Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-24 City CouncilTO: City. Manager’s Repor HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager AGENDA DATE:April 24, 1997 CMR:215:97 SUBJECT:UPDATE ON MIDTOWN REVITALIZATION This is an informational report and no Council action is required. The purpose of this report is to bring the Council up-to-date on what has occurred in terms of the City’s participation in the Midtown revitalization efforts since the last status report in September 1996. Staff provided the City Council with an update on the Midtown Revitalization Plan on September 24, 1996 (CMR:403:96). The report included a request for Council direction on City participation in costs associated with implementing the Midtown Conceptual Master Plan. At the request of the property owners, the report was pulled from the Council agenda, so that further discussions could occur among the property owners on the next steps to be taken and how the Conceptual Master Plan could be funded. On September 25, directly following the Council meeting at which the staff report requesting direction on City participation in Midtown improvements was pulled from the agenda, staff met with representatives of the Midtown property owners. At that meeting, the property owners provided more information to staff as to the concerns which had led thereto ask that action on the staff report be postponed. Among the issues discussed were: the cost of preparing a Final Master Plan .and taking it through the City approval process; the cost estimates presented by staff in the report for construction of improvements.t~ the Midtown shopping center, which were proposed to be funded through an assessment district; possible alternatives to assessment district financing, including use of General Fund reserves at some agreed-upon rate of interest; and questions about how the narrowing of Middlefield Road could be incorporated into the overall Master Plan. In relation to the issue of alternative financing, staff shared information developed on the Community Reinvestment Act, and provided a contact person with a local bank who had expressed interest in becoming involved with the project. The Director of Planning and Community Environment provided information on the differences in City process between proceeding with a finalized Master Plan versus .moving ahead without incurring the expense of a Master Plan that had the approval of the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council. The attached handouts were usedto outline the differences between proceeding with and without a Master Plan. Of particular CMR: 215:97 Page 1 of 3. note was that relocation of the traffic signal did not need approval of a Master Plan. Also discussed was that without a Master Plan, changes on each property would have to be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial zoning, including applicable parking regulations. A presentation was made by Tom Richman, a landscape architect engagedby Mr. Rapp to prepare conceptual plans for parking~ infrastructure, lighting, landscaping and amenities. Mr. Riehman had also estimated the costs of the improvements proposed, and provided a conceptual plan for sharing those costs between the City and the property owners. Staff emphasized that it was critical that the Conceptual Master Plan be finalized before moving to discussions of cost sharing of potential improvements. On October 31, staffmet with Mr. Hanley to discuss alternatives to finalizing the Master Plan. Mr. Hanley had scheduled a meeting of the property owners on November 6 to discuss these issues, which staff was invited to attend. The meeting was also attended by Council member Andersen, and by Mr. Jack Bariteau and Mr. Warren Thoits, representing the Chamber of Commerce mentoring group. Mr. Bariteau presented reasons why, from his perspective as a shopping center developer, a Master Plan was a critical element in successful revitalization of the center. Staff again discussed the benefits resulting from a Master Plan, including the need to complete a parking and circulation plan in order to allow the City to relocate the traffic signal to Bryson Court, and the advantages of treating building floor area as part of a unified shopping center rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis, which is required by existing zoning regulations. Architect John Northway presented information to justify undertaking an engineer’s survey, of the center, including providing accurate numbers on existing square footage. Staff learned subsequent to the meeting, that the property owners had decided to proceed with funding an engineer’s survey of the center. In November 1996, the owners of the former Bergmann’s building filed a design review application for renovation of the building’s exterior. The ARB approved a, revised application on January 2, 1997. Subsequently, there was an appeal of the approval to the City Council. The Council denied the appeal and approved the project on February 