MPHA Sherman Presentation 01.27.16(FINAL) · 1/27/2016 · Presentation to the MPHA Board of Directors George E. Sherman January 27, 2016 A Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Study

Glendale Townhomes

Presentation to the MPHA Board of Directors

George E. ShermanJanuary 27, 2016

A Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Study

Project Team

Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA)

Sherman Associates

Blumentals Architecture

Shaw Lundquist

DRAFT – For presentation purposes only. Information subject to change.

Sherman’s Role

Develop financial models for Glendale that would include at least four different scenarios. One of the scenarios is required to be a rehab of existing units.

Include:

1. Number of units2. Project density and unit mixes (with models)3. A minimum of 184 very low income subsidized units 4. Development timeline and associated costs5. Recommendation of what is most viable6. Analysis of likeliness in obtaining each identified funding source

Sherman’s Scope


What will be covered Considerations for MPHA Board

Development Options 1 – 4

Detailed Descriptions of Options 1 – 4

- Site Plan and Design Considerations

- Construction and Total Development Costs

- Key Benefits and Drawbacks

Development Process and Tenant Retention Plan

Development Considerations


Considerations for MPHA

BoardBuilt in 1952

184 Townhomes 28 buildings

Unit Mix1BR – 26 units2BR – 70 units3BR – 70 units4 BR – 18 units

No ADA accessibility

$15 MM immediate physical needs


Considerations for MPHA

Board

• Resident and community stakeholder needs and requests• Ensure long‐term affordable housing for a minimum of 184‐units• Tenant retention• Ensure affordable rents are maintained• MPHA retains ownership and management• Increase accessibility • Eliminating risk of gentrification• Costs, Sources, and Uses• Feasibility • Density and Traffic Studies• Timing• Improved and increased residents services and amenities

• Education• Jobs• Health & Family• Sustainability


Options 1 ‐ 4 Option 1: Significant rehab of 184 existing townhome units184 total units‐ 8 existing units converted to ADA

Option 2: Phased hybrid development – significant rehab and new construction369 total units‐ 170 newly constructed apartment units‐ 95 newly constructed senior units‐ 98 renovated existing townhome units‐ 6 existing units converted to ADA

Option 3: Phased new development – all new construction 343 total units‐ 170 newly constructed apartment units‐ 95 newly constructed senior units‐ 78 newly constructed townhome units

Common Aspects of all Options

Remain Publicly Owned

Property Management remain with MPHA

Residents remain on site during construction – no off site displacement

A minimum of 184 units remain as deeply subsidized housing

Lower density townhome style housing remains adjacent to Prospect Park single family homes

Street layout and access remain the same or similar

Option 4: Full redevelopment – all new construction and infrastructure 423 total units‐ 256 newly constructed apartment units‐ 95 newly constructed senior units‐ 47 newly constructed townhome units‐ 25 newly constructed great house units


Option 1Significant rehab

184 total units

1BR TH – 26 units2BR TH – 70 units3BR TH – 70 units4BR TH – 18 units

Convert 8 units to ADA

Parking Count Total – 124Off‐Street Parking – 124Street Parking ‐ available

Design Considerations

Renovate 184 existing townhome units

Convert 8 existing single‐story units to ADA

Renovate Management and Maintenance Office


Option 1

• Consolidated Construction Cost $ 17,260,892

• Construction Cost/Unit $ 93,809

• Soft Costs $ 7,714,789

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS: $ 24,975,681

Construction and Total Development Costs


Option 1Key Benefits Overall lowest redevelopment costs

Savings from reusing existing infrastructure

Maintain original plan intent

Drawbacks

Functional obsolescence

Small existing unit layouts

Shorter use lifetime

Challenges meeting current accessibility requirements

Lack of family units

High cost of renovation


Option 2Phased Hybrid Development

369 total units

Apartments – 170 unitsSenior ‐ 95 unitsTownhome – 98 unitsTownhome (ADA) – 6

Parking Count Total – 388Off‐Street Parking – 58Underground Parking – 330Street Parking – available


Retain and renovate 98 existing townhome units

Convert 6 existing one‐story units to ADA

5 new multi‐story buildings

Community and Commercial spaces on 27th Ave


Option 2


• Construction Cost/Unit $ 164, 965

• Soft Costs $ 21,988,053




Option 2Key Benefits

Increase housing options

Includes dedicated senior housing

Significant improvement of ADA throughout development

Savings from reusing existing infrastructure

Maintain significant amount of original plan intent

Construction of common space for education and resident use

Increased parkingDRAFT – For presentation purposes only. Information subject to change.

Option 2Drawbacks

Functional obsolescence of existing townhomes

Small existing layouts

Shorter use lifetime

Challenges meeting current accessibility requirements

Lack of adequate family space in townhome units

High cost of renovation


Option 3Phased New Development

343 total units

Apartments – 170 unitsSenior ‐ 95 unitsTownhomes – 78 units

Parking Count Total – 396Off‐Street Parking – 66 Underground Parking – 330Street Parking – available


New replacement townhomes units (78) including ADA units

New townhome configuration retains original scale and character of streetscapes

5 new multi‐story buildings

Community and Commercial spaces on 27th Ave DRAFT – For presentation purposes only. Information subject to change.

Option 3

• Consolidated Construction Cost $ 67, 341, 574


• Soft Costs $ 22,197,299




Option 3Key Benefits Increased functionality and life span of all units




Increased functionality and life span of all units

Large Family Units in Townhomes


Increased parking


Option 3

Street layout constraints

A few townhome units will be lost, but total multifamily units increase

Higher overall redevelopment cost

Drawbacks


Option 4Full Redevelopment

423 total units

Apartments – 256 unitsSenior ‐ 95 unitsTownhomes – 47 unitsGreat Houses – 25 units

Parking Count Total – 420Off‐Street Parking – NoneUnderground Parking – 420Street Parking – available


Complete site redevelopment with new internal street layouts and infrastructure


Option 4



• Infrastructure Cost $ 2,000,000

• Soft Costs $ 27,883,955

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS: $113,234,502









Large Family Units in Townhomes



Increased parking

Gateway building on NE

Improved LRT access

Integrated site plan

Improved accessibility

Sustainability opportunities

Drawbacks

Higher development costs

Potential for significant infrastructure costs


Development Process &Resident Retention

All options (1‐4) provide for 100% resident retention on‐site during rehabilitation and/or development.


Process ‐ Option 1

Natural attrition and vacancies

Development Process &Resident Retention Continued


Process – Option 1

Residents located in first development phase temporarily relocate to lightly refurbished townhomes elsewhere on site




Rehabilitate townhomes




Residents move into rehabilitated townhomes

Process continues until rehabilitation is complete

Development Process &Resident Retention

All options (1‐4) provide for 100% resident retention on‐site during rehabilitation and/or development.


Process – Options 2‐4

Natural attrition and vacancies

Continued




Residents located in first development phase temporarily relocate to lightly refurbished townhomes elsewhere on site




Construct new multifamily apartment building




Residents move into new multifamily apartment building




Complete construction on multifamily phase




Residents move into completed multifamily buildings

Rehabilitation or redevelopment continues until process complete

Residents who want to move back into renovated or newly constructed townhome units may do so

Development Considerations

• Community support

• Timing

• Sources of funds


Documents

MPHA Sherman Presentation 01.27.16(FINAL) · 1/27/2016 · Presentation to the MPHA Board of Directors George E. Sherman January 27, 2016 A Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Study