Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08 15 Informational Item 300-Town Center Worksheet, Parking/Builiding Heights Date: August 15, 2005 The following document was distributed by Commissioner Robert S. Miller on August 15, 2005 during this Workshop for Agenda Item "300" . 15 August 2005 FROM: Commissioner RS. Miller SUBJECT: Critical City Issues for 2006-2007-2008 Winter Springs is about quality and we are at a cross-roads if the city is to realize the dream our residents asked us to strive for a decade ago. As we have moved towards their . dream, many others have taken note of it and streamed into our city at an unprecedented rate and our population has doubled. New arrivals like what they see, they like our parks, our schools, our community, our Town Center, our low crime rate, our low taxes, and they want to be part of the dream. But too many have little idea how we achieved this, what it cost, and what still needs to be done? The question before us tonight and for the remaining budget workshops this month and next is do we take the easy road and do nothing hoping that everything works out, or do we continue to build the dream that has attracted to many already and is still attracting more? For the last few years we have put off things which we knew needed to be done, and now I am concerned that 'incrementalism' is slowly stifling the dream. The people have repeatedly informed us that they still want this city to be the best place to live in Florida... and they want us to make it happen! For the past fifteen years we have been, with one exception, among the fastest growing cities in Florida. It is worthwhile to review a few of Florida's other great cities to see how their growth compares with ours for the decade between 1990 to 2000? 1.8% in Dunedin, 2.4% in Fort Lauderdale, 17.0% in Altamonte Springs, 19.0% in Boca Raton, 27.0% for Seminole County, and 42% in Winter Springs. For a city like ours, our growth rate has only been surpassed by the City of Kissimmee... with 56.0%. ~espite this growth which continues today, in the last few budget cycles this Commission has struggled with the two edged sword of no tax increase and delaying issues that we know are needed for the long term success of this City. For these years the City's millage rate has consistently remained next to the lowest of the seven cities of Seminole County, and we should be proud of this. But now I need to remind you that such pride sometimes preceeds a fall. At our last budget meeting the City Managers proposed list of twenty-two line item requirements in the three areas of staffmg, operating, and capital needs for 2006. His document represented $875,937, or a millage increase of .549 if all were approved by this Commission. This proposed items once again keeps Winter Springs taxes the lowest in the County, with only Lake Mary a fraction below ours. But the latest incremental list once again ignores important needs and our people need to know that we are willing to fall behind in a number of critical areas that are eroding the future value of our city as a place to live. It has taken a lot of hard work by all of us to make our city what it is today, and I am uncomfortable that we are now debasing the dream. I was not elected to see this city become a mediocre place to live. The following are manpower, operating and capital requirements not addressed in our 2006 deliberations, and they should have been and must be. Most have been discussed in the last few years and found to be important, and in need of implementation. But they were put off, postponed, or shoved aside so as to keep our millage rate the lowest in the county. This Commission now needs to consider these issues "outside the box" of incrementalism. Provided for each are rough estimates of the cost impact of each. PERSONNEL ISSUES 1. Two new code enforcement personnel. (one in 2006 and a second in 2007). ($40,000 in 2006) 2. A twenty-five percent increase in police department manning over the next three years (or sooner) must be seriously discussed by this Commission. Winter Springs has been a bedroom community until now, and Police Department manning has reflected this. The rapid development of new business along SR 434 and the Downtown commercial area, plus an additional three to five thousand new residents in the next three years, all warrant the expansion of this department at the earliest possible time. Current manning is 105 personnel, comprised of 18 Officers, 66 Patrolmen, and 21 Clerical personnel. An expansion over three years requires about eight personnel a year through 2008. ($650,000 in 2006) CAPITAL ISSUES 1. RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING: on Edgemon, Murphy, Moss, Shore, Seneca roads and Northern Way. ($2,000,000) 2. COMMUNITY/CIVIC CENTER: For Central Winds Park. Surveys made in 2004 indicated that the majority of people in the City want such a facility. The build-out of downtown Winter Springs in the next few years makes it urgent that we get this facility underway in 2006. A community swimming pool is also needed but is not addressed here. Estimated cost based on a similar facility constructed in Oviedo. ($5,000,000) 3. SPLASH PADS: For Trotwood, Central Winds, Moss, Magnolia and pocket park on Sheoah Blvd in the Highlands. ($1,400,000) 4. CITY PARKING GARAGE: In the town center (400 spaces @ $27,000 each). ($10,800,000) 5. TORCASO PARK EXPANSION: There is a public need for the further expansion of Park areas on the Western side of Winter Springs to accommodate a growing population which is already larger than that of Tuskawilla. Trotwood Park is 40.5 acres, while Torcaso is 5.8. The addition of the soon to be abandoned "public works" property, and two city wetland properties fronting north end of Edgemon, SR 419 and Moss Road would add six more acres to Torcaso - bringing it to a total of almost 12 acres. Cost to the City for 2006/2007 ($300,000) The millage reflected are rough approximations and need to be refined by Staff after guidance by the Commission. Both are known to be high for 2006 as few would start well into the new fiscal year. (1) Penonnel Issues: 0.440 Capital Issues: !.:!!Q!! Total 1.400 "~ Copies to: City Commission Mayor City Manager City Attorney. (1) It is assumed that the parking garage and civic center would Operate on some form of fee basis for public use, and this would partially or completely offset associated annual bond payments. Date: August 15, 2005 The following document was distributed by on August 15, 2005 during this Workshop for Agenda Item "300". CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Ronald W. McLemore City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Commission FROM: ,/} !J /1) Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager I r DATE: August 15,2005 SUBJ: Town Center Workshop - Issue Agenda Staff has arranged the Town Center workshop in an issue agenda format to discuss the following Issues: 1. 434 Access Plan 2. Building Heights 3. V ilIa Grande Drainage 4. Parking 5. Parking garages 6. J.D.C. Development Agreement 7. J.D.C. Development Program 8. J.D.C. GAP Financing 9. J.D.C. Balconies 10. J.D.C. 434 Access Plan 11. J.D.C. Fire Issues 12. J.D.C. Expedited Agreement 13. Magnolia Park Representatives from J.D.C. and LaCesse Development Corporation will be present. Victor Dover and Walter Kulash will be present as resources; people to assist in the discussion of Issues. Format: 1. Staff will present the issues. 2. Developer will respond. 3. Staff, Victor Dover, Walter Kulash and Developer will respond to Commission questions and comments. When talking about J.D.C. projects they will be divided as follows: Phase I - Original Kingsbury Tract. Phase IIA - West Side of Main Street. Phase lIB - Balance of the Schrimsher Site. /jp 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 1 of21 434 ACCESS PLAN ISSUE: Although the City has made heroic efforts to get FOOT to accept the 434 Access Plan for the Town Center, FOOT has not as yet come close to accepting the plan. DISCUSSION: The City has forwarded its 434 Access Plan prepared by Walter Kulash of Glatting, Jackson to FOOT. Initially, FOOT rejected the study taking the position that the study was flawed. FOOT was unable to articulate why the study was flawed other than the study did not provide adequate pedestrian crossing time. We hope to complete our efforts at the district level of FOOT within two weeks. If these efforts are not successful then we will go to the next level which will be a meeting with the new director ofFDOT. RECOMMENDATION: Continue at maximum speed. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 2 of21 BUILDING HEIGHTS ISSUE: James Doran Company and Lacesse Development Corporation are requesting the ability to build up to six floors. Current Code Provisions The Comprehensive Plan provides for six stories in the Town Center. No height is specified. The City Code specifies maximum heights as follows: Town Center Greenway 55-feet to the eave, parapet, cornice 75-feet to the mid point of pitch and eave. DISCUSSION: James Doran Company lD.C. proposes to build in Phase IIA East Main Street, 36,000 square feet of office/retail, 309 apartments/condo units, and related parking. J.D.C. proposes to build in Phase IIB East, 364,000 square feet retail, 300,000 square feet of office, and 391 apartment/condo units, and related parking. J.D.C. initially planned to build 2, 3, and 4 story buildings in the Town Center. However, a loss of some 25% of building area to new wetland lines, additional mitigation costs, increased land cost, and rapidly increasing construction cost, lD.C. needs to construct up to six stories in order to maintain the density of development requested to fund pro forma's upon which Phase IIA and B financing was approved. LaCesse Development Corporation - Villa Grande L.D.C. proposes to build 152 luxury condo units on five acres of Blumberg property in the Town Center located next to City Hall. L.D.C. proposes construction of four, five and six story buildings with first floors dedicated to parking to conserve land absorption, maintenance facilities, and lobby entrances. L.D.C. requires up to 63 feet for their six story buildings in order to facilitate parking on the first floor, to facilitate the amenity of Georgian Style Architecture with vertical architectural facades, the marketing advantage of lake views from the upper floors, the density to facilitate financial feasibility of the project in consideration of premium land cost, and rapidly escalating building costs. This would constitute an 8 foot variance under the current code. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the height limitations in the City Code be amended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, thus allowing six story building without height limitations. There are several reasons for this: 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular _Agenda_Town _Center_Issues Page 3 of21 1. In mixed use properties it is difficult to define the height of floors since the heights are determined by the type of chosen occupancy. For example, first floor retail may require as little as 14-feet, to as much as 20- feet. Upper floors will be determined by the choice of rental apartment or condo usage. Condo specifications are typically more elaborate than apartments are causing a need for higher floors. 2. Water views are highly important amenities for office and condo units that add substantial economic value to the project. Views of Lake Jesup are possible at about fifty feet and higher, or typically four floors and above. 3. Six floor buildings provide for an attractive but unobtrusive skyline for a small city "down town." 4. As seen in the LaCesse -Villa Grande project six floors provides the economic feasibility for more costlv and attractive building amenities. 5. Six story buildings are fully within our Fire Department Parameters. 081505_ COMM_ Workshop_Regular_Agenda_ Town_ Center_Issues Page 4 of2 I VILLA GRANDE DRAIN GAGE ISSUE: Villa Grande is unable to handle their storm water retention requirements onsite and desire to utilize the storm water pond located behind City Hall. DISCUSSION: The storm water pond behind City Hall has the capacity to meet the retention area required for Villa Grande and all other projects within the sub basin. The question is, what should the City charge fro that usage? There are three alternative ways to handle this marter. 