lafayette Comfortable, neighborly, small town feel Bilingual school, recreation center, library, etc. The Arts (visual art, music, sculpture, history, literature, etc.) WOW Museum, RMCMA, Theater, etc. Old Town Events Central Location (25 min to Boulder, Denver, DIA) Diversity (both ethnic and socio-economic) Destination Businesses Resident pride Walkable Festival Plaza Affordable (both residential and commercial) Eclectic and Authentic Community history Loyalty Improvements to Public Rd. that have occurred over the past 10 years Awareness / green / conscious Not corporate / not white bread Table 2: Challenges of Old Town Lafayette Challenges Length of Public Road Simpson Street supposed to be heart Lack of Continuity Bicycle Access from west to Old Town Zoning Enforcement (lack thereof) Getting people to cross 287 Parking Loss of sales tax revenue at church site / low sales tax revenue coming out of Old Town More Consistent Customer Base – 4 seasons Keeping tenants in buildings Changing Perceptions about Old Town (for those outside of OT) – marketing problem No gateway ADA Accessibility No critical mass Funding for Building Improvements More restaurant variety Signage Lack of children/teen activities Spreading funding too thin (landscape along roadways) Low residential density (zoning) Code challenges (mobile home size, density, mother-in-law units, parking, density) No nightlife People who don’t live in Old Town don’t associate themselves as living in Lafayette Aging infrastructure (utilities) All people say they like diversity, but some really don’t like it (i.e. low income housing, pawn shop, etc.) Table 3: Businesses we need in Old Town Lafayette Business List Micro-brewery Music venue Quality consignment (clothing, kids, sports, books) Hotel/Bed and Breakfast Antiques Children’s store / baby store (furniture – clothing) Art / Artist Collaborative Peppercorn / What’s Cooking Bakery Religious Store ---PAGE BREAK--- Western Store Quick service / Value-oriented restaurants Movie theater (value oriented – second showings) Knitting / Quilting / Craft store / Hardware Burger joint Executive Suites / Incubator Start ups Table 4: Needs/ Opportunities for Old Town Lafayette Needs Opportunities Bike racks Church bulletin advertisements Additional landscaping / hanging baskets Pedi-cabs Seating Buy local program Trash cans Green town / resale hot spot Doggie stations Locally grown co-op / crafts Additional gathering space / classroom space (old Boulder County building on Simpson?) Old Town Band with RMCMA Table 5: Words that describe Old Town Lafayette Words Small town Village Community Gathering place Safe Diversity - Diverse Inclusive Inviting Multi-cultural Socio-economic variety Heart Soul Value Contemporary Vintage Recreation Entrepreneurial Strolling Cared for Authentic Youthful Informal Spontaneous Victorian Bohemian Pioneers Not artificial Vibrant History Roots Cultural Charm Authenticity Compassion Quaint Nostalgic Mining Poetry Image Dog friendly Walkable Bike friendly Creative Artistic Music Heritage Digital Green Local food Solar power E-vehicle Town center Micro catalyst Gritty Homegrown Handy Analysis / Key Findings Although the consultant team met with and interviewed a wide variety of stakeholders with differing perspectives, there were several areas of agreement determined through the meetings and interviews held from April 15th – April 26th. ---PAGE BREAK--- Small town with roots – Lafayette is a small town, and it is one of the primary reasons that people have chosen to live here. Residents enjoy knowing their neighbors, spending time on Public Road and visiting the businesses that are located there. The integration of the residential community into Old Town is crucial to maintain and build upon for a successful Vision. An important aspect of the small town character is the history of Old Town, Public Road and Simpson Street. The history of the Lafayette should be celebrated through the Vision Plan. Most people like the eclectic nature of Old Town, the variety of buildings and spaces, and unique character that exists on some areas of Public Road. It is important for the Vision Plan to enhance these characteristics and improve the overall continuity of Public Road, rather than prescribe homogenous future development. Length of Public Road/Lack of Continuity – The length of Public Road is a challenge. There is a lack of continuity the entire length of the corridor. Most people agreed that looking at “pods” or “nodes” along Public Road and Simpson Street could be beneficial. Although some stakeholders do not like the low income housing, pawn shop and other dilapidated properties that add to the “lack of continuity”, most agreed that these perceived issues could be resolved with aesthetic improvements. The look of these properties is perhaps more unappealing than the use itself. Developing a Vision Plan that identifies nodes and “connects the dots” is critical to success. Arts and Culture – The arts community is active and vibrant in Lafayette. The Vision Plan should continue to build on the momentum that the arts have created in Old Town to date: sculpture walk, pARTiculars, Art Night Out, Music in Festival Plaza, Museums, Mary Miller Theater, etc. There is an opportunity in Old Town to become a true “community of the arts” that will attract visitors from outside the City. Critical Mass – When discussing the types of businesses people would like to see in Old Town, most stakeholders agree on one thing – more. There is a demand for both retail and additional restaurants that are open all days of the week and for additional hours. Common themes for additional shops and restaurants were kid-friendly, value-oriented and diversity was often mentioned. June 8th Public Meetings The second round of public meetings consisted of focus group meetings with Old Town Business and Land Owners, Old Town Residents and a presentation open to the public at the Lafayette Library. The consultant team presented the initial vision concept, market findings and block plan to get feedback from attendees. In addition to the public meetings, surveys were emailed to residents of Indian Peaks and South Pointe communities to get input on current Old Town perceptions and shopping habits, and recommendations for improving Old Town. A survey was also posted on the Flatirons Church website to get input from church members, both Lafayette residents and others that do not reside in Lafayette. Focus Groups Business Owners and Land Owners – This focus group meeting consisted of a smaller group of business and land owners, with a total of 8 people attending. The discussion following the team’s presentation focused on the following main points: Block Plan – Attendees had differing opinions on the proposed block plan and potential phasing for improvements. Some felt that leaving out the southern end of Public Road (south of Kimbark) was a problem, because there is ample parking in this area and several existing restaurants. Others felt that it didn’t matter where improvements were focused initially, as long as the improvements brought more people to Old Town – specifically improved gateways and signage at key intersections. Connectivity – There was a long discussion of street, bicycle and land use connectivity to assist in bringing people into Old Town. The future connection of South Boulder Road to I-25 as a priority, development of the ---PAGE BREAK--- vacant parcels on Public Road between US 287 and South Boulder Road, and potential connection of Simpson Street east to 120th or Baseline Road. In addition, bicycle connectivity was brought up again as a way to bring energy and people into Old Town Lafayette. Urban Renewal Authority Powers – The perceived “blight” on Public Road, including mobile home parks and pawn shop, were brought up as an issue to improving Old Town. The group asked about URA powers of imminent domain, and the consultant team explained that efforts of this manner are politically difficult, extremely expensive and often end in court. After the explanation, the group agreed that pursuing this type of effort was not in the best interest of the community and that other improvements would be more beneficial. Organizational Issues – The importance of a business organization that has authority and leadership to facilitate improvements and provide assistance and education to businesses in Old Town is an important issue to address through this process. Many attendees at the meeting felt that the Chamber did little to promote Old Town businesses, and that there was a lack of business assistance available in the City. Old Town Residents – Three residents attended the focus group meeting. There was little feedback on the presentation; rather, the conversation focused mainly on the importance of the execution strategy of the vision plan. Residents are concerned that management is the issue that has kept things from happening on Public Road. It is critical for the consultant team to emphasize the organizational strategy and implementation authority for the plan. If this item can be addressed thoughtfully in the plan, the plan can be successful. Public Meetings The consultant team presented the initial vision concept, market findings and block plan and took questions from the group. There was positive feedback from attendees on the vision words and description of Old Town as diverse, creative and eclectic. Many attendees expressed agreement with the words and description, and the concept that streetscape, signage and architecture should be in service to the vision. Many people also agreed that continuing to promote and enhance the arts and cultural offerings in Lafayette was important to the Old Town vision. There was some concern expressed regarding the future of Simpson Street. The consultant team presented the concept that Simpson, going forward, should continue to be a cultural hub while adding new multi-family residential and boutique office, rather than focusing on additional retail, restaurant and services. The team emphasized that in order for Old Town to be successful, Public Road needs to be enhanced and focused on first. While it is possible that some retail and service oriented uses will be located on Simpson, the team does not agree that it will be the commercial core of Old Town at this time. Emailed Surveys Indian Peaks‐ There was a total of 34 respondents to the survey. Of the respondents, only 50% associated themselves as living in Lafayette. 30% of the respondents associated themselves as residents “outside of Boulder” and a few residents associated themselves as “outside of Louisville”. 44% of residents dined or shopped in Old Town only occasionally, with 24% stating that they never went to Old Town. This perception of not living in Lafayette may contribute to the lack of loyalty to Old Town, or the “dividing line” of crossing US 287. Lack of consistent trips to Old Town may also be attributed to proximity (it is the same distance to downtown Louisville) and/or available shopping and dining. Regardless of where Indian Peaks residents associate themselves as living, 91% believe that Lafayette is a small town, and many would describe Lafayette as diverse and eclectic. No respondents selected “creative” as a description for Old Town, which may mean that there is a lack of marketing of the City’s cultural and arts related activities to this resident group. ---PAGE BREAK--- Many respondents cited lack of shops and services, run-down atmosphere, not enough restaurants and lack of identity as reasons for not spending time in Old Town. There is a perception that Old Town is highly influenced by the Latino culture, and that there are few other offerings. With improved and more cohesive streetscape, more restaurants and better marketing Old Town may see additional visits from Indian Peaks residents. South Pointe‐ There was a total of 39 respondents to the survey. The results of the survey were very similar in nature to the Indian Peaks residents in regards to lack of services, run-down atmosphere and need for more restaurants. Of the respondents, the majority (82%) associated themselves as living in Lafayette. Most residents dined or shopped in Old Town occasionally, with several making trips to Old Town 1-2 times per month. The residents also agreed that Lafayette is a small town that is diverse and eclectic, with many respondents stating that Lafayette is run-down and not distinctive. There were several recommendations for more family-centered services and restaurants as a way to bring more people into Old Town. Flatirons Church‐ As of July 18th, 2011 there was a total of 419 respondents to the survey. This survey was different than the one sent to Indian Peaks and South Pointe residents, as the church congregation is from many places in the metropolitan area, although a majority that responded (24%) are Lafayette residents. The majority of the respondents (50%) shop in Old Town occasionally with 22% shopping in Old Town 3-5 times per month. This group had the largest amount of respondents agreeing that Old Town was eclectic, creative and diverse, and 93% feel that Lafayette is a small town. The respondents were split in how they perceive Lafayette; with half of the respondents writing in that Lafayette was a small, quaint, friendly town with a lot of potential and the other half describing the City as a run down, boring bedroom community to Boulder. Many cited the locally owned shops, destination businesses and restaurants (Lafayette Florist, Efrain’s and Tutti) and events are primary reasons to shop or dine in Old Town. Recommendations to improve Old Town include more restaurants, additional festivals and events, and more marketing information on what types of business services are available. August 3rd Public Meetings The last round of public meetings consisted of focus group meetings with Old Town Business and Land Owners, Old Town Residents and a presentation open to the public at the Lafayette Library. The consultant team presented the final vision plan concepts, market findings and financial strategy to get feedback from attendees. The feedback received at the last round of public meetings was very positive. Reactions to the vision plan concepts included questions about which areas to focus on first to have the most impact, how to get property owners on board to make improvements like the ones shown in the vision plan, and how to pay for public improvements. Generally, the group liked the streetscape concepts and signage images, and appreciated the Vision Plan’s focus on “small improvements” that are may be more feasible and realistic to achieve. Many residents expressed interest in forming a committee or group to help the City facilitate the Vision Plan. Much of the discussion at the meetings focused on feasibility of implementation for the Vision Plan, and the physical, organizational, regulatory, political, and financial barriers that exist in Lafayette today. The Vision Plan addresses each of these “implementation barriers” and provides recommendations on how to move forward.