Zoning in Minneapolis

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1544
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby talindsay » August 20th, 2013, 1:49 pm

And the total square footage is 676 sq ft or 10% of the lot, whichever is greater; with an absolute limit of 1000 sq ft. Since R1 and R1A lots are smaller than 6760 sq ft, both of those zoning types are limited to the 676 sq ft. limit.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4759
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » August 20th, 2013, 2:05 pm

talindsay wrote:And the total square footage is 676 sq ft or 10% of the lot, whichever is greater; with an absolute limit of 1000 sq ft. Since R1 and R1A lots are smaller than 6760 sq ft, both of those zoning types are limited to the 676 sq ft. limit.
Just curious whether carriage houses like the one behind the Gluek house would be permitted under today's rules. The Gluek house lot is ~130' x ~130'. There's a house between Summit and Grand on Oxford (I think) on ~100' x 200' lot that has a carriage house behind it. The carriage house is now a separate property.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1287
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mister.shoes » August 20th, 2013, 5:47 pm

@DG and RBY: I'd be more than happy to share our plans if/when the time comes. I also highly recommend our contractor, which would come as no surprise considering he's my father-in-law.

We didn't put in any utilities, but we did bury a 1" conduit from the house to the garage so I could pull coax/cat-6 (or additional power) someday if I wanted. We also buried our main electrical service and cable from the pole to the house so neither would drape over the newly *very* tall garage.

At this point in time, the upstairs serves just as storage. I do have dreams of turning it into an art studio some day, but that's distant future at best.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1544
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby talindsay » August 20th, 2013, 6:10 pm

David Greene wrote:
talindsay wrote:And the total square footage is 676 sq ft or 10% of the lot, whichever is greater; with an absolute limit of 1000 sq ft. Since R1 and R1A lots are smaller than 6760 sq ft, both of those zoning types are limited to the 676 sq ft. limit.
Just curious whether carriage houses like the one behind the Gluek house would be permitted under today's rules. The Gluek house lot is ~130' x ~130'. There's a house between Summit and Grand on Oxford (I think) on ~100' x 200' lot that has a carriage house behind it. The carriage house is now a separate property.
If it falls outside the specs currently defined (on that lot size, 1000 sq ft or less, matching the style of the house, with the midpoint of the roof no higher than 16'), then it would not be allowed without a variance. HOWEVER, from our own dealings with the Z&P process when we did a front addition on our house, I can say that variances to maintain or replace a currently out-of-code structure, or to match the style of said structure when meeting current code would cause unusual architectural effects, are automatic in most cases and always recommended for approval in the remaining cases. For example, the historic layout of our lot put us out of code on the north-side setback, but our new construction received an automatic approval (no going before a board or filing fees) for that variance.

If it's outside those specs and there's no historical precedent or compelling historical reason, then you'd have to convince the Z&P committee - which is doable, our main front-yard setback variance was recommended for denial and we constructed a case for why it was more appropriate for the neighborhood than the alternative presented as "within code and equivalent" by the zoning office, and the board voted in our favor. But that's a different scenario.

Online
twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6194
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby twincitizen » October 7th, 2013, 11:44 am

The City Council passed the ordinance change removing the minimum lot area per unit provision, to allow more/smaller units. In implementation, this won't change much at all, since parking requirements, minimum lot size, FARs, etc. will continue to regulate density. Approximately 20% of developments recently have requested and been granted a variance to the ordinance that was eliminated. The only real impact this will have on the ground is more 1BRs and studios instead of 2BRs in some buildings. All of the other requirements still apply and have not changed. Of course, more studios and 1BRs (instead of larger units) means more parking required per building, since 1 parking space is required per unit, rather than per BR.
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/226749151.html

Tuthill, Hofstede, Lilligren, and Colvin Roy voted against. Tuthill and Hofstede are known density-opposers, and Colvin Roy seems to misunderstand what the ordinance actually does. Lilligren's vote is just a huge surprise...his concerns about this ordinance change resulting in the loss of historic buildings is just bizaare and out of character. Could it be because Somali (and other minority communities he needs to pander to win his election) are actually opposed to greater density because, generally/statistically speaking, they already live in denser conditions than the city as a whole? A recent Star Tribune poll more or less confirmed that minorities are less receptive to density, so please don't judge me or get all 'overly concerned PC liberal'.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby ECtransplant » October 7th, 2013, 11:59 am

God save uptown if Tuthill gets another term

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 7th, 2013, 10:17 pm

twincitizen wrote:A recent Star Tribune poll more or less confirmed that minorities are less receptive to density, so please don't judge me or get all 'overly concerned PC liberal'.
I'm surprised by that (not challenging it). If minorities aren't receptive to it, and rich white people are... is this forum the only group of people in the region cool with density???

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3000
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby Nick » October 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

I wish that with every poll that gets published they threw in some kind of control question, like what are the three primary colors, or who the Vice President is, or when the War of 1812 started, just for reference. Then they could publish the results with headlines like "Majority opposes X, can't find selves on map."

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby RailBaronYarr » December 30th, 2013, 9:04 am

I saw this post by an LA blogger and thought it was a pretty good compromise and way for a city to allow development/turnover while also allowing existing residents the right to keep the neighborhood as it without simply putting in laws/regs to do so. Ideas on politically achievable changes to zoning welcome!

http://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/12/2 ... -proposal/

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Zoning Code

Postby FISHMANPET » May 8th, 2015, 11:55 am

I walked by a vacant lot yesterday with a for sale sign, and decided to do some digging.

First, does anyone know what a "cluster development" is? It's referenced a ton of times in the zoning code for all zones, but I can't find a good definition of it.

Second, R2b on less than a 10k square foot lot is hilarious, because the R2b code requires 10k square feet for a two family structure.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3934
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Zoning Code

Postby seanrichardryan » May 8th, 2015, 1:27 pm

Think townhouses around a court. Here's an example from a few years back in NE https://goo.gl/maps/o7Np0
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Zoning Code

Postby FISHMANPET » May 8th, 2015, 1:36 pm

Hilarious. They require 15k square foot lots, or 5000 square feet per dwelling unit. And also it says for cluster developments, "No dwelling unit shall intrude on the vertical airspace of any other dwelling unit." Which I think means they can't be stacked on top of each other?

So then the question is, what can you do on a 6200 sq ft lot zoned R2B? Exactly the same thing you could do if it was zoned R1, R1B, or R2. A single family home! And just one!

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning Code

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 8th, 2015, 2:06 pm

Yeah the cluster development seems like a great way to build fully detached units in fairly high density, but the lot minimums basically make it so you're just building single family homes on standard Mpls lot sizes.

I thought I remember having a conversation in a comment section re: R2B lot minimums with MattB. But yeah, looked it up, and for any two-dwelling units established after 1995 you need a 10k sqft lot. Meaning that all the homes sitting on R2B lots in Minneapolis (there's a large chunk of land zoned this way) can't even be converted to a duplex by right. My whole block is R2B, many duplexes on my street, but it'd be illegal for me to respond to the market by doing so. ADUs kinda give this right back, but the requirements are much stiffer.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Zoning Code

Postby FISHMANPET » May 8th, 2015, 2:17 pm

I mean, to be honest, my mom has a lot of liquid assets and an interest in housing, and I'm me, so I don't know, if I see a lot I'll throw it into the Google machine and see what comes out the other end. It's weird because there are plenty of small scale multi unit dwellings in Corcoran spread all over, but it's all R2B. I guess they could be duplexes, but they look massive enough to be at least 4 plexes. I guess all non-conforming.

It's almost like this is why everything gets built a block at a time.

For the hell of it, I happened to walk by 3448 20th Ave So, right on the edge of the R2 boundry, it's a corner lot, not super deep, but seems like you could pretty easily build 4 or so town homes facing 34th Ave, maybe with some tuck under garages in the back (though I'm sure the neighbor would love to have their side yard turned into an alley) or in the existing alley. There's some room for creativity there, and you look at the zoning, and it's like "nope." And maybe you could get a variance, but to do that I'd need some plans and those aren't free, and for a small developer starting out or that really only plans to do one building (and maybe live there and rent the other units out or something) it can be quite a hurdle.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7923
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning Code

Postby mattaudio » May 8th, 2015, 3:48 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:Yeah the cluster development seems like a great way to build fully detached units in fairly high density, but the lot minimums basically make it so you're just building single family homes on standard Mpls lot sizes.
Bungalow courts. Here's one on Cedar. We need more of these. Soft density. https://goo.gl/maps/WSFO3

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: Zoning Code

Postby Andrew_F » May 8th, 2015, 4:31 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:
So then the question is, what can you do on a 6200 sq ft lot zoned R2B? Exactly the same thing you could do if it was zoned R1, R1B, or R2. A single family home! And just one!
A single family home with smaller district minimum front and rear yards than in lower-density districts.

An older duplex would also be considered permitted rather than existing nonconforming.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Zoning Code

Postby FISHMANPET » May 8th, 2015, 4:42 pm

A duplex would, a 4-plex would not. And since this lot in particular is over 6000 square feet, it would have the same outcome if it was R2 or R1.

And the fact that the zoning code is different based on when the building was built is kind of absurd in and of itself.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3934
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Off-sale Liquor Establishment Spacing

Postby seanrichardryan » May 12th, 2015, 10:11 am

Hey, Minneapolis has a handy new Off-Sale Liquor spacing map-

http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 49c03ae0b8
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby FISHMANPET » May 12th, 2015, 10:23 am

Well that pretty much seals the deal, I'm never moving south of Lake St.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7923
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 12th, 2015, 10:54 am

There's always the happy zone between Cork Dork and Ken & Norm's. Northrop! A neighborhood with two liquor stores!


Return to “Minneapolis - General Topics and Citywide Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest