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

growthCURRENT POPULATIONMinneapolis: 382,618Seven-county metropolitan area: 2,642,062

PROJECTED GROWTHMinneapolis: • 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 Centers2.Downtown3.Community Corridors4.Commercial Corridors5.Activity Centers6.Major Housing Sites7.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

CommercialCorridors

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 2003New 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

Affordable Units as Proportion of City-Assisted Units in Minneapolis

Corridors (2003 - 2006)

24%

35%

30%

11%30% AMI

50% AMI

60% AMI

80% AMI

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 Outcomes1. 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 scaleMetropolitan 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

CLAKE STREET

A = Used Car LotB = Spirit of the Lakes ChurchC = Bread Shop

13T

H A

VE

NU

E

Site AUsed Car

Lot

Base site

Expanded site

LAKE STREET

11th

AV

EN

UE

Site A

View from Lake Street at 11th Avenue

View toward Lake Street from 11th Avenue

Site A Scenarios

•($4,398)•($9,604)•($12,062)•Gain (loss)/unit

•($215,487)•($297,711)•($205,054)•Gain (loss)

•24•15•8•# affordable rental

•25•16•9•# market rate rental

•46•29•0•Below ground parking

•0•0•17•On ground parking

•14%•14%•36%•% site paved

•32%•32%•9%•% site green

•49•31•17•Units

•3.5 story, expanded site

•3.5 story•2 story•Height

•Scenario 3•Scenario 2•Scenario 1•Variables

Assumes land purchase/demolition at $20 per square ft.

Site A49-52 unit versions

of scenario 3

Version 3: Participants’ design

Version 1

Version 2

Site BSpirit of

the Lakes Church

Base site

Expanded site for cost purposes—although the bottom half was excluded from development by workshop participants

LAKE STREET

13th

AV

EN

UE

• 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)

•28•24•7•# affordable rental

•47•15•11•# market rate rental

•77•43•0•Below ground parking

•45•40•58•On ground parking

•32%•42%•57%•% site paved

•27%•18%•8%•% site green

•75•39•22•Units

•3.5 story, expanded site

•3.5 story•2 story•Height

•Scenario 3•Scenario 2•Scenario 1•Variables

Assumes land purchase/demolition at $20 per square ft.

Site B: AIA Charette, February 200430 units of housing + church + parking (between Scenarios

1 and 2)

Site B: Development

Workshop Scenarios

Step back at rear

Lake Street

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 3Version 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

Effectiveness1. 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 Continuum1. Comprehensive Plan

5. Site plans (for public projects)

2. System Plans

3. Area Plans

4. Topical Studies

Plan Continuum4. Topical Studies

a. Technical study (Franklin LRT Area)

b. Implementation analysis (38th 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 (38th 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 InitiativeWebsite: www.housinginitiative.org

E-mail: Gretchennicholls@hotmail.com

Call: (612) 339-3480

For more information