CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SAXTON S RFP SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING PLYMOUTH CITY HALL Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Transcription

1 831 Penniman Ave. Plymouth MI Ph: Fax: CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SAXTON S RFP SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING PLYMOUTH CITY HALL Tuesday, January 24, Roll Call Oliver Wolcott, Chairperson Dan Dwyer, Mayor Jim Mulhern, PC Colleen Polin, HDC Mike Devine, ZBA Jason Smith, DDA 2. Citizens Comments 3. Sub-committee Comments 4. Union Street Development interview 1 p.m. a. Developer presentation b. Sub-committee questions c. Evaluation form 5. DevMar Development interview 3 p.m. a. Developer presentation b. Sub-committee questions c. Evaluation form 6. Harmonie Park Development interview 5 p.m. a. Developer presentation b. Sub-committee questions c. Evaluation form 7. Sub-Committee discussion 8. Adjournment

2 Development Proposal For Saxton s Property City of Plymouth, Michigan Date: December 16, 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Project Name: Plan Date: Location: Zoning: Union Street Development, LLC (Pappas/StudioH2G) Saxton s Redevelopment Plan Not dated W. Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. B-2, Central Business (AA Trail) O-1, Office (Maple Ave.) INTRODUCTION The City of Plymouth Downtown Development Authority (DDA) issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) to help the DDA identify a developer to redevelop the former Saxton s Property as a public-private partnership/agreement. The purpose of the project is to redevelop this area with a mixed-use development that also includes a public parking area for at least 150 vehicles. These parking spaces would be in addition to any required parking for the proposed uses. Project objectives outlined in the RFEI/RFP include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 150 public parking spaces on site. 2. Expand the City s Tax base. 3. Create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that complements the existing uses in the area and complements Kellogg Park, fitting in with the character of the downtown and the City overall.

3 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review 4. Continues the redevelopment of downtown Plymouth by creating an iconic project on the site. 5. Act as a major draw, attracting both residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth. 6. Act as a catalyst for additional development in the surrounding area to help create a more dynamic downtown environment. 7. Act as an entrance to the downtown area, creating a gateway that welcome s visitors who are traveling west on Ann Arbor Trail. Once the developer is chosen and an agreement reached, the plans will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, City Commission (as a PUD development), and the Historic District Commission. An aerial of the general vicinity of the project is provided below: Gathering Place Kellogg Park Wilcox House Mayflower Project Site Source: Google maps PROJECT DESCRIPTION A redevelopment plan has been submitted by the Union Street Development, LLC to construct a 3-story, mixed-use building that wraps around a 3-story parking structure. The project will include retail and residential uses along Ann Arbor Trail, and three-story brownstones along Maple Ave. It also includes preservation and re-purposing of the Jewell & Blaich building. 2

4 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review On Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St., the proposed building will have first floor retail, and two upper floors of apartments. The Deer St. frontage will include the entrance to the parking structure. The Maple Ave. frontage will include brownstone residential units. A close-up aerial of the project site is shown below. Project Site Note that a parcel of land at the very corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer Streets (in green), and the existing single-family house on the corner of Maple Ave. and Deer (in blue) are included in the concept design. However, neither is currently owned by the City or this developer. MASTER PLAN The City of Plymouth adopted its most current Master Plan in The Future Land Use map in this document identifies the desired future uses of the land on the project site. Future Land Use of Project site Parcels on the project site adjacent to Ann Arbor Trail are identified as Central Business, and parcels on the project site adjacent to Maple Ave. are identified as Office. The intent of the Central Business future land use category is to provide for residential, office, and commercial uses in the downtown area which provides for convenient pedestrian shopping along a continuous retail frontage. The intent of the Office future land use category is to accommodate uses such as offices, banks, medical, and personal service establishments (such as beauty shops, barber shops, 3

5 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review tailors, interior decorators, repair shops, etc.). This category is also intended to provide a transitional area between residential and commercial areas. Future Land Use of Adjoining Properties The Future Land Use map also identifies the future land use category of properties adjoining the project site, as listed in the table below: Location of Adjoining Properties North (Across AA Trail) South (Across Maple Ave.) East West (Across Deer St.) Future Land Use Category Park & Central Business Office Single-Family Residential Central Business Downtown Sub Area Plan As part of the Master Plan Document, a sub area plan has been developed for the downtown that discusses desired building forms, site design, and streetscape/public spaces and amenities. This site is included within the boundaries of this sub area. The following elements are listed in the Downtown Sub Area Plan as goals to achieve by new and re-development projects: 1. Development should reinforce pedestrian activity along streets, building fronts placed at the street right-of-way line or no more than 12-feet back from the right-of-way. 2. Building heights shall comply with the height overlay zone. Where new development is adjacent to residential areas, building design should consider stepbacks in order to buffer residential uses. 3. Building architecture should be compatible with sidewalk areas and provide an attractive interface between building and pedestrians. Quality architecture shall be emphasized with generous window areas, building recesses, and architectural details. 4. Architectural interest should be provided through the use of repetitious patterns of color, texture, and materials, with special details for primary building entrances. 5. Developments should promote public and private plazas, outdoor cafes and pedestrian areas which provide attractive green space and pedestrian amenities. 6. The City should maintain and enhance quality streetscapes and public sidewalk areas. Brick pavers, landscaping, lighting, public art, street furniture and attractive signage are important components of the downtown ambience. 7. Public parking areas should be connected to the central business areas through wellmaintained sidewalks and pedestrian passageways. 8. If new parking structures are developed, the City should integrate retail liner buildings and pedestrian amenities within the structure. CWA Comments: Along Ann Arbor Trail, the future land uses (commercial and residential) proposed in this development are consistent with the uses described in the Master Plan for this site. Along Maple Avenue, the Office future land use category doesn t specifically call for residential. However, residential use would be less disruptive in this location than office uses, especially if tenants are parking their cars in the structure accessed from Deer St. Regarding surrounding future land uses, the uses proposed in this project will enhance properties that are used for Central Business and Office uses. We also consider the residential use along Maple Ave. to be appropriate and desirable. 4

