Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-07/22/2008-Work SessionCity of F6rt,Collins Memorandum DT: July 25, 2008 TO: URA Board of Commissioners TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager D Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Jeff Scheick, Planning, Development & Transportation Director Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director jp1� IN FM: Christina Vincent, City Planner RE: July 22, 2008 URA/CAG Joint Work Session Summary Board Members Present: Mayor Doug Hutchinson Mayor Pro -Tern Kelly Ohlson Diggs Brown David Roy Ben Marvel Lisa Poppaw Wade Troxell Work Session Participants: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Ken Waido, Chief Planner Christina Vincent, URA City Planner Clark Mapes, City Planner Direction Sought/Question to be Answered: Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advancep/anning L Does the Board or CAG have any questions or comments on the activities of the North College Urban Renewal Plan? 2. Does the Board and CAG have suggestions and direction in regards to how to achieve a successful partnership between the Board and CAG? 3. Does the Board and CAG wish to provide direction to staff on policy issues regarding the activities of the URA? City of F�ortCollins ``� Council's Direction: The joint meeting was well received by all members in attendance and it was suggested that a joint session between the URA and CAG be held annually. The substantive portion of the session focused on the policy issues and the Board gave direction to pursue and return at a later date with completed action items. The Board's action item for using tax increment monies for facades is to develop policy guideline options to follow for future projects. The Board's action is to rewrite the policy issue "white paper" regarding the purchase price guidelines to use tax increment financing on future projects. The Board's action regarding the capital project plan is two -fold: Prioritize projects and create a capital list as an addition to the Urban Renewal Plan. Furthermore, update the 2004 improvements project list to reflect today's construction costs. The Board was comfortable with retaining eminent domain as a tool of the Urban Renewal Authority but to limit its use to the last possible option. The Board was interested in the preparation of a relocation plan and to discuss this further. The law is clear about the responsibilities of the Authority when relocating as a result of eminent domain. The Board expressed interest in further discussion of a relocation plan that is not required as part of an eminent domain action. The Board supported the existing approach that property tax is the primary element for tax increment revenues and consideration of a sales tax increment would be considered on a case -by - case basis. Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: July 24, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov. corn/advanceplanning FROM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Chip Steiner, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager L) Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Jeff Scheick, Director of Planning, &elopment and Transportation RE: Summary of July 22, 2008 Joint Council/DDA Meeting — Financial Proposal for a Public/Private Partnership on the Oak/Remington Parking Lot On July 22, 2008, the City Council and the DDA Board met in a joint work session to discuss a financial proposal for development of a hotel/mixed use project on the Oak/Remington Parking Lot in downtown Fort Collins. A summary of comments/direction follows: 1. Requested a copy of the Project's Parking Study (attached) 2. Asked about the need for affordable housing for the low income Hotel workers. Council suggested that Corporex and City staff talk about the possibility of partnering in providing some affordable housing off -site. The discussions should include the possibility of using excess DDA TIF funds from the project for affordable housing. Corporex stated that although their Company does not do affordable housing development, they would be willing to talk more about Council's ideas. Council indicated that providing affordable housing would not be a requirement of the Project. Council asked staff to bring forward other policies/strategies for increasing affordable housing in the downtown/community such as "inclusionary zoning -type" tools; this discussion would be apart from the Project. 3. Council asked about the residential portion (top two floors) of the Hotel; how necessary is this for the Project? Corporex indicated that the residences were extremely important for the financial proforma of the overall Project as well as contributing to a positive mix of uses. No further direction was given. 