urbanMSP

Proposed updates to the building review code, allowing for more leverage in the city in terms of material. Bender is the one proposing the changes, and intends for the updates to create longer lasting/stronger buildings in Minneapolis

Some materials such as brick, stone, and glass have a long history of proven architectural quality in a variety of applications as well as a strong compatibility with the historic building fabric of Minneapolis. Other materials, like fiber cement, represent an evolving list of products that combine several components or ingredients into one composite system, often in panelized form.

Three classes of materials will be created in the code.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... ent/wcmsp-

Fixing Grant's broken link: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 204837.pdf

Unless I'm missing something, this standard still applies to all exterior faces of a building:

(4) Side and rear elevations. The exterior materials and appearance of the rear and side elevations of
any building shall be similar to and compatible with the front of the building.

It'd be nice to recognize that while we're trying to make new buildings 'compatible' with our older ones, we could at least allow new buildings to treat the side- and rear-yard with a different level of standard than the public-facing side. Using cheaper brick, fewer architectural elements, fewer windows, and/or different materials entirely from the front facade was quite common in the past. Seems to be a reasonable tradeoff if we're going to up the ante on construction cost requirements.

Class III materials should be allowed on any building face that doesn't front a public street or sidewalk. It's ridiculous how much CPC and staff have concerned themselves with materials on narrow side yards and whatnot. Hello, your ridiculous concern comes at the expense of people having housing.

Question about balconies encroaching over property lines (into public right-of-way):

When a multi-story apartment building is built-to-line (i.e. zero setback from the front property line), are upper story balconies allowed to extend over the property line (i.e. potentially hanging over a sidewalk)? Or would the upper floors need to be stepped back if projecting balconies are planned on that facade of the building?

I know I could just email a planner at Mpls, but I thought one of you might know or be able to find it in the code.
Thanks!

My understanding is that they're not allowed by right, but the city has been known to grant encroachment variances in such cases. Even though they shouldn't.

Can anyone point to a particular example where balconies actually hang over the sidewalk? I suppose it's way more common that the building is simply set back 5 feet from the lot line, and a 5' hanging balcony on upper floors would come right up to the lot line.

The more I think about it and picture it in my head, it would seem kinda wrong to allow 2nd or 3rd floor balconies to be literally located above the public sidewalk. That would just feel weird, no?

Pretty sure this came up in the new Uptown project next to Solhem, right? Also, at Lime I think?

Yeah, I bitched about this in the conversation about the Holmes project.

Can anyone point to a particular example where balconies actually hang over the sidewalk? I suppose it's way more common that the building is simply set back 5 feet from the lot line, and a 5' hanging balcony on upper floors would come right up to the lot line.

The more I think about it and picture it in my head, it would seem kinda wrong to allow 2nd or 3rd floor balconies to be literally located above the public sidewalk. That would just feel weird, no?

It's not a balcony, but the Walkway has that hot tub that overhangs the sidewalk.

Yes, Lime has them.

Can anyone point to a particular example where balconies actually hang over the sidewalk? I suppose it's way more common that the building is simply set back 5 feet from the lot line, and a 5' hanging balcony on upper floors would come right up to the lot line.

The more I think about it and picture it in my head, it would seem kinda wrong to allow 2nd or 3rd floor balconies to be literally located above the public sidewalk. That would just feel weird, no?

The Maverick (100 Hennepin) has hung balconies above the sidewalk on all street facing sides

The thing is, in these examples I wonder if the balconies actually encroach on the public right away or if the sidewalk being paved wide makes it seem so. The sidewalk could very well be half in the right of way and half on the private lot.

That's pretty rare. Most sidewalks on residential blocks actually end 1-2 feet short of the public ROW. And while that may not be super relevant to new construction, we can certainly verify whether the building abuts the lot line from the plans they submitted to the city.

Missed this little gem in the Strib over the weekend:

New parking ramps could return to Minneapolis, in disguise

City might lift ban on homely stand-alone ramps if they're largely hidden from view

http://www.startribune.com/new-parking- ... 456715053/

Sounds to me like they are giving the OK to more projects like what's happening at 729 N. Washington, the Thrivent block, and 1001 N. 3rd. Thoughts?

As long as upping capacity for parked cars doesn't get in the way of reducing capacity for driving cars, I suppose I'm cool with it.

If there's a parking problem in the North Loop, it's because the meters have an 8 hour limit. I know several people that drive to their office and just use the meters. Feels like the city hasn't revisited their meter policy in the NL for 10 years!

Some of the meters in NL that are still coin operated are that way because they fall under park admin, not city admin. I remember looking into it a few years back.

Funny story: October 1 I parked in North Loop for a Vikings game. A few days ago I got a late notice for a parking ticket in the mail. 1. I never got a ticket on my car. 2. The meter was marked M-F only, and I went to a Sunday Vikings game. On further research, I discovered that later in the day the last Twins game was on October 1. So the meter was in the Twins zone. But who thinks about a Twins game in October? OK, fine. But I still never got a ticket. At least the late charge was only five bucks. But the whole ticket was $50.

Here's an article about apartment growth in the cities. Multiple times they mention how inclusionary zoning is limiting developers from building in Mpls. Is this for real? My fear is that by trying to create a supply of affordable housing Mpls is limiting the overall supply of housing. Which is some cases may limit future affordable housing since non-luxury buildings built today in 30 years are affordable? Is this also limiting our ability to get more buildings like Eleven? (If there is a better thread for this please move it.)

http://www.startribune.com/if-you-re-am ... 565899172/

I think it may be plausible it affects building in Minneapolis. We’ll see if it happens. It could also shift towards more projects just small enough not to trigger the inclusionary requirement.

Even still, housing is a metro-wide market and even if housing in Minneapolis dips or relatively slows, I would not be surprised if adjacent suburbs and St. Paul get the diverted attention such that the entire Twin Cities doesn’t slow down.