Zoning in Minneapolis

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1983
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby amiller92 » February 9th, 2016, 3:28 pm

I don't think we're all in agreement. At least one of us. I have no problem with the licensing and zoning working together to keep a business that's dependent on selling tobacco from going in here. Given the externalities associated with tobacco use and how tobacco is disproportionately targeted at vulnerable communities makes restricting where they can be sold a valid policy choice. I think it's reasonable to see the trade off of not having a convenience store here is defensible (and apparently there used to be one there).

I guess I'd rather see tobacco control more expressly be the reason to reject the variance, but whatever.

The sooner market rents for these storefronts adjust to not having businesses that depend on selling tobacco, the better.

Full disclosure, I have personal ties to Big Anti-Tobacco.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4371
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby grant1simons2 » May 5th, 2016, 3:46 pm

http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 179431.pdf

Bender and Reich propose changes to the min. lot sq. footage for two-family dwellings in R2 and R2B. R2 would go from 12,000 to 6,000 and R2 would drop from 10,000 to 5,000. Unfortunately, there aren't any changes being proposed to the minimum lot width.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby MNdible » May 5th, 2016, 4:30 pm

A 40 foot minimum lot width doesn't really seem like that much of a hardship.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 5th, 2016, 6:24 pm

That's not exactly a justification...

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4371
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby grant1simons2 » May 5th, 2016, 7:07 pm

Des Moines Zoning for R2:

Lot Area:
a. Single-family detached dwelling, 7,500 square feet, minimum.
b. Single-family semidetached dwelling, 5,000 square feet, minimum.
c. Two-family dwelling, 10,000 square feet, minimum.
Lot Width:
a. Single-family detached dwelling, 60 feet, minimum.
b. Single-family semidetached dwelling, 37.5 feet, minimum.
c. Two-family dwelling, 75 feet, minimum.
Front Yard: 30 feet, minimum.
Side Yard:
a. Fifteen feet total side yard, seven feet minimum on one side.
b. Church or school, 35 feet on each side, minimum.
c. Single-family semidetached dwelling, seven feet minimum on one side.
Rear Yard: 30 feet, minimum.

Just for comparison if anyone was interested.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 6th, 2016, 8:07 am

How likely would it be to get a variance to build a fourplex the corner of two busy streets in South Minneapolis? If there's a likelihood, I would buy this lot. It pencils out with a preliminary analysis of construction costs and possible rents at that intersection. I could even do about 950 square feet of nonresidential in a storefront oriented towards 38th St. "But for R1B"
https://streets.mn/2015/11/18/sensible-i ... nneapolis/

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby twincitizen » May 6th, 2016, 8:17 am

In the case of being at the corner of two busy arterial streets, I'd think a rezoning (likely to C1 or OR1) would actually be in order. Spot zoning? Maybe...but more supported by the Comprehensive Plan given that it is on a commercial corridor (38th)

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 6th, 2016, 8:26 am

In the context of the zoning change before us right now, they obviously went for something so uncontroversial so they could get it passed. Bender and Reich aren't willing to tackle right them right now, but minimum lot size (generally or per dwelling unit) and lot widths should be reconsidered. I've probably linked to these before, but...

https://goo.gl/maps/fchsf9mBcw72 https://goo.gl/maps/bz86B1cxtxp https://goo.gl/maps/63JmUFFsnp72 https://goo.gl/maps/CKCxyiWSHwG2

Those are just a few examples of houses on small, <5,000 sqft lots I walk by nearly every day, and it's not hard to imagine a sub-40' lot width facing the E-W street for a house of that style. I'd be willing Relating the R2/R2B zoning change, these structures could easily be duplexes. Now, most of these small-lot homes are on block-ends, not facing an alley directly, but we've basically said living in small homes mid-lock against an alley is totally cool via ADUs. Other than the (overbearing) rule in the ADU ordinance requiring owner occupancy, there is nothing functionally different about an ADU vs. subdividing your parcel to sell off to someone else for a home or duplex (or small apartment building!!) in the backyard. Yes, we live in a built-up city with 40-42' lots, and removing that lot width minimum for detached homes may not make much practical impact if you're only going to get 20' wide lots by splitting them in half. But we do have lots wider than 40' today, or multiple plots that could be bought and subdivided to 30' wide, etc.

Anyway, this is a common sense minor change to duplex zones. Glad to see it.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 6th, 2016, 8:59 am

Here's another example. There's a corner lot in my neighborhood... Small 1000sf-ish commercial building up against the alley on the street (midblock) with an unused paved lot for the rest of the parcel (including 80 feet of frontage on the avenue. This lot is zoned R1A, and I'm fairly certain minimum lot size would allow for subdivision of a lot for a SFH on the corner. But - literally across the street - there's three houses in the same space that our current code would allow for one house due to minimum lot sizes. Houses that have been there for roughly a century.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » May 9th, 2016, 1:24 pm

Late last week my neighbor forwarded a series of e-mails between him and the city about the corner property at the end of our block. It has long been an eyesore, unmaintained with beer cars and bottles littered around the place, trailers and other junk for a private business permanently parked in the parking area behind the duplex, cars parked across the sidewalk due to said garbage in the parking area, etc. The owner has been a real A-hole in the past. Problems like this were repeatedly conveyed to the city by my neighbor.

So these e-mails indicate the owner wants to lease the place for something called "Sober House" which I imagine is supportive housing for recovering alcoholics. They want to house 20 people in the duplex.

Now I have absolutely no problem with recovering alcoholics living there or 20 people living in the duplex, provided it is safe for them to do so. On balance, I see it as a win for density and a great way to provide housing for people in a transit-rich environment who may not be able to drive. So I'm all good there. Though this is one property I've long thought should be demoed and replaced with an apartment building. It could include the property next door and I don't think many people would mind. Both structures are in pretty rough shape. But that's not going to happen for a good long while now, apparently.