4. Council asked several questions about the need for and cost of the public parking. Staff responded that the public parking is needed; and, the cost and amount of parking was justified. No further direction was given. City of F6rt Collins 5. Council asked several questions about downtown public parking needs generally. Staff responded that the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan had included a parking analysis but that Study needed updating since there were so many new projects coming on line (Mason Corridor, Beet Street, Discovery Science Center, Public Market, amphitheater, City offices, etc.) that were not known about or well formulated in 2004. Staff also said this additional parking will likely be needed on the west side of College, and at this point staff does not know how much more will be needed or exactly where it should be located. No further direction was given. 6. Council/Board asked several questions about the funding proposal. Council appeared satisfied with the proposal; and, Council is interested in seeing the final details/figures of the Financial Agreement. No further direction was given. 7. Council was interested in seeing the protections that would be built into the Financial Agreement or other process/procedures of the public/private partnership in terms of protecting the public funds in the event that the Project failed to develop. Generally, both the DDA Board and City Council appeared comfortable with the conceptual building design, building program, and financial proposal (pending final details) and supported staff bringing forward a final Financial Agreement for their consideration. Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) Introduction Carl Walker, Inc. has been retained by Corporex Colorado, LLC to prepare a shared parking study for the Remington Block Mixed -Use Project to be located in downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. The primary objective of the study is to determine parking requirements for the 223,975 square foot GLA (Gross Leasable Area) development, which includes a 150-room full - service hotel, eight high -end condominiums, a 46,325 square foot GLA Convention Center in the renovated Elks Lodge building, 15,300 square feet GLA of retail space, 4,250 square feet GLA of restaurant space, 60,350 square feet GLA of office space, and parking. The development will displace 155 existing public parking spaces in the City's Oak/Remington surface lot. The City is also interested in additional public parking in the proposed parking structure. As indicated in Table 1, if the individual land uses in the mixed -use development are viewed separately, the maximum amount of parking that can be provided for the development is 497 spaces based on the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. It should be noted that the City's parking maximums are generally lower than the ratios listed for the subject land uses in Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute. Table 1. City of Fort Collins Parking Maximums Maximum Land Use Quantity Parking Maximums Parking Hotel 150 rooms 1.0 space/room 150 Residential 8 units 2.0 spaces/unit 16 Retail 15,300 GLA 4.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. 61 Restaurant 4,250 GLA 10.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. 43 Office 60,350 GLA 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. 181 Convention (l) 46,325 GLA 1.0 space/1,000 sq. ft. 46 Total: 497 (1) Places of Assembly ratio of one space per 1,000 s.f. is used. GLA = Gross Leasable Area Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) The Shared Parking Process The parking requirements indicated in Table 1 are for single, stand-alone land uses that account for the maximum level of parking demand that is likely to occur. Parking demand for a mixed -use development can be significantly overstated if each land use must provide parking in accordance with the stand-alone parking ratios. This occurs for three primary reasons: 1. The density of development and availability of transit or other modes of transportation (buses, carpooling, walking, bicycles, etc.) reduces the reliance on the use of the automobile, particularly among commuting employees. 2. People often patronize two or more land uses in close proximity to each other in a single trip. 3. Different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses result in variations of peak accumulation by time of day, day of week, or season of the year. The Shared Parking analysis process, developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in the early 1980's, is today widely accepted among local jurisdictions to reduce the number of parking spaces provided for mixed -use developments. ULI's Shared Parking, which was recently updated and expanded, documents the peak accumulation of vehicles for land uses most often found in mixed -use developments including office, retail, restaurant, hotel, conference/convention center, cinema, health club, and residential. Variations in parking accumulation are provided for time of day, day of week (weekdays versus weekends), and month of the year. The time-share approach to shared parking can result in significant reductions in parking, even in suburban locations. Captive markets can also significantly reduce parking demand for a mixed -use development. Captive Market, also known as "market synergy", refers to a reduction in parking due to the proximity of land uses that allow individuals to walk between destinations in a single trip. For Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) instance, office workers, hotel guests and residential tenants who are already present in the immediate area will patronize the development's restaurants and stores. The use of alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, etc. should also be considered in a shared parking analysis, particularly if the development is located within a Central Business District (CBD), which is the case with the subject development. The main goal of a shared parking study is to provide sufficient parking to support the development while minimizing the area and resources dedicated to parking. Non -Captive Market and Modal Split Adjustments The effects of the captive market on parking demand is seen in ULI test cases in the original Shared Parking that compared the estimated peak shared parking accumulation to actual observed peak accumulation. ULI surveyed seventeen mixed -use sites and found that parking was overestimated an average of 24.4%. These findings are supported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Shared Parking Planning Guidelines (1995). ITE found that using only time -of -day adjustments significantly overstates actual parking demand. The observed peak accumulation of parking at five mixed -use sites was on average 24.9% below the estimated parking based only on ULI's time -of -day adjustments. Although it is difficult to predict the effects of a captive market in advance of development, based on our experience we believe there will be a minimum 20% reduction in retail and restaurant parking demand due to the proximity of land uses. Table 2 separates the required parking for the individual land uses (497 parking spaces) into customer/visitor and employee/resident components based on parking demand ratios presented in Shared Parking. There is the estimated demand for 262 customer/visitor spaces and 235 employee spaces. It is conservatively estimated that 20% of the retail and restaurant patrons will be captive (Non -Captive Factor of 0.80 in the table). It is also anticipated that 25% of the hotel Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) guests will arrive by an alternative mode of transportation (Transportation Mode Factor of 0.75). The captive market and modal split reductions result in the adjusted demand for 215 customer/visitor parking spaces. It is also anticipated that 10% of the hotel, retail, restaurant, and office employees will arrive by an alternative mode of transportation (Transportation Mode Factor of 0.90), which results in the adjusted demand for 160 employee parking spaces. This is also a conservative estimate in that information obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that over 20% of the population in the City of Fort Collins commute to work by carpooling, public transportation, walking or by other means. Thus, there is an estimated demand for 428 parking spaces, taking into account captive market and modal split reductions. Table 2. Revised Parking with Captive Market and Modal Split Reductions Revised Revised Customer/ Non -Captive Modal Customer/ Employee/ Modal Employee/ Revised Visitor Market Split Visitor Resident Split Resident Total Land Use Parking Factor Factor Parking Parking Factor Parking Parking Hotel 120 1.00 0.75 90 30 0.90 27 117 Residential 1 1.00 1.00 1 15 1.00 15 16 Retail 49 0.80 1.00 39 12 0.90 11 50 Restaurant 37 0.80 1.00 29 6 0.90 6 35 Office 14 1.00 1.00 14 167 0.90 150 164 Convention 42 1.00 1.00 42 4 1.00 4 46 Total: 262 215 235 160 428 It should be noted that there are no captive market and modal split reductions indicated in the table above for the Convention Center because the City's parking maximum of one space per 1,000 GLA falls well below ULI's parking demand ratio for convention centers. However, if ULI default values listed in Shared Parking for captive market and modal split reductions for a convention center are applied to the starting parking demand ratio of 6.0 Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) spaces per 1,000 square feet, the resulting ratio is just slightly over one space per 1,000 square feet. Hourly and Daily Variations in Parking Demand Table 3 indicates hourly variations in parking accumulation as a percent of the peak (100%) accumulation for the land uses included in Remington Block Mixed -Use Project on weekdays. All of the percentages in the table are taken from Shared Parking and based on data collected from hundreds of mixed -use development projects throughout the country. Table 3. Hourly Variations in Parking Demand - Weekdays (From Shared Parking) Hotel Residential Retail Restaurant Office Convention Hour Guest Employee Resident Visitor Customer Employee Customer Employee Visitor Employee Customer Employee 6:00 AM 95% 50% t00% 0% 1% 10% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 57. 7:00 AM 90% 30% 100% 10% 5% 15% 07 20% 1% 30% 0% 30% 8:00 AM 80% 90% 100% 20% 15% 40% 0% 50% 20% 75% 1007. 90% 9:00 AM 70% 90% 100% 20% 35% 75% 0% 75% 60% 95% 100% 907. 10:00 AM 60% 100% 100% 20% 65% 85% 15% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11:00 AM 60% 100% 100% 20% 85% 95% 40% 90% 45% 100% 1007 100% 12:00 PM 55% 100% 100% 20% 95% 100% 75% 90% 15% 90% 100% 1007. 1:00 PM 55% 100% 100% 20% 1007o 100% 75% 907. 45% 90% 100% 100% 2:00 PM 60% 100% 100% 20% 95% 100% 6597 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3:00 PM 60% 1007 100% 20% 90% 100% 40% 75% 45% 100% 1007. 100% 4:00 PM 65% 90% 100% 20% 90% 100% 50n 75% 15% 90% 100% 90% 5:00 PM 70% 70% 100% 40% 95% 95% 75% 1007 10% 50% 100% 70% 6:00PM 75% 40% 100% 607o 95% 95% 95% 100% 5% 25% 50% 40% 7:00 PM 75% 20% 100% 100% 95% 95% 100% 100% 2% 10% 30% 20% 8:00 PM 80% 20% 100% 100% 80% 90% 100% 100% 1% 7% 30% 20% 9:00 PM 85% 20% 100% 100% 50% 75% 100% 10070 0% 3% 10% 20% 10:00 PM 95% 20% 100% 100% 30% 40% 95% 100% 0% 1% 0% 20% 1100I'M 1001/ 10% 100% 80% 10% 15% 75% 85% 0% 0% 0% 10% 12:00 AM 100% 5% 1 1007. 50% 1 0% 0% 25% 35% 0% 0% 0% 5% Table 4 presents the hourly distribution of parked vehicles based on the parking demand presented in Table 2 and the percentages presented in Table 3. The peak hour for parking occurs at 2:00 PM when there is the estimated demand for 378 parking spaces, or 119 fewer spaces than indicated in Table 1. Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) Table 4. Parking Demand by User Group and Hour - Weekdays Hotel Residential Retail Restaurant Office Convention Hour Guest Employee Resident Visitor Customer Employec Customer Employee Visitor Employee Customer Employee Total 6:00 AM 86 14 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 121 7:00 AM 81 8 15 0 2 2 0 1 0 45 0 1 155 8:00 AM 72 24 15 0 6 4 0 3 3 113 42 4 286 9.00 AM 63 24 15 0 14 8 0 5 8 143 42 4 326 10:00 AM 54 27 15 0 25 9 4 5 14 150 42 4 349 )1:00 AM 54 27 15 0 33 10 12 5 6 150 42 4 358 12:00 PM 50 27 15 0 37 11 22 5 2 135 42 4 350 1 :00 PM 50 27 1 15 0 39 11 22 5 6 135 1 42 4 356 2:00 PM 54 27 15 0 37 11 19 5 14 150 42 4 378 3:00 PM 54 27 15 0 35 11 12 5 6 150 42 4 361 400 PM 59 24 15 0 35 11 15 5 2 135 42 4 347 5:00 PM 63 19 15 0 37 10 22 6 1 75 42 3 293 6:00 PM 68 11 15 1 37 10 28 6 1 38 21 2 238 7:00 PM 68 5 15 1 37 10 29 6 0 15 13 1 200 8:00 PM 72 5 15 1 31 10 29 6 0 11 13 1 194 9:00 PM 77 5 15 1 20 8 29 6 0 5 4 1 171 1000 PM 86 5 15 1 12 4 28 6 0 2 0 1 160 11:00 PM 90 3 15 1 4 2 22 5 0 0 0 0 142 12:00 AM 90 1 15 1 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 116 Peak Hour Seasonal Variations in Parking Demand Table 5 illustrates monthly variations in parking demand as percentage of the peak month for the subject land uses. Hotel guest demand varies from a low of 67% in December to a high of 100% in June. Retail customer demand varies from a low of 56% in January to a high of 100% in December. Restaurant customer demand varies from a low of 85% in January to a high of 100% in December. Convention customer demand varies from a low of 45% in July to a high of 100% in February and November. With the exception of retail and convention employees, employee demand varies minimally by month. There are no variations in residential demand for either residents or visitors by month. IF Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) Table 5. Monthly Variations in Parking Demand - Weekdays (From Shared Parking) Hotel Residential Retail Restaurant Office Convention Month Guest Employee Resident Visitor Customer Employee Customer Employee Visitor Employee Customer Employee January 71% 1007. 100% 100% 56% 8007 85% 95% 100% 100% 757 85% February 857o 100% 100% 100% 57% 80% 86% 95% 100, 100% 100% 100% March 91% 100% 100% 100% 64% 80% 95% 1007 100% 100% 90% 100% April 90% 100% 1007. 100% 63% 807 92% 100% 100% 100% 55% 65% May 92% 100% 100% 100% 66% 80% 96% 100% 100% 100% 6097 70% June 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 807 95% 100% 100% 100% 50% 60% July 98% 100% 1007. 100% 64% 80% 98% 100% 95% 957. 45% 55% August 92% 100% 100% 100% 69% 80% 99% 100% 95% 95% 75% 85% September 93% 100% 100% 100% 64% 80% 91% 100% 1007. 100% 80% 90% October 93% 100% 100% 100% 66% 80% 967. 100% 100% 100% 85% 95% November 81 % 1DO% 100% 100% 72% 90% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% December 67% 100% 1007. 100% 100% 100% 1007. 100% 100% 100% 60% 70% As presented in Table 6, the peak month for parking is expected to be November when there is the estimated demand for 356 parking spaces. The peak demand 356 parking spaces represent approximately a 28% reduction in parking from the 497 spaces presented in Table 1. Table 6. Parking Demand by User Group and Month - Weekdays Hotel Residential Retail Restaurant Office Convention Month Guest Employee Resident Visitor Customer Employee Customer Employee Visitor Employee CustomelEmplOyeE Total January 38 27 15 0 21 9 16 5 14 150 32 3 330 February 46 27 15 0 21 9 16 5 14 150 42 4 349 March 49 27 15 0 24 9 18 5 14 ISO 38 4 353 April 49 27 15 0 23 9 17 5 14 150 23 3 335 May 50 27 15 0 24 9 18 5 14 150 25 3 340 June 54 27 15 0 25 9 18 5 14 ISO 21 2 340 July 53 27 15 0 24 9 19 5 13 143 19 2 329 August so 27 15 0 26 9 19 5 13 143 32 3 342 September 50 27 15 0 24 9 17 5 14 150 34 4 349 October 50 27 15 0 24 9 18 5 14 150 36 4 352 November 44 27 15 0 27 10 18 5 14 150 42 4 356 December 36 27 15 0 37 11 19 5 14 150 25 3 342 Peak Month Summary Stand -Alone Parking 497 Shared Parking Calculation 356 Shored Parking Rollo/l 000GLA 1.59 Parking Reduction 141 Percent Reduction -28% Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) The 356 parking spaces recommended for the development represent 1.59 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA. Surveys by ULI support large reductions in parking for mixed -use developments, particularly for those located in downtown areas. ULI surveyed 240 existing mixed -use developments throughout the United States and Canada and reported the following parking ratios by metropolitan location: Parking Spaces per Metropolitan location 1,000 Square Feet Central Business District (CBD) 0.93 Other Central City 1.09 Suburban CBD 2.18 Suburban Freestanding 2.47 Overall 1.30 Source: ULI Mixed Use Developmenf Handbook. The land use found most frequently in these developments was office (98.5%), followed closely by retail (97.7%), hotel (68.7%) and residential (42.0%). The retail space consists of stores and restaurants. The median total floor space in these developments is 980,000 square feet. The 1.59 parking ratio for the Remington Block Mixed -Use Project is well above the Central Business District and Central City averages, and even exceeds the overall average of 1.30 spaces per 1,000 square feet for all of the developments surveyed. Thus, the reduction in parking recommended for the Remington Block Mixed -Use Project is reasonable based on research conducted by ULI. Public Parking Following discussions with Randy Hensley, the Transportation Planning and Parking Manager for the City of Fort Collins, we understand that the City is requesting that the 155 existing parking spaces in the Oak/Remington lot be replaced in the parking structure. They would also like to purchase one more floor of parking in the garage, which is assumed for the purposes of this Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) study to be an additional 145 parking spaces. We also understand that the City will allow the 300 parking spaces requested for public parking to be counted in the shared mix. The existing Oak/Remington parking lot consists of two-thirds permit spaces (approximately 100 spaces) and one-third two-hour (transient) spaces (approximately 55 spaces) from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. For 100 permit spaces the city can sell 130 permits (30% oversell), and there are currently permits available for sale. The lot typically does not fill to capacity on weekdays. Parking occupancy counts conducted as part of a previous parking study found the lot to be 71 % to 80% full on weekdays. The lot does fill to or near capacity on busy weekday evenings and weekends with restaurant and bar patron vehicles. Although the city does expect to sell more permits in the future, the need for additional public parking is based primarily on excess weekday evening and weekend parking demand in the general area. Because the city's need for more public parking is primarily on weekday evenings and weekends, there is a good opportunity to share parking with the mixed -use development. Table 7 shows the estimated hourly distribution of parking demand for the mixed -use development and for the "public" parking. The hourly distribution of parking demand for the mixed -use development is based on the results presented in Table 4. The hourly distribution for the public parking anticipates a 50/50 split between permit/transient parking spaces on weekdays (150 spaces each), which is estimated based on discussions with the City and the parking occupancy counts conducted as part of the previous study. The public parking demand during the day is expected to gradually increase throughout the morning until it peaks at 1:00 PM at 70% of the parking capacity. The daytime demand gradually decreases in the afternoon down to approximately 50% of capacity at 5:00 PM. The public parking demand increases after 5:00 PM and is expected to peak between 8:00 and 10:00 PM at 100% of capacity. It will be necessary to conduct hourly parking occupancy counts at the existing Oak/Remington lot to confirm the hourly distribution of the public parking supply. Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) Table 7. Estimated Parking Demand with Public Parking Mixed -Use Public Hour Develop. Parking Total 6:00AM 114 5 119 7:00 AM 146 45 191 8:00 AM 269 128 397 9:00 AM 307 173 480 10:00 AM 329 188 517 1 1:00 AM 337 195 532 12:00 PM 330 195 525 1:00 PM 335 210 545 2:00 PM 356 203 559 3:00 PM 340 203 543 4:00 PM 327 180 507 5:00 PM 276 150 426 6:00 PM 224 225 449 7:00 PM 188 255 443 8:00 PM 183 300 483 9:00 PM 161 300 461 10:00 PM 151 300 451 1 1:00 PM 134 255 389 12:00 AM 109 150 259 Conclusion As indicated in Table 7 above, the overall peak hour for parking is expected to occur at 2:00 PM when there is the estimated demand for 559 parking spaces (356 parking spaces for the mixed -use development and 203 public parking spaces). This estimated demand assumes a capture rate of 100% of the porkers attracted to the new development. That said, in downtown Ft. Collins there are several other parking alternatives near the proposed development, including both off-street and on -street alternatives. Therefore, it is unlikely that the parking within the development will capture all of the apparent demand. Given a competitive rate structure, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed garage will capture around 75% to 85% of the estimated parking demand, which represents approximately 420 to Remington Block Mixed -Use Project Shared Parking Study March 17, 2007 (DRAFT) 475 parking spaces. Thus, a parking facility with an average capacity of approximately 450 parking spaces would be reasonable from a financial perspective. No Text DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DDA Board of Directors THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager ei FROM: Chip Steiner, DDA Executive Director DATE: July 24, 2008 RE: July 22 Work Session Follow-up At the July 22, 2008 joint work session between City Council and the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors, DDA staff presented background information on the development of a proposed amphitheater and David Greusel of HOK Venue, design consultant to the DDA for the amphitheater, presented an overview of the process used to make a recommendation for the amphitheater site. The purpose of the presentation was to update City Council and the DDA Board on the status of the amphitheater and to receive Council direction regarding the recommended site for the facility. Kev Discussion Points 1. The amphitheater is intended to serve as the home base for Beet Street. Beet Street will use the facility for the majority of its programming. 2. The amphitheater will also serve the entire community as a gathering place and it will be available to cultural programming generated by other community organizations. 3. The amphitheater will contain 4,000 seats in a two -tiered format and will be audio and video broadcast ready. 4. The site selection process conducted by the consultant examined eight downtown locations: Justice Center Block, Creamery Block, south half of the I" National Bank block, Block 23, Chestnut Street, Willow Street south, Willow Street north, and the field behind the Northside Aztlan Community Center. The consultants used five categories of general analysis: urban design, transportation, site factors, cost, and timing. The Justice Center scored highest followed by the Chestnut site and the Creamery site. The consultant recommended the Justice Center site for the following reasons: • Strong urban design relationship to downtown's major intersection • High visibility from the main intersection • Proximity to food, entertainment, retail • Compatibility with existing uses • Proximity to transportation systems • Proximity to parking • Site flexibility • Proximity to planned performing arts center. 5. Concern was expressed about the impact noise would have on the surrounding neighborhood and the impact of noise (train) on performances within the amphitheater. A feasibility study on a railroad quiet study is being pursued by the City and DDA. The City is also working on an amendment to Land Use Code language regarding permissible noise levels. 6. Council and DDA Board discussed the feasibility of the project and both the consultant and Carol Bennis, Executive Director of Beet Street addressed the issues raised. The main season for use of the amphitheater is from mid -April through mid - October although design options are being considered that could extend this season. Thematic programming will be scheduled Wednesdays and Saturdays for a period ranging from 20 to 24 weeks. Ticket pricing will depend on the event and the performer. Size of the facility was determined through a feasibility study that concluded that the optimum range of seats should be between 3,800 and 5,000. 7. The cost of the facility is estimated by DDA staff at $30 million which includes the cost of relocating City offices from the site. The design consultant has not yet arrived at a final cost estimate. Next Steps Resolution by City Council approving the Justice Center site as the location of the amphitheater. 2. Provision of the complete feasibility study to Council and DDA Board when completed. 3. Develop a noise "model" that will demonstrate the impact performances in the amphitheater will have upon the surrounding neighborhood and the impact of passing trains on performances inside the amphitheater. 4. Initiate discussions between the City and DDA regarding relocation of City offices from the Justice Center site. 5. Initiate discussions for the legal transfer of the site.