1. Allow them to utilize it at no cost, or 2. calculate the value and charge a cash amount, or 3. Calculate the value and accept contribution to Town Center infrastructure. This could be done by having Villa Grande rebuild a portion of Doran Drive to City standards that was initially constructed as a sub-standard temporary road. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 5 of21 PARKING ISSUE: What are REALISTIC PARKING standards for new urbanism developments like the Winter Springs town Center? It appears that the Commission may understandably be predisposed to requiring excessive parking. Current Requirements: In recognition of the unique character of new urban centers like the Winter Springs Town Center, the Winter Springs Town Center Code does not establish unilateral parking standards. In the alternative; the Town Center Code requires that independent parking studies be performed for each and every project based upon the potential for unique mixes of uses in a single project, and in recognition of unique demographic patterns of new urbanism projects. As a result, in utilization of the Winter Springs Town Center Code, it is assumed that mixed use projects would reflect tiered parking needs based upon the unique mix of uses in a project, and parking ratios unique to new urbanism demographic patterns. Relatedly, it is assumed that single use projects would reflect parking ratios unique to new urbanism demographic patterns. DISCUSSION There is great debate over the amount of parking that is going to be needed in Town Centers. Even though the answer to this issue appears to be simple, it is not. Indeed, parking is a combination of art and science. In fact, as discussed in the attached article, there are many problems associated with excess parking in town centers and central business districts. One thing is for sure, more is not necessarily better. For example, a basic tenet of new urbanism holds that walking communities don't need as many parking spaces. The logic for this tenet is simple, people that live a short distance from where they work, shop, eat, and entertain themselves don't need their car at all to get to these places. Additionally, young single professionals, empty nesters, widows, and divorcees common to town center home ownership don't own as many cars as the typical suburban family. Relatedly, the application of suburban residential parking standards is wasteful. The high cost of construction and absorption of land for parking lots that remain empty a large part of the time is certainly a problem to be reckoned with. What's the Answer? Therefore, it appears that the answer goes something like this. 1. Strict prohibition against large parking fields such as the one in Phase I of the Town Center. 2. Maximum structured parking should be provided for to limit the amount of land absorption, and additional cost passed on to tenants, owners, and ultimately customers. 081505 _ COMM_ Workshop _Regular_Agenda_ Town _Center_Issues Page 6 of21 3. Enough residential onsite parking for residents based upon new urbanism, not sub-urban demographic patterns. Again, the literature and. actual experiences of new urbanism centers documents that the preponderance of buyers of town home, condo, work over, and flat type residential products are sold to young singles, empty nesters, widows and divorcees, all of which generate less demand for parking. Additionally, a walking community doesn't demand as many parking spaces. 4. Enough commercial onsite parking based upon new urbanism standards to accommodate normal parking requirements. 5. Peak parking should be accommodated by on street parking and shared parking facilities, including shared elevated and at grade parking. 6. These types of building occupancies need to be carefully analyzed to understand not only the number of parking spaces required, but also the time that parking spaces are needed. Commercial: As opposed to residential and restaurant uses, we believe that parking standards for other types of commercial development is well understood and reasonably applied. We have not done a good job in Phase I conserving land by allowing the large parking field and double frontage buildings. However, due to the absolute need for a grocery store and Publix's insistence for a large parking field, we probably did as well as we could do. However, in future phases we need to be inflexibly committed to prohibiting large parking fields and the requirement of elevated parking facilities. Due to the cost involved developers and the City will need to be in partnership to make these elevated facilities financially feasible. The most appropriate partnerships are those that tie the cities contribution to a gap financing based upon competent financial studies, and the application of the gap financing to publicly owned infrastructure. Residential Parking Residential parking requirements is another matter. As stated above there may be a predisposition on the part of the Commission to require parking on the basis of gut feelings rather than hard data. City code provides for the following parking ratios. Single Family 2.0 pu Multi Family 1.0 pu However, the Commission has been requiring 2.5 spaces per unit, and discussed ratios even higher. Again, the problem with this approach is the over absorption of land for parking facilities that may be sparsely utilized, and unnecessary cost that is passed on to tenants, owners, and ultimate customers. The staff has undertaken a study of parking requirements for residential uses that reflects new data, experiences of other cities, and our own experience. The results of the study to date support the following guidelines. 081505_ COMM_ Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 7 of21 Residential Assi ned Total Detached Sin Ie Famil A artment lBR Town Home/Condo 2BR Town Home/Condo 3BR Town home/Condo U +.00 shared u +.20 shared u +.25 shared u +.25 shared u +.25 shared 2.0 1.2 1.25 1.75 2.25 Residential Shared Parkin Detached Sin Ie Famil A artments 1BR Town Home/Condo 2BR Town Home/Condo 3BR Town home/Condo N/A 1.2 12 1.5 2.0 aces are not exclusive. Commercial Office Professional 3.00 p 1000 sq. feet Retail 4.00 p 1000 sq. fee Restaurants 10.55 P 1000 sq. feet Supermarkets 4.60 P 1000 sq. feet Library FLA Standard 5.00 P 1000 sq. feet Library ITE Standard 2.61 P 1000 sq. feet Bank 2.30 p 1000 sq. feet Churches 1.17 p 1000 sq. feet ParksIRecreation Per Study Governmental Office 3.00 p 1000 sq. feet Theatres .26 p seat Others Shred Parking may be reduced based upon documented shared parking opportunities. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular _Agenda_Town _Center_Issues Page8of21 PARKING ANALYSIS CITY DEVELOPER COMMISSION PROJECT GUIDELINES REQUEST REQUIREMENT A very Park SF-88 176 (2.0) 176 (2.0) HeritaQe Park lBR-TH 2BR-TH 3BR-TH 158 TH 355 (2.25) 363 JeSUD Reserve 1BR-TH 2BR-TH 3BR-TH 161 TH 362 (2.25) N/A 402 (2.5) Jesuo Landinll 1BR-TH 2BR-TH 3BR- TH 185 TH 416 (2.25) N/A 462 (2.5) Lincoln Park lBR-TH 2BR-TH 3BR- TH 113TH 254 (2.25) TBD TBD Enllles lBR-TH 2BR-TH 3BR-TH 436 TH 981 (2.25) TBD TBD Villa Grande IBR-CD 2BR-CD 3BR-CD 152 H 304 (2.0) TBD 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 90f21 PARKING ANALYSIS - Continued CITY DEVELOPER COMMISSION PROJECT GUIDELINES REOUEST REOUIREMENT lD.C. Phase I Building 4 lBR-W.O.F.-3 3.75 2BR W.O.F.-6 10.5 3BR W.O.F.-6 13.5 15 27.8 N/A TBD B uil dinll "1 7" lBR-CD 4 5 2BR-CD 19 33.25 2BR-CD 3 6.75 26 45 N/A TBD lD.C. Phase II lBR-CD - 82 102.5 123 2BR-CD - 183 320.3 274.5 3BR-CD - 44 99.0 66.0 309 521.8 463.5 TBD SF Single Family WO Work Over BR Bedroom E Efficiency TH Town Home A Apartment CD Condominium RECOMMENDA nONS: The following is recommended. 1. The Commission continue to require independent parking studies for Town Center projects. 2. Elevated parking garages be maximized. 3. Large parking fields continue to be prohibited. 4. All normal residential parking requirements be captured in onsite street parking areas. Peak parking captured in offsite shared parking facilities such as streets and public dedicated parking garages. 5. That the guidelines stated herein be utilized for Town Center parking. 6. Normal commercial demand be captured by in offsite street parking with maximum use of elevated parking facilities. 7. Peak hour commercial demands be accommodated by shared parking facilities such as on street parking and public dedicated parking garages. 8. Normal parking demands for public facilities such as libraries, city hall, museums, and recreational areas should be captured in offsite parking facilities. Peak hour demands should be captured in publicly dedicated shared facilities such as on street parking and parking garages. Govcming: Assessments/June 2005 Page 1 of 4 Horn GOverning's June 2005 Issue ASSESSMENTS ALAN EHRENHAL T Curbing Parking Local zoning laws mandate parking spaces as if empty lots were a vi rtue. Here.s a queslicn for you: How many parking spaces should a convent be legally required to provide? If you immediately answered "zero," that's probably because you have some common sense. Parking at a convent shouldn't be a zoning question. The Mother Superior should be able to do whatever she wants. When there's a problem, the nuns will tell her. In fact, however, that's not the way it works in most American cities. Convents usually have to have a minimum amount of parking to stay within the law. So do at least 265 other kinds of enterprises, Including golf courses, zoos, sex shops, slaughterhouses, maternity hospitals and taxi stands. All of them are on a list compiled by Donald Shoup, an economics professor at UCLA, in a new book that is undoubtedly the most comprehensive study of parking ever undertaken in this country. Shoup tells us, among other things, that the most common requirement for convents is one space for every 10 nuns in residence. That may seem a little arbitrary, but some of the others are worse. Taxi stands, for example. I've never met anybody who drove to a taxi stand, parked, and then hailed a cab. The average cabbie doesn't need parking either - he uses one vehicle, and it's on the road during business hours. And yet most cities not only require parking spaces at cab stands but also require a fixed number: one space for each employee on the largest shift, plus one for each taxI. Some zoning laws demand extra spaces for "visitors" - whoever they might be. http://www.goveming.comlarticles/6assess.htm 8/3/2005 Governing: Assessments/June 2005 Page 2 of 4 Where do rules like this come from? In general, they come from a document called "Parking Generation," which was first published decad~s ago by the Institute of Transpo.rtatlon Engineers and has been updated periodically since then. As Shoup puts it, local zoning officials who consult Parking Generation "act like frightened supplicants bowing before a powerful totem. ITE's stamp of authority relieves planners from the obligation to think for themselves because simple answers are right there in the book." Unfortunately for convents, tax.i stands and countless other enterprises, the answers in the rre book make very little sense. They tend to be based on a percentage of maximum occupancy - that is, the largest number of cars ever likely to use a facility at a given moment. The manual recommends enough spaces to ensure that virtually every driver will be able to find one virtually all the time. And then cities go ahead and require those spaces as a matter of law. Think how odd that is. If I were building a hotel, and I knew that I could fill 200 rooms on the busiest day of the year, but only 50 on an average day, I wouldn't build 200 and leave three-quarters of them empty most nights. I wouldn't open a restaurant so big I couldn't fill it up except on Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve. Neither would you. You'd just accept it as a fact of life that once in a while, somebody will have to be turned away. It's only when it comes to parking lots that planners and local governments insist on invoking a concept as foolish as maximum capacity. And that's for a rather simple reason: When rt comes to parking, nobody worries about losing money. Parking, after all, is free. Or, rather, they think It's fr'ee. Of course, It Isnt. That's the rdea that Shoup sets forth in abundant detail in his book, which he calls, appropriately, "The