Community Development Finance Lab Project: Assessing Parking and Space at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Mixed Use Development

Community Development Finance Lab Project: Assessing Parking and Space at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Mixed Use Development for Volunteers of America Greater New Orleans Prepared by: Kevin Georges Jackie Moynahan David Savarese Joshua Weisstuch Community Development Finance Lab Milano: The New School for Management and Urban Policy April 22, 2008

Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 2 Project Overview... 3 Market and Zoning Analysis... 6 Market Trends in New Orleans... 6 The Lower Garden District is a Good Area for Development... 7 The 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street Project Will Benefit the Market... 8 Planning and Zoning in New Orleans, Louisiana... 9 Space & Design Limitations for 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street... 10 Conclusion: Design Standards as Guidelines for Development... 13 Parking Options... 14 Criteria... 14 Surface Parking... 14 Stand Alone Structure... 15 Combined Surface and Structured Parking... 16 Source: Joe Orr of Central Parking Corporation and Jordan Martin of AmeriPark... 17 Additional Options: Constructing Parking beneath the Building... 17 Design and Operation of Parking Structure... 18 Sensitivity Analysis... 20 Analysis Utilizing 320 sq ft.... 20 Analysis Utilizing 350 sq ft.... 21 Recommendation... 23 Appendix 1... 26

Executive Summary Executive Summary Volunteers of America Greater New Orleans (VOAGNO), an affiliate of Volunteers of America, has been building community and bringing the people of New Orleans together through its projects since the 1890s. VOAGNO is involved in programs for children, families, seniors, and persons with disabilities; however, since Hurricane Katrina struck the city on August 29, 2005, VOAGNO s initiatives changed focus to aid survivors and rebuild New Orleans. 1 VOAGNO s new focus is the Coming Back Home Initiative, which aims to create at least 1,000 units of affordable family housing by 2012. The Renaissance Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC) is a partnership between VOAGNO and Volunteers of America National Services (VOANS). Together they have launched an initiative to fully leverage VOANS s vast technical experience in housing development, as well as its ability to secure funding through its financial strength and national relationships. 2 In order to achieve its goals, VOAGNO is challenged with the venture of redevelopment in an area where the value of land is high but people s willingness to return from other states and live in New Orleans again, or for the first time, is unknown. The organization is a pioneer, in some respects, in developing housing in parts of the city that were not originally used in that regard. Volunteers of America Greater New Orleans requested that the Community Development Finance Lab Team at Milano the New School for Management and Urban Policy provide baseline research and overall feasibility analysis to determine costs and financing, and to examine possible design options to allow for the proper amount of on-site parking at the development site located at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street. The Community Development Finance Lab has examined a number of parking options for VOAGNO to consider. This report outlines the current state of the city and site, as well as different variations for parking on-site, and concludes with a final recommendation for advancing potential parking schemes. 1 Volunteers of America Greater New Orleans Website, www.voagno.org 2 Mandate 1

Introduction Introduction Volunteers of America Greater New Orleans (VOAGNO s) new focus is its Coming Back Home Initiative, which aims to create at least 1,000 units of affordable family housing by 2012. The Renaissance Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC) is a partnership between VOAGNO and Volunteers of America National Services (VOANS), who leads this initiative by fully leveraging VOANS vast technical experience in housing development, as well as its ability to secure funding through its financial strength and national relationships. 3 With this initiative, VOAGNO hopes to: A) promote workforce housing in key service sectors; B) provide affordable housing for families returning to New Orleans or migrating to the area for the first time; C) promote economic development through new additional commercial real estate; and D) provide an infrastructure of housing and work in neighborhoods that are located in areas unlikely to be affected by potential future hurricanes. In order to achieve these goals, VOAGNO is challenged with the venture of redevelopment in areas where the value of elevated land is high and the certainty of people s willingness to come from other states and live in New Orleans again, or for the first time, is unknown. VOAGNO is preparing to pioneer and develop housing in parts of the city that were not originally used in that regard, such as the Lower Garden District. As such, the staff at VOAGNO solicited the Community Development Finance Lab to furnish this report on the parking options for the recently purchased site at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street. VOAGNO has already secured ownership of the site, in an area on the Riverfront that has high potential for future development, not just for VOAGNO but also for the City of New Orleans. Before VOAGNO begins considering design options for the site, there are many considerations. Currently the site is in a warehouse district that is budding with development, including the neighboring Wal-Mart, Saulet Luxury Housing, and River Gardens, a mixed-use, mixed-income housing development just north of the Wal-Mart. There are many considerations to be made, small and large, to develop parking such as the space and size of lots, the design of any structures, and how other considerations fit into the development as a whole. For example, New Orleans places a lot of emphasis on preserving its historic structures. VOAGNO has decided to take advantage of this through preserving an old Cotton Mill structure on the site and receiving tax credits for it. However, redevelopment of this structure has costs and occupies valuable space on the site. The parking options within this report take careful consideration of all the outside factors impacting the site including zoning, community response, costs of structure, implementation feasibility, as well as aesthetic impact on the site and the potential Riverfront Vision development. 3 VOAGNO Mandate to Milano Team 2

Project Overview Project Overview This analysis works through numerous levels, ranging from an examination of the zoning requirements to a sensitivity analysis addressing the financial impact of a range of parking options. Before we examine the intricacies of the topics in each of the sections, the following will address some issues that are critically important to the analysis as a whole. 1770 Tchoupitoulas is a 90,560 sq ft. site that has plans for 240 mixed income rental units (65% affordable, 35% market) and commercial space. For the purposes of this report the design is assumed as follows: Residential footprint of 9,600 sq ft. containing 200,000 sq ft. of built space Commercial: footprint of 10,000 sq ft. containing 10,000 sq ft. of built space. For this site there is an additional open space requirement of 30%, which equals 27,168 sq ft. of undeveloped space on the site s footprint. Incorporating those three elements on the site will use 46,768 sq ft., leaving a remainder of 43,792 sq ft. of which the parking element must fit. Parking on this site is directly related to the zoning requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. For each residential unit built, 1.5 parking spaces must be provided, which translates into 360 spaces. However, VOAGNO can apply for a variance to secure a lower ratio, such as the 1.25 and 1.0 ratios examined in this report. Additionally, depending on the commercial tenant, either a specific number of spaces are required or a formula is used to calculate the amount of spaces needed. For purposes of this report we used a food retailer as the commercial tenant, which would require one parking space per 200 sq ft. of commercial space. Therefore a 10,000 sq ft. food retailer would require 50 parking spaces. Under these assumptions, a total of 410 spaces are needed for both the residential and commercial zoning requirements. Spaces are also measured in this report as either 320 sq ft. (average) or 350 sq ft. (good) according to the Marshal & Swift Valuation Estimator as well as industry professionals. Parking Options There are three main options that this report investigates: 1) surface parking, 2) stand-alone structured parking, and 3) combined surface and structured parking. In order to utilize the surface parking option, which is the cheapest at $8.57 per sq ft., more space on the site would be needed. Currently, the amount of land that is available for parking is 43,792 sq ft., and in order to satisfy the 1.5 zoning requirement, a minimum of 131,000 sq ft. of parking space would be needed if the average measurement of 320 sq ft. per parking space is used. Even if a variance is obtained to bring the ratio down to 1.0 spaces per unit, 92,800 sq ft. of surface space will be needed. Therefore, providing all spaces as surface parking is not a feasible option. The stand-alone structure has within it three different types of building materials with varying prices: 1) steel at $42.86 per sq ft., 2) precast concrete at $44.29 per sq ft., and 3) cast-in-place concrete at $47.14 per sq ft. Although steel is the cheapest option, it also requires more maintenance because the joints of the structure must be frequently maintained. While the precast concrete is a better option, it will require maintenance way before the cast-in-place concrete, 3

Project Overview which has a life of 30-40 years. Therefore, all structures examined in this report were assessed using the cast-in-place concrete option. Additional Costs On top of the hard costs for construction, the team also added in some additional start-up and maintenance costs that the structure would need to carry. Start up costs would also include the installation of a scanner system, equipped with a gate to separate the residential from the commercial spaces, costing $20,000. A surveillance system would also be needed to ensure security, and would cost $2,500 with installation. As for maintenance and operating costs, Table 1 lays out the these costs for the structure. The yearly amount of maintenance and operating costs that would need to be incorporated into the site s total costs would be $130,800. Table 1: Parking Structure Operating Costs Parking Per Month Total Yearly Staff (35,000-40,000 per year) 3,200 38,400 Management (1,000 1,500 per month) 1,200 14,400 Insurance Costs (1,800-4,000 per month) 4,000 48,000 Electricity (25,000-30,000 per year) 2,500 30,000 Total Annual Operating Expenses $130,800 Source: Joe Orr of Central Parking Corporation and Jordan Martin of AmeriPark Criteria We conducted a detailed sensitivity analysis using the costs and construction requirements for each option. In order to evaluate the alternatives we identified, we used the following criteria to drive our analysis: 1. Cost, measuring the least amount of additional hard costs that will be added to the development budget. 2. Cost Efficiency, addressing the impact on rent as the least amount needed to build into the residential and commercial rents in order to pay off the cost of construction parking over a 30-year period, without going beyond what the market can support. 3. Efficiency, measuring the least amount of excess parking spaces created as a result of needed structural levels, where 0 is the most efficient. Recommendation In order to arrive at a recommendation, we first acknowledge the lack of funding for a parking structure on this site from outside sources. The financing must come from the commercial and residential tenants. We identify numerous trade-offs for each parking scheme, such the effects of parking structure size on tenant parking fee. In order to help shape your decision-making on this topic as it enters the construction phase, we provide a tool that will help estimate impacts on the development as a whole. Potential variances and changes to your parking plan can have a positive impact on cost and feasibility, so we 4

Project Overview conclude with a summation of what changes can be made before construction to mitigate costs and provide appropriate levels of parking for residents. Our recommendations are as follows: A two-floor parking structure to lessen the overall cost and maximize efficient use of parking structure Increase the number of market-rate units in the residential housing program from 35%:65% market-rate to affordable units to 40%:60% in order to distribute the burden of the structure s cost over more units Using the information provided in this report, attempt to obtain a variance from the city for a 1:1 parking space to unit ratio which will allow for a small, efficient parking structure. Also, a variance for excellence in design may allow the spillover parking spaces from the garage to reside on the surface in what would otherwise be required open space. 5

