City of Beaufort Department of Planning and Development Services

M E M O R ANDUM

TO: Scott Dadson, City Manager

F ROM: Libby Anderson, Planning Director

DATE : AprU 21, 2014

SUBJECT: Marina Parking Lot Rezoning; Alternative Planning Process ==�================-----===========================================

You asked staff from Finance, Planning, and the Office of Civic Investment to review the Marina Redevelopment Site Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify issues related to rezoning in light of issues raised at recent public meetings.

One of the major public concerns, as well as the concern expressed by the Planning Commission, is approving a new zoning designation in advance of a conceptual plan for development of the property. In most rezoning situations, a conceptual master plan for the site is not needed and in many cases discouraged, since a standard zoning designation such as Core Commercial District does not "lock in" a specific site plan or set of uses; any of the uses permitted in the zoning district would be allowed in the development. Similarly, the location and arrangement of the uses would be allowed based on the district's development standards (ex. setbacks, impervious surface limits, parking requirements etc.) (subject to design review) rather than by a conceptual site plan presented at a public hearing.

One way to give more specificity to the rezoning proposal is to zone the property "Planned Unit Development" (PUD). A PUD requires the preparation of a conceptual master plan for the site which sets out the general types and location, intensity and density of land uses including open space. A master plan report accompanies the conceptual plan. The report outlines the development program including the maximum number of residential units and square footage of nonresidential development. The PUD approval process is the same as the standard rezoning process: Planning Commission review and recommendation on the PUD zoning with the Council having approval authority. One thing to consider with the PUD option is that the City's PUD ordinance is fairly dated and may not easily accommodate a complex urban infiU project Some revision or interpretation of the PUD standards may be needed; for example, the PUD standards reference a 25' buffer surrounding the PUD. The City's current PUD requirements are attached.

Another alternative may be to expand the .. Concept Plan and Architectural Design," section of the MOU to give the City Council approval authority at the various stages of project planning and design. This section could be retitled, "Project Design" and verbiage added that, "The parties agree there are three phases of project design-conceptual, preliminary, and final." A description of each stage of design could be attached as an Appendix (see attachment), or it could be included in the body of the MOU. City Council approval would be required for each planning phase. Historic District Review Board review and approval is recommended at each stage, but

)

would not be required in the MOU. Having Council approval of the various stages of design will give Council greater input in project planning and give opportunities for public comment as the design progresses. Since the land is currently owned by the City, and the City has the final authority for approval of any land development, lease, or sale, a multi-step review and approval process may be appropriate. Since the various phases of the site plan will set out the location and nature of open space, and location, massing, and height of new buildings, the public concern over open space, views, and appropriateness of building design can be reviewed and addressed if necessary.

A new Section 2 would address the "Commitments" currently included in Section 1. The developer's commitment would be to plan, design, and submit for review, the three phases of project design. The RDC's commitment would be the same is it is currently. The City's commitment would be to give first reading to the rezoning ordinance after approval of the conceptual master plan and conceptual architectural design plan. Final reading of the rezoning ordinance would be done after Council approval of the Preliminary Master Plan and Preliminary Architectural Design and Development Plan.

Please contact me with any questions.

Thank you.

attachments

cc: Lauren Kelly Craig Lewis Kathy Todd

2

'

MARINA REDEVELOP:MENT SITE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS

Phase 1: Conceptual Master Plan & Conceptual Architectural Design Include but not limited to: Site layout showing placement of buildings, streets, pedestrian

c onnections, and other site improvements. Architectural design should showing physical attributes of the buildings, size, mass, scale, density and general architectural style. Drawings should convey how the proposed design fits into the surrounding context of Bay Street and Waterfront Park. A physical model, as well as three dimensional renderings will be required for this phase. The proposed uses for the site should be listed on the Master Plan, and defined in the corresponding architectural drawings as appropriate.

