A PRESENTATION TO: The Auburn City Council INDEPENDENT PRESENTED BY: Citizens The Independent TASK FORCE Citizens Task Force July 19, 2016
1 Task Force Contributors
• Daniel Bennett, FAIA, Dean and Professor Emeritus, College of Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn University • John Pittari, Professor of City Planning and Urban Design, College of Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn University • Harris Hollans, PhD MAI MRICS, Real Estate Finance Consultant • Michael Dilworth, Builder and Developer, Dilworth Development • John McCarthy, PE, Retired Traffic Engineer, Licensed Professional Engineer in Alabama and New Jersey, Licensed Professional Planner in New Jersey • Ray Huff, Owner, Auburn Realty, Student Housing Management/Sales • James Sprayberry, Attorney • Marlene Bowman, Realtor & City of Auburn Resident/Citizen • Stone Ray, Student, College of Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn University • Linda Dean, City of Auburn Resident/Citizen • Susan Hunnicutt, Task Force Leader, City of Auburn Resident/Citizen 2 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Methodology
• Contributors Met Weekly Since March 23, 2016 • They Were Selected Because of Their • Expertise and Experience in Their Fields • Familiarity with Auburn’s Culture and Growth • Secondary Research from City Documentation • Comp Plans 2000, 2020, 2030, • Downtown Master Plan • Auburn Traffic Studies, 1991 (Complete) & 2015 (Partial) • The Danter Report • 2016 Citizens Survey • Additional Secondary Research Documentation • Auburn University 2013 Student Housing Master Plan • Complete Streets by Smart Growth America • Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials • The Research Triangle Park Master Plan, 2011 • Other Research that is Cited Within This Report • Recommendations were Refined and Distilled to Present Cohesive, Effective Recommendations
3 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Purpose of These Recommendations
• The Current Downtown Auburn Vision is • High-Rise, High-Density Student Housing & Retail Developments • Increased Tax Revenue Stream to the City • To Offer An Alternate Vision for Downtown Auburn’s Future • To Provide Additional Ideas for Sustainable Revenue Streams to the City
4 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn’s Growth: Market and Housing Trends
• The University Resident (Student) Population is Stable • Alums are Returning to Auburn in Record Numbers • U.S. News & College Values Online Ranks Auburn as one of the Top 10 Small Towns in the US • Non-student Adult Population is Growing • Student Housing Market is Saturated (Danter Report) • Vacant Student Housing is a Continual Challenge
5 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council A Vision for a Viable and Active University Downtown
• Development Decisions Need to Be Made to Accommodate Residents, Visitors, and Students • Provide Pedestrian Environments and Opportunities • Create Strategies to Ensure that the Downtown is a Unique Commercial Destination • Design Streetscapes Which Accommodates Trees, Shrubs, and Plantings • Develop Regulations to Encourage Context Sensitive Design for Project Proposals • Write Building Codes and Planning Strategies to Create a Sense of Place
6 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample College Town: Lawrence, KS
7 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample College Town: Lawrence, KS
8 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample Auburn Streetscape Vision
9 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample Auburn Courtyard Vision
10 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn – Existing Conditions: DMP*
Before
* Downtown Master Plan 11 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn – Proposed Concept: DMP*
After
* Downtown Master Plan 12 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn DMP* – How to Achieve the Vision
* Downtown Master Plan 13 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council How Do We Get to a Livable, Vibrant Downtown?
• Adopt a Form-Based Code • Adopt a City-Supported Design Review Board • Include Traffic Engineering and Infrastructure Committees on Design Review Board • Hire a Revenue Consultant to Review Current and Future Revenue • Expand GE-Type R&D Economic Base over Light Manufacturing • Utilize the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) as a Development Guide • Adopt a Development Strategy that Sets Limits on Certain Land Uses and Building Types • Utilize Citizen-Led Task Forces to Provide Input Regarding Land Use and Growth Pressures • Integrate the City Transit System with the AU Tiger Transit System for Economies of Scale
14 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation 1: Adopt Form-Based Code
• Same Goal with Very Different Outcomes: Build Affordable Multi-family Housing Near Transportation Corridors.
• Top: Technical Requirements (Density, Building Setbacks, Landscaping Berms, Travel and Turn Lanes, and Curb Radii) Came First with Disappointing Results
• Bottom: “Placemaking” is Given Priority, with Technical Specialists Contributing to, Rather than Controlling, the Result to Produce a More Complete Human Environment and Public Realm
Illustrations by Steve Price, Urban Advantage. http://plannersweb.com/2014/12/fbc1/
• Montgomery, AL Adopted Form-Based Code, Smart Code, in October, 2014
15 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Form-Based Code Used by Design Review Board
• Form-Based Code Puts Design Form of Building, Street, Sidewalk before Use • Uses Change, i.e., Bank of Auburn, Nightclub, Pizza Place • Buildings Last and Create a Town’s Legacy • Provides a Higher Degree of Certainty than Conventional Zoning, Regarding the Location and Character of New Development for Both Citizens and Developers Alike
16 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation 2: Adopt Design Review Board
• Looks at a Block or Urban Area, not One Development • Forward-Thinking while Complementary to Area • Keeps Human Scale • Encourages Human Activity and Livability • Plans Green Space, including Courtyards • Keeps Small Town Charm* and promotes Economic Development
* The Overall Quality of an Urban Environment that Promotes and Enhances Close Social Relationships Often Associated with Small Town Life (and Which Also Actually Happens In Many “Big City” Neighborhoods) Through An Ability to Gather In Pleasant Public Spaces, Meet Serendipitously on the Street While Running Errands, etc.
17 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn Suggested Design Review Board Details
• It is Not Binding; It is Advisory In Nature • For Example, Mountain Brook City Leadership Sets the Standard that Following Board Recommendations Is Preferred and Has Become Culturally Expected • Incentives Would Encourage Compliance • Financial Stimulus from The City • Other Contractual Considerations • Cohesive, Good Design Complements the History and Current Architecture of a “Place” • It Adds Value to the Property • It Raises the Tax Base
18 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Mt. Brook Design Review Board (DRB)
• The Mountain Brook Design Review Board (DRB) has been in existence for over twenty years, thus it has become institutionalized • It is a cooperative venture between the City and the residents of Mountain Brook • The DRB and its recommendations are fully supported by the City administration. In instances where there is non-compliance, the City publicizes the fact that the proposed project is “not in compliance” with DRB recommendations. • Due to the institutional nature of the DRB, very few projects do not follow DRB recommendations • The DRB is composed of 5 members, all appointed by the City. Membership includes an attorney, an architect, a real estate expert, and a lay citizen
19 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Mt. Brook Design Review Board (DRB)(cont)
• Regarding process, the City grants preliminary approval (based on code compliance, FAR ratios, etc.) and then forwards the project to the DRB for their review. Upon completion of that review, the project goes back to the City with the DRB approval or with recommended changes from the DRB. • The DRB reviews such issues as context compatibility, scale, proportion, material usage, and building street relationships.
20 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Design Review Board Recommended Guidelines
• Auburn City Council Appoints Design Board Leader • Leader Is to Be An Architect • Leader Appoints Board Members and Number Needed (approx. 5-10) According to Their Specialties, e.g., Urban Planning, Traffic Engineering, Streetscapes/Landscapes • No Political Appointees to Serve • Each Board Member Serves 3-4 Year Term • Board Adopts a Process Similar to that of Mt. Brook’s Architectural Design Review Process
21 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Developer Viewpoint of Design Review Board
• Raises Development Quality and Value • Encourages Architects and Developers to Consider Auburn’s Long-Term Design Quality in Specific Projects • Provides a Checklist At the Beginning of a Project so Planning is Done Right the First Time • Saves Money on “Re-dos”
22 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation 3: Include Traffic Engineering & Infrastructure Committees on Review Board
The Task Force Recommends to the City: • Adopt The Complete Streets Approach • Integrate Campus Transit and Avoid City Traffic. Revise Tiger Transit to Serve As City Transit. Relieve Traffic Load Off Downtown. • Coordinate Traffic Signals Along College St. Improve Traffic Flow. • Implement Access Controls Where Entrances & Exits Are Located On/Off City Streets for All Developments for Less Mid-block Congestion • Institute & Enforce Drainage Controls for Sidewalks and Garages to Ensure Continual Usage • Drainage Systems Need to Be Kept Up-to-date to Provide “Zero Runoff Increase.”
23 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Traffic & Infrastructure Committees (cont)
• Review and Determine Grades and Parameters for - Trip Generation ¡ A Measure of the Number of Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bicycle and/or Transit Trips with a Start or Finish Created by a Certain Land Use, Usually Expressed in Vehicle Type Units Per Hour - Parking Generation ¡ A Measure of the Number of Vehicles Needed to be Stored for Users of a Land Use, Usually Expressed in a Number of Passenger Vehicles, but the Number of Service Vehicles, or Transit Vehicles, Could Also Be Determined as a Parking Generation or Storage Need, Usually Presented in Vehicle Type Units • Institute Underground Parking Structures Rather Than Surface Parking for All New Developments
24 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Traffic & Infrastructure Committees (cont)
• Increase Development Parking To 1.5 Spaces Per Bed from 1.1 • Other College Towns Have a Sliding Scale Based on the Number of Bedrooms* Per Unit
*Chapel Hill, NC’s (UNC) Form-Based Code Dictates the Above Number of Parking Spaces, Compared with Other College Towns. Three Students Were Killed as a Result of a Parking Space Dispute. http://kenlarsennc.com/ParkingIssue.pdf
25 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Traffic & Infrastructure Committees (cont)
1991 City of Auburn Traffic Engineering Study 26 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Traffic & Infrastructure Committees (cont)
• Existing Conditions for Vehicular Level of Service is at Level of Service D or Better for All Approaches to the Intersection of North College St and Glenn Ave • Level of Service C is Desirable, and Level of Service D is Considered Acceptable in Peak Hours, According to the Auburn Public Works Manual
• At the Signalized Intersection, the Level of Service D Conditions Occur on the Glenn Ave Approaches
• Consider Pedestrian Level of Service at All Affected Intersections
• Upgrade Illumination of Roadway And Sidewalk Areas
• Update Corridor Analysis to Include the Affected Student Housing Developments 2007 College St Corridor Study 2015 Capacity Analysis of W Glenn Ave at N College St 27 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn Priorities: Citizen’s Survey, 2016
28 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation 4: Hire a Revenue Consultant to Review Current and Future Revenue
• Engage a Consultant to Recommend Improving Long-term Revenue Streams Balanced with Areas of Expense Reduction • Engage Real Estate Finance Consultants to Advise How to Maximize the City’s Development Opportunities • Explore the “Necessity” of Increasing Property Taxes in Keeping with the Rapid Growth of the City • Ensure Increases Target the Appropriate City Services, e.g. Schools • Retain Ownership of City Land and Develop to Maximize Value • Take the Long-term View: Determine Appropriate Density to Ensure Downtown Vitality and Livable Traffic and Infrastructure for Sustainable Growth
29 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Auburn Is Misreading National Market Trends*
• There is a Current Dislocation in Real Estate Capital Markets • It Has Led to Explosive Student Housing Development • Spurred by Low Commercial Lending Rates and Abundant Equity • It is Combined with Easily Available Subsidized Student Loans • Results in Excess Returns in Purpose Built Student Housing • The Detrimental Impact on Auburn’s Existing Multi-Family Sector will be Profound • The Resulting Impact of Declining Property Values Will Ultimately Lead to Numerous Detrimental Unintended Consequences • Unrealized Tax Revenue Gains, a Greater Load on City Services, and More Difficulty in Paying Back Loans Will Result
* “College Towns Join the Mania: The Skyscraper Curse in Auburn” by Mark Thornton, Mises.org, September 3, 2015
30 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation 5: Expand GE-Type R&D Economic Base over Light Manufacturing
• Auburn is a University Town • Retain / Expand our Town Identity • De-emphasize Lower Wage Manufacturing and Focus on Attracting GE-Type R&D Companies - Higher-Paid Employees Can Afford Higher-Cost Housing, Resulting in Higher Property Taxes for the City • Work in Partnership with the University to Expand R&D Base Similar to GE to Create a Nationally Recognized Research Hub • Leverage $50 Billion in Huntsville Contracts • Let State Provide Additional Incentives to U.S.-based Companies • Leverage Auburn Alums to Expand R&D (Tim Cook, Apple / Chris Moody, Twitter / Others) • Set Up High-Speed Data and Service Infrastructure to Support It
31 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendations Summary: Primary
• Adopt Form-Based Code • Initiate Architecture Design Review Board • Incorporate Traffic & Infrastructure Committees • Hire a Revenue Consultant to Review Current and Future Revenue • Expand GE-Type R&D Economic Base over Light Manufacturing
Goals: Revitalize Downtown with Quaint, Resident-Based Shops, Eateries, Sidewalk Cafes; Increase Walkability; Plan/Implement Auburn’s Long-Term Sustainable Growth
32 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendations Summary: Secondary
• Expand City Transit System (Integrate with Tiger Transit) • Institute Underground Parking Structures Not Surface Parking for All New Developments • Retain Ownership of City Land, Lease to Developers • Use Citizen-Led Task Forces to Envision Sustainable Community Growth, Solve Economic Growth Challenges
33 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Questions & Answers Q & A
34 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Thank You Thank You 35 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Appendix
36 Appendix A Additional Recommendations
37 Recommendation: Student Housing
• Within the next 2-5 years, it is conceivable that the University will require all Freshmen to live on campus. Prepare a plan to transition all student housing to multi-family or professional office space • Find expert who has successfully transitioned student housing to multi-family w/ no change in demographics • Transition vacant older student housing to multi-family or professional office space, with very little change in occupancy • Change Definition in DMP to delete example of the construction type. Would help close loophole. • Provide Incentives To Upgrade Existing Structures
38 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation: Student Housing (cont)
• Council should go ahead and decide what procedure will be when non-purpose student housing gets built in the urban core and cannot rent up and developer comes to city asking for a waiver to rent to students • Offer incentives (tax breaks, incentive $, etc.) to existing owners in US West-? to tear down and rebuild • Recognize that the “Entertainment District” will expand north to the new high rises once they get built and make a plan now how to handle that • Increase building height west of Donahue to 75 ft.
39 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Housing: Danter Report
• “In our previous study (2012), we determined that the market could absorb 300-400 beds per year in the short term, especially if developed in ‘walkable’ neighborhoods. The two new properties will total 1098 beds, a three-to-four year supply.” • Since the Danter Report was released, the follow properties have been approved in the Urban Core alone: 191 N. College (465 beds), the Standard (683 beds), and the Balcony (90 beds). This provides inventory that can be absorbed for an additional four years – thus we are built “ahead” by about 8 years. If the University requires all freshman to live on campus, as is under consideration, there will be fewer undergraduates renting privately-owned housing, further increasing available inventory in the private sector.
40 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Housing: Auburn Citizen’s Survey, 2016
41 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Housing: Citizen’s Survey, 2016
• Stop high-rise development in urban core • Of the 735 surveys returned, 551 or 75% had write-in comments • Stop building student housing • Of the 735 surveys returned, 184 or 25% had write-ins comments to stop building student housing • Increase mayor and city council transparency • Have an overall plan for planning & development – Auburn’s future • Retain the “small town” feel (40% of the write-ins) • Make downtown inviting to permanent residents
42 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Housing: Citizen’s Comments, 2016
• The out of control development of apartments! It is putting pressure on the school system and the city. People are moving in to low-cost housing since we have excess housing and they are not all working in Auburn to have money that goes towards paying for schools. We need the city to think more about the citizens than the developers. • Stop allowing non-Auburn based property owners to price local business owners out of downtown Auburn to have local businesses replaced by corporate chains. It is completely out of control and downtown Auburn is losing its local flavor and is quickly just becoming Anytown, USA. Also, ENOUGH with the new apartment construction for students. It has reached the point of absurdity and is creating dangerous areas in older areas like Longleaf. • Downtown is not inviting to permanent residents anymore. • Get council to vote according to constituent input. Don't destroy downtown with high rises. • Attention to aesthetic beauty of the town. If you look at South College and Opelika Road with fresh eyes, they are a huge hodgepodge with no flow or master plan behind development. Wish our town could concentrate on greenspaces, outdoor dining downtown, pedestrian accessibility to venues. Look at Roswell and Decatur communities in Georgia. Both are huge retirement communities like ours but have a feeling that all development is planned out carefully. • Better Internet options. It needs to be upgraded city-wide. 43 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Housing: Citizen’s Comments, 2016 (cont)
• Stop the construction of the tall buildings and apartment complexes. Complete transparency from the mayor and city council member about building. It appears that the mayor and city council members care more about money than preserving the beauty and uniqueness of our small town. Very disappointed. Did not listen to the citizens who were concerned about what was happening or going to happen to our city. • Stop building student housing • More transparency on the city projects, moratoriums, etc. • I'd like to see better decisions made regarding how to spend our tax dollars. Lighted street signs would be at the bottom of my list. I'd also like to see more transparency in the bid process for infrastructure. Contracts are always awarded to the same companies, and all projects take far longer to complete than necessary. Lastly, spend some time promoting both adult and family friendly businesses and less time on student oriented ones. • Keep the historic part, historic and reuse existing building before tearing down old ones! • NO high rise buildings in the downtown core
NOTE: Comments comprise only pgs. 22-25 out of complete comments, pgs. 1-25
44 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Development: Auburn-Opelika Hotel Room Needs
2015 Auburn-Opelika Hotel Occupancy • 60.3%, The Auburn Villager, May 12, 2016 • Marriott Courtyard, S. College St. and Candlewood Suites near Sam’s Club are included • Marriott Courtyard opened late August, 2015; Candlewood Suites opened Thanksgiving, 2015 • 60.3% is a record high for over a decade • This record includes the entire area, Auburn & Opelika • Towne Place Suites by Marriott near Blooming Colors is due to open mid- to late July, 2016. It is an ‘extended stay’ hotel with a standard of 90-115 rooms with that type of franchise • No more hotel rooms are required in Auburn/Opelika
45 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Student Viewpoint
Evolve Hotel & Grocery 75’ Tall 80’ Tall 191 College 6 Floors; 456 Beds 80’2” Tall 7 Floors; 465 Beds
The Standard 65’ Tall; 683 Beds
The Balcony & 222 Lo s 4 Floors; 91 Beds
Image Facing Southwest 46 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Recommendation: Student Viewpoint
47 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Other Recommendations
• Actively Communicate With Constituents About The City’s Vision And Proposed Solutions; Let Them In On The Process Earlier • Possibly Impose City-wide Restrictions For Future Multi-unit Housing Development; Slow The Pace Of Development • Let A Citizen-led Task Force Envision What Downtown Auburn Needs To Attract A Mix Of Young Professionals, Adults, And Students (Example: Movie Theatres—there Were Formerly Two Downtown) • Institute Design Stipulations Ensuring Views Of Samford Hall for All Future Downtown Developments
48 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Other Recommendations (cont)
• Building height needs to be 50% of distance or width between buildings or houses on that street • If 100 feet apart - 50 ft. max tall • If 60 feet apart - 30 ft. max tall • If more than XX Beds/potential occupants, then require a traffic study by person or company selected by City Engineer or pick 1 of 3 selected by City to eliminate potential traffic problems • Increase tap fee for water/sewer on sliding scale depending on number of potential occupants/beds: • Example: 1-50 people $ X (10 times a single home) • 51-100 $ XX 101-200 $ XXX • 201-300 $ XXXX 300 and above $ XXXXX • Have an Architectural Review Board to make certain new buildings blend in with design and materials used in, for example, Samford Hall, Langdon Hall, Comer Hall and the University Chapel 49 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Appendix B Recommendations Detail
50 Attributes of Small College Town: Lawrence, KS
• Only 3 buildings on the main street over 3 stories – Hotel – Bank/ Commercial – Brewery/Brew Pub – all spread out so none were overpowering • No student housing on Main Street • Lots of local restaurants and shops mixed in with national vendors all with quaint atmosphere – outside eating and easy walking space. Great local flavor mixed in with students which creates a very relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere. • Lots of trees and street parking. Big parking deck 1 street over from Main was promoted by the downtown shops • Traffic flow was well thought out • Promotion by all of the downtown area to visitors: “Make sure you go downtown. You’ll love it!”
51 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample College Town: Lawrence, KS
52 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Sample College Town: Lawrence, KS (off Main St)
53 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Architectural Design Review Board Considerations
• How does the proposed development relate to the existing context (surrounding buildings)? Issues such as scale, proportion, and material selection should be considered • If the proposed development is significantly larger than its surrounding context, how is that relationship (a large multi-story building adjacent to a small one or two-story building) handled? Does the facade of the large development have smaller definitive characteristics so that the basic visual scale is similar. Is there a transition from small to large (so that the adjacency of the two different scaled buildings work well together visually)?
54 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Architectural Design Review Board (cont)
• How is the first floor of a multi-story building handled? Is it visually different from the upper levels and does it “break down” the scale so that there is a relationship to the human scale … Is it visually comfortable at the street? • How is parking handled? If the proposal is for surface parking, is it screened? That is, with landscape or other types of hardscape used to “hide” the parking? Efforts should be made to place the building closer to the street with parking hidden and to the rear of the project. If the parking is multi-story (in a parking structure), the parking structure should be enclosed in the development so that it does not face and is not visible from the street.
55 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Architectural Design Review Board (cont)
• How does the development relate to the street that it affronts? • Is there green space between the street and the front facade of the development … i.e., how far back from the street is the development sited? This is a critical decision in that it should not be too far back from the street but also it should not be too close either. For example, a project like 160 North Ross could have benefited from being placed a few more feet away from the sidewalk on Ross and on Glenn. However, a project on College Street in the downtown needs to abut the front sidewalk • For urban projects (in the downtown), are there interior open spaces (courtyards) and if so, are they visible from the street?
56 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council VIDEO: How to Make an Attractive City
• We've grown good at making many things in the modern world - but strangely the art of making attractive cities has been lost. Here are some key principles for how to make attractive cities once again.… • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&sns=fb • These are the video's 6 main points & although they keep talking about "cities," the points are appropriate & applicable to towns. They say, make cities attractive which have the following attributes: • Not too chaotic / ordered -- i.e., for Auburn, quaint
57 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council VIDEO: How to Make an Attractive City (cont)
• Be able to "see life" – that is make towns "people”-sized – where people are on and active on the streets, like Toomer's Corner – don't take it for granted! • You must be able to see people "working" / doing what they do inside – like urban Auburn seeing people in through the plate glass windows • Compact – no sprawl • Stop the knee-jerk reaction to development • Plan with a holistic vision • Orientation & mystery – Keep the fun "nooks & crannies to explore in – alleys, squares, etc. NOT Giant developments like 190 Ross & the NEW parking garage – sterile & monolithic that take the "soul" out of a town!
58 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council VIDEO: How to Make an Attractive City (cont)
• Scale – make the buildings "people sized" so they can live & be active -- not feel swallowed up & diminished – A maximum height is 5 stories for a large city – and for a small college town – lower • Make it local – not like ANYWHERE -- Keep the town special! Otherwise people react by hating ALL development. Keep The Charm! • Action: Citizens, tell your city officials what you want so greedy developers don't take over -- Make city leaders know what you want, so they can follow the Will of The People
59 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council CASE STUDY: StrongTowns.org – Holland, MI
Describe your town's transportation system and what transportation options are available for residents.
• The City of Holland (pop: approx. 49,000) infrastructure is designed to provide alternative modes of transportation. • Complete Streets: • Although we have an historic grid pattern with 150 miles of streets and 365 lane miles, our 150 miles of sidewalk were recently supplemented by over eight (8) miles boardwalks, bike paths, and bike lanes (22%, 3%, and 100% increase respectively over the last decade).
60 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council CASE STUDY: StrongTowns.org – Holland, MI (cont)
Give an example of an incremental project that your town has undertaken. • Downtown was threatened by … a 25% vacancy rate, and had deteriorating infrastructure and building stock. • A new vision was created to compete with the “national mall rush” in 1987. This visioning process led to principles that preserved the grid, the compactness of Downtown, the traditional building streetscapes, increased the downtown residential units, provided free downtown parking, and instituted an innovative “patient capital” building façade restoration program. • Downtown is diligently maintained by [along with others] a Design Review Committee, and a Parking Committee.
61 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council CASE STUDY: StrongTowns.org – Holland, MI (cont)
Describe how residents of your town are actively involved in local decision making. • A good example of local decision-making is how the Holland community did an about-face from planning to rebuild a coal- burning power plant to a natural gas plant due to opposition from local environmental interest groups. This community input eventually led to establishing a forty year Community Energy Plan to reduce the per capita carbon footprint by 60%. • This change would not have been possible without the Mayor’s creation of a Sustainability Committee, the Community Energy Plan, seven Citizen-led Task Forces and a comprehensive Sustainable-Return-On-Investment process
62 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Recommendations
The existing infrastructure needs to be evaluated for areas approaching and departing any new student residential development. Some of the infrastructure needs which were discussed at meetings in March and April, 2016, dealt with: • Intersection capacity • Access control of driveways on all arterials • Bicyclist and pedestrian safety programs • Drainage systems • Illumination of the roadway and sidewalk areas • Methods of determining increased traffic volumes • Transit services for intra campus travel and to and from satellite parking locations Intersection capacity of all traffic signals in the vicinity of a development zone needs to be evaluated prior to any development being approved. These locations are not just immediately adjacent to the property being developed, but around the perimeter of each zone. This capacity needs to be based on both pedestrian and vehicular movements. Existing volumes need to be gathered. Anticipated volumes need to be projected by the developer and agreed to by the City of Auburn engineering staff. Since Auburn has a wireless communication system interconnecting the operation of downtown traffic signals, the effect of any recommended changes for traffic signal timing also need to be assessed on the arterial signal progression in place. This assessment will include signalized intersections that are off-site.
63 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Recs (cont)
• Access control of driveways on all arterials needs to address the effect of driveway access near all intersections. Left turns into or out of developments may need to be prohibited if they interfere with through movements or regulated turning movements. This access control was also referred to in questions about providing boulevards in downtown along College St. Such boulevards would require removal of existing two-way left turn lanes and construction of curbed medians.
• Bicyclist and pedestrian safety programs are needed for all projects that increase pedestrian volumes on the existing sidewalk system. Interconnection of sidewalks to the Auburn University Campus need to be a responsibility of any proposed development. Existing pedestrian and bicyclist attractions of the US Post Office, City Recreation Center, City Community Center and pedestrian oriented businesses need to be interconnected with sidewalks to the student residential developments. Pedestrian movements at the downtown railroad crossings were noted as needing more attention. Since bicyclists are entitled to use the roadways in Alabama, the road system may need modifications for bicycle capacity and detection at traffic signals. A pedestrian and bicyclist education program needs to be carried out within student housing developments, as well as on the AU campus. This program needs to assume that new students may not be familiar with advanced pedestrian timing techniques already in place in downtown Auburn. These features include pedestrian actuation methods as well as both verbal and visual communications of the timing intervals for pedestrian movement.
64 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Recs (cont)
• Drainage systems may need undergrounds storage structures to insure “zero run-off increase”. These developments need to insure that pedestrian and bicycle movements can be accommodated on both rainy and sunny days. • Illumination of the roadway and sidewalk areas needs to be comparable to that provided by the City on Opelika Highway at N Gay St. Separate lighting fixtures are provided there for vehicular needs and pedestrian needs. • Methods of determining increased traffic volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorized vehicles need to be investigated and presented to the public. Parking generation and trip generation characteristics of similar student residential developments need to be studied. Similar locations in Auburn should be studied to determine local conditions. Locations of several college towns were contacted to see what similar parking generation studies have been done there. Similar data is needed for trip generation. • Transit services for intra campus travel and to and from satellite parking locations need to be considered. All large developments need to have on street transit stops. The students that are expected to live in student housing areas need transit service connections to the furthest class locations. Also the employment office on Shug Jordan Parkway and the Veterinary School present problems for students living in downtown without motorized vehicles. University employees need similar access to these locations. Satellite parking at these locations with transit to downtown could be used as a method of reducing the demand for downtown and on-campus parking. This list as discussed is not considered to be totally comprehensive. These needs should be used to complement any existing development regulations.
65 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Resources
Articles and References A. Parking Resource List
• “Parking deck deterioration – the reasons why,” James M Hunnicutt, published in Concrete Construction Magazine, September 1976 • http://www.concreteconstruction.net/concrete-articles/parking-deck- deterioration-the-reasons-why.aspx
• “Elements of Good Parking Garage Functional Design,” James M Hunnicutt, published in Concrete International Magazine, March 1, 1980 • https://www.concrete.org/publications/ internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&i=8899
• “Parking Facilities,” Shannon Sanders McDonald, AIA, last updated 02-16-2015, in Whole Building Design Guide, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) • https://www.wbdg.org/design/parking.php • From American Planning Association website at: https://www.planning.org/research/streets/resources.htm 66 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Resources (cont)
Articles and References (cont): B. Complete Streets Resource List / Basics • American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service. “Complete Streets.” QuickNotes No. 5 http://.www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/pdf/QN5text.pdf • Dumbaugh, Eric. 2005. "Safe Streets, Livable Streets." Journal of the American Planning Association71 (3): 283-300.www.informaworld.com/smpp/ content~content=a787370026~db=all~order=page • Handy, Susan, Robert Paterson, and Kent Butler. 2003. “Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There.” Planning Advisory Service Report no. 515, Chicago: American Planning Association. http:// www.planning.org/store/product/?ProductCode=BOOK_P515 • Handy, Susan. 2002. "You Can Get There from Here." PAS Memo, November. • McCann, Barbara. 2005. "Complete the Streets!" Planning, May, 18-23. http://www.planning.org/planning/2005/may/completestreets.htm • McCann, Barbara and John LaPlante. 2008. "Complete Streets: We Can Get There From Here." ITE Journal 78 (5): 24-28. www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/cs-ite-may08.pdf • National Complete Streets Coalition. 2008. "Introduction to Complete Streets." PowerPoint presentation. www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/resources/cs-intro.pptx • Transportation Alternatives. 2008. “Streets to Live By: How livable street design can bring economic, health and quality-of-life benefits to New York City” http://transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/streets_to_live_by.pdf
67 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Resources (cont)
Articles and References (cont): C. Complete Streets Resource List / Guidelines • Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2010. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach: An ITE Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers. www.ite.org/css/RP-036A- E.pdf • U.S. Access Board. Public Rights-of-Way www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public- rights-of-way • Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2009. "Multi-Modal Level-of-Service (LOS) Indicators."Online TDM encyclopedia. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm129.htm D. Design Considerations • American Planning Association. 2006. Planning and Urban Design Standards. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. www.planning.org/store/product/?ProductCode=BOOK_RPUD E. Bicycle/Pedestrian Considerations • McCann, Barbara. 2007. Inclusive Pedestrian Environments: Resources & Recommendations Project Report. Web- based resource from Project Action and Adaptive Environments.www.humancentereddesign.org/pedestrian/ index.html • New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center. 2008. Constructing, Maintaining, and Financing Sidewalks in New Jersey. http://njbikeped.org/portfolio/constructing-maintaining-and-financing-sidewalks-in-new-jersey/ • Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 2008. Active Transportation for America: A Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking. www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=2948 • U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2015. A Resident's Guide for Creating Safe and Walkable Communities.http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/ residents_guide2014_final.pdf 68 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Resources (cont)
Articles and References (cont): F. Complete Streets Resource List / Accessibility • Sanchez, Thomas W., et al. 2007. The Right to Transportation: Moving to Equity. Chicago: Planners Press.www.planning.org/store/product/?ProductCode=BOOK_A64293 • Szold, Terry S. 2002. "What Difference Has the ADA Made?" Planning, April, 10-15.www.planning.org/planning/ 2002/apr/ADA.htm G. Public Transit • Transportation Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2008. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets.http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ nchrp_rpt_616.pdf H. Health Aspects • Frank, Lawrence D., James F. Sallis, Terry L. Conway, James E. Chapman, Brian E. Saelens, and William Bachman. 2006. "Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality." Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (1) 75-87.www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a787384888~db=all~order=page • Morris, Marya. 2006. Planning Active Communities. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 543/544. Chicago: American Planning Association. www.planning.org/store/product/?ProductCode=BOOK_P543 • Sallis, James F., and Karen Glanz. 2006. "The Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Eating, and Obesity in Childhood." Future of Children 16 (1): 89-108.http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795891.pdf
69 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Parking & Traffic Engineering Resources (cont)
Articles and References (cont): I. Complete Streets Resource List / Examples and Implementation • Massachusetts Highway Department. 2006. Project Development and Design Guide. Boston: Massachusetts Highway Department.www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/ ProjectDevelopmentDesignGuide.aspx • Charlotte (North Carolina), City of. 2007. Urban Street Design Guidelines.http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/ Transportation/PlansProjects/pages/urban%20street%20design%20guidelines.aspx • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2006. Routine Accommodation of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area: Results from Interviews with Transportation Professionals and Recommendations to Encourage Routine Accommodation. Oakland, Cal.: Metropolitan Transportation Commission.http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/ meeting_packet_documents/agenda_668/Routine_Accommodation_Ped_Bike_Study_6-06.pdf J. Recently Introduced Legislation • State of California. Assembly Bill 1358. California Complete Streets Act of 2008.www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/ bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf • HR 1443: Complete Streets Act of 2009 www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1443 • SB 584: Complete Streets Act of 2009 www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-584 K. Web Links to Project Partners • American Planning Association: www.planning.org • National Complete Streets Coalition: www.completestreets.org • National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN):www.nplanonline.orgI.
70 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Real Estate Finance: Mises Institute Article
“College Towns Join the Mania: The Skyscraper Curse in Auburn” By Mark Thornton, Mises.org, September 3, 2015
The “Skyscraper Curse” describes the eerie connection between record-breaking skyscrapers and global economic crises. There are no true skyscrapers being built in Auburn, Alabama, home of Auburn University. But, there has been a great deal of building big and tall. Luxury student apartment building leads the way, followed by high-end restaurants, and retail space. Two student apartment buildings were torn down this past week to make room for yet more building. The city government is also spending truckloads of money on street improvements and a state-of-the-art high school. What are people thinking? Don’t they realize we are in one of the weakest recoveries on record and possibly headed for another recession? Is it greedy bankers and construction companies run amuck? Is it out-of-control architects and chefs that are to blame? Or is it the spoiled rich college kids who demand luxury apartments and locally grown veggies? The rush to build bigger, taller, and more luxurious buildings actually has little to do with any of these groups, but it has divided us as a city. On the one hand, there are many people upset because it is changing “the loveliest village on the plains.” Local residents are seeing “Keep Auburn Lovely: Save Our Village” signs popping up all over town. They oppose the building. 71 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Real Estate Finance: Mises Institute Article (cont)
On the other hand, construction workers, cement dealers, building supply companies, and heavy equipment operators must love the fast-paced business and full-time jobs with overtime. They love it. This has all happened before. Remember? Washington, DC: Where Booms Begin The problem actually starts in Washington, DC in an unremarkable building on 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW which houses the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Board, along with a rotating selection of Regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents form the Open Market Committee which sets an interest rate policy targeting the interest rate that banks charge other banks for short-term loans — the Federal Funds rate. When the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee sets the target lower, it sets off a tendency for interest rates to fall across the economy. When they raise the target for the Federal Funds rate, interest rates tend to rise across the economy. For the last seven-and- a-half plus years they have kept the target under a quarter of 1 percent. This type of policy has never happened before. This explains the ultra low rates on your savings account, CD, and mortgage over the last several years. It also explains the luxury-building mania. When the Federal Reserve first lowered rates bankers burned by bad mortgages after the housing bubble along with luxury game day condo builders would not take the bait. Once bitten, twice shy. However, eventually low interest rates are too tempting to resist, especially as new bankers and construction companies come onto the scene. 72 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Real Estate Finance: Mises Institute Article (cont)
The Effects of Low Interest Rates Lower rates have several effects, including less saving and more spending. Low rates also increase stock market prices because lower rates increase the value of corporations, reduce the cost of borrowing, inducing individuals to move money from bank accounts to stock market accounts and to be more fully invested in stocks. When the policy is successful at increasing stock prices, people reduce savings further and spend more on luxury goods. Lower rates also boost borrowing and investment.
If you think that the combination of reduced savings and increased luxury spending sounds contradictory, you are correct. In any case, lower interest rates also tend to increase the price of land, particularly in the center city. In contrast, higher interest rates encourage land and real estate owners to part with their properties at lower prices. Higher land prices make development deals harder to generate profits. The solution is to build more intensively and to make buildings taller. A $1 million piece of land could be profitable by building just one story, but if that same lot is $2 million then you might have to build three stories to make it profitable. A one story building is relatively inexpensive to build compared to a three story building which requires stairways, elevators, and sturdier construction techniques. However, the three story building also produces two-and-a-half times more rentable space.
73 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council Real Estate Finance: Mises Institute Article (cont)
How Malinvestment Leads to Busts Is it better to just build something, even if it is the wrong thing? Well, even if interest rates could stay near zero forever, it still means we are deploying our resources incorrectly. The things we are building will not be as profitable as originally projected and the excess capacity means that long existing projects will also become less profitable. In other words, eventually, their economic values will be less than the amount invested in them. It will also make it more difficult to pay back the loans, especially if you reduce savings and increase your borrowing and luxury spending. These circumstances are in no one’s best long-term interests. But, apparently, eliminating the cause in Washington is currently beyond our collective ability.
Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory.
74 A Presentation to: The Auburn City Council