Market and Zoning Analysis Market and Zoning Analysis An understanding of the economics and rental market of an area is needed for a project like this because development is shaped by the context surrounding construction. It is also necessary to understand the zoning criteria on a site you intend to develop. Zoning regulations define the boundaries and expectations for construction. At the same time, the interplay between the economics of a local market and the zoning of a site will define the scope and shape of the development. We provide the following market and zoning section to show the core of our understanding of these issues, and to divulge the priorities and assumptions we make in our analysis of the cost and design of parking structures. Market Trends in New Orleans The complete revival of New Orleans is largely dependent on the city s ability to attract both commercial and residential development to its neighborhoods. This immediate need for development is evidenced by the lack of affordable housing in the city of New Orleans. Currently, rents are 46% higher than they were before Hurricane Katrina hit. 4 This is due in large part to the fact that 93,000 rental units, more than one-third of the total inventory, were destroyed or deemed uninhabitable after the storm. 5 The following table 6 displays the change in fair market rents in New Orleans from 2005 to 2008: Table 2: Fair Market Rents in New Orleans Fiscal Year Efficiency 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm 3-Bdrm 4-Bdrm 2005 $522 $578 $676 $868 $897 2008 $764 $846 $990 $1,271 $1,314 Percent Change 46.36% 46.37% 46.45% 46.43% 46.49% Source: The Brookings Institution, November 2007 Displaced residents face a rental market that is more expensive than it was before they were forced to flee the city. Hurricane Katrina s impact on market rents, combined with the destruction of many affordable housing options, evidences the need for developers to rebuild New Orleans with housing developments that are affordable to low-income residents. 4 The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program & Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, The New Orleans Index: Tracking Recovery of New Orleans & the Metro Area (November 13, 2007), pp. 7 and 25. http://www.gnocdc.org/ (accessed November 20, 2007). 5 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Policy Development and Research, Comprehensive Market Analysis: New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, Louisiana (September 1, 2006), p. 8. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/cmar_neworleansla.pdf 6 The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program & Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, The New Orleans Index: Tracking Recovery of New Orleans & the Metro Area (November 13, 2007), pp. 7 and 25. 6

Market and Zoning Analysis The May 2008 closings of FEMA trailers will affect nearly 6,400 displaced residents currently living at more than 50 trailer park sites. 7 New Orleans residents will be most affected by these closings, as roughly 50% of the FEMA trailer parks are located in New Orleans. 8 Statistics like these show the importance of progress on the affordable housing front. This market will only improve with the help of developers who are willing to build low-income and mixed-use developments within New Orleans. When Katrina hit, it displaced over 80% of its 450,000 residents. 9 Since the storm, the number of households in New Orleans has increased to 70% of its pre-katrina number, and continues to grow. 10 This population growth is concurrent with an improvement in area employment. The unemployment rate in pre-katrina New Orleans was nearly 12%, two times the national rate. 11 Today, the unemployment rate is much lower than the pre-katrina rate. This lower rate is continuing to drop for the New Orleans metro area, as evidenced by its change from 5.1% in June of 2007 to 4.5% in September of 2007, mirroring state and national levels. 12 This decrease can be explained in various ways, so it is unclear as to exactly why unemployment rates have dropped. It could be caused by the lack of citizens inhabiting the city compared to pre-katrina levels. It can also be noted that at the same time many business closed, and are now reopened, mainly in the service industry. However, it is clear that there are fewer unemployed people inhabiting New Orleans today than in 2005. Finally, a need for residential developments providing suitable parking options has been created due to the stagnant public transportation system within the city of New Orleans. Today, only 19% of public buses and 50% of routes are in operation in New Orleans. 13 Until the public transportation system gets back on track, developers must be cognizant of the parking needs of their future residents and create developments that incorporate those needs into their design plans. The Lower Garden District is a Good Area for Development With its high ground and proximity to burgeoning business and commercial areas (evidenced by River Gardens, Market Street, and Wal-Mart), the Lower Garden District provides an area of stability in the otherwise devastated city, which is crucial for the development of sustainable real estate, both residential and commercial. 14 7 Reckdahl, Katy, FEMA to close all trailer parks: Agency release 6 month schedule, The Times-Picayune, November 29, 2007. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/neworleans/ (accessed January 4, 2008). 8 Ibid. 9 Zedlewski, Sheila R., Pre-Katrina New Orleans: The Backdrop, After Katrina: Rebuilding Opportunity and Equity into the New New Orleans (The Urban Institute: April 2006), p. 1. 10 The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, pp. 6 and 19. 11 Holzer, Harry J. and Robert I. Lerman, Employment Issues and Challenges in Post-Katrina New Orleans, After Katrina: Rebuilding Opportunity and Equity into the New New Orleans (The Urban Institute: April 2006), p. 9. 12 The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, p. 8. 13 Ibid, 9 and 17. 14 National Trust for Historic Preservation, One Year Later: Life in New Orleans Historic Neighborhoods, (August 24, 2006). http://www.nationaltrust.org/hurricane/oneyearlater.html (accessed November 12, 2007). 7

Market and Zoning Analysis Further, mixed-use development is likely to function as an important tool for the reduction of concentrated poverty and segregated racial enclaves that were so prevalent throughout pre- Katrina New Orleans. 15 Plans and redevelopment initiatives launched thus far all share a commitment to rebuild a more equitable New Orleans that will provide greater opportunities for its most vulnerable residents in the aftermath of the storm: its poor, largely African-American residents. 16 Development within the Lower Garden District is likely to help foster a shared vision for the future New Orleans. 17 The current commercial resurgence in the Lower Garden District is an indication that the area is ready for development. In 2004, Wal-Mart opened a superstore in the district, creating over 600 new jobs in the area. 18 Commercial development is also planned near the waterfront, such as a building on Tchoupitoulas Street that will house four floors of condominiums and 30,000 feet of commercial development. 19 NOLA Development and the City of New Orleans Riverfront Vision/Reinventing the Crescent Plan plans to utilize a six-mile stretch of land between Jackson Avenue and the Industrial Canal to provide a tourist-friendly riverfront attraction. 20 Currently, commercial rents for the area range from about $12- $17 per sq ft. on the Magazine Street commercial strip to a maximum of $30 per sq ft., as advertised for a commercial space next to Tchoupitoulas and Felicity in the River Gardens Development. The 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street Project Will Benefit the Market VOAGNO s proposed development at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street will bring many benefits to the community of the Lower Garden District and offer one of the few affordable housing options in the area. According to the 2000 Census, the average gross rent in the Lower Garden District was $636, compared to the average gross rent of $518 per unit in all of New Orleans. 21 While affordable housing is scarce in New Orleans as a whole, it is severely lacking in the Lower Garden District. According to the 2000 Census, 89.9% of renter occupied households in the Lower Garden District spent 30% or more of their household income on gross rent as opposed to 68.4% of renter occupied households that did so in all of Orleans Parish. 22 As well, the 2000 Census indicated that 30.6% of New Orleans households earned below 60% of the area median income of 27,133. 23 VOAGNO s proposed mixed-income development will help to address the need for affordable housing in the city. The district s status as an area of future economic 15 Eisinger, Peter, New Orleans Rising: Building a Better City, Cities at Risk: Catastrophe, Recovery and Renewal in New York and New Orleans (Milano The New School For Management And Urban Policy: April 2006), pp. 43-44. 16 Zedlewski, pp. 1-3. 17 Ibid., p. 2. 18 Wal-Mart Opens In Lower Garden District: Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony Caps Years Of Controversy, The New Orleans Channel.com, http://www.wdsu.com/news/3680082/detail.html 2004. 19 Cohen, Ariella, Developer envisions $20M N.O. riverfront complex, New Orleans City Business, December 27, 2007. http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/uptotheminute.cfm?recid=14621 (accessed January 3, 2008). 20 Ibid. 21 2000 Census Data, www.gnocdc.org/orleans (accessed November 25, 2007). 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 8

Market and Zoning Analysis opportunity, when compared to other depressed areas in the city of New Orleans, further highlights the positive effects that this project can bring to affordable housing throughout NOLA. The proposed development must also accommodate the transportation needs of its future residents. New Orleans residents are likely to continue to rely heavily on their own cars, based upon the priorities we observed during our elite interviews. VOAGNO s plan to build a mixeduse development that will incorporate suitable parking options for its residents will undoubtedly service this dependency on personal transportation. Furthermore, the commercial aspect of the development at 1770 Tchoupitoulas will add jobs to the market that are within walking distance for residents. A parking design that accommodates community space would also benefit the residents of the community. Finally, the proposed development is not likely to reduce the property values of the neighboring community. Development must openly and transparently address the needs and values of the local community while incorporating creative solutions that will restore the city s historical character in a way that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and future developments. Based upon our evaluation of the site, we believe that restoring that character is possible, while satisfying the economic, social, and political expectations of the local community. The remainder of our analysis will demonstrate that parking will not adversely affect the development s ability to incorporate community into its design. Planning and Zoning in New Orleans, Louisiana Having discussed the current status of this neighborhood and the importance of providing affordable housing, we will begin our analysis of parking options for the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site by examining the way that zoning shapes the size and design of the whole development. Before we address the formal measures dictated by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 24 (CZO) it is important to understand the role of planning in the reconstruction of New Orleans. The standards of New Orleans are in flux. While this may deprive us of strict guidance, planners and developers are working with plenty of resources that can be used to shape this future with vision and harmony. While a specific site/development plan process must be coordinated between architects and the New Orleans City Planning Commission, identifying regulations and using this knowledge to mediate decisions are necessary components to achieving VOAGNO s future goals. The current state of planning in New Orleans has been called anarchy 25 by John Beckman, AICP, principal with the planning firm Wallace, Roberts & Todd. Planning in NOLA, likely due to cutbacks and a labyrinthine zoning process, is still piecemeal. As a new CZO is written, anticipating how the regulations will apply to this development is crucial. 24 Matthew Bender & Company. New Orleans Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance 22,558 M.C.S. passed March 15, 2007. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/neworleans/ 25 Reichard, Peter. Curves Ahead. Planning. APA. August/September 2006. 9

Market and Zoning Analysis This section of the analysis will help VOAGNO determine how parking impacts development on this site. Zoning limitations of the proposed site will shape both the design and the cost of construction so we will use this as a tool for evaluating VOAGNO s options. The CZO sets the limitations, but it is an evolving document which allows for excellence in urban design. Space & Design Limitations for 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street Having argued in our previous report that the current state of planning in New Orleans will allow for variance from the CZO, so long as the design is reviewed and accepted by various authorities and local residents, this section will offer more succinct assumptions that support the remainder of this analysis. Table 3: Site Specific Data for 1770 Tchoupitoulas* Table 3 to the right iterates sitespecific information, which will provide VOAGNO a better understanding of the site and its district. The CZO is a tool, which defines the upper and lower limit boundaries, but the site defines the rules. Table 4 below provides the set of standards dictated by the CZO. The first column provides general mixed-use requirements from section 7.4A, the second column adjusts for changes by the suggested Riverfront Vision zoning overlay district, and the third column provides a residential example. Table 4: Basic Zoning Requirements for Development Property Description Square 34 - Tchoupitoulas Size: 357 over 319 & 361 over 204 Area: 90,560 ft. 2 Flood Event 100-500 Year Flood Event Flood Elevation 0 (At Sea Level) Neighborhood Lower Garden District Ward 1st Municipal District 1st Historic District N/A - Building has Historic Designation Council District B - Council Member Stacy S. Head Planning District 2 ZONING MU-A** * Source: Community on One Page http://gisweb.cityofno.com/cnogis/ ** Source: Nola City planning Phone Interview Paul Cramer 11/07/07 MU-A Mixed Use MU-A {Modified for Site} RM-2A Residential Parking Requisite 1.5 per unit (residential)+ additional (retails spaces) 1.5 per unit (residential)+ additional (retails spaces) 1 Maximum FAR 4 As appropriate* 1.5 Maximum Height 75 ft. 200 ft.** 40 ft. Minimum Front Yard none None average adjacent sites Minimum Rear Yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 20 ft. Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. (interior only) 3 ft. (interior Only) 20% width Open Space Requirement none 0.3 or 30%** 0.3 or 30% Usage Extensive Extensive Multi-family Residential Other Requirements Site Plan Review Development Review Parking Review *** Basic Design Same as MU-A*** 6 ft. Screening Requirements Traffic Analysis Appropriate Landscaping *: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) **: Riverfront Development Plan ***: See CZO Section 15. 10

Market and Zoning Analysis Parking Requisites Currently the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site proposes a tower development containing 240 residential units with a retail component. While RM-2A districts allow for a single parking space per unit, totaling 240 parking spaces, our mixed-use designation requires more extensive availability. The 1.5 requisite necessitates 360 total spaces for the residential units alone. Adding the retail parking will increase the amount of parking needed. We have chosen to use the following example in our analysis: a high-density development with a grocery store requires one space for every 200 sq ft. of retail space. If we have a 10,000 sq ft. retail street-level footprint, this would increase our requirement by 50 spaces. Appendix 1 provides alternative requisites. In total we can presume that this development will require, at minimum and without a variance, 410 parking spaces. The code allows for different space sizes for small and large cars. Large cars require 60% of the total spaces (247 spaces); small cars fill the remaining 40% (165 spaces). Zoning states that 3% of all spaces are to be designated as handicapped parking, but will require no more than 10 spaces in total. These 10 spaces are included in the total of large spaces stated above. The CZO also requires 153 sq ft. (8 6 x 18) of large spaces and 120 sq ft. (7 6 x 16 ) of small spaces. We use much larger space sizes in this analysis to account for circulation, so these differences are negligible. Adhering to industry standards will ensure adequate coverage for design post-construction. In our interviews with Joe Orr, specialist at Central Parking, and Laurence Adams from Mathes Brierre Architects, we have concluded that an industry standard measurement per space is 320-350 sq ft. per parking space that will allot for circulation as well as actual space. This is also referenced as standard according to Marshall & Swift Valuation Service. 26 The total expectation for the parking scheme and whether or not we meet the requirements for MU-A zoning for mixed-use developments will be discussed in the next section of this report. Table 5 (below) contains information from the American Housing Survey 27 between 2004 and 2006. It shows the number of cars each renting household owns in New Orleans. The 1.5 parking spaces requirement for each unit, for the Tchoupitoulas site, does not seem necessary when analyzing the figures in this table. Focusing on the pre and post Katrina years, we see that 84% of renter households in 2004, and 80% of renter households in 2006 owned one automobile or less. This data supports the argument that a 1.5 ratio is too high for this site, and can be used to argue for the variance for a one-to-one variance. 26 Marshall & Swift Valuation Service, Parking Gross Area Per Space by Sq.Ft, 27 Source: American Housing Survey for the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, 2006. Estimate, lower bound has 0. 11