3. Construction started soon thereafter and work on the project continues. On December 18, City staff and Council. members Wheeler and Andersen met with Mr. Hanley and Mr. Foy. Mr. Hanley reported that, as part of his negotiations with Long’s Drugs as a possible tenant, he had been working with a consultant to determine how much parking could actually be accommodated in the center, based on the engineer’s survey. Mr. Han!ey indicated that he had ¯ checked with Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway, who had indicated that a circulation plan was required to support moving the traffic signal, and that the consultant’s efforts would not meet this need. Mr. Hanley indicated that Long’s would not be interested in becoming a tenant in the center unless there was shared parking: Mr. Hanley owned .40 spaces, and Long’s indicated it would need at least double that amount. Staff continued to emphasize the need for a circulation plan before the traffic signal could be relocated. On Februa~ 6, staff met with Mr. Hanley and representatives of Long’s Drugs to discuss issues related to their potential occupancy of the old Midtown Market. Parking~ circulation and the relocation of the existing traffic signal were discussed, and Long’s requested that the City consider CMR: 215:97 Page 2 of 3 assisting them by ensuring through zoning authority that no other drug store could locate in the center. Staff again analyzed the need for a parking and circulation plan prior to relocation of the signal, and reviewed the benefits of finalizing the Conceptual Master Plan. Staff responded to Long’s request for assurance of non-competition that it was not within the City’ s authority. On March 18, stair again met with Mr. Rapp and Mr. Hardey because of concerns that the property owners felt the City staff was not supporting the revitalization effort. Staff re-enforced its commitment to Midtown and committed to provide Mr. Hanley with a letter confirming the requirements that would need to be met for a recommendation to the Council to consider relocating ¯ the Waffle signal to Bryson Court. Cost sharing for the improvements was again discussed, and Mr. Rapp and Mr. Hanley agreed that it was incumbent on the property owners to present a proposal which staffcould analyze and present to the Council with a recommendation. Staff urged the property owners to work with City Transportation and Public Works staff to ensure that cost estimates were agreed upon prior to the proposal being forwarded. The City Manager committed to bringing the proposal forward as soon as it was ready, and not requiring that it fit into the normal City budget process. PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager Ken Sehreiber, Director of Planning and Community Development Midtown Property Owners Midtown Resident Representatives CMR:215:97 Page 3 of 3 MIDTOWN -- NO MASTER PLAN PROCESS Floor Area. 0 Land Use and Design’lssues. o Current Neighborhood Commercial rules continue in effect. Parking. o CN parking requirements by parcel remain. o City lot cannot be used as a "credit" for private uses. Traffic Si~oual/Entry. Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 0.4:1 FAR by parcel remains. No shifting.or, exceeding floor area without a Planned Community zone. Need an ARB application to fo.rmalize agreement on entry location/ drivewaylparking/eormeetion to City lot. City would require a public circulation easement for the entry driveway and connection to the City parking lot. (Note: City needs survey information on current property and easement lines.) Public Process. Individual property ARB applications. ARB, Planning Commission and City Council review of entry area/circulation to City par.king lot. MIDTOWN -- MASTER PLAN PROCESS " Floor Area. o Floor area and potential for .shifting floor area established by the Master Plan. Land Use and Design .Issues .O Master Plan to establish new rules - possible areas include: office size limitations,. -ground floor retail and office, -transition rules (e.g., yards, Screening, daylight plane), -parking setbacks and landscaping, .... -height,... -sign program, and -landscaping.. ¯o Master Plan likely to establish some architeet’ural design guidelines. Parking. Establish new 1:275-square-f0ot parking requirement for unified shopping center. City lot spaces counted toward the overall 1:275 requirement.O Traffic Signal/Entry. o Master Plan establishes entry location/driveway/parking/connection to City ¯lot and other-rear parking areas. (Note: City needs survey information on current property and easement lines.) o Public circulation easement for the entry and connection to City parking lot likely to be required: Public Process. o Need property owners to agree, on Conceptual Plan, including pooling parking and funding improvements. o Planning Commission, ARB and Ci.ty Council review of.Master Plan and incorporation of Plan into Comprehensive Plan and zoningregulations. o October 9 Commission/ARB study session delayed to date uncertain.