Phase 2: Preliminary Master Plan, Preliminary Architectural Design Preliminary Master Plan & Preliminary Architectural Design: this should be a continuation of

the conceptual design phase, adding more detail and refining the plan, plan elements, and architecture. The Master Plan should begin to show specific dimensions of elements such as parks, open spaces, road layouts, parking and service areas. Landscaping, grading and drainage, and lighting should be shown on the plans at this time. With regards to the architecture, specific heights, details, and building plans should be submitted. Plans should be dimensioned to show overall heights, heights above grade, floor to floor heights, roof pitches, and dimensions of building frontage elements such as porches, balconies and colonnades. A formalized program should be submitted, complete with square footages of building footprints, building envelopes and open space, parking counts, and gross calculations of open space and pervious vs. impervious surface area.

Phase 3: Final Master Plan & Final Architectural Design Final Master Plan & Final Architectural Design: this is the complete master plan and

architectural design, based upon previous approvals and comments. All elements of the development should be articulated in the Master Plan. With regards to the architecture, any portion of the design that is visible from the exterior should be completely designed and presented, including mechanical equipment and elements, service areas, fences, walls, material details and specifications, and wall sections. A Master Sign Plan, if appropriate, shafi be complete and presented at this time.

3

3.7

}

Article 3: Development Review Procedures �ectlon 3.7: Planned Unit Development (PUO)

Planned Unit Development (PUD)

A. Applicability

A Planned Unit Development District requires the following minimum land area:

1. For lnfill or redevelopment sites: no minimum.

2. For all other development sites: 1 0 acres.

B. Purpose and Intent

c.

Planned Unit Development is a concept that is intended to encourage innovative land planning and site design concepts that achieve a high level of environmental sensitivity, aesthetics, high quality development, and other community goals by:

1. Reducing or eliminating the inflexibility that sometimes results from strict application of zoning standards that were designed primarily for individual lots;

2. Allowing greater freedom in selecting the means to provide access, open space and design amenities; and

3. Promoting quality urban design and environmentally sensitive development by allowing development to take advantage of special site characteristics, locations and land uses.

Two-Stage Approval Process

Approval of a planned unit development requires a two· stage process. The first stage is approval by the City Council of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District submitted as part of the rezoning process and conceptual master plan for the project. The second stage requires approval of a detailed development plan by the Technical Review Committee In compliance with the previously approved master plan.

D. Conceptual Master Plan

A suitable master plan shall be submitted by the applicant for review by the Administrator and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. Specifically, such plan shall include the following elements, where applicable:

1. Master Plan

The master plan (drawn to scale by a registered civil engineer, registered landscape architect, or registered architect) shall include the following elements: the exact dimensions of the parcel of land under consideration, a schematic representation of general types and locations of land uses, the general density and intensity of the proposed uses, proposed open spaces or parks, any area-

"-viMd � 14,2012 3-13

,..

Article Article 3: Development Review Procedure• # Section 3.7: Pl1nned Unit Development (PUD)

3-14

wide drainage systems, overall circulation arrangements and all major roadways, floodplain information, and any other information required by the Administrator.

2. Written Report

A written report shall be submitted by the developer for review by the Administrator and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. Such report shall explain in general the type, nature, intent, and characteristics of the proposed development, and shall specifically Include, where applicable:

a. A general description of the proposal;

b. A detailed legal description of the location of the site;

c. A proposed development program, including number of residential units and proposed densities, minimum lot sizes (if any), square feet of other nonresidential uses and generalized intensities;

d. General plan for the provision of utilities, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities;

e. Tables showing the total number of acres in the proposed development and the percentage designated for each proposed type of land use, including public facilities;

f. A statement of how the proposed development Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;

g. Exceptions or variations from the requirements of this UDO if any are being requested; and

h. Other relevant information as may be requested by the Administrator.

E. Master Plan Approval Process

Any request pertaining to the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District shall be considered an amendment to this UDO and shall be administered and processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in this Section ar;td Section 3.14, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning). The Master Plan itself shall be approved as part of the rezoning.

F. Performance Guarantee

Before approval of a Planned Unit Development District, the City Council may require a contract with safeguards satisfactory to the City guaranteeing completion of the development plan in a period to be specified by the City, but which period shall not exceed five years unless extended by the City for due cause shown. Such guarantee may include the submission of a performance bond in an amount as set by the City.

G. Planning Commission Recommendation

Upon completion of a public meeting, the Planning Commission shall review the application and forward a written recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.

fWitMd Ses*mber 14, 2012

H. Action by the City Coundl

Anlcte 3: Developm.,t Review Procedure• . Section 3:7: Planned Unit O.velopment (PUD)

1. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the request, the City Council shall make a written finding and give its approval; approval with modifications or conditions; or disapproval.

2. If the PUD District is approved by the City Council, all information pertaining to the proposal shall be approved as part of the rezoning. Where the district is not approved, no further consideration of the proposal shall occur.

I. Detailed Development Plan Approval Process

Following the establishment of a PUD District and approval of a conceptual master plan, a detailed development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Administrator in accordance with the procedures and requirements for the site plan process as set forth In Section 3.8, Site Plan Review, and the following additional requirements.

1. Recordation

The detailed development plan may be processed simultaneously for recording.

2. Written Report

A written report shall be submitted by the developer for review by the Administrator. Such report shall explain in detail the type, nature, intent, and characteristics of the proposed development, and shall specifically include, where applicable:

a. A general description of the proposal;

b. A detailed legal description of the location of the site;

c. Floodplain information;

d. Proposed standards tor development, including restrictions on the use of property, density standards and yard requirements and restrictive covenants;

e. Proposed dedication or reservation of land for public use, including streets, easements, parks and school sites;

f. Plan for the provision of utilities, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities;

g. Tables showing the total number of acres in the proposed development and the percentage designated for each proposed type of land use, including public facilities;

h. Plans for parking, loading, access ways, signs, and means of protecting adjacent areas from lightning and other potentially adverse effects;

1. A statement defining the manner in which the City Is to be assured that all improvements and protective devices, such as buffers, are to be installed and maintained;

j. Tabulations showing the total number of dwelling units by type, if any;

City of BNufort, Soudl c.olina unified Devetopment OrdiMnce

RevtMd September 14, 2012

(

Article Article 3: Development Review Procedurta � 4 Section 3.7: Planned Unit Developm.nt (PUD)

3-US

k. A statement of how the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;

I. A phasing plan, where appropriate; and

m. Other relevant information as may be requested by the Administrator.

J. Expiration of Approval

The City shall have the right to review a concept plan approved as part of a PUD District when no building permits have been issued in the past five years, and may choose not to issue further permits within the PUD District until a revised concept plan has been approved.

Reviaed Sept.mber 14, 2012 City of 8eUon, South c.otlna UNtied Developnent Ordil•a

Artlcla.7: Genar111 Development Standards � 4 Section 7.6 Sight CINranca: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards

7.4 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards

A. Purpose Statement

The purpose and intent of the PUD Districts is to encourage the design of a more complete and sustainable environment consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan through the application of imaginative approaches to community design that allows and encourages mixed uses, design flexibility, pedestrian-oriented development and interconnectivity among uses, sensitivity to the natural environment and natural features, and the coordination of development with the adequacy of public facilities.

B. Permitted Developments

Any planned large-scale development which meets the provisions of this chapter and which is considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council for a PUD classification may be so classified. Examples might include areas proposed principally for large-scale development in industry, commerce, housing areas proposed for preservation for recreational, historical, conservation, agricultural, or flood control purposes; areas to be utilized for specialized purposes such as recreational resorts, as well as educational, civic, governmental, transportation or military complexes. Approved PUD Districts may be areas of mixed land use so long as the land use patterns conform to the plans adopted as the zoning regulations for that particular district and to the provisions of subsection (e) below.

C. Permitted Uses

Any use proposed by the developer and considered by the City Council as being compatible to other nearby uses within and without the district in keeping with the Intent of the particular PUD district may be permitted in such district upon approval by the City Council. A listing of permitted uses within a particular PUD district shall be adopted as part of the regulations applying to that district. The developer shall prepare a list of proposed uses for submission with this application. After approval by the City Council, the list, or portions thereof, approved by the aforementioned bodies shall be adopted as part of regulations applying to that particular PUD district. Thereafter, the uses permitted in the district shall be restricted to those listed, approved and adopted according to procedures set forth therein.

