Downtown East / North Loop Master Plan

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN

ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 public processforthisproject. attended thepublicmeetingsandparticipatedin business owners,andinterestedindividualswho A specialthankstoallofthecitizens,propertyowners, 10/10/03 Cliff Habeck, ThriventFinancial David Fields, ElliotParkNeighborhood, Inc. Technical AdvisoryCommittee: Kraus-Anderson Companies Metropolitan Sports FacilitiesCommission Hennepin CountyMedical Center Hennepin County Thrivent Financial Metropolitan Council Minneapolis CommunityDevelopmentAgency Minneapolis PlanningDepartment Funding Partners: Rosemarie Triplett, AdministrativeSupport Staff Jack Byers,PrincipalPlanner/ProjectManager Pamela Miner, CommunityPlanningSupervisor Chuck Ballentine,PlanningDirector Minneapolis PlanningDepartment: Annie Young Gary Schiff Robert Lashomb Rod Krueger Michael Krause Gretchen Johnson Audrey Johnson Monique Mackenzie,Secretary Michael Hohmann,Vice President Judith Martin,President Minneapolis CityPlanningCommission: Barret Lane Sandy ColvinRoy Scott Benson Dan Niziolek Gary Schiff Lisa Goodman Dean Zimmermann Natalie JohnsonLee Barbara Johnson Donald Samuels Paul Zerby Robert Lilligren,CityCouncilVice President Paul Ostrow, CityCouncilPresident Minneapolis CityCouncil: The HonorableR.T. Rybak,Mayor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Allen Yu, IBIGroup Michael Schroeder, Hoisington KoeglerGroupInc. Brad Scheib,Hoisington KoeglerGroupInc. Warren Rempel,IBIGroup Dick Paik,Bonz/REA Rob MacDonald,IBI Group Lillian Leatham,HoisingtonKoeglerGroup Inc. Sam Lanterman,IBIGroup Rusty Fifield,HoisingtonKoeglerGroup Inc. Marsha Bousquet,IBIGroup Eric Blodgett,HoisingtonKoeglerGroup Inc. Jim Benshoof,Benshoof&AssociatesInc. Mark Koegler, HoisingtonKoeglerGroupInc., AssistantProjectManager Gary Andrishak,IBIGroup,ProjectManager Consultant Team: Scott Wende, Hokanson/Lunning/Wende Associates Cathy Spann,CouncilStaff,Ward 5 Kit Richardson,SchaferRichardson,Inc. Fred Neet,MinneapolisPlanningDepartment Mark Moller, DowntownMinneapolisNeighborhoodAssociation Steve Mahowald,MetroTransit Amy Lucas,MinneapolisPlanningDepartment William Lester, MetropolitanSportsFacilitiesCommission Mike Kimble,MinneapolisParkandRecreationBoard Judy Hollander, HennepinCountyPropertyServices Michael Harristhal,HennepinCountyMedicalCenter Sam Grabarski,MinneapolisDowntownCouncil James Grabak,NorthLoopAssociation Nancy Gaschott/BrianBergee,OpenBookCenter Douglas Gardner, CouncilStaff,Ward 7 Tom Daniel,MCDA,IndustrySquareProjectCommittee Burton Dahlberg,Kraus-AndersonCompanies Kelley Brandt,Valspar Corporation Allan Bernard,CouncilStaff,Ward 2 Margo Ashmore,EastDowntownCouncil Gregory Anderson,TheStarTribune Company Lindsey Alexander, CityofMinneapolisDepartmentFinance Steering Committee: Jon Wertjes, CityofMinneapolisDepartmentPublicWorks Dick Victor, MinneapolisCommunityDevelopmentAgency Wayne Olson,MinneapolisCommunityDevelopmentAgency Karen Lyons, Metropolitan Council Carol Lezotte,HennepinCountyCommunityWorks i

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i CHAPTER 4 – LAND USE PLAN 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Formulation of Development Precincts 32 LIST OF FIGURES iii CHAPTER 1 Exploration of Alternative Land Use Scenarios 32

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 Highlights of the Recommended Land Use Plan 35 CHAPTER 2 Project Work Plan and Process 2 CHAPTER 5 – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 48

Organization of the Master Plan 2 Shaping the City through the Design of the Public Realm 49 Project Area Boundaries 6

Case Studies for Strategic Urban Design Projects 68 CHAPTER 3 Concurrent Planning Efforts 7 Opportunities for Developing View Corridors and Gateways 81

CHAPTER 2 – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 9 Shaping the City through the Design of Buildings 96 CHAPTER 4

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 10 CHAPTER 6 – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 107

Mixed-Use Development 12 Existing Downtown Zoning District Designations 108

Downtown Housing 12 CHAPTER 5 Mixed-Use Zoning in Downtown Minneapolis 115 Transportation, Transit, and Parking 19 Enhancements to the Downtown Regulatory Framework 118

CHAPTER 3 – MARKET ANALYSIS 22 CHAPTER 7 – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 125 CHAPTER 6

Regional Development Issues 23 Infrastructure Investments in the Project Area 126 Development Forecasts and Issues 25

Property Development in the Project Area 128 CHAPTER 7 Other Issues 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03

Figure 1.1 Work Program and Process 2 Figure 5.7 Refining the Skyway System 59 Figure 1.2 Map of Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) Corridor Map 3 Figure 5.8 Map of Streetscape and Open Space Plan 61 Figure 1.3 Map of Project Area 5 Figure 5.9 Streetscape and Open Space 62 Figure 1.4 Aerial Photo of Project Area 8 Figure 5.10 Examples of Reforestation 65

Figure 5.11 Reforestation: Sample Solutions 1 66 CHAPTER 1 Figure 2.1 Mixed-Use Development Illustrative Sketch 11 Figure 5.12 Reforestation: Sample Solutions 2 67 Figure 2.2 Mixed-Use Development Typologies 13 Figure 5.13 5th Street Streetscape: Block Configurations 1 69 Figure 2.3 Single Residence Occupancy Floor Plan 14 Figure 5.14 5th Street Streetscape: Block Configurations 2 70 Figure 2.4 Co-housing Residential Floor Plan 14 Figure 5.15 5th Street Streetscape: View Looking east from Government Figure 2.5 Residential Typologies & and Densities 16 Station toward Metrodome Plaza 71

Figure 2.6 Attributes of Mixed-Use Retail 17 Figure 5.16 5th Street Streetscape: Proposed Street Furniture 73 CHAPTER 2 Figure 5.17 5th Street Streetscape: Typical Sidewalk Plans 74 Figure 3.1 Map of Downtown Minneapolis Market Analysis Area 24 Figure 5.18 5th Street Streetscape: Typical Sidewalk Details 75 Figure 3.2 Development Niches and Locations 26 Figure 5.19 Revising the Physical Impact of Local Megastructures – Plan 78 Figure 3.3 Development Forecasts: – Downtown Minneapolis: 2002-2022 28 Figure 5.20 Revising the Physical Impact of Local Megastructures – Detail 79 Figure 5.21 Map of Gateways into Downtown East and the North Loop 82

Figure 4.1 Map of Development Precincts 33 Figure 5.22 Photos: Gateways into Downtown East and the North Loop 83 CHAPTER 3 Figure 4.2 Maps of Land Use Alternatives 1 and 2: Not Recommended 36 Figure 5.23 Map of Lighted Gateway Spires 84 Figure 4.3 Map of Recommended Land Use – Core Expansion 37 Figure 5.24 Photos of Lighted Gateway Spires 85 Figure 4.4 Map of Recommended Land Use – At-Grade Retail 38 Figure 5.25 Map of Gateway Transition Zones 86 Figure 4.5 Development Precinct 1: Elliot Park West 39 Figure 5.26 Photos: Gateway Transition Zones 87 Figure 4.6 Development Precinct 2: Hennepin County Medical Center 39 Figure 5.27 Prototypes for Gateway Icons 1 88

Figure 4.7 Development Precinct 3: Elliot Park East 39 Figure 5.28 Prototypes for Gateway Icons 2 89 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.8 Development Precinct 4: Washington East 40 Figure 5.29 Map of Gateway Views to Downtown Landmarks 90 Figure 4.9 Development Precinct 5: Washington Village 40 Figure 5.30 Photos: Gateway Views to Downtown Landmarks 91 Figure 4.10 Development Precinct 6: Metrodome Site 40 Figure 5.31 Map of Enhancing Existing View Corridors 92 Figure 4.11 Development Precinct 7: 5th Street Spine 41 Figure 5.32 Photos of Enhancing Existing View Corridors 93 Figure 4.12 Development Precinct 8: Downtown Core Expansion 41 Figure 5.33 Map of Enhancing Existing View Corridors to Hennepin Avenue 94

Figure 4.13 Development Precinct 9: West Hennepin 42 Figure 5.34 Photos of Enhancing Existing View Corridors to Hennepin Avenue 95 CHAPTER 5 Figure 4.14 Development Precinct 10: Warehouse West 42 Figure 5.35 Density / Floor Area Ratios 97 Figure 4.15 Development Precinct 11: Freeway West 42 Figure 5.36 Building Height Classifications – Ground Floor 98 Figure 4.16 Development Precinct 12: Municipal Service 43 Figure 5.37 Building Height Classifications – Low-rise 98 Figure 4.17 Development Precinct 13: Air Rights Development District Over Figure 5.38 Building Height Classifications – Mid-rise 98 “The Cut” 43 Figure 5.39 Building Height Classifications – High-rise 98

Figure 4.18 Metrodome Re-Use Illustrative – Aerial View 45 Figure 5.40 Plan Typologies for Building Massing 100 CHAPTER 6 Figure 4.19 Possible Air Rights Development over “The Cut” – Aerial View 46 Figure 5.41 Building Massing Options 102 Figure 4.20 Possible Air Rights Development over “The Cut” – Cross-section 47 Figure 5.42 Massing Model of Project Area: Looking Northwest from above Looking North I-35 / I-94 Commons 103 Figure 5.43 Massing Model of Project Area: Looking Southeast from above Figure 5.1 Map of Metropolitan Area Multi-Modal Transit Plan 2025 Map 50 the North Loop 104 Figure 5.2 Map of Additions to the Downtown Street Grid 52 Figure 5.44 Massing Model of Project Area: Downtown East from above the CHAPTER 7 Figure 5.3 Map of Extensions to the Downtown Bicycle Network 54 Milwaukee Road Depot 105 Figure 5.4 Map of Designated Primary Pedestrian Corridors 56 Figure 5.45 Massing Model: The North Loop from above the intersection of Figure 5.5 Developing Primary Pedestrian Corridors 57 Hennepin Avenue and Washington Avenue 106 Figure 5.6 Map of Additions to the Skyway System 58

LIST OF FIGURES iii CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03

Figure 6.1 Map of Existing Zoning Districts in Downtown Minneapolis 109 Figure 6.2 Map of Downtown Core Expansion 110 Figure 6.3 Map of Proposed Zoning Districts 117

Figure 7.1 Infrastructure Investments in the Project Area 129 CHAPTER 1 Figure 7.2 Examples of Historic Buildings for Potential Designation 131 Figure 7.3 Projected Development in the Project Area 132 Figure 7.4 Map of Developable Sites 133 Figure 7.5 Historic Buildings for Potential Designation 134 Figure 7.5 Historic Buildings for Potential Designation (Continued) 135

Figure 7.6 Map of Springboard Project Sites 137 CHAPTER 2 Figure 7.7 Springboard Project A 138 Figure 7.8 Springboard Project B 140 Figure 7.9 Springboard Project C 142 Figure 7.10 Springboard Project D 144 Figure 7.11 Springboard Project E 146

Figure 7.12 Springboard Project F 148 CHAPTER 3 Figure 7.13 Springboard Project G 150 Figure 7.14 Springboard Project H 152 Figure 7.15 Springboard Project I 154 Figure 7.16 Springboard Project J 156 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED iv ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTH LOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Chapter One Introduction andBackground 1

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

The primary objective of the Minneapolis Downtown East/North order to engage the general public and to seek their input into the Loop Master Plan is to encourage renewed interest in living, work- master plan as it evolved (see Figure 1.1). ing, and shopping in downtown Minneapolis through the creation

of a high-quality, easy-to-use physical environment, one that In addition, over the course of the year the work program followed CHAPTER 1 enhances the everyday urban experience. As such, the primary a general planning sequence beginning with data collection and intent of this master plan is to: problem identification. Once this was completed, data analysis was initiated and various alternatives for potential outcomes were • Promote strategies that integrate transportation and land use generated. These alternatives were reviewed and discussed by the

planning in order to encourage and realize more complete Technical Advisory Committee, the Steering Committee and the CHAPTER 2 neighborhoods and communities; general public in order to develop and strengthen a series of recommendations and proposals for action and implementation. • Capitalize on the introduction of improved public transit – What follows is a fully developed master plan that seeks to re- light rail transit, commuter rail, bus rapid transit and other establish the goals and priorities for emerging redevelopment

modes – and the prospect of making the downtown less auto- within the Project Area. CHAPTER 3 dependent; In accordance with directives established at the outset of the • Foster the development of mixed-use precincts that combine project, the master plan must be developed from the City’s exist- commerce and housing; ing land use plan and zoning ordinances (see Figure 6.1, page 109).

Therefore existing ordinances, prior planning reports, and base CHAPTER 4 • Set forth initiatives that will encourage the design and deliv- maps were analyzed. The Consultant Team also carried out exten- ery of high quality public spaces and streetscapes. sive fieldwork and collected site photographs and sketches for subsequent use and analysis. Field collection and site surveys PROJECT WORK PLAN AND PROCESS were compiled into three Technical Memoranda that were used for subsequent review and analysis by the Consultant Team: CHAPTER 5 In the summer of 2001, the City of Minneapolis Planning Department commissioned a consultant team led by IBI Group to • Technical Memorandum: Background Review and Problem complete a Master Plan for two districts adjacent to the Downtown Identification; Core – Downtown East and the North Loop. In addition, the 5th • Technical Memorandum: Building Blocks from Existing Studies; Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) corridor was included because it • Technical Memorandum: Site Inventory and Analysis. CHAPTER 6 joins these two districts together through the Downtown Core (see Figure 1.2, page 3). Throughout the second half of 2001 and the These technical memoranda are on file with the City of first half of 2002, the Consultant Team met on a regular basis Minneapolis Planning Department. with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) convened specifically CHAPTER 7 for this project. During that time, the Consultant Team also con- ORGANIZATION OF THE MASTER PLAN ducted four workshops for a larger group of stakeholders – The Figure 1.1 Steering Committee, which included civic, neighborhood, and The analysis, findings, and recommendations associated with the Work Program and Process business leaders. Likewise, four Open Houses were conducted in Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan project are arranged in

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2 10/10/03 CHAPTER ONE –INTRODUCTION ANDBACKGROUND Source: Metropolitan Council Figure 1.2Map ofHiawathaLightRailTransit (LRT)Corridor DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 1 N 3

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

order to help the reader understand both the broad character and regional development issues and moves on to an analysis of the detailed complexity of the subject matter. Chapters are struc- development forecasts for office, residential, retail, and lodging tured to tell the story of the project’s unfolding evolution. Maps, markets in Downtown Minneapolis over a twenty year timeframe.

photos, tables, and illustrative renderings support the text of each The chapter also discusses the level of influence that light rail CHAPTER 1 chapter. transit has in these forecasts and the likely locations for TOD. In doing so, it ties expected market conditions to an analysis of land This Master Plan report is organized into seven chapters as follows: use planning issues.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Chapter 4: Land Use Plan CHAPTER 2

Chapter 2: Planning Complete Communities Chapter Four begins by envisioning the Project Area as thirteen smaller districts or precincts, each of which is the basis for devel- Chapter Two outlines the key principals necessary for encouraging oping a Complete Community. The second part of the chapter

so-called “Complete Communities” in a mature downtown setting. summarizes the development and public presentation of three dif- CHAPTER 3 Complete Communities are neighborhoods or districts that are ferent land use scenarios that were compiled in order to discuss self-sufficient by virtue of interconnected transit and commercial three different paths of growth and change that might be pur- environments that are, in turn, surrounded by a diversity of hous- sued: decentralization of the existing downtown core, continued ing types, services, and amenities. The chapter begins with a dis- centralization of the existing downtown core, and expansion of the

cussion and primer on the goals and objectives of transit-oriented existing downtown core. The third and main part of the chapter is CHAPTER 4 development (TOD) and mixed-use development. Next, the chapter a detailed description of the recommended land use plan and looks at some of the wider, emerging trends in urban residential what it looks like on a precinct-by-precinct basis. development in U.S. cities today and considers how these trends might come to play in shaping Complete Communities. This is Chapter 5: Urban Design Plan followed by a discussion of general strategies for downtown com- CHAPTER 5 mercial environments. This section is particularly geared toward Chapter Five sets out the Urban Design Plan for the Project Area. renewing the vigor of downtown retail – especially neighborhood- The Urban Design Plan includes a broad range of analysis and based retail meant to serve a growing downtown population. The recommendations aimed at improving the character and quality of chapter ends with a discussion of the general goals and recom- the built environment at a variety of scales – from the broad mendations for transportation, transit, and parking. scope of Downtown as a whole to potential solutions for specific CHAPTER 6 locations. The chapter begins by addressing the nuts-and-bolts of Chapter 3: Market Analysis how the public realm should be improved by addressing the ways in which it is experienced while moving from place-to-place. The Chapter Three summarizes the chief findings of a detailed market second section of the chapter offers two case studies, each with CHAPTER 7 analysis of the Project Area. The intention of the market analysis specific proposals for how to tackle two different kinds of urban is to identify the existing economic potential within the Project design challenges. The third section looks in detail at ways to Area and to envision and describe the possibilities for future improve the overall experience of Downtown East and the North development in the Project Area. The chapter begins by looking at Loop by considering the role that “Gateways” and “View Corridors”

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 4 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

N LEGEND

HIAWATHA LRT (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

TRANSIT STATIONS CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED RAIL TRANSIT LINES NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL 5TH ST. STREETSCAPE PROJECT

PROJECT AREA FOR DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTH LOOP

MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 PROJECT AREA FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY MULTI-MODAL STATION AREA PLAN

PROJECT AREA FOR ELLIOT PARK MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 3

MISSISSIPPI RIVER CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6

HIAWATHA LRT CHAPTER 7

Figure 1.3 Map of Project Area

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 5 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

play in the wider built environment of the Downtown and in the key development objectives and projects that will be necessary to City as a whole. The fourth section of the chapter is an in-depth implement the vision called for in the master plan. Additionally, it look at the relationship between the design of individual build- describes individual springboard projects that are intended to be

ings, the intensity of land uses, and the overall character of the illustrative demonstrations of how the principles of the plan are CHAPTER 1 city. The chapter ends by presenting images of three-dimensional applied in selected locations throughout the Project Area. Finally, computer models and character sketches that are developed from the chapter includes an extensive implementation matrix with the information in the recommended Land Use Plan. block-by-block information that will need to be considered in packaging any development proposal that falls within the bound-

Chapter 6: Modifications to the Local Regulatory Framework aries of the Project Area. CHAPTER 2

Chapter Six considers how the City’s primary regulatory tool for PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES guiding new projects – the Zoning Code – could be adapted or modified in ways that remove existing barriers to the vision con- The boundaries for the Project Area include a central spine, run-

templated. The chapter begins by reviewing the basic zoning cat- ning along 5th Street and two larger districts on both the east and CHAPTER 3 egories that are found within the Project Area and evaluates how west sides of the Downtown Core – Downtown East and the North well each category is suited to accommodating the kinds of Loop. The extent of the Project Area boundaries are illustrated on change sought in forging Complete Communities. This analysis is the Project Area map (see Figure 1.3, page 5), and Project Area followed by a series of proposals and recommendations for how Aerial photo (see Figure 1.4, page 8).

the Zoning Code should be modified in order to help the develop- CHAPTER 4 ment community overcome the challenges inherent in the existing Center Spine: The “Center Spine” portion of the Project Area is zoning categories, especially as they relate to specific develop- defined as one-half block on the north and south sides of South ment precincts with the Project Area. Finally, the chapter consid- 5th Street between Hennepin Avenue and Third Avenue South. ers enhancements to the City’s regulatory framework that would help to ensure that improvements to downtown infrastructure and Downtown East: The “Downtown East” portion of the Project Area CHAPTER 5 public amenities proceed in pace with new building development. is defined as the area that stretches between Third Avenue South on the west, Interstate 35W on the east, and Washington Avenue Chapter 7: Implementation and Phasing Plan South on the north. The southern boundary of this district is irreg- ular and runs from the intersection of Third Avenue South and Chapter Seven considers the issue of how and when the vision South 10th Street, eastward to Centennial Place and South 10th CHAPTER 6 called for in previous chapters of this document might be imple- Street. From there it runs northward two blocks along Centennial mented into the physical environment of the Project Area. The Place and Chicago Avenue to the intersection of South 8th Street first section of Chapter Seven is intended to help the City estab- and Chicago Avenue and then turns east once again, running lish priorities for moving forward with enhancements to the public along South 8th Street to I-35W. CHAPTER 7 realm and infrastructure. The second section of the chapter is intended to help the development community understand the The North Loop: The “North Loop” portion of the Project Area is potential that lies within the Project Area. By drawing on informa- defined as the area that stretches from Hennepin Avenue on the tion derived from the market analysis, Chapter Seven presents the east to Seventh Avenue North on the west. (South of North 5th

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 6 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

Street, the western boundary of the Project Area approximates the Plan to formulate policies, tools, and mechanisms that can be line of Seventh Avenue North). Washington Avenue North forms used to effect the kinds of proposals brought forward in both the northern boundary of this district. North 7th Street and North master planning efforts.

10th Street comprise the southern boundary of the district. CHAPTER 1 Ballpark Planning Efforts: Several years ago, a blue ribbon com- CONCURRENT PLANNING EFFORTS mittee was established by the Minneapolis City Council and others to undertake research concerning the potential siting and con- Three other master planning efforts are currently underway or struction of an urban ballpark in Downtown Minneapolis. Given

recently completed in Downtown Minneapolis, each of which has the direction of the committee and the existing City policy at the CHAPTER 2 some measure of overlap with the goals and objectives of the time when this project was established, the Consultant Team was Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan. directed to pursue planning options for the North Loop based on the assumption that if a stadium was to be built, it would be Downtown Minneapolis Multi-Modal Station Area Plan: In con- sited on or above the existing surface parking lots south of North

junction with the introduction of the NorthStar Commuter Rail to 5th Street and east of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. CHAPTER 3 the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region, Hennepin County has under- Because the site for even the potential existence of a downtown taken a master planning effort in the vicinity of North 5th Street baseball stadium cannot be confirmed at this time, a whole range and Fifth Avenue North in the North Loop neighborhood of of site-specific information concerning stadium planning efforts Downtown Minneapolis. The Project Area for the County’s study has not been addressed in detail.

extends in a one-half mile radius around the intermodal station CHAPTER 4 site. Hennepin County’s Multi-Modal Station Area Plan was com- Care was taken to fully understand the issues discussed in each pleted in early 2002. of these three parallel projects and to incorporate their findings and recommendations into the Downtown East/North Loop Master Elliot Park Master Plan: Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc. (EPNI) has Plan. recently completed a neighborhood-based master planning CHAPTER 5 process for the Elliot Park neighborhood, which is located in the southeast corner of Downtown Minneapolis. The intention of that exercise was to develop ideas and scenarios for refining the character of the neighborhood while attracting new development to this part of Downtown. The Project Area for the EPNI master plan CHAPTER 6 overlaps the Downtown East portion of the Project Area. The Elliot Park Master Plan was completed in the summer of 2002. Similar to the Hennepin County study in the North Loop Area, the findings of the EPNI study were carefully considered as a base of work that CHAPTER 7 can be responded to while carrying out the Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan.

It is the explicit intent of the Downtown East/North Loop Master

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 7 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 1

N LEGEND

HIAWATHA LRT (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

TRANSIT STATIONS CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED RAIL TRANSIT LINES PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

Figure 1.4 Aerial Photo of Project Area

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 8 ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTH LOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Chapter Two Planning CompleteCommunities 9

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Chapter Two presents a new paradigm for growth and change in need for Downtown Minneapolis to engage in “complete” communi- Downtown Minneapolis: an integrated approach to transportation ty planning. Planning Complete Communities calls for the inter- planning, land use planning, and urban design aimed at promot- weaving of transportation planning, land use planning, and urban

ing the development of so-called “Complete Communities” within design planning into an inter-related set of policies that mutually CHAPTER 1 the Project Area. Complete Communities are neighborhoods or dis- reinforce one another. The result of such policies would be the tricts that are self-sufficient by virtue of interconnected transit realization of a collection of neighborhoods that forge and retain and commercial environments, and are surrounded by a diversity their own distinct identities while still being tightly connected to of housing types, services, and amenities. Establishing Complete the Downtown as a whole. More importantly, each neighborhood or

Communities within Downtown East and the North Loop is the pri- precinct is complete in the sense that it is self-sufficient by virtue CHAPTER 2 mary goal and vision of this master plan. Overall, the aim of this of interconnected transit and commercial environments, surrounded chapter is to set precedents for how growth and change should by a diversity of housing types, services, and amenities. occur in order to realize a healthier collection of new and existing neighborhoods in the very heart of the city. In short, complete communities are those which provide the

opportunity for people to live, work, shop and play within the CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER SUMMARY boundaries of their own neighborhoods. Complete communities offer these amenities in a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere where Chapter Two outlines the key principals necessary for encouraging public transit is at least as convenient as the automobile. so-called Complete Communities in a mature downtown setting.

The chapter begins with a discussion and primer on the goals and TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) CHAPTER 4 objectives of transit-oriented development and mixed-use development. Next, the chapter looks at some of the wider, emerging In pursuit of the larger goal of building Complete Communities, trends in urban residential development in U.S. cities today and instituting land use policies that inherently reduce auto depend- considers how these trends might come to play in shaping ence is paramount. The integration of transportation and land use Complete Communities. This is followed by a discussion of gener- strategies in support of this goal is known as Transit-Oriented CHAPTER 5 al strategies for downtown commercial environments. This section Development (TOD), a strategy that is gaining widespread accept- is particularly geared toward renewing the vigor of downtown ance in both urban and suburban centers across the country. The retail – especially neighborhood based retail meant to serve a central planning ingredient for TOD is convenient access to revi- growing downtown population. The chapter ends with a discus- talized public transit service – commuter rail, light rail transit sion of the general goals and recommendations for transportation, (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and city bus systems – that directly CHAPTER 6 transit, and parking. serve medium- and/or high-density nodes of mixed use development. TOD is the creation or restoration of compact, pedestrian- Because a large proportion of space within the peripheral districts friendly, neighborhoods that contain housing, workplaces, shops, surrounding the core is underdeveloped and underutilized, new entertainment, schools, parks and civic facilities – all within easy CHAPTER 7 opportunities exist to capture the economic potential of these dis- walking distance of a prominent transit station. TOD promotes the tricts and to update the public realm through more cohesive inter- increased use of transit, particularly rail transit, because it is locat- action between downtown districts. The driving philosophy behind ed at the “hub” of neighborhood uses and activities. Likewise it de- the creation of the Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan is the prioritizes the need to build more highways, roads, and parking

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 10 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

ramps to accommodate single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) commuting. tered within a single neighborhood, within a single city block, and in some cases within a single building (see Figure 2.1). The main premise of TOD is that people are able to live, work,

shop, play and generally find all of the necessities of life within a Compact Development: Facilitating a wide range of land uses CHAPTER 1 given node, or within a nearby node that is conveniently and within a one-quarter to one-half mile radius of transit nodes quickly accessible by transit. Such configurations of uses and means that most everything in the neighborhood is no more than activities mean that most, if not all, of the day-to-day trips that a five or ten minute walk away. Smaller lots, reduced setbacks, one makes can be done easily by low impact ways of moving and greater attention to infill development opportunities make it

about – on foot, by bicycle, or by transit. Use of the private auto- possible to assemble different uses in a relatively small amount CHAPTER 2 mobile is limited to occasional non-routine trips. For example, an of geographic space. increasingly typical end-of-the-day commute for many people involves leaving work, picking up children, parents, or friends, Increased Density: Intensification of land uses makes the most of shopping for groceries, stopping off at the dry cleaner or the drug expensive land and infrastructure, while facilitating greater popu-

store, and then heading home. If land uses are organized to allow lation growth. CHAPTER 3 dense, mixed-use / mixed activity development, all of these trips can be accomplished quickly, conveniently, and cost-effectively Traditional Neighborhood Structure: Incorporating the concept of without a car. This is because TOD nodes have enough density to “town centers” into downtown neighborhoods creates a series of Figure 2.1 sustain commerce that provides the kind of goods and services strong individual neighborhoods, each of which is interconnected Mixed-Use Development Illustrative Sketch that people need on an everyday basis. to the CBD as a whole. CHAPTER 4 Based on the existing concentration of bus lines that feed Connectivity: An interconnected street grid facilitates easy link- Downtown Minneapolis, the construction of the LRT line, and the ages between places. prospect of new commuter rail lines, the Central Business District (CBD) will continue to be the most highly served collection of real Civic Identity / Public Realm: A mix of safe public spaces includ- CHAPTER 5 estate in the Upper Midwest. As such, the Project Area is an ideal ing parks, plazas and active, at-grade storefronts lends a “sense location to develop a series of medium and high-intensity TOD of place” and character to each node. nodes that provide both new places to live Downtown and new commercial spaces that will contribute to regional and neighbor- Pedestrian-Friendly: Taking measures to enhance pedestrian safety, hood prosperity. TOD is particularly effective at capturing the ben- function and aesthetic character improve neighborhood livability. CHAPTER 6 efits rapid transit can bring to communities. Successful TOD incorporates the following key objectives: Traffic calming: Widening sidewalks and reducing vehicular capacity on selected city streets “calms” vehicular traffic and creates a zone Multi-Modal: TOD allows for multiple modes of transit to access of activity designed to accommodate pedestrians, primarily, and to CHAPTER 7 and use the same stations thereby facilitating easy transfers facilitate vehicular access to building sites, secondarily. between different modes.

Mixed-Use Development: Different uses and activities are clus-

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 11 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies for Transit-Oriented Development MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT American dream. Until recently, living downtown offered few (TOD) and Mixed Use Development options beyond living in high-rise apartment buildings, many of Mixed-use development is the key component to forging vibrant, which lack social amenities.

• Promote downtown living by forging Complete Communities because it produces the density, variety, CHAPTER 1 Complete Communities that include and pedestrian life needed for lively, downtown living. Mixed-Use In the last decade, new kinds of housing choices have sprung up a mixture of transit stations, com- development is a more efficient model of downtown development in downtowns across the country making the benefits of living in mercial office, retail, housing, and than single-use development because it allows for multiple land the heart of the city more accessible to a wider array of people parks/plazas. uses – residential, commercial retail, commercial office, and with a wider array of lifestyle choices. These choices are rooted in

lodging – to be integrated into a single block, building or site. an expanded set of alternatives for kinds of residential units and CHAPTER 2 • All land uses within one-quarter Combining different activities into a single site, or building kinds of residential building types. As a result of expanded resi- mile of new and potential rail transit mixed-use development, makes better use of valuable land, allows dential options, downtowns are fueled with a new and growing stations in Downtown Minneapolis to for common site servicing, and provides economies of scale for population, a new sense of vitality, and a new set of demands for incorporate either high- or medium- other infrastructure costs. locally available goods and services. Downtowns are becoming density mixed-use development in healthier and more exciting, which in turn attracts more new resi- CHAPTER 3 order to capitalize on the benefits of Moreover, mixing residential and commercial uses adds vitality to dents and visitors. creating vibrant transit nodes that downtown neighborhoods by extending street activity beyond the can become the heart of both new typical nine-to-five work day. Because people are occupying, com- Emerging Trends: Renewed Forms of Residential Living and revitalized Downtown neighboring from, and going to buildings for longer periods of the day, the hoods. resultant "eyes on the street” add to a feeling of neighborhood Live / Work Residential: Live / Work units are characterized by the CHAPTER 4 safety and community care. The ability to walk to work, shopping, flexible arrangement of space that allows the occupants to con- • Medium-density mixed-use develop- recreation, and entertainment venues on pedestrian-friendly duct business in the same space that serves as their primary resi- ment (generally 5 – 14 floors) should streets reduces reliance upon the private automobile and encour- dence. These units are usually built at-grade and are designed to be considered the norm for new con- ages use of public transit. have direct-access to, and a high-level of visibility from city CHAPTER 5 struction and rehabilitation projects streets and sidewalks – much like retail stores. In many cities, in the Project Area. This recommen- In order to demonstrate the concepts and benefits of mixed-use live / work units are especially popular with artists and people dation is made specifically because development, a series of Mixed-Use Development Typologies were who own small businesses. These units are ideal for professionals medium-density, mixed-use projects investigated and assessed. In each case the ability to include in computer services, graphic arts, and other emerging job classi- have already become the norm in required parking, either underground, or concealed above grade, fications who do not necessarily require a morning commute to CHAPTER 6 most parts of the Project Area, par- was analyzed and ranked (see Figure 2.2, page 13). the office. In some cases, live / work units have become especial- ticularly the Warehouse District. ly popular among those who enjoy being interconnected with and DOWNTOWN HOUSING exposed to the streetlife of the city outside. From a city-building • High-density mixed-use development perspective, live / work units are especially beneficial because Over the last half-century, downtowns in cities across America they create flexible spaces at street level that can be easily trans- (generally 14 floors and higher) CHAPTER 7 should be pursued primarily within have seen a dramatic decline in the number and kinds of residen- formed from residential spaces to retail spaces when market the Downtown Core, but also in a tial housing stock available for urban living. Perhaps the greatest demand changes. Live / work spaces are most always combined limited number of specifically desig- reason for this decline was rooted in the cultural dominance of the in a building that includes other styles and types of residential Continued on page 14 single-family, suburban-style house as the ultimate symbol of the units on the upper stories.

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 12 W Live/Work LW: Hotel H: Residential R: Retail RT: Office O: “good”, “better”and“best”. patterns andrankpossibletypologies as contain avarietyofmixeduse development opment’s design.Theexamplesattheright which integrateparkingwithin thedevel- parking rampsandtowardssolutions regards movementawayfrom single-use mixed-use projectswithinthe Project Area A keyingredienttodevelopingresponsive walks” atthecloseofbusinessday. use developmentswhich“rolluptheirside- cept overtheyears,buildinginstead,single Our citieshavemovedawayfromthiscon- ed “eyesonthestreet”requiredforsafety. “sense ofplace”andprovidingmuchneed- streets wellintotheevening,defininga Local downtownresidentspopulatethe encourages morepeopletolivedowntown. development form–ortypologyisthatit ment unitsabove.Theadvantageofthis with shopsonthegroundfloorandapart- not new–thinkofanybusystreetcorner “mixed-use” developments.Thisconceptis communities involvestheconceptof A keytoencouragingvibrantnewinner-city DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES MIXED-USE 10/10/03 CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Figure 2.2Mixed-Use DevelopmentTypologies DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Better Good Best Retail atstreet,parkingabove Urban Park/Plazaatstreet, eal lz akn MixedUse&Parking Retail, Plaza&Parking Retail atstreet,parking behind /below

parking below

RT RT Conceal parkingstructurebetween Retail atstreet,parkingabove Retail atstreet,parking below

adjacent developments

RT O/R

O/R

RT O/R parking, officeand residential Maximum retailat street, Office asPrimaryUse Maximum retailatstreet, parking behind/above Mixed Use(MU-O) Some retailatstreet, component above

parking below

RT O RT

O RT

R/H/LW

O O Residential asPrimaryUse parking, officecomponent Maximum retailat street, Maximum retailatstreet, parking behind/above capped byresidential Some retailatstreet, Mixed Use(MU-R)

parking below

R/H/LW R/H/LW

R/H/LW

R/H/LW R/H/LW 2 13

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies Continued from p. 12 nated locations outside of the core.

• New and rehabilitated low-density CHAPTER 1 residential development (generally 2-4 stories) should be pursued on sites within the Ninth Street Historic

Street. Mixing in commercial/retail CHAPTER 2 uses is only appropriate at designated neighborhood nodes. Figure 2.3 Single Residence Occupancy Floor Plan

Policies for Downtown Housing Single-Residence Occupancy (SROs): One of the downsides of CHAPTER 3 urban development that took place in many American cities during • City policy must encourage develop- the 1950s and 1960s was the destruction of residential buildings ment of downtown housing that is that were divided into Single Room Occupancies, or SROs. These twice the growth that is otherwise units combine the essential functions of a living space into a

suggested by current market predic- small, but affordable unit that is intended to be inhabited by just CHAPTER 4 tions (see Chapter Three). one person. While in many cities such as Minneapolis, SROs were Specifically, the City should ensure stigmatized as the housing of last resort, this kind of residential that adopted policies and ordinances unit is again gaining popularity, this time as a low cost “first Figure 2.4 support the creation of 10,000 new step” housing option. For instance, a recent trend aimed squarely Co-housing Residential Floor Plan residential units within the Project at the young seeks to provide either rental or ownership units that CHAPTER 5 Area over the next twenty years. are not much larger than a hotel room, 200 – 250 SF. Although Co-Housing Residential: Co-housing is a form of residential devel- such an option may not have widespread market appeal, the focus opment that combines aspects of individualized, or family-based • New housing should accommodate a on affordability offers a cost-competitive choice to those seeking home ownership, with those of communal living. Co-Housing proj- diversity of end users by offering to minimize housing and commuting costs. Likewise, SROs add ects provide a series of individual living units organized around various kinds of units, typologies / another layer of the income strata to downtown neighborhoods, communal facilities such as kitchens, dining areas, and recreation CHAPTER 6 configurations, and price points. thus avoiding the one-sided view that downtown is an enclave of and hobby rooms. They are programmed to accommodate a variety the wealthy (see Figure 2.3). of households living together under a single roof. Co-housing can • Medium and high-density residential be designed to accommodate any special needs or focus of the development will be highly required intended occupants – from young families starting out through to CHAPTER 7 within the Project Area (except with- elderly people looking for cooperative care. In the process, co- in the 9th Street Historic District). housing helps to foster new downtown communities, which in turn helps to reverse the otherwise prescribed “choice” of a single-family, suburban-style house (see Figure 2.4).

