View
232
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
final presentation
Citation preview
G R O U P L E A D E R : M O R G A N C A S T L E
A L E X A N D R A C A M P O L O N G O , J O R D A N H O E L L M A N , B R I A N K R E L L , Z A C H P A T T E R S O N , R O N P I C A R S I C , A N T H O N Y S A L E S I , T H O M A S S E V A C K O , A N D S C O T T
T U I T E
McCandless Development Project
Project Description
Feasibility study for a potential redevelopment project
Project Site: Town of McCandless Surrounded by the North Hills of Pittsburgh, undergoing rapid
development
Approximately 50 acre area of underdeveloped land North of McKnight Road Currently contains a movie theater, vacant building, and Trader
Horn
Town residents interested in redevelopment, McCandless Planning and Zoning Board updated their C-5 Zoning Ordinance to encourage redevelopment Ordinance includes incentives for potential developers
Redevelopment Obstacles
Most parcels are encompassed by the 100 year flood plain
May be environmental contamination on the site, from past land use
Majority of the site is covered in impervious pavement, contributing to flooding problem
Intersections leading to the site may not handle increased traffic volume associated with redevelopment
Purpose
Create two conceptual design plans in AutoCAD
Capacity
Incentive
Determine the effectiveness of incentives in new ordinance
Provide recommendations for site testing and preparation
Environmental
Geotechnical
Assess building values and give a final recommendation
Land Development
Two Plans
1. Capacity Plan
2. Incentive Plan
Town of McCandless Ordinance No. 1433
Purpose: provide areas of mixed use development in a unified manner
Retail: 40%
Office: 30%
Residential: 30%
Enacted into law 12/16/2013
Town of McCandless Ordinance No. 1433
Standards
Max building height = 85 ft
Max building footprint = 150,000 sq. ft.
Max building sq. ft. = 200,000 sq. ft.
Dwelling density (Garden Apts) = 14 units max/acre
Commercial development (Retail + Office) > 50% total building sq. ft.
Transportation Impact Study
Apply to state, county, town, and private roads impacted
Applicant required to mitigate adverse impacts identified
Enacted into law 12/16/2013
Standard Building Sizes Parking Space Requirements
Retail 120 x 200 - 120 x 500
Strip Mall style, 1 story
Office 100 x 180 - 140 x 300
Multiple story office building
Residential 60 x 200
Garden Apartments, 2 stories
12 units/floor
Retail
1 space/150 sq. ft.
Office
1 space/300 sq. ft.
Residential
2 spaces/unit
Assumptions for Land Development
Capacity Plan Incentive Plan
Requirements Comply with Town of McCandless Ordinance No. 1433
1. 300 parking spaces for Park and Ride
2. 24 acres of FEMA flood plain dedicated to Conservation Easement
Parking space size 10 x 18 minimum 9 x 18 minimum
Parking standards Compliance with Section 1313.06
Based on Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Manual, latest ed.
Max building coverage (based on gross lot area)
25% 35%
Max building footprint 150,000 sq. ft. 175,000 sq. ft.
Capacity vs. Incentive
Building Size Parking Spaces
Retail 120 x 500 400 + Park and Ride
Office 140 x 300 560
Residential 60 x 200 144
Retail Office
Residential
Building Size Parking Spaces
Retail 120 x 400 524 (Shared Parking)
Office 120 x 240 288
Residential 60 x 200 48
Retail
Office
Residential
Environmental Assessment
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
1st step in environmental due diligence
Identify Recognized Environmental Contaminations (REC)
Our main focus for the Phase I ESA were the following Soil Quality
Air Quality
Water Quality
Pre-existing conditions and contaminants
The standards are based on ASTM Standard E1527-05
Past and Current Land Use
Oil tanks
Book Store
Movie Theater
Hardware Store
Soil Contamination
Land underneath Trader Horn may be contaminated from past owner
Leaks from former oil tanks may have caused oil to creep into soil
Land was raised in order to cover contaminant for construction of Trader Horn New regulations will not
allow this today
Soil Contamination
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) may be required
EPA regulations dictate removal of contaminated soil in order to begin construction
New owner/investor likely financially responsible for environmental remediation
Soil boring tests determine severity and remediation actions Excavation
Thermal Desorption
Pump and Treat
Water Quality Report
Criteria Evaluated
Parameter Water Quality Criteria
Water Temp Max allowed is 66 degrees F
pH Range of 6.5-8.2
Dissolved Oxygen Below 4 mg/L is suitable
Conductivity Below 500uS/cm is suitable
Nitrate Over 4.4 ppm indicates polluted water
Phosphate Non polluted waters 40 Fair 20-40
Water Data
Results
High Conductivity levels (>900 uS/cm) could be from salt from roads
Sulfate levels exceeded criteria of 50 mg/L. This typically results in low pH, however, Pine Creek Watershed was found to be alkaline.
Conceivably from a non-acidic sulfate source
Phosphate levels were consistently high throughout all measuring stations which typically leads to eutrophication
Unlikely from oil spill as upstream tests also tested the same for this criterion
Overall, the watershed received a score of Fair based off the criteria evaluate
Also, no evidence to suggest contaminated land is impacting the stream
Air Quality Report
Radon Testing
Inside of buildings will need to be inspected
CO
CO2
Mold
Asbestos not likely (buildings after 1975)
Zipcode Num. Tests Min pCi/L Max pCi/L Avg pCi/L
15090 1086 0 78.5 9.1
pCi/L
Recommendations
Soil contamination is a concern for construction practices
Qualified building inspector confirm no mold or fungus in abandoned buildings
Ensure water quality meets standards after remediation
Ensure Phase II ESA is conducted thoroughly
Geotechnical Assessment
Initial Investigation & Determinations
Several Sources indicate
Silt and clay mix; may encounter coarser, more stable material with increase in depth
Bed rock strata; Conemaugh Group Shale, sandstone limestone, siltstone
Mining subsidence
On Site Investigations
6 Boring & Sample Locations
1 and 2 will require pavement penetrations
3-6, will not contact buried structures
All bore samples to be collected for classification All Standard
Penetration Tests (SPTs) aid in soil classification and produce disturbed soil sample
All 5ft of continuous rock core samples
3-6 Thin Walled Tube (Shelby Tube) sample, sample the top 20ft to produce undisturbed soil samples for laboratory testing
Laboratory Testing
Classification tests to establish the soil composition
Strength tests, performed to define such values as shear strength, compressive strength for calculating bearing stress
Determine settlement characteristics
The results of these tests would be used by the building designers.
Raising of Capacity Buildings
Unit prices taken from Tesone Transport Inc.
Development Plan
Material Type Volume CY $/CY Total Material Cost
Capacity Fill Dirt, #57 Stone 45K , 11K 1.00, 1.45 $60K
Incentive Fill Dirt, #57 Stone 26K, 6.5K 1.00, 1.45 $36K
A requirement for future developments, buildings must have their first floor 24 above the 100-year flood plain elevation
Transportation Impact Study
Traffic Data Collection
Data collected for two hour increments in February
Morning Rush [7:00 AM 9:00 AM]
Afternoon Rush [4:00 PM 6:00 PM]
Data was taken on tablets
Application produced a TDL, which analyzed the peak hour in an excel sheet
McKnight Road and Blazier Drive
Ingomar Road and Blazier Drive
McKnight Road Intersection
Morning Peak was from
7:15 AM to 8:15 AM
Afternoon Peak was from
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
McKnight Road had the
majority of the traffic
Blazier Drive had mainly
right turns
Ingomar Road Intersection
Morning Peak was 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM
Afternoon Peak was 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Ingomar Road had the majority of traffic
Highway Capacity Software (HCS)
McKnight Intersection
Ingomar Intersection
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Morning C (24.1 s)
Evening C (23.6 s)
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Morning B (10.9 s)
Evening B (13.6 s)
Acceptable LOS Delay Time (s)
A < 10
B 10-20
C 20-35
D 35-55
Failing LOS Delay Time (s)
E 55-80
F > 80
Trip Distribution
Used Census Data site
Analyzed the population of individual block groups in the Town of McCandless
Determined the routes taken to/from site
Trip Distribution Results
McKnight Road 73.82%
Northbound 58.29%
Southbound 15.53%
Ingomar Road 26.18%
Eastbound 3.72%
Westbound 22.46%
Municipality
Census
Tract
Block
Number Population Intersection Approach to Enter Site Proportion
McCandless Township 4131 1 1,287 Westbound Ingomar Road 4.52%
McCandless Township 4135 1 872 Westbound Ingomar Road 3.06%
McCandless Township 4135 2 1,058 Westbound Ingomar Road 3.72%
McCandless Township 4135 2 1,059 Eastbound Ingomar Road 3.72%
McCandless Township 4135 3 1,374 Westbound Ingomar Road 4.83%
McCandless Township 4135 4 1,801 Westbound Ingomar Road 6.33%
McCandless Township 4131 4 1,897 Southbound McKnight Road 6.67%
McCandless Township 4131 3 1,428 Southbound McKnight Road 5.02%
McCandless Township 4131 2 1,997 Northbound McKnight Road 7.02%
McCandless Township 4132.02 1 1,092 Southbound McKnight Road 3.84%
McCandless Township 4132.02 2 1,774 Northbound McKnight Road 6.23%
McCandless Township 4134 1 1,548 Northbound McKnight Road 5.44%
McCandless Township 4134 2 1,199 Northbound McKnight Road 4.21%
McCandless Township 4134 3 1,592 Northbound McKnight Road 5.59%
McCandless Township 4132.01 1 788 Northbound McKnight Road 2.77%
McCandless Township 4132.01 2 1,316 Northbound McKnight Road 4.62%
McCandless Township 4132.01 3 1,633 Northbound McKnight Road 5.74%
McCandless Township 4133 1 1,683 Northbound McKnight Road 5.91%
McCandless Township 4133 2 2,367 Northbound McKnight Road 8.32%
McCandless Township 4133 3 692 Northbound McKnight Road 2.43%
TOTAL -McCandless 28,457 100%
WESTBOUND INGOMAR
PROPORTION 22.46%
EASTBOUND INGOMAR
PROPORTION 3.72%
NORTHBOUND MCKNIGHT
PROPORTION 58.29%
SOUTHBOUND MCKNIGHT
PROPORTION 15.53%
INGOMAR PROPORTION 26.18%
MCKNIGHT PROPORTION 73.82%
Trip Generation
Trip Generation Manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Provides empirical data plots with best fit lines and equations
Variety of Land Uses
Morning and Evening Peak Hours
Variables:
Retail: Gross Floor Area (1000 sf)
Office: Gross Floor Area (1000 sf)
Residential: Dwelling Units
Trip Generation
Capacity
Office Building
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+1.55 T=1.12(x)+78.81
88% Enter 12% Exit 17% Enter 83% Exit
X=168 X=168
Total Trips = 286 Total Trips = 268
Entering = 251 Entering = 46
Exiting = 35 Exiting = 222
Retail
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.59Ln(X)+2.32 Ln(T)=0.67Ln(x)+3.37
61% Enter 39% Exit 49% Enter 51% Exit
X=60 X=60
Total Trips = 115 Total Trips = 453
Entering = 70 Entering = 222
Exiting = 45 Exiting = 231
Residential
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.82Ln(X)+0.23 Ln(T)=0.88Ln(x)+0.16
21% Enter 79% Exit 65% Enter 35% Exit
X=72 X=72
Total Trips = 43 Total Trips = 52
Entering = 9 Entering = 34
Exiting = 34 Exiting = 18
Incentive
Office Building
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+1.55 T=1.12(x)+78.81
88% Enter 12% Exit 17% Enter 83% Exit
X=86.4 X=86.4
Total Trips = 168 Total Trips = 177
Entering = 147 Entering = 30
Exiting = 21 Exiting = 147
Retail
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.59Ln(X)+2.32 Ln(T)=0.67Ln(x)+3.37
61% Enter 39% Exit 49% Enter 51% Exit
X=48 X=48
Total Trips = 100 Total Trips = 391
Entering = 61 Entering = 192
Exiting = 39 Exiting = 199
Residential
AM Peak PM Peak
Ln(T)=0.82Ln(X)+0.23 Ln(T)=0.88Ln(x)+0.16
21% Enter 79% Exit 65% Enter 35% Exit
X=24 X=24
Total Trips = 19 Total Trips = 20
Entering = 4 Entering = 13
Exiting = 15 Exiting = 7
General Characteristics: Morning:
High Percentage Incoming on Office
High Percentage Outgoing on Residential
Evening: High Percentage Outgoing
on Office High Percentage Incoming
on Residential
Retail is fairly balanced
throughout the day and yields the highest trip generation
Residential yields the lowest trip
generation by far
Trip Generation: Capacity Plan
Capacity Plan Trip Generations: Morning Total = 477 Evening Total = 816
Trip Generation: Incentive Plan
Incentive Plan Trip Generations: Morning Total = 287 Evening Total = 588 (About 200 less trips during each peak)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Capacity
Morning Peak
Capacity plan had a higher increase in traffic
Morning peak kept an acceptable L.O.S. after development
L.O.S. = C
Delay increased to 24.3 seconds per vehicle
Acceptable
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Morning (Pre-Development)
C (24.1 s)
Morning (Post-development)
C (24.3 s)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Capacity
Afternoon Peak
Afternoon did not keep acceptable L.O.S. after development
L.O.S. fell to an F
Delay increased to 108.1 seconds per vehicle
Improvements need to be done to correct traffic flow
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Afternoon (Pre-Development)
C (23.6 s)
Afternoon (Post-development)
F (108.1 s)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Capacity
Improvements
Add second left turn lane to McKnight southbound
Increase right turn lane to 600 feet long on McKnight northbound
Add second lane to Blazier Drive making a right turn lane 400 feet long
L.O.S. after improvements = D
Average delay reduced from 108.1 seconds to 49.5 seconds
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Afternoon (Post-development)
F (108.1 s)
Afternoon (Post-Improvement)
D (49.5 s)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Incentive
Morning Peak
Incentive plan had a smaller increase in traffic
Morning kept acceptable L.O.S. after development
L.O.S. = C
Delay increased to 24.2 seconds per vehicle
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Morning (Pre-Development)
C (24.1 s)
Morning (Post-development)
C (24.2 s)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Incentive
Afternoon Peak
Afternoon did not keep acceptable L.O.S. after development
L.O.S. fell to an E
Delay increased to 68.0 seconds per vehicle
Improvements need to be done to correct traffic flow
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Afternoon (Pre-Development)
C (23.6 s)
Afternoon (Post-development)
E (68.0 s)
McKnight Intersection Post Development Analysis - Incentive
Improvements
Similar to Capacity plan improvements
Increase right turn lane to 500 feet long on McKnight northbound
Add second lane to Blazier Drive making a right turn lane 400 feet long
L.O.S. after improvements = D
Average delay reduced from 68.0 seconds to 42.3 seconds
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Afternoon (Post-development)
E (68.0 s)
Afternoon (Post-Improvement)
D (42.3 s)
Ingomar Intersection Post Development Analysis
Morning Peaks
Capacity and Incentive
L.O.S. for both remained at B
Delay increased, but not significantly
Afternoon Peaks
Capacity and Incentive
L.O.S. for both remained at B
Delay increased, more than morning, but not enough to reduce L.O.S.
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Morning (Pre-Development)
B (10.9 s)
Morning (Post-Development)
B (15.2 s)
Peak Hour LOS (Delay)
Afternoon (Pre-Development)
B (13.6 s)
Afternoon (Post-Development)
B (15.7 s)
Capacity Plan Incentive Plan
4 Driveways
Retail: 2
Office: 1
Residential: 1
2 Driveways
All mixed use
Western Driveway
Eastern Driveway
Site Driveway Analysis
Site Driveway Analysis
Capacity Plan
Distribution of Future Trips on Site Trip Distribution - Building Location - Direction of Travel
Site Driveway Analysis
Incentive Plan
Distribution of Future Trips on Site Trip Distribution - Building Location - Direction of Travel
Site Driveway Analysis Results
Capacity Plan
All-Way Stop Controlled: 2 Intersections
Driveway Stop Controlled: 2 Intersections
Incentive Plan
All-Way Stop Controlled: Western Driveway
Driveway Stop Controlled: Eastern Driveway
Approach/Overall
Level of Service (Delay)
Projected Conditions PM Peak Hour
Site Driveways
Capacity Plan
Western Retail Driveway (Retail 1) (All-Way Stop Control)
Eastbound Ingomar Road D (28.29)
Westbound Ingomar Road E (38.91)
Northbound Driveway B (12.89)
Overall Intersection D (31.3)
Eastern Retail Driveway (Retail 2) (Driveway Stop Control)
Westbound Ingomar Road LT A (8.4)
Northbound Driveway C (16.5)
Office Driveway (All-Way Stop Control)
Eastbound Ingomar Road C (21.52)
Westbound Ingomar Road E (41.46)
Northbound Driveway B (13.82)
Overall Intersection D (29.61)
Residential Driveway (Driveway Stop Control)
Westbound Ingomar Road LT A (8.3)
Northbound Driveway C (15.9)
Incentive Plan
Western Driveway (All-Way Stop Control)
Eastbound Ingomar Road D (26.34)
Westbound Ingomar Road D (30.98)
Northbound Driveway B (15.37)
Overall Intersection D (26.19)
Eastern Driveway (Driveway Stop Control)
Westbound Ingomar Road LT A (8.2)
Northbound Driveway B (14.2)
Comparison
Average Values
Used the Allegheny County Assessment website
Compared buildings of the same size and near our site
For retail and office, calculated an average value per square foot
For residential, calculated an average value per unit
Average Building Value
Retail $54.88/sq. ft.
Office $38.09/sq. ft.
Residential $28,260.60/unit
Comparison of Plans
Capacity
Square Footage Units Building Value
Retail 60,000 NA $3,292,620.00
Office 168,000 NA $6,399,819.44
Residential NA 72 $2,034,763.03
Total= $11,727,202.47
Incentive
Square Footage Units Building Value
Retail 48,000 NA $2,634,096.00
Office 86,400 NA $3,291,335.71
Residential NA 24 $678,254.34
Total= $6,603,686.05
Recommendation: Capacity Development
Hydrological and Environmental impacts are negligible Both plans decrease impervious surface
Geotechnical and Transportation impacts are more costly Larger fill/clearance volume
Second left turn lane on McKnight southbound
Increased building value Double Incentive Development
Incentives do not make up for the loss of developable area
Recommended