6 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review The Sub Area plan for Plymouth s downtown lists a number of goals for new development in this part of the City. Our comments on how the proposal meets these goals is provided throughout this review. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ANALYSIS Information about the proposed number of residential units has not been provided. Therefore, we cannot comment on the proposed density. PARKING, LOADING The proposal offers between proposed parking spaces. However, the proposed square footage of retail and residential uses has not been provided. Therefore, we cannot comment on whether the number of parking spaces proposed meets parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the applicant s narrative specifically states that the parking will accommodate the new uses as well as the required 150 extra parking spaces. Location of Parking Spaces The proposal is siting a three-story parking deck in the middle of the project. CWA Comments: We consider the location of the parking deck to meet the requirements of the RFEI/RFP. The deck is screened from view of Kellogg Park, Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. CIRCULATION The project shows one vehicular entrance/exit from the parking deck off of Deer St. CWA Comments: We consider the location of the parking deck entrance to be appropriate. This location will concentrate traffic away from the existing residences on Maple Ave., and eliminate unsightly views from Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. OPEN SPACE/PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Open space: This proposal sites the retail buildings at the setback line, creating approximately 10 feet of sidewalk area in front of the buildings along Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. The brownstone condominiums have grassy front yards. Trees are sited in grates in the sidewalk and on the top level of the parking deck. 5

7 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review Each residential unit of the large building contains a balcony overlooking Ann Arbor Trail or Deer St. The brownstone condominiums have large first- and second-story porches on the front façade. CWA Comments: The building façades along Ann Arbor Trail seem to be at the same building line as the existing historic Jewell & Blaich building. This doesn t provide much space to locate on-street dining areas. We would suggest that the new building be set back to maximum allowed by ordinance (12-feet) to allow for more outdoor space to activate the street during the summer months. In our opinion, this proposal provides little to no green space. A vegetated buffer could be accommodated on the east side of the building to screen the existing single-family residential house on Maple Ave. In addition, the multi-use building could be pushed back at the corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. to provide some type of plaza area that incorporates landscaping, extending Kellogg Park to this site. We consider the proposed porches and balconies a positive aspect of the design. Pedestrian amenities: The proposal includes sidewalks along each street frontage. The sidewalk along Deer Street allows pedestrians to easily access the parking deck. CWA Comment: We consider the sidewalk along Deer St. to be a positive aspect of the plan. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS As mentioned in the Master Plan section of this review, there are a number of architectural goals for new buildings in the downtown. These goals are repeated and expanded on in Section (f), B-2 Design Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Several additional goals made in the Zoning Ordinance include: 1. Accomplish attractive interface between buildings and pedestrians using generous window areas, recesses, and architectural detail. 2. Architecture will be evaluated based upon its compatibility and relationship to the adjacent buildings and uses, and vice versa. 3. There shall be building openings every 50 feet, at a minimum, into buildings, open spaces (plaza) or pedestrian linkages. Residential entrances should be designed at a human-size scale. Commercial entryways should be differentiated by design, color, and material from other entryways. Entryways should be recessed, projected or include porches. Schematic elevations of the proposed building have been provided. The architecture of the new building includes recesses (balconies) on upper floors, and decorative architectural details. It also uses repetitious patterns of color, texture, and materials. Also, a tower structure is located over the main entrance to the building to give it prominence. The project also proposes to maintain the 1928 Jewell & Blaich building as a separate structure. 6

8 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review The maximum height for this site (in both the Master Plan and the CBD Height Overlay in the Zoning Ordinance) is 4-stories, or 50 feet. The proposed building height along Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. is three (3) stories. The proposed brownstone height along Maple Ave. is also three (3) stories. These both appear to meet ordinance standards; however, actual dimensions have not been provided. CWA Comments: In our opinion, the mixed-use building incorporates a number of architectural elements into the façade from other downtown buildings, such as the arched windows, strong columns and awnings. It has a traditional feel. We believe these elements of the design would complement Plymouth s downtown. It is not clear if the façades along Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. incorporate pedestrian doors into each retail unit. It may be too early in the design process to show this detail. However, based on the B-2 District standards, the façade should include individual unit doors, in recesses, projections or with porches, from the street. Regarding the proposed height, we believe the mixed use structure has an appropriate height and scale for the downtown. However, it is unclear how tall the tower element is at the corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. The actual height may need to be adjusted to complement the area, and not overpower it. Repurposing the historic Jewell & Blaich building is positive. In addition, it allows the project to step down to the adjacent two-family building to the east. Regarding the brownstone buildings, the pitched roofs and front porches are reminiscent of residential homes along Maple Ave., and consistent with the character of the street. The height of the brownstones, in our opinion, is out of scale with the Maple Ave. streetscape. The first level of the brownstones is taller than the near-by single-family residential buildings, and should be brought down to be more consistent with the existing homes. The brownstones should also be stepped down to the east so that they don t overwhelm the adjacent residences. SUMMARY The submission provided schematic plans; however, we could not scale these plans to provide very detailed comments about the design. Therefore, our comments are general in nature. The proposed uses for this site are consistent with the Master Plan, and locating residential uses on Maple Ave. is a positive aspect of this plan. In general, we consider the scale of the multi-use building appropriate for the site. However, we think the brownstone units are too tall, and do not complement the residential scale on Maple Ave. Designs for the multi-use and brownstone buildings incorporate traditional building elements that are found in Plymouth s downtown and residential neighborhoods, and in our opinion, complement both. A summary of our comments follows: 7

9 Union Street Development, LLC Saxton s Redevelopment Review A. Density: Information about the number of proposed residential units was not provided, and therefore we were unable to comment. B. Parking/Loading: We were unable to analyze if the proposal contained enough parking spaces to serve both the uses and provide the 150 additional parking spaces. However, we consider the location of the parking deck appropriate. C. Circulation: The location of the parking deck s entrance and loading area off of Deer St. is positive. D. Open Space/Pedestrian Amenities: The proposed open space and green space could be increased. Balconies and porches are positive elements of the plan. A landscape/plaza feature providing a visual connection to Kellogg Park would be a positive addition. E. Architectural Elevations: We consider the architecture of the multi-use building to be reminiscent of downtown Plymouth, and compatible with existing buildings. We also think the residential design is consistent with the design of surrounding residential areas. The scale of the multi-use building is appropriate for the site; however, the height of the corner tower may need to be studied further so that it doesn t overwhelm the corner. In our opinion, the brownstones are too tall, and don t complement the residential character of Maple Ave. The first floor elevations could be reduced, and the last few units stepped down to complement the single-family homes to the east. 8

10 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 1: Please describe your vision for this site and how it achieves the goals outlined in the RFP. Goals of the project include: a. Provide a minimum of 150 public parking spaces on site, and maintenance plan. b. Expand the City s Tax base. c. Create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that complements downtown, Kellogg Park, and City overall. d. Continue the redevelopment of downtown Plymouth by creating an iconic project on the site. e. Act as a major draw, attracting both residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth. f. Act as a catalyst for additional development in the surrounding area. g. Act as gateway to the downtown area. h. Act as a transition between the downtown and nearby neighborhoods. i. Applicant will be willing to work with the City as part of a public-private partnership. Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response addressed zero to three (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas were not particularly creative. They did not show an understanding of Plymouth s character. The response addressed four to six (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas showed some creativity and a moderate understanding of Plymouth s character. The response addressed seven to nine (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas showed abundant creativity and a strong understanding of Plymouth s character. Total Evaluation: Name:

11 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 2: How is the proposed building concept compatible with the downtown? With Kellogg Park? With historic structures? As a transition to neighboring residential properties? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response indicates a low-level of compatibility with four (out of 4) of the defined areas. The response indicates a mix of low/moderate/high compatibility with each of the four defined areas. The response indicates a high-level of compatibility with four (out of 4) of the defined areas. Total Evaluation: Name:

12 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 3: How will your proposed concept function to: - Energize the street, and create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere? - Attract residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth? - Act as a gateway to downtown? - Catalyze additional development in the surrounding area? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response provides unsupported assertions about how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. The response provides some evidence of how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. The response provides strong, convincing evidence of how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. Total Evaluation: Name:

13 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 4: Do you consider this project viable? - How flexible are you with the design submitted? - Which elements of your design are minimum requirements for the project s success? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant does not seem to be willing to modify their proposed design in any significant way to better meet the RFP goals. The applicant states that some elements of their design are non-negotiable, but seems somewhat willing to modify some of their proposed design to better meet the RFP goals. The applicant states that a few elements of their design are non-negotiable, but seems willing to modify their proposed design as much as possible to better meet the RFP goals. Total Evaluation: Name:

14 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Capability and Experience Question 5: Describe your most successful public-private project in a downtown environment of similar scope, and why it was successful. - Did it include design and construction of a public parking deck? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant has not worked on a publicprivate partnership. The example project described is not similar to the Saxton s project. The applicant has not constructed a public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are not relevant to the Saxton s project. The applicant has some public-private experience. The example project described is somewhat similar to Saxton s project. The applicant has designed/constructed at least one public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are somewhat relevant to the Saxton s project. The applicant has significant publicprivate experience. The example project described is very similar to Saxton s project. The applicant has designed/constructed more than one public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are very relevant to the Saxton s project. Total Evaluation: Name:

15 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Capability and Experience Question 6: Does your project team include unique competencies that will be critical for this project? - Will your project team include a parking deck consultant? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The project team will not include any unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. A parking deck consultant will not be on the team. The project team will include a few unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. One team member has experience in designing / constructing a public parking deck; or the team could include a parking deck consultant if deemed necessary. The project team will include several unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. The team will include a parking deck consultant with extensive experience. Total Evaluation: Name:

16 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Demonstrated Ability to Work with a Broad Stakeholder Group Question 7: Tell us about a PUD project you have completed and how you engaged the community in that process? - Will this effort be in addition to the PUD and Historic District Commission review procedures? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant has not engaged residents in design of a PUD project in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. The applicant has engaged residents in design of a PUD in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. They may include additional engagement in this project if chosen. The engagement technique described was somewhat effective. Some comments gathered were incorporated into the design. The applicant has engaged residents in design of several PUDs in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. They will include additional engagement in this project if chosen. The engagement technique described was effective in soliciting ideas. Many comments gathered were incorporated into the design. Total Evaluation: Name:

17 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Demonstrated Ability to Work with a Broad Stakeholder Group Question 8: In your view, how will the public-private partnership work? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant will participate in some additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff over and above the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will direct the project, with some input from the DDA/City. The applicant will not participate in any additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff than required by the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will direct the project, without additional input from the DDA/City. The applicant will participate in much additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff over and above the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant and DDA/City will establish an agreedupon work plan outlining how collaboration will work. Total Evaluation: Name:

18 Development Proposal For Saxton s Property City of Plymouth, Michigan Date: December 16, 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Project Name: Ferrantino/DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Plan Plan Date: August 18, 2016 Location: Zoning: W. Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. B-2, Central Business (AA Trail) O-1, Office (Maple Ave.) INTRODUCTION The City of Plymouth Downtown Development Authority (DDA) issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) to help the DDA identify a developer to redevelop the former Saxton s Property as a public-private partnership/agreement. The purpose of the project is to redevelop this area with a mixed-use development that also includes a public parking area for at least 150 vehicles. These parking spaces would be in addition to any required parking for the proposed uses. Project objectives outlined in the RFEI/RFP include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 150 public parking spaces on site. 2. Expand the City s Tax base. 3. Create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that complements the existing uses in the area and complements Kellogg Park, fitting in with the character of the downtown and the City overall. 4. Continues the redevelopment of downtown Plymouth by creating an iconic project on the site. 5. Act as a major draw, attracting both residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth.

19 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review 6. Act as a catalyst for additional development in the surrounding area to help create a more dynamic downtown environment. 7. Act as an entrance to the downtown area, creating a gateway that welcome s visitors who are traveling west on Ann Arbor Trail. Once the developer is chosen and an agreement reached, the plans will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, City Commission (as a PUD development), and the Historic District Commission. An aerial of the general vicinity of the project is provided below: Gathering Place Kellogg Park Wilcox House Mayflower Project Site Source: Google maps PROJECT DESCRIPTION A redevelopment plan has been submitted by Michael Ferrantino and Mark DeMaria to construct a 3- to 5-story, mixed-use building that wraps around a 4-story parking structure. The project will include retail and residential uses, and the building will step down from five (5) stories along Ann Arbor Trail to three (3) stories along Maple Ave. Along Ann Arbor Trail, the proposed building will have first floor retail, and four upper floors of one- and two-bedroom apartments. The Deer St. frontage will directly border the street in the southern half of the block (due to the location of the vacant parcel described above). This frontage will include the entrance to the parking structure, an entryway into the upper-story 2

20 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review residential units, and community center on the first floor, and upper level apartments. The Maple Ave. frontage will include apartments on all three levels. A close-up aerial of the project site is shown below. Project Site Note that a parcel of land at the very corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer Streets (in green) is not included in the concept design, and is not currently owned by the City or the developer. It is vacant and is being used for surface parking. However, this design does include the existing single-family house on the corner of Maple Ave. and Deer (in blue). This parcel is owned by the developer. MASTER PLAN The City of Plymouth adopted its most current Master Plan in The Future Land Use map in this document identifies the desired future uses of the land on the project site. Future Land Use of Project site Parcels on the project site adjacent to Ann Arbor Trail are identified as Central Business, and parcels on the project site adjacent to Maple Ave. are identified as Office. The intent of the Central Business future land use category is to provide for residential, office, and commercial uses in the downtown area which provides for convenient pedestrian shopping along a continuous retail frontage. The intent of the Office future land use category is to accommodate 3

21 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review uses such as offices, banks, medical, and personal service establishments (such as beauty shops, barber shops, tailors, interior decorators, repair shops, etc.). This category is also intended to provide a transitional area between residential and commercial areas. Future Land Use of Adjoining Properties The Future Land Use map also identifies the future land use category of properties adjoining the project site, as listed in the table below: Location of Adjoining Properties North (Across AA Trail) South (Across Maple Ave.) East West (Across Deer St.) Future Land Use Category Park & Central Business Office Single-Family Residential Central Business Downtown Sub Area Plan As part of the Master Plan Document, a sub area plan has been developed for the downtown that discusses desired building forms, site design, and streetscape/public spaces and amenities. This site is included within the boundaries of this sub area. The following elements are listed in the Downtown Sub Area Plan as goals to achieve by new and re-development projects: 1. Development should reinforce pedestrian activity along streets, building fronts placed at the street right-of-way line or no more than 12-feet back from the right-of-way. 2. Building heights shall comply with the height overlay zone. Where new development is adjacent to residential areas, building design should consider stepbacks in order to buffer residential uses. 3. Building architecture should be compatible with sidewalk areas and provide an attractive interface between building and pedestrians. Quality architecture shall be emphasized with generous window areas, building recesses, and architectural details. 4. Architectural interest should be provided through the use of repetitious patterns of color, texture, and materials, with special details for primary building entrances. 5. Developments should promote public and private plazas, outdoor cafes and pedestrian areas which provide attractive green space and pedestrian amenities. 6. The City should maintain and enhance quality streetscapes and public sidewalk areas. Brick pavers, landscaping, lighting, public art, street furniture and attractive signage are important components of the downtown ambience. 7. Public parking areas should be connected to the central business areas through wellmaintained sidewalks and pedestrian passageways. 8. If new parking structures are developed, the City should integrate retail liner buildings and pedestrian amenities within the structure. CWA Comments: Along Ann Arbor Trail, the future land uses (commercial and residential) proposed in this development are consistent with the uses described in the Master Plan for this site. Along Maple Avenue, the Office future land use category doesn t specifically call for residential. However, residential use would be less disruptive in this location than office uses, especially if tenants are parking their cars in the structure accessed from Deer St. 4

22 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review Regarding surrounding future land uses, the uses proposed in this project will enhance properties that are used for Central Business and Office uses. We also consider the residential use along Maple Ave. to be appropriate and desirable. The Sub Area plan for Plymouth s downtown lists a number of goals for new development in this part of the City. Our comments on how the proposal meets these goals is provided throughout this review. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ANALYSIS We calculated the proposed residential density of the project in two ways. The first method is a gross density figure that is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units by the total acreage of the site. This results in a total number of dwelling units per acre. The second method is by using provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Gross Density The total acreage of the City-owned parcels, and the developer-owned parcel is approximately 1.51 acres. They are proposing to construct 51 dwelling units. This results in a residential density of 34 dwelling units to the acre. This figure can be used as a comparison with the other development proposals. Zoning Provisions The underlying zoning for the site is B-2, Central Business District (along Ann Arbor Trail), and O-1, Office Service District (along Maple Ave.). Residential uses are permitted in both zoning districts on upper floors. Since this property will be developed as a Planned Unit Development, we have used the density standards required by Sec of the Zoning Ordinance. In multi-family buildings up to four (4) stories, the number of rooms permitted is equal to the site area divided by 900. A onebedroom apartment has two (2) rooms, and a two-bedroom apartment has three (3) rooms. For this site, the maximum permitted number of rooms is calculated as follows: 1.5 acres x 43,560 / 900 = 73 rooms. The PUD ordinance also allows a 25% increase in density if the project conforms to the PUD design standards. Proposed Density Maximum Permitted Proposed RM Multi-Family Residential CWA Comments: The total proposed density is significantly higher than permitted, even with the 25% increase. If the proposed building were constructed at three (3) stories (vs. 5 stories), this design would equal 94 rooms. If constructed at four (4) stories (vs. 5 stories), this design would equal 114 rooms. We would consider the higher density (94 rooms or there about) to be reasonable given the fact that the project will include a public parking garage. However, the applicant will need to weigh in on whether a density lower than proposed is sufficient to justify the project. Later in this 5

23 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review review we express concerns about five-stories along Ann Arbor Trail. The height will have a direct impact on the number of dwelling units that can be accommodated. PARKING, LOADING Section (10), Parking, Loading Requirements, provides parking requirements for various uses within the B-2, Central Business District. The requirements for this proposal are shown below: Parking Requirements Parking Required Parking Provided Residential 2 spaces / unit (2 x 51 units = 102 spaces) 110 spaces Retail/Restaurant 1 space / 500 s.f. (retail) 1 space / 250 s.f. (restaurant) (9,820 / 500 = 20 spaces; 9,820 / 250 = 39 spaces) 20 spaces Required Public Spaces spaces TOTAL spaces 260 spaces The Planning Commission has the ability to modify the numerical requirements for off-street parking, based on evidence that another standard would be more reasonable. In addition, the ordinance includes a sharing factor for mixed-use buildings as long as each use occupies at least 25% of the total building square footage. This project is not eligible for the sharing factor, as the retail space only occupies 11% of the total building square footage. Location of Parking Spaces The proposal is siting a four-story parking deck in the middle of the project, screening parking from most sides if a five-story building were permitted. The parking deck is not shown on the Maple Ave. elevation. We assume the parking deck is not visible from Maple Ave., but this should be confirmed. CWA Comments: This proposal is deficient in parking spaces between 4% - 11%. If the height of the building came down by at least one story, this would reduce the number of residential units and required number of spaces. These spaces could then become public spaces. Reducing the building height to four stories would also still be sufficient to screen the deck from view of Deer St. or Ann Arbor Trail. In any event, the Planning Commission may waive or modify the parking requirements as described above. 6

24 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review CIRCULATION The project shows one vehicular entrance/exit from the parking garage off of Deer St. A service drive is also shown in the same location to accommodate loading/unloading activities. The elevations do not show any doors to either facility. CWA Comments: We consider the location of the parking garage entrance and loading/unloading area to be appropriate. This location will concentrate traffic away from the existing residences on Maple Ave., and eliminate unsightly views from Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. If possible, a screen or door should be provided at the loading/unloading area at a minimum. OPEN SPACE/PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Open space: The design provides approximately 3,350 square feet of street-level plaza for outdoor cafes and expanded sidewalks. The building façade along Ann Arbor Trail is set back 10 feet from the right-of-way line. The ordinance permits up to a 12-foot setback, but only if used for outdoor seating, plazas, or other pedestrian uses. The project also shows approximately 2,100 square feet of green space (area that is not occupied by buildings or pavement) on the east side of the building. There is also an 11-foot wide turf/garden area in front of the first floor residential units along Maple Ave. The green spaces shown along Deer St. are within the road right-of-way. Each residential unit contains either a porch or balcony (and some have two balconies). For one-bedroom units, the balconies range in size between 60 s.f. and 210 s.f., and increase livable space by 7-25%. One, one-bedroom unit on Ann Arbor Trail has almost 400 s.f. of balcony space (or an increase of 47%). For two-bedroom units, the balconies range in size between 70 to 360 s.f. CWA Comments: The proposed front setback along Ann Arbor Trail meets the stated Master Plan guidelines. We would recommend that his space be widened slightly (up to 12 feet) to create a more usable space for restaurant cafes (similar to restaurants along Main St.). In our opinion, this proposal provides very little green space, and that provided is not usable. A vegetated buffer could be accommodated on the east side of the building to screen the existing single-family residential house on Maple Ave. We consider the proposed porches and balconies a positive aspect of the design. Pedestrian amenities: The proposal shows street-level spaces for outdoor cafes adjacent to the public sidewalk. No other amenities are proposed. 7

25 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review There is no public (or private) sidewalk along Deer Street. Parking deck users can enter the building in the middle of the block (from the public plaza area). However, a person walking north along Deer St. will need to either walk on the sidewalk on the other side of the street and cross mid-block to reach this entrance, or walk in the street itself. Within the building, a service corridor is provided along the north, east, and south sides of the parking deck (first floor level), providing access from all streets to the parking deck. CWA Comment: The vacant parcel at the corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer St. is not included in the proposed design. If this parcel were purchased, the vacant land could become a park-like area to visually connect this site with Kellogg Park. If purchasing this parcel isn t possible, the northwest corner of the plaza should have public seating and landscaping at a minimum. A sidewalk is necessary along Deer to access the parking garage. The service corridor inside the building is a positive aspect of this plan. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS As mentioned in the Master Plan section of this review, there are a number of architectural goals for new buildings in the downtown. These goals are repeated and expanded on in Section (f), B-2 Design Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Several additional goals made in the Zoning Ordinance include: 1. Accomplish attractive interface between buildings and pedestrians using generous window areas, recesses, and architectural detail. 2. Architecture will be evaluated based upon its compatibility and relationship to the adjacent buildings and uses, and vice versa. 3. There shall be building openings every 50 feet, at a minimum, into buildings, open spaces (plaza) or pedestrian linkages. Residential entrances should be designed at a human-size scale. Commercial entryways should be differentiated by design, color, and material from other entryways. Entryways should be recessed, projected or include porches. Schematic elevations of the proposed building has been provided. The architecture of the new building includes recesses (balconies) on upper floors, and simple architectural details. It also uses repetitious patterns of color, texture, and materials. Also, a tower structure is located over the main entrance to the building to give it prominence. The project also proposes to incorporate the façade of the 1928 Jewell & Blaich building into the façade of the new building. The maximum height for this site (in both the Master Plan and the CBD Height Overlay in the Zoning Ordinance) is 4-stories, or 50 feet. The proposed building height along Ann Arbor Trail is five (5) stories or 66 feet tall. The proposed building height along Maple Ave. is three (3) stories, or 41 feet tall. One reason for the proposed height may be to screen the four-story parking deck from view of the street. The elevations do not show any parts of the parking deck as being visible. 8

26 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review CWA Comments: In our opinion, the character of Plymouth s downtown is established by the varied styles of the historic and relatively new buildings along Main St. and Ann Arbor Trail. The proposed building uses rectilinear forms, similar to the Jewell & Blaich building. However, this historic building is unique in that it doesn t contain the ornamentation and interest of many of the other buildings downtown. Therefore, we would suggest that the proposed design is too simple, and doesn t complement the existing character of downtown. The Mayflower building, in our opinion, is more reminiscent of the City s character, with the pitched rooflines, arched details, stone and brick materials, and dormers. We are not suggesting that a new building on this site look just like the Mayflower, or that a contemporary design wouldn t complement the downtown. However, to meet the goals of the RFP, we believe the design should be more compatible with the varied buildings in the downtown. Incorporating the façade of the historic Jewell & Blaich building is positive; however, it appears slightly insignificant in comparison to the height of the new building. The façade along Ann Arbor Trail doesn t seem to incorporate pedestrian doors into each retail unit. It may be too early in the design process to show this detail. However, based on the B-2 District standards, the façade should include individual unit doors, in recesses, projections or with porches, from the street. Regarding the proposed design of the residential units along Maple Ave., this style is also very simple, and in our opinion, doesn t reflect a similar level of detail of the existing homes. Regarding the proposed height, we believe this structure is too tall. This building is 66-feet tall. The perspective drawing (Sheet A.203) shows how it compares in relation to the existing historic building façade on Ann Arbor Trail and the duplex next door. In contrast, the Mayflower is fourstories and 48-feet tall to the midpoint of the roof along Main St., or 56-feet tall to the ridge of the roof along Main St. In addition to the lower overall height, the forth story is somewhat hidden behind the roofline. The roof style also helps to anchor the building and bring down the perceived height. 9

27 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review Mayflower Building Another comparison can be made with the buildings just to the west of the project site (see photo below). These buildings are 2-3 stories in height. Buildings on South Side of Ann Arbor Trail (Between Main St. & Deer St.) 10