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 14 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies Continued Emerging Trends: New typologies for Downtown Residential Neighborhood Preservation: The Downtown East/North Loop Master Development Plan underscores and re-emphasizes the goals for neighborhood creation, preservation, and enhancement outlined in the Elliot • Residential and commercial uses will

Downtown living requires housing types other than the suburban Park Neighborhood Master Plan, the Hennepin County Multi-Modal CHAPTER 1 be combined in mixed-use develop- style, single-family home with its inefficient use of valuable land. Station Area Plan and the Update to the Historic Mills District ments throughout the Project Area; Downtown housing needs to be developed, designed, and built in Plan. The master plan also places the highest importance on the Land use ordinances and zoning such a way as to ensure that the resulting clusters ultimately evolution of downtown Minneapolis through quality residential codes should be revised as required become vibrant neighborhoods. Such places need to be served by areas. It articulates a vision of neighborhood development for spe-

to remove any obstacles that dis- neighborhood necessities such as grocery stores, hardware stores, cific precincts within the Project Area. The creation of new resi- CHAPTER 2 courage mixed-use development. dry cleaners, and mass transit. But they might also encourage a dential neighborhoods is essential to the future success of down- host of extras such as coffee shops, video stores, boutiques, town Minneapolis as a place to live, work and play. Bringing more • Issues of overshadowing, view pro- restaurants, and bars. If both Downtown East and the North Loop residential development opportunities to downtown is at the core tection, and other quality of life con- are going to meet the test of becoming Complete Communities, of the recommendations made within this report.

siderations should be regulated integrating residential development with commercial development CHAPTER 3 through development of comprehen- – particularly neighborhood services – must be a high priority. However, one issue that could inhibit neighborhood development sive design guidelines. within the Project Area is the potential for emerging NIMBYism. Realizing that downtown Minneapolis will only achieve its goals With each new housing unit filled, the possibility grows that com- • A percentage of all housing units for Downtown revitalization – especially in the Project Area – with munity residents, current or future, will oppose development that

should be set aside for non-market a substantial resident population, the Master Plan examined the comes after them. Unattended, this problem could hold the Project CHAPTER 4 and ”hard-to-house” tenants. range of possible housing types that should be used for new Area back from realizing the densities called for throughout the downtown residential projects (see Figure 2.5, page 16). plan. The result could be the loss of critical mass required to • A portion of all new housing should meet the goal of vibrant inner city communities. Efforts must be have larger, ground floor units, with Emerging Trends: New Opportunities and Challenges taken to ensure that beneficial development is not stalled under outdoor recreation areas that are the guise of ”Neighborhood Preservation.” In other words, neigh- CHAPTER 5 visually accessible from indoors to Affordable Housing: The provision of affordable housing is a policy borhoods are not static entities; they grow, change, and evolve accommodate families with chil- issue, not a specific physical typology. All new residential develop- over time. That sort of dynamism must be understood and dren. ment within the Project Area must conform to existing and new embraced as the number one reason that cities – particularly City policies on affordable housing. Affordable housing units downtowns – are exhilarating places to live. should be dispersed throughout the Project Area, not built in CHAPTER 6 stand-alone developments that run the risk of becoming ghet- COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTS toized. Progress on residential development in the Project Area should be monitored and tracked so that an annual review can In order to encourage the development of Complete Communities, assess how well the market place – as well as city funded proj- a wide range of commercial uses and activities should be inter- CHAPTER 7 ects – are meeting the challenges of providing affordable hous- woven within both the existing and emerging residential districts ing. The City should consider normalizing a policy for creating a of Downtown Minneapolis. In order to offer a truly urban set of res- set percentage of affordable housing units in all ownership and idential choices, it is important to create environments where resi- rental developments, regardless of how they are financed. dents might choose a lifestyle where it is possible to work and

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 15 units peracre)areexaminedatright. resultant densities(expressedindwelling ing forms–ortypologiesandtheir must beahighpriority. Alternativehous- ing optionsandchoiceintheProjectArea Communities,” providingarangeofhous- the testofbecoming“Complete East andtheNorthLooparegoingtomeet in DowntownMinneapolis.If new andpromotingexistingneighborhoods Housing isthecornerstoneofdeveloping 10/10/03 CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Figure 2.5Residential Typologies andDensities DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5-13 Floors 40-60 dwellingunits/acre Mid-Rise Residential 1-4 Floors 25-40 dwellingunits/acre Low-Rise Residential 14 FloorsandHigher 60-110 dwelling units /acre High-Rise Residential 2 16

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

shop in the same neighborhood as where they live. Even if resi- grade” neighborhood-based retail districts within the Project Area. dents choose not to live, work, and shop in the same given neigh- It should ensure that these retail centers are brought “on line” in borhood, the intermingling of commercial and residential uses is manageable increments and given every opportunity to take hold

critical to establishing a city that has activity, vitality, and safety and prosper. If a retail center is too ambitious for its marketplace, CHAPTER 1 at all times of the day and week. It is essential that there is and it flounders, the perception that the area is failing will always somebody coming and going – whether it is to and from prompt even further failure and begin a downward spiral that the their job or to and from their home. For this reason it’s important City would have a very difficult time recovering from. Several key to overcome the temptation to think of one part of downtown as principles should be the foundations for encouraging and sustain-

the place where people work, another part as the place where peo- ing retail within the Project Area and throughout Downtown CHAPTER 2 ple are entertained, another where people live, and so on. Minneapolis:

Commercial enterprise should be developed throughout the down- Concentrate on providing neighborhood commercial and retail serv- town, albeit in different densities and formats depending on the ices: Downtown should remain a strong regional center for goods

location or neighborhood, where that development is occurring. and services. However, another layer of goods and services also CHAPTER 3 High-density office development should continue to be concentrat- must be available to new and existing residents – neighborhood ed in the Downtown Core, but that does not mean that it should retail and commercial services. Emerging and existing neighbor- not and cannot exist at other scales and in other formats in other hoods will only be sustainable if they offer residents choices for parts of Downtown. Likewise, large hotels may choose to cluster obtaining life necessities within walking distance from home. Such

within the Core or close to the Convention Center, but if a develop- necessities include groceries, hardware, drycleaning, and other CHAPTER 4 er can “make a go” of lodging within another part of downtown, retail and professional services (see Figure 2.6, adjacent). that use should continue to be allowed and encouraged. Retail must be strategically located: While the concept of creating Retail Strategies space for neighborhood retail on every Downtown street corner is attractive, the reality is that the market is not likely to support a CHAPTER 5 A healthy retail landscape is a prime requisite for successfully high proliferation and variety of new spaces over the next twenty developing Complete Communities in Downtown East and the years (see Chapter Two: Market Analysis). Nevertheless, there are North Loop. New and current local residents need to be able to specific sub-sectors of retail that can be expected to grow in purchase the goods and services required to carry out their daily Downtown Minneapolis. Retail growth should be strategically clus- lives. It is critical for policymakers to remember the timeless real tered at LRT stations, major intersections, or along existing or CHAPTER 6 estate mantra “location, location, location.” To simply decree, for emerging commercial corridors such as Washington Avenue. Once example, that all ground floor, mixed-use development should be key locations are established, it is more likely that new start-ups designated retail would doom too many of those spaces to failure. and expansion might survive in mid-block or interstitial locations. The key is to pick strategic locations that will serve as catalysts CHAPTER 7 for further retail growth and to establish a sense of place sur- Establish critical mass at selected locations: Rather than desig- rounding those retail nodes. nate a requirement for at-grade retail everywhere within the Figure 2.6 Project Area, this plan proposes that retail development should Attributes of Complete Communities The City of Minneapolis must ensure the ability to develop “at- occur first at specifically identified streets and intersections, par-

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 17 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies for Retail Strategies ticularly those that already have a physical infrastructure that can pedestrians feel comfortable enough to shop. Providing interesting accommodate such uses. Three or four successful retail estab- architecture that allows for highly visible displays and street set- • Develop distinct neighborhood retail lishments clustered at a prominent neighborhood intersection will tings helps to create safe and attractive places to spend time in.

centers, which are at-grade and easily go a long way to establishing the critical mass required for a full- The goal is to have people buy more, enjoy themselves, and return CHAPTER 1 accessible to and from city sidewalks. fledged retail precinct to take root. If this corner retail develop- with their friends. Neighborhood retail centers should become the ment is further combined with urban design or place making ele- “living room” of the community, the focus of pride and identity. • Discourage second level retail in ments – a public plaza, public art and/or a water fountain, a Good design will enhance and encourage emerging neighborhood neighborhoods and districts outside vest-pocket park – so much the better. Once the retail precinct retail districts through a variety of different measures: of the established Downtown Core, takes hold, other retail facilities should be encouraged to “spill” CHAPTER 2 as it detracts from on-street pedes- down the side streets forming unbroken ”fingers” of retail devel- • Mixed-use buildings increase pedestrian activity not only dur- trian activity. opment that add to the character and identity of the precinct. The ing the day, but well into the evening. People will use the trick is to provide settings that are architecturally designed in sidewalks more if there is a mixture of residences, offices, • Designate full street corners as cat- such a way as to let retail develop and evolve at a speed that stores and entertainment in a single location rather than alyst community retail centers; enjoys continued market support, rather than designating too being spread out over several blocks; CHAPTER 3 encourage retail development to large a precinct from the start and watching it fail. continue along streets, but only once • Wide sidewalks: Sidewalks need to have enough room for street corner retail development has Flexible architecture: It’s important to allow for retail growth while friends to comfortably walk side-by-side. On major streets, matured. avoiding the temptation to overbuild retail spaces. Overbuilding sidewalks should be a minimum of 12’-0” wide. On side would result in too many spaces being vacant for too long, thus streets, 10’-0” sidewalks are adequate; CHAPTER 4 • Wherever possible, develop street undermining the feeling that Downtown is active and healthy. corner retail with an urban plaza Instead, it’s important to ensure that the ground-level design for • Shade and shelter: Shoppers need shelter from summer sun that includes neighborhood icons, any downtown building is scaled and proportioned in such a way and winter snow; public art and the like. that its use can be changed over the years from housing to office to retail space and back again, according to the demands of the • Spatial enclosure: In most cases, buildings need to be CHAPTER 5 • Encourage retail uses that promote marketplace. Buildings that are flexible in the kind of uses and placed up against the sidewalk to create a “sense of place.” extended hours of operation – such spaces they accommodate are more likely to survive because they The exception is in blocks where there is already market as restaurants, coffee shops, book- can be adapted with changing times. For instance, a century ago, demand for wider sidewalks that could accommodate outdoor stores, and the like – in pursuit of it was unlikely that anyone foresaw the Warehouse District as an cafes; CHAPTER 6 city streets that are lively at most enclave of creative enterprises, upscale residential units, and hours of the day and night. trendy entertainment venues. But because the buildings in this • On-street parking creates a greater sense of pedestrian safe- part of Downtown were designed to be flexible, they were easily ty because there is a physical barrier between moving cars • Prohibit surface parking lots between adapted to new uses when it became more profitable to ware- and strolling pedestrians; house goods elsewhere. sidewalks and retail storefronts. CHAPTER 7 • Sidewalk “bulb-outs” at street intersections reduce the width • On-street parking is encouraged Ensure that design enhances retail environments: The City’s ability of roadway and, therefore, the width of the crosswalk, making wherever practicable. to encourage good building design and good street design is criti- it easier for pedestrians to see cross traffic, and shortening Continued on page 19 cal for creating walkable neighborhoods. It is important that the distance needed to walk across the street. At the same

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 18 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

time, because bulb-outs break the otherwise uniform line of Encourage Business Improvement Districts (BIDs): Shopping dis- Policies Continued from p. 18 street curbs, they force motorists to slow down as they per- tricts will be stronger if retailers band together to form Business ceive a narrower space to drive through (even though drive Improvement Districts (BIDs). BIDs can ensure a lively streetlife • Maintain and enhance existing

lanes are actually the same size as streets without bulb- by constantly refining their image through banners, other adver- CHAPTER 1 restrictions on all new auto-oriented outs); tising programs, street festivals, and the like. In-store promotions development. Encourage new devel- often link merchandise presentations with neighborhood or dis- opment at sites where auto-oriented • Narrow car lanes: Providing as few car lanes as practical and trict-wide events. development already exists. narrowing them accordingly helps to control the speed and

pace of vehicles and minimize street pavement; Discourage Further Auto-Oriented Retail: Developments that cater CHAPTER 2 primarily to automobile traffic – service stations, fast food stores, Policies for Transportation, Transit and • Benches, planters or low walls: People like to rest and enjoy drive-in banks, strip shopping centers and the like – are counter Parking being at the center of activity. Retail health is often tied to productive to the goal of establishing pedestrian-friendly realms the ability to stop and “people watch”; within the Downtown Minneapolis. Their inherent need for multiple

• Improve operations at congested curb cuts and large, highly visible surface parking lots do little to CHAPTER 3 intersections: Initiate measures • Aligned building facades lend a greater sense of security encourage construction of mixed-use residential developments. aimed at alleviating traffic difficul- because they minimize places for people to hide; Although selected kinds of auto-oriented development are neces- ties at the key intersections identi- sary to ensure that new and existing residents have access to fill- fied in the Downtown Transportation • Building facades should provide a variety of styles, regarding ing stations and auto repair shops, they are best located at the Study as being highly congested. storefront materials, colors and signage; avoid boring, blank outer edges of downtown in close proximity to the existing freeway CHAPTER 4 Such measures could include facades; system. Beyond what is considered a minimum number of essen- improvements in the design of inter- tial auto-oriented neighborhood services, the City should take the sections and changes in traffic pat- • Doors facing the sidewalk: People will use the sidewalk if position that subsequent auto-oriented and “drive- thru” facilities terns to reduce volumes through storefronts open directly onto the sidewalks rather than open- will not be permitted within the Project Area. such intersections. ing into the interior corridors of buildings; CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION, TRANSIT AND PARKING • Achieve effective interface with the • Linear Buildings: One way to fill vacant lots on retail streets Hiawatha LRT Route: The need exists is by the design of linear buildings along pedestrian streets. A starting point for this project was to address the inter-related to effectively coordinate the Buildings that are long and narrow encourage the appear- issues of transportation, transit, and parking in order to establish CHAPTER 6 Hiawatha LRT service with bus serv- ance of more retail frontage than what local conditions can a solid framework on which to evaluate several different options ice as well as pedestrian and bicycle economically support; for refining the land use plan in the Project Area. circulation within the Project Area. • Large storefronts encourage window-shopping; In order to create the kind of environment that will allow Complete Communities to germinate in the Project Area, the City must first • Relieve bus congestion during the CHAPTER 7 PM peak period: Provision of addi- • Upper story windows facing the street from residential, lodg- seek ways to reduce automobile dependence. This challenge must tional exclusive HOV/bus lanes, con- ing, or office spaces allow for natural surveillance, thus lend- be dealt with effectively at two different levels. Some of solidation of bus routes into shuttle / ing a sense of security. Downtown’s peripheral neighborhoods have languished for many Continued on page 20 years as the fallout of an otherwise very successful strategy for

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 19 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies Continued from p. 19 intensifying land uses in the Downtown Core. More specifically, At issue is the pursuit of land use planning that promotes compact many of the buildings and activities in the North Loop and espe- development, which in turn complements new rail transit infrastruc- circulator services should be pur- cially in Downtown East were cleared and replaced with surface ture. In response to this challenge, land use planning efforts must sued to accomplish this objective.

parking lots. For many years, these lots offered a stopgap measure be geared toward enabling residents to live in close proximity to CHAPTER 1 in that they provided ample parking for a growing downtown and where they work, shop, and play, thereby reducing unnecessary auto- • Improve the quality of downtown an increasingly mobile working population. But times have mobile trips. In addition, land use planning must focus on providing transit stops: Placement of bus stops should be further examined changed. The city has grown. Under-utilizing such a vast area of commercial activity in close proximity to both new and established with MetroTransit. In addition, potentially lucrative property is counterproductive to maintaining transit routes as a way to stem the flow of single occupancy vehicles funding for provision of additional a healthy, vital downtown. Surface lots that currently serve (SOVs) arriving in and moving around Downtown Minneapolis on a CHAPTER 2 and/or improved bus shelters Downtown commuters must be re-developed for higher and better daily basis. At the same time there is a need to balance the relation- should be actively pursued. Design uses that are served by a mix of transportation modes. Given the ship between transportation investments and development density guidelines should be devised to value of downtown land, it is not possible to expect that each and in order to ensure that downtown vehicular traffic is not unduly reinforce existing policies and regu- every existing surface stall will be replaced by a stall in a new inhibited by future development.

lations that call for integration of structured ramp. The commuter trips represented by at least CHAPTER 3 bus stops / shelters within new some of those stalls must be replaced by commuters using public Parallel to the issues related to land use planning is the observa- building projects – both public and transit. tion that most existing downtown parking, either in single-use private. parking structures or on surface lots, is generally not pedestrian- Because of the relatively high value of downtown land, it costs friendly. Efforts need to be made to retrofit existing parking struc-

• Address the needs of bus layover more for developers to assemble a site. The city must therefore tures and ensure that future parking facilities meet design guide- CHAPTER 4 space: The City, in consultation with maximize the utility of each site – as well as its eventual tax lines that deal with their functional and aesthetic presence within Metro Transit, should determine to capacity – by allowing for, indeed requiring, that each site is built the community. what extent bus layover space is to a minimum acceptable density. Moreover, it is not wise to build needed in the Project Area and how residential units that automatically have two dedicated parking best to locate and design such spaces apiece. It is incumbent upon the City, as a leader in the CHAPTER 5 spaces. region, to plan communities that allow for households that have just one car or less. • Maintain existing requirements and encourage new requirements for the In cities where downtown parking supply per employee increases, the City’s award-winning Travel percentage of people choosing transit and walking / biking to travel CHAPTER 6 Demand Management (TDM) strate- downtown almost always decreases. Similarly, in cities that provide gies in Downtown Minneapolis. more transit and less downtown parking, the converse is true. Land that might have been used for parking is developed for higher and • Expand the existing UPass and better uses that are more productive in building the city’s tax base. MetroPass discounted transit pass CHAPTER 7 Thus, the continued accommodation of convenient downtown park- programs for employees and residents of Downtown Minneapolis with a pro- ing, much of it in single-use parking structures, is counterproductive gram that allows developers to con- to the desire to reduce auto dependence within the Downtown Core Continued on page 21 generally, and within the Project Area specifically.

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 20 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 2

Policies Continued from p. 20 hibit construction of new commercial should include – or continue to • Develop standards for and set parking structures within a block of include – consideration of design as struct fewer parking stalls in “parking maximums:” As a means downtown LRT stations. Likewise the well as corollary uses (within the exchange for purchasing transit to reign in the over-construction of City should eliminate the on-site same structure). Specifically, these CHAPTER 1 passes (for a limited time period) for parking, the City should establish parking requirements for infill devel- guidelines should encourage con- all residents, employees, or students. policies and ordinances that incre- opment projects on development sites struction of underground parking mentally reduce requirements for that are less than one-quarter block structures wherever possible. When • Consider “In Lieu” fees, where providing new parking in direct pro- in size. below-grade parking is not feasible, developer fees are used to fund CHAPTER 2 portion to expansion of transit serv- the guidelines should call for the public parking instead of requiring ice. The City’s Zoning Code should • Phase-out existing surface lots with- following: individual facilities to provide off- be revised and amended to include in two blocks of all downtown LRT street parking. standards for “parking maximums,” stations by instituting a five or - Above ground parking struc- rather than “parking minimums” for seven year timeline for conversion to tures should be incorporated • Develop a Comprehensive Parking CHAPTER 3 all new construction. In support of other uses. In an effort to encour- into mixed-use projects in such Policy for Downtown Minneapolis: the City’s goal of moving towards age higher and better uses, explore a way that the parking struc Although it is beyond the scope of greater reliance upon alternate options for raising property taxes on ture is “lined” with or surround the Downtown East/North Loop modes of transportation over the stand-alone surface parking lots to ed by active uses facing the Master Plan, the City needs to next twenty years, the zoning code be commensurate with the rates street.; develop a comprehensive parking CHAPTER 4 should be modified to gradually that would be paid if the site was policy for the entire central busi- scale back existing parking require- fully developed. - All parking structures should ness district. ments for downtown office uses from limit vehicular access to no a minimum of 3.33 stalls per 1,000 • On-street parking permits: Continue more than one combined • Discontinue Expansion of the City’s

per Gross Floor Area (GFA) to an ulti- to provide for a limited number of entrance / egress point per CHAPTER 5 existing Perimeter Parking Policy mate maximum of 1.0 stall per resident on-street parking permit block located as close as possi- within the Project Area: The City’s 1,000 GFA. Likewise the Code programs to discourage workers ble to the middle of the block current perimeter parking policy should be revised to gradually scale from parking on downtown residen- face.; should not be expanded any further back existing parking requirements tial streets. Consider market pricing because it discourages public tran-

for downtown residential uses to one for on-street parking through the - Pedestrian entry / stairs should CHAPTER 6 sit ridership, promotes inefficient stall per residential unit. metering of on-street and residential be located mid-block to allow land use and is not pedestrian- permit parking programs to reduce for high-visibility uses at street friendly. In addition, the existing • Eliminate or reduce required parking spillover problems. corners. perimeter parking policy conflicts in specific circumstances: The City with the ability to discourage con- should eliminate or reduce required • Devise Guidelines for Parking CHAPTER 7 struction of future park-and-ride parking in new developments adja- Structures to promote higher stan- structures within close proximity to cent to LRT Stations within the dards of development within the the LRT Corridor. Project Area. The City should pro- Project Area. Such guidelines

CHAPTER TWO – PLANNING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 21 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTH LOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Chapter Three ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 Market Analysis 22

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

As a foundation for studying what sort of land use change might for the entire Central Business District (CBD), which includes the be necessary in the Project Area, it was first necessary to deter- entire area bounded by the freeway loop, the Mississippi River, mine and understand the development opportunities that are and Plymouth Avenue North (see Figure 3.1, page 24). The find-

likely to materialize in downtown over the next 20 years. ings presented focus on long-term outlooks and seek to provide CHAPTER 1 three important pieces of information: (1) reasonable forecasts of CHAPTER SUMMARY the volume of supportable development; (2) insights into key factors driving downtown development, and (3) an identification of Chapter Three summarizes the chief findings of a detailed market the niches and locations offering potential for new development in

analysis of the Project Area. Undertaken in the summer and early the Project Area. CHAPTER 2 fall of 2001, the intention of the market analysis is to identify the existing economic potential within the Project Area and to envision The full, detailed text containing the research and analysis in sup- and describe the possibilities for future development in the Project port of these findings is presented in a background document Area. The chapter begins by looking at regional development entitled Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan Market Analysis

issues and moves on to an analysis of development forecasts for and Development Forecast. The remainder of this chapter CHAPTER 3 office, residential, retail, and lodging markets in Downtown includes a summary of the highlights and salient portions of that Minneapolis over a 20-year time frame. This chapter also discuss- analysis. es the level of influence that light rail transit has in these forecasts and the likely locations for development, thus tying expected REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

market conditions to an analysis of land use planning issues. CHAPTER 4 The Twin Cities regional economy has shown steady and consis- After conducting field research, but before proceeding with recom- tent growth over the last decade. In the near-term future, growth mendations for changes to the Project Area, it was important to is expected to slow along with the national economy. Over a long- undertake a market analysis to determine likely levels of real term time frame, however, the Twin Cities economy is expected to estate development within the Project Area over the course of the show continued positive growth – at rates roughly comparable to CHAPTER 5 next 20 years. The chapter presents a summary of findings projected national growth – in employment, gross product, and regarding the likely volume, character, and locations of various personal income. types of development in Downtown East, the North Loop and throughout Downtown Minneapolis. It describes the likely develop- Professional services industries comprise the largest and fastest ment patterns that would occur if the market were left uninflu- growing segments of the Twin Cities economy. Continued growth CHAPTER 6 enced by new public policies. As such, it sets forth no specific in these sectors provides high paying jobs, driving growth in per- plan or statement of objectives for future development. Rather it sonal income and creating new opportunities for high quality com- provides a view of likely development patterns that might be mercial and residential development. expected to evolve even in the absence of public policy measures. CHAPTER 7 For this reason, it provides a baseline framework to help identify the Project Area’s key planning challenges.

Initial research and analysis of market conditions was conducted

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 23 Market AnalysisandDevelopmentForecasts. District (CBD)or“downtown”,inChapterThree: referenced aseithertheCentralBusiness NOTE: Thismapillustratesthegeneralarea LEGEND 10/10/03 MARKET AREABOUNDARY PROJECT AREABOUNDARY PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) Figure 3.1Map ofDowntownMinneapolis MarketAnalysisArea CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 3 N 24

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS AND ISSUES methodologies. The first of these applies ten-year regional employment forecasts (prepared by economy.com, a nationally rec- Over a 20-year time frame, the market – uninfluenced by new ognized economic forecasting firm), and then assumes that the

policies – would be able to support the following volumes of addi- CBD will maintain its current share of regional office employment. CHAPTER 1 tional development: The second methodology applies forecasted CBD employment growth rates (as forecasted by the Metropolitan Council) to the • Office use will maintain its role as the dominant use and pri- current office inventory. The third methodology projects historical mary driving force in downtown development. employment and development trends – considering 20-year time

• The lodging sector will achieve the highest growth rates, driv- frames – into the future. Collectively, these three methodologies CHAPTER 2 en in part by an infusion of increased convention activity. define a range of roughly 16 to 18 million square feet of office • Residential development will play a prominent role, nearly space over a 20-year span. The analysis then adjusts these fig- keeping pace with office growth rates. ures to account for factors such as the difficulty of new develop- • Retail development opportunities will face significant con- ment, an increasingly competitive environment, and the likelihood

straints, with opportunities limited to specific niches (see of demolitions and redevelopment within the existing downtown CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2, page 26). inventory (which would subtract from the projected net increases). Overall, given the range of factors considered and the relatively These projections are supported by a variety of different data sets close convergence of projections based on three different method- and methodologies, which are presented by individual sector ologies, this forecast presents a reasonably likely range of new

analyses and are included in the Background Report. The key find- office development for the CBD. CHAPTER 4 ings of these analyses follow (see Figure 3.3, page 28). Downtown Core Area Expansion Issues: In order to accommodate Office Development the potential market, the area currently defined by the City as the Downtown Core would have to expand – primarily to the east – by Office Market Profile: The Minneapolis Central Business District the equivalent of eight to twelve fully developed downtown blocks. CHAPTER 5 (CBD) occupies the dominant position in the Twin Cities office In recent development practice in downtown Minneapolis, this has market. The CBD contains a total of approximately 23.3 million most often accommodated 750,000 to 1 million square feet of square feet of private, multi-tenant office space, and 36 million office development. In weighing alternative policies regarding the square feet of total public and private space. As such, the CBD extent of Downtown Core expansions, the City should consider the accounts for 35 percent of the metropolitan area’s leased office following implications: CHAPTER 6 inventory and nearly half of the area’s Class-A space. • A limited expansion of the Downtown Core would have two Forecasted Office Development: Over the next 20 years, the CBD outcomes. First, the relative scarcity of new Core Area proper- office market will be able to support an additional 13 to 17 million ties available for high-intensity development would generate CHAPTER 7 square feet of commercial office space, an average of 650,000 to land price increases in the newly expanded core, which would 850,000 square feet annually. in turn lead to higher-density development in these areas. Second, it would create strong incentives for the redevelop- Forecast Methodology: This projection results from three different ment of lower-intensity buildings already located within the

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 25 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

20-Year Projections for Project Area Development / Locations Alternatives in the CBD the Entire CBD North Loop Downtown East but Outside Project Area OFFICE SPACE (SQ. FT.) 13-17 million sq. ft. 2-4 million sq. ft. 8-12 million sq. ft. New projects in existing CHAPTER 1 Class-A in expanded Downtown Core and core area along Central Riverfront CHAPTER 2

RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) 4,000-5,000 du’s 750-1,500 du’s High end 750-1,500 du’s Moderate Riverfront; attached housing near: pricing on inexpensive Elliot Park;

• Entertainment land; Elliot Park Loring Park; CHAPTER 3 destinations Existing Downtown Core • Light rail station CHAPTER 4 RETAIL SPACE (SQ. FT.) 700,000-1 million sq. ft. 300-400,000 sq. ft. 300-450,000 sq.ft. Riverfront; Eating & Drinking near: Grocery along major traf- Existing Downtown Core; • Entertainment fic corridors; conven- Loring Park; destinations ience/services in skyway; Elliot Park CHAPTER 5 • Emerging office & eating and drinking residential areas establishments

LODGING (ROOMS) 3,700-4,100 rooms 750-1,000 rooms near: Convention Center • Entertainment 1,000-1,500 rooms; Existing Downtown Core; CHAPTER 6 destinations Expanded Downtown Riverfront Core CHAPTER 7

Figure 3.2 Development Niches and Locations

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 26 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

existing core. A limited expansion would also leave more land ment (1996-2001) as well as a period of limited development available for alternative types of development in the areas of (1991-1996). This analysis rests on the assumption that similar Downtown located outside of the Core. activity cycles will occur in the future. The third approach focuses

on the percentage of total regional residential development cap- CHAPTER 1 • On the other hand, if expansion of the Core were to extend tured by the CBD in recent years. Examining these shares for the across a broader area, rising land values throughout the most recent three- and five-year periods, the analysis applies more broadly defined high-intensity development area would these percentages (1.6 and 2.2 percent respectively) to forecasted constrain the economic viability of alternative, lower-return metro area household growth. These three methodologies collec-

land uses (e.g. housing) throughout the expanded core. tively define a range of roughly 200 to 250 dwelling units per year. CHAPTER 2 Over 20 years, this would amount to 4,000 to 5,000 new dwelling North Loop Renovation Projects: While renovation activity has units in Downtown Minneapolis as a whole. The analysis then occurred at a pace of roughly 100,000 square feet/year, the mar- carefully weighed various positive and negative influences includ- ket’s ability to sustain this pace will be constrained by the ing favorable demographic trends, increasing preferences for

increasing scarcity and cost of older buildings. This constraint, urban residential settings, slowing rates of long-term regional CHAPTER 3 however, may be offset by increasing demand for Class-A, Class-B economic growth, the increasing scarcity of desirable developable and high-quality renovated office space in the North Loop. sites in the Downtown, difficulties with rising land values, and the availability of competitive sites just outside of Downtown. Overall, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT based on the relatively close convergence of three different projec-

tion methodologies and a careful counterbalancing among a CHAPTER 4 Recent Trends: High levels of development activity, rapid absorp- broad range of influences, the forecasted range of 4,000 to 5,000 tion, and rapid price increases have characterized recent down- new units represents a reasonably likely 20-year range of new res- town residential development. Most of the activity has occurred in idential development in Downtown. riverfront locations, with most units serving a high-income market tier. While this market niche continues to deliver strong perform- Price Niches: Most of the recent riverfront residential develop- CHAPTER 5 ances, the development community has begun to explore alterna- ments address the housing market’s highest price tiers. A larger tive niches and locations (i.e., Elliot Park and Warehouse District market, consisting of households with incomes under $100,000, locations not adjacent to the River). would support additional development in various parts of Downtown. Given the relatively high cost – at $30 to $55 per Forecasted Residential Development: Over the next 20 years the square foot – of downtown land, however, new development to CHAPTER 6 market is likely to support an increase of 4,000 to 5,000 new mar- serve this market would have to seek lower-priced land parcels in ket-rate dwelling units in the CBD. locations offering limited amenities, and in some cases presenting challenges. Examples of such locations might include proper- Forecast Methodology: In preparing this forecast, the analysis ties on the eastern fringes of Elliot Park or adjacent to industrial CHAPTER 7 applies three different approaches. The first approach examines or utility-related land uses. Within the Project Area, the costs of Metropolitan Council forecasts. The second approach examines land and development will in most cases drive new residential historical growth patterns, focusing on five-and ten-year growth units to the higher price tiers. In order to ensure the construction trends. These two time frames include a period of rapid develop- of housing within the Project Area that meets the City’s existing

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 27 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

20 Year Growth Projection Current Low High OFFICE SPACE (SQ. FT.) 36,000,000 CHAPTER 1 Projected Growth 13,000,000 17,000,000 Avg. Annual Growth 650,000 850,000 Projected Total in CBD 49,000,000 53,000,000

20-Year % Increase 36.1% 47.2% CHAPTER 2 Annualized % Increase 1.6% 2.0%

RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) 11,500 Projected Growth 4,000 5,000 Avg. Annual Growth 200 250 CHAPTER 3 Projected Total in CBD 15,500 16,500 20-Year % Increase 34.8% 43.5% Annualized % Increase 1.5% 1.8% CHAPTER 4 RETAIL SPACE (SQ. FT.) 4,550,000 Projected Growth 700,000 1,000,000 Avg. Annual Growth 35,000 50,000 Projected Total in CBD 5,250,000 5,550,000

20-Year % Increase 15.4% 22.0% CHAPTER 5 Annualized % Increase 0.7% 1.0%

LODGING (ROOMS) 5,400 Projected Growth 3,700 4,100 CHAPTER 6 Avg. Annual Growth 185 205 Projected Total in CBD 9,100 9,500 20-Year % Increase 68.5% 75.9% Annualized % Increase 2.6% 2.9% CHAPTER 7

Figure 3.3 DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS – Downtown Minneapolis: 2002-2022

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 28 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

definition of “affordable,” local leaders will need to adopt and focused on the primary sources of support for additional retail support policies that are supportive of that price niche. space: Residential, office, and visitor populations and the projected growth of those populations that would come from new office,

Niches and Locations: As development achieves critical mass and residential, and lodging development. It attributed standard CHAPTER 1 begins to attract service retailers and restaurants, the central spending patterns to each of these sources. These spending totals riverfront and the Warehouse District – including parts of the enabled the analysis to derive gross retail revenue growth, which North Loop – will continue to attract investments in renovated was then translated to supportable retail space estimates. condominium projects. Residential development activity in

Downtown East will depend on the extent of the expanded office Niches and Locations: The strongest locations and niches for CHAPTER 2 core, as well as the availability and character of new amenities. retail development will focus on: (1) skyway convenience retailers Comparatively low land values in Elliot Park and the eastern close to office concentrations; (2) two or more grocery stores close fringes of Downtown East may provide attractive locations for to emerging neighborhoods and along high-traffic corridors such moderate-priced residential development. However, other locations as Washington Avenue, Hennepin Avenue, or at freeway access /

outside the Project Area – such as the Mills District, inner Elliot egress points; and (3) eating and drinking establishments in a CHAPTER 3 Park, Loring Park – and neighborhoods outside of Downtown – broad range of locations near the office core, entertainment desti- such as Uptown, the East Bank, and Cedar Riverside – will nations, and residential neighborhoods. become increasingly competitive and desirable, particularly for new housing in moderate price tiers. LODGING DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Current Conditions: In recent years, the lodging market in the CBD has featured healthy occupancy rates, increasing room rev- Current Conditions: Downtown retail space amounts to approxi- enues, and increasing revenues-per-available-room despite an mately 4.5 million square feet, of which 2.6 million is located in increasing room supply. It should be noted that some weakening the Central Core. In this market, restaurants have achieved rapid- of this sector has taken place in the last year. CHAPTER 5 ly increasing revenues, but the performance of the overall retail market has been uneven. Except for businesses located in prime Forecasted Lodging Development: Hotel growth will be driven by locations, the market for CBD retail space has experienced high growth in general, downtown business traffic, and convention turnover and high vacancies. traffic, spurred by the recent expansion of the Convention Center. Over the next 20 years, the Downtown Minneapolis CBD should be CHAPTER 6 Forecasted Retail Development: Over the next 20 years, increasing able to support a net increase of 3,700 to 4,100 hotel rooms. numbers of resident households, conventioneers, and office work- These include approximately 1,500 rooms in convention center ers will be able to support an additional 700,000 to 1 million hotels, which will be located close to the Convention Center. In square feet of retail space. addition, general business growth will fuel demand for 2,200 to CHAPTER 7 2,600 additional rooms. Forecast Methodology: In preparing these forecasts, the analysis incorporated careful consideration of prevailing conditions and Forecast Methodology: Forecasts for lodging development rest on performances in various niches and locations. The analysis then three sets of considerations: Current market conditions, projected

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 29 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 3

growth in business activity, and historical trends. Varying method- • New residential developments will seek proximity to amenities ologies were used to project lodging growth by: (1) applying pro- such as the riverfront, entertainment venues, and other cultur- jected office growth rates, since such business activity (regional al or recreational amenities. It is important to note that at the

as well as local) provides the primary support for downtown lodg- same time, the promise of higher returns from competing high- CHAPTER 1 ing; (2) applying historical lodging growth rates that are used to end office developments can often preclude or limit residential make projections into the future in other parts of the CBD. development activity in areas where land costs are high;

Niches and Locations: New hotels will continue to serve primarily • Retail developments will typically seek access to, and expo-

business and convention travelers. New lodging development will sure offered by, proximity to high traffic pedestrian, transit, CHAPTER 2 likely occur in locations that are proximate to the Convention and automobile circulation routes; Center, but other desirable locations will include sites with strategic access to the Skyway System. In addition, sites with direct • Lodging locations in Downtown are not subject to absolute access to light rail or commuter transit stations will provide key prerequisites, but must be able to offer convenient access –

advantages. via skyway or LRT if possible – to the Downtown office core, CHAPTER 3 the convention center, and / or other downtown destinations. OTHER ISSUES

Influence of Light Rail: By themselves, light rail transit (LRT) sta-

tions will not generate new development projects. Like any other CHAPTER 4 kind of development, development that is proximate to transit stations is driven primarily by basic market supply and demand factors. Other important influences include the availability and suit- ability of developable (or redevelopable) properties and the availability of various forms of financing. When the market seeks new CHAPTER 5 development options however, proximity to an LRT station is considered an enhancement to the opportunities that are otherwise derived from the basics of supply and demand. Experiences drawn from cities such as Dallas and St. Louis indicate that this enhancement will be particularly strong for downtown hotel developments CHAPTER 6 and for residential projects located on the outskirts of the CBD.

