Smaller Scale "Missing Middle" Multi-Family Development

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
tmart
Union Depot
Posts: 380
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby tmart » March 9th, 2018, 12:34 pm

In the Strib article, Frey talks about how this is part of the Minneapolis 2040 plan that's forthcoming, and that he doesn't like this piece being leaked without the context of the rest of the plan. I wonder if some of the rest of the plan might mitigate the neighborhood impacts of this.

IMO this would be a great time to consider permit parking for residents. And specifically, although it would be a bit regressive, I think they should consider making a set number of permits available to each lot (or per acre or similar). That way, incumbent landowners wouldn't have any reason to worry about parking going away--and denser new projects would have to plan on reduced car dependency.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 762
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby VacantLuxuries » March 9th, 2018, 12:51 pm

So who leaked it early?

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 332
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby gpete » March 9th, 2018, 1:02 pm

Probably someone like Goodman

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3966
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby Silophant » March 9th, 2018, 1:08 pm

No proof or anything that it was Goodman, but it was definitely Goodman.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5758
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby MNdible » March 9th, 2018, 1:42 pm

"Leaked it early"?

This isn't a top secret communique. This is public legislation that's being discussed that would radically change the city's zoning. Just because CM's weren't prepared to spin it for the press and constituents yet, people are angry?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3966
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby Silophant » March 9th, 2018, 2:07 pm

Some would argue that releasing one specific, surely controversial aspect of a much larger plan early, without the context of the larger plan, is in itself a form of spin.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5758
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby MNdible » March 9th, 2018, 2:13 pm

Would not disagree with that. But... so what?

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1102
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby mplsjaromir » March 9th, 2018, 2:20 pm

It is similar to the TCBag article. The increasingly irrelevant Boomer politicians snipe through the media at the next generation of politicians. Maybe after he bridges the rural-urban divide Tom Hoch can blow another million fighting this.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 762
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby VacantLuxuries » March 9th, 2018, 2:24 pm

Running from a meeting and calling the news to spin an out of context story about an unpublished draft plan sounds like leaking to me.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5758
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby MNdible » March 9th, 2018, 2:39 pm

So, if hypothetically the comp plan included (as part of a much larger document) a proposal that would, say, increase the minimum lot size for a duplex up to 15,000 sf, the correct thing for a CM who opposed that change would be to stay quiet until the whole plan was released?

I mean, I get you all like this fourplex idea, but what if you didn't?

This is public policy discussion. Leaking just doesn't apply. If an idea you oppose, and that you believe your constituents oppose, is being pushed through, isn't it your obligation to bring this to light?

tmart
Union Depot
Posts: 380
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby tmart » March 9th, 2018, 2:52 pm

So, if hypothetically the comp plan included (as part of a much larger document) a proposal that would, say, increase the minimum lot size for a duplex up to 15,000 sf, the correct thing for a CM who opposed that change would be to stay quiet until the whole plan was released?

I mean, I get you all like this fourplex idea, but what if you didn't?

This is public policy discussion. Leaking just doesn't apply. If an idea you oppose, and that you believe your constituents oppose, is being pushed through, isn't it your obligation to bring this to light?
This goes to my original point in raising the "leak"-- that I'm curious if there will be elements of the comp plan designed to mitigate the potential impacts of this change.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4354
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby FISHMANPET » March 9th, 2018, 4:58 pm

So, if hypothetically the comp plan included (as part of a much larger document) a proposal that would, say, increase the minimum lot size for a duplex up to 15,000 sf, the correct thing for a CM who opposed that change would be to stay quiet until the whole plan was released?

I mean, I get you all like this fourplex idea, but what if you didn't?

This is public policy discussion. Leaking just doesn't apply. If an idea you oppose, and that you believe your constituents oppose, is being pushed through, isn't it your obligation to bring this to light?
Well that would be incredibly unlikely since the council charged staff to think radically about how to ensure the comp plan provided enough housing for our growing city.

And you say "bring to light" like the intention was to keep this secret forever? CMs haven't even seen the entire plan yet, so whoever did leak this doesn't even know all the details themselves! And CMs should strive to pass good policy on its merits, not play dirty tricks to rile up opposition.

I have no idea what your career is, but would you like someone to take a draft of whatever you produce and cherry pick one little bit and release it secretly?

If it's not a leak, why isn't Goodman or whoever talking to the press about why they needed to release this little bit RIGHT NOW instead of later this month when the draft is released, when they're perfectly able to point out things they don't like an reference them in the document.

I have a hard time believing that even you can be that obtuse.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1102
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby mplsjaromir » March 9th, 2018, 5:16 pm

Actually the person who exposed this policy measure only acted in selflessness, virtue and the belief in good governance. And are in no way petty.

Wheres those who support this policy are unserious naifs who have no idea what Real Minneapolitans desire.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5758
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby MNdible » March 9th, 2018, 5:49 pm

I have a hard time believing that even you can be that obtuse.
Come on. Really?

My job is not to serve as an elected official.

If council staff, against the wishes of the elected officials, released this, that would be a leak.

There is no expectation of secrecy, nor should there be, for public officials negotiating policy. Setting aside that this may be damaging to a policy that you all like, the fact that the public is aware of elements of a plan before it becomes a fait accompli is exactly how public engagement on a policy like this should work.

Regardless of whatever nuance the plan may hold, this represents a HUGE change. It should be discussed, and it shouldn't have to wait until the whole plan is wrapped up in a bow.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3080
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby min-chi-cbus » March 9th, 2018, 10:10 pm

In the Strib article, Frey talks about how this is part of the Minneapolis 2040 plan that's forthcoming, and that he doesn't like this piece being leaked without the context of the rest of the plan. I wonder if some of the rest of the plan might mitigate the neighborhood impacts of this.

IMO this would be a great time to consider permit parking for residents. And specifically, although it would be a bit regressive, I think they should consider making a set number of permits available to each lot (or per acre or similar). That way, incumbent landowners wouldn't have any reason to worry about parking going away--and denser new projects would have to plan on reduced car dependency.
Re: permit parking....I like it in general and don’t know why it’s not more widely utilized in parts of the city. However, after living in a popular Chicago neighborhood I can tell you that even though the # of permits issued is finite, sometimes it would take 20-30 minutes to find a street spot, and sometimes it would be several blocks away. However, that is an extreme example, but it demonstrates that permit parking does not *guarantee* parking spaces for area residents.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4354
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby FISHMANPET » March 9th, 2018, 11:06 pm

I have a hard time believing that even you can be that obtuse.
Come on. Really?

My job is not to serve as an elected official.

If council staff, against the wishes of the elected officials, released this, that would be a leak.

There is no expectation of secrecy, nor should there be, for public officials negotiating policy. Setting aside that this may be damaging to a policy that you all like, the fact that the public is aware of elements of a plan before it becomes a fait accompli is exactly how public engagement on a policy like this should work.

Regardless of whatever nuance the plan may hold, this represents a HUGE change. It should be discussed, and it shouldn't have to wait until the whole plan is wrapped up in a bow.
Are you under the impression that CPED releases the draft and then city council votes on it and that's it? No discussion, no nothing? What's being released later this month is a draft written entirely by staff and not the council, it is essentially not at all a political document at this point. It is not public officials negotiating policy yet, it's completely staff written. Then there's months of public hearings and outreach and debate and modification until it eventually gets adopted.

It's a leak plain and simple. If it was something "urbanists" didn't like it would still be a leak. And considering it's probably Lisa Goodman that leaked it, someone that used to chair CDRS, which gave her a lot of power in housing, who continues to serve on the Zoning & Planning Committee, who is frequently an opponent of development outside downtown, who is known to leak things to this particular reporter, I think it's all relevant and something work discussing.

I'm not sure why you're so determined to not call this a leak, unless you think it shouldn't be a leak because you disagree with the idea? The idea that, since it's a leak of a summary that was given to council, contains no useful information to actually judge the proposal, like how zoning would be changed to accommodate fourplexes (would nothing change but the allowed unit count, would setbacks or height limits or FAR limits change? What would parking requirements be, what design requirements would be required?)

tmart
Union Depot
Posts: 380
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby tmart » March 11th, 2018, 9:35 am


EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2359
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby EOst » March 11th, 2018, 10:17 am

I like that their map of places where zoning prohibits fourplexes includes city parks, apparently because no one bothered to sanity-check the zoning shapefile when they made the map. Not that it makes a huge difference, but...

Image

User avatar
Homewood2009
Metrodome
Posts: 57
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:52 am

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby Homewood2009 » March 11th, 2018, 10:57 am

I grew up in a house in South Mpls, on the 3400 block of 19th avenue. Our block was a mix of single family homes, fourplexes and duplexes the two fourplexes, which were on the other side of the block, were never a problem. The people who lived there were older people, younger couples, or single people. My parents knew the fourplexes were there when they bought the house in 1973, it didn't deter them. There was one duplex that caused repeated problems due to drug dealing and excessive noise, but the neighbors worked together with the police to solve the problem. The fourplexes and duplexes had parking in back, so street parking wasn't really affected.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3966
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Smaller Scale Multi-Family Infill

Postby Silophant » March 11th, 2018, 11:50 am

I like that their map of places where zoning prohibits fourplexes includes city parks, apparently because no one bothered to sanity-check the zoning shapefile when they made the map. Not that it makes a huge difference, but...
No, that's correct. Nothing would be built on them, of course, but the city parks have zoning, and they're mostly zoned R1.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests