Document Missoula_doc_a2115510cf

missoula riverfront triangle redevelopment master plan August 03 DESIGNWORKSHOP OZ Architects WGM Group, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s The Missoula Riverfront Triangle Redevelopment Master Plan has been prepared for the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, under the directed leadership of Geoff Badenoch and Chris Behan. The plan was prepared by Design Workshop, a planning and urban design firm, OZ Architects and WGM Engineers of Missoula. The planning effort was jointly funded by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency and St. Patrick Hospital. The redevel- opment plan is the result of a three-month process that included three public meetings and review sessions, meetings with individual land owners and interviews with local officials. ---PAGE BREAK--- Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s I I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 project vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 objectives of the master plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 project history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 riverfront timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 planning principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 context and vision plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 framework plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 I I M A S T E R P L A N P R O C E S S & D E V E L O P M E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 public process overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 first public meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 second public meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 final public meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 I I I C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 land use plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 building program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 building massing and form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 west broadway facade study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 public spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 streetscape improvements I front street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 streetscape improvements I west broadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 streetscape improvements I orange street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 circulation and access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 I V A R C H I T E C T U R A L A N A LY S I S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 architectural timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 architectural principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 missoula skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 V E C O N O M I C A N A LY S I S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 development assumptions and economic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 summary of economic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 V I I I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 strategic phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 development controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 implementation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 V I I I A P P E N D I X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R I I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I P r o j e c t V i s i o n The vision for the Riverfront Triangle Redevelopment Site is derived from the role of the city in its regional context; the rich natural, cultural and architectural history of downtown Missoula; the textured urban fabric and block structure that surrounds the site; the development of linkages and connec- tions to the Clark Fork Open Space, St. Patrick hospital district, central business district, Civic Stadium and McCormick Park; and the determination to reinforce a vital civic life in the heart of the city. Fundamentally, this project has been more than one specific site, it represents an opportunity to energize the western downtown district, reorienting itself to the river and surrounding community. Riverfront Triangle will play a central role, both geographically and financially, in the future of downtown Missoula. The primary objective of this Master Plan effort was to lead and foster an in-depth exploration of design possibilities in order to generate a plan that will create a successful downtown district that is alive with a diversity of peoples, public places, activities and uses. The plan is a bold vision, socially/cultural- ly responsible and is economically beneficial to the city. Urban redevelopment projects such as Riverfront Triangle offer numerous challenges that must be understood and sys- tematically addressed in any plan. Some of the challenges have included integrating a diverse development program offering both public and private uses, understanding parking demands and site access, sensitive density distribution including the preservation of view corridors, and establishing a sense of permeability in the design that integrates public/private spaces and extends the influence of the river- front into the surrounding community. The Master Plan capitalizes on the surrounding assets, estab- lishing a meaningful dialogue with these resources in order to become an extraordinary urban redevelopment. The plan incorporates the existing proximity and location along the Clark Fork River, including significant interfaces with the northern riverfront trail. As a continuation of the extensive public investment along the Clark Fork, the Riverfront Triangle project orients the development to the river, providing civic amenities and uses along its shores. McCormick Park and the new Civic Stadium are additional public amenities along this park system necklace that have been considered in the plan- ning process in order to evaluate how this site fits within the entire corridor. Seen as the western gateway to Missoula, the existing downtown activities, services and entertainment have represented a significant influence on the configuration of the site and resulted in the proposal for a Gateway Plaza at the intersection of West Broadway and Front Street. The area to the north, including West Broadway, St. Patrick Hospital, and the surrounding mixed-use residential area were considered in the planning process and have resulted in pedestrian corridors connecting the northern community areas to proposed river- front improvements and mixed-use development. The project has been oriented to fit within the existing fabric while also becoming a centerpiece and point of connection among the significant urban facilities, establishing a dialogue with the greater Missoula community. In order to create a successful redevelopment plan for Riverfront Triangle, a list of specific objectives was defined to guide the decision-making process. The list draws from the opinions expressed during the charrette process and establish- es a framework for the development of the Master Plan. The objectives are: To continue the process of active public involvement in defin- ing the vision for the property To produce a physical plan that clearly articulates the follow- ing: • proposed land uses and building program • architectural massing, form and character • delineation of public and private areas • transportation/access/service improvements • public amenities such as plazas, gathering spaces, pedestrian trails, park areas, and interfaces among public areas and adjacent private spaces. To establish a list of improvements to infrastructure, includ- ing parking, utilities and traffic calming. To produce a plan that is economically viable for short- and long-term development To develop a blueprint for the city to evaluate future devel- opment proposals. To provide a list of strategies and a series of steps for the city to implement the master plan. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 2 O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e M a s t e r P l a n ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I P r o j e c t H i s t o r y Riverfront Triangle history plays a significant role in its future development. The importance of settlement along the Clark Fork River and the relationship of the community to the land have guided the growth of Missoula since it was founded in 1865. The history of the Riverfront site began with its use as the town dump between the years of 1865 and 1928 on portion of land currently owned by the City of Missoula. Surrounding development pressure continued and, in 1928, the McCormick Subdivision was put in place on the western portion of the parcel followed by the construction of the Orange Street Bridge in 1935. In 1945, the landmark Fox Theater was constructed at the corner of Front and Orange streets permanently transforming the use of the site from city dump to a community entertainment venue. The construction of the Fox Theater also began to establish the importance of the Riverfront site as the western entrance to Missoula's Central Business District, establishing a direct link to businesses along Front Street, where historical “female boarding houses” were once located. After an extended period of operation the Fox Theater closed its doors to business and in 1984 the Mann Corporation donated the site and existing building to the City of Missoula. Soon after, the city, interested in redevelopment of the site, began to solicit development pro- posals for the Fox property in hopes of providing a land use that maximized the development potential of the site while contributing significant public amenities. After a series of unsuccessful proposals and a structural assessment ruled the building unsuitable for renovation, demolition plans were pre- pared and the building was razed in 1990. Proposals for the city-owned Fox property continued through- out the 1990s and in 2001, the city acquired the former Mustard Seed site solidifying its land holdings at the corner of Front and Orange streets. Simultaneously the expansion of the St. Patrick Hospital complex was also beginning to have an impact on the triangu- lar site. The helipad, parking structure and connecting pedestrian tunnel were constructed between 1977 and 1985. As a primary land owner, the hospital continued its influence on the future of the site by acquiring the Western Montana Clinic properties in the 1990s. On January 12, 2002, Missoula Redevelopment Agency and St. Patrick Hospital and Health Sciences Center co-sponsored a conceptual planning charrette involving a diverse group of selected community members. The charrette provided a philo- sophical framework to guide strategies of development design and uses within the Riverfront Triangle. The product of this planning exercise was the Riverfront Triangle Charrette West Broadway at Orange Street Project Report. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I R i v e r f r o n t T i m e l i n e M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 4 Riverfront Timeline The Riverfront Timeline attempts to capture the evolution of the project site since the establishment of the City of Missoula. The historical data for this study was gathered from personal interviews and research of the site and surrounding areas. The timeline establishes a sequence of developments and proposals for the site that have influenced the changing conditions of the Riverfront Triangle area. Displayed chronologically, each significant event includes a summary of related principles and programs. The purpose of this study is to inform the proposed Master Plan by reviewing important historical events and pro- posals for the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I P l a n n i n g P r i n c i p l e s The guiding principles for Riverfront Triangle provide the basic foundation for decision-making throughout the Master Plan process. These principles were generated from the 12 the- matic goals defined in the Consensus section of the Riverfront Triangle Charrette Report. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I C o n t e x t a n d V i s i o n P l a n In order to provide the greatest benefit to the residents of Missoula, the Master Plan must be integrated with the larger context of the entire city, capturing the benefits of the sur- rounding assets and generating a plan that responds to the needs of the local community. The Master Plan team reviewed existing conditions and analyzed this context to establish a framework that would inform the development’s land-use dis- tribution, public-space areas, building orientation, pedestrian corridors and transportation improvements. The location of the Riverfront Triangle site along the Clark Fork River corri- dor, its position on the western edge of the central business district, and the influence from the surrounding neighbor- hoods all have a significant impact on the formation of the Mater Plan. Missoula Riverfront Vision Plan Establishing a relationship to the lager city context is imperative to create a well-informed plan that continues to promote cen- tralized redevelopment in the core downtown areas along the Clark Fork River. The Riverfront Vision Plan establishes a frame- work for current and future improvements along the open-space corridors that run though the center of the city and balances this opportunity with the surrounding business districts, neighbor- hood areas and university district. The key contextual features that influenced the vision plan are as follows: The Clark Fork River and Rattlesnake Creek corridors provide a tremendous open-space amenity and establish a green spine throughout the city. This is seen as a tremendous asset unique to Missoula and continued redevelopment along its edges are important to the future of central Missoula. The Riverfront site plays a pivotal role in this vision by establishing a redevelop- ment pattern that reorients itself to the river corridor. The proximity of the site as the western gateway to the Central Business District, including St. Patrick Hospital Complex, has direct impact on the types of uses and proposed density for the redevelopment. Ground-floor retail and office uses stacked horizontally and vertically should be included in the Mater Plan. The Broadway mixed-use corridor currently functions as the primary east-west transportation spine, including various business establishments and random building patterns. Distribution of appropriate land uses, transportation roadway improvements and building densities will need to respond to the functions of the Broadway corridor. The positions of the neighborhoods throughout central Missoula establish a residential zone that surrounds the Central Business District, mixed-use corridors and open-space networks. Specific influences include connections from the Northside and Westside Neighborhoods to the riverfront trail and views from the southside neighborhood. Trails, bicycle paths, and parks act as connecting elements linking residents to the river and creek corridors. A mixture of residential uses and interconnected trails will form the primary structure of the Master Plan. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I F r a m e w o r k P l a n The framework plan for Riverfront Triangle establishes the basic foundational structure for the redevelopment of the site. Specific influences include the adjacent streets surrounding the site, such as Orange and Broadway; pedestrian connections to the Northside and Westside Neighborhoods at Owen and McCormick streets; existing and future links to the riverfront trail corridor; axial relationship to Front Street and Main Street; delineation of public open space at the Clark Fork River; building heights and the preservation of important view corridors; and the relationship across the river to McCormick Park and the Civic Stadium. The framework plan identifies the following areas as a foundation to the Master Plan. • The historic importance of the Front Street connection as a primary riverfront business street along the edge of the Clark Fork River must be maintained. Building orienta- tion, fenestration and streetscape design will respond to this connection by establishing a direct link to the Front Street corridor. • The addition of a pedestrian bridge connecting the Riverfront plaza to McCormick Park will provide a direct link across the river that captures the benefits of the Civic Stadium and McCormick Park. • The relationship to Main Street and the termination of the view from Higgins Avenue must be addressed by responsi- ble architectural treatment of the buildings at the corner of Front and Orange streets. • The Owen Street neighborhood connection establishes a direct link to the Northside and Westside Neighborhoods. Public improvements along this corridor must enhance the connection to the riverfront and terminate at the Riverfront Plaza. • The McCormick Street connection will become the primary link between the St. Patrick Hospital campus and the riverfront trail. Pedestrian streetscape improvements and the proposed Gateway Plaza will provide a clear entry to downtown Missoula. • Improvements along West Broadway are recommended to establish a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined boulevard on the northern edge of Riverfront Triangle. Improvements include a tree-planted median with turn lanes, widened sidewalks, and adjusted lane configurations that will include bicycle lanes and parallel parking. • Improvements along Orange Street will provide a narrow tree-lined median and widened sidewalks. The function of Orange Street as a transportation spine connecting down- town to Interstate 90 will be balanced with streetscape improvements enhancing pedestrian areas and project visibil- ity. • Clark Fork River corridor trail and connections to Caras Park and areas west of the site will be enhanced through the addition of new public gathering areas and a extension of the existing trail system. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R I I M a s t e r P l a n P r o c e s s & D e v e l o p m e n t 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I . M A S T E R P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S I P u b l i c P r o c e s s O v e r v i e w The Master Plan vision for Riverfront Triangle has been defined as a continuation of the Riverfront Triangle Public Charrette held on January 12, 2002. The Master Plan process represents the continued exploration of the principles and vision defined by the participants of the charrette. A series of three public meetings, lead by the consultant team and organ- ized by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, guided the formation of this Mater Plan allowing periodic review and comments from the residents of Missoula. The following outline summarizes the purpose of the three meetings and describes the plan development as presented to the public. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I . M A S T E R P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S I F i r s t P u b l i c M e e t i n g M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 10 First Public Meeting The first public meeting introduced the consultant team to the public and outlined the timeline for the Master Plan process. • Master Plan consultant team introductions by Geoff Badenoch • Outline for Master Plan process identifying timeline, phases of the master plan process, and tasks for each phase. • Review of Riverfront Triangle and Fox Theater site history and previous redevelopment proposals. • Review of the Riverfront Charrette process and summary of principles identified by the participants. • Comments, question-and-answer period for the attending public. • Public participation exercise ranking the design principles from the Riverfront charrette process. Twenty-six principles were developed by the consultant team from the previous studies and voted on, using Post-It tabs. • Public participation exercise ranking the location of mixed- use distribution and view corridors on the Riverfront site. Plans locating office use, ground-floor retail, residential use, and important views to preserve were posted by the con- sultant team and voted on using Post-It tabs. • Final comments and recommended areas of improvement for the second public meeting. Tabulation of Principles 1. Park along the River Extended and 33 Riverfront Park Nodes 2. Housing along The River 32 3. Mixed Uses and Economic Diversity 31 4. Pedestrian Scale at Street 26 5. Use Relationship with Hospital 22 6. Building Stepping 21 7. Multiple Buildings 20 8. "Downtown-Like Along Broadway” 18 9. Interior Plaza 18 10. Structured Parking/Underground 16 11. Consider Partial Closure of Front Street 16 12. Urban Attitude 15 13. Traffic Control/Safe Crossing at Broadway 13 14. Commercial Activity Along Front Street 12 15. Strong Thematic Whole 12 16. Great Streets 12 17. Architectural Terminus To Front Street 11 18. Commercial Activity Along Orange Street 8 19. Civic Nodes 8 20. Land Assembly/Joint MRA and St. Patrick 6 21. Fox Theatre Sign Relocated 5 22. Owen St. Access & View Corridor To River 5 23. End Points and Entry Gates 3 24. Maintain the Grid Pattern 2 25. Utilize Missoula's Parking Program 0 Tabulation of Retail Option 1 18 Option 2 7 Option 3 4 Tabulation of Office Option 1 8 Option 2 6 Option 3 15 Tabulation of Residential Option 1 5 Option 2 3 Option 3 21 Tabulation of View Corridors View A 0 View B 0 View C 4 View D 14 View E 5 Planning Principles Voting Chart Retail Diagram Office Diagram Residential Diagram View Corridor Diagram ---PAGE BREAK--- I I . M A S T E R P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S I S e c o n d P u b l i c M e e t i n g Second Public Meeting The primary purpose of the second public meeting was to present the project analysis and the master plan alternatives to the general public. • Review of the first public meeting, including a summary of the public participation exercises. • Presentation of project analysis using the Riverfront Vision Plan and the Riverfront Framework Plan. • Presentation of three master plan alternatives,including land- use distribution, building heights and density, and public space plan locating trails, plazas, and sidewalk improvements. • Comments, question-and-answer period from the attending public. • Transportation and utility analysis by traffic engineer including proposed street improvements for Broadway, Orange, and Front Streets. • Architectural analysis of downtown Missoula timeline, principles derived from the timeline study, and an analysis of the Missoula skyline and building heights in downtown. • Final comments from the consultant team M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 11 Distribution of Uses Alternative 1 Distribution of Uses Alternative 2 Distribution of Uses Public Space Plan Public Space Plan Public Space Plan Building Massing and Density Building Massing and Density Building Massing and Density Alternative 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I . M A S T E R P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S I F i n a l P u b l i c M e e t i n g Final Public Meeting The purpose of the third and final meeting was to present the preferred Master Plan to the general public and to introduce development guidelines for redevelopment of the site. • Review of the first two public meetings including project history, analysis overview and alternative review. • Presentation of alternative for possible street closure on Front Street. • Presentation of preferred alternative Master Plan includ- ing building use and density distribution; building heights, fenestration, and important architectural corners; streetscape improvements along Broadway, Orange, and Front streets; public space improvements; and three dimensional views of the proposed Master Plan. • Explanation of the development criteria and economic assumptions established for the Master Plan. • Explanation of the potential need for some public subsidy to make the public's vision become reality. • Presentation of phasing scenario and the flexibility in the Master Plan to accommodate smaller, incremental devel- opment based on consultant team economic analysis. • Presentation of development controls including: circula- tion, parking, and access points, building heights, architectural axis and nodes, permitted land use, parcel plan and required ground-floor retail areas • Comments, questions-and-answer period. • Public participation exercise voting on alternatives for the closure of Front Street. Tabulation of Street Closure Full Closure of Front Street 2 Partial Closure of Front St. and Pedestrian Corridor 19 No Closure of Front St.; One-Way Inbound Access 15 M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 12 [ A ] [ B ] [ C ] Distribution of Uses Building Massing West Broadway Facade Study Phasing Diagram Parcel Plan Circulation Plan Front Street Closure Diagrams ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R I I I C o m p o n e n t s o f t h e P l a n 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I M a s t e r P l a n C o n c e p t Master Plan Concept The Riverfront Triangle Master Plan uses a public space frame- work to create a vibrant mixed-use development along the Clark Fork River. Public plazas and streetscape improvements orient the development to the river and establish direct connec- tions to the surrounding neighborhoods and business districts. The plan has been organized to become a gateway for down- town Missoula as well as a mixed-use destination for shopping, restaurants, cafés and public gatherings along the riverfront. The framework for the Master Plan uses the following five main ideas to guide redevelopment of the site: • Land-use distribution encourages a mixture of activities and fosters an active public environment. • A diversity of public spaces including large public gather- ing spaces, small intimate plaza's and street improvements create permeable building fabric that connects residents to the riverfront corridor. • Building heights and massing are shaped to preserve important views and enhance the relationship to the sur- rounding mountains. • Architectural nodes are used to create a relationship with downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods by estab- lishing terminating axis points at important intersections. • The circulation and access plan must organize and dis- tribute pedestrian, vehicular and service access in a clear and logical pattern, providing a flexible framework for development of the site. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I L a n d - U s e P l a n Land Use Plan The land use at Riverfront Triangle has been planned as a mixed-use development that benefits from its location on the Clark Fork River and concentrates diverse building programs around a public plaza and streetscape network. The basic land uses of the site respond to the varied uses surrounding the site and include residential, office, commercial, retail and civic institutions including areas for a potential performing arts complex. The plan establishes a horizontal and vertical mixture of uses by stacking residential uses above ground-floor retail throughout the plan and creating concentrated nodes of higher density at key intersections. These mixed-use nodes have been located at Gateway Plaza (corner of Front Street and Broadway Street), Riverfront Plaza (corner of Owen Street and Front Street) and at the intersection of Front and Orange streets. The primary distribution of issues is as follows: West Broadway has the highest density of uses in the develop- ment area consisting of ground-floor retail and commercial office space. Residential space for affordable housing or rental units has been included at the corner of Broadway and Orange. The Front Street corridor has been identified as a mixed-use residential area from Broadway to Owen Street The plan allo- cates ground-floor retail or conversion space at street level with residential units above. The section from Owen Street to Orange becomes a transitional zone, as uses get closer to Orange Street and accommodates other non-residential uses such as a hotel, commercial office space and the performing arts complex. The primary use along the riverfront edge is residential with the exception of the hotel use at Riverfront Plaza. Heights and distribution respond to the relationship with the river by cre- ating U-shaped courtyards and stepped building heights from Front Street down to the river's edge. Riverfront Plaza at the intersection of Owen and Front Street M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I B u i l d i n g P r o g r a m M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 16 has the highest concentration of mixed uses in the redevelop- ment plan. This area capitalizes on the public space amenity by providing office, residential, hotel and retail on the adjacent sites. The two-tier plaza that steps down from Front Street pro- motes the active use of the riverfront edge by including space for ground floor retail, hotel restaurants and riverfront resi- dential units at the lower plaza level. Building Program The building program for Riverfront Triangle provides approximately 694,740 square feet of building space for future development. The summary chart at the left defines the specif- ic program distribution by block and by individual building, including parking requirements and overall floor-area ratio for Riverfront Triangle. The development program includes approximately 175,000 square feet of office space; 109,000 square feet of retail; 345,000 square feet of residential program; and, 81,000 square feet for hotel use; and has allocated 64,000 square feet for the potential performing arts complex. The program distribution includes the estimated construction cost for each building in the redevelopment plan. As a part of the master planning effort, meetings with contractors, Realtors and lenders from Missoula were conducted to generate a snap- shot of the market economy. The plan has incorporated these findings into the program study by creating smaller building footprints that can be supported and absorbed by economic conditions in Missoula. By anticipating the economic condi- tions, the redevelopment plan provides a flexible solution for both short-term and long-term development interests. ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I B u i l d i n g M a s s i n g a n d F o r m As expressed in the Riverfront Charrette Report, the vision for the site will include a high-density, mixed-use (both vertically and horizontally) development that responds to the surround- ing areas. The basic shaping of the building mass has been informed by the following assumptions: • Preservation of important view corridors as identified during the first public meeting. • Building set-backs along the riverfront to preserve the quality of the Clark Fork open-space system • Higher density and heights along the Broadway corridor that respond to St. Patrick Hospital’s Broadway building and the existing building density in the downtown business district. • Clear definition of building façade and higher building 'spikes' at important axis points that terminate streets and help define public plaza spaces. This includes the termina- tion of Front Street and Main Street along with the intersections at Orange/Broadway and Front/Broadway streets. • Use of building height and architectural façade to high- light significant public spaces in the Master Plan. The general distribution and pattern of building heights places four-to-six story buildings along the corridor. Six-story build- ings have been located at key plaza areas and street termination locations. This organization establishes clear definition to the project edges and creates a contextual relationship to the sur- rounding downtown areas. Along Front Street, the building heights average three to four stories and step down to three stories as the buildings approach the waterfront. This height condition alters on the former Fox site where the buildings rise to six stories to accommodate higher densities at the corner of Orange Street and Front Street. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I B u i l d i n g M a s s i n g a n d F o r m M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 18 View down Front Street to Broadway View down Front Street to Higgins Avenue and the Mountains View looking east down Front Street View down Front Street to Riverfront Plaza View down Owen Street to Riverfront Plaza View looking northeast along the riverfront ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I We s t B r o a d w a y F a c a d e S t u d y West Broadway Facade Study As a general study to investigate the proportion, scale, pattern and form of the buildings along West Broadway, this conceptu- al building façade was drawn to study the overall relationship between buildings along this section of the site. The intent of the façade study is not to define a specific style or predeter- mined architectural expression for Riverfront Triangle, but to examine the basic relationships between buildings, establishing a guideline for façade treatment and roofline variation. Vertical Controls The study identifies maximum building heights at 105 feet and horizontal expression lines at 10, 30, and 80 feet. The expres- sion lines provide a level of consistency in the architecture and create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape environment. Horizontal Variation Horizontal variation of architecture and building heights along West Broadway establishes an interesting mix of building types preventing the formation of a static façade. Building heights are elevated at key intersections to define public spaces and create gateways into Riverfront Triangle. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I P u b l i c S p a c e s M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 20 Public Spaces A diversity of public spaces, including streetscape improve- ments, plazas, larger gathering spaces and trail connections, provide a clear framework for the Riverfront Master Plan. The framework establishes a public space network that integrates the development with the riverfront through the arrangement of plazas and corridor connections. The central gathering and destination plaza in the plan is Riverfront Plaza, located at the terminating point of Owen Street. The plaza has been oriented to maximize views to the surrounding mountains and is fronted with hotel, residential, office and retail uses. The plaza establishes a two-tier gather- ing space where the upper level responds to the uses along Front Street and the lower level accommodates riverfront activities including performances. To establish a clearly defined edge to the development and provide an identifiable gateway to downtown, Gateway Plaza has been located at the Front and West Broadway intersection. This space includes a newly designed intersection, a plaza space including the proposed relocation of the Fox Theatre sign, pedestrian crosswalks with bulb-outs extending sidewalks at intersections, and proposed buildings with ground-floor retail to activate the plaza. Streetscape improvements along West Broadway, Front Street, Orange and Owen streets establish pedestrian connections around the entire development and strengthen the relationship to the surrounding areas by promoting a continuous circula- tion network. Based on current use and character of each street, the plan establishes a hierarchy of streetscape treatments from the intimate scale of Front Street to the broader boule- vard treatment along West Broadway. The Master Plan includes a continuation of the riverfront trail system into the site. The proposed trail alignment connects to all public corridors and plaza spaces creating a sequence of plazas along the riverfront that are activated by a mixture of building uses. The general character of this section of river- front departs from the large open spaces along the southern portion of the Clark Fork River and creates urban pockets of activity for public gatherings of various sizes. The distribution of these spaces creates a series of punctures in the development fabric, providing a variety of connections to the river's edge. ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I S t r e e t s c a p e I m p r o v e m e n t s - F r o n t S t r e e t Front Street Improvements Front Street will become the primary mixed-use pedestrian street in the Riverfront Master Plan. Cafes, retail, residential town houses and future hotel uses line the street and activate the adjacent sidewalk zone. Improvements include establishing a one-way inbound connection between the West Broadway intersection (Gateway Plaza) and the Owen Street intersection. Diagonal parking is located on the North side of the street in this section. Two-way traffic with parallel parking will occur between the Owen and Orange streets intersection. Streetscape improvements include the implementation of pedestrian streetlights, furnishings, awnings along building facades and adequate architectural fenestration to establish a well-scaled pedestrian atmosphere. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 21 Section - Front Street Improvements Existing Section - Front Street View West View East ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s - We s t B r o a d w a y M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 22 West Broadway Street Improvements West Broadway will be a new tree-lined boulevard connecting downtown Missoula to the areas west. A triple row of trees will provide a defined boulevard that accommodates high traffic volumes and pedestrian activity. Intersection improvements including bulb-outs and medians will accommodate pedestri- an crossings, minimizing conflicts with vehicular traffic. The overall character and scale of the streetscape improvements are intended to reinforce the role of Broadway in the citywide street network and to help establish a clear hierarchy around Riverfront Triangle. Improvements include a new landscaped median, additional tree plantings, street furnishings, street lighting, pedestrian cross- walks with bulb-outs at corners, intersection improvements, bicycle lanes, and the narrowing of vehicular lanes. Section - West Broadway Existing Section - West Broadway View East View West ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s - O r a n g e S t r e e t M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 23 Orange Street Improvements Orange Street will continue its role as a primary connector between South Missoula and Interstate 90 and establish a con- tinuous tree-lined street to accommodate pedestrian crossings. Tree patterns will define important intersections and pedestri- an crossings will be included at West Broadway and Front Street/Main Street. Improvements along the street significant- ly impact the east edge of Riverfront Triangle and should establish an improved relationship with buildings fronting Orange Street. Improvements include a new landscaped median, additional tree planting pattern to reinforce the role of the street as a vehicular connector, street lighting, pedestrian crosswalks with bulb-outs at corners, intersection improvements and the nar- rowing of vehicular lanes. Section - Orange Street Improvements View South View North Existing Section - Orange Street ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I . C O M P O N E N T S O F T H E P L A N I C i r c u l a t i o n a n d A c c e s s Pedestrian Connection and Public Space Plan The pedestrian framework establishes direct connections to the adjacent neighborhoods and the existing riverfront trail by establishing a “permeable” development area along the river. Public plazas, alley corridors and new trails along the Clark Fork River establish a diverse mix of pedestrian experiences that integrate public spaces with new development activated by a mixture of uses. Gateway Plaza and Riverfront Plaza establish destinations that connect neighborhood streets to the river- front trail network. The orientation and configuration of plaza spaces preserve important views that were identified during the planning process. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 24 Parking Structure and Access Plan The parking plan concentrates on the use of structured parking with well-defined access points and on-street parking as a result of street improvements. Two types of structures have been proposed for the Master Plan. The largest structure, at the corner of Orange Street and West Broadway, is a stand-alone parking deck wrapped with mixed-use buildings. All other structures have been integrated with, and stacked below, pro- posed buildings. Water-table levels have been considered and are reflected in the plan by using only two-story, below-ground parking structures. The Riverfront site is being considered for inclusion in the central business district area. The CBD area currently has no required parking conditions. Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan In order to achieve a successful mixed-use development, the plan allows traffic exposure and visibility to influence the for- mation of the plan and the location of street improvements. The circulation framework has been organized to achieve well- distributed traffic volumes in and around the Riverfront site without compromising the pedestrian atmosphere. Access points to all parcels have been clearly defined in the plan and provide a flexible framework for future development. The plan proposes the modification of Front Street between Broadway and Owen to a one-way inbound access street lined with diag- onal parking. This strengthens the pedestrian orientation of the street and minimizes impacts to the historic Front St. busi- ness corridor. Service Corridors and Alley Plan The service plan has been organized to provide clearly defined access to all buildings in the plan. Mid-block access points and alley connections between buildings have been used to provide flexibility for future land development. Anticipated uses for service areas include garbage removal, delivery zones and pos- sible utility corridors to accommodate development parcels. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R I V A r c h i t e c t u r a l A n a l y s i s 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- I V. A R C H I T E C T U R A L P R I N C I P L E S I A r c h i t e c t u r a l T i m e l i n e Missoula Timeline The graphic timeline describes the development of Missoula from the early lumber mill and gristmill near the Higgins Avenue Bridge, up to the present time. Buildings were chosen based upon their influence on the visual environment of Missoula over this time period. Each building represents the culture, politics, style and economy of its age - in the same manner that the Riverfront Triangle development should respond to its own time and place. Overall, Missoula architecture is not as stylistically homoge- nous as Santa Fe, New Mexico, or Santa Barbara, California. Missoula architecture represents a variety of styles and materi- als usages. It is anticipated that the Riverfront Triangle Development will also contain variety and vitality - two ele- ments consistent with the current Missoula urban fabric. Sources: Allan James Mathews, A Guide to Historic Missoula Photo credits: Design Workshop, OZ Architects, MRA files Graphics credits: Design Workshop M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- I V. A R C H I T E C T U R A L P R I N C I P L E S I A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r i n c i p l e s M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 27 Architectural Principles A series of architectural principles have been developed to guide future designers in creating the forms and spaces desired for the Riverfront Triangle site. Some are generic in nature while others are specific to Missoula buildings and streets. These principles should be applied over a broad range of scales including development "blocks," individual buildings and urban spaces, and culminating with architectural material detailing of buildings, plazas, and streetscape elements. The individual principles defined will encourage the variety and vitality of the historic urban fabric of Missoula without setting up a specific catalog of architectural features or styles. Sources: National Trust National Main Street Center, "Storefront Design" and "New Infill Construction"; Francis D. K. Ching, Architecture: Form, Space & Order, Norbert Lechner; Heating, Cooling, Lighting-Design Methods for Architects Photo credits: OZ Architects Graphics credits: Design Workshop ---PAGE BREAK--- I V. A R C H I T E C T U R A L P R I N C I P L E S I A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r i n c i p l e s M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- I V. A R C H I T E C T U R A L P R I N C I P L E S I A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r i n c i p l e s M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- I V. A R C H I T E C T U R A L P R I N C I P L E S I M i s s o u l a S k y l i n e Missoula Skyline To better understand the overall context of downtown Missoula, the forms, massing and scale of building architecture at the river's edge were studied. Prominent buildings within the city were identified and studied to establish architectural guidelines that would inform the architectural massing and form in Riverfront Triangle. The study included buildings of a similar type to those proposed at Riverfront Triangle (residen- tial, office, etc.) and others that influence the general character of downtown and its relationship to the site. Three key notions were uncovered: 1) there is a common 10- foot-high marquee or canopy space along the streets; 2) for two- and three-story structures, there is generally a 30-foot- high façade along the street, and, 3) other occasional buildings in the area range from 85 to 105 feet in height above the side- walk. The urban form and framework of the Riverfront Triangle site should strategically contain height variations within the devel- opment blocks and these should be based on site location. This includes Broadway Street, where the tallest buildings should be located; Front Street which has an intermediate and varied scale; and the frontage along the Clark Fork River where stepped-down building forms are desired. Photo credits: Design Workshop Drawing credits: OZ Architects M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R V E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Workshop ran the development pro formas from the point of view of the project's developer and assumed they would only be willing to undertake the project if they could achieve an internal rate of return (IRR) of at least 20 percent. Like all investors, developers require higher levels of financial return in exchange for higher risk. A 20 percent return would only be acceptable for a project that had very little risk and uncertainty associated with it, while developers would seek a return closer to 40 percent for projects with moderate risk. Although we tested the feasibility of all alternatives developed, for simplicity, this document only summarizes the develop- ment program shown in Attachment A. Input Assumptions The following input assumptions are common across all sce- narios and were supplied by Missoula real estate agents, developers and bankers: • Residential/Hotel – Construction costs - $125 to $175 per square foot (median $150 per sf) – Sale prices - $200 to $292 per square foot (median $247 per sf) – Absorption schedule - 5 years – Average residential unit size - 1,500 square feet – Average hotel unit size - 850 square feet – All housing is assumed to be priced at market rates; Adding an affordable housing component could mate- rially affect the financial performance of the project • Commercial office – Construction costs - $110 to $130 per square foot (median $120 per sf) – Lease rates - $15 to $18 per square foot per year triple net (median $16.50 per sf) – Absorption rate - 22,000 to 23,000 square feet per year (median 22,500 sf/year) • Commercial/Retail – Construction costs - $110 to $130 per square foot (median $120 per sf) – Lease rates - $15 to $18 per square foot per year triple net (median $16.50 per sf) – Absorption rate - 9,500 to 10,500 square feet per year (median 10,000 sf/per year) • Structured parking construction costs - $15,000 per space – We assume that the project developer will pay for res- idential and hotel parking construction costs over 10 years or finance the cost over 20 years at 8 percent. – Parking spaces for office and commercial/retail are not charged to the project developers, since it is assumed that the City of Missoula funds the costs. • Surface parking construction costs - $2,500 per space • Construction contingency - 5 percent • Soft construction costs - 15 percent – Architecture - 7 percent – Legal/Financial - 2 percent – Marketing - 4 percent – Design/Engineering/Approval - 2 percent • Total site environmental remediation costs applied to the City's parcel - $500,000 • Developer discount rate (cost of capital) - 8 percent • Land prices: – Non-hospital lands are based on the value the City had in its land, which was approximately $11.50 per square foot. In the best case for a developer, the market prices will actually be lower or the landowners will discount the price of their land as an incentive for development. – All of St. Patrick's Hospital's land is valued at $10 million. • Method 1: Assume that the 65,716 square feet of built office space is valued at $120 per square foot, for a total value of $7.9 million. The hospital's 163,809 square feet of land is valued at approximately $12.92 per square foot, for a total value of $2.1 million. The phasing program for the project assumes that the buildings on Parcel C will be replaced when real estate values exceed total replacement costs. • Method 2: Assume the parking structure has 250 parking spaces valued at $7,500 each, for a total value of $1.9 million. Assume that the 65,716 square feet of built office space is valued at $91.46 per square foot for a total value of $6 million. The land is still valued at $12.92 per square foot for a total value of $2.1 million. • Park and common area improvements are paid by/through TIF or Metro District financing. • Total project build-out is assumed to be eight to 10 years with up to 10 phases of development. • Infrastructure is assumed to be sufficient to support the development. • Cases: – Worst case assumes the highest construction costs and lowest lease/sale rates in the ranges Design Workshop was provided. – Best case assumes the lowest construction costs and highest lease/sale rates. – Median case assumes median construction and lease/sale rates. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 32 V. E C O N O M I C P R O F O R M A I D e v e l o p m e n t A s s u m p t i o n s a n d E c o n o m i c D a t a ---PAGE BREAK--- Results Scenario 1 - Full Development Program with Structured Parking • Total developable land - 339,050 square feet on Parcels A, B, C and D • Gross floor area - 693,050 square feet – 50 percent residential/hotel – 27 percent office – 16 percent commercial/retail – 7 percent civic/institutional • Total land basis - $4.1 million ($11.50 to $12.92 per sf) • Total parking costs - $18.2 million for approximately 1,200 spaces – $7.7 million paid by the developer – $10.5 million paid by the City The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the full development program shown in Attachment A: Table 1: IRR Results of Development Pro Forma for a Full Development Program The ranges shown in Table 1 result from the application of high and low land values, cost estimates and revenue assump- tions outlined above. For example, the worst case is a combination of the highest land values, highest construction costs and lowest sales/lease rates for property. In the best case, we applied the median values for the assumptions that had ranges. Scenario 2 - Full Development Program with Mostly Surface Parking • Total developable land - 339,050 square feet on Parcels A, B, C and D • Gross floor area - 231,017 square feet – 91 percent residential/hotel – 9 percent commercial/retail – No office or civic/institutional • Total land basis - $4.1 million ($11.50 to $12.92 per sf) • Total parking costs - $2 million for approximately 380 spaces (80 structured and 300 surface) – $1.3 million paid by the developer – $700,000 paid by the City The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the full development program shown in Attachment A with a combination of surface and structured parking: Table 2: IRR Results of the Full Development Program with Mostly Surface Parking This development program is attractive from a financial stand- point, but the program does not achieve the City's other goals of redevelopment since so much of the land area is occupied by surface parking. Scenario 3 - Development of Parcel A in Isolation • Total developable land - 79,000 square feet on Parcel A • Gross floor area - 165,950 square feet – 62 percent office – 24 percent commercial/retail – 15 percent residential – No civic/institutional • Total land basis - $948,000 ($12 per sf) to $1.4 million ($18 per sf); Hospital's total land basis on Parcels A and C totals $10 million • Total parking costs - $5 million for approximately 337 structured spaces – $500,000 paid by the developer – $4.5 million paid by the City The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the development of Parcel A in isolation with struc- tured parking: Table 3: IRR Results of the Parcel A Development Program with Structured Parking Scenario 4 - Development of Parcel B in Isolation • Total developable land - 122,046 square feet on Parcel B • Gross floor area - 188,640 square feet – 67 percent residential/hotel – 25 percent civic/institutional – 8 percent commercial/retail – No office • Total land basis - $1.4 million ($11.50 per sf) • Total parking costs - $5 million for approximately 334 structured spaces – $3.1 million paid by the developer – $1.9 million paid by the City The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the development of Parcel B in isolation with struc- tured parking: Table 4: IRR Results of the Parcel A Development Program with Structured Parking M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 33 V. E C O N O M I C P R O F O R M A I S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s Developer-Financed Construction (100% cash equity) Bank-Financed Construction Bank-Financed Construction (35% cash equity and 65% debt at Worst Case IRR 0.0% 23.0% Best Case IRR 22.1% 29.8% Median IRR 9.7% 27.1% Bank-Financed Construction Worst Case IRR 22.6% Best Case IRR 29.6% Median IRR 26.8% Bank-Financed Construction Worst Case IRR 5.9% Best Case IRR 15.4% Median IRR 9.8% Bank-Financed Construction Worst Case IRR 21.8% Best Case IRR 28.9% Median IRR 26.1% ---PAGE BREAK--- Scenario 5 - Development of Parcel C in Isolation • Total developable land - 84,809 square feet on Parcel C • Gross floor area - 274,706 square feet – 56 percent residential/hotel – 19 percent commercial/retail – 25 percent office • Total land basis - $975 thousand ($11.50 per sf) • Total parking costs - $6.7 million for approximately 445 structured spaces – $3 million paid by the developer – $3.7 million paid by the City The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the development of Parcel C in isolation with struc- tured parking: Scenario 6 - Development of Parcel D in Isolation • Total developable land - 53,195 square feet on Parcel D • Gross floor area - 63,700 square feet – 100 percent residential/hotel – No commercial/retail or office • Total land basis - $612 thousand ($11.50 per sf) • Total parking costs - $1 million for approximately 70 structured spaces – $1 million paid by the developer – Nothing paid by the City because it is all residential development The following is a range of results of the development pro forma for the development of Parcel D in isolation with struc- tured parking: Summary of Economic Analysis Pro Forma Conclusions: A project of three to four stories with 85% residential, little retail and office, and predominantly surface parking yields a return of 58% with little to no public subsidy. This scheme does not meet the community’s objectives for an amenity-driven, mixed-use development. To achieve the level and quality of development the city desires will require public financing of parking and infra- structure. Lower rates of return (20-25%) for the developer may be acceptable if risk is lowered by the city obtaining zoning and arranging public finance for major portions of the structured parking. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 34 V. E C O N O M I C P R O F O R M A I S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s Bank-Financed Construction Worst Case IRR 11.7% Best Case IRR 27.3% Median IRR 22.6% Bank-Financed Construction Worst Case IRR 22.9% Best Case IRR 29.4% Median IRR 26.8% ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R V I I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P r o c e s s 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- A key component of the success of Riverfront Triangle will be incremental growth of the development and strategic phasing of public infrastructure and utility improvements. The pro- posed plan has been created to proved flexibility for short-term and long-term growth patterns. The foundation for this study was created by simultaneously testing economic trends, basic market analysis research, physical testing of the site plan and a schematic study of the utility improvements necessary for the success of the project. (A more detailed explanation of the eco- nomic assumptions can be found in the Economic Summary section of this document.) The result of these efforts has produced a projected plan with a 1- year build-out cycle. The plan has been subdivided into development parcels and building envelopes that fit within the economic assumptions researched by the consultant team. The following phasing scenario demonstrates one potential 15-year build-out cycle of the Riverfront Triangle Master Plan combin- ing public improvements such as utility infrastructure, plazas and trails with new building development. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 36 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I S t r a t e g i c P h a s i n g Strategic Phasing Sequence ---PAGE BREAK--- V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I S t r a t e g i c P h a s i n g Phase 2 The Fox Parcel Phase 2 concentrates on the development of the Fox Parcel. Beginning along the riverfront, the development utilizes the asset of the location and creates a residential building in the first stage. The second stage incorporates the Riverfront Plaza public space and the adjacent hotel. The final stage and full build-out of the parcel develops the building at the corner of Orange and Front streets. This three-stage development scenario includes public improvements such as the extension of the riverfront trail and Riverfront Plaza. Structured parking for the site has been accounted for but must be considered an integral part of the development sequence. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 37 Phase 1 The Chicken Parcel In this scenario, Phase 1 development hesitates from develop- ing the former Fox Theatre site and concentrates development on the block between West Broadway and Front Street. Public improvements include Owen and Front Street improve- ments.This is intended to build value on the riverfront parcels by developing the surrounding parcels and holding off until market pressure is able to create the desired development along the river. The parcel is planned as a wrapped parking structure and can be phased in three stages. The first stage includes the building on the corner of Front and Owen streets. Building develop- ment continues to the north side of the block, along West Broadway, before the final development of the building at the corner of Orange and Front streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- Phase 4 The Clinic Parcel Planned for an eight-to 15-year build-out, the final phase of the redevelopment begins the demolition of the Western Clinic buildings and the infill on those sites. The first stage includes the implementation of the West Broadway Street improvements and the development of the triangular site between Owen and West Broadway. The position and development of this building defines the eastern edge of Gateway Plaza and becomes a land- mark building for entry into the downtown business district. The second and final stage of this phase includes the redevel- opment of the Western Clinic Building along Front Street. The new building completes improvements along Riverfront Plaza and provides the final mixed-use structure at the corner of Owen and Front streets. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 38 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I S t r a t e g i c P h a s i n g Phase 3 The Taco John I Tire-Rama Parcel Phase 3 of the redevelopment occurs between six and 10 years, leapfrogging the existing Western Clinic and beginning the res- idential buildings near the intersection of West Broadway and Front Street. Public improvements include the continuation of the riverfront trail. With the Front Street improvements in place, the new residential development is able to capitalize on river views and the new streetscape environment. The second stage of Phase 3 continues the development west- ward and begins to form the southern edge of Gateway Plaza at the corner of West Broadway and Front streets. Structured parking and service alleys have been considered in the planning for these sites but must become an integral part of the develop- ment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Parcel Plan The parcel plan defines the larger development areas for Riverfront Triangle and the basic building blocks for future development. Parcel boundaries define the perimeter areas for proposed building in the plan. Public plazas, right-of-way boundaries, service corridors and riverfront setbacks have been accommodated in the parcel plan as areas outside parcel limits. The Riverfront Master Plan has identified five basic parcels along with parcel subdivision for individual building envelopes. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 39 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I P a r c e l P l a n ---PAGE BREAK--- Build-to Requirements To promote a pedestrian-oriented urban environment, build- to requirements have been established to prevent building setbacks and encourage well-defined public spaces. They are intended to affect the location of buildings in order to define and contain the street space, concentrate and reinforce pedes- trian activity, and create a sense of place. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 40 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I B u i l d - t o - R e q u i r e m e n t s ---PAGE BREAK--- Architectural Axis and Nodes To promote a pedestrian-oriented development and respond to the adjacent city fabric, specific corners have been identified as key architectural elements. Building orientation, heights, entries and façade treatments are intended to create a clear axial relationship to the surround streets by identifying archi- tectural nodes. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 41 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I A r c h i t e c t u r a l A x i s a n d N o d e s ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Heights To integrate the new development with the surrounding city fabric maximum building heights have been identified for each parcel. Building heights are measured by the highest point of proposed structures. Building height varies throughout the plan and achieves the higher structures along West Broadway and lower structures along the riverfront corridor. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 42 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I B u i l d i n g H e i g h t s ---PAGE BREAK--- Permitted Uses Permitted uses prescribe a maximum square footage of build- ing program and land use for each parcel. To promote overall mixture of uses the program distribution corresponds with the desired building density and public space framework. Specific required square footages for retail, office/commercial and resi- dential uses and overall floor-area ratio have been defined . M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 43 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I P e r m i t t e d U s e s ---PAGE BREAK--- Ground-Floor Retail To promote an active street environment, required ground-floor retail areas have been identified. This is intended to affect the location of active retail areas in the plan and to provide a clarity for future developers. The required retail must promote an active street environment and are encouraged to have outdoor eating areas, adequate signage and appropriate window trans- parency to encourage a building-to-street relationship. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 44 V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I D e v e l o p m e n t C o n t r o l s I G r o u n d F l o o r R e t a i l ---PAGE BREAK--- V I . I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P R O C E S S I I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P r o c e s s The following list of recommendations are provided to guide the implementation of the Riverfront Triangle Master Plan. The list of requirements anticipate both a public and private involvement in the development of the plan. • Criteria need to be established for the successful bidder(s) for the Riverfront Triangle and a process for the selection of developer(s). We have outlined a suggested list of crite- ria in the master plan document but these need to be discussed with the MRA board, St. Patrick Hospital and the city officials to reach agreement on how developers will be selected. • We believe that a community association may be in order for the Triangle. The maintenance of common areas and criteria for operations of the various facilities should be managed in common rather than on a building by build- ing basis. • A design review process needs to be established and agreed upon. Bidders want to know what steps they will have to take in order to get to a building permit. We recommend that this be handled by a committee appointed by the community association rather than given to city staff. Developers would be much more comfortable with this process. • It appears that the housing authority has the ability to par- ticipate at some level in development of one of the projects. Inclusion of affordable housing in the plan would also advance the city's social agenda. Focusing its energies on the Chicken block, at the corner of West Broadway and Front streets, would seem to make the most sense. • Financing of parking, streetscape, and park improvements may best be accomplished through the creation of a new TIF district. Knowing that this possibility exists would greatly enhance the attractiveness of the project to devel- opers. • To the extent that the streetscape and park improvements are financed through a public finance mechanism, the developer would be freed from any direct responsibility for managing the work and for designing these improve- ments. This would suggest a public design process that would also help to avoid a negotiation over finishes, levels of amenity, etc. This work also needs to be placed on the master work schedule. • The parking authority needs to participate at some level (ideally with $4M in bonds but at a minimum $2M). This is critical to having the funding needed to kick-start the Chicken block. • Zoning of the Riverfront Triangle should be completed before the project goes to bid. This removes much of the uncertainty for potential developers and gives them confi- dence they are in accordance with zoning and have approval from the City. • The creation of a boulevard on Broadway would help to advance the development of the Riverfront Triangle. To the extent that MRA can participate in the State's planning process, it would be time well-spent. • The MRA, based on our pro forma, will need to remove the trash from the site. It would seem that there is no point in proceeding with this until you have a developer identified, but this work needs to be placed on a master calendar. • Finally, a more focused proforma and market analysis should be conducted to answer any of the more detailed questions from potential developers. This would again remove any uncertainty for the developer about the economic “legs” of the project and give the city hard data for the negotiation of the parcels. By anticipating developer questions, the City will have proven its understanding of the economics. M I S S O U L A R I V E R F R O N T T R I A N G L E 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- A p p e n d i x 46