High Rock Lot RFP Technical Review Committee Report Presented to the Saratoga Springs City Council Thursday, February 25, 2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning & Community Development Department East Green Street Predevelopment Plan Review City Council Meeting November 4, 2013.
Advertisements

San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan ABAG/MTC/ULI Workshop September 29, 2006.
Draft Zoning Code City Council Work Session June 21, 2007.
El Cajon Courtyard Excel Hotel Group July 1, 2014.
STATE ROAD 100 CORRIDOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Bulldog Drive Improvements Right-of-Way and Design September 21, 2010 Presentation for SR 100 CRA.
Town of Chapel Hill RFQ Pre-Proposal Conference Downtown Economic Development Initiative January 11, 2005.
1 RTD TOD Program University of Denver November 2004.
Tampa Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Affordable Housing Policies.
Public Meeting Agenda – September 13, 2007 Provide an Update on the Committee’s Work Discuss Emerging Vision for Redevelopment of Town-owned Property.
City of North Richland Hills TOD Code Overview. Comments from November 20 Work Session Need to ensure the preservation of key historic assets in the Smithfield.
Seattle Station Area Planning Milestones & Events Transit-Oriented Development Program Information & Schedule Station Area Atlas Station Area Recommendations.
October 4, 2004 Detrich B. Allen City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department 1 Siting New Development Detrich B. Allen General Manager Environmental.
Land Use Study for the Community of Winchester May 21, 2012.
Linda K. McCarthy, Executive Director Missoula Downtown Association Missoula, Montana
Market Square on Russell Intermountain Development Company, Inc.
1 Module 8 STATION AREA PLANNING. 2 Module 8 Station Area Planning Key Concepts and Definitions Station Area Planning Process 1.Define the Station Area.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT City Council June 3, 2014.
Land Use Study for the Community of Winchester July 9, 2012.
JAMESBURG, NEW JERSEY Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
Preliminary Development Plan – Continuation of August 28, 2012 BoCC Hearing Board of County Commissioners September 18, 2012.
Public Meeting: Tuesday, February 25,  Relationship to Comprehensive Plan  Existing Conditions  Transportation Overview  Market Overview  Concept.
Subcommittee on Heights, Massing, and Alternate Standards    Third Report – January 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission.
Planning & Community Development Department 1336 and 1347 East Colorado Blvd. Pre Development Plan Review City Council Meeting January 28, 2013.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Planning & Land Development Regulation Board May 21, 2014.
City of Palm Coast EAR Public Input Process Update Prepared for the Palm Coast City Council By The FCRC Consensus Center November 24, 2009 Update Prepared.
Victoria Place Redevelopment Area Paradise Park Downtown Commercial Corridor Professional / Medical Office School Government Offices HOUSING RESOURCE.
South Lake Union Urban Design Framework Report to the Seattle Design Commission September 17, 2009.
Red: Toner Ave. Gray: Future City-Owned Parcels Remaining from the Redevelopment of N. Main Street Blue: Existing Municipal Lot.
The Fargo/Moorhead Area Interstate Operations Study Opportunities and Planned Activities Presentation for the Mn/DOT Travel Demand Modeling Coordinating.
EASTSIDE ACTIVITY CENTER DRAFT MASTER PLAN Board of County Commissioners January 22, 2008.
Created by Way Development Ventures as a public service The following presentation provides background information to assist voters in gaining an understanding.
Ford Site Open Space Work Group An advisory group to the Ford Site Planning Task Force Meeting #1 June 30, 2010.
Planning Commission Study Session: Preferred Plan July 23, 2015.
Prepared by: Alex Fisch Planning Services Division.
NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN Advisory Committee Meeting #6 November 3, 2011.
DeSoto Hampton Corridor Revitalization Overview of Mixed Use Development.
Planning & Community Development Department 3202 East Foothill Boulevard (Mixed Use Project – Space Bank) City Council May 16, 2016 Predevelopment Plan.
Planning & Community Development Department Olivewood Village Project (530, 535 E. Union St., 95, 99, 119 N. Madison Ave. and 585 E. Colorado Blvd.) Predevelopment.
Residential Infill Project Scale of Houses (a primer) Stakeholder Advisory Committee October 6, 2015.
Airdrie Land Use Bylaw Municipal Planning Commission April
Downtown Stockton Housing Strategy Stockton City Council/ Stockton Redevelopment Agency Draft Report August 28, 2007.
1 Gables Gateway. 2 1.Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 2.Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3.Zoning Code Text Amendment 4.Change in Zoning 5.MXD3 Mixed.
Community Development Department MADISON GREEN AND TUSCAN RESERVE MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION #2616.
Snoqualmie Retail Market Analysis Presented July 2, 2007 City of Snoqualmie.
1 TIF 9 (Trinity River Vision) Expanded and Updated Project and Financing Plans December 8, 2009 Presented to the City Council Jay Chapa Housing & Economic.
1 Villa Laguna MXD3 Site Plan Review. 2 Request: The applicant is requesting site plan review of a proposed mixed-use project pursuant to the recently.
July 4, 2017 AURORA UNITED CHURCH + SOUTHBOUND DEVELOPMENT LTD Yonge Street, 55&57/57A Temperance Street, 12&16 Tyler Street General Committee Meeting.
planning and zoning committee presentation September 19, 2016
Market Square on Russell Intermountain Development Company, Inc.
“Palm Coast 145, LLC” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning Planning and Land Development Regulation Board December 21, 2016.
CFT Gateway Center ( E. Foothill Blvd
Residential Building Height Standards
City Council September 18, 2017
Gateway Specific Plan Concepts
City of Rexburg 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Marina Del Palma Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Amendment
Agenda 15th and Race Project Summary Current Requests
Valley & Third Streets Redevelopment
83 North Lake Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review
Project Goals Leverage one of our unique CSU Dominguez Hills assets—our underutilized land—to advance the university mission and increase student success.
Planning Commission Meeting: August 3, 2016
Nanaimo Old City Association
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application
City Council Meeting April 23, 2018
254 East Union Street Pre Development Plan Review
Creating Streetscapes With Conventional Zoning
Cascadia College UW Bothell Parking
115-Unit Mixed-Use Project (711 E
Land Use 101: What is Zoning?
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AB 1600 UPDATE
Presentation transcript:

High Rock Lot RFP Technical Review Committee Report Presented to the Saratoga Springs City Council Thursday, February 25, 2016

Our Mission The High Rock Lot RFP Technical Review Committee (TRC) was appointed by the City Council in late 2015 to produce a clear, understandable, and objective comparison of the two proposals received in response to a RFP issued by the City, seeking a mixed-use project that would also accommodate a variety of parking needs. After several months of meetings and examining the two proposals, we are pleased to make this informational presentation to the public and the City Council this evening. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Who We Are  Bill Sprengnether (Appointed by Commissioner Franck)  Robert Williams (Appointed by Commissioner Mathiesen)  Larry Novick (Appointed by Commissioner Madigan)  Rod Sutton (Appointed by Commissioner Scirocco)  Joseph Ogden (Appointed by Mayor Yepsen)  Tom Roohan (Representing the City Center Authority)  Brad Birge (OPED Administrator, Staff to the TRC) High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Overview In September 2015, the City received two very interesting, very different proposals. Paramount Realty Group submitted a detailed vision of “High Rock Village” complete schematic design set, including full plan views and elevations, and a detailed project budget. Hyman Hemispheric/Sequence Development submitted a more general proposal consisting of massing diagrams without elevations, views, etc. and emphasized the value of flexibility within the overall project that would become more detailed as the project evolved. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Project Comparison Matrix In an effort to create an easy to follow, apples-to-apples comparison, TRC completed a project comparison matrix based on the following key areas of both proposals: Personnel; Amount of Type of Parking; Office/Retail; Housing; Downtown Integration; Civic Space; Jobs; Market & Assessed Value; Tax Revenue; Finance; Purchase Price; Traffic; and Engineering. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Parking and the City Center TRC is concerned that neither proposal, as currently envisioned, provides enough parking to support the City’s needs, the City Center’s needs, and the parking needs that would be created by a new mixed-use project. Appears applicants have interpreted the guidance in the RFP pointing to a minimum of 600 parking spots needed to address existing needs (e.g., city, public and City Center needs), as a desired requirement. While parking is clearly not required for projects in the T-6 zone, if we employ parking standards that are applicable in other zones, we estimate that up to more spots may be needed if the needs of the City and the City Center were met in addition to forthcoming mixed- use demand. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Parking and the City Center While there are several different ways of calculating parking demand, (e.g., spot sharing, etc.) TRC feels that, regardless of the methodology employed, these proposals are significantly “under-parked”at this point. Parking needs should be considered vis-à-vis the surrounding area, and its ability or inability to absorb parking overflow. In this case, we believe that the development of the 42 space Collamer Lot, the general lack of street-space available for parking, and future infill potential (e.g., the potential development of the “Saratogian” lot) will all contribute to future parking challenges in this part of downtown. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Urban Form Paramount Realty Group LLC/The Community Builders Proposes internally-oriented residential ‘village’; residential and retail uses; retail on Lake and Maple Aves; multi-level parking accessed from High Rock; upper level residential units Internally connected with open pedestrian bridges Two main structures: Lake Ave ‘Tower’ - 7 levels: level 1: sub-grad parking; level 2: retail (on Lake) ; levels 3-7: senior housing Pedestrian Village – 7 levels: level 1: sub grade parking; level 2: parking/access from High Rock (below grade on Maple); level 3: City Center parking; level 4: village ground level, retail/housing lobby on this level; levels 5-7: residential units High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Urban Form (Paramount Con’t) Access: Parking only from High Rock Ave; pedestrian access on York St, High Rock, Maple and Lake Aves Streetscape: - Retail on Lake Ave and, presumably, on Maple - No liner buildings on High Rock Ave; streetscape is essentially a 2-3-story parking structure with 3-story staircase water feature; no residential/commercial activity at High Rock street level - Pedestrian amenities/activities generally oriented towards inside of complex; minimal east-west pedestrian access - Significant physical separation between streetscape and interactive activities within center of site Massing: - Creates appearance of a ‘super-block’ with little façade interruption along length of Maple, High Rock Aves - 5+ story structure adjacent to York St and north; No real transition from total building height to street grade - Presents much differently from historic urban pattern; large, connected structures have uniform façades and rooflines Public amenities: - Proposes diversity of targeted housing including senior, workforce and market-rate; seniors are physically separated from other housing in Lake Ave ‘tower’. - Proposes internal ‘promenade’ as Greenbelt integration with staircase connection to points north High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Urban Form Hyman Hemispheric/Sequence Development Plan presents a general massing approach to the redevelopment of this site. Approx. square footage of mixed uses provided little specifics on architectural details, building materials, etc. Applicants suggest flexibility In working with the City to establish final build-out, design, etc. Mixture of uses (office, residential, retail, parking,) are presented in a series of ‘building blocks’ of varying spaces and heights up to a total of 7 levels. Access: Parking is accessed only from High Rock Ave; multiple pedestrian points of access on High Rock Ave, Lake and Maple Ave; High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Urban Form (Hyman/Seq. Con’t) Hyman Hemispheric/Sequence Development  Streetscape:  - Includes liner buildings with office and retail uses along High Rock; includes street-level retail along Lake Ave  - Parking generally handled below grade or toward center of parcel  - Identifies east-west ‘arcade’ pedestrian connector from High Rock to Maple/City Center and Broadway  Massing:  - Overall massing is broken up by a series of building forms of varying heights; more consistent with historic pattern of multiple individual buildings  - Building form heights generally transition to street level along east and north sides  - Proposes area of surface parking on north end adjacent to York St.  Public amenities:  - Identifies opportunity for open space, rooftop gardens and terraces at multiple locations on site  - Identifies parking/flex space on north end for civic events, farmer’s market, etc.  - Suggests to ‘funnel’ Greenbelt path along High Rock Ave corridor High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Engineering Hyman Hemispheric/Sequence Development Suggests excavation of the rock along the portion of the lot that is adjacent to Maple Ave. This would involve digging back into the slope from High Rock toward Maple while maintaining the elevation of High Rock as the base elevation Paramount Realty Group LLC/The Community Builders Proposes excavating into the grade of the existing lot to an elevation well below High Rock. An entire level of parking is proposed below the existing grade and in their response letter Paramount’s states that, “no rock removal” is expected. While neither project ‘s proposed engineering appears to be unmanageable, it should be noted that due to the significant presence of bedrock and flowing water in this area, the size, scope, cost and schedule of either project could be adversely impacted until a further understanding the site’s conditions are known. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Finance Tax Revenues Total revenues for both project (using a similar assessment function) are very similar for total taxes, and city taxes. Hyman/Sequence - $1,898,482 ($352,704 City) Paramount Realty Group - $1,956,952 ($346,248 City) Land Acquisition See “Present Value Calculation” workbook Hyman/Sequence – $2.6 million purchase Paramount Realty Group - 30 year lease, $1.2 million property value High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Finance IDA Financing Both applicants expressed a need or interest in obtaining financing via the Saratoga County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), in particular the Paramount project. While approval for any project rests solely with the IDA, it is our collective understanding that residential projects featuring non- market rate units would not fit the types of projects IDA is interested in financing. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016

Thank You Our thanks to the City Council for allowing us to make this presentation this evening. Our hope is that this information was helpful to you and the public as we consider our options for developing this significant piece of city-owned land. High Rock TRC Report – February 25, 2016