Location Attributes: Various types of development seek different ideal site attributes. In downtown Minneapolis, developers are CHAPTER 7 likely to seek the following types of locations:

• New Class A office projects will seek development sites that are easily accessible to the skyway system;

CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 30 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN

Chapter Four Land Use Plan CHAPTER 7

ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 31 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

Chapter Four of the Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan pres- “Development Precincts” creates a unit of analysis that ents a Land Use Plan for the Project Area. The Land Use Plan is a supercedes block-by-block analysis, but is more discrete than refinement of the existing land uses in Downtown East and the existing neighborhood boundaries. Similarly, in formulating the

North Loop – one that seeks to address the modifications neces- collection of Development Precincts, the Consultant Team created CHAPTER 1 sary to forge Complete Communities in the districts peripheral to a series of lenses through which to look at and develop several the Downtown Core. different alternatives for how land uses should be organized. Finally, and most importantly, disaggregating the Project Area into CHAPTER SUMMARY smaller pieces allows the City and the development community to

be more focused and more strategic in pursuing new projects. CHAPTER 2 Chapter Four begins by envisioning the Project Area as thirteen smaller districts or precincts, each of which is the basis for devel- EXPLORATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS oping a Complete Community. The second part of the chapter summarizes the development and public presentation of three dif- At the outset of the project, one of the City’s directives was to

ferent land use scenarios that were compiled in order to discuss develop two or more land use scenarios for how growth and change CHAPTER 3 three different paths of growth and change that might be pur- in Downtown should occur. This directive resulted in the production sued: decentralization of the existing downtown core, continued of three different land use scenarios for the Project Area, each of centralization of the existing downtown core, and expansion of the which takes a different approach towards the relationship between existing downtown core. The third and main piece of the chapter is the Downtown Core and it’s impact on neighboring areas in

a detailed description of the Recommended Land Use Plan and Downtown East and the North Loop. At issue was whether or not CHAPTER 4 what it looks like on a precinct-by-precinct basis. the City’s traditional Downtown Core should continue to be the hub of future, Class-A commercial office development, or whether new, FORMULATION OF DEVELOPMENT PRECINCTS high-intensity commercial office development should be channeled into new – albeit smaller – office districts focused around specific The Consultant Team learned early on in the process that rail transit stations outside of the existing core. CHAPTER 5 Downtown East and the North Loop are not simply single-use development districts. After conducting field work and prelimi- In working through the issue, it became readily apparent that the nary analysis of the Project Area, the Consultant Team determined two districts adjacent to the existing core – Downtown East and that in order to realize new neighborhoods and in order to enhance the North Loop – couldn’t responsibly be looked at in isolation. the neighborhoods that already exist in Downtown, it was neces- Rather, they should be looked upon as “development pairs” in CHAPTER 6 sary to break the large portions of the Project Area into smaller relation to their potential impact on the existing Downtown Core “Development Precincts” (see Figure 4.1, page 33). Currently, and vice versa. In addition, each of the scenarios considered what most development precincts contain a series of often-dissimilar land uses would look like in conjunction with two issues related to sub-districts – some commercial, others residential, some have downtown stadia: whether or not a Baseball Ballpark would be CHAPTER 7 pieces of both. But over time, each precinct has the potential to built over the Rapid Park site in the North Loop, and whether or become a Complete Community, one that is internally self-reliant not the Metrodome would still be needed twenty years from now. while simultaneously being part of a larger family of Downtown Maps and graphics for each of the three land use scenarios were neighborhoods. In the meantime, the formulation of prepared for use at public open houses held during the course of

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 32 LEGEND 10/10/03 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) THE CUT MUNICIPAL SERVICE FREEWAY WEST WAREHOUSE WEST WEST HENNEPIN 5TH STREETSPINE DOWNTOWN COREEXPANSION METRODOME WASHINGTON VILLAGE EAST WASHINGTON ELLIOT PARK EAST HCMC ELLIOT PARK WEST Figure 4.1Map ofDevelopmentPrecincts CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 12 11 9 10 13 8 1 7 2 5 6 3 4 4 N 33

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

the study. They outline in detail, the variety of development alter- plated in the first alternative. The key feature of the second sce- natives considered. Each strategy was discussed in detail, and nario is the proposed relocation of the Multi-Modal Rail Station to comment was solicited through the course of the public meeting the block bounded by Hennepin Avenue, First Avenue North, North

process. A short overview of the key features of each scenario fol- 5th Street and North 6th Street. The intent was to develop a rail CHAPTER 1 lows: station that is directly adjacent to the existing core and – as a means to compliment that development location – intensify uses within the existing core. The existing core would absorb most future development, while only modest growth would be allowed

outside the core. This scheme was considered unworkable because CHAPTER 2 it created too little space to accommodate the level of expansion in the office sector that is predicted in the market analysis.

Land Use Alternative 1 – Decentralization of the Existing Core:

The first scenario features significant intensification of commer- CHAPTER 3 cial office development in both Downtown East and the North Loop. New nodes of commercial office development would be built in the areas immediately adjacent to the Downtown East LRT station and the proposed site for the Multi-Modal Station in the North

Loop. By focusing future development in these two areas, any Land Use Alternative 3 – Expansion of the Existing Core: The third CHAPTER 4 change to the existing Downtown Core would be limited to the scenario limits future high-intensity development in the Project Area area within its current boundaries. Ultimately it was determined to a well-defined expansion of the existing Downtown Core. That that creating new high-intensity satellite office districts outside of being the case, new development in Downtown East and the North the existing core would “water-down” the economic power and Loop would still allow for commercial office development – particu- special character of the existing core. larly in sites proximate to rail transit stations – but only within CHAPTER 5 mixed use projects. The idea behind this scenario is that maintaining and expanding the existing area within which high-intensity commercial office development can take place will allow for the emergence of more holistic precincts and neighborhoods outside the core. Such mixed-use neighborhoods would be more likely to achieve CHAPTER 6 the objectives of transit-oriented development and therefore would be more likely to develop into Complete Communities. As a result, commercial office, commercial retail, and entertainment uses in Land Use Alternative 2 – Centralization of the Existing Core: and around the existing and expanded core would be bolstered by, CHAPTER 7 The second scenario features a moderate level of commercial and benefit from, residential uses that would allow for a stronger, office development in both Downtown East and the North Loop. more populous downtown consumer base. Similar to Alternative 1, growth would be focused on rail transit stations, but it would be less intensive than what was contem- Maps and graphics for each of the three land use scenarios were

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 34 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

prepared for use at public open houses held during the course of public transit, bicycle and walking as viable alternatives to the Study. Two alternatives – “Decentralization of the Existing the private automobile; Core” and “Centralization of the Existing Core” were not recom-

mended (see Figure 4.2, page 36). A clear preference for the third • Structured parking built below or embedded within mixed-use CHAPTER 1 alternative – “Expansion of the Existing Core” (see Figure 4.3, development projects that feature active uses on all street page 37) emerged from the public meeting process, consultation frontages; prohibition of future “single-use” parking ramps; with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and consultation with the Steering Committee convened for this project. The con- • Promotion of pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, street-facing

sensus held that this alternative had the maximum potential for retail, transit nodes, and neighborhood services, all organized CHAPTER 2 allowing the Downtown East and North Loop components of the into compact “neighborhood” nodes. Project Area to develop into mixed-use, residential communities. Moreover, the strong demarcation lines marking the expansion TOD Opportunities in the Downtown Minneapolis LRT Corridor: boundaries of the Downtown Core would help new and existing Early on in the project, the question of whether the 5th Street LRT

neighborhoods develop distinct community identities. stations could become the focal points for a series of downtown CHAPTER 3 TOD communities was studied. Excellent opportunities exist to Given the complexity of information presented on the create new mixed use development building projects at the three Recommended Land Use Plan, a supplemental map illustrating an most central stations – Government, Nicollet Mall, and Warehouse overlay of At-Grade Retail use was produced for clarity (see Figure District/Hennepin. The likeliest candidates for creating strong

4.4, page 38). full-fledged TOD nodes are the stations located on the outer edges CHAPTER 4 of the Project Area – the Multi-Modal station site on the west and HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN the Downtown East Station site adjacent to the Metrodome. A closer look at TOD and infill opportunities for each downtown sta- Overview of the Entire Project Area: tion area is presented in the description of land uses for each development precinct, following. CHAPTER 5 • Concentration of future Class-A Office development within an expanded Downtown Core; Downtown East

• Development of “Complete Communities" in both Downtown The Recommended Land Use Plan accommodates many recommen- East and the North Loop so people can walk to where they dations contained within recently completed land use studies – the CHAPTER 6 work, shop, and go to school; Historic Mills District Plan and the Elliot Park Neighborhood Plan.

• Preference for mid- to high-density mixed-use development - residential, commercial, and retail – in distinct, identifiable CHAPTER 7 development precincts in both Downtown East and the North Loop;

• Land uses organized to encourage and support movement by

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 35 LEGEND 10/10/03 CORE BOUNDARY FOREXPANSION OFDOWNTOWN EXISTING DOWNTOWNCORE HIGH –14FLOORSANDTALLER MEDIUM –5TO13FLOORS LOW –1TO4FLOORS CULTURAL/ENTERTAINMENT PARKING UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MIXED USE(RESIDENTIAL=PRIMARY USE) RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(OFFICE/COMMERCIAL=PRIMARY USE) OFFICE HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.2:Maps ofLandUseAlternatives 1and2: DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Not Recommended (Not Recommended) Core Decentralization Land UseAlternative1 (Not Recommended) Core Centralization Land UseAlternative2 4 36

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 ownership, occupants, orbuildingtypes. with, norshould they beconfusedwith,property are aplanningtool. Theyarenotsynonymous goals ofthismaster plan.Landusecategories cate whatisnecessaryinorderto realizethe ment plan.Proposedchangesin land useindi- NOTE: Thisisalandusemap,not aredevelop- LEGEND M H L 10/10/03 BOUNDARY FOREXPANSION OFDOWNTOWNCORE EXISTING DOWNTOWNCORE HIGH –14FLOORSANDTALLER MEDIUM –5TO13FLOORS LOW –1TO4FLOORS CULTURAL/ENTERTAINMENT PARKING UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE– MIXED USE–OFFICE/COMMERCIAL OFFICE HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.3Map ofRecommendedLandUse –CoreExpansion DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 4 N 37

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 LEGEND M H L 10/10/03 BOUNDARY FOREXPANSION OFDOWNTOWNCORE EXISTING DOWNTOWNCORE HIGH –14FLOORSANDTALLER MEDIUM –5TO13FLOORS LOW –1TO4FLOORS CULTURAL/ENTERTAINMENT PARKING UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE– MIXED USE–OFFICE/COMMERCIAL OFFICE HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) STREET VENDING RETAIL AT GRADE CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.4Map ofRecommendedLandUse –At-GradeRetail DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 4 N 38

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

DOWNTOWN EAST Development Precinct 3: Elliot Park East

Development Precinct 1: Elliot Park West The area immediately east of the Metrodome and HCMC should be

developed in a way that complements the existing uses but CHAPTER 1 The thrust of new development in this precinct should be in the expands and fills out the neighborhood with a greater mix. In par- area within and around the South 9th Street Historic District. As a ticular, this will include adding a more visible residential compo- means to enhance preservation and reuse of existing brownstones, nent to the precinct through the construction of both medium den- and in order to encourage new infill development, land uses in sity mixed-use development as well as medium- and high-density

Figure 4.5 this precinct should be geared primarily toward low- or medium- residential construction. Development in this precinct should pro- CHAPTER 2 Development Precinct 1: Elliot density residential development. Medium-density mixed-use proj- vide a physical transition from the high-intensity uses of the Park West ects are appropriate in the northern reaches of the precinct in Medical Center, the Metrodome, and neighborhood office buildings order to create a transitional “step-down” zone between the high- to the low-density residential character of the area south of East intensity character of the Downtown Core and the low-intensity 14th Street. 11th Avenue South is the natural spine of this

setting of the historic district. A retail node should be located at precinct. Retail uses should be encouraged first on South 8th CHAPTER 3 the intersection of South 9th Street and Chicago Avenue in order to Street near 11th Avenue South so that it complements existing create an identifiable center to this portion of Elliot Park. commercial uses near this corner of Elliot Park. Highlighting this intersection will help create a recognizable “cross- roads” for east-west pedestrian circulation between Elliot Park and Development Precinct 4: Washington East

the Downtown Core and north-south between Elliot Park and the pro- (see Figure 4.8, next page) CHAPTER 4 posed linear park along Portland Avenue (see Chapter 5). At some point in the future, an opportunity exists to develop a new Development Precinct 2: Hennepin County Medical Center LRT station and a new TOD-centered community at the convergence Figure 4.6 of the Hiawatha LRT and the proposed Central Corridor LRT from the Development Precinct 2: Hennepin County With the exception of preserving a small number of existing cul- University of Minnesota and Downtown St. Paul. Creating a station CHAPTER 5 Medical Center tural uses, healthcare and hospital-related uses should continue at the junction of these two LRT lines offers an exciting opportunity to be the major land use in the blocks currently occupied by the to create a new TOD neighborhood offering a full array of housing, Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC). Wherever possible, the retail, and commercial services within the neighborhood combined hospital is encouraged to redevelop outpatient clinics, and other with excellent access by rail transit to the Downtown Core, the activities that generate pedestrian traffic, in ground floor loca- University of Minnesota, Downtown St. Paul, south Minneapolis, and CHAPTER 6 tions that face onto downtown streets. Though it is considered the International Airport. part of the Washington Village Precinct for the purposes of this master plan, the block between Park Avenue, Chicago Avenue, Similarly, at some point in the next fifteen or twenty years, an South of 5th Street, and South 6th Street should be further devel- opportunity exists to provide direct connections between South 3rd CHAPTER 7 oped (on the north half) to include street-level retail that would Street and 4th Street to and from I-35W. Building new fly-over Figure 4.7 help create an identifiable retail / transit node at the Downtown connections would compliment the existing interchange at Development Precinct 3: Elliot Park East East LRT station. Washington Avenue and I-35W. Because new fly-overs would relieve traffic congestion on Washington Avenue, it should become a

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 39 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

wide boulevard that serves as the backbone for neighborhood com- Avenue. The City of Minneapolis has already has already expressed merce serving both Downtown East and the Mills District. a desire to create a strong TOD node at the Downtown East station by forging a mixed use project that will integrate a new commer-

The precinct should be characterized by mixed office / residential cial office building, an outdoor neighborhood plaza, and at-grade CHAPTER 1 development focused on the stretch of 11th Avenue South between convenience retailing all within the same block as the new LRT the proposed LRT station and Washington Avenue South. Many, if station. The north half of the block between Park Avenue, Chicago not all, of the existing Valspar facilities could be incorporated into Avenue, South 5th Street, and South 6th Street should be further this mixed-use district. When the Central LRT Line is built, the developed to include street-level retail that would help create an

new station – proposed in this plan – will be the appropriate identifiable retail / transit node at the Downtown East LRT station. CHAPTER 2 focus for neighborhood retail services. Additional intermittent Figure 4.8 business opportunities would be present on game days at the The potential for two new streetscapes – east-west along South Development Precinct 4: Washington East Metrodome, especially for food and drink vending. Although not 5th Street and north-south along Chicago Avenue – would help officially listed as historic sites, most of the existing buildings in link this neighborhood node with the Downtown Core, and two

this area should be preserved, rehabilitated, and re-used. infill other neighborhoods in the CBD, Elliot Park to the south and the CHAPTER 3 development should be encouraged around existing building stock. Historic Mills District to the north. Eleventh Avenue South will be an important link between this neighborhood, the Central Riverfront, and Elliot Park East. Development Precinct 6: Metrodome Site

Development Precinct 5: Washington Village Based on the current state of negotiations and financing for the CHAPTER 4 construction of new stadia, it is likely that the HHH Metrodome The area immediately north and west of the new Downtown East will remain viable and active in the foreseeable future. However, LRT Station is a promising candidate for a new TOD neighborhood. the fact that each of the major tenants of the Metrodome is cur- A collection of underdeveloped properties – many of which are rently seeking new stadia located elsewhere begs the question: existing surface parking lots – are located within easy walking dis- ‘What happens to the Metrodome if the efforts to build a new ball- CHAPTER 5 Figure 4.9 tance of the station site. Many of these blocks are excellent sites park and football stadium are ultimately successful?’ With this Development Precinct 5: Washington Village for full-block, half-block, quarter-block and infill development proj- question in mind, the Consultant Team was charged with looking ects. This area provides the best opportunity to create a new at two different options for what the Metrodome site could or “Complete Community” that would integrate existing structures should be like twenty years from now. and uses with new development. Creating a medium-intensity, CHAPTER 6 mixed use district in this precinct would add a major residential Option 1: Sports Stadium Remains. Given that the Metrodome is component to Downtown East; one that is immediately adjacent to likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, combined with the Downtown Core and within easy reach of the amenities located the intention of realizing higher and better uses throughout the in the Mills District and along the Central Riverfront. underdeveloped areas of Downtown East and Elliot Park, there is a CHAPTER 7 pressing need to address the physical relationship between a sin- This precinct should be focused on Chicago Avenue, which would gle enormous structure and a series of finer-grain neighborhoods Figure 4.10 Development Precinct 6: Metrodome Site serve as a pedestrian-friendly link between two retail concentra- that surround it. Softening the scale differences between the tions, one at the LRT station and another along Washington Metrodome and surrounding structures is primarily a matter of

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 40 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

urban design modifications rather than of land use designations. includes nine blocks adjacent to the northeast corner of the exist- (see Chapter 5, page 77, Case Study: Revising the Physical Impact ing core (see Figure 6.1, page 109). More than four of these blocks of Megastructures in Downtown East). are currently occupied by surface parking lots and are expected to

be comparatively easy to redevelop when the marketplace pres- CHAPTER 1 Option 2: Redevelopment of existing Stadium Site. In the event that ents the opportunity. the Metrodome becomes redundant over the course of the next twenty-five years, redevelopment on that site will offer an excellent Within the existing core, a small collection of both large and small opportunity to fill out transit oriented development on the east and development sites close to the Nicollet Mall Station afford an excep-

west sides of the LRT station (see Figure 4.18, page 45). The six tional opportunity to create a high-intensity, mixed-use district CHAPTER 2 block area should be redeveloped as a new downtown neighbor- where new residential development complements new and existing hood with high-density mixed-use and residential projects. In such development at the heart of the Downtown Core. For example, one a scenario, the City should take full advantage of this opportunity developer / property owner is considering a combination of commer- by organizing new development around a new “central” park that cial office, hotel, and residential spaces on two blocks immediately

includes a lake and new recreational fields that would serve nearby north of the station. In addition, two or three surface parking lots CHAPTER 3 residents. This new neighborhood would be served by retail dis- within a block or two of the station are excellent quarter-block and tricts located in and around the Downtown East Station at 5th and infill development sites. And while the new central branch of the Chicago and at the proposed Washington East Station at South 4th Minneapolis Public Library will serve citizens and businesses from Street and 11th Avenue South. across the city and around the Metro area, it will also serve as the Figure 4.11 Development Precinct 7: 5th Street Spine “neighborhood branch” for both existing and new residents in this, CHAPTER 4 In this option, additional developable land is made available by the most dense of all neighborhoods Downtown. relocating the 4th St. freeway access north of its existing location and pairing it with the 3rd St. freeway exit. The existing 5th Street Although the areas immediately adjacent to Government Station freeway exit would terminate at 11th Avenue South and incoming are already built out, new commercial office development should traffic from the freeway system would be distributed north or be channeled to two areas within easy walking distance of this CHAPTER 5 south along 11th Avenue South. station: The under-developed blocks within the existing Downtown Core that lie between South 5th Street and Washington Avenue 5TH STREET SPINE AND DOWNTOWN CORE EXPANSION South; and the surface parking lots two or three blocks east of the Government Station along Fifth Avenue South. (Development Precincts 7 and 8) CHAPTER 6 Two major urban design initiatives will help integrate these areas The portion of the Project Area that includes the existing into the rest of Downtown while offering a distinct identity for Downtown Core and the proposed expansion to the Downtown Core parts of the core beyond Nicollet Mall and Marquette Avenue. will remain the location specifically designated for high-intensity These initiatives include a new east-west streetscape along the CHAPTER 7 commercial office development in Downtown Minneapolis. 5th Street LRT corridor (see Chapter 5, page 68, Case Study: 5th Consistent with existing regulations for this part of the City, high- Street Streetscape) and a new quarter-block wide linear park that Figure 4.12 Development Precinct 8: Downtown Core intensity residential uses will also be permitted within the stretches north and south along Portland Avenue in the expansion Expansion Downtown Core. The proposed expansion of the Downtown Core area of the Downtown Core (see Figure 5.8, page 61).

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 41 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

THE NORTH LOOP the commercial spine that serves the residents and businesses in both this precinct and in the new residential areas north of The Land Use Plan accommodates many of the recommendations Washington Avenue. Street level retail should also be encouraged to

put forth in the "Downtown Minneapolis Multi-Modal Station Area stretch along Fifth Avenue North to create a connection between CHAPTER 1 Master Plan," prepared by Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. for Washington Avenue and the commercial node at, or near, the new Hennepin County (2001). multi-modal station and the proposed ballpark.

Development Precinct 9: West Hennepin Development Precinct 11: Freeway West CHAPTER 2 Given the mostly built-up nature of this station area, there is lim- In the long term, an opportunity exists to dismantle the freeway ited potential for new large-scale development projects. The viaduct that currently connects North 3rd Street and North 4th majority of development in this precinct should be medium inten- Street from Second Avenue North to westbound Interstate 94 (see sity, mixed-use development at a scale similar to that of existing Figures 4.1 and 4.15). The presence of this aerial roadway ensures

buildings. Several high-profile “infill” development sites are that traffic by-passes the neighborhood while creating a barrier CHAPTER 3 located adjacent to, or within, very short walking distance to the that inhibits a neighborhood feeling. Dismantling the viaduct Figure 4.13 proposed Warehouse District / Hennepin LRT Station. These sites would allow the neighborhood street grid to be re-established and Development Precinct 9: West Hennepin provide opportunities to intensify and fill-out the existing neigh- access to the neighborhood improved. In turn, this would enhance borhood. All new development in this precinct should maintain both the economic viability of the street-level environment in this

and enhance the historic character of this district. Development part of Downtown as well as the overall livability of neighborhoods CHAPTER 4 should be consistent with the existing theater / entertainment in the North Loop. (Also, it is conceivable that a significant num- uses, but should also include new commercial and residential ber of bus and SOV trips atop the existing viaduct might be spaces for those who seek to live and work within the entertainment replaced once the NorthStar commuter rail is in full operation.) district. Street-level retail should be encouraged throughout the Similar to the portions of the Warehouse District in adjacent district, particularly in locations directly adjacent to the LRT station. precincts, development in the Freeway West precinct should be CHAPTER 5 Figure 4.14 mixed-use, medium intensity. The far western reaches of North 5th Development Precinct 10: Warehouse West Development Precinct 10: Warehouse West Street (west of where most traffic turns west towards Olson Memorial Highway) should be redeveloped to incorporate a new Similar to the West Hennepin precinct, much of the Warehouse West residential neighborhood organized along a thin, linear park. precinct is already built out. The historic warehouse structures in CHAPTER 6 this precinct should be protected and preserved, with an emphasis Street level retail should also be encouraged to stretch along Fifth on adaptive re-use of existing structures. The majority of develop- Avenue North to create a connection between the commercial node ment in this precinct should be medium intensity, mixed-use devel- at, or near, the new multi-modal station and the proposed ball- opment at a scale similar to that of existing buildings. However, park to Washington Avenue North. CHAPTER 7 here are several surface parking lots and other under-developed sites that should be considered for infill development projects. Development Precinct 12: Municipal Service Figure 4.15 Development Precinct 11: Freeway West Street-level retail should be encouraged along the length of Washington Avenue North in order to ensure that this street becomes Given the investment made to locate major institutional uses in

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 42 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

this precinct (The Hennepin Energy Resource Center and the Metro ate new development sites, or air rights parcels, built above the Transit facility) major redevelopment in this precinct is not likely existing ground plane on an at-grade level similar to the or recommended. However, in keeping with the proposal put forth surrounding neighborhoods (see Figures 4.19 and 4.20, pages 46

in the Hennepin County Station Area Plan, the berm along North and 47). CHAPTER 1 5th Street and Sixth Avenue North could be redeveloped with a band of medium-density, mixed use development that houses Redevelopment within and above The Cut includes several key commercial or government offices and, perhaps, low-impact light projects that are the cornerstone for developing a multi-faceted industrial development. Wrapping the site with active uses would new neighborhood in this precinct. The most important of these

help to create a buffer between the Energy Resource Center and air rights development sites include the potential for a new ball- CHAPTER 2 the developing neighborhoods to the north and east. park and a new multi-modal transit station both of which will flank the extension of the LRT corridor on North 5th Street. Figure 4.16 Development Precinct 13: Air Rights Development District over Existing City policy reserves the existing surface parking lots Development Precinct 12: Municipal Service “The Cut” located between North 5th Street, North 7th Street, Third Avenue

North and the Burlington Northern right-of-way as the site for a CHAPTER 3 A large swath of railway and highway lands cut through the North new downtown ballpark. However, it is still not clear that a ball- Loop and interrupts the fabric of Downtown Minneapolis. In the park can be developed on this site anytime in the immediate course of doing fieldwork, the Consultant Team dubbed this area of future. That being the case, the Consultant Team was asked to Downtown as “The Cut.” In conjunction with the findings and propos- develop two different options for what redevelopment in The Cut

als of the Hennepin County Multi-Modal Station Area Plan, the team should look like in twenty years. Both schemes include develop- CHAPTER 4 identified it as a location ripe with major redevelopment opportunities. ment of the multi-modal station and associated redevelopment north of North 5th Street. In the area south of 5th Street, Option 1 Within The Cut, the existing highway infrastructure is critical to recognizes and lays out the framework for the construction of a the everyday function and overall economic competitiveness of new urban ballpark and is considered the preferred scheme. Downtown. Likewise, when existing freight rail tracks along the Option 2 was developed as a back-up scheme in case a ballpark CHAPTER 5 Burlington Northern right of way are leased for commuter rail is never realized at this location. operations, it will be necessary to use land adjacent to these Figure 4.17 Development Precinct 13: Air Rights tracks for new rail sidings that will accommodate multiple Option 1: Redevelopment of The Cut that includes a new Ballpark. In Development Over “The Cut” commuter rail lines and inter-city lines (Amtrak). Nevertheless, the event that a ballpark can be developed above The Cut, it will allowing for the large space requirements of transportation infra- need to be sited and designed in such a way as to ensure maxi- CHAPTER 6 structure need not inhibit a cohesive environment between the mum flexibility for the creation of at-grade rail infrastructure that North Loop and the Downtown Core. will satisfy the anticipated needs of a full-blown commuter rail and inter-city rail network. In addition to the ballpark, the multi- As has been done in other cities, the airspace above this depres- modal station and the “underground” rail network, the remainder CHAPTER 7 sion could be developed by decking above the existing freeway and of this development precinct should be filled out with a host of railroad tracks and reconnecting the downtown street grid through ancillary medium-intensity, mixed-use development sites. All of this area. This will not only re-knit the physical environment of these sites should be woven together with a series of meandering the surrounding neighborhoods into one another, but will also cre- parks and plazas that stretch from North 5th Street to Washington

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 43 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 4

Avenue North and help to reconnect the station and the ballpark all cases, Amtrak and commuter rail platforms would be located to the existing entertainment district. As in other cities, the main beneath the new baseball stadium (or residential development). train station need not be the site of transportation infrastructure The interface between these new rail yards and the new street

alone. The air space above the rail yards is a prime location for system on the deck above can be accomplished in a number of CHAPTER 1 commercial office development, hotel complexes, and even resi- ways and therefore demands more detailed study. dential buildings. Of course, it makes tremendous sense to allow for and encourage retail uses that are convenient to transit One scenario for how the multi-modal station is configured calls patrons using the station, baseball fans coming and going from for the commuter rail station to “bridge the cut” and provide

the ballpark, as well as those who live and work within such an incoming passengers with a sense of arrival in the city. In this CHAPTER 2 active neighborhood. scenario, passengers would disembark their train and walk one block to the east through an interstitial enclosed concourse to the Option 2: Redevelopment of The Cut without a new Ballpark. In existing Minikahda Building at Third Avenue North and North 5th the event that a ballpark is never realized on the Rapid Park site, Street. This historic building would be rehabilitated and retrofitted

new air rights development should be geared towards the con- as part of the station. Escalators and elevators would distribute CHAPTER 3 struction of high-intensity residential structures, though a con- passengers to skyway level, where they would travel across 3rd centration of high-intensity commercial uses were also considered Avenue North to a new station headhouse, built on decking above for this site, it was considered unwise to pursue such uses in this Interstate 394. High-density mixed-use development is envisioned area because they would compete with, and weaken the intensity in conjunction with this station.

of the existing Downtown Core (see Figure 4.2, page 36, Land Use CHAPTER 4 Alternative 1: Decentralization of the Existing Core, above). The While the City has conducted preliminary explorations of these area under these towers and associated open spaces that are not issues in separate projects, further study should be conducted needed for rail infrastructure related to the multi-modal station sooner rather than later in order to ensure that costly interim solu- should be given over to structured parking (which would actually tions do not impede the best possible solution of full build out. be built above grade, but because the street level is raised, would CHAPTER 5 in the end appear below grade.) Similar to Option 1, new parks, plazas, a strong retail component should be incorporated into this air rights development district.

Siting of the multi-modal station: Regardless of which option is CHAPTER 6 pursued in relation to the ballpark, further detailed studies will need to be undertaken concerning the relationships between the components of the multi-modal station, including the rail yards, train platforms, and the exact location for the headhouse (which CHAPTER 7 would include waiting areas, retail services, ticketing, and lug- gage handling). Moreover, these studies should address the relationship between the multi-modal rail station, the proposed LRT station, and the existing bus station on the 5th Street Ramp. In

CHAPTER FOUR – LAND USE PLAN 44 10/10/03 CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.18Metrodome Re-UseIllustrative –AerialView DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 4 45

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1

NEW RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BELOW I-395 BELOW 10/10/03

EXISTING SECONDAVENUE NORTH

AVENUE NORTH NEW FOURTH GARAGE FOURTH STREET EXISTING BURLINGTONNORTHERN R.O.W.

NEW CONNECTION OF NORTH 4TH STREET NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE RAIL SIDINGSANDPLATFORMS (BELOW) AIR RIGHTSDEVELOPMENT OVERNEW TRAINS ACCESS TOCOMMUTER MULTIMODAL STATION CONNECTING CONCOURSE MULTIMODAL STATION OVER I-394 DEVELOPMENT AIR RIGHTS CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.19Possible AirRightsDevelopment over“TheCut”–Aerial View DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT

HIAWATHA LRT EXTENSION NEW CONNECTION OF NORTH 5TH STREET COMMUTER LRT ACCESS TO STATION MULTIMODAL

METROTRANSIT BUSTERMINAL FIFTH STREETGARAGEAND NEW THIRDAVENUE NORTH SIDINGS BELOW DECKING OVERRAIL AIR RIGHTSPARCEL/ BALLPARK BUILT ON BALLPARK PLAZA NEW THE TARGET CENTER OVER I-394 DEVELOPMENT AIR RIGHTS 4 46

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 northern R.O.W. Existing Burlington 10/10/03 muter railand–eventuallyAmtrakhigh speedandinter-city lines. reserved forrailsidingsandplatforms needed toaccommodatecom- on theeastandwestsidesof“TheCut”. Areabelowstadium Baseball Parktobebuiltondeckingthat reconnectsthestreetgrid CHAPTER FOUR – LANDUSE PLAN Figure 4.20Possible AirRightsDevelopment over“TheCut”–Cross-section LookingNorth DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Third Avenue North of 5thStreetParkingRamp Retail componentaddedtosouthside Parking Garage 5th Street plaza) I-394 Freeway(below Public plaza Existing Condition grade) North (existing Second Avenue 4 47

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN

Chapter Five Urban Design Plan CHAPTER 7

ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 48 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Chapter Five of the Minneapolis Downtown East/North Loop Master and new visitors. A key piece of forging reinvestment in the city is Plan calls for the development a wide array of initiatives that are improving the quality of those places where people move about meant to improve and distinguish the design of the public realm and interact as part of their daily lives – the public realm.

in the Project Area. CHAPTER 1 The following section proposes a series of existing and proposed CHAPTER SUMMARY enhancements to the public realm that, if paid proper attention, will add immeasurably to the utility and enjoyment of public space Chapter Five sets out the Urban Design Plan for the Project Area. within the Project Area. More importantly, such improvements will

The Urban Design Plan includes a broad range of analysis and greatly improve the development capacity of the Project Area by CHAPTER 2 recommendations aimed at improving the character and quality of helping to facilitate tightly woven “Complete Communities.” the built environment at a variety of scales – from the broad scope of Downtown as a whole to potential solutions for specific Rail Transit in Downtown Minneapolis locations. This chapter begins with the nuts-and-bolts of how the

public realm should be improved by addressing the ways in which The key impetus for preparing the Downtown East/North Loop CHAPTER 3 it is experienced while moving from place to place. The second Master Plan stems from a desire to capitalize on the opportunities section of the chapter offers two case studies, each with specific that can be derived from the incorporation of new rail transit proposals for how to tackle two different kinds of urban design infrastructure into the existing fabric of Downtown Minneapolis. challenges. The third section looks in detail at ways to improve The most important input to, and benefit derived from,

the overall experience of Downtown East and the North Loop, by Downtown’s economic and physical expansion is the planning, CHAPTER 4 considering the role that gateways and view corridors play in the development, and construction of new rail transit facilities that wider built environment of the Downtown and in the city as a link Downtown Minneapolis with other parts of the city, the metro- whole. The fourth section of the chapter is an in-depth look at the politan area, and the region (See Figure 5.1, page 50). relationship between the design of individual buildings, the intensity of land uses, and the overall character of the city. The chap- Hiawatha Light Rail Transit: Initial construction of the Hiawatha CHAPTER 5 ter ends by presenting images of three-dimensional computer Light Rail Transit line is well underway and initial service is expect- models and character sketches that are developed from the infor- ed to begin in the Spring of 2004. This light rail transit line will run mation in the recommended Land Use Plan. along North 5th Street, South 5th Street, and Hiawatha Avenue to connect Downtown Minneapolis to the neighborhoods and communi- SHAPING THE CITY THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC REALM ties in South Minneapolis, the Minneapolis / St. Paul International CHAPTER 6 Airport, the City of Bloomington, and the Mall of America. The Many older, core cities across the nation face the common prob- Hiawatha LRT is expected to be fully operational in 2005. lem of a stagnant or receding tax base, due in large part to competition from easy-to-access suburban centers served by the free- Central Corridor Light Rail Transit: Preliminary planning is under- CHAPTER 7 way network. As challenges to the local tax base continue over way to connect Downtown Minneapolis and the Hiawatha LRT to prolonged periods, municipal governments look for more ways to downtown St. Paul through a project known as the Central encourage investment in the city – especially downtown – as a Corridor LRT. The Central Corridor Light Rail Line would fork off of means to draw in new development, new workers, new residents, the Hiawatha Line near the east side of the Metrodome.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 49 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

N LEGEND

LRT CHAPTER 1

BUSWAY

BUSWAY - ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOWN CONNECTORS

COMMUTER RAIL CHAPTER 2

TRANSITWAY – TECHNOLOGY UNSPECIFIED

TRANSITWAY – ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOWN CONNECTORS CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

Figure 5.1 Map of Metropolitan Area Multi-Modal Transit Plan 2025 Source: Metropolitan Council

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 50 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

NorthStar Commuter Rail: Planning is also underway for modifi- present themselves, it is important to consider modifications and cations that will be made along an eighty mile stretch of the adjustment to the existing street system that will ensure that it Burlington Northern freight rail lines to add the first line of com- continues to serve downtown livability and economic vitality,

muter rail service to the Twin Cities region. Known as NorthStar rather than detract from it (see Figure 5.2, page 52). CHAPTER 1 Commuter Rail, this line will run to and from the North Loop in Downtown Minneapolis connecting the city to points northwest, In the near term, the City should engage in further analysis and most notably Anoka and St. Cloud, Minnesota. discussion of the following issues related to the street system and downtown traffic patterns:

RedRock Commuter Rail: Preliminary planning is underway to CHAPTER 2 connect Downtown Minneapolis by commuter rail to Downtown St. • Consider eliminating one of the two westbound traffic lanes Paul and Hastings, Minnesota along existing rail tracks that con- on South 5th Street between Fifth Avenue South and Chicago nect both downtowns to the cities and towns in the southeast Avenue in order to extend and maintain a consistent and high metro. The proposed connection identified for this route will share quality pedestrian spine along the LRT Corridor.

tracks with the NorthStar Line as it enters and leaves Downtown CHAPTER 3 Minneapolis. • Development of a detailed program to divert through traffic entering South 5th Street (from east Interstate 94) at 11th Other Potential Rail Corridors: Long range planning is also under- Avenue South to South 3rd Street and South 7th Street. way to expand commuter rail service and/or light rail service to

include connections between Downtown Minneapolis and the City’s In the long term, the City should engage in further analysis and CHAPTER 4 southwest suburbs, most likely along the Dan Patch rail corridor. discussion of the following issues related to the street system and This corridor would stretch from Downtown Minneapolis, southwest Downtown traffic patterns: along the Burlington Northern rail corridor, as an extension of the NorthStar corridor. Rebuilding the Washington Avenue / I-35W interchange: In Downtown East, the City will need to work closely with Hennepin CHAPTER 5 In addition, an extension to the light rail system is also contem- County and MnDOT to ensure realization of the long-term plan to plated to link Downtown Minneapolis to its western suburbs. This build a new interchange that funnels traffic to and from South 3rd extension would be built westward from the end of the Hiawatha Street and South 4th Street respectively. Rebuilding this inter- line at North 5th Street and Fifth Avenue North. change would take a great deal of surface traffic off Washington Avenue South and enable it to become a more pedestrian-friendly CHAPTER 6 Revisions to the Downtown Street Grid commercial corridor that includes retail and services for new neighborhoods on either side. In addition, new developable land One of the best features of the public realm in Downtown would be made available by relocating the 4th Street viaduct Minneapolis is already in place – a well-defined street network northward and pairing it with the 3rd Street freeway exit. CHAPTER 7 divided into relatively compact, walkable blocks. Maintaining Likewise, linking the existing sections of South 3rd Street with a utility and convenience of the Downtown street grid is critical to new stretch that extends to 11th Avenue South would help to bet- ensuring access across the entire CBD for pedestrians, bicycles, ter distribute traffic throughout this area of downtown, thereby buses, trucks and automobiles. However, as new opportunities enhancing property values.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 51 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

N LEGEND

HIAWATHA LRT (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

TRANSIT STATIONS CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED RAIL TRANSIT LINES 1/4 MILE RADIUS TO LRT STATION

STREET GRID ADDITIONS

REMOVAL OF EXISTING FREEWAY VIADUCT CHAPTER 2 EXISTING DOWNTOWN CORE BOUNDARY FOR EXPANSION OF DOWNTOWN CORE

NOTE: Based on the current state of negotiations and financing for the construction of new CHAPTER 3 stadia, it is likely that the HHH Metrodome will remain viable and active in the foreseeable future. In the event that the Metrodome becomes redundant over the course of the next

twenty-five years, however, redevelopment on CHAPTER 4 that site will offer an excellent opportunity to fill out transit-oriented development at LRT station sites on the east and west sides of the site (see Figure 4.18). In such a scenario, several new streets would need to be built. CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

Figure 5.2 Map of Additions to the Downtown Street Grid

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 52 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Dismantling the 4th Street Viaduct to westbound Interstate 94: In New city streets if the Metrodome site needs to be redeveloped: In the North Loop, the City should provide leadership for eliminating the event that the Metrodome becomes redundant over the course of the freeway viaduct that currently connects I-94 with North 3rd the next twenty-five years, the six block area should be redeveloped

Street and North 4th Street. Once the NorthStar Commuter Rail is as a new downtown neighborhood. In such a scenario a new net- CHAPTER 1 operational, it will offer an important alternative to commuters in work of city streets would need to be developed to facilitate access the northwest commuter shed. As such, it is possible that rail through the existing megablock (which totals six city blocks). transit might relieve a significant portion of the vehicular traffic Rather than returning the street grid that was present prior to the that is currently using this viaduct. Removing the viaduct is not construction of the Metrodome, redevelopment of this site would be

meant to cut off freeway access from this end of downtown, but to an opportunity to create a new street pattern that focuses on a CHAPTER 2 replace it with an appropriately-scaled interchange that is more highly visible “central” park. The intent is to create a high-amenity, compatible with the development potential of surrounding neigh- mixed-income neighborhood in a place that feels somewhat sepa- borhoods. The intention is to return traffic to local surface streets, rate from – but is located right within the heart of Downtown. eliminate an obstruction to surrounding development, and in

doing so enhance neighborhood property values. In pursuit of this Bicycle Network CHAPTER 3 concept - which was first presented in the Hennepin County Multi- Modal Station Area Plan - several important questions need to be Bicycles should play an ever-increasing role in the movement of examined more closely. This includes studying the impact of sur- people to, from, and within Downtown Minneapolis. In order to face traffic upon at-grade intersections (in place of the viaduct), ensure that bicycle travel is safe and convenient, it is necessary

especially in relation to the ability to provide sufficient capacity at to extend the existing bicycle network in both the near term and CHAPTER 4 the expected traffic volumes; the ability to gain MnDOT approval; over the long term. Near term extensions are already proposed by and the costs and potential funding sources for this demolition the City of Minneapolis. Long term extensions should be incorpo- and reconstruction project. rated over time as new neighborhoods and infrastructure are developed. The overall goal for the Downtown bicycle network is to New city streets in the air rights development site over the create near and long term extensions to the existing bicycle net- CHAPTER 5 Burlington Northern Right-of-Way and Interstate 394: In the North work to facilitate better integration with the downtown pedestrian Loop, new freeway decking should be constructed to elevate and circulation system, new rail transit lines, and proposed parks and recreate three new sections of street. In doing so, maximum flexi- open spaces. The completion of a full blown network of on-street bility for rail options – Amtrak, Commuter Rail and LRT – will be lanes and off-street trails will continue to enhance travel and maintained well into the future. Likewise, new development in commuting options that might encourage commuters to choose CHAPTER 6 “The Cut” over the Burlington Northern right-of-way and Interstate options that don’t necessarily include the private automobile (see 394 will be re-knit into the fabric of the surrounding neighbor- Figure 5.3, page 54). hood. New sections of street are needed on Fourth Avenue North, between North 3rd Street and North 5th Street, North 3rd Street CHAPTER 7 between Second Avenue North and Fifth Avenue North, and (if the viaduct is removed) North 4th Street between Second Avenue North and Fifth Avenue North.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 53 and proposedparksopenspaces town pedestriancirculationsystem,newrailtransitlines, cle networktofacilitatebetterintegrationwiththedown- Goal: Nearandlongtermextensionstotheexistingbicy- LEGEND 10/10/03 LANES ANDOFF-STREETBIKETRAILS LONG TERMEXTENSIONSTOON-STREETBIKE LANES ANDOFF-STREETBIKETRAILS NEAR TERMEXTENSIONSTOON-STREETBIKE STREET BIKETRAILS EXISTING ON-STREETBIKELANESANDOFF- 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.3Map ofExtensionstotheDowntown BicycleNetwork DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 N 54

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for the Downtown Bicycle Pedestrian Circulation Downtown East or the North Loop. Building skyways in such neigh- Network borhoods is counterproductive to the aims of developing Complete Street-Level Pedestrian Corridors Communities. The presence of two different pedestrian networks –

• Continue to build extensions to the the skyways and the sidewalks – would undermine the character and CHAPTER 1 bicycle network within the Project The most immediate human reaction to the existing public envi- quality of neighborhood streets by giving the impression that there is Area, especially east/west along 4th ronment in many parts of Downtown East and the North Loop is little foot traffic. Though they might seem convenient for some, sky- Street from Downtown East to that it is dominated by vehicles, vehicular movement, and large ways to and from medium and low intensity districts simply do not Hennepin Avenue, and on North 7th expanses of parked cars. Quite simply, vehicles often dominate have a sufficient level of use to warrant their construction. Street from Hennepin Avenue into the street at the expense of pedestrians, and in some cases, side- Underused skyways often detract from an ongoing sense of safety, CHAPTER 2 the North Loop and beyond. walks are not conducive to pedestrian movement at all. The lack security, and accessibility. The exception to this rule is that high- of streetscape and pedestrian amenities, the presence of large intensity residential developments may generate a sufficient amount • Continue to build extensions to the stretches of blank building walls, intrusive ramp entry / egress of foot traffic to warrant a skyway connection as long as the project bicycle network that help connect the points, and the lack of meaningful wayfinding devices all discour- is directly adjacent to blocks that are already connected to the exist- Project Area to the Central Riverfront, age pedestrian activity and inhibit the ability to forge Complete ing system (see Figure 5.6 and 5.7, pages 58 and 59). CHAPTER 3 Elliot Park, Loring Park, and neighbor- Communities (see Figures 5.4 and 5.5, pages 56 and 57). hoods surrounding the CBD. Streetscapes, Open Space, and Reforestation Skyways • Complete the bicycle connection The character of different districts and neighborhoods within through the North Loop from the west Over a period of four decades, the emergence of the Skyway Downtown is strongly connected to the design of individual build- CHAPTER 4 along the Cedar Lake Trail to Fourth System has played a key role in maintaining and enhancing the ings and the way in which a group of buildings “sit” in relation to Avenue North and the West River Road. economic health of Downtown Minneapolis by ensuring that the one another. But the experience of the city – particularly as one core remains competitive. The Skyway System is considered moves through it – is greatly influenced by the quality and char- • Provide convenient connections from essential to Downtown property owners, merchants, and workers acter of the interstitial places between downtown buildings. CHAPTER 5 the bicycle network to new and exist- alike. The role of skyways as an enhancement to the construction Presently, surface parking lots are the most visible sort of intersti- ing features of the public realm of Class-A office space in the Downtown Core is not in question. tial space across large portions of the Project Area. As new devel- including parks, plazas, skyway stair New additions to the office core should be connected to the exist- opment occurs and surface parking lots are replaced with off- towers, and rail transit stations. ing Skyway System on the east side of Downtown. On the west street parking in structured ramps, the remaining interstitial side of Downtown, new extensions to the system should be made spaces – streets, plazas, and public parks – will have greater vis- CHAPTER 6 • Ensure adequate, evenly distributed to link the new Ballpark, the Multi-Modal Station, and nearby ibility and will play a greater role in shaping the character of dif- supply of bike racks, lock points, high-intensity development projects in the air rights zone above ferent downtown districts and neighborhoods. and rental storage lockers for bicycle the rail and interstate rights-of-way. Given the historic character commuters. and preservation designation of buildings in the Warehouse Creating new downtown open space District, it is not recommended that skyways be built anywhere CHAPTER 7 • Educate automobile drivers and else west of Hennepin Avenue. It is ironic that while Minneapolis enjoys international renown for bicyclist on proper etiquette for a park system that makes the most of the city’s lakes, rivers, and sharing the road. Beyond the extension zones recommended, skyways should not be creeks, there is precious little pleasing green space / open space built into existing, revitalized, and emerging neighborhoods in throughout much of Downtown. There are notable exceptions.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 55 North Loop streets andpublicspacesofDowntownEastthe town withtrulypedestriancharacterexperiencedinthe Goal: Creationofpedestrian-orientedplacesandadown- LEGEND 10/10/03 SHOPPING DESTINATIONS SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT, AND PRIMARY PEDESTRIANMOVEMENT CORRIDORS 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.4Map ofDesignatedPrimaryPedestrian Corridors DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 N 56

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.5Developing PrimaryPedestrian Corridors DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT activity. should bededicatedtopedestrian areas andconsumehugethat the streetseverelyinterruptpedestrian Parking structureentriesthatparallel implemented. streetscape enhancementscannotbe and maycreatewideareaswhere severely disruptpedestrianmovement, cially thosewithmultipledrives,can Wide curbcutsandrampentries,espe- experience. parking intrudesuponthepedestrian street lighting)areabsentandthe amenities (especiallypedestrianscaled tinations areabysmal;pedestrian Streets leadingtosomeDowntowndes- SAMPLE SOLUTIONS face above plane asbuilding Columns insame

Arcade height amount ofsidewalkarea. they consumetheleastpossible to thecenterofstreetsothat should belocatedperpendicular Ramp entriesandcurbcuts

Arcade depth 5’ minimum Downtown. than bycar–tomakelocaltripswithin age peopletotravelonfoot–rather the additionofstreettreeshelpencour- Pedestrian scaledstreetlightingand because theyarevisuallylegible. easier forpedestrianstonavigate arrangement ofstreetelementsare als, auniformwidth,and Sidewalks thathaveconsistentmateri- ruptions topedestriancorridors. designed andsizedtominimizeinter- Ramp entriesandcurbcutsshouldbe pedestrians fromrain,snowandsun. and canopiesareencouragedtoprotect Where skywaysdonotexist,awnings 5 57

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 LEGEND 10/10/03 PROPOSED SKYWAY STAIR TOWER SKYWAY ZONE PROPOSED ADDITIONSTOTHEDOWNTOWN EXISTING HCMCSKYWAY ZONE EXISTING DOWNTOWNSKYWAY ZONE 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.6Map ofAdditionstotheSkyway System DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 N 58

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.7Refining theSkywaySystem DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT tion throughthe block bypedestrians. Mall, whichallows foreasiernaviga- and havewindowsoverlookingthe floor concoursesparallelcitystreets street corner. Inaddition,second building entrancelocatedonthe highly visible,“readable” Vertical circulationislocatedina new Target storeonNicolletMall. sidewalk systemisinplaceatthe nect theskywaysystemwith An excellentexampleofhowtocon- the leftsideofthisphoto) case withtheFifthStreetTowers (on perimeter ofthebuildingasis placing verticalcirculationatthe visible connectionstothestreetby offer theopportunitytocreatemore that arepartofnewconstruction example. Extensionstothesystem the rightsideofthisphoto)isagood the street.TheSooLineBuilding(on portion whichactuallycrossesover the sidewalksystemexceptforthat buildings andbearslittlerelationto was integratedintoexistingolder Much oftheoriginalskywaysystem SAMPLE SOLUTIONS STREET FROMSKYWAYS DIRECT ACCESSTO BUILDING SKYWAY AT PERIMETEROF LIMIT “INTERNAL” SKYWAYS green spaces stops, andsignificantparks Pedestrian Corridors,majortransit the skywayssystemandPrimary tant formakingtransitionsbetween stair towersareespeciallyimpor- and thereforeeasytouse.Skyway stair towersthatarehighlyvisible System shouldbedevelopedat and futureadditionstotheSkyway Connections betweencitysidewalks visitors toDowntown. fusing forpedestrians–especially ing downtownlegibleandlesscon- and citysidewalksthereforemak- tions betweentheskywaysystem ing helptofostervisibleconnec- along theperimeterwallofabuild- Skyway-level concoursesplaced 5 59

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for Street-Level Pedestrian Loring Park and Elliot Park are islands of green that anchor the building projects should continue to be pursued in Downtown Corridors and the Skyway System community life of those neighborhoods. Mill Ruins Park and the Minneapolis. However, the resulting spaces are only large enough West River Road are major assets currently being developed on the to expand the inventory of passive open spaces downtown. What’s

• Establish a hierarchy of streets within northern edge of Downtown. But throughout most of downtown – really needed is to incorporate parks that have enough land to CHAPTER 1 the Project Area that allows for differ- particularly within the Project Area – there is a pressing need to include both meaningful passive spaces and useful active spaces. entiation between those streets that integrate more open, green space as a means to enhance the liv- should receive a higher level of func- ability of Downtown for workers, residents, and visitors alike (see Unfortunately, urban history has too few examples of the kind of tional or aesthetic amenity because Figures 5.8 and 5.9, pages 61 and 62). grand gestures that were made over a hundred years ago when they serve – or are intended to serve the city’s park system was designed and initial land holdings were CHAPTER 2 – as major pedestrian connectors There are two kinds of open spaces that are needed Downtown – dedicated. Overcoming the lack of new downtown open space is within and across Downtown. active open space and passive open space. “Active” open spaces unlikely if the provision of parks and open space is not incorporat- are those that are used for either organized recreation facilities ed into the city’s larger development process. Incorporating down- • Encourage a hierarchy of minor (such as ball fields, tennis courts, and the like) or organized gath- town parks that truly serve the diverse downtown population must pedestrian thoroughfares to allow for ering spaces for large crowds assembled for a concert, block happen through an accumulation of both public and private CHAPTER 3 localized pedestrian circulation within party, or political rally. “Passive” open spaces are for activities efforts. specific districts and neighborhoods. that are slower paced and more reflective in nature. They are most often small and quiet spaces for people to withdraw in solitude or Open Space Standards: Some North American cites such as • Establish practices that maintain the in small informal groups. In either case, parks and open spaces Vancouver, BC have a Parks / Open Space Standard of 2.75 acres right-of-way for pedestrians on side- should serve the need to participate in city life; places where peo- of neighborhood park per 1,000 residents. Assuming that the CHAPTER 4 walks by minimizing the number and ple go to be together, or where people go to be by themselves downtown residential population will grow by 20,000-plus, incor- extent of driveway crossings / curb amidst the crowd of passersby. porating this standard in Downtown Minneapolis would yield an cuts. Access to and egress from expanded amount of park and open space in excess of 55 new parking ramps should be consolidated Expanding the number and quality of downtown open acres. One way to ensure that the park system grows in proportion CHAPTER 5 into a single curb cut. spaces/green spaces is a difficult conundrum to overcome. to the downtown population is to incorporate a dedicated one-time Despite recent growth in the downtown residential market, the development fee on individual projects. Over time, such fees will • Access to and egress from parking long term viability of new and rehabilitated neighborhoods is accumulate enough to allow for the construction and maintenance ramps should be located mid-block, highly dependent on the livability of those neighborhoods. The of a new park that can be enjoyed by all. existing deficiency of open space will only become more of a prob-

at right angles, to minimize disrup- CHAPTER 6 tion to pedestrian flow at street inter- lem as new residents move Downtown. But the construction of Open Space/Retail Interface: There is a strong correlation between sections. new parks and green space is difficult to initiate as wholly inde- open space and retail development. People looking for a place to pendent projects because of the relatively high cost of downtown spend leisure time are often looking for a place to buy food, • Design streets and buildings to elimi- land. In addition, the lack of designated operating funds for new drinks, or concession items. In many downtown settings across parks and green spaces means that even if they are built, they are North America, open spaces that are part of a mixed-use complex nate long stretches of blank, inactive CHAPTER 7 building walls. apt to become liabilities if they are not cared for and properly with a retail component appear to be more successful in terms of maintained. intensity of use than those that are not linked to retail activities. • Introduce building components that But in locations where the office rental rate is higher than the Incorporating new parks and open space as part of individual retail rental rate, developers are hard pressed to justify allocating

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 60 LEGEND 10/10/03 EXISTING STREETSCAPE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE EXISTING PARKS ANDOPENSPACE PROPOSED PARKS ANDOPENSPACE .SEE“REVISINGTHEPHYSICALIMPACT 2. SEE“CASESTUDY–5THSTREET 1. 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) PAGES 78-79 OF THEHCMCMEGASTRUCTURE,” STREETSCAPE” PAGES 68-77 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.8Map ofStreetscapeandOpen Space DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 1. 2. 5 N 61

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CONDITIONS ANDOPPORTUNITIES 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.9Streetscape andOpenSpace DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT borhoods oneitherside. that knittogetherexistingandemergingneigh- should beredesignedasbeautiful“seams” Avenue –likeseveralotherdowntownstreets of thecentralriverfront.Instead,Washington Elliot ParkandDowntownEasttotheamenities pedestrian movementfromtheDowntownCore, hoods. Forexample,Washington Avenue inhibits barriers betweennewandexistingneighbor- street ortryingtocrossit.Suchstreetscreate inhospitable topedestriansmovingalongthe thoroughfares becausetheyareparticularly edges ofDowntown–aremerelyunwelcoming Instead, manystreets–especiallyontheouter vards orprominententriestoDowntown. Some downtownstreetscouldbegreatboule- and, inasense,openspace. “gathering place”–itisbothstreetscape that isrecognizedasDowntown’s primary The NicolletMallrepresentsapublic space rounding properties Downtown, andtheincreasedvalue tosur- izing theincreasedbenefitto“feel” of tree canopyisespeciallyimportantforreal- large enoughtoallowforahealthy, mature through theurbanfabric.Dedicatingspaces created wide,continuouscorridorsofgreen the valueofDowntownopenspaceandhave Some NorthAmericancitieshaverecognized corridor andstreetscape. section ofthispark withthe5thStreetLRT tional designcontestforredefining the inter- The Citymightconsiderholdinganinterna- East andthenorthernportionofElliot Park. otherwise ordinarystreetgridofDowntown green southfromtheMillsDistrictinto the LRT Station;and it helpsextend“fingers”of neighborhood focusedontheDowntown East and thewesternedgeofanewmixed-use edge oftheextendedDowntownoffice core green “seam”thatknitstogetherthe eastern Avenue Parkisanopportunitytocreatea Avenue fromSouth7thStreet.ThePortland looking northasitstretchestoWashington At leftisaviewofthePortlandAvenue Park surrounding propertyvalues. helps organizenewdevelopmentandenhance new parkoffersadowntownamenitythat the streetfromStarTribune Building.This east sideoftheArmoryandotheracross build ontwoexistinggreenspaces–onethe along thewestsideofPortlandAvenue will A newlinearparkdevelopedincrementally the DowntownCore. river alongPortlandAvenue anddefines A “greenway”offersaconnectiontothe 5 62

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

portions of allowable Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) to retail. In this posed amenities. For instance, all parking meters, streetlights, Policies Continued instance, public policy can possibly promote the integration of traffic signage and the like should be organized into a zone that street-level retail with open space by not including retail space in falls between the pedestrian clear zone and the street curb. offer protection to pedestrians, such

FAR calculations. Likewise on the inside of the block, left over space in front of CHAPTER 1 as awnings and canopies, as a means downtown buildings can be used to create distinctive entry zones to encourage pedestrian activity along Streetscapes or outdoor seating areas. streets, especially where skyway alternatives don’t or won’t exist. While the challenge of incorporating new parks into the Project Sidewalk bulb-outs / Traffic neck-downs: Bulb-outs are extensions

Area will likely require a great deal of concerted effort and built into the sidewalk at key intersections – particularly along CHAPTER 2 • Encourage sidewalk retail and resources over the long term, improving the quality of public retail streets. Though it may be impractical for all downtown restaurants at locations specified in places in Downtown Minneapolis by incorporating streetscapes intersections in the near term, widening the sidewalks with bulb- the Land Use Plan. into the existing fabric of the city is far less challenging because outs at a sequence of intersections along the same street accom- the street grid and sidewalk network already are in place. The plishes a number of important goals simultaneously. It narrows • Maintain prohibitions of new auto- importance and impact of quality streetscapes should not be min- the length of crosswalks from one side of the street to the other. CHAPTER 3 oriented uses such as drive-in imized. Developing streetscapes involves redefining the purpose of Because pedestrians remain on sidewalk as far as the outer edge restaurants, banks, and retailers with a particular street as more than a mere conveyance for moving of cars parked on the street, they have better visibility of oncom- drive-up windows. vehicles by creating as pleasant an environment as possible for ing traffic before crossing the street and, conversely, are more pedestrians as well. Walking from one part of the Downtown to visible to drivers. While the width of vehicular traffic lanes

• Concentrate skyways within the another need not be drudgery. It should be encouraged through remains the same, the subliminal result of curbs being moved CHAPTER 4 Downtown Core. A limited number of the implementation of enhancements that recreate a local linear closer to travel lanes causes drivers to slow down, thus making extensions beyond the core is accept- environment at a pedestrian scale. Such enhancements include pedestrians safer. Finally, because bulb-outs define permanent able as long as skyways are built to the following: on-street parking zones, at-grade retail activity is encouraged connect high-intensity uses that gen- because it is conceivable that drivers may find a “space at the erate a great deal of foot traffic. Uniform Pedestrian Zones: Because most of Downtown is already door,” if only for a short while. CHAPTER 5 Such uses include Class A office developed with existing buildings, it may not be possible to incor- space, the Baseball Park, and the porate a single standard sidewalk width throughout the Project Street lighting: The ubiquitous brown “shoe-box” style light fix- Multi-Modal Station. Area. However, it is possible to set a standard “pedestrian-clear” ture found throughout downtown is functional and cost effective, width for sidewalks along specific lengths of street that are but offers no opportunity to create a street that has an identity • Prohibit the construction of skyways streetscaped. The pedestrian-clear zone is the walkable sidewalk that distinguishes it from other downtown streets. Wherever pos- CHAPTER 6 beyond the recommended extension space that lies between building facades and light poles, sign- sible, new streetscapes should incorporate fixtures that under- zone. posts, parking meters, and the like. (In residential neighborhoods score the special character of a given street. outside of downtown, pedestrian-clear space is more easily identi- • Create points where highly visible ver- fiable because there is grass on both sides of the sidewalk.) The Due to the cost of maintaining multiple kinds of streetlights, it CHAPTER 7 tical circulation is built to forge direct pedestrian clear zone on downtown sidewalks should be between may be desirable to choose a small palette of fixtures that limit connections between the Skyway 10 and 14 feet wide and it should be clearly defined by a consis- the variety of streetlights throughout Downtown, while still allow- System and downtown sidewalks. tent sidewalk treatment. The left over space on either side is ing a whole set of special streets to be distinguished from an • Construct skyway stair towers at the given over to the placement of the necessary utilities and pro- existing set of ordinary streets. At the very least, pedestrian

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 63 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

scale fixtures should be incorporated into all new streetscapes as visitors might choose to walk – rather than drive – when moving Policies Continued a way to improve safety and humanize the sidewalk environment from one place to another within and across the CBD. The result on streets designated for a higher level of pedestrian use. Banner is a series of well–populated streets with a higher-than-normal edges of the Skyway System to facili-

arms should be installed on streetlight poles in a uniform interval level of amenity that, in turn, will encourage retail development, CHAPTER 1 tate a series of strong, highly-visible in all streetscapes as a quick means to infuse color and character discourage crime, and enhance economic vitality because their points of interface with City sidewalks to downtown neighborhoods. physical and functional character gives each street an identity and proposed open/green spaces. that lends its property owners some cache. Public Art: The City should continue to formalize policies and pro-

• Locate new skyways within buildings cedures for incorporating public art into all infrastructure projects Downtown Reforestation CHAPTER 2 in a manner that enables pedestrians throughout the Project Area. Because an ever-expanding palette of to see the street from inside. streetlights, bench types, and the like is cost-prohibitive to main- Incorporating trees into the fabric of Downtown East and the North tain, creating the sense of identity that distinguishes one Loop is absolutely critical for improving both the quality of life and streetscape from another should rest on the quality and character property values in the Downtown urban environment. A healthy

of the public art incorporated into each streetscape. urban forest has direct environmental pay-offs by improving air CHAPTER 3 quality and reducing storm water runoff. At the same time, an Street furniture: Streets that are rebuilt to incorporate accumulated tree canopy that stretches down a city block, or streetscapes should be enhanced through the use of distinctive across an entire neighborhood, provides seasonal benefits that street furniture – such as benches, trash receptacles, gardens, make downtown streets and open spaces more comfortable and

planters, fountains and other urban design amenities. Because it therefore more livable. Besides the obvious aesthetic impact of CHAPTER 4 is not cost feasible to have a different kind of light fixture, a dif- green plant life, a lush leaf canopy provides cooling affects that ferent kind of bench and a different style of street furnishings for mitigate the radiant heat emitted from the hard surfaces that each and every downtown street, it will be necessary to develop often make many sidewalks so unpleasant in the summer time. standardized palettes that can be used when developing different Likewise, in addition to the aesthetic quality of trunk and branch streetscape applications throughout downtown. pattern against the winter sky, trees help to buffer pedestrians CHAPTER 5 against strong winter winds (see Figures 5.10 through 5.12, pages Street trees and planters: Wherever possible, the planting of 65-67). deciduous street trees should be encouraged. Street trees should be protected by decorative tree grates and tree guards, or be built Planting deciduous trees makes more sense than planting conifer- in above-ground planters. ous trees. Besides their seasonal-ecological benefits, deciduous CHAPTER 6 trees do not block important views into and out of street-level Street vending: Simple measures to promote and integrate small spaces, thus providing a safer street environment that is more operations – such as vending kiosks and “hole-in-the-wall” retail attractive to retailers who want their store windows to be seen. – into the streetscape should be encouraged. CHAPTER 7 While there are a number of different kinds of deciduous trees In all, pedestrians feel more welcomed on streets that incorporate that are tolerant of dense urban settings, no tree will thrive if it as many of these features as possible., With the appropriate level does not have healthy growing conditions. Creating healthy grow- of street improvements, many Downtown residents, workers, and ing conditions for all downtown trees means that ample space

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 64 CONDITIONS ANDOPPORTUNITIES 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.10Examples ofReforestation DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT of an“orchardparking”concept. reforestation throughtheapplication Parking lotsofferanopportunityfor and livability. lending agreatersenseofamenity to high-intensityneighborhoodsby Trees addasenseoflifeandvitality Downtown EastandtheNorthLoop. pedestrian orientationisdesiredfor these needtobeaddressedifatrue time, theaestheticsofspaceslike not happenovernight.Inthemean- downtown surfaceparkinglotswill Redevelopment ortransformationof parking lots required atallsurface Intense treecanopy existing buildings. and humanactivitytuckedbetween garden –creatingaplaceofvalue might takeontheappearanceofa Reforestation ofsomeparkinglots use. space untiltheyevolvetoanother provide shadeand“humanize”the orchard parkingtechniquesthat ance canbeimprovedbyusing Loop forsometime,theirappear- life forDowntownEastandNorth While parkinglotsmaybeafactof landscaping andstrolling. space forsidewalkcafes,additional Wide sidewalksatkeystreetsoffer 5 65

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 mental benefits,aestheticenhancementsandhumanizingcharacter. Introduction ofsignificanttreeplantingsinsurfaceparkinglotsyields environ- ORCHARD PARKING growing environment fortrees,andavoidbelowgrade obstructions. which offeranadditional senseofprotectionforpedestrians, provideabetter Heavier trafficked streetsmaymerittheintroduction ofraisedplantersfortrees, STREET TREES–RAISEDPLANTERS 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.11Reforestation: SampleSolutions 1 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT magnitude inDowntown EastandtheNorthLoop. offer anopportunity tocreateaconnectedurbanforest ofsome While thespaceis notexpansiveinwidth,treeplantings inalleys GREEN ALLEY create greenretreatsfordowntownresidents,workersandvisitors. Spaces markingentriestosignificantbuildingsindowntownarean opportunityto PLAZA 5 66

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 pedestrians. tree plantings,wheretheirpresenceismostappreciatedby Most commonly, theurbanforestoccurswithextensivestreet STREET TREES in mostcases,asignatureelement. Essential qualitiesofapocketpark includetheirsmallscaleandpedestrian POCKET PARK orientation, asenseofcontainment andcanopy, anextensiontothestreet,and, CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.12Reforestation: SampleSolutions 2 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT artful pavilionsor publicart. spaces designed asmoregarden-likerefugeswith trees,grass,shrubsandeven Small remnantspaces, toosmalltobuildupon,can addvalueassmallopen POCKET PARK–AERIAL contribute tothecharacterofanurbanplace. raised planterprovidesabetterchancefortreestoreachmaturity andactually Medians aredifficultenvironmentsfortreegrowth,buttheintroduction ofa STREET TREESINMEDIANPLANTERS 5 67

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for Streetscapes, Open Space, and must be provided for them to grow. In addition, providing for their Metrodome to the site of the new Multi-Modal Station and Ballpark Reforestation on-going perpetual care and maintenance is critical to maximiz- in the North Loop (see Figures 5.13 and 5.14, pages 69-70). ing the benefits derived from making the investment in planting

• Establish significant public spaces in trees. Wherever possible, irrigation systems should be built into A unified 5th Street streetscape has several important benefits, all CHAPTER 1 Downtown East and North Loop, espe- tree planters or downtown parks and plazas to ensure that consis- of which are grounded in opportunities to enhance the economic cially where they are proximate to the tent, strategic watering is possible – especially in times of vitality of the entire CBD. First, a unified streetscape would create places where people live or work. drought or deluge. an easily identifiable “front door” to the city, which in turn would give properties that have an address along 5th Street a certain

• Design public spaces and private CASE STUDIES FOR STRATEGIC URBAN DESIGN PROJECTS cache. As such, inserting a streetscape becomes a major economic CHAPTER 2 plazas to encourage their use and to development tool that would help the city to encourage transit-ori- place a strong emphasis on the cre- Bringing the quality and character of the public realm in ented development around new and future station sites (see Figure ation of “green” in these new spaces. Downtown Minneapolis up to par with the economic vibrancy of 5.15, page 71, and figures 5.16 through 5.18, pages 73-75). Open spaces should connect directly the City will require major changes in the way business is done to city streets and they should be and the way people think of, and value the public realm around Second, a unified streetscape along 5th Street would help tie the CHAPTER 3 well-integrated into the public them. Change won’t happen overnight, but there are two projects outer neighborhoods of the CBD more closely into the commercial domain. that have the potential to make a dramatic difference in down- core. It would help integrate new development into the existing town in fairly short order and which might be relatively easy to fabric of Downtown in order to encourage a diversity of uses and • Consider establishing an open space implement in the near future. The first such project is the devel- activities. Such diversity will at once complement existing standard and instituting a develop- opment of a streetscape along the downtown LRT corridor. The Downtown development while also creating opportunities to CHAPTER 4 ment impact fee for creating new second project is a series of modifications to a small portion of expand the times of the day and week in which various parts of downtown parks in the Project Area. Downtown East – the area around the Hennepin County Medical Downtown are active, alive, and vital. For example, because so Center – that will help to better integrate an important institution much of Downtown’s activity is already oriented in a north-south • Sidewalks should be built to a mini- into the “high-potential” of the surrounding neighborhood fabric. direction on streets, such as Hennepin Avenue, Nicollet Mall and CHAPTER 5 mum width of 12 feet to promote a Marquette Avenue, tying neighborhoods together in a strong east- comfortable scale and to create Case Study: 5th Street Streetscape west connection is more than just a nice idea. It is critical to opportunities to enhance sidewalk ensuring that consumers are able to walk between important activity. In locations where plantings The construction of new rail transit infrastructure in Downtown places such as the Metrodome and the eating and drinking estab- Minneapolis offers the opportunity to reshape the public realm lishments of the Warehouse District, or the Theatre District on

or sidewalk cafes are intended, a CHAPTER 6 minimum sidewalk width of 18 feet and encourage the economic potential of downtown neighbor- Hennepin Avenue and the new Mill City Museum or the new should be maintained. A minimum hoods. 5th Street already is being transformed from a typical Guthrie Theatre in the Mills District. width of 10 feet should be adopted for downtown street to one that has a new function – the central zones of “pedestrian-clear” space. spine of downtown rail transit. Perhaps the best opportunity – Integrated Improvements one that offers maximum potential for a relatively small invest- CHAPTER 7 • Establish continuous zones on the ment – is to establish a clear pedestrian link that enhances the In order to create a well-used, engaging environment along 5th outer edges of downtown sidewalks character of the LRT corridor through the installation of a consis- Street, it will be necessary to integrate a whole palette of street where functional hardware (such as tent streetscape along the length of the 5th Street. This finishes, furnishings, and operational “hardware” into a consis- streetscape would stretch from the Downtown East Station at the tent streetscape. This includes street lighting, pedestrian light-

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 68 10/10/03

FIRST AVENUE NORTH

PICKLED PARROT PICKLED PARKING LOT PARKING

THIRD AVENUE NORTH CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.135th StreetStreetscape:Block Configurations1 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT

HENNEPIN AVENUE PARKING RAMP PARKING PARKING LOT LUMBER EXCHANGE FIFTH STREET

SECOND AVENUE NORTH RENAISSANCE SQUARE

XCEL PLAZA

PARKING RAMP PARKING FIFTH STREET FIFTH

NIEMAN MARCUS BUTLER NORTH BUTLER NICOLLET MALLSTATION First Avenue NorthtoMarquetteAvenue Third Avenue NorthtoFirstAvenue North

FIRST AVENUE NORTH PICKLED PARROT PICKLED 5 69

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03

MARQUETTE AVENUE PARKING RAMP IT TETTWR FIFTHSTREETTOWERS FIFTH STREETTOWERS SOO LINEBUILDING

FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH PLAZA AT ONEFINANCIALPLAZA CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.145th StreetStreetscape:Block Configurations2 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT PARKING LOT ARMORY

SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FIFTH STREET PILLSBURY CENTER FIFTH STREET QWEST

PORTLAND AVENUE STAR TRIBUNE

THIRD AVENUE SOUTH JUVENILE JUSTICECENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTERPLAZA HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT STATION CITY HALL Marquette Avenue toFourthAvenue Fourth Avenue toChicagoAvenue

FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH PARKING RAMP HENNEPIN COUNTYJAIL 5 70

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.155th StreetStreetscape:View LookingeastfromGovernment StationtowardMetrodome Plaza DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 71

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies Continued ing, sidewalk treatments, intersection and crosswalk treatments, Intersection and crosswalk treatments: The intersections where street furnishings, landscaping, and public art (see Figures 5.16 5th Street crosses other downtown streets are important places for through 5.18, pages 73-75). pedestrians to orient themselves and make choices about moving streetlights, signage and parking

around within the city. To the extent possible, intersections should CHAPTER 1 meters) are located in manner that is Street lighting: Integration of the hardware for the LRT’s Overhead stand out from the length of blocks to indicate the presence of as uniform as possible. Catenary System (OCS) with new city street lights onto a single cross traffic. Ideally, each intersection would be built in concrete. joint use pole has already been accomplished through an agree- At the very least, a special paint pattern should be used to make • Wherever possible, establish continu- ment by the Metropolitan Council, the Hiawatha Project Office crosswalks easily identifiable for pedestrians, motorists, and LRT

ous zones on the inner or outer edges (HPO), and the City of Minneapolis. Combining these two functions operators alike. CHAPTER 2 of downtown sidewalks for street fur- into a single shared unit will dramatically reduce the feeling of nishings, planters, public art, and clutter that would otherwise result from too many utility poles in a Street furniture: In order to make the LRT corridor user-friendly for other amenities. tight urban space. For the most part, joint use poles will be locat- transit patrons, bicyclists, and downtown pedestrians alike, it will ed in a consistent manner along the length of the corridor allowing be necessary to install a consistent collection of street furnish-

• Streetscape treatments should be for good sightlines from one end of 5th Street to the other. In the ings, such as benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, and bicy- CHAPTER 3 incorporated into the length of all course of public meetings for this master plan, the general public cle lockers, throughout the corridor. Primary Pedestrian Movement voted on a light silver metallic finish for joint use poles. Corridors to form consistent connec- The length of 5th Street should contain ample public seating so tions between significant destina- Pedestrian Lighting: At the request of the City of Minneapolis, the space may be fully used and enjoyed by the greatest number

tions and features. joint use poles that are being installed as part of the LRT con- of people. Seating areas should be designed to be more than just CHAPTER 4 struction project are able to be retrofitted in the future to incorpo- pretty; they must be inviting and useable as well. (Well-used pub- • In the near term, the 5th Street rate pedestrian scaled street lighting along the length of 5th lic spaces are far safer than those that are aesthetically hand- streetscape should be incorporated Street. Prior to making any modifications to the joint use poles, some but send the subliminal signal that users are unwelcome). into the LRT Corridor to forge the the City and other stakeholders should contemplate the need and As in any city park, all public seating should have seatbacks, major east/west pedestrian connec- value of adding freestanding pedestrian-scaled lighting in the making the benches a comfortable place to spend time. Nuisance CHAPTER 5 tion within Downtown Minneapolis. interstitial areas between joint use poles. loiterers should be dissuaded through design that encourages Streetscape enhancements articulat- crowds of users; rather than by inserting poor design features that ed in the 5th Street Streetscape (see Sidewalk treatments: Most existing sidewalks along the length of discourage the use and enjoyment of the corridor by a broad page 71) should be implemented as the corridor should be rebuilt to uniform standards, with uniform cross-section of the general public. soon as possible. materials. The City and HPO already have established locations CHAPTER 6 for the placement of joint use poles. In most cases, these loca- Landscaping zones and extended sidewalks: The relationship • Extensive tree planting should be pro- tions reinforce a consistent zone of “pedestrian-clear” walking between existing buildings and the existing right-of-way on 5th moted in all public and private devel- space between the face of each pole and the face of the adjacent Street creates several stretches where sidewalks are narrow and opment projects throughout the building. In those portions of the core that already have a decora- less than optimal. Nevertheless, in several locations the layout of CHAPTER 7 Project Area. tive sidewalk installed, special efforts will need to be made to LRT tracks along the corridor has created leftover spaces between ensure that pedestrians have visual clues that lend an overall the new curb face and the front of existing buildings. Because • Use trees for their aesthetic and eco- consistency to the “floor” of the corridor. these “extended sidewalks” are as much as twenty feet wide in logical benefits: improvement of air some places, they offer an excellent opportunity to soften the

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 72 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.165th StreetStreetscape:Proposed StreetFurniture DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Stainless steelorgalvanizedfinish Perforated steelshroudaroundinnerstructure Steel construction Manufactured bySiteForm “Universal” Mounted tosidewalkwithcollar Galvanized finish Steel construction Various Manufacturers “Loop” BikeRack Mounted tosidewalkswithsidewalkcollars Stainless steelorgalvanizedfinish Varying lengths(40”–118”) Perforated steelseatwithoptionalarms. Manufactured bySiteForm “Vacante” Standard “Shoebox” Streetlighting: “Mitre” ModelM2 Pedestrian AreaLighting “Mitre” ModelM1 Streetlighting: 5 73

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Standard plan withonevehicularlaneand expandedsidewalk

Standard planwithtwovehicularlanes 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.175th StreetStreetscape:Typical SidewalkPlans DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 74

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Standard crosssectionwithtwovehicularlanes

expanded sidewalk Standard crosssectionwithonevehicular laneand 10/10/03 Pedestrian Pedestrian 8’ -10’ 8’ -10’ Zone Zone

OCS poles OCS poles Vehicle lane Vehicle lane Centerline oftracks Centerline oftracks Amenity 8’ -10’ Zone Vehicle lane CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.185th StreetStreetscape:Typical SidewalkDetails DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Pedestrian 6’ -8’ Zone

OCS poles Pedestrian 8’ -10’

Zone OCS poles Pedestrian 8’ -10’ Zone Plan viewatnew “extended” sidewalkon5thStreet Street corridor. Plan viewatstandardsidewalkconditionin5th Rebuilt roadway/LRT trackarea Curb Building facade Plan viewoftypical raisedplanterlocatedin“extended” sidewalk “extended” sidewalk Elevation oftypicalraisedplanterlocatedin Building facade Curb 5 75

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

character of the street by integrating new planters and landscap- tion of the 5th Street roadway was impossible due to budgetary Policies Continued ing. Extended sidewalks zones are possible on the north side of concerns and the restrictive timeline imposed by the LRT project 5th Street between Marquette and Third Avenues South and In the meantime, in its dealings with the Hiawatha Project Office quality, reduction of storm water

between Fourth and Fifth Avenues South. Ideally, a long term (HPO), City staff were successful in ensuring that the integration CHAPTER 1 runoff, cooling in the summertime, solution for 5th Street would include removing the vehicular lane of LRT onto 5th Street was done in a deliberate, consistent man- and the buffering of winter winds. north of the LRT tracks between Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue ner so that it would serve as a unified background for a future South and rebuilding these lanes as extended sidewalks / land- streetscape. For example, a great deal of City staff time and • Plant deciduous trees rather than scaping zones. This would allow for an unbroken ribbon of green energy was put into making sure that joint-use poles are installed

coniferous trees, for reasons of safety extending from the Metrodome to the heart of the Downtown Core. to support street lights, traffic signals, and LRT wires rather than CHAPTER 2 and shade; consider the use of multiple individual-purpose poles in the corridor. These poles also “Tivoli” string lighting on key streets, All planters will need to be strategically placed and sized so that have the ability to support banners and pedestrian level lighting vest pocket parks, and in “orchard they do not interfere with the maintenance of the overhead cate- at a future date. parking lots.” nary system and the joint use poles. Likewise planters will need

to be placed in close proximity to, but outside of the pedestrian- Potential Funding Sources CHAPTER 3 • Consider the form of the space that clear zones of walking space. Planters should be raised and irri- will be created by trees. Use them to gated to give trees and other plants the best possible chance of If the full design concept for the streetscape is to become a reali- create “urban rooms,” so that the thriving. ty, additional treatments will likely need to be incorporated at a combination of trees and buildings later date when sufficient funding is found through one or more

will help to create special places for Public Art: The City should continue to formalize policies and pro- potential funding scenarios: CHAPTER 4 people to interact. cedures to ensure that public art is incorporated into all infrastructure projects throughout the Project Area, specifically the 5th Intergovernmental Coalition: While the urgency of completing Street Streetscape. construction of the actual rail line on 5th Street superceded the ability to simultaneously construct a streetscape, making the Challenges to incorporation of the 5th Street Streetscape most of 5th Street has benefits that extend beyond just the local CHAPTER 5 environment. If the LRT system is to be truly successful, integrat- In 1999, a conceptual streetscape design for 5th Street had been ing the downtown pedestrian circulation system into the LRT sys- designed in conjunction with MnDOT’s Aesthetic Design Committee tem is critical for attracting new converts to rail transit, encour- for the Hiawatha Line. However, in the Spring of 2000, prior to aging new business activity, and strengthening property values in the full funding agreement from the Federal Transit the Project Area. Because improvements to the surrounding CHAPTER 6 Administration (FTA), MnDOT determined that it was no longer pedestrian realm are in the interest of the City of Minneapolis, possible – from a budgetary standpoint – to include any provi- Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Council, a joint effort by a sions for a streetscape along the LRT corridor. They determined coalition of intergovernmental partners may be more likely to get that any enhancements to 5th Street would be left up to the City. off the ground than if such an effort is left to one governmental CHAPTER 7 entity alone. Although it clearly made sense to pursue the improvement of public areas along 5th Street in conjunction with the construction of Public-Private Partnership: While local and regional governments the LRT line, integrating a streetscape project into the reconstruc- clearly have a stake in the success of the light rail system, private

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 76 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

property owners, property managers and developers clearly stand the costs back to property owners after the fact. In either case, a to benefit from the integration of LRT into Downtown Minneapolis. balance will have to be struck since construction of a streetscape A streetscape that unifies 5th Street and gives it character will should in no way hinder developer interest or the ability to “make

help to maximize foot traffic in and around nearby properties by a go of it” within the LRT corridor. CHAPTER 1 forging better connections to them. Better access, a higher level of convenience for commuters, and a more pleasant environment Miscellaneous Sources: On the assumption that a source can be along the corridor will translate into a more competitive leasing settled upon for capital construction of the 5th Street Streetscape, market and higher rents for downtown commercial spaces. As the City might consider “leasing” sidewalk space to street vendors

such, the Downtown Council, the Building Owners and Managers and dedicate this rent to ongoing maintenance of the streetscape CHAPTER 2 Association (BOMA), the East Downtown Council, the Warehouse amenities. Likewise, to the extent that the City wants to set up District Business Association and the North Loop Business sheltered kiosks at or nearby LRT stations, additional revenues Association all need to be at the table in working with a coalition might be possible since these are good locations for newsstands, of intergovernmental partners. florists, and convenience retail. Alternatively, revenue raised by

selling advertising on LRT vehicles or at LRT stations might also CHAPTER 3 Property Assessments: A traditional way to fund street improve- be used to fund maintenance of the surrounding streetscape. ment projects is for property owners to band together and work with local government to design and construct necessary changes. Case Study: Revising the Physical Impact of Megastructures in The cost of the project – for either construction, maintenance, or Downtown East

both – is then charged back to property owners in the form of CHAPTER 4 assessments against their property. However, in the case of 5th The urban landscape in Downtown East (and in the northern Street, the relatively large differences in the value of properties in reaches of Elliot Park) is overwhelmingly dominated by three fea- Downtown East and the North Loop – as compared to those within tures: Large expanses of surface parking, the Hubert Humphrey the Downtown Core – presents special challenges for determining Metrodome, and the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC). how assessments should be levied in a way that is justly propor- CHAPTER 5 tional. No doubt, the existing imbalance in land values along 5th As an institution and as a “campus” within Downtown Minneapolis, Street will even out somewhat once the LRT line is in full opera- HCMC was formed through a series of hospital consolidations in tion. Nevertheless, dramatic differences between fully developed the 1960s and 1970s, and through a series of property acquisitions parcels and those that have been speculatively held as surface (of former hospitals) in the early 1990s. Though the HCMC campus parking lots will need to be accounted for. is comprised of a diverse collection of buildings, many people CHAPTER 6 equate the presence of the institution in Downtown with the center- Development Fees: One option that the City of Minneapolis might piece of their physical plant – an enormous megastructure that pursue is to levy a development fee on all new projects within a spans four city blocks (see Figures 5.19 and 5.20, pages 78-79). given geographic area – either along the corridor, within a three When this building was built in the early 1970s, megastructures CHAPTER 7 block distance of 5th Street, or throughout the CBD. This option were considered an inventive architectural solution to the challenge has its own challenges in weighing the relative benefits of waiting of building large institutional or commercial complexes within the to build a streetscape on 5th Street until enough new development heart of U.S. cities. Most U.S. cities have at least one of two exam- occurs, versus fronting money to build a streetscape and charging ples of this kind of architecture within their downtowns.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 77 the publicrealm. “district,” greaterpedestriancomfortandactivationof Metrodome andHCMC,resultinginamoredefinitive GOAL: Creationofmorehumanespacessurroundingthe 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Plan Figure 5.19Revising thePhysicalImpact ofLocalMegastructures– DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT

PARK AVENUE FRONT YARD GARDENS HCMC

CHICAGO AVENUE EXISTING GAPS TREES TOFILL-IN ADD STREET SOUTH 6THSTREET SOUTH 7THSTREET SOUTH 8THSTREET ARBORS STREETSCAPE AVENUE CHICAGO PROPOSED HCMC METRODOME TERMINAL VIEW FOCUS AT STREETS REPLACES EXISTING NEW BOULEVARD ELLIOT PARK

10TH AVENUE ELLIOT PARK NEW BOULEVARD AND GARDEN LINKBETWEEN PUBLIC ART 5 N 78

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.20Revising thePhysicalImpact ofLocalMegastructures– Detail DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT of connectednessinDowntownEast. present a“wall”thatdiscouragessense uncomfortable spacesforpedestriansand HCMC structuresthatbridgestreetscreate tricts wheretheyarelocated.Forexample, erating streetlifeinandaroundthedis- ture presentslongtermproblemsforgen- small-sized blocks,thisformofarchitec- large institutionsintodowntownswith ered alogicalsolutionforincorporating Though megastructureswereonceconsid- Warehouse District. Suchbusinessesare Park, theDowntown core,andthe to connectnearby businessesinElliot part ofDowntownfromusingcitysidewalks the largenumbersofvisitorscoming tothis A concretedividerinthestreetdiscourages because itencourageshightraffic speeds. feels morelikearacetrackthan city street roadway betweentheMetrodomeand HCMC less thanoptimal.Theexistingcombined ter andutilityofsidewalksinthisarea is great dealofpedestriantraffic,the charac- While theMetrodomeandHCMCgenerate a the problem distinctive streetscapingonlycompound campus. Opaquewindowsandthelackof public realminandaroundtheHCMC building deterspeoplefromactivatingthe the monolithiccharacterofHCMC’s main human-scaled architecturaldetailingand town pedestriantraffic,thelackof Despite beingamajorgeneratorofdown- PROPOSED SOLUTIONS spaces underthebuilding. “Arbors” linkbuildingcolumnsandofferamorehumanecanopyto “Arbors” wraptheconcretecolumnentirely. they touchtheground. Vines andgroundplantings “soften”thebuildingatpointswhere of theMetrodome. A plantedmediancomplements boulevardplantingsonthesouth side trian conditions. because oftheinhospitablepedes- but formanytheyseemmilesaway not thatfarawayinactualdistance, Downtown Core. Downtown East, Elliot Park,andthe of connectedness between the eastandofferagreatersense welcoming entrytoDowntownfrom planted medianwillprovideamore traffic, andinsertingaraised the drivinglanewidthstocalm and chainlinkfence,reducing Removal ofconcretebarriers more humanscale. would helpgivethesebuildingsa needed architecturaldetailingthat rating arborswouldalsoaddmuch benefits ofnewgreenery, incorpo- ing amorehumanecoverwiththe loving plants.Inadditiontoprovid- ments suchasarborswithshade- ducing relativelyinexpensiveele- can bemademoreinvitingbyintro- tunnel underHCMC’s mainbuilding Street-level passagesthatseemto 5 79

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for Revising the Physical Impact Although there is no question about the importance of HCMC Undertaking these efforts will need to be done jointly by Hennepin of Megastructures In Downtown East being located downtown, the overpowering architecture of HCMC’s County and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, as the main building presents a number of challenges for creating and property owners, and the City of Minneapolis, due to its interest in

• Establish a streetscape zone that recreating new pedestrian-scaled, mixed use neighborhoods on forging Complete Communities. Obviously business, neighbor- CHAPTER 1 relates specifically to HCMC and the the edges of the HCMC campus. The irony is that while so many hood, and resident groups in Downtown East and Elliot Park will Metrodome so the district becomes lives are being saved inside these walls, the exterior character of need to be an important voice in moving any such effort forward. more identifiable in downtown. This the megastructure does little to enhance the streetlife on its district should be bounded by South threshold. This is because the megastructure creates city “walls” 6th Street on the north, Tenth that seriously disrupt the urban experience within this portion of CHAPTER 2 Avenue South on the east, South 8th Downtown. Street on the south, and Park Avenue on the west. The Metrodome stadium was built in the 1980s on a megablock created by merging six separate Downtown blocks into a single

• Reduce the perceived orientation site used for the construction of a sport stadium and an adjacent, CHAPTER 3 toward vehicles by reducing street undersized parking structure. In conjunction with its “next door widths and thereby calming traffic. neighbor,” HCMC, the scale and detail of these megastructures This is especially important along severely degrades the Downtown East pedestrian environment. the south side of the Metrodome Furthermore, the nature of their use is such that they create high- where typical speeds are not fitting ly-localized islands of intense pedestrian activity that often seem CHAPTER 4 for the neighborhood. disconnected from the rest of Downtown, thus discouraging pedestrian connections through the area. • Establish a more welcoming entry to the district and to Downtown by That being the case, efforts should be made to better weave these CHAPTER 5 replacing the concrete j-barriers buildings and their surrounding areas into the downtown fabric. and chain link fence that currently The creation of more humane public spaces and streetscapes sur- divide South 5th Street and South rounding these buildings would result in a more definitive “dis- 6th Street along the south side of trict” that provides a greater sense of comfort for pedestrians. Likewise, by forging better connections through these “walls” and

the Metrodome. Create a new CHAPTER 6 boulevard that combines both road- enhancing the district with more recognizable pedestrian ameni- ways, incorporates new raised and ties, it will be possible to create strong links north and south planted medians, and builds on the between Elliot Park and the Central Riverfront, and stronger links existing tree canopy / streetscape east and west between Elliot Park and the Downtown Core. Improving these connections – and overcoming the feeling that currently in place on the south side CHAPTER 7 of the Metrodome. these buildings are barriers as opposed to gateways – is absolutely critical to forging revitalization in the Elliot Park East and Elliot • Increase the sidewalk area in and Park West precincts (see Figure 4.1, page 33).

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 80 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING GATEWAYS AND VIEW • Type A: Gateways into Downtown East and the North Loop; Policies Continued CORRIDORS • Type B: Lighted Gateway Spires; • Type C: Districts that serve as transitional spaces between around the HCMC zone to create

The quality of the public realm in Downtown Minneapolis – it’s liv- different parts of Downtown. CHAPTER 1 more space for streetscape ability and economic vitality – could be greatly improved by taking enhancements, especially in areas the opportunity to adopt a series of measures aimed at enhancing A series of maps and photographs highlight key gateway locations where building walls are monolithic the visual scope of the city. The visual scope of the city is that and zones in and around the Project Area (see Figures 5.21 and lack pedestrian-scaled detail. set of qualities which increases the range and penetration of through 5.28, pages 82-89).

vision through and within the built environment, either actually or CHAPTER 2 • Decking over freeway entry/exit trench- symbolically. Enhancing the visual scope of the city includes tak- View Corridors es on the northeast corner of the ing note of and making the most of what already exists in the Metrodome site would allow for the landscape but needs further articulation – broad vistas and View Corridors are linear perspectives that penetrate though the creation of a new public open space panoramas, markers that punctuate the end of a long linear path built environment. In most cases, they are punctuated at the end

on the north side of the stadium. through the city, and transitional zones between districts and by a downtown landmark. They are important because they pro- CHAPTER 3 neighborhoods that have their own distinct qualities. Future vide a larger sense of how the city is organized. They also serve • Focus on the creation of human- development that deliberately frames existing views, or makes the the practical function of orienting people and giving them a sense scaled elements and spaces (public most of an otherwise unmarked gateway, will make the city easier of scale within the urban landscape. For instance, the Downtown art, fountains, or gardens) around to “read” and more accessible. In doing so, it will encourage street grid has a very prominent shift along Hennepin Avenue.

HCMC and the Metrodome in an greater interaction between the various districts of Downtown. The edges of the entire CBD are also characterized by a series of CHAPTER 4 effort to balance the institutional dramatic shifts to the street grids in the neighborhoods surround- qualities of the hospital buildings Gateways ing Downtown. The result is a promising – but largely under- and the overwhelming scale of the appreciated – set of opportunities to preserve and enhance the stadium. Even as a series of new or revitalized Complete Communities in special qualities already inherent in the local landscape; qualities Downtown East and the North Loop should possess distinct indi- that could easily be lost by failing to take them into account. CHAPTER 5 • Consider replacing reflective or vidual identities, they should also complement Downtown as a opaque glass at HCMC’s office and whole by serving as thresholds or transition zones between differ- There are three types of view corridors that should be taken into lobby areas with transparent glass ent parts of the CBD. The designation of select locations as gate- full consideration with each new development project in Downtown to encourage a relationship between way sites will help build a sense of place for pedestrians, bicy- Minneapolis: interior and exterior activities. clists, transit riders, and motorists as they enter the Project Area. • Type 1: Gateway Views to Downtown Landmarks; CHAPTER 6 • Type 2: Enhancing Existing View Corridors; How various parts of Downtown are experienced should be rein- • Type 3: Enhancing Existing View Corridors to Hennepin forced and enhanced by the ways in which the entries to Avenue. Downtown are marked. CHAPTER 7 A series of maps and photographs highlight key vantage points in There are three types of gateways that should be taken into full the Project Area (see Figures 5.29 through 5.34, pages 90-95). consideration as new development occurs in Downtown Minneapolis:

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 81 nection betweenthecentralriverfrontand DowntownCore. Washington Avenue: Furtherenhancementswillstrengthencon- A2 between thecentralriverfrontandDowntownCore. Avenue: Furtherenhancementswillstrengthenconnection A1 Concept: Definingpointsofentry Downtown EastandtheNorthLoop town and“spires”toaidinnavigationorientation Creation ofgatewaystoserveaspointsentrydown- LEGEND Third Avenue SouthfromtheMississippiRiverto Hennepin Avenue fromtheMississippi RivertoWashington 10/10/03 A11 –Washington Avenue Southat12th Avenue South A10 –Washington Avenue atI-394 A9 –4thAvenue NorthatWest RiverRoad A8 –Washington Avenue Northat8thAvenue North A7 –OlsonMemorialHighway/6thAvenue Northat A6 –HennepinAvenue atSouth10thStreet A5 –Intersectionof5thAvenue Southand10th A4 –IntersectionofChicagoAvenue, CentennialPlace A3 –Intersectionof11thAvenue Southand8th A2 –3rdAvenue atMississippiRiver A1 –HennepinAvenue atMississippiRiver GATEWAYS North 7thStreet Street and South9thStreet Street CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.21Map ofGatewaysintoDowntown EastandtheNorthLoop DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT A7 A6 A8 A9 A10 A1 A5 A2 A4 A3 A11 5 N 82

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 shift). South 8thStreetnearEast14th(atgrid A3 Street (highspot looking overNorthLoop). Highway/Sixth Avenue Northat 7th A7 10/10/03 Intersection atEleventhAvenue South, Intersection atOlsonMemorial CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.22Photos: GatewaysintoDowntown EastandtheNorthLoop DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Place andSouth9thStreet(atgridshift). A4 and EighthAvenue North. A8 Intersection ofChicagoAvenue, Centennial Intersection ofWashington Avenue North development over BurlingtonNorthernROW. St. leadingtopotential greenwayandairrights A9 A5 10th StreetwhereI-35WentersDowntown. Fourth Ave. N.fromW. RiverRoad andN.2nd Intersection ofFifthAvenue Southand and I-394. A10 core openstothenorthandeast). section of10thandHennepin(Skylineview A6 The bendinHennepinAvenue attheinter- Intersection ofWashington Avenue North 5 83

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Fourstrategicallylocatedlighttowersorspiresare • Concepts: Orientingandnavigatingbetweendistricts Downtown EastandtheNorthLoop town and“spires”toaidinnavigationorientation Creation ofgatewaystoserveaspointsentrydown- LEGEND East, theNorthLoop,andDowntownCore. igate betweenmajorpointsofinterestinDowntown points thathelppedestriansorientthemselvesandnav- arranged alongtheLRT corridor to providereference 10/10/03 B4 –BurlingtonNorthernRight-of-Way B3 –MultimodalStation B2 –5thStreetatHennepinAvenue B1 –South5thStreetatChicagoAvenue SPIRES VIEW CORRIDORS CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.23Map ofLightedGatewaySpires DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT B4 B3 B2 B1 5 N 84

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.24Photos ofLightedGatewaySpires DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT B1 From thecentralriverfrontin • From HCMClookingnorthup • From theWarehouse District • and theLRT station: pedestrians locatetheMetrodome new MetrodomePlazawillhelp ed inthesoutheastcornerof From northandsouthalongthe • From newneighborhoodsinthe • From theMetrodomeand • the Ballpark: locate theMulti-ModalStationand Avenue North willhelppedestrians of North5thStreetandFifth strategically locatedinthevicinity B3 the photoatleft). Mill CityMuseum(asshownin new GuthrieTheatreandthe the MillsDistrictoutsideof Chicago Avenue along the5thStreetLRT corridor the photoatright). Cedar LakeTrail (asshownin (as showninthephotoatleft). ern reachesofNorth5thStreet North Looplocatedonthewest- Photo B2,aboveright). 5th StreetLRT corridor(see Warehouse Districtalongthe Tower/spire strategicallylocat- One ortwotowers/spires From theMetrodomealong • District LRT Station: pedestrians locatetheWarehouse ed at5thandHennepinwillhelp From northandsouthalong • From theMulti-ModalStation, • B2 B4 shown inthephotoatleft). 5th StreetLRT corridor(as Hennepin Avenue. below). 5th Street(seePhotoB3/B4, on thewesternreachesofNorth hoods intheNorthLooplocated the Ballpark,andnewneighbor- Tower/spire strategicallylocat- 5 85

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 GatewayZonesareopportunitiestore-knitDowntown • Concepts: Transitioning betweenpartsofdowntown tion inDowntownEastandtheNorthLoop Downtown and“spires”toaidinnavigationorienta- Creation ofgatewaystoserveaspointsentry LEGEND neighborhoods. together inthetransitionalspacesbetweendifferent 10/10/03 C3 –Newairrightsdevelopmentdistrictabove“The C2 –Transition zonebetweenthehigh-intensity C1 –Transition betweenfreewayzoneandDowntown GATEWAY DISTRICTS and Interstate394 Cut” overtheBurlingtonNorthernrailwaylands Downtown CoreandEast/ElliotPark East CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.25Map ofGatewayTransition Zones DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT C3 C2 C1 5 N 86

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 of DowntownEastandElliotPark. the freewayzoneandnewrevitalizedneighborhoods to enhancethetransitionbetweenspaghettijunctionof as being“behind”theMetrodome.Thiszonehaspotential C1 CONCEPT: TRANSITIONINGBETWEEN PARTSOFDOWNTOWN 10/10/03 The fareasternedgeofDowntownEastisoftenreferredto CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.26Photos: GatewayTransition Zones DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Park. medium-intensity neighborhoodsinDowntownEastandElliot the high-intensityDowntownCoreandnewrevitalized Avenue hasthepotentialtoenhancetransitionbetween C2 The linearzonebetweenFifthAvenue SouthandPark medium-intensity neighborhoodsintheNorthLoop. between theDowntownCoreandnewrevitalized Interstate 394–hasthepotentialtoenhancetransition area inandaroundtheBurlingtonNorthernrailwaylands C3 The vastareaofunderdevelopedlandin“TheCut”–the 5 87

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 the urbanfabric. duction ofraisedplantersnearthegateway, suggestasubtletransitionin Changes inthepatternsofstreetscape,changesstreettrees,orintro- STREETSCAPE CHANGES diate senseofagateway. Paired columns,perhaps reflectiveofnearbyarchitecture, createanimme- GATEWAY COLUMNS 10/10/03 CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.27Prototypes forGatewayIcons 1 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT opportunity forapavementtableauasgatewayfeature. gateway zone.Intersectionsatkeygatewaysofferthe architectural featuresandplantingstohighlightthe Small pocketparkscouldbeapartofgateway, using INTERSECTION TABLEAU might beusedtoreinforce viewstodowntownlandmarks. The arrangementof elementsasagateway‘pocketpark’ POCKET PARK–TWO VIEWS as apartofurbanrenewal. her hearttoyou.”Theparkandpavilionwererazedinthe1960s Minneapolis: “TheGateway:Morethanhergates,thecityopens Avenue. AninscriptiononthePavilion invitedpeopleto provided anelegantgatewaytoMinneapolisalongHennepin Gateway ParkandPavilion,createdduringtheCityBeautifulera, GATEWAY PARK Sample cornerlotannouncingarrival intoneighborhoodprecinct. GATEWAY ICONS 5 88

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 motorists mightbe explored. the creationofbridges thatlinkpedestriandestinations andformagatewayfor Where pedestrian crossingsaredifficultorwheregrade opportunitiesarepresent, ROADWAY PORTAL used asagatewayelement.Inthiscasetheorientationtopedestrians isvital. Where opportunitiesexist,theintroductionofmoreplayfuloriconic elements mightbe GATEWAY FEATURE CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.28Prototypes forGatewayIcons 2 DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT compelling method ofcreatingthesenseagateway. The placementof signaturearchitecturalpieces,kept inscalewithadistrict,is SIGNATURE BUILDINGS become invitingelementsofthepublicrealm. walk, anddevelopedasaninterpretationofdistinctcharacteror apublicartpiece,portals Passage throughastructureisoneofthemostobviousgatewayexperiences. Placedalonga PEDESTRIAN PORTAL 5 89

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 help frametheview. dor arekeptlowwhiletallerbuildingmasses attheedges on thenorth.Portionsofbuildingswithin theviewcorri- Street onthesouthtohistoricclocktower ofCityHall Street shouldmaintaintheexistingviewcorridor fromLake Example: NewdevelopmentatParkAvenue andSouth10th Designbuildingsandprojectsthatrespect viewcorridors • Concepts: Preservingviewcorridorstoexistinglandmarks dors inandthroughDowntownEasttheNorthLoop Preservation andenhancementofsignificantviewcorri- LEGEND structures, historicmills,andimportantlandmarks. town Minneapolis,recognizingespeciallythecity’s civic to existingsignificantlandmarksinandarounddown- 10/10/03 1g –MilwaukeeRoadDepot(Tower andtrainshed) 1f –NewFederalReserveBank Marquette Plaza(previouslyFederalReserveBank) – 1e 1d –NorthStarBlanketMillandSign 1c –CityHallClockTower 1b –CityHallClockTower 1a –CityHallClockTower FOCAL POINT VIEW CORRIDORS CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.29Map ofGatewayViewstoDowntown Landmarks DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 1e 1f 1b 1a 1c 1g 1d 5 N 90

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 Street). away asLake South (fromasfar from ParkAvenue Hall Clocktower view oftheCity grid framesthe Downtown street A shiftinthe 1a Downtown byLRT. arriving in gateway forthose as alandmark/ ment itwillserve Hiawatha align- visible alongthe Star BlanketMillis Because theNorth 1d CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.30Photos: GatewayViewstoDowntown Landmarks DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Loop. Street intheNorth from North4th Hall Clocktower view oftheCity grid framesthe Downtown street A shiftinthe 1b Marquette Plaza). Bank (now Federal Reserve landmark former ed byaviewofthe North ispunctuat- Washington Avenue Downtown from The viewinto 1e Downtown. approaches Memorial Highway hill whereOlson Loop fromatopthe rain oftheNorth slightly rollingter- visible acrossthe Reserve Bankis of newFederal The clocktowerof 1f Bank Avenue onWest from Riverside with andvisible tower isaligned The CityHallClock 1c 5 91

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Avenue North. view corridorthroughtheWarehouse DistrictalongFirst Hawthorne Rampshouldmarkthesouthern terminusofthe Example: Potentialrooftopdevelopmenton theexisting Maintainandenhanceviewcorridorstosignificantele- • Concepts: Maintainingandenhancingviewcorridors dors inandthroughDowntownEasttheNorthLoop Preservation andenhancementofsignificantviewcorri- LEGEND bridges, andnoteworthycontemporarybuildings. ments ofdowntown,especiallytothecity’s historicmills, 10/10/03 2g – General MillsmillinNEMpls – 2g 2f –IDSTower 2e –HawthorneRamp 2d –BurlingtonNorthernRailroadBridge 2c –CrownRollerMillandThirdAvenue Bridge 2b –Pillsbury‘A’ Mill 2a –Washburn CrosbyMill FOCAL POINT VIEW CORRIDORS Figure 5.31Map ofEnhancingExistingView Corridors CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 2g 2f 2g 2e 2d 2c 2c 2a 2b 5 N 92

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 Park. Avenue fromElliot north upPark corridor looking the endofview Mills punctuates Washburn Crosby The historic 2a District. the Warehouse Avenue Northin length ofSecond from alongthe bridge isvisible Northern Railroad The Burlington 2d CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.32Photos ofEnhancingExisting ViewCorridors DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT East LRT Station. and theDowntown Metrodome Plaza from thenew Chicago Avenue ing northup view corridorlook- punctuates the Pillsbury ‘A’ Mill the historic Mississippi River, Located acrossthe 2b North. along FirstAvenue Warehouse District through the of theviewcorridor southern terminus should markthe Hawthorne Ramp the existing development on Potential rooftop 2e 7th Street. east fromNorth corridor looking marks theview The IDSTower 2f from ElliotPark. Fifth Avenue South looking northup the viewcorridor Bridge punctuate Third Avenue Roller Millandthe The historicCrown 2c 5 93

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 that markstheterminus oftheviewcorridor. shift intheDowntown streetgridbycreatingabuilding Hennepin Avenue andSouth4thStreetshouldrecognize the Example: Newdevelopment atthesoutheastcornerof Designbuildingsandopenspacesthattakeadvantage • corners Concepts: Taking advantageofgridshiftandhighvisibility dors inandthroughDowntownEasttheNorthLoop Preservation andenhancementofsignificantviewcorri- LEGEND visibility cornersalongHennepinAvenue. of ashiftindowntown’s streetgridandresultinhigh 10/10/03 3f –Potentialdevelopmentonthesouthwestcor- 3e –Potentialdevelopmentonthesoutheastcor- 3d –Potentialdevelopmentonthesoutheastcor- 3c –NewCentralLibrary 3b –Potentialdevelopmentonthesouthwestcor- 3a –PotentialnewdevelopmentonNicolletHotel FOCAL POINT VIEW CORRIDORS ner of5thandHennepin ner of5thandHennepin ner of4thandHennepin ner of3rdandHennepin. Federal ReserveBank(nowMarquettePlaza) Block andthewestfacadeofformer CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Figure 5.33Map ofEnhancingExistingView CorridorstoHennepin Avenue 3e 3d 3c 3a 3f 3b 5 N 94

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 frame thisview. respect andhelp Hotel Blockshould on theNicollet New development Marquette Plaza). Reserve Bank(now former Federal ed bythelandmark North ispunctuat- Washington Avenue Downtown from The viewinto 3a Towers. by theFifthStreet already punctuated view corridor accentuate the Hennepin should corner of4thand on thesoutheast New development 3d CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.34Photos ofEnhancingExisting ViewCorridorstoHennepin Avenue DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT North Loop. Station inthe Multi-Modal Stadium and from theBaseball ridor intothecore mark theviewcor- Hennepin should corner of5thand on thesoutheast New development 3e 3rd Street. East alongSouth from Downtown ridor intothecore mark theviewcor- Hennepin should corner of3rdand on thesouthwest New development 3b along theLRT corridor. from theMetrodome Warehouse District corridor intothe should marktheview of 5thandHennepin the southwestcorner New developmenton 3f North 4thStreet. North Loopalong into thecorefrom mark theviewcorridor Library willoneday at thenewCentral The newplanetarium 3c 5 95

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for Developing Gateways and SHAPING THE CITY THROUGH THE DESIGN OF BUILDINGS specific buildings are designed and how this relates to the simul- View Corridors taneous shaping of the public realm. Three specific components Realizing appropriate densities for new and rehabilitated con- of building design must be considered: siting, height, and mass-

• Proposed new construction in the struction in the Project Area is the key ingredient to successfully ing. A well-designed building is the result of thoughtful and cre- CHAPTER 1 Project Area should be evaluated for forging Complete Communities in the Project Area. The benefits ative solutions that merge these components of building design in its sensitivity to preserving signifi- that come from mixed uses, transit-oriented development, and an relation to one another. Likewise, a well-designed city is the cant views of existing landmarks expansion of Downtown housing – in numbers, kinds of housing result of thoughtful and creative solutions for a collection of indi- and/or enhancing view corridors units, and price points – are both cumulative and mutually rein- vidual buildings. that need further definition. The City forcing. Building and sustaining such momentum is essential for CHAPTER 2 should pursue formal mechanisms expanding the city’s tax base. It is essential for encouraging The following recommendations are made toward the establishment to ensure that property owners and growth of commercial retail, for improving transit ridership and of a common design vocabulary, one that addresses the overarching developers have the necessary for reinforcing the rationale for building future rail transit lines. context of building design in relation to the design of the urban envi- incentives to design and build indi- Building and sustaining such momentum is also essential for ronment as a whole. These guidelines are intended to encourage a vidual projects in ways that respect establishing the means to build and maintain new parks and new collection of structures that are sensitive to the goal of promot- CHAPTER 3 and improve the overall built envi- other public infrastructure improvements. If currently underuti- ing greater density without sacrificing a human scaled environment. ronment of Downtown. lized sites are under built, a tremendous set of opportunities is Because they address universal concerns about urban building lost for another generation or longer; lost to another city or place design, they are normative. That being the case, these guidelines • Proposed new construction in the more willing to accommodate change. Most importantly, it is can accommodate a wide variety of stylistic interpretations. CHAPTER 4 Project Area should be evaluated for essential for developing and reinforcing a sense of community in its sensitivity to creating and places that more-often-than-not feel like a wide open transition Siting, Floor Plan, and Open Space enhancing gateways into and within zone between the Downtown Core and communities at the far Downtown Minneapolis. The City edges of the CBD. Realizing appropriate densities in the Project As a means to reinforce a pedestrian scaled environment, devel- Area will not only improve the overall downtown built environment, opers should build up to (or within five feet of) the street front

should develop and pursue formal CHAPTER 5 mechanisms to ensure that property it will bridge the chasm that currently isolates various downtown property line to establish a continuous building line within and owners and developers have the neighborhoods from one another. In this way, ensuring appropri- across blocks throughout the Project Area. The exception to this necessary incentives to design and ate density of the built environment is the means for achieving a guideline would be in locations where a well-defined open space build individual projects in ways more holistic urban design for Downtown. is provided as a public amenity along the street.

that respect and improve the overall CHAPTER 6 built of Downtown. Density is a measure of the amount of built space located in a All new full- and half-block development projects that are five given geographic area. In planning terms, density is commonly stories and taller should include at least 10% of their ground floor • The City should consider holding an expressed as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – the ratio of the gross floor area given over to public open space. Such open space is used to international competition concerning area of a building to the gross area of the lot on which the build- modify the impact of mid- and high-intensity development on the ing is located (see Figure 5.35, page 97). Specific recommenda- surrounding neighborhood by allowing for at-grade pocket parks, gateway Designs to generate both CHAPTER 7 citizen interest and design excel- tions for FARs are made in Chapter 6, (see page 121). green spaces, and pedestrian arcades. lence. Suitable designs should be commissioned as opportunity arises. For the purposes of understanding the role of density in the overall There are a variety of different configurations for incorporating design of the city, it is useful to consider the ingredients for how open space into the ground floor plan of a typical downtown block.

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 96 market analysis. full 12blockequivalent calledforinthe Ratio (FAR) of9.0isneededtomeet the blocks willbeneeded.Thusa Floor Area space, theequivalentofupto 12 fullcity date theexpectedgrowthofClass Aoffice next twentyyears.Therefortoaccommo- expected inDowntownMinneapolis overthe square feetofnewofficespace canbe Chapter 3)statesthat13-17million cast fortheDowntownMinneapolis (see The marketanalysisanddevelopment fore- impact onbuildingheightanddensity. area ratiosandexpressestheresultant The matrixatrightillustratesvariousfloor located. area ofthelotonwhichbuilding(s)is of thebuildingorbuildingstogross land. Itistheratioofgrossfloorarea of buildingdensityuponagivenparcel Floor AreaRatio(FAR) land relativetoitsinherentvalue. called forasawaytomaximizetheuseof portion ofacity. Densificationisusually given areaoflandorwithinaparticular increase theamountofdevelopmentona “densification” referstothedesire mercial retail,lodging,etc.).Theterm area (i.e.housing,commercialoffice,com- built spacelocatedinagivengeographic Density 10/10/03 is ameasureoftheamount is ameasurement CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.35Density /FloorAreaRatios DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 97

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

The ground floor of new buildings should Public open spaces should be located in such a way as to comple- be scaled to recognize their downtown ment the function of a building’s main access points and street location and to allow for changing ground- level retail uses. They should be oriented toward and fully acces- floor uses over a period of many decades sible to the general public. Public open space should be config- CHAPTER 1 ured to allow pedestrian access through a block and to accommo- Figure 5.36 date the preservation of specifically designated view corridors Building Height Classifications – Ground Floor (see Figures 5.29 and 5.30, pages 90 and 91). To avoid penaliz- ing a developer, the areas set aside as view corridors might be

Low-rise development is one to four counted toward that block's prescribed open space requirement. CHAPTER 2 stories in height Public open space should be designed as "defensible space", with doors opening onto them, and windows in the main and upper levels overlooking them.

Figure 5.37 All new buildings – and their associated open spaces – should be CHAPTER 3 Building Height Classifications – Low-Rise designed and sited in order to maximize the benefits of natural sunlight and to buffer pedestrians against strong winter winds. Mid-rise development is five to thirteen Wherever possible, rooftop decks, gardens, and green spaces stories in height. A set back above the should be encouraged, especially, but not exclusively, in buildings fourth floor gives the building a base that contain a residential component. CHAPTER 4 that helps to create and maintain neighborhood scale while allowing Building Height and Massing medium density Although density is the critical factor in assuring that under-

Figure 5.38 CHAPTER 5 Building Height Classifications – Mid-Rise developed lands within the Project Area are developed to maximum potential, from a design perspective it is important to keep High-rise development is fourteen stories in in mind the role of building height. In keeping with the aims of height and higher. Similar to mid-rise establishing land-use categories that encourage mixed-use devel- development, a set back above the fourth opment throughout the Project Area (see Figure 4.3), three classi- floor gives the building a base that helps to fications are set forth for building height: CHAPTER 6 create and maintain neighborhood scale while allowing high-density development Low-rise: Buildings that are a maximum of four stories in height. In order to ensure the highest and best use of land in the Project Area, the only situation in which low-rise buildings should be CHAPTER 7 approved is for new and rehabilitated low-density residential development on sites within the Ninth Street Historic Street (see Figure 5.39 Figures 4.3, 5.36, and 5.39). Building Height Classifications – High-Rise

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 98 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Policies for Shaping the City through the Mid-rise: Buildings that are five stories to thirteen stories in floor to provide a better scaled pedestrian environment at the Design of Buildings height. Mid-rise development should be considered the norm for street level. The top should, at the least, consist of a distinctively most new construction and rehabilitation projects in the Project expressed penthouse. Low-rise structures, of similar siting, should

• Enhancing the existing design con- Area because buildings of this scale have already become the have a base, middle and a uniform cornice line. Regardless of CHAPTER 1 text in Downtown East and the norm in many parts of the Project Area, particularly the Warehouse their height, new structures built on infill sites (sites that are less North Loop should be accomplished District and in the northern portions of Downtown East (see Figures than one-quarter block and can be found between existing struc- through the ideal of developing a 4.3, 5.36, and 5.38). tures) should be of similar height to adjacent buildings, wherever “family” or collection of buildings. practicable (see Figure 5.40, page 100). The whole of such a collection mat- High-rise: Buildings that are fourteen stories in height and taller. CHAPTER 2 ters as much as the individual style High-rise development should be pursued primarily within the Building Base: In keeping with the character of downtown neigh- of any one building. Consistent – Downtown Core and the proposed extension of the Downtown Core. borhoods, the base of a building should be designed to appear but workable – standards should be It may be suitable in a limited number of specifically designated that it bears the weight of the mass above and visually support followed for the siting, height, and locations outside the Core as specified in the Land Use Plan (see the building. The base should be approximately four stories high mass of each new building. Figure 4.3, 5.36, and 5.39). and should be defined by one or more of the following features: CHAPTER 3

• It is recommended that, on average Massing of all new construction must be composed in such a • Thicker-than-normal walls 10%, of the developable area of manner as to create a positive, pedestrian oriented street environ- • Richly textured materials (i.e. tile or masonry treatment) every full block or half block project ment. A major factor in producing such an environment is the • Special cladding materials (i.e. rock, ceramic tile or marble) CHAPTER 4 be set aside for public open space. scale of surrounding buildings. The Master Plan proposes a sim- Smaller, infill sites should be ple, straightforward approach to the articulation of building A uniform roof cornice line through the precinct should take prece- exempt from this prescription. This height, elevation and massing. Most rights-of-way in the down- dence over individual building expression. residual space should be designed town are 80 feet wide. To achieve a street environment with comfortable proportions, it is recommended that any building that is Mid-Section of Building: Materials within the middle portion of a

specifically for public realm use, CHAPTER 5 with decorative paving, street furni- taller than fifty feet in height should have a set back above the structure should be characterized by a combination of cladding ture, trees, public art, water fea- fourth story. Upper levels of buildings would be set back a mini- materials such as masonry, concrete or metal combined with a tures, pedestrian lighting, planted mum of 15 feet from the building base to help maintain the pro- regular repeat of windows that complement the base and top of areas and other amenities. portions set by the building base. By building the base of build- the building. The use of reflective mirror cladding should be dis- ings up to the property line and creating setbacks above the couraged. fourth floor (or 50 feet), the height of mid-rise and high-rise CHAPTER 6 buildings will not overwhelm the neighborhood scale of the sur- Top of Building: The top of a building should create an attractive rounding streets and sidewalks. profile against the backdrop of the sky and surrounding buildings. It should be defined by one or more of the following features: All buildings should be developed as tripartite forms consisting of CHAPTER 7 a base, a mid-section and a top, whether full-block, half-block, or • Cornice Treatment quarter-block. Each building should have a recognizable building • Roof overhang with brackets base set off by a uniform cornice line four floors above grade. The • Stepped parapet middle portion of the building should be setback above the fourth

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 99 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

The diagram at right shows eleven different configurations for how to incorporate open space into the ground floor plan of a typical Downtown block. Such open space is used to modify the impact of a develop- CHAPTER 1 ment on the surrounding neighborhood by 1 SIDE 1 SIDE 1 CORNER CORNERS MID-BLOCK allowing for at-grade pocket parks, green spaces, and pedestrian arcades. CHAPTER 2

INTERNAL INTERNAL INTERNAL WRAPPING LINEAR PLAZA PLAZA CHAPTER 3

THRU-WAYS THRU-WAYS & PLAZA

The diagram at right shows ten different CHAPTER 4 configurations for how to incorporate set backs and air space into the above-ground massing of a typical Downtown block. Such set backs and air space are used to OFFSET SLAB CENTERED MULTIPLE ANGLED modify the impact of a high-intensity SLAB SLABS SLABS development on the surrounding neighbor- CHAPTER 5 hood by allowing air, light, and views to penetrate into and/or through the block. Each tower is set back from a four-story building base that is standard throughout the Project Area in Downtown East and the COURTYARD MULTIPLE SINGLE ‘L’ SINGLE ‘T’

North Loop. ‘L’s CHAPTER 6

SINGLE MULTIPLE CHAPTER 7 TOWER TOWERS Figure 5.40 Plan Typologies for Building Massing

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 100 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5

Although classical in origin, this method of organizing building form need not result in strictly classical building design. Asymmetrical forms, as well as elements that “'break through” any of the three

components may be used to create varied, exciting buildings, while CHAPTER 1 still adhering to the intent of this recommendation.

Above the fourth floor, building towers should be placed to maintain view corridors through the city (see Figures 5.31 and 5.32,

pages 92 and 93) and to orient the building to maximize natural CHAPTER 2 sunlight. A variety of standard options are available and can be customized to creatively address these issues simultaneously (see Figure 5.41, page 102).

Illustrative Aerial Views of the Project Area CHAPTER 3

As a means to better appreciate how the city is shaped through the accumulated individual design of a collection of buildings the Land Use Plan set forth in Chapter Four was translated into a

three-dimensional computer generated model. This model is CHAPTER 4 purely illustrative, but it helps to better understand the conse- quences of various design decisions concerning the siting, height, and mass of buildings in the downtown landscape. City blocks were given 3-D form by cross-referencing building classifications for building height and density (Low, Medium and High), with a CHAPTER 5 variety of siting typologies.

The 3-D model might be looked upon as a ”living” document that the City adds to in the future as need and opportunities arise. CHAPTER 6

An immediate benefit, however, is the ability to specify exact view- points of interest and then quickly generate images of the general massing recommended for a particular site, block, or location. A series of sample images are contained for reference (see Figures CHAPTER 7 5.42 through 5.45, pages 103-106).

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 101 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 5 TOP TOP TOP CHAPTER 1 MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE CHAPTER 2 BASE BASE BASE CHAPTER 3 Building ‘Base, Middle and Top’ Articulate Top of building Break-up composition to add (Mid-rise and High-rise) visual interest CHAPTER 4 TOP TOP CHAPTER 5 MIDDLE MIDDLE TOP MIDDLE BASE BASE CHAPTER 6 BASE

Define entries, breakdown massing Combine portions of Middle and Top Articulated Base, Middle and Top

of building (Low-rise) CHAPTER 7

Figure 5.41 Building Massing Options

CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN 102 LEGEND 10/10/03 CULTURAL /ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION PARKING /UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(RESIDENTIALPRIMARY USE) MIXED USED(OFFICE/COMMERCIALPRIMARY USE) OFFICE CHURCH HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.42Massing ModelofProjectArea: LookingNorthwestfrom aboveI-35/I-94Commons DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5 103 N

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 LEGEND 10/10/03 CULTURAL /ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION PARKING /UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(RESIDENTIALPRIMARY USE) MIXED USED(OFFICE/COMMERCIALPRIMARY USE) OFFICE CHURCH HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN Figure 5.43Massing ModelofProjectArea: LookingSoutheastfrom abovetheNorthLoop DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT

N 5 104

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 LEGEND 10/10/03 CULTURAL /ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION PARKING /UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(RESIDENTIALPRIMARY USE) MIXED USED(OFFICE/COMMERCIALPRIMARY USE) OFFICE CHURCH HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE Figure 5.44Massing ModelofProjectArea: DowntownEastfromabove theMilwaukeeRoadDepot CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5

105 N

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 LEGEND 10/10/03 CULTURAL /ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION PARKING /UTILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(RESIDENTIALPRIMARY USE) MIXED USED(OFFICE/COMMERCIALPRIMARY USE) OFFICE CHURCH HOSPITAL CIVIC PROPOSED OPENSPACE Figure 5.45Massing Model:TheNorthLoop fromabovetheintersection ofHennepinAvenue andWashington Avenue CHAPTER FIVE – URBAN DESIGN PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 5

106 N

Chapter Six Local Regulatory Framework CHAPTER 7

ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 107 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Chapter Six takes up the issue of what is needed in order to facili- planning policy and regulating physical growth through the devel- tate the kinds of development called for in the Project Area. More opment process. It establishes built form controls through height specifically, the chapter considers how the City’s primary regulato- and setback regulations and separates incompatible land uses.

ry tool for guiding new development – the Zoning Code – could be Put simply, zoning is at the very heart of planning because it is CHAPTER 1 adapted or modified in order to remove existing barriers to the through local zoning ordinances that the goals, objectives, and vision contemplated. Likewise, the chapter also considers what policies of comprehensive planning are implemented. For this rea- sort of incentives might be added to encourage the kinds of pri- son it is critical that local zoning ordinances are in conformance vate development and public infrastructure that has been recom- with the substance of comprehensive planning for the Project Area.

mended for the Project Area in previous chapters. The goal is to CHAPTER 2 ensure that the master plan is able to be implemented and that it In order to implement the key recommendations of the Downtown will stand the test of time; that the myriad of recommendations, East/North Loop Master Plan, changes are required to the existing both large and small, will not be lost because the regulatory Zoning Code. In order to understand the kind and scope of change framework is incompatible with the policy intentions. recommended, it is first necessary to review – as background –

the existing zoning regulations for the Project Area. CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER SUMMARY EXISTING DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS Chapter Six begins by reviewing the basic zoning categories found within the Project Area and evaluating how well each one is suited The City of Minneapolis Zoning Code currently provides regulations

to accommodating the kinds of change needed to forge Complete for implementing planning policies contained in The Minneapolis CHAPTER 4 Communities. This analysis is followed by a series of proposals Plan and the Minneapolis Downtown 2010 Plan. It establishes a and recommendations for how the Zoning Code should be modi- variety of different districts in the city that delineate base zoning fied in order to help the development community overcome the classifications as well as overlay districts which are applicable inherent challenges, especially as they relate to specific develop- within selected areas (see Figure 6.1 page 109). ment precincts within the Project Area. Finally, the chapter consid- CHAPTER 5 ers enhancements to the city’s regulatory framework that would Primary Zoning Districts are established throughout the entire city help to ensure that improvements to the city’s infrastructure and and provide regulations that specify the parameters for permitted construction of public amenities proceed in pace with new build- uses, lot dimension requirements, building bulk requirements, yard ing development. requirements, density bonuses, and other performance standards. The Downtown Districts provide similar regulation, but they are CHAPTER 6 Once the market analysis, land use analysis and urban design specific to a particular set of areas of the city within the Central plan were completed, it was necessary to fully analyze the regula- Business District (CBD). Currently, those areas of the CBD that are tory framework governing the project area in order to identify not governed by the Downtown Districts are governed by the existing gaps and what sort of enhancements could be made. Primary Zoning Districts that extend across and throughout the CHAPTER 7 rest of the City. The chief component of any city’s regulatory framework is zoning. Zoning shapes cities through the regulation of building size, population density, and land use. It is the primary tool for carrying out

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 108 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

N LEGEND

R1-R2B: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER 1 R3-R6: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

OR1-OR3: OFFICE / RESIDENTIAL

C1: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

C2-C3S: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER 2

C4: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

I1: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

I2: MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER 3 I3: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

B4: DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT

B4S: DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT

B4C: DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER 4

PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

Figure 6.1 Map of Existing Zoning Districts in Downtown Minneapolis

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 109 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Existing Downtown Districts This particular area is proposed for expansion for four reasons. First, these blocks are all within easy walking distance of two There are currently three Downtown district designations: The proposed LRT stations, Government Station and Downtown East.

Downtown Business District (B4); The Downtown Service District Second, a significant portion of this expansion area is comprised CHAPTER 1 (B4S); and the Downtown Commercial District (B4C), (see Figure of full block or nearly full block surface parking lots. Because less 6.1, page 109). In general, Downtown districts are not subject to demolition is required, theoretically these blocks would be easier minimum yard requirements unless they are in close proximity to to develop more quickly thereby accommodating new growth while residence and office-residence districts. ridding the city of several unsightly surface parking lots. Third,

new development in this area would help to forge a more consis- CHAPTER 2 Existing Downtown Business District (B4) tently built-out environment that bridges the existing core with new development emerging north of Washington Avenue in the The B4 Downtown Business District (more commonly referred to as Historic Mills District. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, “The Downtown Core”) is the area intended for the highest density expansion of the Downtown Core in a northeast direction halts

retail and office uses within Downtown Minneapolis. The B4 dis- encroachment of high-intensity uses into the Elliot Park neighbor- CHAPTER 3 trict is subdivided into two sub-districts B4-1 and B4-2 which hood, thereby allowing that neighborhood to seek development allow for building floor area ratios (FAR) of eight (8) and sixteen that will encourage – rather than undermine – continued progress (16) respectively. The B4-1 sub-district surrounds portions of the toward the goals called for in the Elliot Park Master Plan. northern, eastern, and southern edges of the B4-2 district. The

lower FAR allows for a transition in building heights from the As depicted in Chapters Four and Five, a significant linear park- CHAPTER 4 higher intensity center of the Core out toward the surrounding, way – one-quarter block wide – would run on the east side of lower density parts of downtown. these blocks, from Washington Avenue to South 7th Street along Portland Avenue. This linear park would form a visual and per- Inherent Challenges: While there are several underdeveloped ceptual demarcation line between the high-intensity Downtown blocks within the existing Core (particularly north of South 5th Core and new medium intensity mixed use development in CHAPTER 5 Street and south of Washington Avenue South), the market analy- Washington Village. sis conducted for this project indicates that redevelopment of those blocks alone would not provide enough space to accommo- In addition, the City should consider a mandatory street-level date the amount of commercial office space forecast over the next retail requirement in the Zoning Code for designated retail streets, twenty years. whereby a minimum percentage of ground floor retail space will CHAPTER 6 be considered mandatory – rather than voluntary – in all future Proposed Solution: The boundaries of the existing B4-Downtown commercial office projects. Business District should be expanded to include nine additional EXISTING CORE city blocks directly adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Existing Downtown Service District (B4S) CHAPTER 7 existing Core. Specifically, the new boundary of this district would EXPANDED CORE stretch to Washington Avenue on the north and to Portland Avenue The B4S Downtown Service District is intended to provide an envi- Figure 6.2 on the east (see Figure 6.2). ronment for a wide range of retail and office facilities that sup- Map of Downtown Core Expansion port those uses in the Downtown Core, particularly the provision of

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 110 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

goods and services not allowed in the B4 zone. This district also hood identity that gives it a sense of place. One of the best ways to encourages residential uses and hotels. achieve this is to create a “family” of buildings that are similar to one another in height, massing, and density. Obviously, within this

Building massing in the B4S zone is currently achieved through the family of buildings, each one could and should differ in architectur- CHAPTER 1 use of maximum floor area ratios and in some cases minimum lot al styling from the others in the neighborhood. But this is not cur- dimensions and yard requirements – in other words, traditional rently possible because different lot sizes dictate that different development standards. There are two sub-districts: The B4S-1 building heights will result with the use of FAR as a control. sub-district has a maximum FAR of 8.0 for hotels and dwellings

and 4.0 for all other uses. The B4S-2 sub-district has a maximum Potential Solutions: In an effort to realize the vision of creating CHAPTER 2 FAR of 8.0 for all structures. Between 1.0 and 6.0 floor area ratio Complete Communities within the portion of the Project Area cur- premiums are permitted through application in B4S for provision of rently designated as the Downtown Service District (B4S), the fol- the following: Outdoor urban open space, indoor urban open lowing modifications would be required: space, interior through-block connections, skyway connections,

inclusion of a transit facility, street level retail uses, inclusion of a • Because the intent of the B4S zone does not currently envi- CHAPTER 3 freight loading terminal, public art, sidewalk widening to at least sion the emergence of downtown residential neighborhoods, 15 feet, and preservation of historic structures. the purpose statement for this district needs to be strength- ened so that it is more in keeping with the planning and In general, downtown districts are not subject to minimum yard development goals set forth for the Project Area. In the

requirements unless they are in close proximity to residence and Zoning Code, revise section 549.430 ”Purpose” to strengthen CHAPTER 4 office-residence districts. the intent of the zoning to include residential uses and create downtown neighborhoods; Inherent Challenges: While the B4S district encourages residential uses, multiple-family dwellings are not permitted as-of-right, • The overall effect of eliminating the CUP for multiple-family but through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Thus, developers of dwellings – in areas where City policy specifically supports CHAPTER 5 mixed-use buildings containing residential uses or higher density such development – is to help developers implement the residential housing must go through an additional development City’s vision. In the Zoning Code, remove the requirement for application process that developers of commercial projects are a CUP for residential uses. This would occur through modify- currently exempt from. From a developer’s perspective, this addi- ing Table 549-1 “Principal Uses in the Downtown Districts” to tional step adds an additional risk. Taken alone the CUP is not an show that cluster development and multiple-family dwellings CHAPTER 6 insurmountable obstacle and oftentimes it is not the make-or- of five (5) units or more are permitted; break component of a project. However, because developers face a whole host of other risks, the elimination of each unknown helps • In order to create a strong identity for the new neighborhood- – in this case whether a CUP is uncontested and ultimately grant- based development precincts envisioned in Downtown East CHAPTER 7 ed through the City’s approval process. and the North Loop, built form controls that utilize defined heights, setbacks and step-backs should be developed and In order to create Complete Communities it is important for each applied to office, residential, light industrial or any mix of development precinct to enhance or establish a strong neighbor- these uses. Adoption of built form controls would allow for

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 111 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

new development to be compatible with adjacent buildings in Inherent Challenges: Like the Downtown Service District (B4S), the terms of character and scale and would help each precinct to existing Downtown Commercial District (B4C) does not encourage achieve its own distinct identity. If the existing B4S zoning is residential development. However, upon a review of permitted uses,

to be maintained, then revisions would be necessary to two there are no differences between B4C and B4S in this regard – both CHAPTER 1 sections of the existing code to introduce new built form con- allow cluster development or multiple-family of five units or more trols: Chapter 549.100 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk through conditional use permit only. Because residential uses are Requirements and Chapter 549.120 Yard Requirements. It is not encouraged within this zone per se, the conditional use permit important to note however, that it might be administratively process might place more conditions on this type of development in

difficult to do this under the existing B4S districts because the B4C district than it would in the B4S district (see above). CHAPTER 2 this zoning category also exists in other areas of Downtown beyond the Project Area. In spite of not encouraging residential development per se, a floor area ratio premium of 2.0 is possible in B4C for mixed use residen- Existing Downtown Commercial District (B4C) tial of at least ten percent of the gross floor area of the project.

Thus, in order to build a project in this district that includes residen- CHAPTER 3 The purpose of the B4C Downtown Commercial District is to pro- tial uses, an additional application costing $1,000 must be made. vide for primarily commercial uses (retail, office, business services) and limited industrial uses. Building massing in the B4C zone Potential Solutions: The B4C designation should be retained only is currently achieved through the use of maximum floor area ratios in those precincts that are intended to remain primarily commer-

and, in some cases, minimum lot dimensions and yard require- cial in character. For example, the six-block area that is generally CHAPTER 4 ments – in other words, traditional development standards. There south and west of the Metrodome should retain its B4C designa- are two sub-districts: B4C-1, which has a maximum FAR of 4.0; tion because these blocks should be developed with commercial or and B4C-2, which has a maximum FAR of 8.0 for all structures. institutional uses. Residential uses are not recommended in this The Master Plan contemplates floor area ratios of between 2.0 and area of transition between HCMC, the Downtown Core, and the 8.0 in the development precincts within Downtown East and the more residentially based, mixed-use neighborhoods to the north. CHAPTER 5 North Loop. Therefore, existing FARs in the B4C-2 zone would Likewise, the blocks immediately west of First Avenue North in the allow for all types of structures to be built to a maximum floor city’s entertainment district (the west side of the West Hennepin area ratio of 8.0. Precinct) are currently zoned B4C. This designation is not problematic for existing buildings in the district. If new infill develop- Floor area ratio premiums are permitted, through application in ment is primarily defined by commercial uses, this designation CHAPTER 6 B4C, of between 1.0 and 2.0, generally, for provision of the follow- should not be problematic. However, if such infill development ing: Mixed use residential of at least ten percent of gross floor was to include a greater proportion of residential uses, maintain- area, interior through-block connections, incorporation of a transit ing this designation should be re-evaluated. facility, street level retail uses, freight loading terminal, public CHAPTER 7 art, sidewalk widening to at least 15 feet, and historic preserva- Existing Industrial Districts tion. In general, downtown districts are not subject to minimum yard requirements unless they are in close proximity to residence As described in the Zoning Code, Industrial districts “are estab- and office residence districts. lished to provide locations for industrial land uses engaged in

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 112 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

production, processing, assembly, manufacturing, packaging, Potential Solutions: While the Industrial Living Overlay District wholesaling, warehousing or distribution of goods and materials”. (IL) allows for residential development in the otherwise industrial- As large portions of the Project Area are currently zoned Industrial ly zoned portions of Downtown East and the North Loop, neither

– primarily I1 in Downtown East, and I2 in the North Loop – these the primary zoning nor the overlay zoning are tailored to the pur- CHAPTER 1 districts are analyzed for possible revision as a means to imple- pose of creating the sort of diverse mixed-use neighborhoods envi- ment the vision set forth in this master plan. sioned herein. The City might “enhance” these existing zoning categories to shoe-horn a diversity of additional uses into these The Light Industrial District (I1) is established to “provide clean, districts, but that will not necessarily reduce risk and complexity

attractive locations for low impact and technology-based light for developers who are intent on helping the City realize its vision CHAPTER 2 industrial use, research and development.” The Zoning Code stip- of mixed-use development in these precincts. The general inclina- ulates that “all business activity be conducted within a complete- tion towards residential uses being considered an exception with- ly enclosed building,” The exceptions to this are outdoor dining in these districts suggests that the continued use of, or revision and limited outdoor sales and display. to, industrial districts within the Project Area would provide little

benefit to the realization of the Master Plan. Certainly, the current CHAPTER 3 The Medium Industrial District (I2) is established “to provide loca- I-2 designation that covers a vast portion of the North Loop works tions for medium industrial uses… which have the potential to decidedly against the vision for establishing Complete provide greater amounts of noise, odor, vibration, glare or other Communities on that side of Downtown. objectionable influences than allowed in the I1 District.” As with

I1 zoning, this district permits limited outdoor dining, outdoor Instead, those portions of the Project Area that are currently zoned CHAPTER 4 sales and display. Similarly, it does not encourage housing. as industrial should be rezoned with a new designation that embraces the concept of true mixed-use development and encour- The General Industrial District (I3) is established to “provide loca- ages uses that create vibrant neighborhood streets (see Creating tions for high impact and outdoor general industrial uses and New Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, below). other specific uses likely to have a substantial adverse effect on CHAPTER 5 the environment or on surrounding properties.” The only portion of Existing Overlay Districts the Project Area that is designated I3 is the Hennepin Energy Resource Center located directly west of the ballpark site along There are three overlay districts that cover all or part of the Project North 5th Street. There is not provision within the I3 zoning desig- Area and play an important role in how development is regulated nation for housing. within the Project Area. These overlay districts are the Pedestrian CHAPTER 6 Overlay District (PO); The Downtown Parking Overlay District (DP); Inherent Challenges: There is no reference in the Zoning Code for and The Industrial Living Overlay District (IL). There are two other a residential component within the description for the I1, I2, or I3 existing overlay districts that exist within small portions of the districts. However, the Industrial Living Overlay District allows for Project Area: The Nicollet Mall Overlay District (NM) and the CHAPTER 7 residential development in selected areas of the I-1 and I-2 indus- Downtown Housing Overlay District (B4H). As they currently exist, trial districts throughout the City, most notably in the North Loop neither of these two districts pose a challenge for realizing the and Downtown East (see “Overlay Districts” below). vision for the master plan.

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 113 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Industrial Living Overlay District (IL) Downtown Parking Overlay District.

The Industrial Living Overlay District (IL), sometimes referred to as Provided it is enforced by the City, the Downtown Parking Overlay

the “ILOD,” is intended for the rehabilitation and reuse of existing District is an effective tool for discouraging uses that lessen the CHAPTER 1 industrial structures, and to provide for limited residential and sense of place within Downtown, particularly in the neighborhoods retail uses in I1 and I2 Industrial Districts. It currently allows that are on the periphery of the Downtown Core. As it exists, the construction of new dwelling units through a Conditional Use overlay does little beyond its purpose of “damage control.” Permit (CUP) for single family, two family and cluster develop-

ments to a maximum height of 2.5 stories or 35 feet, whichever is The City should consider whether the overlay district should be CHAPTER 2 less. There are no specific provisions for multiple-family develop- expanded in order to limit CUPs for accessory parking lots and ments in this district. variances concerning the number of spaces in those lots.

It is not recommended that the IL Industrial Living Overlay District More importantly, it is incumbent upon the City to explore more

be used to implement the objectives of this master plan. It would potent ways to provide incentive for property owners to redevelop CHAPTER 3 be better to encourage implementation of these objectives through existing surface lots. For instance, serious consideration should revising the designation for the primary zoning districts so that be given to nullifying or “zeroing out” the parking requirement for they more easily accommodate the kind and mix of uses sought. commercial uses on infill development sites less than one-quarter Revising the base zoning would eliminate the need for an overlay block in size, particularly if they are located in close proximity to

district, thus eliminating an important hurdle for developer’s seek- existing public structured parking facilities. CHAPTER 4 ing to implement the vision called for within this plan. Pedestrian Overlay District (PO) Downtown Parking Overlay District (DP) The Pedestrian Overlay District is intended to preserve and The Downtown Parking Overlay District is intended to protect and enhance the pedestrian character of existing, designated commer- CHAPTER 5 preserve the unique character of downtown “by restricting the cial areas throughout the city. The Pedestrian Overlay District establishment or expansion of surface parking lots” within the designation includes four key features. First, a prohibition of CBD. It is also intended to ensure that significant buildings – drive-through restaurants, freestanding fast food restaurants, especially those that still have a useful life – are not speeded auto service uses, and transportation uses is in place for this dis- toward the wrecking ball for the purpose of being held as surface trict. Second, within the district, there is a requirement for build- CHAPTER 6 parking lots in speculation for potential new development. More ing placement is intended to reinforce the street wall. For any specifically, the overlay district prohibits the creation or expansion building within the district, there is a maximum setback of eight of commercial parking lots, or the conversion of an accessory (8) feet from the front yard for the first floor of any building, and parking lot to commercial parking lot. (A CUP can be sought for a at least one principal entrance must face a public street. Third, CHAPTER 7 modest amount of surface parking which is accessory to a primary 40-percent of the first floor of any building façade requires win- use). dow area. Fourth, front yard parking is prohibited. Additional regulations exist within the Pedestrian Overlay District for specific The entire Project Area is within the physical boundaries of the areas of the City.

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 114 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Though many of the same provisions of the Pedestrian Overlay tricts that address the unique issues inherent in developing and District are enforced through major site plan review, no portion of enhancing the subset of neighborhoods that are neither in the the Project Area is currently designated as a PO. Core nor in “the rest of the City.” Special consideration is needed

because although these neighborhoods are, in many respects, CHAPTER 1 The Pedestrian Overlay District is crafted in such a way as to similar to any other city neighborhood, in many other ways they enforce regulations that are general to the district as a whole, but are quite different from any other neighborhood in the city pre- specific to specially designated neighborhoods within the City. For cisely because they are located in such close proximity to the this reason, it makes sense to amend the PO district to include Downtown Core.

additional regulations for specific portions of the Project Area, in CHAPTER 2 order to achieve particular objectives related to transit-oriented In an effort to address the challenges inherent in single-use zon- development and building Complete Communities. More specifi- ing, some cities are implementing a new regulatory tool by desig- cally, additions to the Pedestrian Overlay District within the nating “mixed-use zones” to allow for a broad range of land uses Project Area should be developed around each LRT station and at within a given geographic area. In many cases, this is done in

each neighborhood retail node (see Figure 4.4, page 38). parts of the city that are considered transitional, particularly in CHAPTER 3 those areas around transit stations. They provide for a variety of MIXED-USE ZONING IN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS housing types intermingled with offices, supportive retail, open space, and on-site structured parking. In addition to allowing for As mentioned above, the Downtown Core and the areas immedi- a range of primary uses – particularly within a single structure –

ately surrounding it are regulated by a series of discreet zoning mixed-use zones often incorporate coordinated design standards CHAPTER 4 districts that are specifically tailored to the concerns and opportu- and site planning in order to facilitate high density, active, urban nities related to downtown development. “Downtown develop- environments. ment” is considered a type and intensity of development not intended to occur any other place within city limits. For the most Clear objectives must be established when using mixed-use part, these districts serve that intended purpose quite well. development. In Downtown Minneapolis, a mixed use zoning des- CHAPTER 5 ignation should be formally adopted and incorporated into the It is important to note, however, that not all of the CBD is included Zoning Code in order to allow for new opportunities to create within the Downtown Districts. Generally speaking, those areas mixed-use neighborhoods within the Project Area, and to eliminate within the CBD (the area within the freeway loop) that are not cov- unnecessary barriers for developers seeking to help speed along ered by or regulated under the Downtown Districts are generally this plan’s Vision . The suggested name for this new zoning desig- CHAPTER 6 either residential or industrial in nature. In the past, the scale nation is the B4M Downtown Mixed-Use District, as represented on and intensity of development in many such areas has been the Map of Proposed Zoning Districts (see Figure 6.3, page 117). deemed to be more akin to those neighborhoods across the city that are not within the CBD. The challenge for developing The B4M Downtown Mixed Use District would have the following CHAPTER 7 Complete Communities in Downtown East and the North Loop is characteristics: that the scale and intensity envisioned does not fall neatly into either of the existing sets of zoning districts. That being the case, • Permitted uses: As-of-right permissions for all types of resi- it is best for the City to create and adopt a new set of zoning dis- dential dwelling uses, commercial uses (including both office

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 115 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

and retail), educational facilities, cultural and recreational block in size. Infill development sites will be required to facilities, and parks. address parking through shared use agreements with neighboring ramps.

• Prohibited uses: Drive-through retail establishments of any CHAPTER 1 kind as well as medium and general industrial uses will be Three subdistricts should be designated within the new B4M zone: prohibited. B4M-1: The B4M-1 designation defines a district with areas • Maximum height: Height limitations will be set for principal specifically designated for low-intensity mixed-use development.

structures located in the B4M zone. Recommended height lim- Low intensity development has a minimum height of two floors CHAPTER 2 itations are based on three categories – low (L), medium (M) or and a maximum height or four floors. The only B4M-1 subdistrict high (H) – each of which is integrated into the Recommended proposed in the Project Area is located within the Elliot Park West Land Use Plan (see Figure 4.3, page 37). These height limita- precinct. It is intended to allow for infill development that is com- tions would serve to distinguish three proposed B4M Downtown patible in scale with the existing low-intensity development that

Mixed Use Districts: whereas B4-1 would be low; B4-2 would be characterizes the South 9th Street Historic District. Specifically, CHAPTER 3 exclusively medium; and B4-3 would be high. this area includes the blocks that lie within the area north of South 10th Street, east of Fifth Avenue South, west of Chicago • Minimum heights: In order to achieve the desired scale of Avenue and Centennial Place, and south of a line that runs paral- development and to discourage under-utilization of develop- lel to and midway between South 8th Street and South 9th Street.

ment potential, minimum building heights are recommended (see Figures 4.1 Development Precincts and 6.3: Proposed Zoning CHAPTER 4 as part of the built form controls: recommended height mini- Districts). mums are based on three categories – low (L), medium (M) or high – each of which is integrated into the recommended B4M-2: The B4M-2 designation defines a district specifically desig- Land Use Plan (see Figure 4.3, page 37). nated for medium-intensity, mixed-use development. Medium- intensity development has a minimum height of five floors and a CHAPTER 5 • Yard requirements: In general, required front yards will be maximum height of thirteen floors. In Downtown East, a B4M-2 minimal (10 feet or less) in order to encourage buildings to subdistrict is proposed for the Washington East Precinct, the be built to the sidewalk. Front yards can be eliminated if this Washington Village Precinct, and most of the Elliot Park East area is used for sidewalk widening or urban open space. Precinct. In the North Loop, a B4M-2 subdistrict is proposed for the Required side yards will be kept to a minimum with opportu- Warehouse West Precinct and the Freeway West Precinct (see CHAPTER 6 nities to increase for providing through-block connections. Figures 4.1 Development Precincts and 6.3: Proposed Zoning Districts). • Parking requirements: All new projects will require off-street parking in on-site structured ramps. Above-ground ramps B4M-3: The B4M-3 designation defines a district specifically desig- CHAPTER 7 must be lined with active uses per design and site plan stan- nated for high-intensity mixed-use development. High-intensity dards specifically developed for this district. The on-site development has a minimum height of fourteen floors. There is no parking requirement will be waived for specifically identified maximum height for high-intensity development. In Downtown infill development sites – those that are less that one-quarter East, a B4M-3 subdistrict is proposed for two blocks in the Elliot

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 116 LEGEND 10/10/03 EXISTING DISTRICTS/CA OR3 INSTITUTIONALOFFICERESIDENCEDISTRICT OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL I3 GENERALINDUSTRIALDISTRICT(H) I2 MEDIUMINDUSTRIALDISTRICT(M) I1 LIGHTINDUSTRIALDISTRICT(L) INDUSTRIAL B4-2 DOWNTOWNBUSINESSDISTRICT DOWNTOWN HIGH INTENSITY B4M-3 DOWNTOWNMIXED-USEDISTRICT(H) MEDIUM INTENSITY B4M-2 DOWNTOWNMIXED-USEDISTRICT(M) LOW INTENSITY B4M-1 DOWNTOWNMIXED-USEDISTRICT(L): MIXED-USE PROPOSED DISTRICTS/CA 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) TEGORIES TEGORIES CHAPTER SIX –LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Figure 6.3Map ofProposedZoningDistricts DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT B4M-2 I2 B4M-2 I3 B4M-2 B4M-3 B4M-1 B4M-2 B4M-3 B4M-1 B4M-2 B4M-2 B4M-2 B4M-3 B4M-2 B4M-3 B4M-2 B4M-2 B4-2 B4M-2 B4-2 B4M-2 B4-2 B4-2 B4M-1 B4M-2 B4M-1 B4-2 B4M-1 B4-2 B4-2 OR3 B4M-2 B4M-3 OR3 B4M-2 I1 I1 B4M-2 B4M-2 I1 B4M-2 I1 B4M-3 I1 B4M-2 B4M-2 6 N 117

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Park East precinct. In the North Loop, a B4M-3 subdistrict is pro- “As-of-Right” Zoning posed for the air rights development district over most of “The Cut.” As-of-Right zoning allows for development to occur within an

To better understand the implications of all three proposed zoning established geographic area through an agreed upon framework CHAPTER 1 sub-districts, the reader should cross-reference the Recommended that already has been subject to public scrutiny. With As-of-Right Land Use Plan (see Figure 4.3, page 37) and the Proposed Zoning zoning, a developer is allowed to build any structure as long as District Map (see Figure 6.3, page 117). the approving department is satisfied that the structure complies with the local zoning code and the relevant building code. In

ENHANCEMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK cases where this is implemented, the Zoning Code is amended to CHAPTER 2 include a checklist of very specific performance standards that Reinvestment in Downtown East and the North Loop needs to be must be met without exception. If each and every requirement is encouraged through as much flexibility and diversity of choices as met, a project receives administrative approval. No action is possible. For this reason, it is appropriate that the Project Area be required by the local planning commission or city council. Public

treated in a different manner than the rest of downtown hearings are not held for such projects. The public process relat- CHAPTER 3 Minneapolis. The regulatory approach to Downtown East and ed to the creation of such a checklist sets the standards up front, North Loop is based on the philosophy that built form controls and and it is the only opportunity for public review. With As-Of-Right performance standards can allow for a wide range of land uses to zoning, the developer would need only to file plans and pay the occur “as-of-right” while controlling impacts on surrounding uses appropriate fees. Once administrative approval is granted, they

through the new proposed B4M Downtown Mixed Use District. This would be allowed to begin construction upon issuance of a build- CHAPTER 4 will allow for a more dynamic development market – one that is ing permit. not hindered by a predetermined land use pattern that often necessitates rezoning in order to get a project built. As-of-Right zoning assumes that the community’s specific goals and policies are already reflected in ordinance provisions, and A suite of four inter-related enhancements to the City’s regulatory that they have been developed with prior, inclusive public input. CHAPTER 5 framework – each of which should be incorporated into the Zoning The permit process is not the place for the public to revisit devel- Code – are proposed in order ensure the successful and timely opment standards / guidelines because of the time penalty this development of mixed-use Complete Communities within the puts upon developers. Only those development projects that do Project Area. These enhancements are intended to support new not fit in with the vision of an area would be required to go development within the proposed Mixed-Use Development Districts through some sort of major zoning modification and public hear- CHAPTER 6 as well as in the existing zoning districts. Because these ing. There is no need to subject all developments to prolonged enhancements are mutually supportive of one another, they should public review – each of which raises highly specific issues, and be established and incorporated in an inter-connected way in the resolution of which often undermines and distorts the original order to be most effective. These enhancements include As-of- vision for the area. CHAPTER 7 Right Approvals, Built Form Controls, Density Incentives, and Selected Fee System Modifications. As-of-Right zoning in a mixed use district provides a predictable, consistent process for the City and developers alike, because it keeps the question of land use open, while maintaining control

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 118 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

over site planning and building design through performance stan- Standards for Architectural Building Design: The City should dards. From the local government standpoint, the advantage is develop and introduce new standards for architectural building that the City has a stronger degree of control over the built form design that more clearly define design considerations such as built

of downtown buildings as well as the way they are integrated into form envelope, building heights, setbacks, and step-backs. Such CHAPTER 1 the public realm. From the developer’s standpoint, the advantage standards should be specifically developed and applied in order to to this approach for the Project Area is that it removes the need to allow for flexibility in, and mixing of, different uses within a given apply for a Conditional Use Permit to incorporate higher density building, complex or neighborhood. Such controls will ensure that residential uses. Because the politics of what is and is not per- each new building is compatible with adjacent buildings in terms

missible is dealt with up front when the standards for the district of character and scale while simultaneously ensuring that each CHAPTER 2 are written and approved, the level of risk faced by developers is new project helps to achieve – rather than undermine – a distinct lessened and the attractiveness of doing business in Downtown character for each precinct. Standards should be developed on East and North Loop is improved. either a block-by-block or a neighborhood-wide basis.

Expedited Development Review: In order to further encourage Standards for Urban Design: The City should prepare and adopt CHAPTER 3 development on specific “springboard” sites within Downtown formal urban design standards for use in evaluating specific site East and North Loop, an Expedited Development Review process plan review applications for new development within the Project might be considered for parcels within the Project Area. This Area. The aim of such standards should be to achieve high quality would entitle an applicant to be placed on a priority list for project design for the public realm and for private development.

review, as established by the Planning Director. The applicant Standards would be based on and incorporate the proposals CHAPTER 4 would be required to submit a complete application in order to be defined in Chapter Five: Urban Design Plan. placed on the list. Built form controls could be implemented and administered in two The City of New York Zoning Resolution allows As-of-Right devel- different ways: opment. This method is also used in certain districts of the City of CHAPTER 5 Toronto, in order to encourage reinvestment. The City of Absolute Design Standards: In order to ensure a baseline for the Vancouver, Washington, has an Expedited Development Review kind and quality of development that takes place within the process for mixed-use developments. Project Area (or a subset of the Project Area), absolute design standards should be developed and adopted to protect the City’s Built Form Controls goals, community desires, and to help developers manage risk. CHAPTER 6 Absolute standards are an opportunity to jointly define exactly In order to help a strong identity emerge for each of the new what is expected by and from each party in the design and devel- neighborhood-based development precincts contemplated by the opment process, so that once market conditions are right for Master Plan, traditional development standards and density developers, they can proceed as expeditiously as possible. By CHAPTER 7 restrictions may be less useful than built form controls. Built negotiating what is considered crucial to a development project form controls should be contemplated to address two sets of before design is initiated, potential hurdles are eliminated, thus issues simultaneously: smoothing the way for developers who put a project together based on the already agreed upon absolutes.

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 119 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Performance-Based Design Standards: Some municipalities use lic hearing for their project. Formal community input will not be performance-based systems, where developers receive points for solicited after the fact. The trade-off for downtown neighborhoods incorporating a range of different design elements in a develop- is that once agreed upon standards are in place, reinvestment will

ment project. Each different design element has previously been likely proceed at a quicker pace, and in a manner that is more in CHAPTER 1 assigned a point value. A minimum number of points must be line with neighborhood goals because developers know and under- achieved in order to receive development approval. This sort of stand what the community wants before packaging a deal. system gives developers options concerning which design recommendations they wish to emphasize. Neighborhoods and the City Incentive Zoning

can prioritize their goals based on how many points are assigned CHAPTER 2 to each design element Incentive zoning is used to encourage developers to provide specific community benefits in exchange for developer bonuses. Community Ideally, a combination of absolute standards and performance- benefits often include provision for such things as affordable hous- based standards would be appropriate tools for achieving both ing, senior housing, day care centers, parks, public plazas, and

design compatibility and developer flexibility. open space. Provision of such benefits is directly tied to developer CHAPTER 3 bonuses such as permissions to build more intensive development Merging Community and Developer Interests than what is otherwise permitted in the Zoning Code. The purpose of incentive zoning is to further community objectives while main- The community design review process would encourage up front taining consistent planning policy for a given area.

community participation and discussion in setting the quality CHAPTER 4 standards for new development within a geographically defined Different incentives can be awarded based on the development area regardless of when that development might occur. Developers goals for specifically designated zoning districts, provided that and the public should be encouraged to engage one another in the they are formally incorporated into the City’s Zoning Code and collaborative creation of standards. The intent is to cooperatively associated maps. Minneapolis currently offers two kinds of zoning agree upon the level of quality sought for development in the incentives: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Premiums, and Transfer CHAPTER 5 Project Area before developers run the risk of becoming ensnarled Development Rights. in a politicized approval process; one which has the potential to become overly complicated for a specific project. In other words, Floor Area Ratio Premiums, Density Bonusing, and Density for most projects the community discussion need not occur each Minimums: and every time a project comes through the approval process. CHAPTER 6 The City currently has the potential to achieve certain urban Because the design review process takes place “outside of” the design goals through a formalized set of FAR premiums (some- review for each and every project, it is easier to agree upon com- times known as “density bonuses”) that are available for projects monly-held objectives for the entire neighborhood, rather than just within the Downtown Business Districts. These premiums are CHAPTER 7 one site within it. Once standards are agreed upon and adopted, specifically calibrated to encourage developers to include particu- developers can alleviate their risk by choosing to conform with the lar kinds of public realm improvements within the scope of an design standards before they put pencil to paper. Those who meet individual development project. Each premium is specifically the agreed upon standards can proceed without an individual pub- defined in terms of what it must include or how it must be incor-

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 120 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

porated. Furthermore, each type of premium is then assigned a • Expanded Downtown Core: A continuation of B4-2 Zoning, value based on the specific Downtown District into which it will be with its prescribed FAR of 16.0; incorporated. For example, incorporating street level retail into a

project in the B4S districts allows the developer an FAR bonus of • Downtown East: A range of FARs, running from a low of 2.0 to CHAPTER 1 1.0 while incorporating street level retail into a project in the B4-2 a high of 6.0 depending upon specific sites; districts allows the developer an FAR bonus of 2.0. Employing such premiums is intended to simultaneously achieve urban • North Loop: A suggested FAR of 6.0 to 11.0, to coincide with design enhancements while encouraging higher density develop- the dense mid-rise range of development represented by the

ment within the heart of the City. historic warehouses with the area. CHAPTER 2

The major drawback to FAR premiums and density bonuses, how- Simply zoning for higher densities does not guarantee that the ever, is that there are no guarantees that the benefits will be pro- intended densities will be built. Thus, additional measures may be vided because developer participation is voluntary. Therefore this necessary to achieve the desired levels of development.

sort of tool as it exists does not ensure that developers will put CHAPTER 3 together projects with either the density or the enhancements One way to augment density bonuses or FAR premiums is to adopt desired by the City. Developers may choose to forego the opportu- minimum densities for specific districts or parcels. Such a sys- nity to utilize premiums and intensify land uses if they perceive tem would still include FAR premiums, but it would also be there is too much risk in using this tool either because the market designed to ensure that valuable land – particularly land that is

is soft or the City has too many other potential obstacles in the in close proximity to transit stations – will not be under-devel- CHAPTER 4 regulatory framework and process. In short, the benefits to the oped. In other words, the City may have to be patient and wait for developer must offer sufficient motivation for them to participate. the right kind and scale of development in order to maximize the long-term benefits to the tax rolls. For instance, in order to Minimum Densities: In many cities, downtown residential devel- achieve transit-supportive densities and thereby ensure the long opment is often constructed at much lower densities than what is term viability of rail transit in Downtown Minneapolis, it will be CHAPTER 5 permitted in the local zoning code. This is especially problematic important for the City to consider the appropriate level of balance because a city’s most valuable land is not developed to a level by adopting a range of minimum and maximum densities strate- where that land achieves its maximum tax capacity. Over the gically based on a parcel’s location. course of a generation, the long-term results of underdevelopment can be devastating for a city. Smaller lots (such as infill lots that are less than one-quarter CHAPTER 6 block in size) should be exempt from the minimum on-site parking Relatively high FARs are proposed for the Project Area based on requirements because it is often impossible for minimum densi- the expectation that all on-site parking requirements be met by ties to be achieved on these lots. In addition, a review of City sub- construction of internal parking structures, (preferably under- division regulations should also be undertaken in order to ensure CHAPTER 7 ground) and that most development projects will cover as much that establishing minimum densities does not unnecessarily building site area as possible. (A minimum of 80% site coverage cause developments to be above the threshold lot number for should be assumed on all building sites). Proposed FARs are as short plat subdivisions. It may be necessary to increase this num- follows: ber in order to facilitate development.

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 121 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Transfer of Development Rights structure that benefits all downtown property owners (as well as residents, workers, and visitors). Two particular fee-based mech- The Minneapolis Zoning Code currently includes a provision for anisms should be explored: Development Impact Fees and a Fee-

transfer of development rights for the specific purpose of “promot- in-Lieu System, both of which are described below: CHAPTER 1 ing the preservation and rehabilitation” of historic structures or resources. This incentive allows developers and property owners to Development Impact Fees: It is recommended that the City adopt transfer the excess allowable floor area from the “sending” site that development impact fees targeted toward specific infrastructure has the historic structure to a “receiving” site where some other that benefits all properties and raises not only the sense of place

development is contemplated. This sort of zoning device provides a – but also the value of downtown properties by virtue of being CHAPTER 2 sellable benefit to property owners of historic structures while provided and maintained. Such impact fees are levied on devel- simultaneously providing a stopgap to demolition of historic build- opers at such time when a project is approved by the City on a ings, particularly when the property development market is strong. per-unit or per-square foot basis. Development impact fees are often used to fund benefits such as increased park land,

This incentive has been in place in Minneapolis for only a few years, enhanced transit, or shared parking. CHAPTER 3 and for this reason it has not been utilized a great deal. The City should maintain the availability of this incentive within the Zoning It is recommended that the City adopt a parkland acquisition and Code and encourage its further use. The City should also explore development fee to be levied on all new private development proj- ways to encourage greater use of this incentive by exploring how it ects in the Project Area. This fee would be based on a given dollar

might be expanded to accommodate a greater set of circumstances. amount-per-square foot for commercial projects and another given CHAPTER 4 dollar amount-per-dwelling unit for residential projects. (Fees As mentioned previously, traditional development standards and could be set upon minimum standards which would be expressed density restrictions may be less useful than built-form controls for in acres/1,000 residents for the new communities within Downtown new development in much of the Project Area. Built-form controls East and North Loop.) The collected fees would be used for the and density minimums may be a more effective way to foster the express purpose of capital funding for acquisition and improve- CHAPTER 5 creation of new and rehabilitated neighborhoods, each of which ments of parkland. A further study would be required to determine has a strong identity. Still, zoning incentives such as FAR the appropriate impact fees. Only that portion of the parkland cap- Premiums and Transfer Development Rights should be retained, ital costs attributable to new growth should be charged to new as they are likely to continue to be highly useful in particular cir- development. In recognition that such a development impact fee cumstances. Ideally, built form controls and density minimums might place an additional burden of cost on downtown develop- CHAPTER 6 would be added to the Code for particular zoning districts (partic- ment, the City should pursue discussions with regional government ularly the proposed mixed-use zoning district), but they would be related to this issue. A strong central city serves regional interests calibrated with the existing zoning incentives in the Code. and parkland is essential to providing an attractive business and living environment in downtown Minneapolis. CHAPTER 7 Selected Fee System Modifications Fee-in-Lieu System: A Fee-in-Lieu system can be used as an option The City should consider crafting a palette of fee-based mecha- for meeting on-site parking obligations. The developer may choose nisms for ensuring the ability to construct and maintain infra- to either: 1) provide the required number of parking spaces on site

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 122 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

or 2) pay into a special City fund that will be used to provide City off-street parking (or upgrade existing City parking at another downtown location). The fee-in-lieu would be established on a dol-

lar-per-square-foot or dollar-per-parking-stall basis. For instance, CHAPTER 1 the City of Kirkland, Washington uses a price tag of $6,000/stall.

Ideally, these mechanisms would be crafted to offer developers options for how they choose to satisfy requirements related to

making contributions toward downtown improvements. The obvi- CHAPTER 2 ous concern the city needs to keep in mind is that high impact fees could discourage new development in the first place. Incorporation of these fees should be balanced with the potential elimination or re-calibration of other zoning application fees. For

instance, if residential development was designated as an allow- CHAPTER 3 able use in places where a Conditional Use Permit is currently required, the fee for the CUP would be lost to the City but would be considered a benefit to developers. The City might compen- sate, however, by replacing some or all of the resources derived

from the proceeds of CUPs through impact fees. In short, the City CHAPTER 4 should consider how it might recalibrate the existing fee system for zoning applications in order to reduce hurdles for developers, while ensuring that it can provide and sustain the sort of infrastructure and public realm improvements that will help to maintain a healthy economy and a healthy sense of place within the CHAPTER 5 Project Area. CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 123 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 6

Policies for Modifying the City’s becomes less on prescribed uses for commercial spaces and the num- • A minimum height or density Regulatory Framework and more on the quality of the built ber of units for residential and lodg- requirement should be considered environment and the public realm. ing developments to further enhance for the B4M Downtown Mixed Use

• The City should expand the B42 the City’s ability to provide transit, Districts. It is recommended that if CHAPTER 1 Downtown Business District to • Prepare and adopt Standards for parking, and parks. developers wished to build to the include those blocks identified as Architectural Building Design to maximum height in B4M Districts Downtown Core Expansion in the establish the general principles for • Permit uses that foster mixed-use then 50% of the floor area beyond Recommended Land Use Plan (See siting and massing of buildings. retail/commercial/residential devel- the minimum height would have to Figure 4.3, page 37). Maintain For example, building envelopes opment. be dedicated to residential develop- CHAPTER 2 incentive bonusing and FAR premi- should be stepped back from front ment. ums as a developer tool in the exist- property lines above three or four • Reduce front lot line building set- ing and expanded B4-2 Downtown stories to allow for preservation sun- backs to enhance the pedestrian • Separate checklists for Built Form Business District. The use of incen- light and views. experience. Controls may be necessary in the tive bonusing and FAR premiums proposed B4M-1, B4M-2, and B4M-3 CHAPTER 3 should be extended to the Air Rights • Prepare and adopt urban design • Establish minimum gross floor area districts due to the different scale, Development District over “The Cut.” guidelines for the public realm to (GFA) and minimum lot coverage. character, and designation status of establish the general principles for buildings within the three proposed • The City should create and adopt a streetscape and landscape improve- • Establish standards for parking districts. CHAPTER 4 new B4M Downtown Mixed Use ments and the establishment of maximums, rather than the parking District in order to facilitate the open spaces. Formally adopt these minimums that are currently in development of Complete urban design guidelines to incorpo- place. Communities in Downtown East and rate a performance-based checklist North Loop. Through the use of As-

where a minimum number of points • Develop reduced parking require- CHAPTER 5 Of-Right approvals and built form would be required for site plan ments for buildings within the controls that focus on heights, set- approval by the City. Downtown East and North Loop por- backs, and step-backs, a distinct tions of the Project Area for (a) con- physical character can emerge in • The City should consider enhancing versions of existing buildings, and

each of the new precincts located their current package of zoning (b) new buildings within reasonable CHAPTER 6 within the B4M-1, B4M-2, and B4M- incentives in a way that encourages walking distance of the Hiawatha 3 districts. A mixed-use district does flexibility for developers while secur- LRT, bus rapid transit or commuter not currently exist in the City; creating critical improvements to the rail. ing one would provide the ability for public realm.

the development community to • Eliminate the parking requirements CHAPTER 7 respond quickly in terms of chang- • The City should establish and adopt for infill development projects on ing real estate market conditions. development impact fees based sites that are less than one-quarter The focus of the neighborhood upon a square footage assessment block in size.

CHAPTER SIX – LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 124 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN

Chapter Seven Phasing and Implementation Plan CHAPTER 7

ADOPTED OCTOBER 2003 125 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

Chapter Seven deals with the initiatives and priorities needed for ment, promote construction of Complete Communities, and make achieving the sort of physical development called for throughout more efficient use of downtown land and infrastructure. the master plan. This chapter assumes that new development

within the Project Area will be based on the recommendations Infrastructure Investments in Downtown East: CHAPTER 1 made throughout the document concerning both revisions to the physical environment, as well as revisions to the City’s regulatory • Establish a pedestrian-friendly streetscape along the length framework. The intention of this chapter is to establish a baseline of the 5th Street LRT Corridor east from the Downtown Core to of information from which the City, developers, neighborhoods, the Metrodome and the Downtown East LRT Station.

and communities can begin to understand, discuss, and partici- CHAPTER 2 pate in how Complete Communities unfold in Downtown East and • Extend Chicago Avenue north to South 2nd Street. the North Loop. In short, it considers the issue of how and when the vision called for in previous chapters of this document might • Incorporate a streetscape along Chicago Avenue to tie togeth- be implemented into the physical environment of the Project Area. er the central riverfront, the Mills District, Downtown East

and Elliot Park. CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER SUMMARY • Encourage street-level improvements around the Metrodome The first section of Chapter Seven is intended to help the City and HCMC to create visual and functional links through the establish priorities for moving forward with enhancements to the area around these megastructures.

public realm and infrastructure. The second section of the chapter CHAPTER 4 is intended to help the development community understand the • Reserve the eastern portion of one of the as-yet undeveloped potential that lies within the Project Area. By drawing on informa- blocks along Portland Avenue (in the Core Expansion Area) tion derived from the market analysis (see Chapter Three, it lays for a possible underground electric substation within the area out the key development objectives and projects that will be nec- designated as open space. essary to implement the vision called for in the master plan. CHAPTER 5 Additionally, it describes individual springboard projects that are • Maintain and enhance 11th Avenue South as an important intended to demonstrate applicatons of the plan principles in link between the central riverfront, the Mills District, selected locations throughout the Project Area. Downtown East, and Elliot Park.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA • Undertake a transportation feasibility analysis that explores CHAPTER 6 elimination of the north lane of traffic on South 5th Street Implementation Objective: In order to encourage a diverse mixed- between Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue South in order to use area with buildings that contain commercial, residential, maintain a consistent and high quality pedestrian connection recreational and institutional uses throughout the Project Area, between the Metrodome and the Downtown Core along the 5th CHAPTER 7 the City of Minneapolis will need to draw on its relationships with Street corridor. its intergovernmental partners and the development community to undertake a series of both large and small infrastructure improve- • Work with intergovernmental partners to develop new freeway ment projects. The principal objective is to attract new invest- connections between I-35W and South 3rd and 4th Streets as

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 126 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 05/01/03 7

a compliment to the existing interchange at Washington Infrastructure Investments in the North Loop: Avenue South. • Establish a pedestrian-friendly streetscape along the length

• Re-link South 3rd Street to 11th Avenue South to facilitate of the 5th Street LRT Corridor from the Downtown Core west to CHAPTER 1 better traffic distribution throughout downtown. the new ballpark and the multi-modal station.

• Pursue a long-term strategy of decking over the freeway entry • Undertake a feasibility analysis concerning air rights devel- / exit trenches linking Interstate 35W to South 3rd and 4th opment and the potential for reconnecting infrastructure by

Streets (adjacent to the Hiawatha Light Rail Line) to create decking over “The Cut.” CHAPTER 2 public open space to the north of the stadium and the development of more pedestrian-friendly streets around the stadi- • Work with intergovernmental partners to incorporate a full- um. Developable land would be made available by relocating service, multi-modal rail station as a catalyst for air rights the 4th Street freeway access northward and pairing it with development above and within The Cut. The station should

the 3rd Street freeway exit. be located and designed in such a way as to maximize the CHAPTER 3 human interface between multiple modes of local, regional, • Establish a new Light Rail station to serve the Hiawatha Line and national transportation and new and existing develop- and the Central Corridor Line in the vicinity of Eleventh ment in Downtown Minneapolis. Avenue South and South 4th Street.

• Locate a new light rail station along North 5th Street to be CHAPTER 4 Infrastructure Investments in the 5th Street Spine and the integrated with the new multi-modal rail station and the Downtown Core: existing bus terminal in the 5th Street Ramp.

• Establish a pedestrian-friendly streetscape of widened side- • Remove the on/off viaduct ramps that undermine redevelop- walks, tree planters, upgraded street lights with banner ment by stretching over the North Loop between Second CHAPTER 5 arms, street furniture and other urban design features along Avenue North and Interstate-94. the length of the 5th Street LRT Corridor as the preeminent east-west pedestrian connector throughout the Downtown. • Re-establish the city street grid in the North Loop by reconnecting North 3rd Street, North 4th Street and Fourth Avenue • Through public and private efforts, integrate the Nicollet Mall North. CHAPTER 6 LRT Station with the City’s Skyway System so it becomes a focal point for new mixed-use, development that anchors Though it is important for the public sector to take the lead in redevelopment in the North Nicollet Mall area of the existing making the necessary infrastructure investments, obviously it is Downtown Core. not possible to implement all of these enhancements at once. CHAPTER 7 These projects will need to be prioritized to be in tune with the development market and policy decisions about where growth and change should be encouraged first (see Figure 7.1, page 129). Three phases of development are suggested:

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 127 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

Near-Term: Projects that ought to be implemented so that they • Encourage the emergence of street level retail along are operational as soon as or as soon as possible after the Washington Avenue South (as called for in the Update to the Hiawatha LRT line opens (within 5 years). Historic Mills Plan). CHAPTER 1 Mid-Term: Projects that ought to be implemented in conjunction • Encourage the emergence of street level retail along Chicago with development that is likely to occur in the decade after the Avenue from South 5th Street to South 2nd Street to create a Hiawatha LRT lines opens. These projects should be considered in vital link between the Downtown East LRT station, the new conjunction with the construction and opening of the NorthStar Guthrie Theatre, and the central riverfront.

Commuter Rail Line to St. Cloud and/or the Central Corridor LRT CHAPTER 2 line to Downtown St. Paul (within 15 years). • Encourage the emergence of neighborhood-oriented street level retail at the intersection of Chicago Avenue and South Long-Term: Projects that ought to be implemented in conjunction 9th Street. with development likely to occur more than decade after the initia-

tion of rail transit in Downtown Minneapolis. These projects • Encourage the emergence of neighborhood-oriented street CHAPTER 3 should be considered in conjunction with the construction and level retail at the intersection of 11th Avenue South and opening of the Red Rock Commuter Rail Line to Hastings, the Dan South 8th Street. Patch Commuter Rail Line to Northfield and/or the Southwest Corridor LRT line to the southwest suburbs (within 25 years). • Encourage Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) to opti-

mize development on the block south of the Downtown East CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA LRT station as mixed-use , transit-oriented development (TOD) that helps to create a functional village center. Implementation Objectives: Minneapolis should encourage a diverse mixed-use area with buildings that contain commercial, • Encourage the ongoing preservation and rehabilitation of residential, recreational and institutional uses throughout the existing “brownstone” buildings in the area along South 9th CHAPTER 5 Project Area. The principal objective is to attract new investment, Street and South 10th Street. Encourage infill development promote construction of Complete Communities, and make more in the gaps between existing buildings. efficient use of downtown land and infrastructure. • Encourage reduced reliance on the private automobile and Priorities for Property Development Priorities in Downtown East: greater reliance on public transit through the establishment CHAPTER 6 of a maximum parking requirement (as opposed to minimum • Encourage medium-density mixed use development through- parking requirements). out Downtown East (as indicated in the Land Use Plan). Priorities for Property Development in the 5th Street Spine and the CHAPTER 7 • Establish a new downtown park along the west side of Downtown Core: Portland Avenue through the development of parcels in the Downtown Core expansion. • Encourage high-intensity commercial office development on selected, underdeveloped sites located within the existing

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 128 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

Timing Precinct Number Precinct Name Infrastructure Project

Near-Term 5 Washington Village Extend Chicago Avenue to South 2nd Street CHAPTER 1 Near-Term 8 5th Street Spine Implement 5th Street Streetscape (Chicago Avenue to First Avenue North) Mid-Term 2 HCMC Implement Metrodome / HCMC Streetscape Mid-Term 4 East Washington Establish new LRT Station at Eleventh Avenue South and South 4th Street

Mid-Term 5 Washington Village Implement Chicago Avenue Streetscape CHAPTER 2 Mid-Term 7 Downtown Core Expansion Construct Electrical substation underneath open space at Portland Avenue Park Mid-Term 7 Downtown Core Expansion Eliminate traffic lane on 5th Street (between Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue South) Mid-Term 8 5th Street Spine Integrate Nicollet Mall LRT Station with Skyway System

Mid-Term 9 West Hennepin Extend 5th Street Streetscape west from First Avenue North CHAPTER 3 Mid-Term 13 The Cut Incorporate Baseball Park and public plaza into air rights development above The Cut Mid-Term 13 The Cut Incorporate multi-modal rail station into air rights development above The Cut Mid-Term 13 The Cut Construct New LRT Station along North 5th Street CHAPTER 4 Long-Term 3 Elliot Park East Enhance 11th Avenue South with streetscape improvments Long-Term 4 East Washington Construct new freeway connections linking I-35W to South 3rd and South 4th Streets Long-Term 4 East Washington Relink South 3rd Street to 11th Avenue South Long-Term 4 East Washington Deck over freeway entry / exit trenches linking I-35W to South 3rd and South 4th Streets CHAPTER 5 Long-Term 11 Freeway West Demolish viaduct to I-94 in the North Loop Long-Term 11 Freeway West Re-establish North Loop street grid by reconnecting North 3rd Street and North 4th Street Long-Term 13 The Cut Reconnect North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on decking over The Cut CHAPTER 6

Near-Term = Within 5 years Mid-Term = Within 15 years Long-Term = Within 25 years CHAPTER 7

Figure 7.1 Infrastructure Investments in the Project Area

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 129 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

core, and are within convenient walking distance to the modal station and Washington Avenue North. Downtown East LRT Station and the Government LRT Station. • Establish medium- and high-intensity mixed-use develop-

• Encourage high-intensity commercial office development ment in the air rights parcel above the Burlington Northern CHAPTER 1 within the proposed expansion area of the Downtown Core (as Right-of-Way and Interstate 394. indicated in the Land Use Plan). • Locate the new Ballpark on an air rights development parcel • Wherever possible, encourage street level retail along the 5th over the rail yards serving the multi-modal station.

Street LRT corridor to create and reinforce a vital east-west Incorporate a large public plaza and open space built on CHAPTER 2 link between the Downtown East and the North Loop. decking over the freeway between the proposed baseball stadium and the existing Target Center. This plaza would pro- • Encourage reduced reliance on the private automobile and vide a link between the stadium and the downtown core while greater reliance on public transit through the establishment providing an open-air gathering place for very large crowds

of a maximum parking requirement (as opposed to minimum CHAPTER 3 parking requirements). • Create new medium-density, mixed-use office development as a buffer around the Hennepin Energy Resource Center site. Priorities for Property Development in the North Loop: • Encourage reduced reliance on the private automobile and

• Encourage medium-density mixed use development through- greater reliance on public transit through the establishment CHAPTER 4 out the North Loop (as indicated in the Land Use Plan). of a maximum parking requirement (as opposed to minimum parking requirements). • West Hennepin shall be regarded as an area where the historic character is to be maintained and enhanced through Developable Sites new development by adaptive reuse and infill development at CHAPTER 5 a scale similar to that of existing buildings. Maintain and The Market Analysis (Chapter Three) projected significant develop- enhance street level retail throughout the West Hennepin ment in downtown Minneapolis over the next twenty-plus years, Development Precinct. suggesting that the downtown will increase by some 25 million square feet over that period. This figure represents a combination • Establish a new downtown park as part of the air rights devel- of office / commercial, retail, residential and hotel / lodging CHAPTER 6 opment over “The Cut” to create a vital link between the ball- development. park, the multi-modal station and Washington Avenue North. • Encourage the emergence of neighborhood-oriented street A priority of Chapter Seven is to ensure that the Recommended level retail along Washington Avenue North. Land Use Plan (Chapter Four) is capable of accommodating devel- CHAPTER 7 opment densities that approach the 25 million square feet sup- • Encourage the emergence of street level retail along Fifth ported by market projections, as well as any additional develop- Avenue North from north 5th Street to Washington Avenue ment resulting from policy intervention. One such intervention North to create a vital link between the ballpark, the multi- concerns downtown housing.

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 130 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

While the Market Analysis proposes a potential for up to 5,000 scale and special attention to architectural detail. Wherever pos- new residential units over the next two decades, the master plan sible, as many existing older buildings as possible should be suggests a need for more downtown housing in order to achieve retained through historic designation. Though many of these

the critical mass required to nurture Complete Communities. buildings are not necessarily the finest representations of a par- CHAPTER 1

915 Washington Avenue (DE-7) 1011 Washington Avenue (DE-8) Therefore, this report recommends that the housing projection for ticular architectural style, their existence lends character to 921 Washington Avenue (DE-7) the Project Area be doubled to 10,000 new residential units over Downtown because they are remnants of the City’s past fabric. the next twenty-plus years. At an average size of 1,000 gross square feet per dwelling unit, this equates to five million new A number of pre-1945 downtown buildings within the Project Area

square feet of residential development, bringing the estimated are suggested for further consideration as sites for potential his- CHAPTER 2 total for new growth in the Project Area to 30 million gross square toric designation (see Figure 7.5, pages 134-135). It may be wise

1023-25 Washington Avenue (DE-8) 1028 3rd Street S. (DE-8) feet (see Figure 7.2) for the City to consider instituting an intermediate sort of designation that encourages a building’s preservation and reuse based not The projected development in the Project Area matrix (see Figure on its individual appeal, but on its contribution to maintaining a

7.3, page 132) and the Developable Sites Map (see Figure 7.4, page downtown that is rich with “layers” of history. CHAPTER 3 133), illustrate the relative potential of various sites within the Project Area for redevelopment over the next twenty years. Each site It is important to note that not specifically listing a building for 1129 Washington Avenue (DE-9) 1201-1203 Washington Avenue (DE-9 / DE-10) is categorized in one of five different ways. For example, “Open possible preservation does not mean that a building is recom- Site Development“ refers to an empty site requiring no demolition. mended for demolition. Rather, it means that there is little reason

“Cleared Site Development“ refers to a site with existing buildings at this time, based on preliminary review, to restrict an owner’s CHAPTER 4 that are not identified as having historic or architectural merit; right to demolish a building for the purposes of redevelopment. such buildings are likely candidates for demolition given the pres- sure that might be expected from the market place. These sites 1101 3rd Street S (DE-19) 730 Hennepin Avenue (NL-38) vary in size and configuration depending upon available land and the location of adjacent preservable / reusable buildings. The CHAPTER 5 Developable Sites Map also illustrates ”Designated Historic Buildings” and ”Historic Buildings that may have potential for designation,” the latter being buildings not officially designated as

800 Hennepin Avenue (NL-39) historic, but worth retaining for their potential historic, architectural or community value. CHAPTER 6 Figure 7.2 Examples of Historic Buildings for Potential Designation Preservation of Remaining Historic Fabric

Although there are a significant number of protected buildings CHAPTER 7 within the Project Area, even a casual look around many portions of Downtown East and the North Loop indicates that too many of the City’s historic downtown buildings have been demolished. Many such buildings likely possessed both pedestrian-friendly Chapter text continues on page 134

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 131 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

NOTE: Office Retail Hotel/Lodging (2) Residential (3) Total Potential Development 1. Projection includes new development within the existing Downtown Core (1)

Downtown Core and in the CHAPTER 1 proposed Core Expansion Office 10,000,000 10,000,000 Area. Retail 150,000 150,000 Hotel / Lodging 960,000 960,000 2. One developer unit of lodging Residential 900,000 900,000 space = 600 gross square feet Total Downtown Core 12,010,000 SF CHAPTER 2

3. One developer unit of residen- The North Loop tial space = 1,000 gross square feet Office 4,000,000 4,000,000

Retail 400,000 400,000 CHAPTER 3 Hotel / Lodging 600,000 600,000 Residential 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total North Loop 6,500,000 SF

Downtown East CHAPTER 4

Office 3,000,000 3,000,000 Retail 450,000 450,000 Hotel / Lodging 900,000 900,000

Residential 2,600,000 2,600,000 CHAPTER 5 Total Downtown East 6,950,000 SF

Total Projected Development 17,000,000 SF 1,000,000 SF 2,460,000 SF 5,000,000 SF 25,460,000 SF

* Additional residential develop- CHAPTER 6 ment achievable through direct 5,000,000 SF 5,000,000 SF policy intervention.

Total Projected Area Development 17,000,000 SF 1,000,000 SF 2,460,000 SF 10,000,000 SF 30,460,000 SF CHAPTER 7

Figure 7.3 Projected Development in the Project Area

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 132 opportunities inherent invarioussites. to showsomeof the basicchallengesand redevelopment in thecomingtwentyyearsand project areathat mayorshouldsee general publicidentify thoseportionsofthe officials, thebusinesscommunity, andthe velopment plan.Itisintendedto help local NOTE: Thismapdoesnotdepicta formalrede- LEGEND 10/10/03 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) CORE BOUNDARY FOREXPANSION OFDOWNTOWN EXISTING DOWNTOWNCORE STUDY AREABOUNDARIES REDEVELOPED INTHENEARFUTURE AREAS ARENOTEXPECTEDTOBE DEMOLITION REQUIRED) INFILL DEVELOPMENTSITES(NOBUILDING PARKING RAMPS RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ABOVEEXISTING AIR RIGHTSDEVELOPMENT(POTENTIAL AIR RIGHTSDEVELOPMENT TEAM FORFURTHER CONSIDERATION) DESIGNATION (SUGGESTEDBYCONSULTANT HISTORIC BUILDINGSFORPOTENTIAL DESIGNATED HISTORICBUILDINGS (SOME EXISTINGBUILDINGSTOBEDEMOLISHED) CLEARED SITEDEVELOPMENT (NO BUILDINGDEMOLITIONREQUIRED) OPEN SITEDEVELOPMENT Figure 7.4Map ofDevelopableSites CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 7 N 133

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

NOTE: See Figure 7.4 District Precinct Block Number Address Building Name Developable Sites on page 133 for map Downtown East Downtown Core Expansion DE-1 251 Third Avenue S. Lickety Split / Offices showing Historic Buildings for Potential DE-1 312 S. 4th Street Kinney and Lange CHAPTER 1 Designation. DE-4 607 Washington Avenue Sawatdee / Residences DE-4 614 S. Third Street People Serving People DE-5 233 Park Avenue The Old Spaghetti Factory / Office Building

Washington Village DE-7 915 Washington Avenue Inscape CHAPTER 2 DE-7 921 Washington Avenue Periscope DE-7 900-910 S. 3rd Street Apartment Building / Crumps Clubhouse and Snack bar DE-7 901 Washington Avenue Commercial Building DE-8 1011 Washington Avenue Open Book DE-8 1023-25 Washington Avenue Vacant Building CHAPTER 3 DE-8 1028 S. 3rd Street Valspar Annex East Washington DE-9 1101 Washington Avenue Frank's Plumbing DE-9 1129 Washington Avenue Vendi Associates Inc.

