Downtown Glendale Community Working Group

September 23, 2015Meeting #5

Agenda Updates Economic development presentations Results of Homework #4 Pros and cons of the route options Large group discussion of route options to carry

forward Map exercise Homework #5 Adjourn

2

Observations on Existing Light Rail System

Abhishek Dayal, Valley MetroJoshua Matthews, Valley Metro

Economic Development Database

Tracks all major developments within ½ mile of a light rail station (since 2005) Data comes from news releases, developer

information packets and city development departments Database includes:Project name, address and station areaCapital investment for constructionHousing units, sq. ft. by land use and hotel

rooms4

Total Development Along Light Rail

55

Light Rail & Economic Development

Light rail focuses development within specific areas (station areas) Transit-oriented development leads to higher

density, greater intensity and walkable streetscapes Leads to mixed-use development that is more

conducive to walking/biking Connects residential districts with commercial,

office and activity centers

6

Local Development Examples

7Portland Place apartments, PhoenixEncore on 1st senior housing, Mesa

Gracie’s Village affordable housing, Tempe

ASU Downtown Campus, Phoenix

Local Adaptive Reuse Examples

8The Newton, PhoenixThe Yard at Farmer Arts District, Tempe

Cathedral Townhomes, PhoenixDesoto Central Market, Phoenix

Economic Development in Downtown Glendale

Brian Friedman, City of GlendaleJean Moreno, City of Glendale

Kristen Stephenson, City of Glendale

Economic Development Basics

10

Retail/Restaurants• Rely on disposable income

Employment• Effective transportation• Zoning Supportive Communities

Residential• Effective transportation• Population Trends• Nearby employment/ amenities

Economic Development Perspective

Maximizes investment opportunities Aligned with Centerline objectives Creates synergy National return on investment is 3.7 to 1 (370%) Key factor in federal funding decision

11

About Glendale Centerline…

Council Goal identified in 2007 Key Objectives:Broaden view of downtownCreate a “brand” for Glendale Avenue corridorEstablish economic partnershipsDevelop new core identity for the areaOngoing redevelopment strategy

12

Centerline Overlay District

Alternative set of development standards Intended to facilitate private development Provides flexibility and expediency Supports development and redevelopment

13

14

How Does it Work?

Optional participation Administrative Process Underlying zoning is superseded Only for use in the approved Glendale Centerline

area

15

Why is it important

Time is money Avoids rezoning cases Clear set of development standards Expedites the development process Creates continuity of zoning/land use over time Encourages development opportunities

16

Mix of Current Centerline Businesses

17

Retail Trade49.47%

Other Services except Public Administration

20.70%

Accommodation and Food Services

16.49%

Construction4.91%

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Utilities

Information

Health and Social

Finance and Ins.Transp ServicesProf. ServicesAdmin Services Mgt of Companies 

Other8.42%

Retail Vacancy

18

7.8%

14.7%

Glendale CenterlinePhoenix Metro

9.4%

Office Vacancy

19

17.8%

22.8%

16.8%

Glendale CenterlinePhoenix Metro

Multifamily Vacancy

20

3.4%4.2%

Glendale CenterlinePhoenix Metro

4.7%

Industrial Vacancy

21

5.9%

11.8%

Glendale CenterlinePhoenix Metro

11.6%

Results of Homework #4Jennifer Pyne, Valley Metro

Downtown Glendale Route Options

23

Map Exercise from August Meeting

Route Option Green dots(favored)

Red dots (not favored)

Total # of dots

Glenn/Palmaire couplet and 51st Ave. (yellow)

27 2 29

Lamar /55th Dr. (pink) [*8 noted preference for 51st Ave connection to Lamar]

22* 11 33

Glendale Ave (green) 15 26 41

Glenn/Palmaire couplet and 55th Ave. (blue)

9 9 18

Palmaire/55th Ave. (purple) 3 6 9

Myrtle/Palmaire couplet (red) 0 24 24

24

Additional Insight from Homework

29 CWG members responded Major support or acceptance of Glenn Dr. options 19 included a Glenn option as a favored

optionRespondents who did not identify Glenn as a

favored option were diverse in what they did favor: Lamar (6), Palmaire (3), Glendale Ave (3), No build (2)

25

Options with the Most Support

Glenn Dr., which may include:Glenn double trackGlenn/Palmaire coupletEither option may connect via 51st Ave. or

55th Ave. Lamar Rd., which may include:Connect via 55th Dr. or 51st Ave.

