View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Grandview Green Feasibility StudyFinal Review with City of Edina, MNDOT and Hennepin County
May 24, 2017
BRUCE JACOBSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
2
• Introductions• Study process and brief overview (15 minutes)• Investment Costs and Payback: Financial Analysis and Assessment (10 minutes)• Study Conclusions and HRA Impressions (5 minutes)• Technical Issues and Considerations (70 minutes)
• Land • Infrastructure: Freeway / Bridges / District Streets• Connectivity• New Buildings• Public Realm• Social/Cultural and Community Connections• Sustainability and Resilience• Process and Partnerships • City of Edina - MnDOT Partnership • Financing and Tax Structure • Statutes and Ordinances
• Next Steps (15 minutes)
Meeting Agenda
3
Study Goals1. Verify technical and cost feasibility of lid structure (green roof).2. Assess potential development opportunities.3. Create the right scale of development to fit the neighborhood.4. Create a new tax base that supports the existing community.5. Assure new development benefits existing and future Edina residents.
4
Grandview Green Planning and Design Approach
• Test primary access from Hwy 100 into the District to meet current and future traffic volumes.
• Maximize the use of MNDOT and City of Edina land.• Create infrastructure patterns that will encourage development within the
District.• Create development-ready parcels that meet current developers’
expectations.• Highlight existing Grandview District assets as a part of development
outcomes.
5
Grandview Green SiteGrandview Green Feasibility Study
5
6
HWY 100
Vernon Ave
City Hall
Grandview Green Existing Grandview District
7
Vernon Ave
City Hall
HWY 100
Grandview Green City of Edina Owned Land MNDOT Owned Land
City Owned Land
8
Precedent ProjectsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
8
9
Klyde Warren Park – Dallas, Texas
Completed: 2012Size: 5.2 Acres, Length: 1,045’Cost: $471/Sq. Ft
Attributes:• Spurred in excess of $1 billion
in new development• Reconnected districts• Improved accessibility in/out of
downtown CBD• Air quality improvement
• Owner:City of DallasTexas DoTKlyde Warren Foundation
10
I-670 at Union Station – Columbus, OhioCompleted: 2004Area: 1.12 Acres, Length: 227’ Cost: $160/Sq. Ft
Attributes:• Mend a 40-year scar• Composed of three separate
bridges• Provides 25,500 SF of
leasable space• The previous void caused by
the highway was transformed into a seamless urban streetscape
• Owner:Ohio DoT30-year lease with an extension to 70 years
11
Highway 100 Access and Street NetworkGrandview Green Feasibility Study
11
12
Transportation Design Considerations
• Simple and safe intersection configuration.• Balance vehicle movements with pedestrian comfort and current land
ownership.• Right-size the travelways.• Highway 100 roadbed assumptions:
• No car traffic lane expansions needed or planned.• Allow for possible transit (BRT) as a fourth lane in each direction.• If entrance/exit ramps are reimagined, that space can be repurposed.
13
Potential Roadway ConfigurationsConcept A
Concept B
Concept C
Concept D
14
Lid / Green RoofGrandview Green Feasibility Study
14
15
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Typical Freeway Section
16
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Existing Highway 100 SectionEast West Site Section
17
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Proposed Highway 100 Lid SectionEast West Site Section
18
Grandview Green Development Concept
Lid
East West Site Section
19
Parcel Development PotentialGrandview Green Feasibility Study
19
20
Grandview Green Road Alignments
New Intersections
Intersections Removed
Impact on Existing Properties
Phase 1 Access from Northbound Hwy 100
Phase 2 Access from Northbound Hwy 100
Arc
adia
Gra
nge
21
5a
9
5b
1
12
6
16
15
16
2
1
13
11
108
4 3
7a/7bPublic Infrastructure
New Roads• Central Main Street
(New) • North South Freeway
Access (New)• Grange (New
alignment)
Public Realm Improvements• Arcadia • Eden • 50th
Lids + Green• Lid A 42,000SF • Lid B 36,000SF
Grandview Green Public Infrastructure
Nor
th-S
outh
Fre
eway
Ac
cess
Roa
d
21
22
134
5a
9
10
5b
1
2
11
12
13
8
6
16
15
17
7a
7b
14
Grandview Green Concept ParcelsParcel 1 Approx. 27,000 SF Parcel 2 Approx. 27,000 SF Parcel 3 Approx.46,000 SF Parcel 4 Approx. 57,000 SF Parcel 5a Approx. 14,000 SFParcel 5b Approx. 11,000 SF Parcel 6 Approx. 21,000 SF Parcel 7a Approx. 26,000 SF Parcel 7b Approx. 20,000 SF Parcel 8 Approx. 17,000 SF Parcel 9 Approx. 31,000 SF Parcel 10 Approx. 85,000 SF Parcel 11 Approx. 50,000 SF Parcel 12 Approx. 86,000 SF Parcel 13 Approx. 15,000 SF Parcel 14 Approx. 34,000 SF
Redevelopment site with Parcel 7b
Parcel 15 Redevelopment Parcel 16 Redevelopment
Total Parcels 13 Acres
Phase 1 Development
Phase 2 Development
Redevelopment Opportunity
22
23
Grandview Green Concept D2017 Parcels
Grandview Green Full Build Out
23
24
Financial Assumptions & AnalysisGrandview Green Feasibility Study
24
25
Grandview Green Roof Block Summaries - Assumptions
Category Cost per Sq. Ft.Build - Residential 240 Build - Commercial 180 Land - Residential* 80 Land - Commercial* 80 Institutional Devel. 180 Personal Prop. 55 Parking 30,000 / unitGreen Lid Construction 110 Green Lids - Maintenance 150,000 / lid / yr.Road Alignments 25,000,000
Land Sq. Ft. Land ValueResidential 451,710 36,136,811 Commercial 157,290 12,583,189 Institutional 136,000 10,880,000 Totals 745,000 59,600,000
61%21%
18%
% of Total Land
Residential Commercial Institutional
26
Grandview Green RoofCurrent vs. Projected Revenue Stream
(2,000,000)
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
Property Tax Revenue Less: Current Tax Roll Sales Tax Revenue
Preliminary Current vs. Projected Revenue Stream * Sales Tax on Initial Construction ($30M)
* 15-Yr. Property Tax Revenue on Phased Investment ($100M) (excluding parking)
Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2 Bldg. 3 Bldg. 4 Bldg. 5 Bldg. 6 Bldg. 7 Bldg. 8 Bldg. 9 Bldg. 10 Bldg. 11 Bldg. 12 Bldg. 13 Bridge 1 Bridge 2
27
Grandview Green Roof Real Estate Tax
• Current vs. Projected• 15 yr. term• Phased investment
- - -
(2,000,000)
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
Ph I -Bldg. 1
Ph. I -Bldg. 2
Ph. I -Bldg. 3
Ph. I -Bldg. 4
Ph. I -Bldg. 5
Ph. 1 -Bldg. 6
Ph. I -Bldg. 7
Ph. I -Bldg. 8
Ph. I -Bldg. 9
Ph. I -Bldg. 10
Ph. II -Bldg. 11
Ph. II -Bldg. 12
Ph. II -Bldg. 13
Ph. I -GreenRoof
Ph. II -GreenRoof
Projected New Tax Current Tax
28
Grandview Green RoofInvestment Summary
Ph. I - Bldg. 1 (yr. 1 invest.) 71 - 22,000 22,000 44,000 3,960,000 - 3,960,000 2,420,000 2,130,000 12,470,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 2 (yr. 1 invest) 71 - 22,000 22,000 44,000 3,960,000 - 3,960,000 2,420,000 2,130,000 12,470,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 3 (yr. 3 invest.) 125 98,500 15,000 - 113,500 2,700,000 23,640,000 - 825,000 3,750,000 30,915,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 4 (yr. 3 invest.) 480 195,000 25,000 - 220,000 4,500,000 46,800,000 - 1,375,000 14,400,000 67,075,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 5 (yr. 3 invest.) - - 36,000 - 36,000 6,480,000 - - 1,980,000 - 8,460,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 6 (yr. 4 invest.) - - 21,000 - 21,000 3,780,000 - - 1,155,000 - 4,935,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 7 (yr. 4 invest.) 210 303,600 40,500 - 344,100 7,290,000 72,864,000 - 2,227,500 6,300,000 88,681,500 Ph. I - Bldg. 8 (yr. 4 invest.) 48 83,200 5,000 - 88,200 900,000 19,968,000 - 275,000 1,440,000 22,583,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 9 (yr. 5 invest.) 80 - - 84,000 84,000 - - 15,120,000 4,620,000 2,400,000 22,140,000 Ph. I - Bldg. 10 (yr. 5 invest) 685 323,000 80,000 - 403,000 14,400,000 77,520,000 - 4,400,000 20,550,000 116,870,000 Ph. II - Bldg. 11 (yr. 5 invest.) 128 172,000 110,000 - 282,000 19,800,000 41,280,000 - 6,050,000 3,840,000 70,970,000 Ph. II - Bldg. 12 (yr. 6 invest.) 342 189,000 53,600 - 242,600 9,648,000 45,360,000 - 2,948,000 10,260,000 68,216,000 Ph. II - Bldg. 13 (yr. 6 invest.) 285 456,100 25,000 - 481,100 4,500,000 109,464,000 - 1,375,000 8,550,000 123,889,000 Ph. I - Green Roof 1 (yr. 1 invest.) - - - - - - - 4,620,000 - - 4,620,000 Ph. II - Green Roof 2 (yr. 6 invest.) - - - - - - - 3,960,000 - - 3,960,000 Possible Road Improvements - - - - - - - 25,000,000 - - 25,000,000 Total 2,525 1,820,400 455,100 128,000 2,403,500 81,918,000 436,896,000 56,620,000 32,070,500 75,750,000 683,254,500
Residential Sq. Ft.
Commercial Sq. Ft.
Total Developed Sq. Ft.
Commercial RP Investment
Parking Investment Total Investment
Institutional Sq. Ft.
Parking Spaces
Residential RP Investment
Personal Property
InvestmentInstitutional RP
Investment
Residential Sq. Ft.76%
Commercial Sq. Ft.19%
Institutional Sq. Ft.
5%
Development Ratio
Commercial RP Investment
12%
Residential RP Investment
64%
Institutional RP Investment
8%
Personal Property
Investment5%
Parking Investment
11%
Investment Ratio
29
Grandview Green RoofReturn on Investment
* No inflation is taken into consideration, which will positively impact the break-even point because of private investment, assessed value, and millage rate increases. Parking is not included in potential property taxes.
Yr. 0 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 Yr. 6 Yr. 7 Yr. 8 Yr. 9 Yr. 10 Yr. 11 Yr. 12 Yr. 13 Yr. 14 Yr. 15 TotalTax RevenueSales Tax - 1,431,138 - 4,768,181 5,178,541 9,777,018 8,511,183 - - - - - - - - - 29,666,060 Property Tax - 291,560 724,047 1,759,289 3,443,377 6,123,545 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 99,669,333 Total Tax Revenue - 1,722,698 724,047 6,527,470 8,621,918 15,900,563 17,243,934 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 8,732,751 129,335,393
Less: Public InvestmentLid 1 - 4,620,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 6,720,000 Lid 2 - - - - - 3,960,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 5,460,000 Possible Road Issues 25,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,000,000 Total Investment 25,000,000 4,620,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 4,110,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 37,180,000
Return on Investment 348%
- 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000
100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000
Yr. 0 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 Yr. 6 Yr. 7 Yr. 8 Yr. 9 Yr. 10 Yr. 11 Yr. 12 Yr. 13 Yr. 14 Yr. 15
Return on Investment
Cumulative Public Revenue Cumulative Public Expense
30
Study Conclusions +HRA ImpressionsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
30
31
Grandview Green Feasibility Study Conclusions
• No major fatal flaws identified.• Potential to create approximately 13 acres of new buildable land on what is
currently MNDOT and City-owned property.• Development could comprise more than 2,000 parking spaces and 2.4
million square feet in private development.• After completion of full build-out, property tax revenue is projected to
approach $100 million.