DE-10 1201 Washington Avenue Maxwell's American Café CHAPTER 4 DE-10 1203 Washington Avenue Woodland Stoves DE-18 312 11th Avenue S. Valspar Research Center DE-19 1101 S. 3rd Street Valspar DE-23 425 Portland Avenue Star Tribune CHAPTER 5 DE-46 810 S. 7th Street First Covenant Church DE-51 627 12th Avenue S. Compassion Center Washington Village DE-55 727 5th Avenue S. Apartment Building HCMC DE-55 510 S. 8th Street House of Charity

Elliot Park East DE-55 529 S. 7th Street Sexton Building CHAPTER 6 HCMC DE-56 619 S. 7th Street Minnesota Autobody Co. HCMC / Elliot Park East DE-59 707 10th Avenue S. Central Free Church DE-59 724 11th Avenue S. Augustana Lutheran Church Elliot Park East DE-60 1100 S. 8th Street Apartment Building CHAPTER 7 DE-60 719 11th Avenue S. Residence Figure 7.5 Historic Buildings for Potential Designation Continued next page

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 134 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

District Precinct Block Number Address Building Name

Downtown East DE-60 717 11th Avenue S. Residence

Elliot Park West DE-60 1101 S. 7th Street Apartment Building CHAPTER 1 DE-64 816 Park Avenue Vacant Residence DE-65 706 S. 9th Street Apartment Building DE-67 416 S. 10th Street Francis Drake Hotel DE-70 900 Centennial Place Apartment Building CHAPTER 2 North Loop West Hennepin DE-70 718 S. 10th Street Apartment Building NL-23 426 Hennepin Ave The Brass Rail NL-23 10 N. 5th Street / 424 Hennepin Ave Tobacco and Convenience / Auggies NL-23 408 Hennepin Avenue Gay 90's Theatre, Café & Bar

NL-37 15 Glenwood Avenue Hotel Seville CHAPTER 3 NL-37 700 First Avenue N. O'Donovan's Pub NL-38 730 Hennepin Avenue Metropolitan State University NL-38 701 First Avenue N. First Avenue NL-39 800 Hennepin Avenue Carmichael Lynch NL-39 814-16 Hennepin Avenue Café di Napoli CHAPTER 4 NL-39 824 Hennepin Avenue Hey City Theater NL-39 826 Hennepin Avenue Hotel Amsterdam 5th Street Spine NL-40 913 Hennepin Avenue Mackenzie Bar 5th-3 400 Second Avenue S. Downtown Core Title Insurance Building CHAPTER 5 5th-4 401 Second Avenue S. Wells Fargo Midland Building 5th-5 12 S. 6th Street Plymouth Building 5th-5 15 S. 5th Street 15 S. 5th Street 5th-5 512 Nicollet Mall Renaissance Square

5th-6 510 Marquette 510 Marquette (office building) CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

Figure 7.5 Historic Buildings for Potential Designation

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 135 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

Policies for Potential Springboard ILLUSTRATIVE SPRINGBOARD PROJECTS Projects The following pages present a series of springboard projects,

• Each springboard project is submit- which represent a cross-section of development precincts and CHAPTER 1 ted to help paint a tangible picture illustrate the range of building development types contemplated that can be used as a basis for dis- for the Project Area, these include Class-A office, mixed-use cussion between the City, landown- office, mixed-use residential, infill retail, historic residential, and ers, developers, lending agencies, transit-related facilities, such as the multi-modal station. While and neighborhood and community the market place will ultimately determine when development on CHAPTER 2 groups. It is suggested that the City individual projects can take place, it is important to begin envi- of Minneapolis encourage the devel- sioning just how the principles and recommendations of the plan opment community to use and draw could be applied in selected locations. upon the Potential Springboard Projects as illustrative examples of The sites and locations for these projects were picked on a semi- CHAPTER 3 what might be and where to begin random basis. It is in no way clear that these are the sites that shaping Complete Communities in will without a doubt see development first. Nonetheless, these Downtown East and the North Loop. sites were chosen in order to assemble a collection of “demon- stration” projects, each of which might act as a catalyst for fur-

ther growth and for filling out the development precinct in which CHAPTER 4 it is located. It is hoped that these illustrations will serve as useful tools for encouraging the development community to move beyond the kind of projects that have come to typify traditional development patterns in Minneapolis and move closer towards the kind of projects expressed and envisioned throughout the master CHAPTER 5 plan (see Figures 7.6, page 137). CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 136 DEVELOPMENT PHASING SPRINGBOARD PROJECTS LEGEND THECUT: MULTIMODAL TRANSITSTATION AND J MUNICIPAL SERVICE: PROJECTTOBUFFER I WAREHOUSE WEST: HALFBLOCKDEVELOPMENT H WESTHENNEPIN:DOWNTOWNGATEWAY G WESTHENNEPIN:INFILLDEVELOPMENT PROJECT F DOWNTOWNCORE(EXPANSION AREA):HIGH E WASHINGTON VILLAGE:FULLBLOCK,MEDIUM D WASHINGTON EAST: ADAPTIVERE-USE,INFILL, C ELLIOT PARK EAST: MEDIUMINTENSITY, B ELLIOTPARK WEST: MIXED-USEDEVELOPMENT A 10/10/03 AIR RIGHTSDEVELOPMENT EXISTING INDUSTRIALUSE PROJECT INTENSITY, COMMERCIALOFFICEDEVELOPMENT INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT AND HALFBLOCKDEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THEHEIGHTSTEP-DOWNZONE POTENTIAL SPRINGBOARDPROJECTS 1/4 MILERADIUSTOLRT STATION PROPOSED RAILTRANSITLINES TRANSIT STATIONS HIAWATHA LRT (UNDERCONSTRUCTION) Figure 7.6Map ofSpringboardProjectSites CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT I H J F G A E B D C 7 N 137

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectA: Figure 7.7 5TH AVE.. S. 10/10/03

A. 8TH. ST. S. ST. 8TH. B.

PORTLAND AVE.. S. N South. part ofaninter-block pedestrian connection, leadingto8thStreet corner ofthesite introducesapossiblegalleria spacethatforms allows viewsof theCityHallclocktower. Aplazaat theeastern running through thesitethatiscenteredonPark Avenue and 7-10 (residential)areheldback froma60footwideviewcorridor space andstructuredparking with aresidentialcomponent.Floors Project Description:Theproject isdevelopedascommercialoffice Portland Avenue andthealleytosouth. western portionoftheblockbounded by5thAvenue South, Site Description:Thesiteislocated onSouth7thStreet,the North ParcelDE-55A City HallClockTower (seeFigures5.29and5.30,page9091). serving theexistingviewcorridorfromParkAvenue Southtothe construction couldcoexistwithexistinghistoricbuildingsby pre- Development onthesesitesshouldalsodemonstratehownew shorter, low-intensitybuildingsinthe9thStreetHistoricDistrict. sition fromthetaller, high-intensitybuildingsintheCoreto opment thatisscaledinsuchawayastoprovidephysical tran- these sitesshoulddemonstratemedium-density, mixed-usedevel- Building (inthenortheastquadrantofblock).Development on Charity (inthesouthwestquadrantofblock)andSexton surface parkinglots.TheysharetheblockwithHouseof quadrant ofthesameblock.Thesesitesarecurrentlyused as the northwestquadrantofBlockDE-55andoneinsoutheast ment thatoccupiestwoquarter-block developmentsites,onein priate catalystprojectwouldbeamixed-use/commercialdevelop- Park neighborhoodandtheexpandedDowntownCore.Anappro- The ElliotParkWest precinctisseenasabufferbetweentheElliot Down” Zone Elliot ParkWest: Mixed-UseDevelopmentinthe“HeightStep- Springboard ProjectA: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT AsnotedinChapterSix,itisrecommended thattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecifically tojumpstartdevel- • Please note: Developer(s)toactivelyencouragediagonal viewcorridorto • Developer(s)toactivelyencouragegalleria, enhancingpedes- • Developer(s) toprovidehighlevelofStreetscapeAmenityon • Development Considerations: ing ownertothewest. Such aconnectionherewouldrequirethecooperationof build- inter-block pedestrianconnection,leadingto7thStreetSouth. turns thewesterncornerofsiteandintroducesapossible City Hallclocktower. Aplazaalongthesouthfaceofbuilding the sitethatiscenteredonParkAvenue andallowsviewsofthe are heldbackfroma60footwideviewcorridorrunningthrough and stepsbackuptothesixthfloor. Floors7-10(residential) space andstructuredparking.Thebuildingbaseis4stories high Project Description:Theprojectisdevelopedascommercial office Avenue andthealleytonorth. portion oftheblockboundedby5thAvenue South,Portland Site Description:locatedon8thStreetSouth,theeastern South ParcelDE-55B embark onacooperative processofdeveloping BuiltForm development community, andneighborhood representatives plan fortherealization ofCompleteCommunities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensities soughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocations whereincentivebonus- preserve designatedviewcorridor trian circulationthroughtheblock public plazasandadjacentsidewalks. 7 138

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Project Area. projects intheDowntownEastandNorthLoopportionsof Controls thatsettheparametersforphysicaldesignofnew Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectA .55.77 102 5.85 138361 30375 107 31286 76700 145116 24000 43124 32124 4825 69868 19175 24800 7333 17467 144000 48000 148800 66 96000 49600 24000 22 99200 44 24800 DE-55A B4M-2: DowntownMixed-UseDistrict B4S-1: DowntownServiceDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed-Use District/Office(MU-O) DE-55A Elliot ParkWest DE-55B 7 139

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectB: Figure 7.8

11TH. AVE.. S. AVE.. 11TH. 10/10/03

8TH ST. S. N Developer(s)requiredtoprovide highleveloflandscaping to • Development Considerations: building somewhatfromtraffic on8thStreet. to allowthedevelopmentofa landscaped buffertoshieldthe setback alreadyestablishedby theneighboringbuildings,butalso building isheldbackfromSouth 8thStreetpartlytomaintainthe ‘L’ –shapedapartmentbuildingwithstructuredparking.The Project Description:Thepotential projectconsistsofafivestory west, ranginginheightfromonetotwostories. ment totheeastandarowofoldersinglefamilyresidences tothe situated betweenarelativelynew3.5storyresidentialdevelop- is inthemiddleofSouth8thStreetsideblockand itis Street, andtheInterstate35Wright-of-way. Thedevelopmentsite bounded bySouth7thStreet,EleventhAvenue South,South8th Site Description:Thisspringboardprojectislocatedintheblock Block DE-60 remain residentialintheiruse. structures mayneedrehabilitation.Alloftheseshould ing rowshouldbeconsideredforpreservationdesignation.Some nal singlefamilyhouseswithintheProjectArea.Thisrowof hous- tains whatwouldappeartobetheonlyremainingstreetoforigi- western edgeofBlockDE-60facingEleventhAvenue South,con- East precinctisslatedprimarilyforresidentialdevelopment. The Consistent withtheElliotParkNeighborhoodPlan, Park Elliot ParkEast:MediumIntensity, ResidentialDevelopment Springboard ProjectB: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Maximum Parkingshouldbe limitedtofiftystalls(onestall • buildings from this one. buffer building from South8thStreetandtobuffer existing per dwellingunit) AsnotedinChapterSix,itisrecommendedthattheCity, the • RevisedFARs areproposedspecificallytojump startdevelop- • Please note: Developer(s)requiredtostepdownthisbuildingatwest end • Project Area. projects intheDowntownEastandNorthLoopportionsof Controls thatsettheparametersforphysicaldesignofnew embark onacooperativeprocessofdevelopingBuiltForm development community, andneighborhoodrepresentatives realization ofCompleteCommunities). yield thesortofdensitiessoughtinthismasterplanfor ment ondifficultsites(inlocationswhereincentivesmaynot increase setbackfrompropertylinetoabout30feet; Similar measurestobeemployedateastendofsiteor, of siteinresponsetoexistingadjacenttwostoryhouse. 7 140

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectB 2.16 50 74285 0 12095 62190 34355 15355 19000 68710 2 120242.5 3.5 34355 B4M-2: DowntownMixed-UseDistrict OR-3: InstitutionalOfficeResidential Medium Intensity(5-13) Residential DE-60 Elliot ParkWest 7 141

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectC: Figure 7.9

12TH AVE. S. 10/10/03 WASHINGTON BLVD. WASHINGTON

A. 3RD ST. S. ST. 3RD

11TH AVE. S. B. N cel ofthisblock willbetteraccommodatethis function. ment onthesouth site.Thelargerfloorplate onthesouthernpar- tured parkingwill beprovidedforthisbuilding throughdevelop- atrium configuration mightbedesirable.Itis assumedthatstruc- office/studio space. Becauseofthedeepfloor plate(155feet)an on Washington Avenue South.Theupperlevelscouldconsistof tains office/commercialspace withretailspaceatgradefocused potential four-story buildingonthenorthportionofblockcon- on blockDE-9willbedeveloped inconcertwithoneanother. The Project Description:Itisassumed thatthenorthandsouthsites mended forfurtherconsideration forpotentialhistoricdesignation. three storiesinheight.Bothof theadjacentbuildingsarerecom- two existingbuildings,oneofwhich istwostoriesandtheother the southernboundaryofthisparcel. Thesiteissituatedbetween mid-block onWashington Avenue South.Anexistingalleyforms South 3rdStreet,and12thAvenue South.Thenorthparcelfaces that isboundedbyWashington Avenue South,11thAvenue South, Site Description:Thisspringboardprojectislocatedontheblock Parcel DE-9A developed inconcertwithoneanother. It isassumedthatthenorthandsouthsitesonblockDE-9will be ignated asanhistoricsite.). an existinghistoricstructure(albeitonethatisnotcurrently des- similar charactertotheOpenBookfacility:anadaptivere-use of this proposedspringboardprojectonBlockDE-90wouldbeof en thepedestrian/consumerexperiencealongWashington Avenue, use/commercial andlive/workopportunities.Inaneffortto enliv- The Washington Eastprecinctisintendedtoaccommodatemixed- Development Washington East:AdaptiveRe-Use,Infill,andHalf-Block Springboard ProjectC: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Asnoted inChapterSix,itisrecommended thattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecifically tojumpstartdevel- • Please note: TheCityshouldencourageadjacentbuildings toreplacetheir • Developer(s) toactivelyencourageretailtenantsalong • Development Considerations: accessed fromthealley. interior ofthesouthsite(belowrooftopopenspace)and itis Structured parkingfortheentiredevelopmentislocatedwithin the allow thecreationofasidewalkatleast12feetinwidth. building onthesouthsiteissetbackfrompropertylines to on blockDE-9willbedevelopedinconcertwithoneanother. The Project Description:Itisassumedthatthenorthandsouth sites ern boundaryofthisparcel. mid-block onSouth3rdStreet.Anexistingalleyformsthenorth- South 3rdStreet,and12thAvenue South.Thenorthparcelfaces that isboundedbyWashington Avenue South,11thAvenue South, Site Description:Thisspringboardprojectislocatedontheblock Parcel DE-9B Downtown Eastand NorthLoopportionsoftheProject Area. that settheparameters forphysicaldesignofnew projectsinthe embark onacooperative processofdevelopingBuilt FormControls development community, andneighborhood representatives plan fortherealizationofComplete Communities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensities soughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocations whereincentivebonus- structure onDE-9 off-street structuredparkingfor themwithintheshareduse surface parkingwithpocketparks intradeforsubsidizing Washington Avenue South; 7 142

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectC .34.55 178 4.23 240400 97 71800 131000 168600 52800 00 1650 19400 111600 51150 31000 0 31000 211200 68640 1.3 124000 44 142560 2.7 40300 52800 1.3 83700 2.7 31000 DE-9A B4M-2: DowntownMixed-UseDistrict I-1: LightIndustrialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed-Use District/Office(MU-O) DE-9 Washington East DE-9B 7 143

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectD: Figure 7.10

9TH AVE.. S. 10/10/03 WASHINGTON BLVD. WASHINGTON

CHICAGO AVE. S. 3RD. ST. S. ST. 3RD. N Developer(s) requiredtoprovidehigh levelofstreetscape • AllowableFAR of6iscalculatedovertheentiresite,including • Development Considerations: sides fillingoutanoverallbuilding heightof11stories. Residential unitsriseabovethe four-story buildingbaseonthree oped asalandscapedamenity spaceforbuildingresidents. a 4.5storyparkingstructure,the roofofwhichwouldbedevel- would faceSouth3rdStreet.The centerofthesiteisoccupiedby facing Washington andChicagoAvenues. ”Stacked”townhouses grade, andcommercialspaceonsecondthroughfourthfloors, Project Description:Thefour-story basecontainsretailspaceat modern, four-story officebuildingwouldneedtobedemolished. South 3rdStreetandNinthAvenue South.Anexisting,small, that isboundedbyWashington Avenue South,ChicagoAvenue, Site Description:Thisspringboardprojectislocatedontheblock Block DE-6 hood retailcenterat-grade. would beamixed-useresidentialproject,withstrongneighbor- tial springboardprojectTheproposeddevelopment,onBlock DE-6, Washington Avenue and ChicagoAvenue wasselected asapoten- Complete Community. Assuch,thesitethatfrontsboth Village holdsthebestpromiseforneartermrealizationofa Like theWarehouse West precinctinNorthLoop,Washington Washington Village: FullBlock,MediumIntensityDevelopment Springboard ProjectD: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT part oftheUpdate totheHistoricMillsDistrict MasterPlan way inthisblock isalsorecommendedforthis locationas widened right-of-way ofChicagoAvenue. Awidenedright-of- amenity andto consider adedicatedparkspace onthe dedicated parkspace AsnotedinChapter Six,itisrecommendedthattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecificallytojumpstartdevel- • Please note: Retaildevelopment shouldbeencouragedatthestreetlevel • Project Area. projects intheDowntownEastandNorthLoopportionsof Controls thatsettheparametersforphysicaldesignofnew embark onacooperativeprocessofdevelopingBuiltForm development community, andneighborhoodrepresentatives plan fortherealizationofCompleteCommunities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensitiessoughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocationswhereincentivebonus- along Washington Avenue SouthandChicagoAvenue. which wasadoptedbytheCityin2001. 7 144

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectD 4.30 453 453890 0 295890 158000 105625 29125 76500 633750 6 348562.5 3.3 285187.5 2.7 105625 B4M-2: DowntownMixed-UseDistrict I-1: LightIndustrialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed-Use District/Residential(MU-R) DE-6 Washington Village 7 145

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectE: Figure 7.11 7TH ST. S.

10/10/03 PORTLAND AVE. PORTLAND

6TH ST. S.

ARMORY N neighborhoods on theeastofthissite.Two linked, connected tion inscalefrom officecoreonthewestto mediumintensity Greenway. Thebuilding’s four-story basehelpsto createatransi- high-intensity office projectsitedontheproposed PortlandAvenue Project Description: Developmentonthissite shouldincludea cuts acrossasmallportionof the southwestcornerofsite. dor thatstretchesfromLakeStreet totheCityHallclocktowerand on thissiteshouldallowforpreservation ofanexistingviewcorri- LRT Station.Theenvelopeandmassingforbuildingconstruction distance oftheDowntownEast LRT StationandtheGovernment block southoftheHiawathaLRT lineandiswithineasy walking and FifthAvenue Southonthewest.Thisparcelislocated one north, PortlandAvenue ontheeast,South7thStreet thesouth, Downtown Core.Theblockisbounded bySouth6thStreetonthe ately southoftheArmoryinproposedexpansionarea the Site Description:Thisfull-blockbuildingsiteislocatedimmedi- Block DE-43 site dedicatedtothegreenway. The developerwouldberequiredtomaintaintheportionofthis a meanstoincrementallybuildingthePortlandAvenue Greenway. of openspaceintotheconstructionahigh-intensityproject as springboard projectprovidesinsightconcerningtheincorporation office complexintheexpansionareaofcore.Importantly, this board projecttodemonstratethepotentialforaClass-Afull block DE-43 wasselectedasacandidatesiteforpotentialspring- significant north/southgreenwayalongPortlandAvenue. Block The proposedextendedboundaryofthecorewouldterminate ina ed ninefullcityblocksonthenortheastcornerofexisting core. The MasterPlanrecommendsthattheDowntownCorebeexpand- Office Development Downtown Core(ExpansionArea):HighIntensity, Commercial Springboard ProjectE: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT AsnotedinChapter Six,itisrecommendedthattheCityuse • Please note: South 6thand7thStreets. streetscape amenityonthepublicplazaandalongsidewalks at Developer(s) shouldberequiredtoprovidehighlevelof built areaascompensationfordedicationofparkspace. based onGrossSiteArea(includingthepublicpark)toincrease mended tomaximizepotentialofsite.TheFAR iscalculated Development Considerations:AmaximumFAR of16isrecom- main entrytreatment. of theparkalongPortlandAvenue byincorporatingitintothe ing isaccommodatedunderground.Thebuildingtakesadvantage are connectedbyalinkthatreaches28stories.Structured park- Street tolessentheimpactonArmory. Thetwolargetowers ly towerreaches33storiesandissteppedbackfromSouth6th view corridor(seedottedlineonillustrativedrawing).Thenorther- ries. Itssouthwesterncornerisangledtoavoidinterruptingthe towers riseabovethebase.Thesoutherlytowerreaches30sto- “The Cut.” Expanded DowntownCore,and theairrightsparcelsover better designfornewprojects in theExistingCore, incentives bonusesinlieuofBuiltFormControlstoachieve 7 146

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectE 1378 1492945 760208 427617 305120 105600 29320 76280 1689600 16 844800 8 844800 8 105600 B4: DowntownBusinessDistrict B4C-2: DowntownCommercialDistrict High Intensity(14FloorsandTaller) Office DE-43 Downtown CoreExpansionArea 7 147

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectF: Figure 7.12

10/10/03

4TH ST. N. ST. 4TH 3RD ST. N. ST. 3RD A. B. 1ST AVE. N. N Due to smallsizeoflot and neighborhood context,no set backis • Maximum allowablebuildingheight -8floors. • Development Considerations: restaurant withwindowsthat will nowlookontothenewpark. buffer fromtheneighboringbuilding, whichhasanexisting the southeastparcel.Thisacts bothasapublicamenityand is providedmidblockonNorth 4thStreetatthewesternedgeof facades toallowforbalconies. Asmall,landscapedpocketpark residential loftunits,setback fromthenortheastandsouthwest be office/commercialspaceand the7thand8thfloorswouldbe space, shoulditbecomeaviable option.Floors2through6could should bedevelopedwiththeflexibility toaccommodateretail oped spacesonthisblock.The mainlevelofthisdevelopment in conjunctionwithoneanothertofillouttheexistingunderdevel- Project Description:Two infilldevelopmentprojectsareproposed and SecondAvenue North. bounded byNorth3rdStreet,FirstAvenue North,North4thStreet, tion ofNorth4thStreetandFirstAvenue Northontheblockthatis Site Description:Thisspringboardsiteislocatedattheintersec- Parcel NL-13A one another. on BlockNL-13andareconsideredtobedevelopedinconcert with as surfaceparkinglots.Two candidatesiteshavebeenidentified Many suitablecandidatesitesexist;mostareclearedandserving and housingfacilitiesconstructedoninfilldevelopmentsites. encourage thedevelopmentofhigh-quality, mixed-usecommercial much ofwhichiswithintheWest HennepinPrecinct,itneedsto If theCityistopromotefurtherrehabilitateitsWarehouse District, West Hennepin:InfillDevelopmentProject Springboard ProjectF: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT AsnotedinChapterSix,itisrecommended thattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecifically tojumpstartdevel- • Please note: AsrecommendedinChapterSix,parkingrequirements for • Duetosmall sizeoflotandneighborhoodcontext,nosetback • Development Considerations:AmaximumFAR of6isrecommended. commercial space. it becomeaviableoption.Floors2through6couldbeoffice / developed withtheflexibilitytoaccommodateretailspace,should Project Description:Themainlevelofthisdevelopmentshould be Avenue North,North4thStreet,andSecondAvenue North. Street ontheblockthatisboundedbyNorth3rdStreet,First Site Description:ThisspringboardsiteislocatedonNorth3rd Parcel NL-13B Asrecommended inChapterSix,parkingrequirementsfor • embark on acooperative processofdeveloping Built Form development community, andneighborhood representatives plan fortherealization ofCompleteCommunities). es maynotyield thesortofdensitiessoughtin thismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocations whereincentivebonus- proximity oftheFourthandFifth StreetGarages these infilldevelopmentsites is ‘zeroed-out’duetotheclose new building neighboring buildingsmustbe carriedintothedesignof is requiredat4thfloor, however, corniceandwindowlinesof proximity oftheFourthandFifthStreetGarages these infilldevelopmentsitesis”zeroed-out”duetotheclose boring buildingsmustbecarriedintothedesignofnewbuilding. required at4thfloor. However, corniceandwindowlinesofneigh- 7 148

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Project Area. projects intheDowntownEastandNorthLoopportionsof Controls thatsettheparametersforphysicaldesignofnew Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectF .06.00 49 6.70 48600 106 16200 32400 105526 8100 00 51200 0 54326 8100 15760 2960 12800 48600 94560 66 64800 00 8100 00 126080 88 15760 NL-13A B4M-2: DowntownMixedUseDistrict B4C-2: DowntownCommercialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed UseDistrict/Office(MU-O) NL-13 West Hennepin NL-13B 7 149

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectG: Figure 7.13

10/10/03 WASHINGTON AVE. WASHINGTON N could consist of4-story parkingstructure and/oroffice/commer- base includestwo components.Thesouthportion ofthebase towers thatare unifiedbyasinglebasestructure. Thefour-story tricky sitebyincorporating recommendeduses withintwobuilding Project Description: Theproposedbuildingaims tocleanupthis rises tomeetWashington Avenue ispresentlyquiteharsh. an urbandesignperspective,the locationwheretheI-394off-ramp north portionofthesitefacesWashington Avenue andI-394.From both freewayramps,thus,itismore suitableforofficeuse.The major components.Thesouthportion ofthesiteiswiderandfronts ignated aspreservationsites. This buildingsiteisdividedintotwo 394. Theremainderofthesiteis occupiedbybuildingsthataredes- block iscurrentlyunder-developed andfacesthecurvingInterstate freeway rampto/fromInterstate 394.Thewestern-mostportionof that servesasanon-ramptoInterstate 94,andthenorthernmost Washington Avenue North,SecondAvenue North,theexistingviaduct and immediatelyadjacenttoInterstate394.Theblockisbounded by Site Description:Thisspringboardsiteislocatedatthe“head” of Block NL-5 entrance toDowntown. be thoughtofasanimportantgatewaymarking is anidealcandidatefordemonstratinghowabuildingcan also the blockwithexistinghistoricbuildings.Furthermore,this block and afreewayoff-rampfromInterstate394.Thissitealsoshares - isnoteworthybecauseitfrontsbothWashington Avenue North uses onrelativelysmallbuildinglots.Onesuchsite-Block NL-5 high-quality, infillprojectsthatmixcommercialandresidential development opportunitiesintheWest HennepinPrecinctarefor ticularly alongWashington Avenue North.Asnotedabove,thekey development thatfillsinthegapsofWarehouse Districtpar- One ofthedevelopmentchallengesforCityistopromote West Hennepin:DowntownGatewayDevelopmentProject Springboard ProjectG: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Asnoted inChapterSix,itisrecommended thattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecifically tojumpstartdevel- • Please note: Developerrequiredtoprovidegatewaythrough expressionin • Developerto provideusablepublicopenspace.Inthiscase, • Amaximum FAR of8isrecommended • Development Considerations: office/commercial uses.Bothtowersaresetbackfromthebase. five floorsabovetheproject’s 4-storybaseandaccommodate total of9floors.Thenorthtowerwouldalsoriseanadditional an additionalfivefloorsabovetheproject’s 4-storybasefora south towerwouldaccommodateresidentialdevelopment.It rises Above thebase,sitecouldbeusedtodeveloptwotowers. The base structureshouldbegivenovertocommercialofficespace. the demandsofmarketplace.Theremainingfloors changed overtheyears(fromofficetoretailspace)according to project aretobedesignedinsuchawaythattheycaneasily block, ground-levelspacesalongWashington Avenue sideofthe on thesouthernportionofthissite.Onnorthernhalf cial space.At-graderetaildoesnotappeartobeaviableoption Downtown EastandNorth Loopportions of theProjectArea. that settheparameters forphysicaldesignofnew projectsinthe embark onacooperative processofdevelopingBuilt FormControls development community, andneighborhood representatives plan fortherealizationofComplete Communities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensities soughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocations whereincentivebonus- construction ofafreestanding gateway. building architectureorbycontributing fundstotheCityfor developed atacurvedbuildingentry; a plazawithpotentialzoneforsidewalkcafécouldbe 7 150

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectG 6.27 147 194400 0 80000 114400 31000 2400 28600 248000 8 0 0 248000 8 31000 B4M-2: DowntownMixedUseDistrict B4C-2: DowntownCommercialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed UseDistrict/Office(MU-O) NL-5 West Hennepin 7 151

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectH: Figure 7.14 6TH AVE.. N.

10/10/03 4TH AVE.. N. AVE.. 4TH

5TH AVE.. N. N below groundor ontheinsideportionsblock onthelowerlev- as publicopen space. Structuredparkingwould beaccommodated capture ofatriangular sitetothesouththat should bedeveloped development. Removal ofthefreewayviaduct wouldallowthe Some openspace isprovidedalongthesouthwest sideofthe which wouldfeaturedramatic views oftheDowntownskyline. are setbackfurtherandwould containresidentialunits,manyof base andwouldcontaincommercial space.Floors9through11 Avenue North.Floors5through 8aresetbackfromthebuilding contains office/commercialspace withretailfrontagealongFifth Project Description:Thefour-story baseofthepotentialbuilding essary todemolishasmallexisting warehouse-typebuilding. block developmentonthissite isnotbepossible.Itmaynec- viaduct. Untilsuchtimeasthe freewayviaductisremoved,full 4th Streetsideoftheblockfollowscurvefreeway Avenue North,North4thStreet,andSixthAvenue North.TheNorth from Interstate94.TheblockisboundedbyNorth3rdStreet, Fifth north oftheexistingviaductthatservesfreewaytraffictoand Site Description:Thisspringboardsiteislocatedimmediately Block NL-9 routing thattraffictoexistingsurfacestreets(SeeFigure5.2). the challengeofdemolishingfreewayon/offrampsandre- tion ofthesetwoprecinctsisonlypossibleinthelongtermgiven precinct andtheFreewayWest precinct.Admittedlyafullintegra- site thatdemonstratesthetransitionbetweenWarehouse West ment/rehabilitation ofthisprecinct.BlockNL-9wasselected asa plex wouldbeparticularlybeneficialforfurtheringthedevelop- along FifthAvenue North.Amid-rise,mixed-useresidentialcom- ment ofamixed-useneighborhoodfocusedonretailcluster The Warehouse West precinct holdspromiseforfurtherdevelop- Warehouse West: Half-BlockDevelopmentProject Springboard ProjectH: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT AsnotedinChapterSix,itisrecommended thattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecificallytojumpstartdevel- • Please note: Upondemolition offreewayviaduct,developer(s)toprovide • Developerrequired toprovidehighlevelofstreetscapeameni- • Developer(s) toencourageretailusesalongFifthAvenue North • Amaximum FAR of8isrecommended. • Development Considerations: els ofthebuildingsothatitisscreenedbyactiveuses. Project Area. projects intheDowntownEast andNorthLoopportionsofthe Controls thatsettheparameters forphysicaldesignofnew embark onacooperativeprocess ofdevelopingBuiltForm development community, andneighborhoodrepresentatives plan fortherealizationofCompleteCommunities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensitiessoughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocationswhereincentivebonus- kiosk. space shouldincludeauniquefeaturesuchasfountainor usable openspaceonreclaimedportionofblock.This ty onalladjacentsidewalks. 7 152

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectH 7.24 278 340448 0 170224 170224 46994 2856 44138 375952 8 249068.2 5.3 126883.8 2.7 46994 B4M-2: DowntownMixedUseDistrict I-2: MediumIndustrialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed-Use District/Office(MU-O) NL-9 Warehouse West 7 153

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard ProjectI: Figure 7.15 10/10/03

5TH ST. N.

7TH ST. N. N • A maximum FAR A of8is recommended • Development Considerations: Hennepin County EnvironmentalResourceCenter. on thelowerlevels alongthebackofsite facing theexisting south endofthesiteaswell.Structured parkingisaccommodated located attheintersection.Asmall pocketparkisprovidedatthe the NorthLoop.Thisvolumealso frontsalargepublicplaza ner ofthissiteandcreatesamarker thatservesasagatewayto northwest corneracurvedtower formmarksthehighlyvisiblecor- tain commercial/officespace, set backfromthebase.On contain office/commercialspace. Floors5through14alsocon- Project Description:Thefour-story baseofthisbuildingwould along North5thStreetwestofthe Multi-ModalStation. Resource Centerandpotentialmixedusedevelopmentproposed ating abufferbetweentheexistingHennepinCountyEnvironmental vide additionalemploymentopportunitiesintheNorthLoopwhile cre- with developmentonBlockNL-27.Developmentthissitewill pro- intersection ofNorth5thStreetand7thStreet.Inconjunction Site Description:Thisspringboarddevelopmentsitelocatedat the Block NL-26 properties withintheCity’s downtown. Station AreaPlan,itisidealtoillustratethere-useofremnant in theMeyer-Mohaddes DowntownMinneapolisMulti-Modal MetroTransit BusFacility. Previouslyidentifiedasapotentialsite adjacent totheHennepinCountyEnergyResourceCenterand the ment onBlockNL-26atNorth7thStreetandSixthAvenue North, suitable springboardprojectwouldbeamid-riseofficedevelop- could beredevelopedasbuffersaroundexistingindustrialuses. A The MunicipalServiceincludesaseriesofedgepropertiesthat Municipal Service:ProjecttoBufferExistingIndustrialUse Springboard ProjectI: CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT AsnotedinChapter Six,itisrecommendedthattheCity, the • IncreasedFARs areproposedspecificallytojumpstartdevel- • Please note: Developerrequired toprovidehighlevelofstreetscapeameni- • Developertoprovidepublicplazaandpocketpark • Project Area. projects intheDowntownEastandNorthLoopportionsof Controls thatsettheparametersforphysicaldesignofnew embark onacooperativeprocessofdevelopingBuiltForm development community, andneighborhoodrepresentatives plan fortherealizationofCompleteCommunities). es maynotyieldthesortofdensitiessoughtinthismaster opment ondifficultsites(inlocationswhereincentivebonus- erty. ty onpublicplazaandalongsidewalksadjacenttotheprop- 7 154

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 Illustrative Drawing Springboard Project J: Figure 7.16 10/10/03 N above. Alargepublic openspaceisprovided at theeasternendof ect wouldconsist ofa4storybasewithmixed usedevelopment structures that line thewestsideofThirdAvenue North.Theproj- trench andthe rehabilitation ofexistinghistorically designated mixed useproject thatintegratesanairrights parcelabovethe Project Description:Development onthissiteincludesanew portion ofthesitesimilarlydeveloped. (seeChaptersFourandFive). ment. Eventually, North4thStreetwouldberebuiltandthenorthern portion ofthesitewouldbedecked overtoaccommodatedevelop- would berebuiltatalevelsimilar toadjacentcitystreetsandthis boundary oftheBurlingtonNorthern RightofWay. North5thStreet North, theexistingoff-rampfrom Interstate94,andthewestern ern portionoftheblockbounded byNorth5thStreet,ThirdAvenue sunken surfaceparkinglot.It includes theairrightsinsouth- tracks relatedtotheMulti-ModalRailStationandwhatisnow a the existingBurlingtonNorthernRightofWay andtheintended Site Description:Thisairrightsdevelopmentsiteislocatedabove West Parcel:BlockNL-20 tion betweenthemulti-modalstationandDowntownCore. bridging oftheexistingfreewaytrenchtocreateastrongconnec- ensure theimplementationof“CentralStation”concept of It isimportantthatthesetwositesbedevelopedinconcertto grated intothesurroundingfabricofcity. current siteat5thandFourth,toanewlocationwhichisbetter inte- town development,particularlyifitsfocusshiftedeastwardfrom its how theMulti-Modalstationwouldbetterservegoalsofdown- Cut (BlocksNL-20andNL-21).Thissitewasselectedtodemonstrate modal trainstationandairrightsdevelopmentinoneportionof The A majorpublicsectorinitiativewouldbetheconstructionofa multi- The Cut:Multi-ModalTransit StationandAirRightsDevelopment Springboard ProjectJ CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT street leveland thesitewouldbedeckedover toaccommodatethe ramp fromInterstate 94.North5thStreetwould berebuiltat North, North5th Street,ThirdAvenue North, andtheexistingoff- above Interstate 394ontheblockboundedby SecondAvenue Site Description: Thisairrightsdevelopment sitelocateddirectly East Parcel(BlockNL-21): Parkingrequirementsshouldbereducedto onehalfthetypi- • AmaximumFAR of11shouldbeallowed • Becauseofthe importanceofestablishingthissignificant • Development Considerations: ing buildingacrossThirdAvenue NorthtoBlockNL-21. such asoffices.Theelevatedconcoursewouldrunfromthis exist- purchased andredevelopedtoincludeancillarystationspaces building onThirdAvenue North.Thishistoricbuildingwouldbe base ofthenewdevelopmentandthroughsmallexisting An elevatedconcoursewouldpassthroughtheupperlevelsof the and extendbeneathNorth5thStreetontositesNL-11NL-29. station tracksandplatforms,whicharelocatedwithinthetrench development schemerecognizesbutdoesnotdetailthedesign for For thepurposesofanalysisthisairrightsparcel, Avenue. that wouldextendnorthwardtoNorth4thStreetandWashington the site.Thiswouldultimatelymergewithsimilaropenspaces parking garages. tion ofcloseproximityNorth 4thStreetandNorth5th cal requirementof1carper1000 sq.ft.partlyinconsidera- private sectorpartner. the Citytohaveintergovernmentalpartnersandatleastone and rebuildingNorth5thStreet,itwillbeveryimportantfor gateway totheCityandexpenseofdeckingfreeway 7 156

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 AsnotedinChapterSix, itisrecommendedthatthe Cityuse • Please note: Parkingrequirements shouldbereducedtoonehalfthetypi- • maximumFAR A of11shouldbeallowed • at leastoneprivatesectorpartner. very importantfortheCitytohave intergovernmentalpartnersand of deckingthefreewayandrebuildingNorth5thStreet,itwill be establishing thissignificantgatewaytotheCityandexpense Development Considerations:Becauseoftheimportance of thestationwheretrainplatformsarelocated. concourse thatwouldfeedpassengersfromthelobbyinto area of theDowntown.Itwouldincludedirectaccesstoanelevated multi-modal stationonBlockNL-20totheexistingbuiltuparea rated intothebuildingbase.Thislobbywouldhelptoconnect the The publiclobbyofthenewmulti-modalstationwouldbeincorpo- would incorporateretaildevelopmentalongtheplaza. ing consistsofafour-story basewithatowerabove.The North 5thStreetadjacenttotheLRT tracksandstation.Thebuild- northerly portionofthesitewithalargepublicplazafronting on Project Description:Alargeofficebuildingissitedonthe Chapters 4and5). ilar developmentcouldproceedonthenorthernportion(see North 4thStreetwouldalsoberebuiltasasurfacestreetandsim- development onthesouthernportionofthisblock.Eventually, CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT Downtown Core, andtheairrightsparcelsover “TheCut.” ter designfornew projectsintheExistingCore, theExpanded incentives bonuses inlieuofBuiltFormControls toachievebet- parking garages. tion ofcloseproximityNorth 4thStreetandNorth5th cal requirementof1carper1000 sq.ft.partlyinconsidera- 7 157

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 10/10/03 CHAPTER SEVEN – PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectJ DOWNTOWN EAST/NORTHLOOPMASTERPLAN CITY OFMINNEAPOLISPLANNINGDEPARTMENT 9.01 197 460800 171600 140400 148800 51150 13950 37200 562650 11 424545 8.3 138105 2.7 51150 B4M-3: DowntownMixedUseDistrict I-2: MediumIndustrialDistrict Medium Intensity(5-13Floors) Mixed UseDistrict/Office(MU-O) NL-20 The Cut Springboard FAR Required Parking Stalls Total BuildingArea Floor Plate(Floors14-plus) Floor Plate(Floors5-13) Floor Plate(Floors1-4) Gross SiteArea Public OpenSpace Building Footprint Drawing Shows: Springboard Illustrative Total Maximum Allowable SF Recommended FAR Maximum AllowableSF(2) Density Increase Maximum AllowableSF(1) Current FAR Gross SiteArea Recommended ZoningDistrict Current ZoningDistrict Intensity /HeightClassification Land UseClassification Block Location Development Precinct Springboard ProjectJ 10.71 264 616960 264000 216000 136960 57840 23600 34240 633600 11 172800 3 460800 8 57600 B4M-2 B4C-2: DowntownCommercialDistrict High Intensity(14FloorsandTaller) Mixed UseDistrict/OFFICE(MU-O) NL-21 The Cut 7 158

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 1 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN EAST / NORTH LOOP MASTER PLAN 10/10/03 7

The Minneapolis Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan resulted from the efforts of a multi-disciplinary consultant team of urban development specialists. CHAPTER 1 IBI Group is a multi-national firm of planners, architects and engineers specializing in urban solutions that integrate transportation and land use strategies to promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The firm, working from it’s Irvine, CA office

was lead consultant for this Master Plan Study and assumed CHAPTER 2 responsibility for land use and implementation strategies.

Contact Information: Telephone: 949.833.5588 Website: www.ibigroup.com CHAPTER 3

Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., of Minneapolis, MN, is a firm of land use planners, urban designers and landscape architects. Their team role included responsibility for urban design, as well as providing local knowledge and client liaison. CHAPTER 4

Contact Information: Telephone: 612.338.0800 Website: www.hkgi.com

Bonz/Rea, of Boston, MA, specializes in economic feasibility for CHAPTER 5 urban real estate development. Their team role regarded production of the market analysis for the Project Area.

Contact Information: Telephone: 617.478.2090 CHAPTER 6

Benshoof and Associates, of Hopkins, MN, is a firm of transportation planners and engineers. Their team role regarded analysis of traffic impacts and solutions for the Project Area. CHAPTER 7

Contact Information: Telephone: 952.238.1667 Website: www.benshoof.com

159