Market and Zoning Analysis Table 5: New Orleans Cars Per Rental Household 2005-2006 New Orleans City New Orleans City New Orleans City Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent 2004 2005 2006 Rental 95910 Rental 81664 Rental 36243 0 29578 30.8% 0 35008 42.9% 0 9969 27.5% 1 51709 53.9% 1 37352 45.7% 1 18875 52.1% 2 12758 13.3% 2 8105 9.9% 2 5759 15.9% 3 1601 1.7% 3 1027 1.3% 3 1111 3.1% 4* 105 0.1% 4 102 0.1% 4 285 0.8% 5 or more* 159 0.2% 5 or more 70 0.1% 5 or more 244 0.7% Source: American Housing Survey for the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, 2006. *Estimate, the lowest bound is 0 The makeup of the current site design considers a combined total of commercial and residential parking spaces. For the purposes of this analysis, the commercial tenant is assumed to be a food retailer, for which zoning requires 1 space per 200 sq ft. of commercial space. For the number of residential parking spaces we will utilize different levels of variance (1:1; 1.25:1, 1.5:1) that are feasible for this site in our sensitivity analysis. This will help us account for lower expectations for commercial and residential spaces. Maximum Floor Area Ratio Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is central to determining, when combined with maximum heights and open space requirements, the bulk of development. The site at 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street has a footprint area of 90,560 sq ft. Since the Riverfront Vision overlay suggests that FAR for this site be calculated appropriately, we can assume adjustments and variance to the CZO in accordance with the suggestion for increased height. Therefore, a more realistic number comes from the MU-A designation, and since the Riverfront overlay suggests an appropriate FAR, we have decided to use the 4.0 FAR. If we apply a 4.0 FAR to the size, the maximum allowable square footage will be 362,240 sq ft. for the entire development. Once again, it is important to mention that these standards are boundaries for our analysis and can be exceeded with appropriate outreach, planning and approved variance. Building Height Building height is the final bulk requirement we will address. In the section addressing FAR, we provide the maximum allowable area for construction. The Riverfront Overlay District suggests an increase of building heights from less than 75 feet to 200 feet. We can see the enormous impact this re-envisioning will have on this part of the district, if the neighborhood supports VOAGNO s agenda for tower construction. Yard Area Yard requirements for MU-A districts require three feet of space from the site boundaries, and it is likely that the architect s development plan will encompass this requirement. 12

Market and Zoning Analysis Open Space MU-A zoning does not note a specific open space requirement, but the construction of a tower and parking structures suggest a new urban scheme which necessitates open space. The Riverfront development overlay suggests a 30% ratio, or 27,168 sq ft. for open space on the site. Usage Since the site is mixed-use MU-A, it allows for the combination of options, unlike residential districts. CZO section 7.4A.3 provides an extensive list of allowed uses. These uses may dictate further regulations in other areas of the ordinance. For example, a less trafficked commercial aspect to the development may decrease our parking requirements. Parking Design Requirements In addition to providing specifications of size, the CZO provides guidelines for designing a parking scheme. The bulleted list below iterates some regulations that impact our design options. Every structure must: address financial burden of draining, maintenance, damage, erosion resistance, cleanliness; be approved by CPC; be subjected to public study and consideration, with oversight from DoS&P; have Entrance and Egress that is NOT on Tchoupitoulas Street; intentionally limit the number of curb cuts; maximum size is 24 ft. for two-lane, 12 ft. for one way; have a paving surface that is durable and all-weather. Alternative surfaces must be approved by DoS&P. Conclusion: Design Standards as Guidelines for Development The data in Table 6 are the results of our analysis of the CZO and other relevant standards, namely the suggested Riverfront Vision Overlay District. For the purpose of this analysis, these calculations will demonstrate what we feel is the most likely and possible boundaries for development on this site. Table 6: Design Guidelines for 1770 Tchoupitoulas Parking Requisite 410 Spaces Maximum FAR 362,240 ft. 2 200 ft., sensitive to neighborhood Maximum Height context Maximum Front Yard None Maximum Rear Yard 3 ft. Maximum Side Yard 3 ft. Open Space Requirement 27,168 ft. 2 Usage Extensive opportunities, Environmental review complete Other Requirements Site & Development Plan Review Basic Design Requirements Parking Review & Landscape Review 13

Parking Options Parking Options The Team assessed three options for providing parking on the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site: 1) surface parking, 2) a stand-alone parking structure, and 3) a wrapped parking option that combines surface and structured parking. These options are viewed in conjunction with VOAGNO s preliminary plans for the site. This premise includes a 200 ft. tower holding 200,000 sq ft. of residential space atop a 9,600 sq ft. footprint, and a 10,000 sq ft. one-story commercial building, housing a food retailer. Given that the site s footprint contains 90,560 sq ft. of space and carries a 30% open space requirement, 43,792 sq ft. is left on the site to accommodate parking, as displayed below in Table 7. This section will lay out the conditions in which each option functions as it pertains to the zoning requirement of 1.5 and the impacts of obtaining a variance for a 1.25 ratio, as well as a 1.0 ratio of parking spaces to residential units. The team also uses the two measurements of size for parking spaces, the average 320 sq ft. size and the good 350 sq ft. size according to the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service, as previously mentioned. During our research we found these two numbers consistently mentioned as basic unit measurements for parking space size among parking professionals. Table 7: Site Footprint and Requirements Requirement Footprint sq ft. 90,560 sq ft. Less Requirement Residential 9,600 80,960 Commercial 10,000 70,960 Open Space 27,168 43,792 Parking 43,792 0 Criteria In order to evaluate the alternatives we identified, we used the following criteria to drive our analysis: 4. Cost, measuring the least amount of additional hard costs that will be added to the development budget. 5. Cost Efficiency, addressing the impact on rent as the least amount needed to build into the residential and commercial rents in order to pay off the cost of construction parking over a 30-year period, without going beyond what the market can support. 6. Efficiency, measuring the least amount of excess parking spaces created as a result of needed structural levels, where 0 is the most efficient. Surface Parking Under the aforementioned assumptions, in order to provide sufficient parking for the residents and the commercial tenants on the surface, the following amount of square feet would need to be available on the surface: 1) 131,000 sq ft. for the 1.5 zoning ratio, 2) 112,000 sq ft. for the 1.25 zoning ratio, and 3) 92,000 sq ft. for the 1.0 zoning ratio. However, as previously noted, the remaining footprint available for parking is only 43,792 sq ft., which will only accommodate 125 spaces built at 350 sq ft. per space or 136 spaces built at 320 sq ft. per space. Therefore, even 14

Parking Options with a variance of 1.0 which would require 290 spaces (shown below), a parking structure would be required in addition to the surface parking. Although surface parking is the cheapest option, costing only $8.57 per sq ft. or roughly $3,000 per space, fitting all of the required parking spaces on the remaining footprint, after accommodating for residential, commercial, and open space, is impossible. Table 8: Cost of Surface Parking Square Foot Requirement Zoning # of 350 sq 320 sq ft/space Cost $8.57/sq ft. Ratio Spaces ft./space Cost $8.57/sq ft. 1.50 410 131,000 $1,122,670 143,500 $1,229,795 1.25 350 112,000 $959,840 122,500 $1,049,825 1.00 290 92,800 $795,296 101,500 $869,855 Stand Alone Structure There are three different materials used for parking structures: steel, precast concrete, and castin-place concrete. The cost ranges are as follows: Steel: $13,000-$15,000 per space or $42.86 per sq ft. Precast Concrete: $13,500 - $15,000 per space or $44.29 per sq ft. Cast-In-Place Concrete: $14,500 - $16,500 per space or $47.14 per sq ft. In speaking with Jerry Marcus, a parking consultant with Walter P. Moore, we learned that even though steel is the cheapest material for building a parking garage, it requires frequent maintenance of the joints. We were unable to obtain estimates on how much this maintenance would cost, as these fees depend on many environmental variables. However, the periodic maintenance of the structure will interfere with the amount of spaces available for use during these periods, and some tenants may need to find another place to park their vehicle while maintenance is performed. Also, the current price of steel is on the rise, and therefore, we felt that this material would not be the best option. Tim Maurer, a senior estimator at Woodward Design and Build informed the Milano Team that in New Orleans, [they] pour a lot of concrete here. This brings us to the next two options involving concrete: precast and cast-in-place. Although the precast option is cheaper, it requires maintenance long before the cast in place option, which has a life span of 40 years. Tim also mentioned that pouring concrete on site is a preferred option for building and that this site does not lend itself to the precast option. Precast concrete is only an affordable option if there is a precast facility nearby. The cost of shipping in the precast slabs, along with the additional cost of renting cranes to place the slabs, can drive costs up. Cast-in place concrete is usually delivered on site in a ready-mix truck, where it can be poured in place. According to Concrete Thinker, cast-in-place concrete is the material of choice for slabon-ground and foundations because of its long-term durability and structural support. Concrete is also extremely durable as it can withstand the force of natural disasters, driving rain and 15

Parking Options moisture damage. 28 Therefore, the team has decided to use the cast-in-place option for the purpose of this analysis, since it is the most durable and longest lasting material. It is important to note that a parking structure s costs are ultimately calculated by its number of floors. Although the amount of spaces needed may only fill 2.25 floors, to accommodate this option a full three floors must be built. This will produce a number of unused spaces. It is imperative to use the most efficient method of providing the proper amount of parking needed without over-building. This will be discussed more in-depth in the next section of the analysis. Combined Surface and Structured Parking Given that the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site does not lend itself to filling the amount of required parking spaces on grade, nor does it need a giant parking structure, we have assessed the option of providing the most efficient use of structured parking in combination with some surface parking. Our methodology for this section involves taking the excess spaces on the given design option and placing them on the surface. However, in order to keep the parking structure efficient and at a minimum height, the amount of commercial space is decreased to accommodate the rollover parking spaces. The impact is somewhat small since the number of parking spaces required is also contingent on the amount of commercial square footage on site. We have determined the proper number of surface spaces in the sensitivity analysis for the parking designs that can afford to place cars outside of the parking structure. We have decided not to address using open space to accommodate the extra spaces. A separate variance would need to be obtained, but this is not an option that we explored for the purpose of our analysis in this report. Additional Costs In addition to the construction costs of the structure, the team felt that two additional items were important to include in the total hard costs of the parking component. The first is a scanner system equipped with a gate to separate the residential from the commercial spaces. This system will cost approximately $20,000. The second is a surveillance system, estimated at $2,500. 29 Both costs are included in the projected hard construction costs for each parking option used in the analysis. Any aesthetic design used to enhance the appearance of the structure will incur additional costs to those represented in this report. This report provides a bare bones cost analysis for providing parking on the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site. Operating Costs The Team has assessed the following annual operating costs for the parking structure: one fulltime staff member, a management staff person, insurance costs, and electricity. These estimates are compiled from conversations with Joe Orr and Jordan Martin who are both parking specialists. Each component is based on a range as is seen below in Table 9. The total operating costs per year are estimated at $130,800, using a point indicated below. For staff and management we chose a mid-range for these expenses. For both insurance and electricity, we 28 http://www.concretethinker.com/papers.aspx?docid=3 29 Jordan Martin. AmeriPark. Parking Garage Manager. 16

Parking Options chose to use the high end of the range, since insurance costs are currently extremely high, and we will want to provide adequate lighting for the structure to ensure safety, which is reflected in the $30,000 per year electricity costs. Table 9: Parking Structure Operating Costs Parking Per Month Total Yearly Staff (35,000-40,000 per year) 3,200 38,400 Management (1,000 1500 per month) 1,200 14,400 Insurance Costs (1,800-4,000 per month) 4,000 48,000 Electricity (25,000-30,000 per year) 2,500 30,000 Total Annual Operating Expenses $130,800 Source: Joe Orr of Central Parking Corporation and Jordan Martin of AmeriPark Additional Options: Constructing Parking beneath the Building Exploring this alternative proved to be difficult. First, there are limited depth structure restrictions because New Orleans is located at or below sea-level. Also, all of our research led us to the conclusion that the cost of this option is far more expensive than a stand-alone structure. The increased cost stems from a structural issue involving the alignment of weight-bearing columns for each of the residential structure and garage below. The columns that support the weight of the parking structure have different spacing than the columns needed for the residential building. The residential weight loads must then be captured and dispersed between the parking structure s columns, which are located at different intervals. This presents two options: Build the residential building independent of the parking structure Match the parking structure columns to meet the needs of the residential supports Combining the structures drives up the cost of the structure. However, the team was not able to assess exactly how much more this would cost, or to gather further information on this matter. We do know that the implications of combining parking and residential structures into one will make the parking structure less efficient. The result would translate into placing more columns in the parking structure than needed, which essentially takes up parking spaces. Because of the limited space of the site, the team did not move forward with this option in the analysis that follows because of the option s inefficiency. 17

Design and Operation of Parking Structure Design and Operation of Parking Structure Based on the above information, the Milano Team recommends a multiple floor parking structure in order to provide enough space for the required amount of vehicles on the 1770 Tchoupitoulas site. The next section lays out how the size of the spaces and parking variance impacts the number of floors and overall impact on the site. This section outlines the layout of the garage which will least impact operating expenses, the method by which it will be financed through tenant rents, and how security and janitorial duties can be covered by building management. Parking Structure Design The layout of the parking structure will consist of two separate sections: one for residential tenants, located on part of the first floor and the floors above; and the other section occupying part of the first floor for commercial use only. The first level will be separated by a fence or rail to divide the space among the two uses. Residents receive a decal, with a bar code, to place on their rear window. The decal will allow them to enter through a mechanical gate with an electronic sensor that opens upon scanning a decal on the car. This gate can be placed either within the garage or at a second entrance for residents only, depending on the structure s final design. Interviews conducted by the Milano Team revealed that residents take care of their own space in garages better than spaces left to public use. This falls in line with the theory that people tend to keep property they own cleaner than public property. Thus, the major cleaning will concern the quarter of the garage designated for commercial space. This self-park layout offers the least cost with regard to parking attendants. No staff is needed to collect money, distribute tickets, or move cars. The only necessary care the garage requires is standard janitorial cleaning and common maintenance. As garage maintenance will be infrequent, the building janitorial staff can be used for the garage maintenance, so no additional staff is necessary. Additionally, building security can monitor the garage through installed security cameras and occasional patrols through the grounds. Financing the Structure The Milano Team decided that the best way to finance the parking structure is through incorporating parking costs into residential and commercial tenant rents. This ensures that each space built is financed by both residents and commercial tenants. The neighboring Saulet units incorporate parking costs into the rents and advertise free parking. Tchoupitoulas can market units in a similar way. Attaching the costs to the residential unit s monthly rent and square foot costs for commercial residents will ensure spaces are paid for. This option is preferred over charging a separate expense for parking because it does not allow a tenant to turn down paying for spaces, or create a reason to decide not to rent the space. If marketed properly, this scheme creates a more appealing deal for tenants. For commercial tenants, this is particularly important because they are bearing a larger weight of parking structure costs. Despite the type of commercial use built 18