Zoning in Minneapolis

[exiled_antipodean]

My understanding from talking to a long-time city planner is that at the last major revision of the zoning code existing buildings were given the zoning of what they were, rather than any attempt at consistency. There's a logic to that, but it's not a forward looking one.

[RailBaronYarr]

^If that's true, they did a terrible job at it in the pre-1930 parts of town (not including downtown, perhaps). Tons of areas zoned R2B or lower with many non-conforming structures.

[mulad]

The example twincitizen posted tells me that there needs to be an audit of the existing zoning. Parcels/blocks like that should be upzoned so the number of nonconforming structures is reduced. I'm not sure how much it happens here, but John Norquist (former Milwaukee mayor, former(?) CNU head) has said that this type of zoning mismatch can make it harder to get bank loans for repairs and modernization, which is not a barrier we should have.

[MNdible]

My recollection is that the prior to the most recent rezoning effort, there was a lot more one-off parcel zoning based on the reality on the ground. The rezoning effort tried to better align the zoning with the Comprehensive plan rather than reacting to anomolies on the ground. That said, the example noted originally would probably be a case where there's enough critical mass to recognize it in the zoning.

[RailBaronYarr]

Maybe there should be a solid discussion on if the comp plan, which does specify growth to be targeted along major commercial and transit corridors (implying, but not actually stating, that neighborhood interiors will be protected, even downzoned at times relative to historic form), is a better strategy than something else. I can see the case in outlying areas of the city where growth will be minimal and the public at large will get a better bang for the private investment buck if 50 new apartment units go at 50th St & 34th Ave (rather than on a random block of SFRs). But in the areas bound by (spitballing here) 38th St S and [Broadway? Lowry? on the north] growth should be allowed, even encouraged in neighborhoods where that was the norm anyway.

For example, CARAG has a very solid mix of SFRs, small apartments/condos, and a few larger historic apartment buildings. We even have commercial in the neighborhood interior - Louie's, some stuff along Bryant (which feels more part of the neighborhood than a transit boundary despite the 4's presence). It wouldn't be weird for a 2-lot apartment to crop up in the middle of the 'hood, and I'd gladly take (small) commercial creeping down the avenues Bryant-Girard from Lake St.

Most people tend to like smaller-scale development. Whether it's height or distaste for the larger developers. A random dilapidated house is statistically more likely to be found in the large neighborhood interior than just along major transit corridors, and piecing together a bunch of commercial lots is usually more tricky than a couple single family homes. Anyway, I'm sure most of you will disagree, but I'm just not 100% sold on the logic of the comp plan (even though it's been working and yes the city is booming).

[EOst]

I don't think the comp plan is based on urbanist principles or even good governance so much as political reality. I suspect that more than a few people on the city council could be vulnerable to a primary challenge if their opponents were able to argue that they'd "given developers a free pass to knock down all the homes on your block and build apartment buildings."

[MNdible]

While political reality almost certainly plays into it, isn't there something called an "urban transect"?

I'm sure some of you CNU folks have a drawing somewhere.

[twincitizen]

I'd say the zoning is more "out of whack" than the comp plan is. The comp plan designation "urban neighborhood" is intentionally very broad, and covers areas that are zoned anywhere from R1 to R6 (and maybe even OR1, OR2). I would say that Minneapolis' comp plan designation for the vast majority of its residential neighborhoods is actually the least specific I've ever seen. One huge benefit of that is that you never hear of Minneapolis amending the Comp Plan for a specific development proposal. Edina, on the other hand, has to amend its Comp Plan every single time a larger development is proposed in the Southdale/France area, because the projects keep exceeding the guidelines for height and/or density. That tells me that Edina's comp plan is too specific and too prescriptive of certain qualities.

It might be helpful for Minneapolis' plan to be slightly more specific in terms of density in residential areas, but please god not to the level of most suburbs.

EDIT: Here is how "Urban Neighborhood" is actually described in the Comp Plan:

ƒ Urban Neighborhood (UN)— Predominantly residential area with a range
of densities, with highest densities generally to be concentrated around
identified nodes and corridors. May include undesignated nodes and some
other small-scale uses, including neighborhood-serving commercial and
institutional and semi-public uses (for example, schools, community
centers, religious institutions, public safety facilities, etc.) scattered
throughout. More intensive non-residential uses may be located in
neighborhoods closer to Downtown and around Growth Centers. Not
generally intended to accommodate significant new growth, other than
replacement of existing buildings with those of similar density.

That last sentence is obviously problematic, given my example above of areas that clearly should not be zoned R1. In general though, it's probably fine. Here's what the comp plan says about residential areas in general, which does speak to accommodating growth:

The many residential neighborhoods of Minneapolis – with their access to many
urban amenities and tree-lined streets, sidewalks, and front yards that contribute to
traditional urban form – are an attractive and valuable community asset. Like the rest
of the city, these residential areas must sometimes change to accommodate shifts in
market demand and increases in population. Change may include not only new
residential development, but various public and semi-public uses that support this
development. These policies intend to guide the balancing of two values: maintaining
the character of these residential areas while allowing for their growth and change.

[mattaudio]

Yes. The point is that there's a natural flow from one to the next.

Zoning that would specify a SFH on a block of otherwise walk-up apartments violates the idea of a transect. Not that a transect is even supposed to apply at the fine-grain level. That's what a form-based code is for. The transect is basically a step higher -- how do places with different forms relate to each other?

[mattaudio]

Indeed, nothing wrong with the comp plan relating to this. Basically, we need to default to allowing zoning of parcels to match neighboring parcels (especially if they're surrounded on more than one side). So, this parcel should not be R1A precisely because it has apartment buildings on both sides. I know this would be more controversial, but I think the default zoning should move up one level from the current form, with some language that prefers buildings that match the form of its neighbors. So, this parcel should actually be allowed to have MORE apartments than its neighboring parcels, by right if it can match form elements like height and front setback, etc.

[trigonalmayhem]

The example twincitizen posted tells me that there needs to be an audit of the existing zoning. Parcels/blocks like that should be upzoned so the number of nonconforming structures is reduced. I'm not sure how much it happens here, but John Norquist (former Milwaukee mayor, former(?) CNU head) has said that this type of zoning mismatch can make it harder to get bank loans for repairs and modernization, which is not a barrier we should have.

This is a fantastic idea. Set a maximum threshold of nonconforming structures and automatically rezone until that number is back below the threshold. You could easily program this once you had the data and it would be impartial and fair. The hardest part would be settling on that threshold and the cell size.

[twincitizen]

A Champlin BBQ joint, Q Fanatic, is expanding to south Minneapolis for their second restaurant.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... polis.html

When/if this fails like the two places before it, I'm buying it, applying for rezoning to C2, and opening a liquor store.

[grant1simons2]

Out of everything a liquor store? I'll build a 12 unit apartment building.

[LakeCharles]

When/if this fails like the two places before it, I'm buying it, applying for rezoning to C2, and opening a liquor store.

I'll take it, but Richfield Muni on Lyndale is less than a mile away. South Lyndale is only 1.2 miles, and they are tough to compete with.

[FISHMANPET]

Guys guys let's all get along. Put 12 units on top of a liquor store.

Actually, now that I think about it, are there any liquor stores in Minneapolis with apartments above? I can think of one in Cedar Riverside. Is it allowed by code and just by chance there aren't many of them, or is it actually barred?

[twincitizen]

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

http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 49c03ae0b8

We've discussed this ad nauseam, but I wanted to provide a link to the actual ordinance text, since we've talked about it so much: https://www.municode.com/library/mn/min ... 62.40OLELI

Interestingly, that Tuthill amendment (see ** below) from a few years back only changed the rules separating liquor stores from schools/churches (clarifying that the distance be measured property line to property line, not door to door).

I did not know that the old "door to door" measurement is still in effect for the 2000' spacing between liquor stores. You'd think she would've amended that one to be property line to property line too... (just kidding, she only made that amendment to keep a specific business from opening in her ward).

One place I can think of where that nuance would make an impact is the Kmart site... you could theoretically put a liquor store on the corner of Lake & 1st, as long as the primary door is 2000' feet from Lake & Grand. Another is 2601 Lyndale (the vacant site across from CC Club). With that information in hand, it's even harder to believe that has remained vacant for so long.

**Here's the text of the "Proximity to schools/churches" subsection:
No off-sale liquor license, except in the B4 zoning district, shall be issued for any building, room or place within three hundred (300) feet from any building space that is used primarily and regularly for any public or parochial schools or used primarily and regularly for any religious institution place of assembly, said distance to be measured in the shortest straight line from the property line of the premises or building proposed as the location for the license sought to the property line of the school or religious institution place of assembly.
This section does not apply to the sale of growlers from licensed taprooms, thanks to former CM Schiff. I'd think there would be popular support today for striking "religious institutions" from this section and applying it only to schools. I don't think it would make a great deal of difference though. I'm not sure any religious institutions are in close proximity to any areas that would be otherwise eligible for off-sale. (see map linked above)

[lordmoke]

Whole Foods downtown and Hum's in the Wedge, to name two.

[BoredAgain]

Whole Foods downtown and Hum's in the Wedge, to name two.

Mil City as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9759391 ... 312!8i6656

[twincitizen]

Out of everything a liquor store? I'll build a 12 unit apartment building.

It was mostly to do with this map: http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 49c03ae0b8

Por favor, please put any further liquor store / zoning replies here: https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=14& ... =80#p97263

[LakeCharles]

You could also open one in the Troung Thanh parking lot at 2520 Nicollet. If the door was in just the right spot to slide in between the Old Arizona buffer and the Franklin-Nicollet buffer. That would be a great spot to open one I'd think.