grandview green lid preliminary feasibility presentation

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