The neighbors are upset about parking, partially due to the blocked parking area and partially because there are regular pick-ups/drop-offs at the residence where cars literally block the street. Note that it has not yet transitioned to holding 20 people so I imagine things could get worse in that department.

I'm a meh on the parking thing, though I do want the parking area cleared out. I really hope we don't continue to have our street blocked by pick-ups and drop-offs. I also hope we don't get a push for permit parking. I would oppose that vigorously. Some neighbors have talked about that in the past so I'm nervous.

The neighbors are also upset that the process by which this happened was not an open one and so am I. CPED sent letters to the adjoining properties on the same side of the block as the proposed Sober House but did not send letters to properties across the street. My neighbor researched notification requirements and according to him, public right-of-way does not affect whether a property is "adjoining" so that the properties across the street are also adjoining according to ordinance and should have had notices sent to them.

The deadline for public comment ended May 6. I heard about the proposal May 5 from my neighbor. The properties across the street heard about it after the deadline had passed.

There is also concern about whether an R2B zoning is the place to put this kind of facility. Like I said, I think it's fine but I am curious about whether this technically fits an R2B zoning. Mostly I'm wondering about this WRT future changes to zoning code and the kinds of uses we need to be thinking about.

Note that the group of people concerned about this is very much not the same group that opposed the Colfax apartments. Everyone I talked to on my block about that project either supported it or didn't care one way or the other.

CM Bender set up a meeting for tomorrow afternoon which I hope to attend (need a baby sitter). Any thoughts on solutions for pick-up/drop-off or even parking? I see it as an opportunity to raise a two-way 28th with parking on both sides as a way to alleviate the crunch. I'm also interested in ideas about future redevelopment and how I might work to encourage that eventual outcome.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby seanrichardryan » May 9th, 2016, 3:15 pm

You must be talking about this gem.

https://goo.gl/maps/UouJL9G9ewF2

There is no zoning for sober houses, addicts are considered a protected class.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: RE: Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » May 9th, 2016, 3:59 pm

You must be talking about this gem.
Ding ding ding ding ding!

Now everyone knows where I live. :)

It's a horrible property. So there's really no limit to how many people can live there? Seems odd given the ban on rooming houses.

winterfan
Metrodome
Posts: 58
Joined: May 7th, 2014, 6:30 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby winterfan » May 9th, 2016, 9:18 pm

Sober housing is a cash cow. If the rules haven't changed recently, they can put something like four people in a bedroom and charge an enormous amount of rent for each bed (often paid by the state). Generally, I believe it's pretty quiet. It houses people right out of rehab so they are motivated to stay clean, gain employment, etc. They are usually pretty strict with the rules and curfews too.

Qhaberl
Foshay Tower
Posts: 855
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby Qhaberl » May 10th, 2016, 11:08 am

I have been reading alot about form bassed codes. I found an article on streets MN

https://streets.mn/2012/03/09/is-minneap ... sed-codes/

Any thoughts about weather this would ever happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 26th, 2016, 11:46 am

Andrew Johnson is planning to alter the zoning code, Regulations of General Applicability, amending regulations for lots containing two or more zoning classifications.
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 179870.pdf

My guess? This has something to do with the scenario Root and Lander ran into assembling the site for 3828. Basically every piece of the development was compatible with the existing zoning of the parcel underneath it, but the entire assembled site required a zoning change to allow for the development to proceed.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 31st, 2016, 11:32 am

Seems like the best place to put this. The Ped-Oriented Overlay District study is having a public meeting tomorrow night at 6 PM at Grace-Trinity Church in Uptown:
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/cped/proje ... POrezoning

This is specifically for the Hennepin/Lyndale/Lake/Nicollet study, though one would hope the findings would be applied more broadly throughout the city if this is adopted. I'll likely be going!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » May 31st, 2016, 12:18 pm

My opinion is that the entire city should have "ped overlay" guidance. Except for "anti-pedestrian overlay districts" such as the Quarry.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby mattaudio » July 29th, 2016, 9:04 am

Does anyone have the tl;dr on this proposed zoning change in LHENA?
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 184099.pdf

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4371
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby grant1simons2 » July 29th, 2016, 9:35 am

Downzoning properties closest to Hennepin from R6 to R5

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Zoning in Minneapolis

Postby RailBaronYarr » July 29th, 2016, 10:10 am

Not just R6 to R5, plenty of new R2B/R3/R4s where R6/R5 used to be. Staff report says the minimum lot area reduction for R5/6 a few years back made R5 more equivalent to residential densities the city recommended back in 04 while likely being at more compatible scale to neighbors. I guess that explains all the new R4 and below parcels. From what I can tell, anything listed R4 or below more or less conforms to existing land use, so nothing more intense would be allowed there now. And many of the newly-downzoned R5 parcels have 2.5-3.5 story apartment buildings already so I doubt anything will pencil on them now, either. Good luck, developers!

Also, totally random, but I was doing some code surfing today. I came to the realization that the Turkey Guys are almost assuredly propose these multi-bedroom units on single lots (Dupont Rocket House, 3621 Bryant) due to R4 having a minimum 1,250 sqft lot area per unit (which, for a standard Mpls lot comes in just over 4 units allowed). Whether or not 4-5 BR units laid out like the Bryant proposal are a good or bad thing long-term for renters, families, etc is beside the point here - it's quite likely they'd have found a way to carve up multiple 1, maybe 2 BR units with a single stairway serving them all if not for that MLA requirement.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests