The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-09-15 PC AGENDA 1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 September 15, 2015 7:00 P.M. Michael Flaherty, Chairman Ron Pizer, Vice Chair Peter Hoffman Kent Allen Rob Saemann Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in the City Hall Council Chambers THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices: Network ID: City Council and Password: chb13 Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website. Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day. Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible. If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible. 2 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I Consent Calendar 4. Approval of the August 18, 2015 regular meeting action minutes 5. Resolution(s) for Consideration - None THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Section II Hearing 6. C-36 -- Semi-annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments City wide. Staff Recommended Action: To conduct the semi-annual review of on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments for January-June 2015 and based on the information and “Standard Initiating P.C. Review” determine that none of the businesses have had sufficient violations to initiate a modification/revocation hearing. Public Hearing 7. CON 15-7 / PDP 15-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 515 Prospect Avenue, and determination whether alternative points at the top of the retaining wall at the rear of the site and an alternative point at the southwest property corner may be used for the purpose of calculating building height; and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (continued from the August 18, 2015 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two unit condominium subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act. 3 8. CON15-8 / PDP15-10 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73730 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 1085- 1087 Monterey Boulevard, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73730 for a two unit condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 9. CUP15-9 & PARK15-6 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to an existing ‘late night’ restaurant with an outdoor patio and on-sale general alcohol at 39 Pier Avenue (Palmilla) with current allowed hours until 1:30 A.M daily, for an approximate 1,100 square foot expansion into the adjacent space to the west (currently a bakery/café); with reduced hours of late night operation until 12:30 A.M. Sunday through Wednesday, and until 1:00 A.M. Thursday, and keeping hours until 1:30 A.M. Friday and Saturday, and a Parking Plan to determine the applicable parking requirements and possible payment of fees in-lieu of providing required parking on site, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 20, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. Section III Hearing 10. S-21#21 – Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 648 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. 11. S-21#22 -- Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 650 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. 12. D-21#23 -- Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 626 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. Section IV 13. Staff Items a. Direction regarding Text Amendment to implement the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. 4 b. Direction regarding the City’s noticing procedures for Planning Commission meetings. c. Report on wireless communications facility for AT&T (relocation of the existing facility at 29th Court to the Kiwanis building located at 2515 Valley Drive). d. Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. e. Report on City Council actions. f. Report on comprehensive planning processes. g. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. h. Community Development Department activity report of July, 2015. 14. Commissioner Items 15. Adjournment 1 Planning Commission Action Minutes August 18, 2015 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 18, 2015, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Flaherty. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Allen, Pizer, Saemann, Chairman Flaherty Absent: Commissioner Hoffman Also Present: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Trevor Rusin, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Gudelj, Assistant Planner Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner 3. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approval of the July 21, 2015 action minutes ACTION: To approve the July 21, 2015 action minutes as presented. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The motion carried, noting the absence of Commissioner Hoffman. 5. Resolution(s) for Consideration – None Section II Public Hearing 6. CUP 15-7 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an existing billiard hall with on-sale alcohol and outdoor seating to allow for tenant improvements to eliminate the billiard tables and convert the space to a restaurant with full service alcohol and outdoor seating at 1220 Hermosa Avenue (Laurel Tavern); and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from 2 Planning Commission Action Minutes August 18, 2015 the California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use amendments with modifications to: 1) amend condition No. 2 to require the business to close at 12:00 midnight daily (instead of 2:00 a.m. as currently allowed and requsted), 2) allow outdoor dining until 11:00 p.m. daily (instead of midnight as requested by applicant and 10:00 p.m as currenlty allowed), and, 3) delete condition 17(a) and replace with a condition to require windows to close at 10:00 p.m., and determining that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Allen, Pizer, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Hoffman 7. CUP 15-8 / PARK 15-5 -- Parking Plan and Conditional Use Permit to add 246 square feet of storage area to an existing restaurant with on-sale beer and wine and exclude said storage area from parking calculations; and to allow for on-sale beer and wine until 11:00 p.m. daily in connection with a proposed new restaurant at 1342 Hermosa Avenue, Brat and Brau; and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan with the business closing at 11:00 p.m. and determining the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Parking Plan and Conditional Use with a modifications to cease sales and consumption of beer and wine at 10:00 p.m. daily and allowing food service until the business is required to close at 11:00 p.m. daily, and determining that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Allen, Pizer, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Hoffman 8. CON 15-6 / PDP 15-8 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73489 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 832 Loma Drive, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73489 for a two unit condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 3 Planning Commission Action Minutes August 18, 2015 ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject requests with a modification to amend condition 3(c) to read as “the guest parking space shall remain open and accessible to guests of both units, rather than being used for storage or any other purpose, and the CC&R’s shall reflect this condition.”, and determining that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION by Chairman Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Allen, Pizer, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Hoffman 9. CON 15-7 / PDP 15-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 515 Prospect Avenue, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt a Minute Order granting the continuance to the September 15, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. ACTION: To continue to the September 15, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The motion carried, noting the absence of Commissioner Hoffman. 10. CUP 15-6 -- Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of (12) panel antennas, (12) Remote Radio Units and associated equipment at 1200 Artesia Boulevard (Verizon Wireless); and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt a Minute Order granting the continuance to the October 20, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. ACTION: To continue to the October 20, 2015 meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried, noting the absence of Commissioner Hoffman. Section III 11. Staff Items a. Informational item – receive report for semi-annual on-sale alcoholic beverage Conditional Use Permit review process. b. Report on wireless communications facility for AT&T (originally at the Kiwanis building at 2515 Valley Drive). 4 Planning Commission Action Minutes August 18, 2015 c. Review of Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformance with the City’s General Plan. ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to approve by minute order that the FY 2015-16 CIP is in conformity with the City’s General Plan. d. Report on City Council actions. e. Report on comprehensive planning processes. f. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. g. Community Development Department activity report of June, 2015. 12. Commissioner Items 13. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of August 18, 2015. Michael Flaherty, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date DN 80' - 0" 85' - 0" 91' - 0" 97' - 0" 44AAPLEastPLSPLSJJKKGGRPLWestPLWest515 PROSPECT AVENUEUnit BUnit ATrash AreaNEW DRIVEWAYENTRY/COURTENTRYHH3SIDEWALKOPEN SPACEBELOWEXISTINGPROPERTY LINE WALLTO REMAINEXISTINGPROPERTY LINE WALLTO REMAINAUTO COURTYARDLANDSCAPED AREAGARDEN AREAENTRY GARDENCOURTYARD4' - 10"DRIVEWAY42' - 10"12' - 0"Trash AreaGuest Parking6649' - 8"5' - 2"25' - 1"8' - 9 1/4"PARKWAYDRIVEWAYGuest Parking98.5'87.39' - 0"38' - 6 1/2"75.8'PropertyCorner78.5'PropertyCorner96.09'101.44'136.65'60'135.71'60.04' r-478.02'DNDNDN97'-1"ELEC.ELEC.9 ' - 0"gasgasROOF LINENEW PROPERTYLINE WALL136' - 7 3/4"PL-N5' - 2"PropertyCornerPropertyCornerLOT AREA:TOTAL BUILDING AREA:UNIT AUNIT BBASEMENT LEVEL LIVING AREA1 ST LEVEL LIVING AREAGARAGE2ND LEVEL LIVING AREADECKS/BALCONIESTOTAL LIVING AREATOTAL DECKS AND BALCONIESNO. OF BEROOMSNO. OF BATHROOMS8133.2811425483931548861179164952437145412081582463752ZONING INFORMATIONREQUIRED PROVIDEDAREA:LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNITLOT COVERAGEYARDS:FRONTSIDEREARPARKING AND DRIVEWAYSNUMBER OF SPACESGUEST SPACESPARKING SETBACKPARKING STALL DEMENSIONTURNING AREADRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPEDDRIVEWAY WIDTHFENCES/WALLS:HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACELINEAL FEETOPEN SPACETOTALPRIVATE (PER UNIT)UNIT AUNIT BPRIVATE STORAGE SPACECUBIC FEET PER UNITUNIT AUNIT BR-2B406710'5'5'5'5'-2"9'65% Max.2117'17'238'-6" x 17'-0"25'25'18' x 20'10'12'30030020%18%45.5%213 cu.ft200 cu.ft.6'160'4854811215(Rear yd. 171,2nd 210,roof 100)(Basemt 105,1 st 84, 2nd. 196 roof 100)BASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATION1ST. LEVEL F.F. ELEVATIONLINEAL FEET (LF) OF PERIMETERLF. OF PERIMETER <6' FROM GRADETO FIN. FLOOR ABOVE% OF PERIMETER < 6" TO F.F. ABOVEUNIT AUNIT B97'-1"87'-6"1789855%176.5100.857.11%Architect:DAVID J. BOYD and SSOCIATES4819 FALCON AVE.LONG BEACH , CA. 90807(310) 980-5333Civil Surveyor:PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS(310) 544-8689Processing Agent:Srour and Associates1001 6 th. StreetManhattan Beach, CA. 90266(310) 372-84332013 California Bulding Code (CBC),2013 California Plumbing Code (CPC)2013 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2013 California Fire Code (CFC)2013 California Residential Code (CRC), 2013 California Green Building Standards.Code (CGBSC), 2008 California Energy Standards, 2013 California Electrical Code (CEC).These Plans are Intended to Conform with all of the Following:City of Hermosa Beach Municiple Codes.PACIFIC COAST HWY.190 th. St.Artesia Blvd.PROSPECT5 th. St.SitenorthUNIT AUNIT BBasement1 st. Flr2nd. FlrRoof DeckRear yard; 168 s.f.100 s.f.195 s.f.463 s.f.TotalRear Yard; 447 s.f.210 s.f.100 s.f.752 s.f.ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.comAs indicated9/7/2015 10:01:49 AMA-0Cover Sheet6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015DJBCheckerSCALE 1" = 10'-0"1Copy of Site PlanHBA Development1122 11 th. StreetHermosas Beach, CA.(310) 918-8501NORTHDrawing ListSheetNumberSheet NameA-0 Cover SheetA-0.2 Site Plan and Roof PlanA-0.3 LANDSCAPINGA-1 Site SectionsA-2 Driveway SectionsA-3 PLan AA-4 Plan A ElevationsA-5 Plan A SectionsA-6 Plan B- Floor PlansA-7 Exterior ElevationsA-8 Plan B SectionsArea Schedule (Plan B)Area Level Comments886 SF 1-Basement B1649 SF 6-Second Floor B1179 SF 4-First Floor B524 SF 4-First Floor B Garage4238 SFArea Schedule (Unit A)Area Level Comments1142 SF 1-Basement A1208 SF 3-First Floor A1582 SF 5- Second Floor A548 SF 3-First Floor A Garage4479 SFSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Code ComplianceDESNECILARCH IT E C TDAVID J. BOYDRENEWAL DATEC-15555CAILFORNIAFOETATS9-30-2015SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Vicinity MapOPEN SPACE SUMMARYNo. Description DateSCALE 12" = 1'-0"2Left Front_7 DN 80' - 0" 85' - 0" 91' - 0" 97' - 0" 81' - 0" 83' - 0" 85' - 0" 87' - 0" 90' - 0" 77' - 0" 78' - 0" 95' - 0" 97' - 0" 9 0 ' - 0 " 9 3 ' - 0 " 86' - 0" 84' - 0" 8 8 ' - 0 " 8 0 ' - 0 " 8 1 ' - 0" 8 7 ' - 0 " 9 6 ' - 0 " 93 ' - 0" 9 8 ' - 0 " 88' - 0" DNPROSPECT AVENUEUnit BUnit ADRIVEWAY1144AAPLEastPLSPLSJJKKLLMTrash AreaGGR12DRIVEWAYUV42' - 10"12' - 0"HHYREAR SETBACKNNO3FIRST FLOO ELEV97.08'1A-266136' - 3 1/2"SLOPE DOWNAUTOMOTIVECOURT49' - 8"5' - 2"PROPERTY LINE10' - 4"101.44' PC.96.09'BASEMENT77'-6"BASEMENT 87.5'EXISITNG WALLNEW WALL136.65'135.71'60'20.01'R-478.0240.03'R-478.02ENTRY COURTENTRYCOURT5' WOOD FENCEOPEN SPACETRASH AREATRENCHDRAINWOODFENCE38' - 6 1/2"GUESTPARKING8'-6"X18'FRONTSETBACKSIDEYARDSIDEYARDFRONT SETBACKBACKUP SPACEOPENSPACE87.427877.44SUB-SURFACEFILTRATION9' - 0"RE-INFILTRATIONBASINS FOR LOWIMPACT DESIGN.COVER WITHPREMEABLELANDSCAPINGTYP.MASONRY W/STUCCO FINISHMASONRY WITHSTUCCO FINISH87.3993.27100.11SLOPING WALLMASONRY W/STUCCO FINISHWOOD RAILINGNEW STEPPED MASONRY WALLW/ STUCCO FINISHEXISITNG SLOPED MASONRYWALL W/ STUCCOFINISH94.7398.68ELEC.ELEC. MAINGAS METERWATER MAINWATER MAINGASTWTWDRAINTW.TWTWTW78.5'PC75.8 PC'SECTION 1SECTION 2SECTION 328' - 1"7' - 8"10' - 10"13' - 6 1/4"98.9597.58'3A2DRIVEWAYPROFILES34' - 5"83.10'2A-24A-24'-0" UtilityEasementPL-N8' - 5"38' - 6 1/2"29' - 9 3/4"48' - 7 1/4"9' - 0 1/4"5' - 2"83.7611' - 9 1/2"FIRST FLOOR87'82.6185.2688.21----94.597EXISTINGEXISTINGNEWNEW97101.6103.35100.5999.2594.5896.592.5WOOD FENCE ONMASONRY WALL1144APLSPLSJJKKLLMGGR12PLWestUVHHYNNO366ROOF DECK116.96CP3 MAX. 109.97'PROP. 108.58'CP 4: 117.57 MAX.CP 5: 121.06' Max.CP6: 123.26 MAXPROP. 121.0014' - 10 1/2"18' - 7 1/4"3' - 4 1/2"275 SF.RIDGEBUILT UP ROOFINGBUILT UP ROOFING6' - 0"18' - 0"ROOF LINEBLDG. LINEOPENBUILDING LINEROOF LINEOPENOPENDN.12' - 2"5' - 8"CP 2109.37' Max.109.33'proposedCP1 107.04 Max.106.75' ProposedProposed 118.08'116.75' ProposedCP 7119.29 Max.118.08' proposedPL-N73' - 7 1/4"75' - 7 1/4"7' - 3"24' - 9 1/4"3' - 5"8' - 2"5' - 2"ROOF DECK2' - 0"3' - 2"2' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 2"88' - 11 3/4"4' - 7"75' - 4 1/4"2' - 0"10' - 0"3' - 2"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 4"8' - 2"7' - 0"2' - 0"5' - 7 3/4"13' - 5 1/2"12' - 9 1/4"9' - 7"9' - 9 1/2"266 S.F.75.8 PC78.5 PC96.06 PC101.44 PC6' - 5"2' - 2 1/2"CHIMNEYBUILT UP ROOFING22' - 8"24' - 2"10' - 0"56' - 10"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.com 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:07:17 AMA-0.2Site Plan and Roof Plan6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3Site PlanNORTH98.75'SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Roof/ Deck PlanNo. Description Date1 Revision 1 Date 1 DNPROSPECT AVENUEUnit BUnit ADRIVEWAYTrash AreaDRIVEWAYSLOPE DOWNAUTOMOTIVECOURTPROPERTY LINE101.44'96.09'EXISITNG WALLEXISITNG WALLNEW WALLNEW WALL136.65'135.71'60'ENTRY COURTENTRYCOURT6' WOOD FENCEOPEN SPACETRASH AREAWOODFENCE87.2299.98GUESTPARK'G8'-6"X17'GUESTPARKING8'-6"X18'FRONTSETBACKBACKUP SPACEOPENSPACESLOPE 7% MAX87.2487.42SUB-SURFACEFILTRATIONCONCRETEPER CITY STANDARDSAgave Americans American AloePhoenix Robelanii- Pygmy Date PalmPittosporum Tenuifolium- Silver SheenPhorium Tenax- New Zealand FlaxGround CoverGravel36" Cherry Box TreeDymondia margaretaeArtifical TurfVangated PhoriumALL LANSCAPED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMPER HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 8.56 AND 8.60.ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.comAs indicated9/7/2015 10:08:26 AMA-0.3LANDSCAPING6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Landscaping PlanSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Landscape LegendNo. Description Date 3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"1-Basement B77' - 6"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastJKLMGRPLWest97.17VHYNO80.67PROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLINEPROPOSEDLANAI3' - 6"EXTERIOR STUCCO #1EXTERIOR GRADEFASCIAEXTERIOR STUCCOWALL2" STUCCO SCREEDEXTERIOR SIDING #2EXTERIORCURTAIN WALL#32" SCREEDCP4 117.57 Max 116.75 Proposed106CP 1 107.04 Max.CP 2 109.37 MAX 109.33 PROPOSED2' - 9 1/2"4'-0" MAX2' - 0"4' - 3 1/2"4' - 5"75.8PROP. CORNER2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 0"96.09PC2' - 2"NEW WALLAT PROPERTY LINE85EXISITNG WALL EXTENSIONEXISITNG NEIGHBORING GRADENEW STAIRS AT SIDEYARDUnit BUnit ANATURAL GRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"1-Basement B77' - 6"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastJKLMGRPLWestVHYNO99.33PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE9' - 7"9' - 5"9' - 6"9' - 7"9' - 7"10' - 9"#1#2#4#2EXTERIORGRADE FASCIA BOARD#56' - 4 3/4"5' - 8 1/4"5' - 8"4' - 5"2' - 9 3/4"WOODFENCEWOODFENCECP 5 121.06 max 118.08 proposedCp 3 109.97' Max. 108.58' proposedCP 6 123.26 MAX.121.00 PROPOSEDUnit AUnit BNATURAL GRADE1. Exterior Smooth Stucco, with Non-Cracking Fabric2. Wood Siding: Cedar, Stained and Sealed3. Exterior Glazing, Curtain wall, Blue Green Glass and Fiberglass Windows at Openings4. Railings: Stainless Steel Round per detailsDESNECILARCH IT E C T DAVID J. BOYDRENEWAL DATEC-15555CAILFORNIAFOETATS9-30-2015David J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon Ave.Long Beach, CA. 90807(562) 984-1219dboyd4ds@aol.comDATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:REVISIONS:DJBCLIENT:PROJECT:SHEET:As indicated9/7/2015 10:08:48 AM515 Prospect Ave.1A-1Site Sections9/4/2015HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902546-15SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site Left Side ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2Site Right Side ElevationSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Exterior Materials 3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"1-Basement A87' - 6"Right of WayPROSPECT AVE87.65PROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLINE10' - 8"42' - 2 3/4"10' - 0"BUILDERS NOTE: LICENSED SURVEYOROR CIVIL ENGINEER IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY CONSTRUCTIONOF DRIVEWAY SLOPE WITH APPROVED PLANS.88.7395.8999.110.8%16.8%11%96.88SECTION 1SECTION 2SECTION 399979997999799.45'100.3GARGAEPARKWAY97.60'10.8%98.36'99.61'4%97.60'DRIVEWAY17' - 0"25' - 0"97.19'98.70'97.60'2.4%PROSPECT3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"Roof/ Deck Plan128' - 8 3/4"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"PROPERTYLINE88.7396.1897.17Right of Way42' - 2 3/4"17.6%87.6510' - 0"10' - 4"10.5%10.8%3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"1-Basement A87' - 6"PropertyLine88.7395.596.38Right of Way87.6510' - 0"42' - 2 3/4"11' - 1"16%10.8%8%DESNECILARCH IT E C T DAVID J. BOYDRENEWAL DATEC-15555CAILFORNIAFOETATS9-30-2015David J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon Ave.Long Beach, CA. 90807(562) 984-1219dboyd4ds@aol.comDATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:REVISIONS:DJBCLIENT:PROJECT:SHEET: 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:09:09 AM515 Prospect Ave.A-2Driveway Sections9/4/2015HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902546-15SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Driveway Mid-SectionSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3Driveway ProfilesSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2Driveway Section NorthSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"4Driveway Section South UPDNDNDNUPDNMAST. BDRM.garageEntry1144AAPLEastPLSPLSKKLLDRIVEWAY42' - 10"M1226' - 0 3/4"16' - 9 1/2"NN10' - 4"O30' - 1 1/4"Storage314' - 7"28' - 3"COURTYARDBdrm18' - 6"openspace3' - 6"25' - 9"4' - 4 1/4"18' - 6"44' - 3"97.0822' - 5"6642' - 10"cl.Mast. Bath0' - 0 1/4"94.4297.083' - 9"97.5852' - 4"25' - 9"4' - 4 1/4"5' - 3 1/2"18' - 0"INTERIOR STALLEND STALLELEC. MAINGAS METER6' - 3 1/2"4' - 0"21' - 0"5' - 2"2' - 11 1/2"4' - 8 3/4"STORAGE SPACE ABV CAR@ 2'-8" X 4' X 20'= 213 CU.FT.97'-7"PL-N99.4598.3697.19OPEN STAIR101.44 PC96.09' PCslope to drain84'Family RoomBdrm1144AAPLEast87.48drivewayPLSPLSKKLLMGGR122A-5HHNNO3YardSpace1A-514' - 7"6' - 1 1/2"Bdrm13' - 7"9' - 0 3/4"12' - 3"15' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1A-23A-56642' - 10"15' - 1"44' - 3"Laund.elevator88.26----5A-57'X15'112'open14' - 8 1/4"2A-24A-2PL-NOPEN RAILSTAIR101.44 pc96.09' PC----30' - 1 1/4"25' - 1 1/4"15' - 6"7' - 0 1/4"Open to BelowFAMILY ROOM1144AALANAIPLEast42' - 10"PLSPLSKKLLM42' - 10"2A-510' - 4"12' - 0"KITCHENDINING31A-5106.673A-56648' - 7 1/4"23' - 5"2' - 4"12' - 0"4' - 4 1/4"GuestBdrm196'13' - 10"3' - 6"6' - 6"48' - 7 1/4"14' - 5"14' - 8 1/4"----5A-5Pantry42' - 10"42' - 10"23' - 3 1/2"19' - 6 1/2"15' - 0"7' - 0"15' - 0"openabv105s.f.42" GUARDRAIL42" GUARDRAIL42"open space2A-24A-2PL-NOPEN RAILING101.44' PC96.09'----6' - 2 3/4"1144AAROOF DECKPLEastPLSPLSKKLLM12UNNO31A-53A-566----5A-513' - 5 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"14' - 10"open space 100 s.f.(actual 252 s.f.)opentobelow2A-2PL-N101.44' PC96.09' PCScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.com 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:06:50 AMA-3PLan A6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"23-First Floor ASCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"31-Basement ASCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"45- Second Floor ASCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"19-Roof Deck ANo. Description DateUnit A 3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"14PLSU6EXTERIORSIDING18' GLASSGARAGE DOOR2" SCREEDON EXTERIORPLASTERREDWOOD FENCE#2EXTERIOR GRADEFASCIA BOARDCLERESTORY WINDOWSEXTEIOR STUCCO#15' - 2"12' - 0"PROPERTY LINESPROPERTYLINESPL-N2' - 0"2' - 0"96.09' PC104101.44' PCNATURAL GRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"APLEastKL99.75LANAI10' - 4"4' - 0"PROPERTYLINE116.752' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 2"96.09' PCNATURAL GRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"14PLSU6LANAIEXTERIOR STUCCO#2EXTERIORRAILINGS#4WOOD FENCE12' - 0"PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPL-N2' - 0"2' - 0"10' - 0"DRIVEWAYBEYONDNATURAL GRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastKLMNOWOOD RAILINGON MASONRY WALLEXTERIOR STUCCO#18' - 0"10' - 4"5' - 9 1/2"5' - 8 3/4"PROPLINE2' - 2"2' - 0"3' - 11 1/4"101.44' PCEXISITNG WALLAT PROPERTY LINENATURAL GRADE1. Exterior Smooth Stucco, with Non-Cracking Fabric2. Wood Siding: Cedar, Stained and Sealed3. Exterior Glazing, Curtain wall, Blue Green Glass and Fiberglass Windows at Openings4. Railings: Stainless Steel Round per detailsScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.comAs indicated9/7/2015 10:09:40 AMA-4Plan A Elevations6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1A Front ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2A Left Side ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3A Rear ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"4A Right Side ElevationSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Exterior MaterialsNo. Description DateUnit A T e c t o n i c C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 7 3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastKLMNOMASTER BEDROOMBEDROOMGUEST BEDROOMFAMILY ROOM9' - 7"9' - 7"8' - 6"8' - 6 1/4"8' - 0"9' - 1"116.75118.089' - 1"NATURALGRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastKL78.5485.858' - 6"8' - 6 1/4"N7' - 11"99.789' - 7"9' - 0 1/2"12110' - 5"9' - 7"9' - 7"3-First Floor A97' - 1"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"14PLSU38' - 6"8' - 6 1/4"10' - 5"9' - 1"PL-N1' - 2"NATURALGRADE3-First Floor A97' - 1"5- Second Floor A106' - 8"9-Roof Deck A117' - 5"1-Basement A87' - 6"APLEastKLNpantrykitchen10' - 9"9' - 7"9' - 7"9' - 0 1/2"Roof DeckNATURALGRADE7' - 4 1/4"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.com 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:10:04 AMA-5Plan A Sections6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Unit A GarageSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2A Unit Stairs LongitudinalSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3A KitchenSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"5A Unit Roof DeckNo. Description DateUnit A DNUPDNUPUPMast BdrmEntry1144garagePLSPLSJJGGR12PLWestPLWestVHHY18' - 0 1/2"20' - 6"3' - 8"2' - 11 1/2"TRASH AREACOURTYARDGUEST PARKING2' - 0 1/4"2' - 0 1/4"13' - 7"25' - 6"9' - 0"BEDROOM/STUDY25' - 8 1/2"11' - 2"36' - 10 1/2"Yard Space8' - 7"13' - 4"18' - 9"441 s.f.50' - 6"2' - 5"38' - 6 1/2"1A-866Mast.Bath8714' - 6 1/4"5' - 3"49' - 8"9' - 0"4' - 0 1/4"5' - 2"18' - 0"END STALLINTERIOR STALL20' - 4 1/2"9' - 6"10' - 0"ELECGAS2.5X4X21'=200CU FT STORAGEABOVE2A-24A-2ADDITIONAL STORAGEOPEN STAIRDNDNDN75.8' PC78.5' PC----GREAT ROOMGuest Bdrm34' - 0"DININGDECK1144PLSPLSJJGGR12PLWestPLWestVHHY21' - 1 1/2"210 s.f.open1A-8open2A-8665A-541' - 6"49' - 8"15' - 0"42" GUARDRAIL18' - 0"6' - 0"OPENABOVE10' - 0"6' - 7"6' - 3 1/2"2' - 0"36' - 10 1/2"24' - 0"12' - 10 1/2"12' - 9 1/2"2A-24A-2OPEN STAIR75.8' PC78.5' PC----bdrmbabdrm114477.5PLSPLS13' - 6"5' - 7"11' - 2"7' - 1"JJGGR12PLWestPLWestVHHY18' - 0 1/2"20' - 6"REAR YARD9' - 0"25' - 6"16' - 0"50' - 6"3' - 2"LAUNDRY441 s.f.665' - 2"OPEN STAIR75.8' PC78.5 PC1144PLSPLSJJGGR12PLWestVHHY6618' - 0"6' - 0"OPENTOBELOW12' - 2"5' - 8"open22' - 9 1/2"109.3324' - 9 1/4"8' - 4 1/4"ROOFDECK78.5 PC75.8' PC9' - 4 1/4"12' - 9 1/4"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.com 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:10:26 AMA-6Plan B- Floor Plans6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"24-First Floor BSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"36-Second Floor BSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"11-Basement B447 s.f.openSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"47- Roof Deck BNo. Description DateUnit B266 SF. 7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"4PLS6EXTERIOR SIDINGEXTERIOR GLAZINGCONTINUOUS18' GLASSROLL UPGARAGE DOOR#2STUCCO#15' - 2"9' - 5"9' - 7"PROPERTYLINEPL-N2' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 2"NATURAL GRADE1-Basement B77' - 6"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"JGRPLWestVHYEXTERIOR STUCCO #16' - 7"EXTERIOR STUCCO #19' - 7"9' - 6"PROPLINE2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 5"75.5 PC.2' - 0"NATURALGRADE1-Basement B77' - 6"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"4PLS69' - 6"9' - 7"9' - 5"LANAIEXTERIORSTUCCO#15' - 2"PROPLINEPROPLINE2' - 0"2' - 0"REAR YARD FENCE HT.78.5 PROPERTYCORNER75.5 PROPERTYCORNERGRADE AT NEIGHBORS PROPERTY3-First Floor A97' - 1"1-Basement B77' - 6"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"GRPLWestVHY9' - 6"9' - 7"9' - 5"LANAIEXTERIOR STUCCO#16' - 4 3/4"4' - 5"2' - 9 3/4"CP 3 109.97 MAX.Proposed 108.58'2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 7"78.5PROP CORNERNEW WALL81.6783.7687.17WOOD FENCENATURAL GRADE1. Exterior Smooth Stucco, with Non-Cracking Fabric2. Wood Siding: Cedar, Stained and Sealed3. Exterior Glazing, Curtain wall, Blue Green Glass and Fiberglass Windows at Openings4. Railings: Stainless Steel Round per detailsScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.comAs indicated9/7/2015 10:10:50 AMA-7Exterior Elevations6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1B Front ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2B Left Side ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3B Rear ElevationSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"4Right Side ElevationSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"Exterior MaterialsNo. Description Date1 Revision 1 Date 1Unit B T e c t o n i c C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 7 1-Basement B77' - 6"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"JGPLWestH7' - 3 1/2"8' - 5"8' - 6"8' - 5"8' - 3"9' - 5"9' - 7"9' - 6"CP 2MAX- 109.37'109.33' PROPOSED1-Basement B77' - 6"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"JGPLWestVHY8' - 5"8' - 6"10' - 3"10' - 3"9' - 7"9' - 6"30' - 0"1-Basement B77' - 6"7- Roof Deck B106' - 0"4-First Floor B87' - 0"6-Second Floor B96' - 7"14610' - 3"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byDavid J. Boyd andAssociates4819 Falcon AveLong Beach, CA. 90807310 980-5333www.boydarchitects.com 1/8" = 1'-0"9/7/2015 10:11:14 AMA-8Plan B Sections6-15Two Unit: 515 Prospect Ave.Hermosa Beach, CA.APN: 4186-015-014HBA Development722 11 th. StreetHermosa Beach, CA.902549/4/2015AuthorCheckerSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1Plan B StairsSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2B Great RoomSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3B Section Cross EntryNo. Description Date1 Revision 1 Date 1Unit B Mixed-Use Development in Theory and Practice: Learning from Atlanta’s Mixed Experiences Joshua D. Herndon Applied Research Paper Dr. William Drummond May 5, 2011 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Mixed-Use in Context ......................................................................................... 3-9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory ....................................................................................... 10-29 Deﬁnition ...................................................................................................... 10-14 Conceptualization ......................................................................................... 15-21 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 21-29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice .................................................................................... 30-53 Planning ....................................................................................................... 30-35 Acquisition & Entitlement ............................................................................. 35-38 Design .......................................................................................................... 38-43 Ownership & Financing ................................................................................ 43-46 Construction ................................................................................................ 46-49 Management & Operation ............................................................................ 50-53 5 Mixed-Use in Atlanta ....................................................................................... 54-84 Technology Square ....................................................................................... 56-64 Atlantic Station ............................................................................................. 65-74 Glenwood park ............................................................................................. 75-84 6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 85-88 References ............................................................................................................. 89-93 2 1 Introduction Over the past several decades, mixed-use development has taken center stage in the urban planning and real estate development worlds. Whether it is the Congress for the New Urbanism, Smart Growth, the Compact City, or any other movement relating to the improvement of the built environment, mixing land uses is a ubiquitous component of the underlying visions and ideals. Moreover, the concept is being embraced by both the public and private sectors, and by each of the major parties involved in the real estate development process: the end users who demand space; the developers, investors, and ﬁnancial institutions that supply space; and the planners and policy makers that regulate space. The reasons for the resurgence of mixed-use development are many. Among other things, trafﬁc congestion, increasing gasoline prices, changing consumer demographics, and a longing for the sense of place and community that too many American cities lack, are all likely contributing factors. In addition, city planners are embracing the idea of mixing uses because of its potential to reduce automobile dependence, support public transit, combat sprawl, preserve open space, promote economic development, and limit the expense of providing and maintaining infrastructure in low density environments. Furthermore, developers have increasingly proposed mixed-use developments to adapt projects to inﬁll locations, gain access to greater densities, respond to changing consumer demands, and capitalize on the synergies created by the integration of complementary uses (Rabianski, 2009). However, despite the widespread support that mixed-use development has recently garnered, its acceptance is not universal. Many people, especially residents of 1 suburban areas, see the reemergence of mixed land uses as a threat to their communities and believe that “greater density in suburban areas threatens [their] social and economic attractiveness” (Kotkin, 2010). Consequently, an interesting situation has arisen in which mixed-use development is simultaneously seen by some as a panacea for the problems facing American cities and by others as a direct assault on the American dream. Sorting the fact from the ﬁction and developing an in-depth understanding of both the possibilities and the limits of mixed-use development are essential if the positive aspects of the concept are to be maximized. Doing so requires the following questions to be considered: How has the arrangement of land uses changed over time? What are the necessary characteristics of a mixed-use development? What are the different ways of conceptualizing mixed-use projects? What are the goals of mixed-use development? What are the unique challenges associated with mixed-use projects? And what are the primary lessons should be learned from our experiences with mixed-use development to date? 2 2 Mixed-Use in Context The mixing of land uses has been a ubiquitous characteristic of cities and urban areas since the dawn of human civilization. Historically, the spaces required to house the essential functions of the built environment, including places to reside, socialize, and produce and distribute goods and services, were tightly intermingled because walking was the primary means of transportation (Morris, 1994). Consequently, the distances that people were able to travel on a daily basis were limited to what could reasonably be traversed on foot in the small amount of time that was available between sleeping and working. This limited both the overall size of the city and the amount of space that was available for each necessary function. In fact, a large portion of residents lived in structures that also served as their place of work, making and selling things from small shops integrated into their dwelling units. Moreover, prior to the early 19th century, almost every urban area in the world shared the following set of attributes: the primary means of transportation was walking; uses were mixed both throughout the city and within individual buildings; the population density curve was very steep, with high densities in the cities and low densities in the surrounding areas; and there was a clear, physical distinction between city and country (Jackson, 1985). The industrial revolution, however, brought about a fundamental shift in development patterns that realigned the structure of the built environment and, especially in the United States, eroded the set of common principles that historically structured urban form. This transformation was spurred primarily by ﬁve factors: industrialization, urbanization, advances in transportation, zoning ordinances, and the rise of an afﬂuent middle class. 3 Industrialization The process of industrialization transformed America from a society based predominately on agricultural to one based on the manufacturing of goods and services. Technological advances dramatically increased the productivity of individual farm laborers, and mechanization, along with the division of labor, created industrial synergies in the mass production of goods. This had three signiﬁcant implications for the built environment: ﬁrst, small artisan shops were replaced with large factories that were able to take advantage of economies of scale; second, live/work dwellings were supplanted by tenements which were required to house the deluge of workers that poured into cities from rural areas; third, the rise of industrial capitalism and growth of corporate bureaucracies created the need for large amounts of clustered ofﬁce space. Thus, for the ﬁrst time, functions that were previously integrated into single structures were being compartmentalized into individual buildings and districts (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Urbanization With farm laborers increasingly being replaced by technological advances in agricultural machinery, workers from rural areas began migrating en masse to cities with the hopes of ﬁnding employment in the factories. As urban populations swelled, cities were forced to grow both horizontally and vertically; horizontal growth being facilitated by increased agricultural output which decreased the amount of farmland that was needed around the city to feed its inhabitants, and vertical growth being facilitated by advances in building construction, such as steel and elevators, which 4 enabled buildings to reach heights never seen before. However, the corresponding increases in population density overwhelmed most municipalities’ inadequate sanitation infrastructure and cities became synonymous with congestion, ﬁlth, and disease. Furthermore, these horrendous urban conditions were exacerbated by the noise, pollution, and noxious odors that emanated from the multitude of factories scattered throughout most cities. As a consequence, perceptions of urban areas deteriorated and the traditional principles of urban form, such as high densities and mixed uses, developed negative connotations (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Transportation The growing desires of city inhabitants to escape the dismal conditions surrounding them were met by a series of advances in transportation technology that served to stretch the urban fabric horizontally and began to blur the traditional distinction between urban and rural areas. These advances can be grouped into two key stages. The ﬁrst was the advent of mass transportation options such as the street car. Street cars increased the distances that people could reasonably travel between their residence and their place of employment, and facilitated the development of neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city. The second, and far more powerful development, was the rise of the automobile. The introduction and acceptance of automobiles that were affordable for the average working class family allowed people to access widely dispersed uses in the same amount of time it previously took them to walk a few blocks down the street. Consequently, automobiles shattered the 5 constraints that the human stride had placed on the urban fabric and fundamentally altered the horizontal scale of the built environment (Jackson, 1985). Zoning The escalating pollution levels, safety hazards, and public health concerns that plagued industrial cities at the turn of the 19th century were addressed throughout the United States with the enactment of zoning ordinances. The intent of the regulations was to separate land uses that were deemed incompatible for the purposes of protecting the public’s health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The practice was substantiated by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1926 decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., to uphold the practice (Mandelker, 2008). Thus, through the compartmentalization of land uses into like functions, residential districts were separated from the noise and pollution of industry and detached from the hustle and bustle of commerce. Consequently, while in the past, specialized districts naturally evolved within cities due to economies of agglomeration, for the ﬁrst time in history, cities were purposely divided into enclaves of uses completely segregated from each another. Even though there were undeniable public health beneﬁts that initially arose from the implementation of these land use regulations, the rigidity of Euclidian zoning ordinances essentially outlawed mixed-use development and had far reaching implications on the structure of built environment (Grant, 2007). 6 Afﬂuence The sustained increases in production that occurred as a result of the industrial revolution brought about a signiﬁcant rise in average incomes and allowed Western societies to break free from the Malthusian trap that, up until that point in history, had always constrained economic growth. The subsequent rise of the middle class, combined with advances in transportation technology and government policies aimed at increasing homeownership, allowed a growing number of households to live in larger, detached homes that were far removed from the central city. The bigger homes on large, suburban lots further encouraged the advancement of horizontal, segregated growth and radically ﬂattened the population density curve (Bruegmann, 2005). The effects that these changes had on the built environment were dramatic. As a consequence, the characteristics that describe most American cities today are essentially the antithesis of the pre-industrial city: the primary means of transportation is the automobile; uses are segregated into districts of like functions and are rarely mixed within buildings; the population density curve is ﬂat in most places, with low densities spread throughout sprawling metropolises; and there is rarely a clear distinction between city and country. Unfortunately, in hindsight, planners, developers, and policy makers, are beginning to realize that the negative outcomes of this new urban structure far outweigh the beneﬁts. And while few people would choose to return to city-life prior to or during the Industrial Revolution, there is a growing movement aimed at reinstating the principles of urban form that were common to pre-industrial cities. 7 The reasons for the re-emergence of these traditional urban principles are many and include a multitude of environmental, social, and economic factors. In addition, advances in infrastructural technology have addressed the sanitation issues that once made dense, mixed-use, walkable, pedestrian oriented places unsanitary. Furthermore, the sanitation and public health concerns that were the original catalyst for abandoning the historic principles of urban form, have now been replaced by a whole new set of problems. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the leading cause of death was infectious disease and, therefore, justiﬁed the focus on separating incompatible uses and reducing population densities. However, the leading cause of death has now shifted to chronic disease, which includes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, and thus has spawned a new call to action. Consequently, planners and public health experts are beginning to work together to develop a broader understanding of how the built environment inﬂuences public health and to make decisions that are more supportive of true healthy living (Dannenberg, 2007). A key component of this “new” way of approaching urbanism is mixed-use development. However, the modern concept of mixed-use development is quite different from the historical model because it is placed within the context of euclidian zoning ordinances. Therefore, while in the past, the entire city was a mixed-use district, modern mixed-use districts are merely single tiles within a mosaic of mostly single-use zoning classiﬁcations. Additionally, unlike the mixed-use urban environments of the past, which evolved gradually over long periods of time as many different builders made incremental additions to the city, modern mixed-use projects are most often developed over a relatively short period of time by a single developer in conformance 8 with a master plan (Schwanke, 2003). These differences between the historic and modern applications of mixed-use development are important to consider when comparing the theory and practice of the concept. 9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory The shift away from the segregation of land uses and back toward the integration of them has established mixed-use development as an important paradigm in the planning and development worlds. In fact, many people actually view it as a panacea for the problems confronting our fragmented urban areas (Grant, 2002; Coupland, 1997). Consequently, mixed-use projects have been developed across the country in both urban and suburban areas and in a variety of different conﬁgurations. The ubiquity of the concept and variety of the product, however, has led to a lack of clarity regarding both what mixed-use development is and what it’s goals should be. Demystifying the concept and distilling a common theoretical framework that informs the practice of mixed-use development requires an understanding of both its core components and the strategic goals of the theory behind the concept. The construction of such a framework requires three basic questions to be addressed: What is mixed-use development? How is it conceptualized? And what is its purpose? Deﬁning Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development at ﬁrst seems like a relatively straightforward concept. Intuitively, it suggests real estate development that combines more than one land use. However, further scrutiny reveals that the term’s apparent simplicity masks a tremendous amount of underlying complexity. Does the word “mixed” imply a certain level of integration or degree of compatibility among uses? Does the manner in which the different uses are combined, i.e. vertically in a single building or horizontally in multiple buildings on a single site, matter? Does the geographic scale of a project 10 matter? Is a certain intensity of uses required for a project to be considered mixed- use? These are all questions that must be answered if the concept is to be consistently understood and advanced. While the term frequently appears in the planning and real estate literature, the deﬁnition of mixed-use development is rarely elaborated upon. This seems to imply that there is little variation among the deﬁnitions that exist and, moreover, that the deﬁnitions that do exist are widely agreed upon. However, a thorough review of the literature contradicts this assumption, with several authors addressing the lack of clarity surrounding the topic: “The terms ‘mixed use’ or ‘mixed use development’ are widely used, but seldom deﬁned” (Coupland, 1997); “Mixed-use development is an ambiguous, multi-faceted concept” (Rowley, 1996); “The term mixed-use development has frequently appeared in the planning literature...however this term is hardly deﬁned” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005); “The deﬁnition of mixed-use is not as precise as for a single property type” (Rabianski, 2009); “Although the term appears frequently in the planning literature it is rarely deﬁned” (Grant, 2002). The ambiguity surrounding what does and does not constitute mixed-use development most likely arises from the competing perspectives of the parties involved in the debate. Developers view the concept from the project level and often consider any development which contains more than one use as a mixed-use project. Planners typically have a larger frame of reference, but seem to care less about the details of the deﬁnition and more about the intent behind the concept. Experts and academics push for a more speciﬁc deﬁnition both for research purposes and also with the goal of reducing the chances of the concept being tarnished by failed projects which don’t 11 actually embody the key principles of mixed-use development (Popovec, 2006). However, while all this disagreement would suggest that a plethora of deﬁnitions have been developed, that is not the case. There are actually only two deﬁnitions that are consistently referenced in the literature, but the similarities and differences between the two highlight the broader areas of agreement and ambiguity. The ﬁrst deﬁnition was developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the other was recently derived from the results of a cross-organizational survey conducted by several real estate industry groups. ULI’s Deﬁnition The deﬁnition espoused by ULI is probably the most prevalent deﬁnition of the term. In 1976, ULI was the ﬁrst organization to address the concept in-depth with the publication of their ﬁrst book on the topic entitled Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways of Land Use, and while the concept has evolved over the years, their original deﬁnition has essentially remained in tact. Currently, the second edition of their Mixed-Use Development Handbook characterizes mixed-use development as consisting of: •three or more signiﬁcant revenue-producing uses (such as retail/entertainment, ofﬁce, residential, hotel, and/or civic/cultural/recreation) that in well planned projects are mutually supporting; •signiﬁcant physical and functional integration of project components (and thus a relatively close-knit and intensive use of land), including uninterrupted pedestrian connections; and 12 •development in conformance with a coherent plan (that frequently stipulates the type and scale of uses, permitted densities, and related items) (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, ULI makes a point of distinguishing between mixed-use development and what it refers to as “multi-use” development. While both concepts include a variety of uses, multi-use development lacks the integration, density, and compatibility of land uses required to create a walkable community with uninterrupted pedestrian connections between the various project components. Additionally, ULI speciﬁes that mixed-use must include at least three integrated uses and each of them must be substantial enough to attract a signiﬁcant market in their own right; which excludes uses that simply serve as amenities for a primary use (Schwanke, 2003). Thus, projects that contain several uses but lack pedestrian connectivity, such as master planned communities in the suburbs that require an automobile to traverse, do not meet their requirements for mixed-use. The same is true for two-use projects, such as multi-story residential projects in urban areas with a relatively small amount of ground-level retail space. Industry Survey Deﬁnition The other deﬁnition commonly referenced in the literature is the product of a cross-organizational survey done in the fall of 2006 by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Association of Industrial and Ofﬁce Properties (NAIOP), the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), and the 13 National Multi Housing Council (NMHC). The purpose of the survey was to identify the fundamental characteristics of mixed-use development and the results were synthesized to produce the following deﬁnition: A mixed-use development is a real estate project with planned integration of some combination of retail, ofﬁce, residential, hotel, recreation or other functions. It is pedestrian-oriented and contains elements of a live-work-play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression and tends to mitigate trafﬁc and sprawl (Niemira, 2007). Thus, if this deﬁnition is overlaid upon the ULI deﬁnition, the primary areas of ambiguity regarding the required characteristics of mixed use become apparent. For example, a major discrepancy between the two deﬁnitions is the minimum number of uses required to be considered mixed-use; the ULI deﬁnition designates three, while the industry deﬁnition implies only two. This discrepancy is representative of the larger debate regarding whether a development that contains only two uses, but which meets the other core requirements qualiﬁes as mixed-use or if it is simply multi-use (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Popovec, 2006). Additionally, the components included in the industry deﬁnition, but excluded from ULI’s, such as architectural expression, trafﬁc mitigation, and sprawl reduction, emphasize the blurry boundary between the necessary components of mixed-use development and the potential characteristics or effects of individual mixed-use projects. 14 While overlaying the deﬁnitions upon one another highlights the uncertainties, it also illuminates the components of mixed-use development that are generally agreed upon. First, the project must consist of multiple uses that are physically and functionally integrated and which are substantial enough to attract their own markets. Second, the project must maximize space through intensive land use and be oriented toward the pedestrian. Third, each component of the project must conform to an overarching, coherent plan. These three principles make up the core of the consensus regarding mixed-use development and distinguish it from both single-use and multi- use development. Conceptualizing Mixed-Use Development Once the core principles are established, the next step in understanding what mixed-use development is, is conceptualizing the variety of ways that mixed-use projects can be manifested in physical space. This requires the consideration of factors such as the function of the individual land uses, the manner in which multiple uses can be combined, and the scale at which a mixing of uses can occur. However, just as deﬁning mixed-use development has provoked debate, so has the conceptualization of it. Likewise, there are two conceptual models which are consistently referenced in the literature. The ﬁrst typology was developed by Alan Rowley (1996) and the second was created by Eric Hoppenbrouwer and Erik Louw (2005) in an effort to expand upon Rowley’s ideas. 15 Rowley’s Typology The conceptual model of mixed-use development created by Alan Rowley (1996) is based on the view that mixed-used development is essentially an aspect of the internal texture of settlements. This model focuses on mixed-use in the horizontal dimension, or between adjacent buildings, and proposes that the physical form of mixed-use development is a function of urban texture, setting, and location. Rowley proposes that the urban texture of a settlement is the product of three things: grain, density, and permeability. The grain of a settlement refers to the manner in which the various elements of a settlement are mixed together in space. A ﬁne grain refers to a settlement where like elements are widely dispersed among unlike elements and a course grain denotes settlements where extensive areas of one element are separated from extensive areas of another element. Moreover, an abrupt transition from a cluster of like elements to unlike elements is referred to as a sharp grain and a gradual transition is referred to as a blurred grain (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Density refers to the amount of space or number of units contained within a certain area and is a measure of the intensity of land uses. Permeability refers to the number of possible routes a pedestrian has to choose from as he/she moves through a given area. This is a function of the layout of the roads, the corresponding size and shape of the blocks, and the placement and design of the buildings and public spaces within each block. In addition to urban texture, Rowley also inserts setting or spatial scale into his model, making distinctions between buildings, blocks, streets and districts. Moreover, he distinguishes between four types of locations where mixed-use 16 development can occur: (1) city or town centers comprising the commercial and civic core of towns and cities; (2) inner-city areas on sites comprising derelict, vacant or built-up land needing regeneration; (3) suburban or edge-of-town locations; and (4) greenﬁeld sites out past the urban fringe. Furthermore, Rowley (1996) includes three other components in his conceptual model. First, he points out that public policy and regulations, property markets, and cultural ideas and values are external factors that inﬂuence the form of mixed-use development. Second, he recognizes that activities and land uses within mixed-use projects generate different degrees of vitality, a characteristic he refers to as the transactional quality of a use. Lastly, Rowley acknowledges an important time dimension because different uses produce activity on varying time schedules and any one facility can be shared by multiple users over any given time period. The result of the complex interactions of these variables is what he terms a “mixed-use situation.” However, Rowley’s model focuses solely on the horizontal dimension and, while he acknowledges the time dimension in his paper, it is not adequately incorporated into his model. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) recognize the need to consider the vertical dimension, as well as a mix of uses within a single structure and different uses of a space over some period of time. Consequently, their typology expands upon Rowley’s and integrates the components in a more systematic way (Rabianski, 2009). Hoppenbrower and Louw’s Typology Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s (2005) model is developed from a spatial perspective and is organized by function, dimension, scale, and urban texture. The 17 18 Figure 1: Rowley’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Rowley, 1996 function component of mixed-use development refers to the individual land uses that are being mixed, and while their typology utilizes housing (residential) and working (ofﬁce) for the sake of simplicity, the model is ﬂexible enough to be extended to any other combination of uses. The dimension component is composed of four elements: (1) the shared premise dimension, (2) the horizontal dimension, (3) the vertical dimension and (4) the time dimension. In addition, just as in Rowley’s model, a scale component is included in the typology; however, the method of subdivision is different, with Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s scale component being broken down into the building, block, district, and city levels. Moreover, urban texture was carried over from Rowley’s model, but instead of grain, density, and permeability, their model is made up of grain, density and the interweaving of functions. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) also point out that the inclusion of other components in addition to function, dimension, scale, and texture, such as location (town center, suburban, greenﬁeld, etc.) or employment and housing types, might be helpful in conceptualizing mixed use development. Moreover, they recognize that formulations of mixed-use development are insufﬁcient in terms of urban design alone; that “it also comprises other non-design features such as the urban experience, the nature of uses, deﬁnitions of public and private, conﬂict and security” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2006). However, they felt that such formulations could continue ad nauseam and would only serve to over complicate the model. Likewise, they reference Kevin Lynch in Good City Form when he articulates, “a good environment is a place which affords obvious and easy access to a moderate variety of people, goods, and settings…this variety can be expanded if a person wishes to expand further energy, [but it’s] an explorable world, 19 20 Figure 2: Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Hoppenbrouwer, 2005 whose vast diversities can be sought out or ignored at will” (Lynch, 2000, p. 192). In sum, mixed-use development is far from a standardized product form (Rabianski, 2007). It can differ by the nature and combination of uses, the dimension in which the uses are being mixed, the scale at which the mix of uses is occurring, and the urban texture that is created both within the development and throughout the surrounding area. Moreover, there are a variety of other factors that inﬂuence the conceptualization of mixed-use development and, consequently, there are a near inﬁnite amount of possible mixed-use conﬁgurations and characteristics. However, it is this lack of monotony that distinguish mixed-use developments from other product types. Purpose of Mixed-Use Development Determining what the purpose of mixed-use development is not nearly as difﬁcult as deﬁning or conceptualizing it, but the process is still more complicated than for other types of real estate development. After all, the same question is not asked of the traditional development products: residential development serves the purpose of providing housing for the residents of a given area; ofﬁce development serves the purpose of providing space for administrative, clerical, professional, and a variety of other business activities; and retail development serves the purpose of providing space for the showcasing and sale of goods and services to consumers. More speciﬁcally, each traditional real estate product provides space for an individual and necessary function of modern day society. The same can not be said for mixed-use development. 21 Instead, mixed-use development is a strategy for arranging the physical space that is required for society to function. Moreover, the modern conception of mixed-use is predicated on the practice of segregating land uses through Euclidian zoning policies, which have contributed to undesirable growth patterns characterized by the following: •Unlimited outward and "leapfrog" expansion of low-density new development; •Large-scale development of open space and environmentally sensitive lands; •Ever worsening trafﬁc congestion and air quality caused by intensive automobile use; •Costly requirements to expand roads, sewers, water systems, and other infrastructures outward, rather than utilize and upgrade the networks that are already in place; •Isolated neighborhoods and communities which lack vibrancy and a sense of place; •Inadequate public transportation and a lack of other public amenities (Downs, 2005). Thus, the primary goals of mixed-use development revolve around the desire to alter the current patterns of urban growth and rectify the detrimental effects that Euclidian zoning and sprawl have had on urban areas. Furthermore, it “forms part of a strategy for sustainable development as well as a theory of good urban form, with the objectives of economic vitality, social equity, and environmental quality” (Grant, 2002). 22 The speciﬁc ways in which mixed-use development advances these goals can be distilled from a sampling of the various books, articles, and zoning codes that elaborate on the beneﬁts of integrating land uses. In his book Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development, Andy Coupland (1997) quotes John Gummer, the former U.K. Secretary of State for the Environment, who explained why the U.K. government was increasingly supporting mixed-use development as follows: The emerging consensus is that development is more sustainable if it produces a mixture of uses. Segregation of land uses, encouraged in the past, is not relevant now. The trend back to mixed usage brings a number of potential beneﬁts. It ensures vitality through activity and diversity. It makes areas safer. It also reduces the need to travel, making people less reliant on cars, bringing welcome environmental beneﬁts. Diversity of uses adds to the vitality and interest of town centers. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening can reinforce each other, making town centers more attractive to residents, businesses, shoppers and visitors (DoE, 1995a). Coupland (1997), and subsequently Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005), also cite the following diagram that was created by the UK Department of the Environment (DoE, 1995b) to illustrate the beneﬁts of mixed-use development: 23 In addition, Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) reference the following passage from the New Charter of Athens, which was developed by the European Council of Spatial Planners (ECSP): The principle of mixed use should be promoted, especially in city centers, so as to introduce more variety and vitality into [the] urban fabric. Housing and work 24 Figure 3: Beneﬁts of mixed-use development Source: Coupland, 1997 areas, as well as other compatible uses, should be closely related in time and space so as to reduce the need to travel, conserve energy and reduce pollution (ECSP, 2008). Furthermore, the City of Atlanta (2002) cites the following reasons, among others, for the implementation of its Mixed Residential Commercial (MRC) Zoning District: The city ﬁnds there is a need…to preserve and restore existing, traditional and pedestrian scale buildings in established, historic neighborhood districts, as well as create new pedestrian oriented commercial nodes…to encourage a balanced mix of uses to include proportionately signiﬁcant residential uses and to facilitate safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian circulation…to improve air quality by promoting walking and reducing the number of vehicular trips…[and] to establish adequate parking requirements by encouraging shared parking arrangements. Lastly, and perhaps most comprehensively, the Smart Growth Network (2011) includes mixed-use development as one of its ten principles for smart growth, and summarizes the relationship between smart growth and mixed land uses as follows: Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving better places to live. By putting uses in close 25 proximity to one another, alternatives to driving, such as walking or biking, once again become viable. Mixed land uses also provide a more diverse and sizable population and commercial base for supporting viable public transit. It can enhance the vitality and perceived security of an area by increasing the number and attitude of people on the street. It helps streets, public spaces, and pedestrian-oriented retail again become places where people meet, attracting pedestrians back onto the street and helping to revitalize community life. Mixed land uses can [also] convey substantial ﬁscal and economic beneﬁts. Commercial uses in close proximity to residential areas are often reﬂected in higher property values, and therefore help raise local tax receipts. Businesses recognize the beneﬁts associated with areas able to attract more people, as there is increased economic activity when there are more people in an area to shop. In today's service economy, communities ﬁnd that by mixing land uses, they make their neighborhoods attractive to workers who increasingly balance quality of life criteria with salary to determine where they will settle. Clearly there are a variety of reasons being asserted for why mixed-use development is essential to the revitalization of urban environments. The beneﬁts run the gamut from restoring neighborhood vibrancy to improving air quality, and reducing chronic disease to increasing economic activity (Grant, 2002). However, Coupland (1997) points out that “while some of the advantages of mixed-use can be accepted as absolute, others may or may not be true in certain circumstances.” Therefore, since it is 26 not certain that all of the beneﬁts associated with mixed-use development are guaranteed to occur, it is important to distinguish between the guaranteed and potential beneﬁts of mixing land uses. Assuming that the space for each individual use is occupied, the effects of mixed-use development on a given area which are guaranteed to occur include accessibility to a greater diversity of uses, higher densities of people and space, and longer periods of pedestrian activity throughout the day. Each of these effects is typically perceived to be a beneﬁt for urban areas, and together they provide the foundation needed for all the other proposed beneﬁts to arise; however, by themselves they can not guarantee that they will. Furthermore, these beneﬁts only extend to the periphery of each individual mixed-use development. Thus, for the desired large scale changes to occur, in addition to uses being integrated within individual projects, mixed- use developments must be integrated both with their surrounding areas and with each other. The beneﬁts of mixed-use development which are not guaranteed to occur include safer, vibrant neighborhoods, less trafﬁc, reduced air pollution, improved public health, and increased economic activity, among many other things. While each of these is certainly a possible beneﬁt of mixed-use development, they can not be assured because each is reliant upon factors external to the mere presence of a mixed-use development. For example, having numerous uses within a close distance creates a situation where it is reasonable for people to walk or ride a bicycle to their desired destination. This reduces people’s need to rely solely on their automobiles for transportation, and assuming that they choose to take advantage of that opportunity, 27 has the ability to reduce the amount of cars on the road. Fewer automobiles on the road will likely lead to less trafﬁc congestion and lower volumes of air pollutants entering the atmosphere. This in turn has the potential to improve air quality and beneﬁt public health. However, each of these beneﬁts is predicated on three external factors: ﬁrst, the uses within the mixed-use development must align with the needs of the people residing in and around it; second, the people must actually decide to walk or bike to their destination instead of drive; and third, the amount of people driving to the development from other areas must not negate the beneﬁts created by the residents of the development choosing to walk. Likewise, each of the other possible beneﬁts is dependent upon a wide range of variables that can not be planned for or predicted. Consequently, besides the direct effects that mixed-use development has on the built environment, the beneﬁts can not be automatically assumed. Rowley (1996) summarizes this point by asserting that “mixed land use and development is being ofﬁcially promoted as essential to the creation and maintenance of attractive, livable and sustainable urban environments. However, mixed-use development should not be seen as an automatic panacea: for example, it cannot be divorced from cultural priorities and lifestyles.” In sum, it is important to realize that mixed-use development alone can not solve all of society’s problems, but it certainly is a tool that can be used to help create and sustain better urban environments (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Jane Jacobs, whose work is cited by many as a key reason for the resurgence of mixed-use development over the past few decades (Grant, 2002; Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Rabianski, 2009; Rowley, 28 1996), identiﬁes four indispensable conditions that great urban environments must possess. Her preconditions are: 1.The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must ensure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common. 2.Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent. 3.The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield that they produce. This mingling must be fairly close grained. 4.There must be a sufﬁciently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence. (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 150-51) Taking Jacob’s criteria into consideration, it is clear that mixed-use development plays a pivotal role in the emergence of quality urban areas. It is also clear that there are other factors besides a mixture of uses which interact to bring life and character to urban areas. In the end, however, there are few things as important to a healthy urban area as having a wide variety of uses drawing a wide variety of people at a wide variety of times throughout the day. 29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice In theory, there are many upsides to mixed-use development. However, in practice, the system of land use regulations, construction guidelines, ﬁnancial underwriting standards, and various other processes that govern real estate development are still tailored to the single-use real estate products that dominated the past half century. As a result, mixed-use projects present developers with increased complexity and risk at every stage of the development process. Whether it is the planning, entitlement, design, ﬁnancing, construction, or operation of a mixed-use project, understanding where the obstacles lie and how to overcome them is essential for a successful development. Planning All development projects, regardless of whether or not they are mixed-use, begin with an idea. The same is true for both successful projects and failures. The planning process is what takes that rough idea, hones it into something that can actually become a reality, and hopefully, if done properly, sets the project up for success. While the planning process is ubiquitous to all real estate development, it is much more complex and much less forgiving for mixed-use projects. A successful mixed-use development requires a capable and diverse development team, a clear set of objectives, sound and thorough market analysis, an innovative development strategy, accurate ﬁnancial models, and a whole lot of creativity. 