28 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review A positive aspect of the proposed building is that it is stepped down to three (3) stories on Maple Ave., to a height of 41 feet. This treatment is good; however, the proposed first floor units could be accessed from two (vs. six) stairs to bring the building down further. In comparison, the adjacent residential district has a maximum height of 25 feet at the midpoint of the roof, making this part of the proposed building significantly taller than its neighbors. The elevations do not show if the parking deck (which is 4 stories) will be seen from Maple Ave. We would recommend that step-down treatment also be provided on the east side of the building along Ann Arbor Trail. SUMMARY The submission is quite detailed in describing this team s vision for the proposed development. This has enabled our office to provide detailed comments about the proposal, some of which may be pre-mature in the design process. The proposed uses for this site are consistent with the Master Plan, and locating residential uses on Maple Ave. is a positive aspect of this plan. In general, however, we consider this too much development for the site. The building height and mass are not compatible with the surrounding properties, or the downtown, and the building could step down (along Ann Arbor Trail) to fit in better with the streetscape. The proposal also exceeds the density requirements for the Central Business zoning district. A summary of our comments follows: A. Density: The proposed density is higher than permitted. Lowering the building to four (or even three) stories would make it more conforming to the Zoning Ordinance and compatible with the existing commercial buildings along Ann Arbor Trail, as well as the single- and two-family homes in the vicinity. However, lowering the height could expose the parking deck. B. Parking/Loading: The location and screening of the parking deck by the building is positive. The number of proposed parking spaces is deficient; however, the Planning Commission/City Commission have the ability to require fewer spaces if warranted. If the building were lowered to four or three stories (if possible), with fewer residential units, then the proposal would be more conforming. C. Circulation: The location of the parking deck s entrance and loading area off of Deer St. is positive. D. Open Space/Pedestrian Amenities: The proposed open space and green space could be increased. The green space proposed is not really usable. Porches on Maple Ave. are positive. Pedestrian amenities are limited to sidewalk café space. A landscape/plaza feature providing a visual connection to Kellogg Park would be a positive addition. A sidewalk along the east side of Deer St. should be added. The interior service corridor is a positive aspect of the plan. 11

29 Farrantino & DeMaria Saxton s Redevelopment Review E. Architectural Elevations: We consider the architecture to be too simple and not compatible with the more detailed design of buildings in the downtown, or surrounding residential areas. The stepped-down technique along Maple Ave. is positive. This technique could also be applied on the eastern side of the building along Ann Arbor Trail. 12

30 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 1: Please describe your vision for this site and how it achieves the goals outlined in the RFP. Goals of the project include: a. Provide a minimum of 150 public parking spaces on site, and maintenance plan. b. Expand the City s Tax base. c. Create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that complements downtown, Kellogg Park, and City overall. d. Continue the redevelopment of downtown Plymouth by creating an iconic project on the site. e. Act as a major draw, attracting both residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth. f. Act as a catalyst for additional development in the surrounding area. g. Act as gateway to the downtown area. h. Act as a transition between the downtown and nearby neighborhoods. i. Applicant will be willing to work with the City as part of a public-private partnership. Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response addressed zero to three (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas were not particularly creative. They did not show an understanding of Plymouth s character. The response addressed four to six (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas showed some creativity and a moderate understanding of Plymouth s character. The response addressed seven to nine (out of 9) goals outlined in RFP. Ideas showed abundant creativity and a strong understanding of Plymouth s character. Total Evaluation: Name:

31 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 2: How is the proposed building concept compatible with the downtown? With Kellogg Park? With historic structures? As a transition to neighboring residential properties? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response indicates a low-level of compatibility with four (out of 4) of the defined areas. The response indicates a mix of low/moderate/high compatibility with each of the four defined areas. The response indicates a high-level of compatibility with four (out of 4) of the defined areas. Total Evaluation: Name:

32 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 3: How will your proposed concept function to: - Energize the street, and create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere? - Attract residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth? - Act as a gateway to downtown? - Catalyze additional development in the surrounding area? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The response provides unsupported assertions about how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. The response provides some evidence of how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. The response provides strong, convincing evidence of how the proposed concept will energize street atmosphere, welcome visitors, and attract new people to Plymouth. Total Evaluation: Name:

33 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Concept Plan Question 4: Do you consider this project viable? - How flexible are you with the design submitted? - Which elements of your design are minimum requirements for the project s success? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant does not seem to be willing to modify their proposed design in any significant way to better meet the RFP goals. The applicant states that some elements of their design are non-negotiable, but seems somewhat willing to modify some of their proposed design to better meet the RFP goals. The applicant states that a few elements of their design are non-negotiable, but seems willing to modify their proposed design as much as possible to better meet the RFP goals. Total Evaluation: Name:

34 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Capability and Experience Question 5: Describe your most successful public-private project in a downtown environment of similar scope, and why it was successful. - Did it include design and construction of a public parking deck? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant has not worked on a publicprivate partnership. The example project described is not similar to the Saxton s project. The applicant has not constructed a public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are not relevant to the Saxton s project. The applicant has some public-private experience. The example project described is somewhat similar to Saxton s project. The applicant has designed/constructed at least one public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are somewhat relevant to the Saxton s project. The applicant has significant publicprivate experience. The example project described is very similar to Saxton s project. The applicant has designed/constructed more than one public parking deck. The reasons for the example project s success are very relevant to the Saxton s project. Total Evaluation: Name:

35 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Capability and Experience Question 6: Does your project team include unique competencies that will be critical for this project? - Will your project team include a parking deck consultant? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The project team will not include any unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. A parking deck consultant will not be on the team. The project team will include a few unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. One team member has experience in designing / constructing a public parking deck; or the team could include a parking deck consultant if deemed necessary. The project team will include several unique professionals/ competencies that will be important for this project. The team will include a parking deck consultant with extensive experience. Total Evaluation: Name:

36 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Demonstrated Ability to Work with a Broad Stakeholder Group Question 7: Tell us about a PUD project you have completed and how you engaged the community in that process? - Will this effort be in addition to the PUD and Historic District Commission review procedures? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant has not engaged residents in design of a PUD project in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. The applicant has engaged residents in design of a PUD in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. They may include additional engagement in this project if chosen. The engagement technique described was somewhat effective. Some comments gathered were incorporated into the design. The applicant has engaged residents in design of several PUDs in addition to what is required under the zoning ordinance. They will include additional engagement in this project if chosen. The engagement technique described was effective in soliciting ideas. Many comments gathered were incorporated into the design. Total Evaluation: Name:

37 EVALUATION FORM Interview Candidate: Criteria: Demonstrated Ability to Work with a Broad Stakeholder Group Question 8: In your view, how will the public-private partnership work? Response: Describe how candidate responded to this question (use back of sheet if necessary) 1 Low Average Outstanding The applicant will participate in some additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff over and above the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will direct the project, with some input from the DDA/City. The applicant will not participate in any additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff than required by the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will direct the project, without additional input from the DDA/City. The applicant will participate in much additional collaboration with the DDA, City Commission, Planning Commission, or City Staff over and above the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant and DDA/City will establish an agreedupon work plan outlining how collaboration will work. Total Evaluation: Name:

38 Development Proposal For Saxton s Property City of Plymouth, Michigan Date: December 16, 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Project Name: Harmonie Park Saxton s Redevelopment Plan Plan Date: August 8, 2016 Location: 587 W. Ann Arbor Trail and Maple Ave. Zoning: Saxton Site: B-2, Central Business (AA Trail) O-1, Office (Maple Ave.) Wilcox site: B-2, Central Business INTRODUCTION The City of Plymouth Downtown Development Authority (DDA) issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) to help the DDA identify a developer to redevelop the former Saxton s Property as a public-private partnership/agreement. The purpose of the project is to redevelop this area with a mixed-use development that also includes a public parking area for at least 150 vehicles. These parking spaces would be in addition to any required parking for the proposed uses. Project objectives outlined in the RFEI/RFP include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 150 public parking spaces on site. 2. Expand the City s Tax base. 3. Create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that complements the existing uses in the area and complements Kellogg Park, fitting in with the character of the downtown and the City overall.

39 Harmonie Park - Saxton s Redevelopment Review 4. Continues the redevelopment of downtown Plymouth by creating an iconic project on the site. 5. Act as a major draw, attracting both residents and non-residents to downtown Plymouth. 6. Act as a catalyst for additional development in the surrounding area to help create a more dynamic downtown environment. 7. Act as an entrance to the downtown area, creating a gateway that welcome s visitors who are traveling west on Ann Arbor Trail. Once the developer is chosen and an agreement reached, the plans will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, City Commission (as a PUD development), and the Historic District Commission. An aerial of the general vicinity of the project is provided below: Gathering Place Kellogg Park Wilcox site Wilcox House Mayflower Saxton Site Source: Google maps Note that a parcel of land at the very corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Deer Streets (in green) is included in the concept design. Currently, the vacant parcel is being used for surface parking. This design also includes the existing single-family house on the corner of Maple Ave. and Deer (in blue). Neither parcels are owned by the City or this developer. The developer is also proposing to develop the Wilcox property on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail. The property owner of this land is on the Harmonie Park project team. 2

40 Harmonie Park - Saxton s Redevelopment Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION A redevelopment plan has been submitted by Harmonie Park Development Company. This concept proposes to develop the Saxton site, as well as vacant land across Ann Arbor Trail around the Wilcox House. The proposal states that the City s objectives cannot be met by developing the Saxton s property alone, but adding the land across the street could make for a viable project. This concept proposes to retain and repurpose the existing buildings on the Saxton site (Saxton s and Jewell and Blaich), and add street-level retail with two stories of residential above. A surface parking lot with 80 spaces is accessed from Maple Ave. A close-up aerial of the Saxton site is shown below. Saxton Site The second area proposed for development is on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail. The concept plan shows retail uses facing Ann Arbor Trail, a parking deck, row houses accessed from S. Union and Elizabeth Streets, and preservation of the Wilcox House. A close-up aerial of the Wilcox site is shown on the next page. 3

41 Harmonie Park - Saxton s Redevelopment Review Wilcox House Wilcox site MASTER PLAN The City of Plymouth adopted its most current Master Plan in The Future Land Use map in this document identifies the desired future uses of the land on the Saxton site and Wilcox site. Future Land Use of Saxton Site Parcels on the Saxton site adjacent to Ann Arbor Trail are planned for Central Business, and parcels on the Saxton site adjacent to Maple Ave. are planned for Office. The intent of the Central Business future land use category is to provide for residential, office, and commercial uses in the downtown area which provides for convenient pedestrian shopping along a continuous retail frontage. The intent of the Office future land use category is to accommodate uses such as offices, banks, medical, and personal service establishments (such as beauty shops, barber shops, tailors, interior decorators, repair shops, etc.). This category is also intended to provide a transitional area between residential and commercial areas. Future Land Use of Wilcox site Parcels on the Wilcox site are planned for Central Business. Future Land Use of Adjoining Properties The Future Land Use map also identifies the future land use category of properties adjoining the Saxton site and Wilcox site, as listed in the table on the next page: 4