Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Show me the money   apa presentation 9-17-10
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Show me the money apa presentation 9-17-10

  • 376 views
Published

2010 APA Florida Presentation

2010 APA Florida Presentation

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
376
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SHOW M E THE M ONEY: BRI NGI NG REALI TY TO REDEVELOP M EN T APA Florida Conference September 17, 2010
  • 2. Stephen A. David, Director James G. LaRue, AICP Sharon Jenkins-Owen, AICP
  • 3. South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency • City of South Miami & CRA Location • Existing Land Uses •Area Amenities • Area Demographics • Past, Present Conditions • Agency Establishment (Madison Square Project) • Madison Square – Historical Significance • Local Political Concerns • Need for Re-Evaluation of Current Market • Preparation and Approval of Scope of Services
  • 4. City of South Miami & CRA Location
  • 5. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities South Miami Location Map (Miami Beach, South Miami, Coral Gables, Coconut Grove, Pinecrest )
  • 6. City of South Miami Land Uses
  • 7. City of South Miami Future Land-Use Map (Prior to 1997) Land-Use Categories (Prior to 1997) 1. General Retail 2. Neighborhood Retail 3. Auto Service 4. Public & Semi Public 5. Special Retail Residential
  • 8. City of South Miami 1997 Future Land-Use Map (Citizen Participation and Dover, Kohl Influence)
  • 9. CRA Area Land Uses
  • 10. South Miami Community Redevelopment Area Map
  • 11. City/CRA Area Demographics
  • 12. City / Community Redevelopment Area Profile South Miami SMCRA % of City Total Acres 1,552 185 12% Population 10,741 1,951 18.6% Black 26% 66% White 74% 34% Hispanic 34% 19% Income $42,488 $22,296 52.5% Housing $170,000 $98,000 58%
  • 13. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities Transit-Oriented District Miami-Dade County Metro-Rail Station (Sunset Drive)
  • 14. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities Shops of Sunset Mixed-Use Redevelopment (Old Bakery Center)
  • 15. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities Completed Infrastructure & Streetscape Improvements Sunset Drive Improvements Church Street Improvements SW 66th Street Improvements Sunset Drive Improvements
  • 16. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities Red Road Commons Shops of Sunset Mixed-Use Redevelopment Projects The Valencia
  • 17. City and Community Redevelopment Area Amenities State of the Art Community Center Park Improvements
  • 18. South Miami CRA Redevelopment Plan Madison Square SMCRA Madison Square (Dover, Kohl ) (2005 Redevelopment Plan Update) (2003 Corradino Study)
  • 19. Madison Square Project - Historical Significance Marshall Williamson • City of South Miami Pioneer • Born in Madison Florida (1890) • African American • Large Landowner • Donated Large Tracts of Land for Community Development Purposes (St. John’s AME Church, JRE Lee Elementary School, South Miami Senior Center)
  • 20. Local Area Politics Constituent Concerns & Electoral Platforms  Maintain “Small Town” Atmosphere  Regulate and Encourage Sustainable Development  Minimize Project Densities and Building Heights
  • 21. Need for Re-Evaluation of Current Market Constituent Concerns & Subsequent Electoral Platforms  Will Electoral Platforms = Financially Feasible Redevelopment ?  Will Reduced Project Heights & Densities = Affordable Housing ?  Will Developers Bid on Proposed Redevelopment Project ?  $SHOW ME THE MONEY$
  • 22. Development of Consultant Scope of Services 1. Formulate Most Appropriate Project Densities and Future Building Heights Based on Compatibility with Surrounding Area; 2. Will the Above Referenced Density & Height Determinations Result in an Economically Viable Redevelopment Project? 3. What would be the Minimum Project Height & Density Threshold Which Will Allow for and Economically Viable Project? 4. Given the Current Economic Conditions, What Would Be the Most Appropriate Commercial Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for the Proposed Project? 5. Develop a Framework for a Regulatory Approach which will facilitate development of the project as a unique situation not generally transferable to other properties or situations in the community.
  • 23. Reality Ideal Gap Becomes Target
  • 24. • Diagnostic Concept • Best Practices • Regulations
  • 25. • Madison Square Needs Viable Development • Realistic for Developer • Neighborhood Compatibility • Acceptance by Government Entities • Housing Must Be Affordable
  • 26. • Planning vs Reality • Visual – Design • Alternate Scenarios • Specific Planning Recommendations
  • 27. Team • SMCRA • SMCRA Community • LaRue Team
  • 28. • Different Skill Requirements for Project Analysis • Public Planning and Government Skills • Architect / Builder Expertise • Affordable Housing Knowledge • Zoning / Regulatory Expertise • Urban Design Skills
  • 29. • Changing Market Conditions • Highest and Best Use • Compatible • Feasible • Marketable
  • 30. • Existing Land Use • Surrounding Neighborhood Character: Height, Size, Scale, Land Use Mix, Features • Infrastructure • Distance to Services & Transit • Existing Entitlements • Regulatory Constraints • Proforma: Current Market, Sales & Rentals
  • 31. • Planning Research Skills • Design Concepts • Planning Solutions
  • 32. GOALS • SUSTAINABLE • VIABLE • LIVEABLE
  • 33. • Conditions • Land Uses (Housing mix) • Infrastructure • Drainage • Densities • Distance to Schools, Commercial & Civic • Transit Access • Entitlements • Regulatory Constraints • R-O-W Widths -Easements
  • 34. • Coastal • Wetlands • Protected Species • Wildlife Corridors / Crossings • Historic Flow-ways • Canals • Brownfields • Greyfields
  • 35. • Economic Attractors • Community Themes • Ports
  • 36. • Neighborhood • Existing Land Uses / Mixture of Uses • Size, Mass, Height, FAR, Design Features • Connecting People & Places • Multi-Modal Transportation • Access, Footpaths • Interconnecting Uses
  • 37. • Comprehensive Plan / EAR • Land Development Code • Plat, Ordinances, Resolutions • Restrictions • Property Appraiser • GIS • Meeting Minutes • 2010 Census • Florida Statistical Abstract
  • 38. • Abandoned • Foreclosures • Reuse Opportunities • Forgotten Easements • Platted R-O-W Improvements
  • 39. • Madison Square EAR Based Amendments • Mixed Use Commercial / Residential 4 Story • Single-family Residential • Proposed Neighborhood Center / Mixed Use 4 Story • Existing Non-Conforming Lots
  • 40. • Neighborhood Retail NR • Small Lot Single-family Residential RS-4 • Planned Unit Development • Community Service Overlay • Historic Preservation Overlay • Transit-Oriented Development District
  • 41. • “Tight-knit” African American Community • 66% African American; 19% Hispanic • Low Incomes • High Poverty • Young (56% of the population under age 35) • 1,951 Population (± 365 residents since 1990) • 1999 Incomes under $25,000 Annually • Renter • 2000: 754 Units / 40 Vacant
  • 42. • Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Housing • Affordability • Income Limits Housing sales between January 2009 and November 2009 indicate very little availability for Very Low Income families. Most of the sales would accommodate Low Income families. There are very few rentals available in the subject area.
  • 43. • Subject Property • Platted-Undeveloped • Mixed Use Commercial /Residential 4 story FLUM • Zoned NR, Neighborhood Retail • 5 Lots: Single-family Residential 2 story FLUM • 4 Lots: Single-family RS-4
  • 44. • Combined 1.92 Acres • Frontage 350 ft: SW 60th Avenue 200 ft: SW 59th Place 360 ft: SW 64th Street
  • 45. • Current Comprehensive Plan FLUM Mix Residential, Retail, Office Land Uses 24 du/ac Maximum 1.6 FAR Intensity 4 Story Maximum • Proposed Amendment to Neighborhood Center / Mixed Use 4 Story Density Increase to 60 du/ac 2.0 FAR Intensity
  • 46. • Parcel Does Not Meet PUD-R / PUD-M Size Standard • If PUD Zoning: Amend Current PUD-R Zoning District Regulations • Create New PUD District
  • 47. Non-Conforming Lots • A Lot of Record = 1 SF Unit/Lot (Conditions) • SMCRA Ownership = Less Than 1 Unit / Lot Allowed if Redeveloped • NR Zoning District Does Not Permit Single-family Uses • Limited to Commercial (Unless Rezoned)
  • 48. Surrounding Neighborhood • Single-family 1 Story • Multi-family 2 Story • Scattered Nonresidential • Small Platted Lots • Paved, 2-Lane Undivided Local Roadways • 1 Mile Proximity to Metro Rail Station
  • 49. • Basic Go, No-Go Analysis for Developers • Does Development Work in Dollars and Cents?
  • 50. Proformas for Planners • Educate Us • Keep Us Realistic • Point to Logical Decision Making • Prevent Unrealistic Alternatives
  • 51. Proforma Summary Proforma 101 Getting Familiar with a Basic Tool of Real Estate Analysis by Wayne A Lemmon
  • 52. Proforma - Architects Project “Program” • Balances Density, Intensity • Measures Height with Feasibility • Allows Incentives as “Sweetener”
  • 53. Madison Square Proforma Preliminary Scenario I High Density
  • 54. Land Cost Incentive Preliminary Scenario I High Density
  • 55. Land Cost Incentive Secondary Scenario 1 High Density
  • 56. Land Cost Incentive Secondary Scenario 2 Medium Density
  • 57. Report Exhibit 1
  • 58. Recapping Purpose of Study • Analyze 19 lots of Madison Square • As Assembled Project • Highest Best Use Accepted • Compatible with Neighborhood • Best Regulatory Approach • Marketability
  • 59. Current Market Climate • Condos “not in” • Neighborhood Commercial Desired • Low Income Housing / Rentals
  • 60. Three Scenario Approach To Gauge: • Desired Density / Intensity • Compatibility • Feasibility
  • 61. Subject Area
  • 62. Building Inventory Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Building Cost Walk-up 35 units 500 sq. ft. 17,500 sq. ft. $175.00 $3,062,500.00 Apartments Garden 39 units 600 sq. ft. 23,400 sq. ft. $160.00 $3,744,000.00 Apartments Townhouses 4 units 1,200 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft. $120.00 $576,000.00 Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 78 52,700 sq. ft. $8,082,500.00
  • 63. Building Inventory Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Building Cost Walk-up 35 units 500 sq. ft. 17,500 sq. ft. $175.00 $3,062,500.00 Apartments Garden 26 units 600 sq. ft. 15,600 sq. ft. $160.00 $2,496,000.00 Apartments Townhouses 4 units 1,200 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft. $120.00 $576,000.00 Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 65 44,900 sq. ft. $6,834,500.00
  • 64. Building Inventory Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Building Cost Walk-up 18 units 500 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. $175.00 $1,575,000.00 Apartments Garden 24 units 600 sq. ft. 14,400 sq. ft. $160.00 $2,304,000.00 Apartments Townhouses 4 units 1,200 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft. $120.00 $576,000.00 Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 46 35,200 sq. ft. $5,155,000.00
  • 65. Building Inventory Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Building Cost 1 BR 21 units 453 sq.ft. 9,513 sq.ft. $175.00 $1,664,775.00 Units 2 BR 18 units 700 sq.ft. 12,600 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,016,000.00 Units 3 BR 18 units 917 sq.ft. 16,506 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,640,960.00 Units Townhouse 4 units 1,600 sq.ft. 6,400 sq.ft. $150.00 $960,000.00 Units Total 61 units 45,019 sq.ft. Residential Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 52,019 sq. ft. $7,981,735.00
  • 66. Building Inventory Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Building Cost 1 BR 21 units 453 sq.ft. 9,513 sq.ft. $175.00 $1,664,775.00 Units 2 BR 18 units 700 sq.ft. 12,600 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,016,000.00 Units 3 BR 18 units 917 sq.ft. 16,506 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,640,960.00 Units Townhouse 4 units 1,600 sq.ft. 6,400 sq.ft. $150.00 $960,000.00 Units Total 61 units 45,019 sq.ft. Residential Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 52,019 sq. ft. $7,981,735.00
  • 67. Building Inventory Building Residential Count Sq. Ft./Unit Total Cost/Sq. Ft. Cost 1 BR 21 units 453 sq.ft. 9,513 sq.ft. $175.00 $1,664,775.00 Units 2 BR 18 units 700 sq.ft. 12,600 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,016,000.00 Units 3 BR 18 units 917 sq.ft. 16,506 sq.ft. $160.00 $2,640,960.00 Units Townhouse 4 units 1,600 sq.ft. 6,400 sq.ft. $150.00 $960,000.00 Units Total 61 units 45,019 sq.ft. Residential Commercial 7,000 sq. ft. $100.00 $700,000.00 Totals 52,019 sq. ft. $7,981,735.00
  • 68. • Neighborhood Compatibility • Services demand – FAR, Intensity • Housing Types – Multi-family, Affordable • Seeking Balance Between Community, Government & Developer
  • 69. • High Density • 32 du/ac • $7,981,735
  • 70. • Medium Density • 26.5 du/ac • $6,653,415
  • 71. • Low Density • 22 du/ac • $5,874,490
  • 72. • Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use 4-Story • Mixed Use/Commercial Residential/PUD-R • Mixed Use/Commercial Residential/New PD or Zoning Category
  • 73. Maximum Maximum Units Commercial Pros Cons Floors Option 1 115 dwelling 2.0 FAR 4 Allows more units and Commercial; PUD Units would be units as allows site specific conditions to small to currently address constraints and compatibility; accommodate proposed reducing allowable density to 41 du/ac 115 units; would be somewhat compatible with the Preliminary neighborhood; Providing 78 units on the Scenario 1 subject parcels allow for more economic diversity within the development; The Secondary revised high density scenario becomes Scenario 1 61 total units; Projects with more units have a competitive advantage in Preliminary obtaining and leveraging funds. Scenario 1 The proposed NC/MU density would be further reduced to 34 dwelling units per Secondary acre for a total of 65 units. The revised Scenario 2 medium density scenario becomes 51 total units or 26.5 du/ac.
  • 74. Maximum Maximum Units Commercial Pros Cons Floors Option 2 46 1.6 FAR 4 Only 5 lots need to undergo the Limited to Comprehensive Plan amendment 46 units Preliminary process and would qualify as a small Scenario 3 scale amendment; PUD allows site specific conditions to address Preliminary constraints and compatibility; Scenario 3 Modifying existing PUD-R category is typically easier than devising a new Secondary category; Scenario 3 46 maximum number of units more compatible with surrounding neighborhood; The revised low density scenario becomes 42 total units; Smaller number of units would attract larger pool of developers specializing in affordable housing.
  • 75. Maximum Maximum Units Commercial Pros Cons Floors Option 3 46 1.6 FAR 4 Only 5 lots need to undergo the Limited Comprehensive Plan amendment process to 46 Preliminary and would qualify as a small scale units Scenario 3 amendment; PUD regulation can be created specifically tailored to the project; New PUD Secondary could be used to encourage additional Scenario 3 affordable housing on redevelopment sites; 46 and revised as 42 maximum number of units more compatible with surrounding neighborhood; Smaller number of units would attract larger pool of developers specializing in affordable housing.
  • 76. • Employment and Apprenticeship Job Training Programs • Business Start-up Assistance Program • Commercial Rehabilitation Program • Consumer Credit Counseling • Multi-family Rehabilitation Program for Developments • Multi-family Rehabilitation Program for Individual Property Owners • Single-family Home Rehabilitation Program • Home Ownership Program • Bowman Scholarship Program • Specific Financial and Regulatory Incentives
  • 77. • Provide Land To Developer At No Cost • Provide Infrastructure Contributions, Including Sidewalks/Bikeways, Landscaping, Drainage Improvements • Allow Joint Use And Street Parking
  • 78. • Increasing Density / Intensity NOT A GOOD OPTION
  • 79. • Create new Land Development Regulations expediting the permitting process to encourage affordable housing projects.
  • 80. • The SMCRA could assist the Developer with finding and qualifying renters.
  • 81. • The City could offer a property tax discount similar to the State’s “Homestead Exemption” Program.
  • 82. • The SMCRA could offer assistance with locating and completing grant applications that would help finance the development of affordable housing on the property.
  • 83. STEPHEN DAVID, DIRECTOR sdavid@cityofsouthmiami.net 305-668-7230 JAMES G. LARUE, AICP jim@larueplanning.com 239-334-3366 SHARON JENKINS-OWEN, AICP sharon@sjolandconsultants.com 239-849-0656