Red 20 - 20 6th Street NE

[mattaudio]

MNdible, I said "I contend that..." not "The Supreme Court rules that..." although the Supreme Court has been very misguided in many decisions, in my opinion.

If the market is fairly well aligned with the code, why does every redevelopment need a CUP? Why does a developer have to hire lawyers and try to change stuff like this?

"b) Consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the rezoning of the property from the C2 Neighborhood Commercial District to the C3A Community Activity Center District, maintaining the PO Pedestrian Oriented Overlay District."

You're right, the issues here are of form and of technical impacts on neighboring property. That's exactly why the current use-based code is so inadequate to deal with this. Defining land use in buckets like C2 or C3A, and defining what types of structures and land use are compatible with those buckets of use, obviously fails to account for the nuance and fine-grained detail for land use decisions on a parcel like this.

[MNdible]

Where does it say that? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'd be surprised if it did, frankly.

It's in the sideyard setback requirements for residential districts. 546.510, for example. The rule of thumb is 5' + 2X, where X is the number of stories above the first floor. I can't say for certain, because I don't know the nuances of this particular site, but it makes sense that this is how they came up with the original 15' setback requirement.

Also, if you read the minutes (I skimmed them) on the Red 20 item, Christoforides' attorney also mentions that his building shares footings with the Totinos building, and the developer plans to remove the portion that the Totinos building sits on, which could potentially endanger his structure.

Like the snow drifting question previously, this seems like a legitimate issue, but one that is a civil issue between two property owners that doesn't involve the zoning code.

[woofner]

I think I misunderstood you. I was thinking of stepbacks, in which upper floors are required to be set back further than lower floors. Certainly the zoning code has a reactive setback requirement, which I disagree with in urban districts, where the streetwall should be maintained regardless of building height.

[MNdible]

I'm not certain, but I believe that you could meet the intent of this with stepbacks as you describe. This increasing setback requirement typically only applies to sideyard, not frontyard setbacks.

[RailBaronYarr]

I contend that the existing use-based zoning requirements are an undue restriction of private property rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I know that there's a fetish dating back to early New Urbanism for form based codes, but in practice, at least in a city like Minneapolis, I'd contend that the market is fairly well aligned with the code. That is, excepting some particular uses that the vast majority of people in fact do not want in their backyard, the zoning allows the market to build most of what they want to in the locations they want to.

In any case, the point of contention on this site certainly appears to be a form-based issue and has nothing to do with use.

Maybe in some instances there are codes that reflect the vast majority of market preferences, but even if that's true, why have something in a code unless it is strictly about safety or protecting adjoining properties in the first place? Example: front yard setbacks. If the market truly desired the type of setbacks we code in for different land-uses, then why code them in, effectively forcing it for those who may want something different? What about lot size itself? Sure, 95% of people may want 5,000 sqft or more for their parcel. But maybe someone wants to live in the city in a single family home (detached) for the space but don't want to maintain a yard and have no need for a car. Why limit that?? This is not democracy, but a group of collective people telling someone else what they can do with their property because they think it will benefit themselves in some way, shape, or form.

Matt is right in that if the code perfectly aligned with the market desires (which is outrageous to assume given how quickly markets can change and how relatively little changes in our codes), then there wouldn't be so many variance requests for parking minimums, setbacks, height limitations, etc etc.

[MNdible]

You're right, the issues here are of form and of technical impacts on neighboring property. That's exactly why the current use-based code is so inadequate to deal with this. Defining land use in buckets like C2 or C3A, and defining what types of structures and land use are compatible with those buckets of use, obviously fails to account for the nuance and fine-grained detail for land use decisions on a parcel like this.

Look, I'm not saying the existing code is perfect, and I'd wager if we were to start from scratch, we'd probably end up with something different and simpler (at least initially). But I'd also wager that if we applied a form-based code to Minneapolis, it would end up almost as messy as what we have today. This isn't Seaside or Celebration. Form-based code is not the magical cure-all that everybody makes it out to be, and I promise you that there would still be plenty of work for real estate attorneys, because developers love to buy land and then convince the city to let them build stuff on it that isn't allowed by the underlying code. That's how they make money.

[MNdible]

This is not democracy, but a group of collective people telling someone else what they can do with their property because they think it will benefit themselves in some way, shape, or form.

That actually sounds like a practical, realist definition of what democracy is. Majority rule, right?

I'd argue that the biggest reason for the code to exist is to provide a baseline level of confidence, that when one property owner decides to buy (or improve) a given property, that they have a reasonable expectation of what their neighbor will be able to do. To take it to the extreme, I'm not going to bother painting my house if I know my neighbor is going to sell his house to an animal feedlot.

Anyway, the idea of the perfect code, that will require no variances or contention, is a pipedream. Any code that requires no variance requests is a code that is so lax as to be meaningless.

[RailBaronYarr]

That actually sounds like a practical, realist definition of what democracy is. Majority rule, right?

Majority? Of whom? We can't act like the residents of an entire city or neighborhood are in a gated community where their voices are the only ones that should or can be heard and they can dictate what could be done with property. When there are any number of potential uses, residents, etc that could be living there, it is not democracy to actively exclude them from the possibility if someone is willing to make the investment to allow it.

I'd argue that the biggest reason for the code to exist is to provide a baseline level of confidence, that when one property owner decides to buy (or improve) a given property, that they have a reasonable expectation of what their neighbor will be able to do. To take it to the extreme, I'm not going to bother painting my house if I know my neighbor is going to sell his house to an animal feedlot.

Again, it's not my job to care about someone else's baseline level of confidence about what will happen to their property if mine is not actively reducing its value or utility. You conveniently chose one example (as you noted, an extreme) where the animal feedlot would produce a smell or noise that would carry in to your property. This has a negative effect on the function of yours, and thus reduces value, but obviously is not typical for nearly all the land-use zoning regulations that have been put in place (again, a benign part of codes, front setbacks, should have no impact on someone else's property value or utility). Even still, I'll bite. Why is the answer to our problem of noise, smell, etc to regulate what can go where instead of regulating the outward effect to other properties? Limit the amount of smell that can leave a property line. Db level mitigation on party walls or property lines. I could go on. These regulations may in effect force it to be too costly to build near residences, driving them away, but it at least does not regulate that they could locate there in the first place.

Anyway, the idea of the perfect code, that will require no variances or contention, is a pipedream. Any code that requires no variance requests is a code that is so lax as to be meaningless.

Meaningless to who??

[RailBaronYarr]

This is getting off topic in a hurry, focused more on zoning and property rights than the property in question. Apologies to Nick, move it if you see fit.

[MNdible]

And I'm going to walk away from this. I don't get any great joy from defending the philosophical underpinnings of zoning code. It's the system that we have, and it's unlikely to change in any meaningful way because it works well for most people. Obviously, you and others on the board really don't like it, because apparently everybody should have the unimpeded right to build whatever they want on their property, regardless of what society has agreed to. How very Tea Party of you.

[RailBaronYarr]

"I'm going to walk away from this but then defend my position and sling a few insults your way" is what you meant to say.

As for this particular property, the side-yard setback review seems to be legitimate, as I stated before. If the adjoining property owner wanted to build upward on their own property their ability to do so (under current codes/laws at least) would make it more difficult for them to do so or less profitable. Seems reasonable but I wonder what the compromise is?

[MNdible]

"I'm going to walk away from this but then defend my position and sling a few insults your way" is what you meant to say.

Sorry, the Tea Party thing was a cheap shot. I don't know that I really have a "position", which is why this is fatiguing to debate. I suppose the closest I could come is, "our current system is messy and inefficient, and whatever you think should replace it will be too."

[frenat]

Interesting graph about parking requirements in various cities. Looks like we're pretty low. http://graphingparking.wordpress.com/

[Tyler]

Looks like that's just for office buildings. Wonder how we stack up for residential?

[mister.shoes]

Keep scrolling. Pretty well.

[RailBaronYarr]

It goes on to show restaurant and residential requirements as well. Nice to see us in comparison, although it would be interesting to see what the suburbs require vs. Minneapolis proper. However, I'd say that just because we're on the low end of a scale in a very auto-dependent country doesn't mean we're good to leave it be. Also not sure if this should be moved to the Transportation section.

[Tyler]

Keep scrolling. Pretty well.

duh. thanks

So there are literally zero major US cities without minimum parking requirements for residential? Interesting.

[ECtransplant]

Out of the one's listed. I didn't see New York on there.

[Blaisdell Greenway]

There's a sign up in the Red Stag bathroom that you're no longer allowed to park in this lot. Also a dumpster behind the Totino's building... not sure what they're taking out yet.

[mamundsen]

That dumpster has been there for a while. I actually thought we'd see more demo by now based on how long it's been there.