High Cost of Free Parking." If I were to tell you a 733-page book about parking is a great read, you probably wouldn't believe me. The fact is, however, that Mr. Shoup's opus not only is lucid and convincing but also witty, erudite and highly enjoyable. It quotes Albert Einstein and Robert Frost, Lewis Carroll and Graham Greene. It isfill.ed with quirky little details about the way ordinary people go about their lives. Most of all, however, it is filled with animosity toward free parking. Shoup hates free parking - especially the off-street parking that developers and businesses are required to provide in order to operate. He says it degrades urban life in ways that hardly anybody bothers to think about. "Because we never see the money we spend on parking," he says, "it always seems someone else is paying for it... but by prescribing massive overdoses of parking, planners are poisoning the city." How, exactly? Well, for one thing, parking lots eat up a huge amount of land that could be used for more productive purposes. Many shopping malls devote 60 percent of their surface land to parking spaces and only 40 percent to the buildings. For the most part, that's http://www.goveming.com/articles/6assess.htm 8/3/2005 Goveming: Assessments/J une 2005 Page 3 of4 not because deveJopers insisted on all that parking. It's because zoning law forced them to create it. Either way, the result is oceans of asphalt and an ugly landscape as far as the eye can see. All the land that's paved over and reserved for cars is land that can't be used for housing - affordable or any other kind. Because parking requirements have taken so much land out of development, they force up the cost of building on whatever land remains. Rents are higher than they would otherwise need to be. What's more, the parking requirements written into zoning law make smaller, moderately priced apartments difficult to produce anywhere. Some cities in Southern California require residential developers to prOVide as many as 3.25 spaces per apartment. That often leaves as practical only two kinds of projects: a massive, sprawling condo complex that meets the requirement by paving over additional acres of land, or a boutique development that makes money by selling or renting luxury units at luxury prices. A densely built project filled with compact two- and three-bedroom apartments just doesn't cost out. Meanwhile, in the central business districts of older cities, the amount of parking keeps increasing and the number of buildings keeps declining. Buffalo and Albuquerque devote more central-city land to parking lots than to all other uses combined. For anyone who wants to come downtown, a member of the Buffalo City Council lamented a couple of years ago, "there will be lots of places to park. There just won't be a whole lot to do here." That's one of the simple ironies of this whole depressing subject. But there's an even bigger irony: The central city districts that have done really well in recent years aren't the ones that have provided the most parking; they're the ones that have provided the least. Portland, Oregon, instead of expanding its downtown parking capacity, has spent the past 30 years restricting it. There was less parking per capita in downtown Portland in the 1990s than there was in the 19705. And Portland, as any visitor notices at once, has one of the most successful downtowns in America. Los Angeles and San Francisco both opened new concert halls in the 19905. Los Angeles Included a six-level garage for 2,188 cars, built at a cost of $110 million. San Francisco, on the other hand, put in no garage - for a total cost of nothing. After each concert in L.A., the patrons head straight for their cars, leaving the area around the building deserted. After concerts in San FranciSCO, people spill out onto the local streets, spending money in local bars, restaurants and bookstores. Some of them have to walk several blocks to their cars parked along the curb, but every block they walk adds extra life to the neighborhood. How smart do dtias hovo to ba to loarn thalassons of all this? Smarter than most of them have been so far, apparently. aut as cynical as Shoup can sometimes sound, he has a few modest proposals for dealing with the disasters of parking polley. http://www.goveming.com/articles/6assess.htm 8/3/2005 Goveming: Assessments/June 2005 Page 4 of 4 First, he suggests, instead of making developers build off-street parking, allow them to pay a fee in Beu of each space provided. If you make the fee less than the cost of building the space, most of them will accept that deal. Some 25 American cities are actually doing this. Most of them are small towns In California, or wealthy suburbs in the east, but there are some surprises. Orlando, Florida, allows subsidies in lieu of parking. So does Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The developers get to spend more money on the actual project. And the fees go for publiC improvement in the area. Then, since the amount of parking will be reduced, allow commuters to take the value of a free parking space in the office lot and trade it in for cash. They can use it on public transportation, and if they don't spend it all, they can keep what's left over. Different versions of this experiment have been tried In Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City and San Jose. Ultimately, though, as Shoup himself concedes, there's a more basic answer: Local governments have to rethink the whole Idea of parking. Even here, there's something to report. Minneapolis and Chicago are now exempting the first 4,000 square feet of retail space in a new development from any parking requirements at all. That's a tiny step, but it's a step. The asphalt jungle we have created will not disappear anytime soon. As Shoup says, "automobile dependency resembles addiction to smoking, and free parking is like free cigarettes. ..it will take decades for cities to recover from the damage." That's a sobering thought. On the other hand, as the Chinese would probably understand, sometimes even a journey of a thousand miles has to start with a single parking space.Ironically, the central city districts that have thrived in recent years aren't the ones that have provided the most parking; they are the ones that have provided the least. Jack Pardue illustration ~ :~. H~ pA.Ge : http://www.goveming.comJarticles/6assess.htm 8/3/2005 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 10 of21 PARKING GARAGES ISSUE: Is there a need for additional parking garages in the Town Center and if so, how much? City Requirements: The Town Center Code does not require elevated parking facilities. However, elevated parking is almost certainly required to accommodate town center density and to conserve land. DISCUSSION: Private elevated parking facilities should be utilized to provide parking for residential units and normal commercial parking requirements. Public elevated parking facilities should be utilized to provide for public uses such as libraries, recreational facilities, municipal offices, and peak hour commercial demand. Elevated parking facilities can be shared for public and commercial peak demand to minimize absorption of land and excess cost through a partnership where the developer pays for normal parking demand, and the municipality pays for peak hour commercial and public uses. Phase I of the Town Center Building "17" Normal and peak hour are satisfied on site. Library Parking needs for the proposed 40,000 square foot Winter Springs Library are estimated to be 200 spaces, which is derived from the Florida Library Association published standard of 1 space for 200 square foot of gross library space. Normal and Peak hours may be satisfied on site or placed in a centralized public parking facility in order to minimize land absorption. Additionally, space could be provided for recreational uses associated with Magnolia Park. The cost could be shared by the County and the City if the library referendum is successful. A combined garage of 300 to 400 cars appears reasonable. The current cost of parking garages with reasonable amenities is $12,000 per parking space (construction cost). Therefore, a combined library city garage of 300 spaces would cost an estimated $3,600,000. J.D.C. Phase II Parking standards performed by JD.C. are inconclusive since we do not have the data to analyze peak hour and normal hour. Based upon data provided a total of 628 parking spaces are provided as following: Residential - 470 Commercial-158 628 Garage - 558 Street - 70 628 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 11 of 21 There is an issue regarding the sufficiency of parking for lD.C. Phase II as follows. As shown below, based upon city standards, Phase IIA is 40.3 parking spaces below requirements providing no excess parking spaces for Phase I and public users. Based upon J.D.C. standards 36.3 parking spaces are available for Phase I and public users. City J.D.C. Parkin!! Ratios Parkin!! Ratios Residential lBR - 82 @ 1.25 = 102.5 lBR - 82 @ 1.5 = 123.0 2BR - 183 @ 1.75 = 320.3 2BR - 183 @ 1.5 = 274.5 3BR - 44 @ 2.25 = 99.0 3BR - 44 @ 1.5 = 66.0 521.8 463.5 Retail 36.63 KSF @ 4.0 - 146.5 36.63 KSF @ 3.5 = 128.2 Total Required 668.3 591.7 Total Planned - Garage 558 558 Total Planned - Street ....1!l 70 Total 628 628 Surplus/Deficit (40.3) 36.3 CONCLUSIONS: 1. Sufficient parking does not appear to be available for recreational and promotional uses in the Town Center. 2. Based upon Walter Kulash's analysis, Phase I has sufficient parking. We do not necessarily agree. Walter and the City agree that the amount of restaurant space is a key variable in determining the parking demand. We believe Phase I may be under parked. 3. It is unclear if sufficient parking is available in Phase IIA to satisfy Phase IIA requirements or to provide any additional shared use parking for Phase I. 4. In order to facilitate the Town Center's economic viability it is imperative that the Town Center becomes a destination, that is capable of drawing customers away from the competition, and to be seen as a place of interest. In order to accomplish this staff believes that we need to be able to facilitate on going promotional events and parking convenience. Therefore, staff believes we need to error on the side of more rather than less parking. For this reason staff believes that 200 additional spaces may need to be considered. 5. In order to conserve land absorption related to parking we believe these spaces should be provided in elevated parking garages as follows: a) 100 from planned lD.C. Phase IIA garages. b) 100 from a garage on a future development site. RECOMMENDA TIONS: From a preliminary view it appears that the following recommendations would conserve land and provide parking to accommodate public parks, special promotional events, and maximize convenience to shoppers. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 12 of21 I. Additional parking analysis needs to be performed to determine the adequacy of proposed parking for Phase IIA, and that Phase IIA parking facilities be expanded if necessary to provide 100 spaces that can be shared with Phase I. II. An additional 100 shared parking spaces be provided in a future site on the west side of Main Street. Scenario I - Including Library A. Construct a combined elevated parking facility of 300 spaces including 200 library spaces to meet Seminole County Library Standards and 100 shared public spaces. B. Realize 100 additional shared public spaces in the two parking facilities located in J.D.C. Phase II. Scenario II - No Library A. Realize 100 additional shared public spaces in the J.D.C. Phase IIA parking garages. B. As further development occurs on the west side of Main Street, build a parking facility with the developer that would produce 100 shared public spaces in additional to those needed for the developers purposes. 