D. General Design Criteria and Development Standards

1. Overall site design should be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of principal and accessory uses, sizes and street patterns, and use relationships. Variety in building types, heights, facades, setbacks, and size of open spaces shall be encouraged.

2. Densities per acre for residential dwelling units and yard and other dimensional requirements for each PUD district may be set by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission.

3. Parking, loading and other requirements for each PUD district may be set by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. The standards of Section 7.5 shall serve as a general guide to such requirements for uses proposed for location in a PUD district.

4. Where development abuts at separate single-family residential districts, buildings and activities, other than single-family dwellings and two-family

City ol S.Mifoft, Soulh Carolina Unified Development OrdiMnce

Raviaad September 14, 2012 7-3t

Article Artlc:le 7: Genenll DeveloprMnt S�ndarde Section 7.4: Plenned Unit Development (PUD) Standards

7-40

dwellings, must be set back a sufficient distance from the separating property line or district boundary line, not less than 30 feet for multifamily residential, public or institutional uses or 50 feet for commercial or industrial uses. The distances separating all buildings and activities surrounding residential districts should, In fact, be great enough to constitute a reasonable buffer. Loading docks and truck maneuvering areas and terminals, where possible, should be further removed from residential lot lines than buildings. Property lines abutting residential districts must be screened by a pennanent attractive planting screen, wall or fence in a buffer strip not less than seven feet in height and sufficient to screen out excessive sound and view from the residential areas, except where one- and two­family dwellings within the PUD district are on property immediately adjoining multifamily dwellings or townhouses In a residential district. In addition, all storage yards or outdoor display spaces must be enclosed with a planting screen, wall, or fence to a height of at least seven feet. including gates or exit points.

s. Within a PUD district, the design should include buffers suitable for screening residential areas from institutional, commercial or industrial uses when a danger of incompatibility appears to exist.

6. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect the highway and neighboring properties from direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind.

7. The maximum illumination at a property line with an abutting residential use shall not exceed 0.2 footcandles. On abutting non-residential properties or public streets the maximum illumination at the property line shall be 5 footcandles. Where residential is across a street, the maximum Illumination at the use's boundary shall be 2 footcandles.

8. Sign requirements may be set by the City Council, following recommendation by the Planning Commission.

9. In PUD districts, areas used for parking and loading or for traffic ways shall be physically separated from public streets by suitable barriers against unchanneled motor vehicle ingress or egress. Accessways shall generally conform to standards set forth in Section 8.2E, with the following exceptions: Shopping centers, other individual commercial, industrial, institutional and multifamily uses shall have not more than two access points to any public street, unless unusual circumstances demonstrate the need for additional access points. Where possible, all access points to a public street from shopping centers, other individual commercial, Industrial, institutional and multifamily uses shall be located at least 1 00 feet from the Intersection of any street lines and shall be designated in a manner conducive to safe ingress and egress.

10. A minimum of 20 percent of the gross area of the proposed development shall be open space. All open space areas shall be held in common for the enjoyment of the residents of the development or dedlcated to the City for the use and enjoyment of the general public.

a. A minimum of one-half of the required open space area shall be improved for passive and/or active recreational use.

ReviMd s.pt.mber 14, 2012 City of a..utort, South c.roun. Unified � Ordlnenc:e

b.

Article 7: General Development Standards Section 7.6 Sight Clearance: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards

Required open space shall be in addition to any required landscape, buffer, or setback areas required for individual uses within the development, with the exception of the 25-foot buffer surrounding the Planned Unit Development, which may be counted as open space.

ReviHCI September 14,2012 7-<41

CITY OF BEAUFORT Historic DistriCt Review Board

Initial Project Meeting- February 27, 2014 Staff Report

March 11,2014

Case Number: TBD Property Address: 900 Port Republic Street (PlN Rl21 004 000 0850 0000)

Structured Parking Solutions Applicant: Type of Request: New Construction - Parking Garage

CC- Core Commercial, Historic District Zoning:

Historical:

Request:

This parcel on Port Republic Street is located in the Historic Downtown Core. The parcel is currently mostly vacant, with the exception of 918 Craven, which is listed as Contributing on the 1997 Above Ground Historic Sites Survey. Historically, this block has evolved significantly over time. At the height of its development, around 1912, it contained a mixture of uses including a large ginnery, livery and feed shop, and 12 residential units of various sizes.

The applicant wishes to construct a parking structure for up to 500 cars.

Zoning: CC - Core Commercial • Setbacks-

o Front: 0' o Side: 0' o Rear: 0' o Side & Rear for Accessory Buildings (Historic District): 5'

• Maximum Height: o 35' above curb at the property line, 50' max. in the interior of the site so long

as it does not penetrate the sky exposure plane (for every 1' above 35', the building must be set back 1 ').OR

o If an open area is provided along the full length of Lhe front line, the 35' maximum height is waived. However the maximum building height is still 50' and no building or other structure shall penetrate the alternate sky exposure plane.

o Exceptions to height limits include: cupolas, spires, elevator shafts, mechanical equipment, and parapets and other devices used to screen rooftop equipment.

• Impervious Surface Coverage, Max: lOOCk

Synopsis of Applicable Guidelines: • Preservation Manual Supplement:

o Chapter 3 of the Preservation Manual Supp/eme/11 addresses New Construction. The intent of the guidelines is the "preservation of the cohesive ambience of the District by compatible, sympathetic, and contemporary

....

construction. They are written with the understanding that the more strict the guidelines are for new construction, the more severe are the limitations placed on creative and innovative solutions."

o Page 14 discusses absolute size of buildings. It states "If large scale construction is to be allowed, particular attention should be given to the location, siting, setbacks and fa�ade treatments of the proposed building."

o Page 15 discusses High density/large scale construction. It states that "where possible, alternative sites for large structures should be sought outside the Historic Beaufort District. .. " It is the desire of the applicant to locate within the district.

o A summary of the rest of the guidt!lin�s for largt: :st:ale <.;un:sLru<.;tion suggest: • "Seek the locations which have been intruded upon by modern

construction ... areas with a few or no historic structures, or areas which can best accommodate parking facilities."

• Large scale structures should be set back from every street on which they have frontage ... to avoid becoming the dominant element of a vista or streetscape. Large scale structures along a period commercial strcetscape should be strongly discouraged. At the very least the upper stories of the fac;ade should be stepped back."

• "intra-block areas should be used for the majority of the building area."

• "Apply to larger scale construction the same design guidelines regarding scale, materials, proportions, etc., that are outlined in this section" [with respect to Scale, Elevation of First Floor, Floor-To­Floor Heights, Bays, windows and doors. Absolute Size, Massing, Orientation, Proportion of Openings, Proportion of Volumes, Materials and Siting].

• Civic Master Plan- Pages 52-53 of the CMP depict a parking garage located in the interior o r the block, lined with buildings on Port Republic, Craven, and West Streets. lt is shown to be located behind buildings on Charles Street. Essentially, no portions of the garage were shown to be fully exposed to any streetscape. It is st,ated that the deck would accommodate approximately 280 cars, that the Craven Street side could be lined with apartments, and the others streets could be lined with commercial spaces.

• 2009 Comprehensive Plan- Pages 2 1 3-215 describe and depict a parking garage located in this location, lined with buildings on all street frontages. The garage is shown to accommodate 368 cars.

Staff Questions, Comments & Suggestions: • Existing Buildings: The concept plan showed the entire width of the block being

utilized by the parking garage. This includes two existing buildings- 918 Port Republic Street and 310 West Street. What is the plan for these buildings? 918 Craven is a contributing structure, c. 1930. It appears to have been moved to this location, as the Sanborn Maps through 1920 show a 2 story building on this site. 310 West Street is not listed on the survey. Both structures will require a public hearing to move and/or remove if that is the ultimate intent.

2

,.

• Siting: o It is critical that this building addresses the street appropriately. o The core of the large scale parking structure should be set within the interior

of the block, as per the Supplement. o The building should be lined on all sides with more incremental buildings to

create an appropriate interaction between the historic built fabric and the modern-day necessity of a parking garage. Liner buildings have been utilized increasingly over the past 15-20 years, particularly in applications where a parking garage is being inserted into blocks where the aei>thetics are critical to tile Slll round blocks and neighborhoods.

• As a note, the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, which abuts this parcel direclly to the north, does have requirements that "the entrance to any parking structure shall be on the side or the rear of the building and the first floor of the front of the structure shall contain office and/or commercial space." The Lady's Island Village Center, and Boundary Street Design Districts have this requirement as well. Historically, the intention was to make an amendment to the Core Commercial (CC) zoning district (which is in many respects more significant and important than Lhe other three listed above) to have these requirements for parking structures. However, with the new pending code still in progress, the most recent thought process was to just inCOtlJOrate similar standards for parking garages in CC into the new code.

o The most significant structure on this block is 915 Port Republic - Lucius Cuthbert House/Scheper House- c. 1820. Study of how a larger structure interfaces and impacts this building hould be done.

o A bicycle rack is required. o All mechanical equipment, including rooftop equipment, must be screened. o All dry utilities serving the site must be place underground. o Any dumpsters must be screened on all four sides. o A lighting plan is required. Full cut-off fixtures are required. o Signage requires a separate permit.

• Elevation of First Floor: This block is a transitional block, as one side contains commercial structures, buill at grade, and the other side fronting Craven Street faces residential and civic strucmres which are elevated off of grade. The concept of a liner residential building helps to bridge this gap and reflects the ftrst floor elevations across Craven Street. The structure is also located in tl1e tlood plain, so unless they are flood-proofed, all inhabitable space must be raised to a minimum of 13' above Base Flood Elevation.

• Floor-To-Floor Heights: New construction should have floor-to-floor heights, particularly on the ground floor, that are consistent with the surround areas. Commercial structures in Beaufort typicalJy have l I' -14' first floor clear heights, while residential structures range from 9'-12' typically. Liner buildings facilitate this by providing a natural location for the e first floor heights when vii>ible from the public right-of-way. The mid-block parking structure would not need to replicate

3

.. .. these heights, as they would not be visible from the street.

• Bays, Windows & Doors I Proportions: The proportions of building bays, and opening should be carefully studied and compatible with the surrounding buildings. Particularly for a large-scale structure, the rhythm of the bays will be critical to the new streetscape formed by the building. False fenestration and modulation is not recommended as it detracts from the integrity of the street, block and historic district.

• Absolute Size: o It is not appropriate to have one, monolithic structure that encompasses the

entire block, visible from the streetscapc. Liner buildings are essential to create real building increments at the stn:�et. Fru111 a us�; p�::rspecti ve this alleviates the resultant mono-use block and building as well, something that is not characteristic of Beaufort's historic district. Currently and historically, there are not and have not been any other blocks in the core commercial downtown that are single-use. The Core Commercial district is characterized by an intricate pattern of buildings, scales and uses, and this continues to be the building pattem that is encouraged and desired.

• The two largest buildings in this area, that take up all or the majority of a block, are the former Bank of America building at500 Carteret Street, and the Post Office on Charles Street. Neither of these blocks reflect ideal or appropriate building patterns for Beaufort, particularly it the Historic District.

o With regards to the 500 parking-space number/requirement that was discussed in the initial meeting, it is important that current and future demand be considered, but not be the sole, or even primary, driving element. Design, character and careful integration into one of the city's most valuable resources

-the historic district-must be concurrently at the forefront of the design effort. This approach may affect the required absolute size of the building, particularly the parking component.

• Massing: Solid-to-void ratios, fenestration and porches/exterior projections and overhangs should all be compatible with the current existing fabric. .

• Orientation: Typically, Beaufort has an east-west building orientation, with the primary fa<_;:ade located on east-west streets. However in the Historic District, particularly adjacent to the primary north-south commercial corridor of Charles Street, it is important that the building be sited and oriented to address all street frontages appropriately. The street hierarchy in this block, is Craven & Charles being the two primary streets, and then West Street being a secondary street. All frontages should all be carefully and specifically considered.

• Materials: New materials are appropriate on new buildings, however they should be compatible and sympathetic with regards to color, scale, function and craftsmanship, to the surrounding context and the overall Historic District.

4

TO: SCOTT DADSON

FROM: KATHY TODD

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING

DATE: 3/10/2014

CC: FILE

Scott,

As you requested, the following is my assessment, from a financial perspective, regarding recent discussions with the Redevelopment Commission representatives and our subsequent meeting with Greg Darden and company on Thursday, February 27, 2014.

Background -The MOU dated November 13, 2013 between the Furman Company, the City and the City's Redevelopment Commission, Section 2, states "the Parties recognize that redevelopment of the Property will likely drive demand for additional parking to serve both new and legacy uses. This parking may be on-sire and/or In a nearby parking deck as envisioned in the Civic Master Plan. The ROC acknowledges that the commitment to deliver off-site parking in critical to the Project, as well as to the continued growth of the downtown area, as indicated in the Civic Master Plan. The ROC and Developer agree to begin the process of addressing public parking, and, in conjunction with the final concept plan, to develop a specific plan to address the most appropriate on-site and off-site parking solutions for the Project, both short-term and long-term, including a transition plan for control of parking disruptions during construction at the Project site."

In addition, on November 51n, 2009, the City and the ROC entered into an agreeme11t whereby the ROC would provide oversight of the Parking Management Company regarding on-street parking and to enter into contract with the Parking Management Company. The monthly net proceeds from the on-street parking would be reported in the ROC fund and support ROC activities, subject to the agreement ROC entered into with Main Street Beaufort.

Average annual net revenues received under the contract with the Parking Management Company (Lanier Parking) are approximately $150,000. Out of the net revenues, contractual obligations under the agree·ment between ROC and Main Street in the estimated amount of $56,500 are paid out and $25,000 is reserved under the required allocation for infrastructure replacement In future years. An estimated $68,500 is available annually for ROC supported activities. The City does not receive any other revenues for parking other than what is currently recorded through ROC.

,. .

Further, on January 9, 2014, you and I met with Jon Verity and Alan Dechovitz regarding the Marina parking lot and what the financing options are in addressing the Parking issue. The attached memo, based on discussions with our Bond Counsel, was the focus of the meeting and outlined two financial (2) options. We discussed these financial concerns and options and it was recommended that the City did not have sufficient resources to support the costs and risks of owning and operating a parking facility.

During the meeting on February 27, 2014 with Greg Darden and his associates it appeared that they were looking to the City to fund and carry the risk of addressing the Parking facility needs. The same financial concerns that were remunerated to ROC representatives were addressed with Mr. Darden and associates.

Based on previous study, the cost of constructing a 350 space parking garage was estimated at approximately $8M. Mr. Darden indicated that the City should consider a large parking garage will 500+ spaces which would drive the costs of construction up. Based on National Averages, construction of a Parking Garage for 350 spaces would estimate $17,400 per space or a total of $6,090,000. That same estimate applied to a garage with 500 spaces would cost approximately $8,700,000. In addition, the average annual maintenance costs would be estimated between $140,000 - $245,000 for a 350 space parking garage and $200,000 -$350,000 for a 500 space parking garage. To reiterate, these amount are based on national averages and do not take into consideration all of the factors that could affect the true cost of construction and maintenance.

As a result, the City does not have adequate revenues available to support the construction, maintenance and operations related to owning a Parking facility without the following options being made available:

• Additional General Fund support which would require a decrease in resources for other General Fund supported service levels for resources to be freed up and applied toward the parking operations and maintenance,

• Changes to the fee structure and boundaries related to on-street parking, and • Creation of a Municipal Improvement District in accordance with §5-37 et al

All three of the above options would need to be considered if the City were to choose to own and operating a parking garage.

Attachment

2

ATTACHMENT FROM JANUARY 9, 2014 MEETING

All-

Kathy and I discussed with our Bond Counsel the Issue of the city's role, if any, in a parking

garage related to the marina parking lot and its potential development and its financial arrangements if

the city were to participate. The City may enter into financing of such a structure. There are several

financial arrangements to consider, if the City were to participate in such. It should be noted that the

City does not necessarily have to replace the parking spaces lost with other public spaces. Further, such

an arrangement can be a private matter between the developer of the marina site and the owner of a

parking lot or parking structure.

The issue of whether or not the financing is tax exempt depends on the public use of such a

structure and its spaces. In genera l terms, the portion of such a structure that is financed with tax

exempt financing, must be 90% available to the public. The same rules would not apply to taxable

financing arrangements. Secondly, the City may enter into such a financial arrangement through the use

of Revenue Bonds. Hospitality Tax Revenues could be used as a pledge against the revenue bonds,

parking fees, or a combination. To qualify for tax-exempt financing, private dollars would be restricted

to no more than 10% of the debt service. The use of Revenue Bonds would not impact the City's debt

ceiling impacting General Obligation Bonds. Lastly, there are Parking Revenue Bonds, which must be

secured by revenues from the project.

The total amount of Hospitality Tax taken In by the City in FY 13 was $1.Sm. Of this, $309,000 in

revenue is pledged to current debt service on the Waterfront Park; 1.1% and 4% are allocated to Main

Street and the Beaufort County Regional Chamber of Commerce, respectfully, in accordance with the

City's Ordinance and the remainder is used for operations of public services and public safety. Current

parking revenues (gross) in FY were $414,000 less $278,000 in operating expenses. This is for all 412

metered parking spaces in the downtown parking district, of which 150 are located on the lot targeted

for the Marina project. The project is estimated to displace those 150 spaces in the marina parking lot.

In 2007, the estimate for the cost of building a parking deck was BM (Estimated value would be

around $9M in today's dollars). For purposes of this discussion, we are using this 350 space garage

estimate to frame the matter moving forward. A $9m dollar debt service would be a yearly payment of

$537,726, assuming a 3% interest for 20 years. The operating cost of garage (private) is

$350/space/year in 2007 dollars for a total of $122,500 per year. There will need to be guaranteed

revenues, year over year, to cover the cost of the debt service and operating costs of the garage.

The City could simply sell or leases the property at the marina and lose 150 spaces, the revenues

that go with it, and replaces some portion of these spaces in on-street parking. Outside of this, if either

the project or the City sees value in providing parking as a public good, there are several ways to

approach this that would be palatable to the City Management that would be financially prudent:

1. The City could purchase some portion of spaces of a private venture between the

marina developer and others to include the Trask lot or other like lots or structures.

These would be public spaces. This is the option with the least risk to the City.

Using the cost of $21,000 per space this would be $3,150,000.

ATIACHMENT FROM JANUARY 9, 2014 MEETING

2. The City Could be the developer of a parking deck. The City would need to

guarantee a sufficient revenue stream to both pay a debt payment of $SOOK to

$600K and operating costs of $122,500{both amounts subject to adjustment based

on inflation cost between 2007 and the current year). This would require

guarantees from private users, which would affect the ratio of tax exempt and

taxable financing and thus the cost of the borrowing. These guarantees would need

to be rock solid in order for any borrowing to be bankable. The City would use

either a Parking Revenue Bond (preferred) or a Hospitality Tax Revenue Bond with

parking revenue as the revenue source. This would also entail the ability of the City

to secure a site for a parking deck, the approval of same, and the examination of

current on street parking rates and restrictions of parking within the downtown

district.

These options are the opinion of Management and Bond Counsel. If City resources are to be

involved then cost estimates, financing structure, and equity agreements would need to flow through

City Management and City Bond Counsel prior to approval by City Council. Since this is project driven, it

is suggested that the ROC and its development partner propose a project/development strategy specific

to solving the parking question for review and consideration.