26

Options Proposed to Set Aside Myrtle/Palmaire couplet Palmaire double track

27

Continuing Discussion Glendale Avenue

New or Additional Ideas from CWG

Glenn Dr. variationsDouble track on Glenn Terminate on Glenn east of 57th Ave.

Lamar variations Turn onto Lamar at 51st Ave. instead of 55th

Dr. Transit mall concept (i.e. eliminate vehicle

traffic), especially on Glendale Ave. or Glenn Dr.

28

New or Additional Ideas from CWG

New couplet (single-track loop) conceptsGlenn/Glendale Lamar/GlendaleGlenn/Lamar

29

30

Discussion or Questions

Downtown Route Options: Pros and Cons

Joe Racosky, Valley Metro

Pros and Cons

Based on:Evaluation criteriaComments on homework Technical analysis by Valley Metro Input from City of Glendale staff

32

Typical Double Track Concept

33

Typical Single Track/Couplet Concept

34

Pros and Cons – Track Configuration

Double Track (+) Everything in one place (+) Fewer street miles of impact (-) Bigger impact per street mile

Single Track (+) Less impact per street mile (-) Directions may be split (-) More street miles of impact

35

Perspectives on Impacts

Footprint impacts are similar no matter which streets are used Ability to accommodate or accept the impact is

what distinguishes the route optionsAvailable ROW Adjacent land useBuilding setbacks Traffic role, volumes, and speeds

36

Glenn Dr.

37

Glenn Dr. at 51st Ave.

38

Glenn Dr Alignment Options

39

Pros and Cons - Glenn Dr.

(+) Serves the heart of downtown (+) Low traffic volumes (+) Well-positioned for future crossing of Grand

Ave. & BNSF (+) Potential infill development (-) Concerns with historic properties (-) Additional turns would reduce speeds

40

Lamar Rd.

41

Lamar Rd Alignment Options

42

Pros and Cons – Lamar Rd.

43

(+/-) Located on the edge of downtown(+) Low traffic volumes(+) Redevelopment potential (+) 55th Dr. option has lower traffic volumes than

51st Ave. and would not be adjacent to neighborhood(-) Potential neighborhood impacts (-) Moderate difficulty - future crossing

Grand/BNSF

Glendale Ave. through Downtown

44

Glendale Ave Alignment Options

45

(+) Direct route without turns (+/-) Runs through the heart of downtown, which

serves more businesses but also creates potential to impact them (-) High traffic volumes – serves through-traffic

patterns on major regional arterial with few alternate routes (-) More costly and complicated Grand/BNSF

crossing (for light rail) and operational issues (for BRT)

46

Pros and Cons – Glendale Ave.

Couplet Options

47

Pros and Cons – New Couplet Options

(+) Less impact per street mile (-) More street miles of impact (-) Introduces impacts on 58th Ave.

Specific to Glenn/Lamar (-) Two blocks between couplet streets

(usually no more than one block)

48

Discussion or Questions

Map Exercise

Maps:Glenn Dr. set of options Lamar Rd. set of optionsGlendale Ave.Couplet options

1 dot per CWG member Place one dot on any option that you believe is

PREFERABLE

50

Homework #5

Please return Homework #5 by Wednesday, September 30 to Megan Casey:

Online: valleymetro.org/cwgEmail: mcasey@valleymetro.org Fax: 602.523.6095

51