081505 _ COMM _Workshop_Regular _Agenda_Town _Center_Issues Page 13 of21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 DEADLINE ISSUE: J.D.C. desires to have the development agreement between the city and J.D.C. adopted by September 15, 2005 in order to meet certain contract provisions of its contract with Schrimsher Properties. DISCUSSION: J.D.C. needs to close on the Schrimsher property before October 1,2005 to satisfy its contract for purchase of the property. Although we are willing to do everything that we can to facilitate this request, it appears that this is going to be very difficult to do principally due to financial considerations, parking issues, and other details that have to be resolved. The Commission needs to do everything that it can to accommodate this goal. However, in the end, the Commission must be comfortable with the obligation it is incurring under the agreement, and should not be pressured into entering into a development agreement that it does not fully understand. RECOMMENDA nON: The City staff and Commission should make a commitment to moving as quickly as possible to accommodate J.D.C.'s contract, but not to the point that the Commission doesn't fully understand the ramifications and impacts of the agreement. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 14 of21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ISSUE: J.D.C. needs the city to approve its development program. DISCUSSION: J.D.C. proposed the following program for the property it has under contract east of Main Street as follows: Phase Phase IIA ...!!!L- Total OfficelRetail 36,000 sq.ft. 664,000 sq.ft. 700,000 sq.ft Multi Family 309 units 391 units 700 units This is consistent with comprehensive plan provisions and Town Center Code. All components of proposed projects will have to be consistent with the provision of the Town Center Code. RECOMMENDA nON: There does not appear to be any reason to deny this request. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 15 of 21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GAP FINANCING ISSUE: J.D.C. is requesting financial assistance with the development of Phase II ofthe Town Center. DISCUSSION: The construction of new urbanism projects and redevelopment projects customarily requires a public private partnership to get lenders to finance the projects. Typically, the public portion fills the GAP that is required to get private lenders to finance the project. The public partner's role is normally to contribute up to the level of the GAP the cost of public improvements. In town centers the most onerous cost for the private sector to finance is the cost of elevated parking and roads. This is the case with J.D.C. As proposed J.D.C. will be building 558 spaces of garaged parking at an estimated cost of $6.7 million dollars. The normal method by which the GAP is filled by the public partners is for the developer and public entity to determine the following: Total Development Cost Reasonable Profit Total $$$ m $$$ Less Private Financing Available $$$ GAP m Formal studies are provided to the public entity giving proof of the GAP. In this case J.D.C. is requesting the city to fill the GAP through the contribution of street, drainage, and utility cost estimated to be approximately $7 million as follows: In return J.D.C. agrees to build the project to city specifications within a defined time period. Formal studies are being completed for presentation to the City giving proof of the GAP. RECOMMENDA nON: In general, J.D.C.'s request follows the line of reasoning we have discussed. However, construction costs are currently incomplete. Therefore, the final economic study documenting the GAP is not complete. The development agreement cannot be completed until the economic study is completed and accepted by the City. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 16 of21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BALCONIES ISSUE: J.D.C. desires a variance from the 6-foot depth balcony requirement in future buildings. CODE: Subsection 20-236 (b) of the City Code of Ordinances does not require balconies, but does require that they will meet specified criteria if provided. The Code does require that the street be covered with, balconies, awnings, or colonnades. Balconies are specified to be at least 6 foot deep, provide at least 10 feet of vertical clearance above the sidewalk below, and extend for at lest 25 percent (to as much as 100 percent) of the building front. Nothing in the Code requires balconies on the third floor and above to be six feet in depth. Balconies may be constructed in front of the building line, into the right-of-way (ROW), but not beyond the curb line. Balconies mayor may not have roofs, but must remain open and must not be air-conditioned. On corners, balconies may wrap around the side of the building facing the street. Subsection 20-231 ~ allows the City Commission to waive strict compliance with the Town Center Code, subject to certain criteria. Subsection 20-231 (d) allows for a site development agreement option (either a Chapter 163 or Chapter 166 development agreement). DISCUSSION: 1. Balconies have become standard features in new urbanism projects. They provide a soft ambience, sense of style, and market appeal to town center buildings. Additionally, in combination with awnings and colonnades, they provide protection from rain and sun. Finally, they create real usable space for upper floor inhabitants to interact with the street. This interaction is particularly important during parades, concerts, festivals, and similar social events. 2. The balconies on Building No.1, where there is no real second floor, do not meet Code. There, they function more as a window dressing. Building No. 16, which also has a false second floor, was approved with similar balconies. The buildings are more appealing with these treatments. 3. Building No.2 provides 6 foot deep functional balconies on the second floor. The applicant's team states that these balconies cost approximately $20,000 each and are unnecessary. They state that to have a 6 foot deep balcony over a marquee or awning is redundant. Staff has provided the applicant's team with pictures of balconies at Rosemary Beach and Watercolor, where the provision of balconies appears widespread, employing a different architectural design, and asked if this or another design might be more cost-effective. There has also been discussion as to whether or not deep functional balconies are as important on non-residential buildings as on residential buildings. Again, where residential buildings are more that one floor the Code requires balconies, awnings, or colonnades on the second floor. Balconies which do not protrude beyond the exterior of the buildings are valuable amenities and should be allowed at the third floor and above. They could certainly be utilized at the second floor level but not as a substitute for the requirement of either a colonnade, balcony, or awning protruding off the building on the second floor. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _ Town_Center _Issues Pagel7of21 RECOMMENDA nON: 1. Balconies are to be encouraged for the reasons stated above. 2. The Code, if anything should be strengthened by eliminating the option of not having the weather protection amenity on the second floor offered by one or a combination of colonnades, awnings, and balconies on all buildings. 3. The use and dimension of balconies on upper floors could be addressed in two ways as follows: a) providing for a numerical mixture on third floors and above such as the following: 25% no balcony. 25% 2 feet of depth. 25% 4 feet of depth. Inset balconies usable at third floor and above. b) On third floors and above, a mixture based upon the merits of the design as agreed upon by the city and the developer. 4. In no case should the Commission's previous prohibition against open grated flooring of balconies be compromised. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _ Issues Page 18 of21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 434 ACCESS PLAN ISSUE: J.D.C. requests maximum effort on the part of the city to implement the 434 access plan contained in the original Town Center code and the study performed by Walter Kulash of Glatting Jackson. DISCUSSION: The city is already pursuing this with maximum effort. RECOMMENDATION: The city agrees with this request but cannot be held accountable for impacts that may result from FDOT's denial of any and or all provisions of the plan. 081505_ COMM_ Workshop_Regular _ Agenda_Town _Center_Issues Page 19 of 21 J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FIRE ISSUE ISSUE: Gaining fire access to buildings facing the trail. DISCUSSION: The J.D.C. Phase IIA plan calls for building facing the proposed road adjacent to the west side of the trail. Buildings facing the trail must have access from either the trail or the proposed road along the trail. This will require consent of the State and Seminole County to do one of, and hopefully both of the following: a) Construction of a portion of the road to be built on trail right of way. Construction of the road may require relocation of the existing paved trail eastward in the right of way. This has wetland issues. The city supports movement of the trail to facilitate the construction of Magnolia Park. The county has indicated in previous written communication support for construction of the road on the trail right of way. New wetland lines will have an economic impact on trail realignment cost. b) Allow emergency access from the trail itself. If the road cannot be built, fire access can be acquired on the trail right-of-way. This may require upgrading the current unpaved and paved section of the trail. RECOMMENDA TION: Now that new wetland lines have been established we need to make formal request of the State and County to authorize realignment of the trail to facilitate construction of the road. The city needs to get formal authorization from the County to utilize the trail for fire access, if it is not already provided for in the current interlocal agreement. ISSUE: Fire Sprinkling of Phase IIA Garages DISCUSSION: J.D.C. has requested a waiving from the Fire Code requiring its elevated garages from being sprinklered. The City has reviewed this matter with the State. It appears that J.D.C. has two alternatives as follows: a. Provide a 2-foot separation from the garage and the building, or b. Sprinkler the garages. RECOMMENDATION: J.D.C. must choose the option that best sends those development parameters J.D.C. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXPEDITED REVIEW 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 20 01'21 ISSUE: J.D.C. desires to expedite the plan review and construction phases of the project, and desires the city to commit to providing the resources needed to expedite the project. DISCUSSION: Like other developers, the unprecedented increases in construction cost make it necessary to enter into construction contracts as quickly as possible. The city shares the desire to expedite the project in order to get the project on the tax roles as quickly as possible. However, this is a two way street that requires the developer to do the following: 1. Minimize variances from codes that require length approvals. 2. Provide clear construction drawings that are code compliant when they are presented to the city. 3. Employ the most competent contractors as possible which are often not low bid contractors. 4. Commit to a project schedule and frequent project team meetings including designers, owners, and city staff to expedite problem solving. RECOMMENDATION: The city is willing to commit the resources necessary to expedite the project. J.D.C. needs to commit to the following: 1. Commitment with City staff to a project schedule. 2. Highly competent project manager. 3. Highly competent designers. 4. Highly competent contractors. 5. Commitment of designers, project managers, and contractor representatives at regulating scheduled meetings for problem solving. 081505_ COMM _Workshop_Regular_Agenda _Town_Center _Issues Page 21 of21 MAGNOLIA PARK ISSUE: The city needs to relocate the trail in order to get the maximum use of Magnolia Park. DISCUSSION: The city needs the amphitheatre in Magnolia Park to be moved as far eastward as possible. New wetland lines make this issue more difficult than originally assumed. The County, in order to get ahead of the new wetland line issues went ahead and constructed the trail in the middle of the right of way. Therefore, the City will need to realign the trail eastward once State approval is acquired. Larger than anticipated wetland mitigation cost will be involved. The city is requesting Representative Mealor to intervene on the city's behalf with State DEP for realignment of the trail, and with the Water Managements District relative to wetland mitigation costs.