Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1207
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby PhilmerPhil » July 23rd, 2018, 2:30 pm

Anyone need a Neighbors for More Neighbors lawn/window sign? I've got plenty to spread around!

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby Silophant » July 23rd, 2018, 2:30 pm

Oh no. Is it scans of open house comments? Is everyone going to be able to see how bad my handwriting is?

exiled_antipodean
Landmark Center
Posts: 277
Joined: December 3rd, 2012, 8:20 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby exiled_antipodean » July 23rd, 2018, 3:25 pm

I shared this anecdote over on NUMTOT, and I'll share it here again. In Prospect Park in March there was a freakout about the fourplex proposal. Renters! Livability! A group of us in the n'hood worked the association's committees and processes, and in the end the neighborhood's submission to the city was supportive of allowing fourplexes, even though they also wanted Interior 2 in more places than the current map allows. So I think this is a very winnable discussion. Outside of this forum, we got to keep showing up, emailing and writing. Lisa Bender's tweets from yesterday are, I think, a good pointer to how to engage your council member. Remind them of the goals of the plan, and how they supported it.

https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/stat ... 0406309890

Yep, there's lots of voices shouting at the council members, and they rounded up some quotes from wavering council members. Schroeder and Johnson and Gordon represent precisely the areas which will be most impacted, places that people want to live but that aren't absurdly expensive (Ward 7 and 13). They are also wards with a bunch of sometimes poorly constructed and maintained housing where the financials on tear-down to be a fourplex will work out better.

Shoulders to the wheel!

User avatar
Bob Stinson's Ghost
Landmark Center
Posts: 204
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 11:36 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby Bob Stinson's Ghost » July 24th, 2018, 8:45 am

Are any business interests lobbying for fourplexes? Maybe a push from the builders would put it over the top?

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1207
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby PhilmerPhil » July 24th, 2018, 9:37 am

Opponents of the plan consistently talk about how this is a developer driven plan, but I get the sense that larger developers are happy with the status quo. They have the market to themselves right now, know how to work within the existing regulatory framework, and have the financial chops to build larger projects. Allowing more flexibility would open up the multifamily housing market to more builders, and I don't get the sense that larger developers necessarily see a huge benefit or have interest in building missing middle type housing.

As for smaller homebuilders, I've chatted with several real estate investors, landlords, and single family home developers that work in Minneapolis, and anecdotally, it seems that the 2040 plan isn't even on their radar.

While home builders will likely benefit from the approval of the plan, they don't seem to be the ones leading the pack when it comes to getting it passed.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby amiller92 » July 24th, 2018, 10:05 am

I would think the large developers are largely indifferent to the fourplex part of the plan. I doubt they have any interest in doing a bunch of tiny (by their standards) projects or think that those are really the threat to the kind they do.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6203
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby twincitizen » July 24th, 2018, 3:43 pm

exiled_antipodean wrote:
July 23rd, 2018, 3:25 pm
Schroeder and Johnson and Gordon represent precisely the areas which will be most impacted, places that people want to live but that aren't absurdly expensive (Ward 7 and 13). They are also wards with a bunch of sometimes poorly constructed and maintained housing where the financials on tear-down to be a fourplex will work out better.
I hadn't quite thought of it that way, and would definitely add Ward 8 to that mix. I'd bet the Lyndale and Kingfield part of Ward 8 could see more small & medium scale development than just about anywhere in the city. Very attractive areas to live where the SFH prices (and rents) have appreciated a ton in the past decade. The key element is that the neighborhood gentrified so rapidly & recently that there are still plenty of poorly maintained (or tiny) homes lurking around where the numbers could actually work for teardown and replacement with a 2-4 unit structure.

