Zoning in Minneapolis

[twincitizen]

This item on the PC agenda tonight provides an interesting study in the differences between C1 and C2 in Minneapolis:
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 173159.pdf

An old commercial building, zoned C1. Property owner asking to rezone to C2, but CPED is recommending denial.

Short story is the owner would like to open a convenience store, which is already allowed in the existing C1 zoning. In fact, it used to be a convenience store before a brief second life as a mobile phone store. Problem is, the owner also wants a tobacco license, which apparently the city prohibited in C1 back in 2008 (lots and lots of neighborhood corner stores around the city are likely grandfathered in). In addition to allowing the sale of tobacco products, the higher C2 zoning would also open up the doors to all the other potential uses allowed in C2 (auto repair, etc.)

It's an interesting read if you're really into this stuff. It seems to me the city needs to take some things OUT of C2 that aren't really desired anywhere (auto repair, drive thrus), or at least make them conditional uses with really strict conditions like proximity to residential, etc.

If you're not interested in the specific case of this building, you can jump right to page 15 of the PDF for the C1 vs. C2 breakdown

[FISHMANPET]

Short response: zoning is trash

Longer: I have no idea if the community is ok wit the convenience store or not, or just using the other potential uses as a nimby smokescreen, but either way zoning is failing here. Either it's giving opponents too wide a brush to paint with, or it's too blunt of an instrument to actually guide wanted development. This same thing is playing out with the Uptown hotel, wit people claiming the rezoning would allow nightclubs. Either they support a hotel but not a nightclub (never mind that a nightclub requires a CUP and isn't by right) and zoning doesn't allow what the community wants, or it's a cudgel being unfairly wielded by opponents who get to disguise their nimbyism behind feigned concern for the community.

Unrelated: I was watching some committee meeting last week and Blong was saying there's already an illegal auto shop in the back here?

[mattaudio]

I sent them a comment to that effect. Either we need to move auto uses out of C2 and create some alternate method for zoning them, or we need to liberalize C1 to all non-auto-related C2 uses and densities.

[amiller92]

Seems like the zoning is working exactly as intended.

[twincitizen]

I left it out of my post, because it wasn't 100% relevant, but there's a super interesting side angle to this story stating that the economics of a small grocery/convenience store WILL NOT WORK without tobacco sales. Tobacco sales are said to make up to 50% of gross sales and play a critical role in bringing customers into the store to buy other items.

I suspect this is the case for nearly all non-gas station "mom&pop" convenience stores across the city. Case in point, CARAG's beloved Louie's Food & Deli, Kyle's Market, and many others would likely go out out of business without tobacco sales.

I think this is the critical question we must ask ourselves:

Is the "disamenity" of having tobacco sales in neighborhood stores worth keeping these stores open at all?
My answer is a resounding "yes". As long as there are strong compliance checks, aren't selling to kids, etc. who the hell cares if these stores sell tobacco products alongside hot cheetos, frozen pizza, and (often expired) dairy items.

If we truly desire small neighborhood convenience stores like this, we probably need to reexamine that whole "tobacco prohibition in C1" thing... because without the tobacco sales they simply won't be in business at all.

EDIT - from the staff report:

A convenience/grocery store is allowed in the C1 zoning district. However, the applicant is pursuing a zoning from C1 to C2 in order to gain a tobacco license. Since July 25, 2008, the City of Minneapolis has not allowed a parcel in the C1 zoning district to receive a tobacco license (Section 281.85).

[MNdible]

Agreed -- having tobacco sales trigger the C-2 seems like a really strange decision. Is this a result of anti-tobacco legislative vigilantism?

[Silophant]

I also agree that we should allow tobacco sales in C1, but at the same time, we've also got to find a way to make small neighborhood stores work without tobacco sales, because tobacco use is going to keep declining.

[twincitizen]

Tobacco sales have to keep these stores afloat just long enough until we allow some of them to become legal marijuana dispensaries

In all seriousness though, I completely agree Joey. I don't know what the long game is for these small stores with rapidly declining tobacco sales. But in the interim, the ban on tobacco sales in C1 just seems like more of the overbearing nanny-statism that MN is world famous for

[mattaudio]

We should go full Portland and have growler refill stations too.

[mamundsen]

Um. There is a Dangerous Man growler refill store. Right? I haven't been but saw it mentioned on their website.

http://dangerousmanbrewing.com/our-place/

[cnelson]

In Minnesota, a brewery can only fill growlers of their own beer. In Oregon a "growler refill station" is a third party retailer selling beer from multiple breweries.

[thatchio]

My Bartell Drugs in Seattle has a growler fill station.

[twincitizen]

In Minnesota, a brewery can only fill growlers of their own beer. In Oregon a "growler refill station" is a third party retailer selling beer from multiple breweries.

First sentence is not true anymore - breweries may refill third-party growlers, but it's their individual choice to do it or not: Who Fills Which MN Growlers? (but let's not go off-topic any further since this has nothing to do with zoning).

Second sentence accurately reflects what mattaudio was referring to - a growler refill station is not a brewery itself but offers refills of many different brands of beer. I am guessing that such an operation is still prohibited by MN state law. Again this has nothing to do with Zoning in Minneapolis, so let's try to leave it at that and move on.

Thatch - what's your take on the tobacco prohibition in C1? Do you recall anything about that being passed in 2008? Would it be political suicide to try to undo that? (facing the wrath of Big Anti-tobacco) Do you agree that it makes more sense to undo that particular licensing provision than to individually spot zone new store locations to C2 (which are unlikely to pass)?

[FISHMANPET]

Watched this meeting last night, and everybody in the community wants this. The owner is willing to do anything that would allow his use but not allow the other C2 uses -m he's not trying to pull a fast one. The two people that spoke in support were character references for the owner. Luepke-Pier basically interrogated both of them, one about how he'd feel about some other C2 use in that space (an auto shop seemed to be the go to bogeyman) and he said that the shape isn't conducive to that bbut he'd be fine with something like a plumbing supply shop if that's how things ended up. The second speaker talked about how much of an asset this would be to the community and again Luepke-Pier interrogates about if it's really an amenity.

Kevin (the owner) is, quite frankly, a model businessman and the kind of person you want running a business in your community. He's talked to the local high school about his tobacco sales and wants a limited license so he's not able to sell the kind of stuff that appeals to kids. He shovels old ladies walks.

I think zoning has failed here, I think banning tobacco sales in the zoning code has failed us, and honestly I think Luepke-Pier was an embarrassment.

[David Greene]

On the other hand, while Kevin may be a great guy, what about the next owner? I agree that zoning has failed here but I can certainly understand the concerns about going to C2 and what that allows.

[amiller92]

In Minnesota, a brewery can only fill growlers of their own beer. In Oregon a "growler refill station" is a third party retailer selling beer from multiple breweries.

And only at the brewery (e.g., no growlers at Town Hall Tap, even though it's their beer).

ETA: Sorry for being off topic, but it's beer people. Just wanted to add that places can fill third-party growlers, but I'm pretty sure that only means they they'll put their beer in a growler with another brewer's logo on it. I don't think Town Hall, for example, can sell you a growler of one of it's guest beers at the brewery. (Or that's a poor example, I guess, because they pre-fill).

[amiller92]

I guess I'm not sure why zoning working as intended is failing us here. The policy chosen was not to invite businesses whose success or failure depends on selling tobacco. That policy has a cost. The city seems to think it's worth it.

[David Greene]

The failure is in the granularity. There's no way to allow tobacco sales without also allowing a bunch of other generally undesirable (in certain areas) things.

[FISHMANPET]

Nobody expressed concern of the sale of tobacco at this site, all the concern was about what could happen in a future worst case scenario were this to be rezoned to C2. The community seemed to overwhelmingly support the C2 zoning and any potential negative impact it could have. The lack of granularity is a problem but in this case I think the bigger problem was trying to put a licensing issue (tobacco sales) into the zoning code. It means there's no middle ground. If it was a licensing rule that tobacco could only be sold in C2 and up, I'm sure the City Council could grant him the license anyway. But since zoning says no license in a C1, the only recourse is a rezoning.

[twincitizen]

If it was a licensing rule that tobacco could only be sold in C2 and up, I'm sure the City Council could grant him the license anyway. But since zoning says no license in a C1, the only recourse is a rezoning.

It is actually in the licensing section of the code, not the zoning code: https://www.municode.com/library/mn/min ... 281.85LORE

I know that doesn't actually change your argument or anything, and it sure seems like we're all in agreement here, I just wanted to point out that detail. Technically speaking, this issue has little to do with the zoning code / rezoning the property, and everything to do with an overbearing licensing rule that could be easily removed by the council (but won't, because easing restrictions on tobacco is not something anyone wants to touch)