Home Addition, Expansion, and Major Remodeling

[mister.shoes]

Over in the Vancouver thread, I posted this:

Long range (5+ years) plan for the house includes an addition on the front to expand the kitchen—and will likely include another room in the half story that could count as a bedroom if we do it right.

I've long known that how much one is allowed to add onto the front of one's house depends on the setbacks of the neighboring properties. I dug around in the MPLS zoning code (note: OMG) today and found this for my R1A-zoned property (emphasis added):

546.160. - Yard requirements.
(a) In general. The minimum yard requirements for uses located in the residence districts shall be as set forth in each residence district, and in Chapter 535, Regulations of General Applicability, except as provided below. Required yards shall be unobstructed from the ground level to the sky, except as provided as a permitted obstruction in Chapter 535, Regulations of General Applicability.

(b) Front yard increased. The required front yard shall be increased where the established front yard of the closest principal building originally designed for residential purposes located on the same block face on either side of the property exceeds the front yard required by the zoning district. In such case, the required front yard shall be not less than such established front yard, provided that where there are principal buildings originally designed for residential purposes on both sides of the property, the required front yard shall be not less than that established by a line joining those parts of both buildings nearest to the front lot line, not including any obstructions allowed by Table 535-1 Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards. In determining an increase in the required front yard, one (1) of the nearest principal residential structures may be removed from consideration where such structure exceeds the established front yard of any other such building on the same block face by twenty-five (25) feet or more and there are no fewer than four (4) principal residential structures on the block face, including the proposed structure. In such instance, the next-nearest principal building originally designed for residential purposes shall be incorporated in determining the increased front yard. Nothing in this provision shall authorize a front yard less than that required by the zoning district.

(c) Corner side yard. Where a corner side yard is required, it shall not exceed the applicable front yard requirement.

As best as I can understand this, I can draw a line from the frontmost part of both of my neighbors' houses (or, skip one of the two and use the next house over) and that's as far out as I can go. Fortunately, my house has the biggest setback on the block. Unfortunately, both of my neighbors are little more than a foot or two closer to the street. My really rough addition idea was to add 8'. Seems as though that idea is non-conforming.

Yes, there's a question in all of this: when the time comes, can I simply request a variance to reduce the setback? I assume I'd have to (or should) talk to my neighbors first to get their blessing, if only to avoid surprising them if/when construction starts.

[FISHMANPET]

You can ask for a variance and getting people on your side might help you but ultimately a variance is issued because the regulation as written would constitute a hardship not of your own making. Odds are low that wanting to go beyond your existing setback would cause an undue hardship so you'd probably be recommended for denial by staff.

[Archiapolis]

You can ask for a variance and getting people on your side might help you but ultimately a variance is issued because the regulation as written would constitute a hardship not of your own making. Odds are low that wanting to go beyond your existing setback would cause an undue hardship so you'd probably be recommended for denial by staff.

This is accurate.

Forget common sense, design, urbanism impacts etc. You have to demonstrate a hardship not of your own making (non-conforming lot, weird existing encroachment, etc). Staff has to go by the "letter of the law" because slippery slope/litigation/etc.

It sucks that there isn't a better mechanism for trying to do something out of the ordinary - I don't know what a better mechanism would look like but the code has you boxed in.

It seems that you might be in a very common squeeze: alter the existing house and accept the cost/difficulty to get what you want OR look for something that fits your needs without alteration (and the likelihood that this will be roughly equal to your addition costs).

[twincitizen]

Asking to extend beyond the standard setback line would be unreasonable IMO. But if you're only asking to go beyond the adjacent properties down to the standard setback, you might have a case. Maybe.

I think that provision in Mpls' code that requires larger setbacks to match the neighbors is a bad rule. Perhaps it would make some sense for larger lot / larger home areas around the lakes or something especially historic like Summit Ave in St. Paul, but for regular ol' non-historic single family homes and duplexes, I don't like it. The standard setback (whether it be 20', 25', etc.) should be the minimum, period.

Richfield has 30' front setbacks. Homeowners can actually reduce the front setback if the surrounding neighbors are both below that number. But there is nothing in the code here that would require greater setbacks if both adjacent houses were set back 35', for example. Much simpler to administer than this measuring & averaging the neighboring properties nonsense.

Also, keep in mind there are other provisions that allow things like front porches and entry vestibules to encroach into the setback area. But typically not living space like kitchens and bedrooms.

[mattaudio]

I built out from the front of my house, but it's an open porch and the city specifically has an exception for open porches (I forget how much you can encroach for an open porch without triggering a variance). One other major factor to keep in mind, most old Mpls houses are scrunched up against the north property line - sometimes even over it. I almost guarantee that virtually all of the side yard to your south is yours, and virtually all of your side yard to your north is your neighbor's. I found and staked my pins to confirm.

Regarding all of this, your best bet is to have a few rough ideas, but go to an architect who is familiar with modifying single family homes in Minneapolis. I had an architect do a plan for me maybe 5 years ago, and it was about $3,000 in expense. I have since gone back for more detail from the architect on other things, mostly the way the exterior was pulled off. I am actually just finishing execution of the plan right now, and it's been a slow road over those ten years. But having a plan in place has allowed me to make informed decisions along the way, a slight move of my furnace when I got it replaced, a few wiring changes here or there with the future in mind, a wall in the basement for a plumbing manifold here rather than there, etc. It all helped when I finally pulled the trigger a couple years ago and did about $40,000 of structural work and an exterior redo.

[Silophant]

One other major factor to keep in mind, most old Mpls houses are scrunched up against the north property line - sometimes even over it. I almost guarantee that virtually all of the side yard to your south is yours, and virtually all of your side yard to your north is your neighbor's. I found and staked my pins to confirm.

Why is this the case?

[FISHMANPET]

That seems to be the case in Milwaukee as well. I was talking about my grandparent's house with my mom (in the context of setbacks and her wanting to extend the front of her house ironically) and I decided to find it and look up the zoning (what a nerd!). Milwaukee has different sideyard setbacks for the North or West side yard vs the South or East side yard.

[kirby96]

I built out from the front of my house, but it's an open porch and the city specifically has an exception for open porches (I forget how much you can encroach for an open porch without triggering a variance). One other major factor to keep in mind, most old Mpls houses are scrunched up against the north property line - sometimes even over it. I almost guarantee that virtually all of the side yard to your south is yours, and virtually all of your side yard to your north is your neighbor's.

Yep. Mine's like that. It's gonna allow me to make the mud room a real room (some day). As someone else asked: I wonder why this is?

[David Greene]

One other major factor to keep in mind, most old Mpls houses are scrunched up against the north property line - sometimes even over it.

Heh. I looked through the abstract for my property and back in the day someone sold a 1 foot wide strip of property from my lot to the owner of the lot immediately to the south. Thus, our property description is, "The north 39 feet of lot..."

[gpete]

Why is this the case?

I think it's to maximize the amount of light you get from the south; to put as much space between your house and the neighbor's.

One person does it, and then everyone does it. It's like reclining your seat on an airplane.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[twincitizen]

Certainly appears to be the case for the house I just bought (on a 40' wide lot). There's only a narrow concrete walkway on the north side of the house (which probably does not meet the minimum 5' setback), and plenty of yard on the south side.

It's not universally true, especially for later built houses that meet the 5' setbacks and tend to be more centered on the lot, but it does appear to be the case in a lot of pre-war neighborhoods. Post-war houses also tend to be built wider "across" the lot (leaving larger backyards), while pre-war houses are more oriented front-to-back.

[mister.shoes]

First off: thanks everyone for the great responses and input. This has been very informative and helpful.

I paced off our setback this morning and guesstimated somewhere around 35-40', as I can't remember how far the RoW boundary is in from the sidewalk. So we definitely aren't planning to go beyond the required minimum of 20 or 25'.

Our house is 1939 and sits sideways on a 45' lot, scrunched up against the north side like most. At 32' wide in the front, that gives us about a 4' sidewalk on the north and nearly 9' to the lot line on the south. The kitchen is in the NE (front) corner, with the stairwell running N/S, bisecting the house directly behind the kitchen. The only way to expand said kitchen is east toward the street (or into the living/dining space in the SE corner, but where then does that go?), unless we *completely* reconfigure everything and move the kitchen to the back—a decision we should have made before finishing the basement two years back. So yeah, I don't know if we can argue "undue hardship" but there's certainly a legitimate debate to be made on the available realistic expansion options.

If the city absolutely refuses to let us expand the kitchen, perhaps at the very least they'll let us add a 4' entry way to the front so we can finally have a place to put wet, snowy shoes that isn't a rug next to the dining table. Our entry door opens directly into common space—no nooks or crannies or closet or anything.

Ultimately, we have no desire to move. We love our location and have put so much time and money into this house to make it our own, that moving would be heart wrenching.

[Archiapolis]

Sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what you need. Time to speak to an architect. I know a guy...

[talindsay]

Mister shoes, I'm ignoring everybody else's posts and responding directly because I HAVE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE ON THIS TOPIC - I successfully received a variance to the front yard setback for a major addition to my house in July 2002. The staff recommended denial, and the board voted 5-2 in favor. I didn't hire a lawyer. I'd be happy to talk with you about the experience. PM me.