Transforming the Planning Experience: The Corridor Housing Initiative Experience Gretchen Nicholls Center for Neighborhoods David Motzenbecker Kingfield Neighborhood Tom Leighton City of Minneapolis Planning Kevin Walker City of Minneapolis Multifamily Housing Development

Twin Cities Metropolitan Context (Seven-county area) Metropolitan Council Framework becomes Blueprint Focus is upon development in corridors within Metro Urban Service Area Smart growth emphasis including 1/3 of growth in existing areas

Minneapolis needs more housing to accommodate growth CURRENT POPULATION Minneapolis: 382,618 Seven-county metropolitan area: 2,642,062 PROJECTED GROWTH Minneapolis: By 2010: 19,250 more residents (9,650 households) By 2030: additional 33,000 residents (24,600 households) (15% growth) Seven-county metropolitan area: By 2010: 363,000 new residents (177,000 households) By 2030: additional 603,000 residents (471,000 households) (36% growth)

Corridor Housing Concept Corridors are Minneapolis’ “Main Streets,” reflecting the City’s historic street car routes. Corridors are the physical pathways linking home, work, shopping, schools and parks. High quality design can integrate increased density into the existing neighborhood fabric. Affordable housing needs to connect to transit and jobs. Minneapolis strives to create compact, walkable communities consistent with Smart Growth and TOD principles.

The Minneapolis Plan identifies key areas for housing intensification Map: City of Minneapolis 1.Growth Centers 2.Downtown 3.Community Corridors 4.Commercial Corridors 5.Activity Centers 6.Major Housing Sites 7.Transit Corridors/ Station Areas

Community Corridors Key Characteristics: Connect 3+ neighborhoods 4,000-15,000 vehicles/day Mostly residential uses Small commercial corners Traditional urban form Map: City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Plan

Commercial Corridors Map: City of Minneapolis Key Characteristics: Major commercial/ retail destinations 20,000-30,000 vehicles/ day Mostly commercial uses Traditional urban form Minneapolis Plan

Hiawatha Transit Corridor/ Station Areas Cedar/Riverside Franklin Avenue Lake Street/Midtown 38th Street 46nd Street 50th Street/Minnehaha Park VA Medical Center Map: City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Plan

Corridor Housing Production Since 2003 New corridor units*896 New affordable corridor units* 507 Preserved affordable corridor units* 679 Corridor % of new housing units* 54.4% * Only includes units receiving direct City financial assistance Rental and Ownership Housing Starts

Corridor Housing Production Affordability Levels

Minneapolis’ Corridor Housing Strategy Minneapolis Plan identifying areas Land assembly / acquisition funds Alignment in allocation of City housing resources Community outreach and interface (Corridor Housing Initiative) (2003 – Present)

Why the Corridor Housing Initiative? Learning moment for the City: Creation of the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Partnership with the City: Align City and neighborhood planning Met Council projections: Need for 26,000 new housing units in Minneapolis the next 20 years Role of neighborhoods and communities: Planning for growth

The Minneapolis Plan identifies areas for housing intensification Growth Centers Downtown Community Corridors Commercial Corridors Activity Centers Major Housing Sites Transit Station Areas

Proactive Planning Production Partnerships

Goals and Outcomes 1. Demonstrate a replicable model of integrated planning among neighborhoods, the city, and the county Build relationships Engage the community in planning and development Align community and city planning efforts 2. Produce viable development projects that include affordable housing options along corridors and meet city goals and neighborhood interests Physically enhance neighborhoods Develop housing that meets the needs of a range of incomes and enhances the neighborhood environment

Partners Center for Neighborhoods City of Minneapolis (Mayor, Council and CPED) Family Housing Fund Local Initiatives Support Corporation Hennepin County Minneapolis Public Housing Authority

Technical Team Center for Policy, Planning and Performance –facilitation, citizen engagement, evaluation Central Community Housing Trust - development Metropolitan Design Center - design Minneapolis CPED - policies, planning Center for Neighborhoods - project management

Distillation of market viability for development objectives Strategies for site acquisition and implementation of development plans Zoning overlays or adjustment to city land use policy Products Building of community support and direction for development goals Commitment by the City to prioritize funding for development projects that emerge from the process

Housing Density Examples of density scale Metropolitan Design Center

Mixed-Use Development Metropolitan Design Center

Corridor Housing Issues Metropolitan Design Center

Housing Types Metropolitan Design Center

New Affordable Housing in Minneapolis Metropolitan Design Center

CHI Block Exercise

Lake Street Sites A B C LAKE STREET A = Used Car Lot B = Spirit of the Lakes Church C = Bread Shop 13 TH AVENUE

Site A Used Car Lot Base site Expanded site LAKE STREET 11 th AVENUE

Site A View from Lake Street at 11 th Avenue View toward Lake Street from 11 th Avenue

Site A Scenarios ($4,398)($9,604)($12,062)Gain (loss)/unit ($215,487)($297,711)($205,054)Gain (loss) 24158# affordable rental 25169# market rate rental 46290Below ground parking 0017On ground parking 14% 36% site paved 32% 9% site green Units 3.5 story, expanded site 3.5 story2 storyHeight Scenario 3Scenario 2Scenario 1Variables Assumes land purchase/demolition at $20 per square ft.

Site A unit versions of scenario 3 Version 3: Participants’ design Version 1 Version 2

Site B Spirit of the Lakes Church Base site Expanded site for cost purposes— although the bottom half was excluded from development by workshop participants LAKE STREET 13 th AVENUE

Workshop group investigated options for both a base site and a larger one. Options emphasized housing for GLBT seniors. Development options building on the base site only— to save land costs--and with less commercial development were more cost effective as shown in Scenario 2 on the next page.

Site B Scenarios ($17,140)($1,324)($27,369)Gain (loss)/unit ($1,285,514)($51,652)($492,643)Gain (loss) 28247# affordable rental # market rate rental 77430Below ground parking On ground parking 32%42%57% site paved 27%18%8% site green Units 3.5 story, expanded site 3.5 story2 storyHeight Scenario 3Scenario 2Scenario 1Variables Assumes land purchase/demolition at $20 per square ft.

Site B: AIA Charette, February units of housing + church + parking (between Scenarios 1 and 2)

Site B: Development Workshop Scenarios Step back at rear Lake Stree t Lower height at rear Top image shows expanded site which is not cost effective but has parking entry from rear and building that steps back at a rear plaza (68 units—close to scenario 3). Bottom image shows base site with building height reduced at rear to match existing neighborhood (39 units—close to scenario 2).

Site B: Scenario 2 Options Views of two versions of building from front with step down height at rear Version 1 Views of front and back of a version with step back to plaza at rear Version 3 Rear view 3 Version 2

Program Design

Program Design—Objective Clarification and Effectiveness

Issue: What is the objective and how do we measure effectiveness?

Sound Planning Objectives Community Preferences Development Feasibility

Sound Planning Objectives Community Preferences No Public Education

Problem: How do you attract participation around this issue? 1. Make it voluntary 2. Add project goal: To foster development in CHI project areas Goal: Public education on density and affordable housing

CHI—Two Goals 1. Public education re density, affordable housing 2. Fostering redevelopment in CHI project areas

Problem: How do we foster redevelopment? 1. Alignment is powerful 2. Keep it real (feasible) 3. Can we give preference for financial assistance to CHI project areas? No. 4. We do consider CHI participation in allocation of small site assembly fund

Sound Planning Objectives Community Preferences Development Feasibility

 CHI Lessons Learned—Objective Clarification and Effectiveness 1. Fosters redevelopment? Alignment is powerful. By itself it can yield developer interest. 2. Public education? Participation changes minds 3. Dual objectives has been confusing 4. Not all communities participate   

Program Design—Efficiency

Issue: How do we create a whole new layer of plans without overworking planning staff?

Related issue: To what degree do we customize the product/process vs. offer the same thing in different settings?

Plan Continuum (Green Book) 1. Comprehensive Plan 5. Site plans (for public projects) 2. System Plans 3. Area Plans 4. Plans for Subsystem Components

Plan Continuum (Green Book) 1. Comprehensive Plan 5. Site plans (for public projects) 2. System Plans 3. Area Plans 4. Plans for Subsystem Components

Plan Continuum 1. Comprehensive Plan 5. Site plans (for public projects) 2. System Plans 3. Area Plans 4. Topical Studies

Plan Continuum 4. Topical Studies a. Technical study (Franklin LRT Area) b. Implementation analysis (38 th St LRT Area) c. Site specific design exercise (BCV Public Realm)

CHI—Customize vs. Standardize 4. Topical Studies a. Technical study (Franklin LRT Area) b. Implementation analysis (38 th St LRT Area) c. Site specific design exercise (BCV Public Realm) d. CHI Development Concepts 4b. CHI Development concepts as part of development concept library

Regulatory Review 1.Not formally adopted. 2.Voluntary compliance by developers 3.Development guidelines not enforced by regulatory review staff 4.Doesn’t add to a layer of formal beaucracy Status of CHI Products? Informal

Development Support 1.Expression of community-city alignment 2.Should be considered prior to utilization of development authorities or extension of financial assistance Status of CHI Products? Informal

 CHI Lessons Learned—Efficiency 1.Informal status of concept development scenarios and development guidelines 2.Standardization of product 3.Minimization of process  

Reflections Partners and Technical Team –Progress in promoting corridor development and affordable housing –Increased neighborhood awareness and understanding of development decisions –Forums that bring partners together –Improved relationships among partners –Facilitation was helpful, forum helped build trust, leadership role and flexibility needed

Reflections Neighborhood Participants –Improved and new relationships –Significant development discussions –New knowledge and skills –Opportunities identified –Greater community engagement –Neighborhood capacity –Satisfaction/value in project and process –Reinforcement of community values/guidelines –Increased support for density

Impacts Housing along corridors Neighborhood development guidelines City staff/neighborhood relationships Value of existing/previous plans More informed public Bridge gaps between neighborhood, city goals and developers

Impacts Improved neighborhood relationships Improved outreach and engagement strategies Businesses and developers more involved Community capacity and knowledge Replicable models, tools and processes

Tracking progress Key CHI Objectives: –Wider participation in planning process –More effective and credible participation in planning for development –Measurable production results (CHI-influenced projects)

Tracking Progress Evaluation methodology: –Results panel –Surveys, focus groups Involvement of non-traditional participants Input that shapes outcomes Better understanding from participants of –Development process –City role in development process –Market constraints for development projects More credible, savvy, effective neighborhoods –Production

Corridor Housing Initiative Website: Call: (612) For more information