30 Team Selection An inexperienced development team is rarely capable of carrying out the complex undertaking of a mixed-use project. Even seasoned developers, designers, architects, and other real estate professionals whose experience is limited to single-use projects, have the deck stacked against them when it comes to mixed-use development. Therefore, it is imperative that the master developer assemble a diverse team that is intimately familiar with a wide variety of uses and the complex issues that arise speciﬁcally with mixed-use projects (Schwanke, 2003). Especially during the planning and design phases, it is essential to receive input from a variety of sources, including the leasing agents, property managers, market experts, ﬁnancial analysts, capital providers, marketing consultants, major tenants, development partners, construction contractors, public ofﬁcials, and the surrounding community. As ULI points out: Each participant’s input should relate not only to a speciﬁc use or issue but also to the overall project concept and operation. This collaborative team approach can be one of the most important aspects of the planning process, because no one person is likely to have a complete understanding of the detailed design and operational issues for all the project’s uses and elements (Schwanke, 2003). Goal Determination The complex nature of mixed-use development requires that a common set of objectives be distilled and adopted by the development team at the outset of the 31 project. This is often a difﬁcult task given the inherent diversity of the team members and the differing objectives of the numerous stakeholders involved in the development process. However, to ensure that the project moves forward as expeditiously as possible, it is important that each party makes an effort to understand the other parties’ objectives and that compromises are reached. In addition, while both ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial goals need to be clearly identiﬁed, it is often more essential to the success of the project that the vision, or non-ﬁnancial objectives, be explicitly stated at the beginning of the planning process (Schwanke, 2003). This ensures that the multitude of decisions that must be made over the course of the development are guided by a common set of ideals, which reduces the likelihood of the development team making noncohesive decisions. Market Analysis Conducting a comprehensive market analysis for a mixed-use project is imperative for determining the supply and demand for each project component and creating a successful development program. While these statements apply to single- use projects as well, the complexity of the analysis increases with the number of development components. This is because different geographies and market areas have to be considered for each speciﬁc on-site use. Likewise, each use must be analyzed with regard to its own supply and demand situation and should be able to attract sufﬁcient market demand to make it ﬁnancially feasible in its own right (Rabianski, 2009). 32 After determining if there is a sufﬁcient market for each use, the developer should consider the potential market synergies from on-site support. ULI identiﬁes three kinds of market synergy that can be achieved with mixed-use projects. The ﬁrst type of market synergy is derived from direct on-site market support. This would include residents, ofﬁce workers, and hotel guests frequenting the retail and restaurant components of the project. The second type of synergy involves the indirect beneﬁts that the uses provide to each other as amenities. “For example, retail and hotel uses do not directly generate revenues for ofﬁce tenants or residents, but they can serve as important amenities for those uses” (Schwanke, 2003). Finally, the third kind of synergy is derived from the potential of mixed-use development to create a unique sense of place and establish a new destination within the urban landscape (Schwanke, 2003). However, while the potential for market synergies should always be considered, it is unwise to depend on their impact to any large degree. Strategy Creation The creation of a viable mixed-use development strategy requires the consideration and alignment of a multitude of factors. The complexity and magnitude of this undertaking make it essential that input is received from each member of the development team. Additionally, a successful strategy often requires several alternative programs to be developed and tested against each other. Mixed-use projects typically “require several iterations until the best ﬁt is found; the program must be marketable, feasible, and ﬁnanceable, and must also be able to receive public approval. This latter 33 fact should not be underestimated, as the approval process can substantially affect the ﬁnal program” (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, in addition to creating a proﬁtable mix of uses, the development strategy must synchronize the phasing and timing of each component of the project. This requires a thorough understanding of the market for each use and also a solid familiarity with the construction process and local building regulations. Project phasing also requires close coordination with the architects and engineers because building design often affects the ability to phase the delivery of project components. For example, “if multiple uses are going to share mechanical and ﬁre safety systems, then the entire project may need to be completed simultaneously to obtain certiﬁcates of occupancy for any portion of the project” (Kirk, 2007). Feasibility Analysis Evaluating the ﬁnancial feasibility of a mixed-use project can be much more complex than for a single-use development. This is primarily because mixed-use projects usually involve costs and revenues that are harder to predict. While some cost efﬁciencies may be achieved through mixing uses, the complexity of integrating multiple uses into a single structure may raise development and operating costs. Likewise, the synergy created by placing complementary uses in close proximity to each other may increase cash ﬂows, but poor timing on the delivery of a certain project component may lead to increased vacancy and lower rents. Moreover, the added complexity of a mixed-use development often equates to longer development timelines, which heightens uncertainty and increases risk (Rabianski, 2009). While it is 34 impossible to predict exactly how much costs and revenues will vary on any given project, acknowledging the greater likelihood of miscalculations and incorporating larger contingency funds into the budget is often vital to the ﬁnancial success of a mixed-use project. Additionally, it is important to perform separate ﬁnancial analyses for each use and ensure that each is feasible in its own right (Schwanke, 2003). Since ﬁnancial feasibility is simply when “the return on the investment meets or exceeds the required return of the developer and/or the investor” (Rabianski, 2009), each use being ﬁnancially feasible does not imply that each use will perform equally well. Instead, each use just needs to meet its required return, which can vary among project components. The temptation is often to let uses that are expected to perform well make up for uses that are expected perform poorly, but that can be dangerous if the cornerstone use doesn’t perform as expected. The key for the development team is to analyze several alternative development programs and ﬁnd the concept that they feel most comfortable with from a feasibility perspective (Schwanke, 2003). Acquisition & Entitlement The process of acquiring the land and gaining the entitlements necessary for a mixed-use project can present the development team with numerous challenges. Land acquisition often involves assembling multiple, separately owned parcels in good locations. Regulatory approvals require negotiations with various governmental entities and departments. And gaining community support requires building relationships with an often skeptical public and convincing them that a mixed-use development would 35 have a positive impact on their neighborhood. Rombouts (2006) identiﬁes the following strategies for overcoming these obstacles: “Implementing an active community outreach program early; working closely with city planning and building ofﬁcials; being fully informed on planning and performance of residential/retail mixed-use developments; understanding the community and its political dynamics; having project proponents actively engaged, especially on the retail side; identifying and communicating community beneﬁts; and reaching out to and working closely with local media.” Land Assembly Mixed-use projects often require relatively large sites to be assembled from numerous parcels held by multiple landowners. This is especially the case in urban areas. Occasionally, a developer already owns the land and is seeking to take advantage of changing market conditions and development opportunities. Additionally, if the public sector is involved and is pushing the project, the process can be expedited because they have the ability to use condemnation proceedings if necessary, but that is usually not the case either. Typically, the developer must ﬁrst target the owners of key parcels, then approach each one and attempt to diplomatically negotiate sales agreements. Since market factors determine the price of land, developers must have a good understanding of the expected costs and revenues of the proposed project and be able to negotiate a purchase price that does not compromise the ﬁnancial viability of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Mixed-use developers also need to be open to 36 alternative acquisition strategies such entering into a land lease if the owner is unwilling to part with the land. Regulatory Approval In many municipalities, the approval process for mixed-use developments is often difﬁcult, time-consuming, and fraught with uncertainty; all of which escalate the risks and costs associated with mixed-use projects. Depending on the speciﬁc city and location of the site, getting the property rezoned to allow multiple uses and higher densities can be a nightmare. Whether it is the city worried about trafﬁc increases and impacts on infrastructure, or NIMBYism from local residents, the rezoning process for mixed-use projects is often contentious and usually requires the services of a real estate attorney (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, even if the project site already has the desired zoning, certain aspects of the plan may not conform to the regulations and variances may have to be sought. A common source of contention with new urbanist mixed-use projects is street widths. New urbanism advocates for narrow streets, tight turning radii, and on-street parking, but local municipalities and state DOTs are often vehemently opposed to such designs. Occasionally, if compromises can not be reached, the developer must privatize some or all of the streets, bestowing signiﬁcant maintenance costs on future residents and tenants. Furthermore, another difﬁcult situation affecting the approval process involves high-proﬁle projects that require approvals from various levels of government and multiple jurisdictions (Schwanke, 2003). Since the effects of large projects are likely to 37 ripple throughout an entire region, many mixed-use projects must be reviewed by multiple municipalities and regional bodies, adding yet another layer of complexity to the approval process. Community Support The time, cost, and effort required to gain community support for a mixed-use project is usually much greater than for a smaller single-use project. In order to foster and sustain a public environment conducive to project approval, the development team must gain the trust and support of the community. While there is no single solution for gaining public support, honesty and a willingness to listen and address community concerns are essential. Developers often make the mistake of trying to impose their vision on the community, but conducting neighborhood meetings and incorporating ideas and suggestions from the local residents is usually a better way of generating buy-in for the project (Rombouts, 2006). In addition, mixed-use developments usually have the potential to have a substantial impact on an area, so it is important to understand the goals of the local community and include them in the project proposal. Evaluating the contextual history and crafting development strategies that respond to an area’s built, social, and natural environments conveys to the public that their interests are being considered. Design Mixed-use developments are often confronted with unique design challenges that go far beyond the architectural and engineering concerns of typical sing-use real 38 estate projects. Moreover, managing a design process that often involves several different designers for each individual project component, in addition to receiving input from local municipalities, community groups, building operators and a variety of other sources, is a formidable task (Schwanke, 2003). Parking, public spaces and streetscapes, the integration and interrelationship of elements, pedestrian circulation and connectivity, and creating a sense of place are just a few of the design elements that are crucial to the success of a mixed-use project. Parking Program Parking is a crucial component of most mixed-use developments and can have a signiﬁcant impact on the project’s aesthetics, operational efﬁciency, and overall success. As ULI points out, “form follows parking” and incorporating large amounts of parking into an attractive and functional mixed-use project is a major design challenge (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, accommodating the parking needs of each of the different uses can be difﬁcult. Residents want secure parking that is separate from the commercial uses; hotels want spaces that are dedicated to the valet; ofﬁce users wants individual reserved spaces; and retailers want free and abundant parking that is close to store entrances. Moreover, estimating the total demand for parking is much more complex for mixed-use projects given the different activity cycles for each use. However, shared parking is often an option that can be both ﬁnancially and logistically appealing if designed properly (Rombouts, 2006). To be successful, the parking program for mixed-use developments cannot be overlooked and must be given the same amount of thought and attention as the rest of the project. 39 Public Space While single-use developments occasionally incorporate a public space component, the nature of mixed-use projects, including the number of functions, scale of buildings, and size of budgets, make it possible to create and justify a larger, more substantial public realm. Whether the public spaces consist of urban plazas, squares, town greens, parks, gardens, promenades, courtyards, or streetscapes, designing an attractive and engaging public realm is often vital to the success of a mixed-use development. The reason for the increased importance of the public realm in mixed- use projects is its ability to shape the interrelationship of uses within the project, solidify the development’s incorporation into the surrounding area, and amplify the visual connections between spaces (Schwanke, 2003). In large mixed-use projects, the design and location of streets, sidewalks and parks is actually just as important as the design and location of the buildings (Angotti and Hanhardt, 2001). Component Integration There is nothing more fundamental to the success of a mixed-use development than the proper integration of the project’s various components. Creating a harmonious relationship while placing different uses in close proximity to each other requires understanding the needs of each use and translating each of those needs into a coherent design scheme. That includes providing efﬁciently functioning infrastructure, including parking, utilities, services, and effective mechanical, electrical, and structural systems, that are capable of servicing each component’s differing demands (Schwanke, 2003). The different operating and activity cycles of each use must also be 40 accommodated and potential conﬂicts avoided through forethought and proactive design. The most common design considerations being: “noise abatement by soundprooﬁng between uses; separate residential and commercial parking areas; screened loading and dock areas; odor suppression and ventilation for restaurants; and separate access for residential and ofﬁce users from retail customers for security and privacy” (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, the potential of mixed-use development to create synergies from the various uses can only be capitalized on if the project components are properly aligned. The design and position of each use must be thought out so that the uses perform as a whole and beneﬁt from one another. This is often accomplished by situating complementary uses around common areas and public space, separating the uses that draw the largest numbers of people to encourage a consistent ﬂow of pedestrians throughout the entire development, ensuring there are coffee shops and restaurants that serve lunch close to the ofﬁce buildings, and placing dry cleaners and other everyday service providers are located next to the residential components. Pedestrian Connectivity One of the primary characteristics that distinguish a mixed-use development from a single or multi-use project is pedestrian connectivity both within the project and with the surrounding areas. The pedestrian orientation of mixed-use projects is a stark contrast to the automobile orientation of most other types of real estate development and requires signiﬁcant thought to be put into the arrangement and design of the buildings and open spaces. The goal should be to ensure easy and effective pedestrian 41 access to each of the project components and to and from the relevant adjacent areas (Schwanke, 2003). A key component of an effective pedestrian network is a well-designed central open space. Whether it is a main street, central plaza, or some other type of public space, a central open space facilitates spatial orientation and provides strong visual connections and sight lines for pedestrians. Additionally, it is important to establish a clear hierarchy of streets, paths, and open spaces that radiate out from the central open space to create visual interest and draw people into the different areas of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, permeability, or the number of different routes that a pedestrian has to choose from, should be maximized through a grid structure and small block sizes. Sense of Place The design process for a mixed-use project is ultimately an exercise in place making, not just real estate development. As mentioned earlier in this paper, place making can be described as “the creation of vibrant, distinctive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments through the effective design and integration of a mix of uses” (Schwanke, 2003). So, while in the past, unique places within cities organically evolved over time, the challenge for mixed-use projects today is to instantaneously create unique places that feel authentic and possess a variety of distinctive characteristics that draw pedestrians back again and again. The place making process requires a thorough understanding of the local culture and built environment, as well as a common vision that combines the unique aspects 42 of the local community with principles of good urban and architectural form. Moreover, successfully creating a sense of place within a mixed-use development requires a painstaking attention to detail that often separates projects that feel artiﬁcial from projects that feel genuine. Wether it is older, more mature street trees, varying architectural styles and building facades, quirky streetscape furniture, unique lamp posts and lighting, narrow street widths with on street parking, or any other design characteristic, successful place making in mixed-use development often lies in the details (Field, 2008). Ownership & Financing As is the case with every type of real estate development, the realization of a mixed-use project ultimately comes down to ﬁnding the necessary investment capital. However, conventional investment practices favor standardization and conformity, and overtime the real estate industry has been distilled into 19 standard product types. These categories are made up of the single-use products that have deﬁned America’s built environment for the past half century. Unfortunately, mixed-use development does not ﬁt into one of these standard ﬁnancing categories, often making it much harder and more expensive to secure the necessary capital for the project (Leinberger, 2003). Moreover, lenders often require complex ownership structures to be created for the purposes of expanding exit strategies and making it easier to foreclose on individual components of the project. For these reasons, identifying the optimal method of structuring ownership and securing ﬁnancing for a mixed-use development requires careful consideration on the part of the development team. 43 Ownership Structure The ownership structure of a mixed-use development can have a signiﬁcant impact on the development teams ability to secure ﬁnancing “If the developer wants to use a single construction ﬁnancing source, the lender will seek a single borrower entity that owns all projects components, such as a limited liability company, the members of which are the separate equity investors in the project components” (Rabianski, 2009). However, if the developer wants to utilize separate ﬁnancing sources for each major component of the project, multiple special purpose entities would be created, with each assigned ownership of a certain project component. The purpose of structuring ownership in this way is to create a more ﬂexible exit strategy with the ability to sell different components of the project at different points in the development cycle (Rabianski, 2009). “The developer faces similar tradeoffs and complications when pursuing permanent ﬁnancing. The larger loan associated with permanent ﬁnancing on the entire property may be more attractive to many lenders; however, unless the mortgage contains lease provisions, individual loans on each property type parcel will give the owner greater ﬂexibility in exit strategies (Wieden, 2007). When a single construction loan has separate take-outs for the project components, the construction lender is dependent upon each of the permanent lenders to accomplish full take-out of the loan. The condominium form of ownership will allow the construction lender to foreclose and sell only the single-use component on which the take-out commitment failed rather than foreclose and sell the entire mixed-use project (Kane, 2004)” (Rabianski, 2009). 44 Capital Sources Securing the needed debt and equity capital for mixed-use projects is difﬁcult for a variety of reasons. Compared with most single-use projects, mixed-use developments often require larger capital requirements, more ﬁnancing sources, higher equity requirements, more complicated underwriting, a longer development period, and more ﬁnancial involvement from the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). However, the sources of funds themselves are the same as for single-use projects; the investors usually just have different requirements for mixed-use developments. Financing any real estate project begins with equity, and equity in a project originates with a developer’s own capital. Since most developers can’t meet the equity requirements on their own, and even if they could, wouldn’t want that much of their money at risk, the remainder of the capital comes from equity partners. These investors may include developers and private property companies, wealthy individuals and limited partnerships, pension funds, investment advisory ﬁrms using pension fund money, insurance companies, REITs, opportunity funds, investment banks, commercial banks (especially in Europe), and other private investment entities” (Schwanke, 2003). The remainder of the required capital, usually 70% of the total project cost for mixed-use developments, is covered by debt ﬁnancing. The vast majority of debt ﬁnancing is provided by commercial banks, insurance companies, savings institutions, the CMBS industry, and ﬁnance companies. Additionally, a variety of public ﬁnancing tools may be available for mixed-use developments that meet certain criteria set by the government. Although, many of these ﬁnancing tools require that the project be located in special districts created by 45 the local municipality, such as improvement districts or reinvestment zones, and usually require certain criteria to be met (Rabianski, 2009). Furthermore, tax abatement programs, development bonds, and bonds from tax increment ﬁnancing (TIF), known as tax allocation districts (TAD) in Georgia, may be available for the construction of certain types of facilities and infrastructure (Kirk, 2007). Construction The construction of a mixed-use project presents the development team, and construction service providers in particular, with a number of unique challenges. Many of these issues are related to the integration of multiple uses into a single structure and must be ﬁrst addressed by the architects and engineers in the planning and design stage of the development processes. These issues often include incorporating separate points of ingress and egress for each use, aligning the different ﬂoor plans and structural requirements of various uses, and integrating the multiple sets of building systems usually needed for each use. However, there are several challenges that can not be easily resolved through thoughtful design. Potential issues that must be addressed on the construction site by the superintendent or project manager include ensuring that the proper building standards for each use are followed by the contractors, effectively managing the construction schedule for a complex project in which problems will inevitably arise, and coordinating a much larger number of sub- contractors than is typically utilized on a single-use project (Bergeron, 2007). 46 Building Standards Building codes typically vary for each of the components included in a mixed- use development and the added complexity often creates difﬁculties for the contractors and subcontractors tasked with constructing the project. Even though the construction documents produced by the design team should specify the materials and standards to be used for each component, the drawings and speciﬁcations are not always correct, and regardless, it can be a challenge keeping everything straight on the job site. Moreover, mixed-use projects often encounter situations where it is difﬁcult to know which standards to apply; such as for the common areas of a building that includes retail, hotel, ofﬁce, and residential uses, or for the partitions that separate each use. Life safety and ﬁre separation issues are especially important, and working with the inspectors and ﬁre marshall to ﬁgure out the proper ﬁre rating or sprinkler systems to use in each situation can cause signiﬁcant delays and unforeseen expenses (Bergeron, 2007). Additionally, there are construction best practices for mixed-use developments that usually fall outside the requirements of most building codes, but which can have a signiﬁcant impact on the success of a project. Speciﬁcally, adequate amounts of sound attenuation and odor suppression must be incorporated into the project to prevent certain uses from becoming nuisances to other uses (Rabianski, 2009). Likewise, the subcontractors responsible for the installation of those systems have little room for error and must make sure that everything is installed properly. Seemingly insigniﬁcant mistakes like small gaps left in the sound batting between uses or accidental screw 47 holes made in a ventilation pipe can have serious implications down the road when the tenants and residents are moved in. Construction Schedule The construction schedule for a mixed-use development typically spans a longer timeframe than for a comparably sized single-use project. The reason for the extended schedule is the increased complexity experienced at nearly every stage of the mixed- use construction process. Whether it is complicated below-grade parking structures that are integrated into the building’s foundation, independent sets of building systems that must be installed separately for each use, or any other unique design characteristic that pushes contractors outside of their comfort zone, the potential for problems on mixed-use projects is sky high. As a result, the development team, and speciﬁcally the construction project manager, must be extra vigilant to ensure that the project stays on track and on budget (Bergeron, 2007). Furthermore, on top of the increased complexity and extended construction schedules, it is often much more important to avoid delays and complete mixed-use projects on time. The increased pressure to ﬁnish on schedule originates from the fact that to be successful, mixed-use developments need to hit the ground running. This is a result of both the high carrying costs associated with mixed-use projects and the nature of mixed-use synergies which require a majority of the space for each use to be ﬁlled and open for business. Consequently, the marketing and promotion efforts for a mixed-use project typically begin very early on in the life of the project. This is both to begin building awareness and excitement around the project and to start attracting 48 quality retailers, ofﬁce users, and residents (Schwanke, 2003). But with so much hype leading up the completion of the project, setbacks and delays are impossible to conceal and can cast negative light on the project. Contractor Coordination Coordination of the numerous contractors and subcontractors involved with the construction of a mixed-use project can be a logistical nightmare. Determining which sub is doing what and identifying when and where they are doing it requires a signiﬁcant amount of organization and management skills. While some construction divisions, such as the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trades, are typically handled by a single subcontractor, it can be difﬁcult to ﬁnd subs that have the necessary breadth of experience and skill needed to tackle each component of a large mixed-use project. Consequently, separate subcontractors are often brought in to handle each use. With multiple subs working on different uses it is critical that the superintendent effectively communicate to each sub their respective responsibilities and ensure that everything is properly integrated. Moreover, the project manager must ensure that the scopes of the contracts for each sub do not overlap and result in duplicate or repetitive work, but also must make sure that nothing is overlooked and not covered by any of the scopes, which could result in gaps in the overall work product (Bergeron, 2007). 49 Management & Operation The complexity and challenges of mixed-use development do not fade once the project is completed. Instead the challenges persist as the development transitions from a project to a property. While a single-use property, such as an ofﬁce building, condominium tower, or retail center, requires one set of practices for facilities upkeep, rent, accounting and other management factors, the same cannot be said for mixed- use properties (Marsh, 2006). Combining retail, hotel, ofﬁce, multi-family, and any other use into a single property changes the management and operations signiﬁcantly. “Each component of a mixed-use property has different demands and needs and property managers have to ﬁnd a way to make the entire property operate efﬁciently” (Marsh, 2006). The successful management and operation of a mixed-use property requires the following questions to be addressed: What are the needs of each individual use? How should operating costs be allocated to each user? And how should operating responsibilities be designated? Need Identiﬁcation A typical mixed-use property contains at least three separate components and each possesses distinct operation, management, and maintenance requirements. In a way, managing a mixed-use property can be like operating a small city; there are many different stakeholders with different motivations and concerns, and the needs of each stakeholder must be considered and balanced with everyone else's (Schwanke, 2003). The challenges can be especially difﬁcult if uses that are not complementary and which have radically different operating needs are permitted into the development. However, 50 even complementary uses can have very different needs. “For example, a large retail component requires signiﬁcantly different security arrangements, parking operations, waste removal, cleaning and delivery schedules, promotion, and events management from an ofﬁce or residential component” (Schwanke, 2003). Cost Allocation The allocation of costs related to the management and operation of a mixed-use development to each of the property’s components can be a complicated process. The primary issues arise when trying to determine each use’s prorated share of expenses related to common area use and maintenance, impact on utility and infrastructure systems, and use of other common services. “Speciﬁc issues to be considered for each land use might include the following: the rate at which shared utilities are expected to be consumed; the trafﬁc anticipated to be generated by each user on common roads; whether there will be limitations on the hours that each land user can operate; the expected costs of maintaining, insuring, and operating common property, facilities, and services; and the extent to which any land use will need to be monitored for security” (Weissman, 2000) As a result of the inherent difﬁculty in predicting actual use, common expenses are often allocated among property components on the basis of a generic formula such as square footage. The problem is that these simple formulas often do not accurately reﬂect the impact of each use. Moreover, once these formulas are put in place, they are usually very difﬁcult alter, typically requiring the unanimous consent of all property owners. (Weissman, 2000) 51 Responsibility Designation There is no simple formula for determining the optimal operations, management, and maintenance structure for a mixed-use property. Rather, the designation of responsibilities must reﬂect the objectives of each major component and the particular nature of each project, which for mixed-use properties often requires complex management structures (Schwanke, 2003). However, when possible, centralized management is usually the preferred structure and is often utilized to maintain common areas and building exteriors, manage shared parking areas, and provide a variety of other commonly needed services. The beneﬁt of a single entity is the efﬁciency gains from eliminating many of the coordination and communication issues experienced with dispersed responsibilities. The key is to ﬁnd a property manager that has the required knowledge, experience, and personnel to effectively operate a property containing a mixture of uses (Marsh, 2006). While a centralized management structure is often preferred, it does not, preclude the allocation of operations, management, and maintenance to individual property components (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, there are some situations where centralized management is not the desired strategy. This is usually the case when participants have substantially different operating needs and require signiﬁcantly different types or levels of services. Additionally, public ofﬁcials will often insist that the public component of a mixed-use property that operates under a public/private partnership, is managed and maintained by the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). 52 In sum, mixed-use development in practice is fraught with increased complexity and risk at each stage of the development process. Moreover, those complexities and difﬁculties differ for each project, and consequently, mixed-use development does not lend itself to the formulaic approach that many single-use real estate products enjoy (Schwanke, 2003). While experience with developing mixed-use projects certainly allows a developer to better predict where problems will arise and, to the greatest extent possible, address those issues in the planning and design stages of the development process, it is impossible to create a standardized product that can be applied to any situation. “Each project and situation is different, and concepts and outcomes vary dramatically, depending on the particular site, market, developer, urban designer, and ﬁnancing” (Schwanke, 2003). However, the inability of mixed-use developments to be standardized and conform with the norms of the real estate ﬁnance world is part of what makes the concept so appealing to so many different groups of people. As Trischler (2001) states, “one of the most insidious problems with all development is the tendency to blindly follow the latest trends and fads without tailoring them to [each project’s] unique situation.” The great thing about mixed-use development is that the nature and scope of mixed-use projects make it much more difﬁcult to continue building the monotonous single-use projects that currently dominate so much of the American landscape. 53 6 Conclusions Mixed-use development remains an ambiguous concept. In theory, there are debates regarding its deﬁnition and conceptualization, in addition to arguments over its guaranteed and potential beneﬁts. In practice, real estate professionals involved with mixed-use projects are confronted with added complexity and risk at nearly every stage of the development process. However, despite the uncertainty associated with the concept, mixed-use development has garnered a signiﬁcant amount of attention and praise over the past several decades and, most likely, will continue to play a pivotal role in the real estate and planning worlds for some time to come. The reason for mixed-use development’s rise to prominence is its potential to relatively quickly recreate the type of well structured urban environments that were regrettably abandoned over the course of the 20th century. In the past, mixed-use cities evolved gradually over centuries. The transformation of those dense, mixed-use urban areas into sprawling, monotonous metropolises occurred over many decades. The hope is that by incorporating a mixture of uses into single development projects, the process of once again restructuring our urban environments will be expedited. However, simply combining a variety of different uses within individual development projects will not automatically lead to the reemergence of quality, pedestrian-oriented urban areas. Moreover, even well designed mixed-use projects can struggle to generate the returns needed to succeed from a ﬁnancial perspective. Ensuring that future mixed-use developments live up to the concept’s expectations requires planners and real estate professionals to absorb the lessons that each completed project has to offer. In this vein, four essential criteria for creating successful 85 mixed-use developments can be distilled from the three Atlanta case studies described in detail above. First, the project must be led by a diverse and experienced development team that is bound together by a common vision and is able to effectively communicate with one another. The success of both Glenwood Park and Technology Square can be directly attributed to the high degree of team work, collaboration, and professionalism that characterized the respective development teams. Moreover, both teams had a clear vision that guided decision making throughout each of the development processes. Atlantic Station, however, continues to suffer as a result of the development team’s lack of experience with mixed-use projects and their failure to develop a clear vision at the outset of the project. Second, the development team must create a master plan that responds to the project site’s unique environment, creates a distinct sense of place, maximizes pedestrian activity, and integrates a variety of synergistic uses into the existing urban fabric. These characteristics are not only vital to the long term success of the project, but also to gaining the trust and support of the local community at the beginning of the development. The context-sensitive and pedestrian-oriented design of Technology Square has transformed a blighted portion of Midtown into a well-integrated and unique destination that has been embraced by both Georgia Tech and the surrounding community. Additionally, Glenwood Park would not be what it is today if the master plan had not inspired the local neighborhoods to support the development team as they fought to get the city’s zoning regulations changed. Additionally, Atlantic Station’s 86 lack of a distinct sense of place and poor integration of uses has unfortunately resulted in it being negatively perceived by many people within the local community. Third, the project’s capital structure must allow the development team to retain control of their vision and be able to absorb setbacks from unforeseen challenges that are likely to arise. Each of the three Atlanta projects that were highlighted faced a variety of unforeseen challenges throughout the development process. The underlying capital structure of each project had a signiﬁcant impact on the development team’s ability to deal with the issues while staying true to their vision for the project. Green Street Properties was able to fund Glenwood Park without having to utilize outside equity or bank debt. That allowed them to avoid having to make compromises on the project’s design and has resulted in a truly unique destination within the city. In contrast, the massive size and scope of Atlantic Station required signiﬁcant debt ﬁnancing from both the public and private sectors, and consequently, the lenders’ preferences for less risky national retailers has resulted in the development feeling more like an outdoor mall than a unique in-town neighborhood. Fourth, the project must incorporate a physical design and legal structure that allows the project to evolve over time and change as needed. The ability to change with the times and accommodate a wide range of future uses ensures that even if a project is not successful in the short-term, it has the opportunity to succeed in the long-term. So, while Atlantic Station might have a number of different issues that need to be addressed, the development was recently purchased by a group that has a new vision for the property and the project now has the opportunity to be reinvented. However, in order for a property to evolve into something better than its current state, 87 the physical components must be able to be altered and the ownership structure and lease agreements must allow for the necessary changes to be made. In sum, mixed land uses were an essential aspect of cities throughout most of human history. It was only during the early to mid 20th century that the growing pressures of technological and societal revolutions resulted in an alternative option being embraced. However, after several decades of living with the negative consequences of that alternative, a movement to reintroduce the mixed-use urban environments of the past has gained traction (Grant, 2004). Transforming the system that has governed planning and real estate development in America for the past half- century will undoubtedly be difﬁcult, but such a transformation has occurred before and if recent trends hold, it is deﬁnitely possible. However, due to the variety of variables that inﬂuence the quality of urban areas, it will take much more than mixed- use development alone to bring about the widespread changes that are desired. In the end, “mixed use cannot resolve all the problems of the city, but cities that lack mixed use cannot hope to enjoy long-term prosperity or viability” (Grant, 2004). 88 References Angotti, T. and Hanhardt, E. (2001). Problems and Prospects for Healthy Mixed-use Communities in New York City. Planning Practice & Research, 16(2): 145-54. Atlantic Station. (2011). Atlantic Station - About. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http:// www.atlanticstation.com/concept.php. Bergeron, A. (2007). Mixed-Use Developments: New Construction Trend Invades South Central Region. South Central Construction. Retrieved 2/15/2011, from http:// southcentral.construction.com/features/archive/2007/0708_feature2.asp. Brown, W. (2009). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication. Buntin, S. (2005). Glenwood Park - Atlanta, Georgia. Terrain.org. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/17/. City of Atlanta (2002). Code of Ordinances: Part 3-Land Development Code. Sec. 16-34.002. Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Cooperative Conservation America. (2011). Atlantic Station Redevelopment: Using Smart Growth Studies to Lower Emissions. Retreived 4/8/2011, from http:// www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject.asp?pid=498. Coupland, A. (1997). Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development. London, E & FN Spon. Dannenberg, A., Edwards, R., et al. (2007). Leveraging Law and Private Investment for Healthy Urban Redevelopment. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35: 101-105. 89 Downs, A. (2005). Smart Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association. 71(4): 367-380. Department of the Environment. (1995a). PPG13: A Guide to Better Practice. HSMO, London. Department of the Environment. (1995b). Putting quality back into towns and city centres, (press release, 24 July) DoE, London. Dover, Kohl & Associates. (2006). Glenwood Park Atlanta, Ga. Retrieved 4/5/2011 from http://www.doverkohl.com/ﬁles/pdf/Glenwood%20Park_low%20res.pdf ECTP (1998) New Charter of Athens; the principles of ECTP for the planning of cities (London: ECTP). Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Atlantic Station: Atlantic Steel Site Redevelopment Project. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/topics/atlantic_steel.htm. Field, K. (2008). Design of the Times: Mixed use involves careful crafting of multiple elements. Chain Store Age: 106-108. Georgia Institute of Technology. Technology Square. Ofﬁce of Real Estate Deveopment. Retrieved 4/3/2011 from http://www.realestate.gatech.edu/techsqr/. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(1): 71 - 84. Grant, J. (2007). Chapter 3. Encouraging mixed use in practice. In GJ Knaap, HA Haccou, JW Frece (eds), Incentives, Regulations and Plans: the role of states and nation-states in smart growth planning, Edwin Elgar Publishers UK, pp 57-76. 90 Green Street Properties. Glenwood Park: From Greyﬁeld to Green Community. Retrieved 4/6/2011, from http://greenstreetproperties.com/glenwood-park Hoppenbrouwer, E. and Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies. 13(7): 967-983. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Random House. Jones Kendall, J. (2006). Glenwood has perfect recipe for urban success. Atlanta Business Chronicle, 1-2. Kelley, Collin. (2011). Mark Toro Talks about Atlantic Station Evolution. Atlanta INtown. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/2011/02/mark- toro-talks-about-atlantic-station-evolution/. Kirk, P. (2007). Mixed-use Musings. Urban Land, 66(8): 84-90. Kotkin, J. (2010). The Broken Ladder: The Threat to Upward Mobility in the Global City. Legatum Institute. Leinberger, C. (2008). Sprawl to Meets It Limit in Atlanta. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November 5, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from http://www.ajc.com/services/ content/opinion/stories/2008/11/05/leinbergered.html Lynch, K. (2000). Good City Form. Cambridge, MIT Press. Mandelker, D, et al. (2008). Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials. Newark: Lexis Nexus/Matthew Bender. Marsh, A. (2006). Mixed Management: Mixed-Use Property Managers Juggle Varying Tenant Needs. Commercial Property News: 23. Mijanovich, A. (2011). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication 91 Miller, Jason. (2006). Evolution of a Brownﬁeld. Town Paper Publications. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.tndtownpaper.com/Volume8/ evolution_of_brownﬁeld.htm. Morris, A. (1994). History of Urban Form Before the Industrial Revolutions. Longman Scientiﬁc. Mundy, B. and Condra, S. (2005). Atlantic Station: Partnerships, Progress, Protection. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.astswmo.org/ﬁles/meetings/ 2005BrownﬁeldsSymposium/Atlantic%20Station%20Site%20Atlanta%20GA.pdf. Niemira, M. P. (2007). The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey. Research Review. 4(1): 53-56. Papa, R. (2008). Atlantic Station Case Study. Western Pennsylvania Brownﬁeld Center. Popovec, J. (2006). The Great Debate. Retail Trafﬁc Magazine. Retrieved 10/31/2010, from http:// retailtrafﬁcmag.com/mag/retail_great_debate/index.html. Rabianski, J. and Clements, J. (2007). Mixed-Use Development: A Review of Professional Literature. The National Association of Industrial and Ofﬁce Properties Research Foundation. Rabianski, J., Gibler, K., et al. (2009). Mixed-Use Development: A Call for Research. Journal of Real Estate Literature 17(2): 205-230. Rombouts, C. (2006). The Challenges of Mixed Use. Urban Land, Urban Land Institute. Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking. Planning Practice & Research. 11(1): 85-98. Schwanke, D., Phillips, P., et al. (2003). Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, D.C., ULI - The Urban Land Institute. 92 Smart Growth Network. Principles of Smart Growth - Mix Land Uses. Retrieved 11/04/2010, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp? prin=1. Trischler, T. (2001). In the Mix: Determining What Uses Work Together Most Successfully. Development Magazine. NAIOP. Weissman, S. (2000), Lawyering the New Urbanism, Urban Land. ULI. 84-89, 116-117. 93 4.1 MODEL MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE The following model zoning district provisions represent a commercial zoning classification that permits, rather than mandates, a vertical mix of commercial and residential uses within the same building. The district is intended to accommodate a physical pattern of development often found along village main streets and in neighborhood commercial areas of older cities. Primary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Mix land uses Secondary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Compact building design CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District 101. Purpose The purposes of the CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District are to: (1) Accommodate mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor and residential units above the nonresidential space; (2) Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront-style shopping streets; and (3) Promote the health and well-being of residents by encouraging physical activity, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction. 102. Definitions As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meanings specified herein: “Floor Area Ratio” means the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the area of the lot on which the building is located. “Gross Floor Area” is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings. Gross floor area does not include basements when at least one- half the floor-to-ceiling height is below grade, accessory parking (i.e., parking that is available on or off-site that is not part of the use’s minimum parking standard), attic space having a floor-to-ceiling height less than seven feet, exterior balconies, uncovered steps, or inner courts. “Mixed-use Building” means a building that contains at least one floor devoted to allowed nonresidential uses and at least one devoted to allowed residential uses. 103. Allowed Uses Uses are allowed in “CX1” zoning districts in accordance with the use table of this section. U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed R E S I D E N T I A L Household Living Artist Live/Work Space located above the ground floor P Artist Live/Work Space, ground floor C Dwelling Units located above the ground floor P Detached House C Multiunit (3+ units) Residential C Single-Room Occupancy C Townhouse C Two-Flat C Group Living Assisted Living C Group Home P Nursing Home C Temporary Overnight Shelter C Transitional Residences C Transitional Shelters C P U B L I C A N D C I V I C Colleges and Universities P Cultural Exhibits and Libraries P Day Care P Hospital N Lodge or Private Club N Parks and Recreation P Postal Service P Public Safety Services P Religious Assembly P School C Utilities and Services, Minor P Utilities and Services, Major C C O M M E R C I A L Adult Use N Animal Services Shelter/Boarding Kennel N Sales and Grooming P Veterinary P Artist Work or Sales Space P Drive-Through Facility [See comment] C Eating and Drinking Establishments Restaurant P Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 2 U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed Tavern C Entertainment and Spectator Sports Small (1–149 seats) P Medium (150–999 seats) N Large (1,000+ seats) N Financial Services P Food and Beverage Retail Sales P Gas Stations N Lodging Small (1–16 guest rooms) P Large (17+ guest rooms) C Medical Service P Office P Parking, Commercial (Nonaccessory) C Personal Service, including health clubs and gyms P Repair Service, Consumer, including bicycles P Residential Storage Warehouse N Retail Sales, General P Vehicle Sales, Service, and Repair N I N D U S T R I A L Manufacturing, Production and Industrial Services Artisan (hand-tools only; e.g., jewelry or ceramics) C O T H E R Wireless Communication Facilities Co-located P Freestanding (Towers) C Comment: This use table should be refined to reflect local characteristics and planning objectives. The range of uses allowed should be kept as broad as possible in order to ensure that the district is economically viable. Note that this model allows, as a conditional use, drive- through facilities. Drive-through facilities may be appropriate in such areas in connection with banks and pharmacies. Whether to allow them is a policy choice, no different than other policy choices in selecting permitted uses. Also keep in mind that in buildings with residential units, commercial use issues will be largely self-policing because owner associations and builder/developers will ensure that commercial uses in mixed-use buildings will be compatible with upper-story residential uses. 104. Commercial Establishment Size Limits The gross floor area of commercial establishments in the CX1 district shall not exceed [15,000] square feet. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 3 Comment: Floor area limits are proposed in the model ordinance to help ensure that allowed commercial uses would be geared toward a neighborhood market area. Some local ordinances impose much more restrictive floor area limits in neighborhood-oriented districts. The limit proposed in this model ordinance would accommodate a modern drug store. If floor area limits are employed, the standards should not be so restrictive as to hamper the economic viability of the district. 105. Indoor/Outdoor Operations All permitted uses in the CX1 district must be conducted within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise expressly authorized. This requirement does not apply to off-street parking or loading areas, automated teller machines, or outdoor seating areas. 106. Floor-to-Floor Heights and Floor Area of Ground-floor Space (1) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of [11] feet. (2) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must contain the following minimum floor area: (a) At least [800] square feet or [25] percent of the lot area (whichever is greater) on lots with street frontage of less than [50] feet; or (b) at least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with [50] feet of street frontage or more. Comment: In areas with strong residential real estate markets, ground-floor space is sometimes viewed as an afterthought, particularly when developed by those with a poor understanding of mixed-use development. These types of provisions can help ensure that ground-floor space will meet the needs of future retailers and not sit vacant for years after upper-floor residential units have been leased or sold. 107. Lot Area per Unit (Density) The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be [1,000] square feet for mixed-use buildings and [1,500] square feet for all other buildings. Comment: If mixed-use buildings are desired, such buildings should be rewarded with more flexible development standards. The model ordinance allows higher residential densities in mixed-use buildings than it does in single-use buildings. 108. Floor Area Ratio The maximum FAR shall be [2.0] for mixed-use buildings and [1.25] for all other buildings. Comment: To encourage mixed-use buildings, the model ordinance allows higher FARs for mixed-use projects. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 4 109. Setbacks (1) The entire building façade must abut front and street side property lines or be located within [10] feet of such property lines. Comment: Rather than mandating a zero-foot “build-to” line for all properties in CX1 zoning districts, this model offers flexibility to accommodate shallow building setbacks that are sometimes necessary to accommodate features such as outdoor seating/display areas, stoops and sidewalk widening. Alternately, it is possible for the ordinance to establish a formula to determine setbacks based on the average setback of buildings in a block face. For an example of this, see Section 108 of the Model Town Center Ordinance (below). (2) The minimum rear setback is [0–30] percent of the lot depth. Comment: The appropriate minimum building setback will depend on lot and development patterns in the area. When alleys abut the rear of CX1 lots, no rear setback may be necessary, except perhaps for upper floors. On the other hand, when CX1-zoned lots will abut the rear property line of residential lots, buildings in the CX1 district should be set back from rear property lines in order to protect the privacy and open feeling expected within residential rear yards. (3) No interior side setbacks are required in the CX1 district, except when CX1-zoned property abuts R-zoned property, in which case the minimum side setback required in the CX1 district shall be the same as required for a residential use on the abutting R-zoned lot. Comment: Most pedestrian-oriented shopping streets are lined with buildings that span the entire width of the lot. The standard proposed here will help reinforce that pattern, while also ensuring that if a CX1 district abuts a residential zoning district, a “typical” residential side yard will be provided. 110. Building Height The maximum building height shall be [38–50] feet for mixed-use buildings and [35–47] feet for all other buildings. Comment: Some communities will want to regulate height by stories rather than feet above grade, since stories will allow for greater flexibility in building design. The standards proposed allow greater height for mixed-use buildings than for single-use buildings because mixed-use buildings are required to have taller floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor. The proposed standards will accommodate three- or four-story buildings. 111. Off-Street Parking (1) [Insert off-street parking standards] (2) No off-street parking is required for nonresidential uses in CX1 districts unless such uses exceed [3,000] square feet of gross floor area, in which case off-street parking must be provided for the floor area in excess of [3,000] square feet. Comment: Paragraph (2) may be incorporated into paragraph (1). Exempting small retail businesses from compliance with off-street parking requirements will help promote pedestrian- oriented character and encourage use/reuse of storefront retail space. Communities should also Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 5 examine off-street parking ratios with an eye toward reducing the amount of off-street parking required overall and encouraging shared and off-site parking arrangements. (3) Off-street parking spaces must be located to the rear of the principal building or otherwise screened so as to not be visible from public right-of-way or residential zoning districts. 112. Transparency (1) A minimum of [60–75] percent of the street-facing building façade between two feet and eight feet in height must be comprised of clear windows that allow views of indoor space or product display areas. (2) The bottom of any window or product display window used to satisfy the transparency standard of paragraph (1) above may not be more than [3–4.5] feet above the adjacent sidewalk. (3) Product display windows used to satisfy these requirements must have a minimum height of [4] feet and be internally lighted. 113. Doors and Entrances (1) Buildings must have a primary entrance door facing a public sidewalk. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. (2) Building entrances may include doors to individual shops or businesses, lobby entrances, entrances to pedestrian-oriented plazas, or courtyard entrances to a cluster of shops or businesses. Comment: Requiring ground-floor windows and sidewalk-facing entrances help make for a more pleasing pedestrian environment. 114. Vehicle and Driveway Access No curb cuts are allowed for lots that abut alleys. Comment: Driveways that cross sidewalks disrupt pedestrian movements and pose safety threats. They should be the rare exception in neighborhood-oriented mixed-use districts. References Denver, Colorado, City of. Div. 15. Mixed-Use Districts, Sections 59-301--59-320, website [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10257&sid=6 Fort Worth, Texas, City of. Zoning Code, Mixed Use Sections 4.902, Low-Density Mixed Use [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.fortworthgov.org/csec/disclaimer.asp Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 6 Maryland, State of. Infill Development Model [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.mdp.state.md.us/mgs/infill/InfillFinal_1.pdf Orland, Florida, City of. Southeast Orlando Sector Plan Development Guidelines and Standards [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.cityoforlando.net/planning/deptpage/sesp/sespguid.htm Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 7 Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach OCTOBER 20, 2015 7:00 P.M. Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date Date Rec’d Remarks  2515 Valley Dr., Kiwanis Club – Conditional Use Permit for AT&T cell site (continued from the 7/21/15 meeting) 10/8 10/20  1200 Artesia Blvd., Verizon Wireless —Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of (12) panel antennas, (12) Remote Radio Units and associated equipment (continued from 8/18/15 meeting) 10/8 10/20  2515 PCH, Hotel Hermosa— Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan remodel an existing hotel. 10/8 10/20  Whether “elevator housing” should be eliminated from the list of elements that are excepted from the height limit. 10/20  2464 Hermosa Avenue—Slope Determination 10/20  Discussion regarding convex slope determination (per 6/16/15 Planning Commission action) 10/20  1429 Hermosa Avenue – Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 30 room hotel and Conditional Use Permit for on-sale general alcohol in guest rooms. 10/8 10/20 f:b95\cd\wpc - future agenda 9/10/15 13g 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION JULY, 2015 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT NUMBER OF PERMITS TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE LAST FY TOTAL Building 45 37 45 37 508 Plumbing 40 22 40 22 300 Mechanical 12 15 12 15 168 Electric 31 19 31 19 316 Plan Check 35 21 35 21 271 Sewer Use 0 4 0 4 18 Res. Bldg. Reports 24 16 24 16 263 Parks & Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 In Lieu Parks & Rec 1 4 1 4 22 Board of Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Review 2 5 2 5 27 Fire Flow Fees 3 6 3 6 79 Legal Determination 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 Temporary Sign 2 1 2 1 16 Gen. Plan Maintenance 3 9 3 9 80 TOTALS 198 159 198 159 2,073 FEES COLLECTED TYPE OF FEE CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE LAST FY TOTAL Building $29,890.75 $39,240.93 $29,890.75 $39,240.93 $523,917.11 Plumbing $11,322.00 $7,935.00 $11,322.00 $7,935.00 $67,464.10 Mechanical $2,241.30 $2,425.30 $2,241.30 $2,425.30 $35,106.20 Electric $7,157.10 $3,699.30 $7,157.10 $3,699.30 $74,395.00 Plan Check $51,070.06 $31,230.74 $51,070.06 $31,230.74 $501,538.94 Sewer Use $0.00 $9,222.00 $0.00 $9,222.00 $60,036.51 Res. Bldg. Reports $3,312.00 $2,176.00 $3,312.00 $2,176.00 $36,228.00 Parks & Recreation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 In Lieu Parks & Rec. $6,951.00 $28,308.00 $6,951.00 $28,308.00 $216,625.00 Board of Appeals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sign Review $1,058.00 $2,600.00 $1,058.00 $2,600.00 $13,588.00 Fire Flow Fees $153.08 $1,181.52 $153.08 $1,181.52 $18,455.07 Legal Determination $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Zoning Appeals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Temporary Sign $174.00 $86.00 $174.00 $86.00 $1,388.00 Gen. Plan Maintenance $3,696.00 $7,956.00 $3,696.00 $7,956.00 $104,280.00 TOTALS $117,025.29 $136,060.79 $117,025.29 $136,060.79 $1,653,021.93 2 REVISED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF JULY, 2015 TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING UNITS VALUATION 1 101 New Single Family Houses Detached 2 102 New Single Family Houses Attached 3 103 New Two Family Buildings 4 104 New 3 or 4 Family Buildings 5 105 New 5 or More Family Buildings 6 213 New Hotels/Motels 7 214 New Other Non Housekeeping 8 318 New Amusement & Recreation 9 319 New Churchs/Other 10 320 New Industrial Buildings 11 321 New Parking Garages. 12 322 New Service Stations/Repair Garages 13 323 New Hospitals/Other Institutional 14 324 New Offices/Banks 15 325 New Public Works/Utility Buildings 16 326 New Schools/Other Educational 17 327 New Stores/Other Merch Bldgs. 18 328 New Other Non Residential Buildings 19 329 New Structures Other Than Building 1 $10,000 20 434 Add/Alter Dwelling/Pools 34 $1,400,807 21 437 Add/Alter Non Residential 7 $92,830 22 438 Residential Garages/Carports 23 645 Demolition - Single Family Houses 4 4 $40,500 24 646 Demolition - 2-Family Buildings 1 2 $50,000 25 647 Demolition - 3-4 Family Buildings 1 4 $29,500 26 648 Demolition - 5+ Family Buildings 27 649 Demolition - All Other Buildings 28 434 Solar System (No Fee Permit) 4 $75,006 52 $1,698,643 TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2015-16 TO DATE: 0 TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 10 (See Attached List) TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -10 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Total New Dwelling Units: 53 Total Demolished/Lost Units: 56 Net Unit: -3 Total New Dwelling Units: 34 Total New Dwelling Units: 53 Total Demolished/Lost Units: 25 Total Demolished/Lost Units: 48 Net Units: 9 Net Unit: 5 3 REVISED Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of July, 2015 (FY 2015-16) ADDRESS TYPE PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO. NO. OF UNIT 2015 Springfield Avenue Demolish a Single Family House 7/2/15 B15-00299 1 321 26th Street Demolish a Single Family House 7/22/15 B15-00332 1 615 7th Street Demolish a Single Family House 7/28/15 B15-00344 1 1928 Valley Park Avenue Demolish a Single Family House 7/30/15 B15-00351 1 18 19th Street Demolish a Duplex 7/16/15 B15-00321 2 1638 Hermosa Avenue & 1635 Palm Drive. Demolish 3 and 1 Units on Lots 7/20/15 B15-00325 4 Total Units Demolished/Lost: 10 4 August 19, 2015 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 25, 2015 ACTIVITY REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION JULY, 2015 STAFF REPORT PREPARED SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE LAST FY TOTAL Appeal / Reconsideration 1 0 1 0 4 Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) - Condominiums 1 1 1 1 13 Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) - Commercial 1 0 1 0 3 C.U.P. / Precise Development Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 1 Conditional Use Permit Modification / Revocation 0 0 0 0 0 Conditional Use Permit / Map Extension 0 0 0 0 1 Environmental Impact Report 0 0 0 0 0 Final Map 1 1 1 1 13 General Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 10 Height Limit Exception 0 0 0 0 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 Precise Development Plan 0 3 0 3 6 Parking Plan 0 1 0 1 6 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 0 0 0 0 0 Text Amendment 1 0 1 0 15 Transit 1 0 1 0 1 Variance 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Change 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 7 14 7 14 102 Total Reports Prepared 13 20 13 20 175 NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the items listed above, but it will be listed and counted only once. Easy Reader Run Date: September 3, 2015 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2015, to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two- unit residential condominium project at 515 Prospect Avenue, and determination whether alternative points at the top of the retaining wall at the rear of the site and an alternative point at the southwest property corner may be used for the purpose of calculating building height; and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (continued from the August 18, 2015 meeting). 2. Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73730 for a two- unit residential condominium project at 1085-1087 Monterey Blvd, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to an existing ‘late night’ restaurant with an outdoor patio and on-sale general alcohol at 39 Pier Avenue (Palmilla) with current allowed hours until 1:30 A.M daily, for an approximate 1,100 square foot expansion into the adjacent space to the west (currently a bakery/café); with reduced hours of late night operation until 12:30 A.M. Sunday through Wednesday, and until 1:00 A.M. Thursday, and keeping hours until 1:30 A.M. Friday and Saturday, and a Parking Plan to determine the applicable parking requirements and possible payment of fees in-lieu of providing required parking on site, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at these hearings at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, September 10, 2015, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda. A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, September 10, 2015, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the website. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2015\planning\pc09-15-15 Artesia Blvd ± Projects Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting Sept 15, 2015 ZONING DESIGNATIONSR-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1A LIMITED ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2B LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-P RESIDENTIAL-PROFESSIONAL RPD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT R-3PD MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3/AH-O GENERAL COMMERCIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY M-1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING OS OPEN SPACE OS-1 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE OS-2 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE OS-O OPEN SPACE OVERLAYMHP MOBILE HOME PARK SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (RESIDENTIAL USES) SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (COMMERCIAL USES) 2515 Valley Dr - AT&T Cell Site Progress ReportZone: OS 39 Pier Ave - CUP and Parking PlanZone: SPA 1085-1087 Monterey Blvd - 2 Unit CondoZone: R-3 626 Loma Dr - Slope DeterminationZone: R-2 648 Loma Dr - Slope DeterminationZone: R-2 650 Loma Dr - Slope DeterminationZone: R-2 515 Prospect Ave - 2 Unit CondoZone: R-2B