32
Issues and ConsiderationsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
32
33
Issue #1LandGrandview Green Feasibility Study
33
34
LandConsiderations
• Minimize impact on existing property owners.• Pursue development scenarios that maximize use of city and state owned
land.• Overall development potential (size, shape, topography).• “Development ready” parcels.• Civil infrastructure (water, sewer, power).• Zoning and density – current, integration with comp plan update
35
Vernon Ave
City Hall
HWY 100
Grandview Green Land Ownership MNDOT Owned Land
City Owned Land
36
Grandview GreenLand Values
37
Grandview Green Topography
Lid
East West Site Section
38
Issue #2Transportation Infrastructure –Freeways, Bridges, District StreetsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
38
39
Transportation InfrastructureConsiderations
• Future freeway expansion and/or upgrade.• Capacity and lifespan of existing structures.• Bridge improvements and maintenance.• Need for ventilation? • On / off ramp configuration, charrette with MNDOT geometric designers.• Sightline requirements. • Simple and safe intersection configuration.• Balance vehicle movements with pedestrian comfort and current land
ownership.• Right-size the travelways.
40
HWY 100
Vernon Ave
Grandview Green Bridge Age
50th StreetCity Hall
Early 1970s
41
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Existing Highway 100 SectionEast West Site Section
42
Potential Roadway ConfigurationsConcept A
Concept B
Concept C
Concept D
43
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Proposed Highway 100 Lid SectionEast West Site Section
44
Issue #3ConnectivityGrandview Green Feasibility Study
44
45
ConnectivityConsiderations
• Traffic volumes on local roads.• Local roadway network.• Multi-use paths.• Bike lanes.• Wide sidewalks and setbacks to create a pedestrian-scaled environment.• Connectivity from elsewhere in district and broader community.• Transit – current and potential future. Park and ride?
46
HWY 100
Vernon Ave
Grandview Green Traffic Volumes
22,500 AADT
50th StreetCity Hall
20,400 AADT
11,200 AADT
8,500 AADT
47
Grandview Green Road Alignments
New Intersections
Intersections Removed
Impact on Existing Properties
Phase 1 Access from Northbound Hwy 100
Phase 2 Access from Northbound Hwy 100
Arc
adia
Gra
nge
48
5a
9
5b
1
12
6
16
15
16
2
1
13
11
108
4 3
7a/7bPublic Infrastructure
New Roads• Central Main Street
(New) • North South Freeway
Access (New)• Grange (New
alignment)
Public Realm Improvements• Arcadia • Eden • 50th
Lids + Green• Lid A 42,000SF • Lid B 36,000SF
Grandview Green Public Infrastructure
DRAFT FOR REVIEW: May 16, 201721
Central Main Street
North South Freeway Access
Grange
49
1
5a
9
5b
1
212
6
16
15
16
2
1
13A
13B
13
11
10
8
14
4 37a/7b
Grandview Green Concept DevelopmentSite Plan: District Parking
Parcel 4 • District Parking 3 Levels below
grade• 171,000SF - 480 carsParcel 10 • District Parking 3 Levels below
grade• 240,000SF - 685 carsParcel 12 • District Parking 2 Levels below
grade• 120,000SF - 342 cars
50
Issue #4New BuildingsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
50
51
New BuildingsConsiderations
• Aesthetics, design guidelines.• Structural systems.• Governing entity for building codes for structures spanning the freeway and
on MNDOT land: MNDOT or City of Edina? • Security and safety.• Fire suppression for parking structures and/or occupied buildings over
freeway.
52
2018 Comp Plan Update will include Design Guidelines
53
Grandview Green Lid Long Span Structural Systems
Concrete Double Tee platform with one story building above
Concrete Double Tee platform with green roof above
Concrete Vierendeel Trusses and concrete plank construction for single story or multi-story building
No Trees on Lid
54
Typical Freeway SectionGrandview Green Proposed Highway 100 Lid Section
55
134
5a
9
10
5b
1
2
11
12
13
8
6
16
15
17
7a
7b
14
Grandview Green Concept Parcels
Phase 1 Development
Phase 2 Development
Redevelopment Opportunity
Buildings Over Freeways(partial list)
- Civic Center MARTA Station (I-75/I-85) Atlanta, GA
- Prudential Tower + Copley Place (I-90) Boston, MA
- Shaw Supermarket (I-90), Newton, MA
- A, B, and C Ramps (I-394), Minneapolis, MN
- Apartment Buildings & Lytle Park (I-71), Cincinnati, OH
- The World’s Largest McDonalds (I-44), Vinita, OK
- Washington State Convention Center (I-5), Seattle, WA
56
Grandview Green Green Roof / Lid Section
57
Issue #5Public RealmGrandview Green Feasibility Study
55
58
Public RealmConsiderations
• Adjacent development needs (block scale).• District amenities.• City/regional connections (linked assets & destinations).• Green space and recreation.• Maintenance.• Lid programming.• Stormwater management.• Vegetation types.• Green roofs on buildings.
59
Grandview Green Concept D2017 Parcels
Grandview Green Full Build Out
2018 Comp Plan Update
60
Issue #6Social/CulturalGrandview Green Feasibility Study
5
61
Social/CulturalConsiderations
• Community connections.• Existing and new resources.• Existing historic houses.• Community needs.• Neighborhood engagement and buy-in.
62
Grandview Green Connections
50th and France
Southdale District
Cahill District
UHG at 169
Fred Richards Park
Grandview
100
62 ARTS + ENTERTAINMENT
CENTER
HEALTH + WELLNESS CENTER
CIVIC CAMPUS
CONVENIENCE SHOPPING
RESOURCE + LEARNING CENTER
public space
public space
public space
public space
public space
Historic Houses
Fran
ce
63
Issue #7Sustainability and ResilienceGrandview Green Feasibility Study
63
64
Sustainability and Resilience Considerations
• Air quality / capturing carbon. (Lid)• Health and wellbeing.• Stormwater management.• Renewable energy.• Financial sustainability.
65
Issue #8Process and PartnershipsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
65
66
Process and PartnershipsConsiderations
• Champions – local/neighborhood to government level.• Possible partners: MNDOT, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, Met Council• State bonding opportunities.
67
Issue #9City of Edina - MNDOT PartnershipGrandview Green Feasibility Study
67
68
City of Edina – MNDOT PartnershipConsiderations
• What will partnership look like?• Meeting frequency.• Meeting participants.
69
Issue #10Financing / Tax StructureGrandview Green Feasibility Study
69
70
Financing / Tax StructureConsiderations
• First costs.• Return on investments.• Air rights / lease agreements.• Length of time.• Who pays for infrastructure?• Public financing tools.• Cost of ongoing maintenance.• Alternative funding sources / grants?
71
Issue #11Statutes and OrdinancesGrandview Green Feasibility Study
71
72
Statutes and OrdinancesConsiderations
• Existing statutes/ordinances that impact development.• New statutes/ordinances to be put in place.
73
Next StepsGrandview Green Feasibility Study
73
74DRAFT FOR REVIEW: May 16, 201717
Other Thoughts?
BRUCE JACOBSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 74
75
Thank you.Grandview Green Feasibility Study
75
76
Extra slidesGrandview Green Feasibility Study
77
Vernon Ave
City Hall
HWY 100
Grandview Green MnDOT Right-of-Way
78
Grandview Green RoofCurrent Tax Roll
Phase 1 Development
Phase 2 Development
79
Grandview Green RoofSpecial Tax District Edina’s construction of a green roof to
encourage new development will be precedent setting. The philosophy behind establishing a special taxing district to capture and reinvest new tax revenue should be established.
• Affordable housing• Micro loans• Green roof maintenance• Green roof programming• Schools• Property tax
80
Grandview Green Civil Infrastructure
81
Grandview Green Topography
Recommended