I guess I'd mildly disagree that Wards 11 and 12 will be seriously "impacted". Maaaybe the numbers could work around existing business nodes (38th St & 28th Ave, 42nd St & 28th Ave, 50th St & 34th Ave) and near LRT Stations, but generally speaking I don't think you could capture high enough rents in any old generic residential area to support new construction (including $200-250k for acquisition & teardown). For Ward 11, I could see a decent amount of development on Lyndale and Nicollet in Tangletown/Windom and around 48th & Chicago, but I'm not sure anywhere else in that ward is a real "renter destination". Honestly, the idea that any neighborhoods are going to be "impacted" in a real sense by this plan (specifically the "fourplex" aspect) seems strange to me. Maybe I'm alone here, but I just don't really see a bunch of 2-4 unit structures getting built in places that can only capture medium-ish rents. Development will primarily continue in the already hot areas (Wards 3 and 10 pretty much, plus the U/Prospect Park)

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 236
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby jtoemke » July 25th, 2018, 6:43 am

twincitizen wrote:
July 24th, 2018, 3:43 pm
Maybe I'm alone here, but I just don't really see a bunch of 2-4 unit structures getting built in places that can only capture medium-ish rents. Development will primarily continue in the already hot areas (Wards 3 and 10 pretty much, plus the U/Prospect Park)
Honestly, I just see the fourplex issue as an automatic greenlight for basement and backyard ADU's and that's what I like.

User avatar
Bob Stinson's Ghost
Landmark Center
Posts: 204
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 11:36 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby Bob Stinson's Ghost » July 25th, 2018, 7:20 am

So, according to a couple of posts above there is zero interest from builders in doing fourplexes? And Frey and Bender just want to throw this zoning change out there and see if anybody bites?

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 717
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby VacantLuxuries » July 25th, 2018, 8:08 am

There may be interest in building them along the fringes of built up nodes (like Uptown or Dinkytown) as an alternative to a giant apartment building.

But there isn't going to be any interest in clear cutting single family homes and replacing them with rowhouses like the reactionaries think.

dbaur31
City Center
Posts: 35
Joined: August 23rd, 2012, 11:08 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby dbaur31 » July 25th, 2018, 8:16 am

It's unlikely that there's much interest from the really big developers/builders. We're probably not gonna hear about Ryan Companies and Mortenson suddenly building 100 fourplexes across the city. They fry bigger fish. Many other builders are so accustomed to building SFHs, it might take awhile for them to figure out whether and how they can make these work. Then there are some companies that are already kinda sorta playing in the missing middle space already to the extent it's even possible to do that kind of work who might be quicker to take to this. The Turkey Guys, Yellow Tree, even Lander. Hell even Alatus builds SFHs. I could see them looking for a spot where they could cluster a few fourplexes for efficiency sake. Plus, allowing these sorts of developments by right at least makes it theoretically possible for an individual homeowner or aspiring small time developer to see if they can make it work with less of an uphill battle.

I've also gotten the anecdotal sense that 2040 isn't really on many developers/investors radar. Reasons being 1: it's not in effect yet and there's a strong sense it'll change/get watered down and 2: it's not actually the hugely profitable, slam dunk giveaway to developers that naysayers claim.

tmart
Union Depot
Posts: 348
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby tmart » July 25th, 2018, 8:32 am

IMO it's one of the benefits of the fourplex plan that it's more accessible to individual homeowners/small developers and not on the radar of the giants. That diversification of ownership would be a meaningful response to the concern that urban growth has mostly financially enriched giant developers like Ryan.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby amiller92 » July 25th, 2018, 9:24 am

twincitizen wrote:
July 24th, 2018, 3:43 pm
Maaaybe the numbers could work around existing business nodes (38th St & 28th Ave, 42nd St & 28th Ave, 50th St & 34th Ave) and near LRT Stations, but generally speaking I don't think you could capture high enough rents in any old generic residential area to support new construction (including $200-250k for acquisition & teardown).
There's a surprising number of tear down McMansions out there, especially on 43rd Ave and 46 Ave (i.e., right by bus lines): https://twitter.com/ajm6792/status/1019584515084341253
And even more major renovations. If the numbers work to sell a $600,000 McMansion, seems like they might work for 2-4 units in the vicinity of $300,000 or the equivalent rent.
For Ward 11, I could see a decent amount of development on Lyndale and Nicollet in Tangletown/Windom and around 48th & Chicago, but I'm not sure anywhere else in that ward is a real "renter destination".
Don't think we should assume all of the small multi units will be rentals, but again, there are two tear downs going up at 50th and Bloomington right now (next to two that went up in the last few years). There are bit more modest than some (look less McMansion-y). A few blocks away, on 16th between 52nd and 53rd, there are two very McMansion-y ones that went up last year.

ETA: These are the two houses that were replaced on 16th: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9082267 ... 312!8i6656
These are the two on Bloomington: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9116902 ... 312!8i6656

Those tiny houses built at the back of the lot are going to remain ripe for a replacement.

Basically, where there's a particularly small and/or rundown house, there's the possibility of building something new, just like is currently happening. I agree that it won't mean much "impact" on the neighborhood for the new thing to be 2-4 units, but I do think it will be sprinkled across the city just like the tear downs are.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6203
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby twincitizen » July 25th, 2018, 2:00 pm

Bob Stinson's Ghost wrote:
July 25th, 2018, 7:20 am
So, according to a couple of posts above there is zero interest from builders in doing fourplexes? And Frey and Bender just want to throw this zoning change out there and see if anybody bites?
There haven't been a bunch of ADUs built either, since those were legalized 4 years ago. And that's fine. The point is that it allows the flexibility to do so, if property owners are interested. It's about ending single-family exclusive zoning districts, and allowing 1-4 units as the default setting.

What exactly are you getting at Ghost? I'm trying to understand your skepticism.
amiller92 wrote:
July 25th, 2018, 9:24 am
Basically, where there's a particularly small and/or rundown house, there's the possibility of building something new, just like is currently happening. I agree that it won't mean much "impact" on the neighborhood for the new thing to be 2-4 units, but I do think it will be sprinkled across the city just like the tear downs are.
And outside of Southwest, the pace of teardown-replacement SFHs is barely noticable at all. There's a smattering in Ericsson and southern Longfellow too. Post-"2040", I'd expect that of all the SFH teardowns in the city, the vast majority will continue to be replaced by bigger SFHs. If 100 small/deteriorating homes are torn down in a given year, I'd be shocked if more than like 5 were replaced with 2-4 unit structures (i.e. 95 of them would be McMansions, compared to today where 100/100 are McMansions)

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 717
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby VacantLuxuries » September 18th, 2018, 8:09 am

Looks like we may be getting universal triplexes, scattered fourplexes in the next draft.

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 493358651/

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 236
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby jtoemke » September 18th, 2018, 9:12 am

Every time I tell myself not to read the comments... every time I fail.

hiawather
Metrodome
Posts: 55
Joined: February 28th, 2017, 2:10 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby hiawather » September 18th, 2018, 9:41 am

jtoemke wrote:
September 18th, 2018, 9:12 am
Every time I tell myself not to read the comments... every time I fail.
You have my deepest sympathies. I refuse to look at them.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7937
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby mattaudio » September 18th, 2018, 9:48 am

jtoemke wrote:
September 18th, 2018, 9:12 am
Every time I tell myself not to read the comments... every time I fail.
I also suffer from this same affliction.

alexschief
Rice Park
Posts: 418
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby alexschief » September 18th, 2018, 11:43 am

MinnPost has a review of some of the changes.

Essentially, the lowest category of zoning will now be triplexes, but fourplexes will be allowed on lots 40' wide or larger, which is... most of them? There's a decent ADA-related reason for this change, and it seems to have bought the plan some good press, as both the Strib and MinnPost have led with the triplex news.

The plan is also lowering the maximum height for transit corridors from six stories to four, but only north of Lowry and south of 38th. Again, this is a change that is being framed in the press as a significant concession, but in reality it's fairly minor and keeps the best parts of the plan intact. Other good parts of the plan, like the elimination of parking minimums, which has somehow gone totally under the radar, are still in there.

I'm fairly happy with what I'm reading, the essential parts of the plan are intact but they've gotten out ahead of the story this time.

Still, the plan is moving in the wrong direction, even if not by as much as feared. I'm hoping the plan will make some concessions to people who didn't think it went far enough as well. One good way to do that would be to bring the area west of Hennepin Ave to the same zoning as the area east of it. We'll have to wait for the full draft plan release to see.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby amiller92 » September 18th, 2018, 1:45 pm

I don't think there's any way they are going to change what's west of Hennepin, and, as much as it pains me to say it, they are probably right about the politics not to. Yes, it should be treated the same as east of Hennepin, but doing that now is just going to create further enemies.

I agree with you about the changes. As described so far, they seem small and likely of next to no practical difference, even though they are changes for the worse.


Return to “Minneapolis - General Topics and Citywide Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests