Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[David Greene]

Minimum lot size, setbacks, FAR, parking minimums, height limitations, etc really DO limit this type of construction on a lot or two in anything below R4 in our city. Sure, you can get variances or CUPs. But *most* would-be developers maybe don't have the savvy to do that, or would rather not tie up potential investment capital in something as risky or litigious as this (which is where opposition is the problem, not just people complaining at the Planning Commission or in Strib comment sections, but actively filing appeals and delaying projects), and would maybe prefer to just park it somewhere else.

And, as to public opposition/feedback. "Differing opinions make projects better." I don't know you can make the case this is always true, or true to everyone. "Better" is extremely subjective. What's good for the auto-oriented business/landlord is bad for pedestrians. Who is "right"?

Well, that's exactly my point, of course. That's why we need to hear all voices. No one can define "better" to please everyone but we certainly have seen people shift their idea of "better" after feedback and changes. The Nye's proposal is a perfect example. People on this very board have come to like the reduced-height development. Not everyone loves it but overall the neighborhood "opposition" seems to have resulted in a win-win-win.

You make a good point in the first paragraph. Opening up the zoning a bit would tend to reduce the litigation risk of projects, right? It seems like modernizing the zoning code could kill two birds.

[FISHMANPET]

Well, yes. Perhaps it goes without saying that zoning prevents some things from being built in some places, but that's not the same thing as saying that zoning prevents small scale redevelopment from happening.

I'm coming at this from the angle that the city needs to increase intensity of use citywide. If we're going to grow 500k, we need more housing units. If we want cities in general, and ours specifically, to continue to be a place where someone can come from a suburb or outstate or anywhere in the country or anywhere in the world to find a place full of opportunity where they won't be discriminated against or subject to violence based on who they are or be ethnically cleansed, then we need new housing units. If we care at all about the environment, and see that C02 emissions are much lower for city dwellers than non-city dwellers, we need more housing units. If we believe that the greenfield model of suburban development is not financially sustainable, and the only way forward, financially, for our communities, is to densify, we need new housing units.

Opposition often complains about height, and many people seem to decry the six story stick built apartment buildings that have gone up all over Uptown, and wonder why we can't build <whatever housing type they think is preferable and denser than a SFH> but the fact of the matter is pretty much whatever it is, you can't build it, because of zoning. The type of development people say they are open to is not possible under current zoning.

I think the best hope we have of easily adding housing units in our existing neighborhoods is a lot or two at a time, not a half block at a time. But our current zoning code, too focused on number of housing units, and much less so with actual physical scale and character of a building, doesn't really allow a duplex in a neighborhood of single family homes, or a fourplex in a neighborhood with a mix of SFH and duplexes and smaller apartment buildings. With average lot sizes, even R2 zones, which are designed for duplexes, are defacto single family home zones. If you think that all we need in this city is single family homes and six story apartment buildings then the zoning code is working just fine. If you'd like literally any other housing type between those two, not so much.

[FISHMANPET]

Minimum lot size, setbacks, FAR, parking minimums, height limitations, etc really DO limit this type of construction on a lot or two in anything below R4 in our city. Sure, you can get variances or CUPs. But *most* would-be developers maybe don't have the savvy to do that, or would rather not tie up potential investment capital in something as risky or litigious as this (which is where opposition is the problem, not just people complaining at the Planning Commission or in Strib comment sections, but actively filing appeals and delaying projects), and would maybe prefer to just park it somewhere else.

And, as to public opposition/feedback. "Differing opinions make projects better." I don't know you can make the case this is always true, or true to everyone. "Better" is extremely subjective. What's good for the auto-oriented business/landlord is bad for pedestrians. Who is "right"?

Well, that's exactly my point, of course. That's why we need to hear all voices. No one can define "better" to please everyone but we certainly have seen people shift their idea of "better" after feedback and changes. The Nye's proposal is a perfect example. People on this very board have come to like the reduced-height development. Not everyone loves it but overall the neighborhood "opposition" seems to have resulted in a win-win-win.

You make a good point in the first paragraph. Opening up the zoning a bit would tend to reduce the litigation risk of projects, right? It seems like modernizing the zoning code could kill two birds.

There was no legal opposition to Nye's so that's not really relevant to the situation. We're talking about things like the endless array of appeals at the Famous Dave's sight, or the never ending attempts at litigation on this site in particular.

Time is money, whenever there is a step in the process where a citizen that doesn't like what you're doing could delay or derail your project, that costs money. A big developer with deep pockets can handle that. If they move forward on 10 projects, and one of them gets derailed, they can right that off and still move forward on the other 9 and be OK. If a private local small scale developer pools all their capital to build something small, and that single projects get derailed, it could ruin them. If we had a zoning code with much less room for legal wrangling by anyone that can raise $1000, then we'd be much better off. I'd also sincerely hope that a new zoning code was designed with loads and loads of community input, so that we as a city can agree on what we want, and then let people to build it in peace.

[RailBaronYarr]

Well, that's exactly my point, of course. That's why we need to hear all voices. No one can define "better" to please everyone but we certainly have seen people shift their idea of "better" after feedback and changes. The Nye's proposal is a perfect example. People on this very board have come to like the reduced-height development. Not everyone loves it but overall the neighborhood "opposition" seems to have resulted in a win-win-win.

Well, I guess I just don't know that hearing all voices actually results in an all-around win. You bring up the Nye's proposal. I'm not happy with it, but I wasn't willing to die on the pro-tower hill for that site. I don't really feel that the outcome at street level is any better, though the lack of parking podium was a slight win. I doubt the developer sees this as a win over the previous proposal (though I don't know enough about the finances of either to say if the 6-story will net less in total profit). The church likely seriously reduced their damage risk, okay. Are there losses we're not prepared to evaluate (or even will ever be able to)? Will there be spillover demand from the people looking to live in high-end high rise units who drive up rents in other buildings? Will the city get as much property tax base out of the new building? Will some of the people who wanted a high-rise just opt to go build some 4,500 sqft home in Independence and commute in instead? Maybe the focus of your lens defines the Nyes site as a win-win-win. Ask commenter beige_box if it's still a win all around, I'd guess no (in his words no affordable housing units in it, still drives up area commercial rents and may displace what few services cater to low income residents, etc etc).

This Motiv building is turning out really nicely, I doubt many outsiders would disagree. I still would have preferred the original design with a setback 5th story. But do you think all the public feedback and historic designation appeals and everything else made the people who didn't want more apartments and/or genuinely didn't want to lose a historic structure see the outcome as win-win-win?

I guess this shouldn't be a whole thing. But I'm of the opinion that there are very few corners of the city where more market-rate housing like this wouldn't be warranted. I could easily see a Motiv somewhere down near 34th Ave & 50th St on a block of SFHs penciling out, for example. We talk a lot about downtown or the Wedge or St Anthony but forget about all the other places in the city with decent transit/bike access (or, hey, close to a freeway and access to suburban job centers) that could use a 3-4 story building with $1,000/mo 1BR units new construction. If you think R1A and staunch neighborhood opposition to anything disrupting single family character and values keeps them out, ask CM Quincy how safe he thinks his seat would be if he re-zoned a bunch of areas to R4.

[MNdible]

We're really having two different conversations here.

One is whether the underlying zoning in currently SFH neighborhoods is appropriate. The other is whether zoning prevents small scale infill development from happening in areas where the Comp Plan expects it to happen.

My recollection is that the hold-ups that the Motiv project faced had absolutely nothing to do with zoning -- it was neighborhood opposition married to Historic Preservation. And that's not atypical. Zoning is very rarely a major impediment for projects. Projects may request a minor setback variance, or a CUP for modest added height, etc., and they usually get those requests if they're not over-reaching.

If you want to argue that we should unleash the zoning such that larger developments can be plopped down in predominantly SFH neighborhoods (and I know you do), that's a great way to not get elected to the City Council.

[RailBaronYarr]

The other is whether zoning prevents small scale infill development from happening in areas where the Comp Plan expects it to happen.

Zoning is very rarely a major impediment for projects. Projects may request a minor setback variance, or a CUP for modest added height, etc., and they usually get those requests if they're not over-reaching.

If the Comp Plan had the all-seeing eye knowing where a 95% CI of potential residents want to live, and in what style of housing, then I'd agree with you. Reality is, yes zoning is rarely an impediment for proposals we actually see because we don't see anyone come forward asking for a spot-upzone (which is very atypical, highly frowned upon) or the type of variances and CUPs that would allow even a single lot, 3-story, 3-unit building to go up in an R1 district.

I was maybe only tangentially making the case that "underlying zoning in currently SFH neighborhoods is [in]appropriate," by talking about a likely (**in my opinion**) demand for more than SFH in existing neighborhoods. Peter did expand on the why, so sure the conversation went there. But my point was more to make the case that demand is there and zoning does prevent much of it. I'm interested to hear arguments against that (ex. the economics against doing so in Northrop or Hawthorne or Windom or wherever, or an overreach of perceived demand for urban living by many urbanists, etc). I don't think many could make that argument in Whittier or the Wedge or CARAG or Marcy Holmes, but I'm still open to evaluating it as far as policy recommendations go.

And, yeah, I guess the fear of not getting elected to the Council if you supported upzoning SFH neighborhoods to a modest R4 zone (which would likely take 100-200 years to see even 50% housing turnover in a place like Quincy's ward, for example) kinda reinforces my point about neighborhood opposition, doesn't it? The status quo (residents, their views, desires, and priorities for what makes Minneapolis Minneapolis) keeps people that won't support that kind of upzoning, and would be wary of supporting variances/CUPs unless in a designated growth corridor or node. That's the reality on the ground, a stasis of neighborhood opposition, not a project-by-project fight.

[MNdible]

I'd argue that there's a huge difference between a visceral reaction to a project that's being built literally in your back yard, even though it's fully supported by zoning and the Comp Plan, and a general city-wide consensus about maintaining the status quo in SFH neighborhoods.

I concede that there are quite a few close-in neighborhoods (like the Wedge, Whittier, etc.) where things get much messier in this respect, because previous waves of development have thoroughly muddled things.

Gosh it's almost like Lander does really good work and maybe we should make it possible for like 100 other small developers to pop up and build stuff of this scale across the city.

To go back to the original post here, I'll just state the following:

The reasons why there aren't more small scale developments is primarily driven by the finances and the financing, the risk vs. the potential reward, the available land, the fact that most skilled developers would rather focus their time on larger projects, and a number of things that are baked into the building code. Having several friends who have dabbled in small scale developments, I can say anecdotally that the reasons their projects never got out of the ground had everything to do with the above and very little to do with zoning or neighborhood opposition.

I do agree that the recent changes to the parking requirements should make things easier.

[RailBaronYarr]

Mods should move this to economics of housing thread or zoning or whatever, of course.

I'd argue that there's a huge difference between a visceral reaction to a project that's being built literally in your back yard, even though it's fully supported by zoning and the Comp Plan, and a general city-wide consensus about maintaining the status quo in SFH neighborhoods.

I'm not really sure most people could tell you any details about any zoning district. I'm not sure most people participate in Comp Plan updates. I'm not sure most people took part in the initial rollout of zoning in this city, which followed the wave of nearly-identical zoning ordinances enabled by federal law using nation-wide templates. I'm under the impression that, but for a few highly motivated people who participate in Small Area Plan creation, most people only know they like single family homes near other single family homes. And I'm 100% sure that people who want to live in Minneapolis (or people who are clearly comfortable living in pervasive, denser neighborhoods in other cities in our country with equal or even lower average incomes) are represented in that process. And I'm not really sure the people who do all those things above and advocate for the status quo in land-use planning really base their beliefs on things that are defensible or have actual net positive societal outcomes as supported by research. That might just be me. But I'm trying to work within that system anyway and advocate for small, reasonable changes.

I'll buy the anecdotal experience, I even discussed some of the other aspects like building codes, including ADA requirements, etc that all also act as barriers. I'll also concede getting access to financing is a big challenge, but that's more the result of years of large scale and greenfield financing becoming the industry standard & easy to greenlight (along with government programs, regulations around investment, etc that limit options). But I do have a hard time believing that the fact that 85%++ of the lots in Minneapolis being zoned R1, R1A, or R2 has very little to do with it. Over the last 20 years, how many homes in Minneapolis in disrepair but in decent neighborhoods have sold for $100-125k? How many homes have been flipped? If we see 10? 20? ADUs built in the first year of legality despite no history or industry expertise in tiny home building in MSP what does that say about the previous 70 years of zoning?

[MNdible]

If we see 10? 20? ADUs built in the first year of legality despite no history or industry expertise in tiny home building in MSP what does that say about the previous 70 years of zoning?

It would probably tell me that the Streets.mn crew got an itch to build them some ADU's.

Joking.

Anyway. While the bulk of the city may be zoned R1-R2, there are certainly hundreds and hundreds of parcels out there with zoning that would allow redevelopment under their current classification. And occasionally, people give it a shot. Whittier, for example, saw a handful of small developments get proposed and a few built over the last ten years. As far as I know, none of them made any money doing it.

I'm just not convinced that shoe-horning development into SFH neighborhoods is a necessary aspect of making Minneapolis a successful city. I think that we can significantly increase our density by focusing on the locations identified in the Comp Plan, and that this can happily co-exist with lower density (but still respectably dense) SFH areas.

[FISHMANPET]

I fundamentally disagree with that, but I guess that just comes down to values.

To me, that's equivalent to saying "inner city black only schools are good enough why should they come here to our white schools." And you'll probably disagree with that, but that's how I view housing so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What's morally right and what's reasonably possible are two totally different, but I haven't heard a single cognizant defence of why keeping SFH home neighborhoods SFH benefits anybody but the existing SFH homeowners. And I don't think government should exist solely to protect the interests of incumbents.

[Wedgeguy]

To get this thread back to what it is truly about. while walking by today I saw the name of the bricks they are using. The color is Onyx Ironspot with two different textures. One is smooth and the other they call velour. They have one set of scaffolding down on the east side that is showing of the nice brick work pattern that will be repeated under many of the window sets.

[MNdible]

To me, that's equivalent to saying "inner city black only schools are good enough why should they come here to our white schools." And you'll probably disagree with that...

I'd probably disagree with it if I could understand the point you're trying to make with that.

[FISHMANPET]

Because it's government enabled exclusion where all the benefit falls to those doing the excluding and all the harm falls to those being excluded, and I believe access to affordable housing is absolutely a civil rights issue the same way access to education is.

[MNdible]

OK, but...

Just because we should have affordable housing doesn't mean that all housing can/will/should be affordable. Just because you need to add to the supply of housing doesn't mean that you can't have SFH's. Just because you have SFH's doesn't mean that they can't be affordable.

I always get nervous when people decide that they get to choose what's morally right.

[FISHMANPET]

Much like removing parking minimums does not ban the construction of parking, zoning to allow something other than a single family home does not ban single family homes. My problem is not with single family homes, but zoning that prevents construction of any other housing type.

[EOst]

If there were a Minneapolis-wide referendum that endorsed the zoning status quo, would it still be illegitimate?

[FISHMANPET]

If there were a Minneapolis-wide referendum that endorsed discriminating against blacks, would it still be illegitimate?

[FISHMANPET]

Guys these are my morals, they don't have to be yours. But until I see a good defense of exclusionary single family zoning that isn't "well some people like single family homes" I'm gonna continue to point out how ridiculous it is.

[RailBaronYarr]

While the bulk of the city may be zoned R1-R2, there are certainly hundreds and hundreds of parcels out there with zoning that would allow redevelopment under their current classification.

I'm legitimately interested in how many parcels there are zoned R3 or above with something less than what the zoning allows. My guess is there are very few where a duplex or SFH makes it so demolition and rebuild at small-scale infill is financially viable. Even more challenging if you try finding 2 contiguous lots to make it a little easier.

[thatchio]

I'd wager that the lack of small scale redevelopment in Minneapolis is the combination of:
- economics: cost of land, cost of construction, amount of rent or sale price that results in not amazing ROIs.

- codes: mix of zoning and building codes that make it hard to find good land at an affordable price and that allow you to construct building's cost effectively. Issues that come up with small scale redevelopment is complying with ADA (at what point do you have to add an elevator), life safety (at what point do you have to add a sprinkler system), etc.

- opportunity cost: development takes effort and small scale development likely isn't saving you that much time, so what about it is more appealing than going after a bigger development that could likely earn a larger return for a similar effort?

- capital: a lot of institutional money is fueling bigger development. They want big transactions, in part because of opportunity cost of staff time and ease in managing their portfolio. so small scale development needs local money. that's great but you have to find it. If you were selling the units, like condos or townhouses, it may be more viable because there is an element of time that works to some investors favor...buy land, build building, sell building, make profit....get return of and return on investment, quickly.

I can tell you that in Seattle, the townhouse market is on fire. They call them the Seattle Six Pack, six units on a standard lot. In my hood, it's more of a four pack, but they buy a $400-600k house and put four to six $600-800k townhouses on them. Not affordable, but neither were the houses. One can only hope that they're relatively more affordable in 20-40 years. I'd be surprised if this level of small scale redevelopment would be taking place but for the ability to subdivide and the extreme demand for housing in urban neighborhoods where people with $150k HHI can afford to buy. (And if you're from California, you think these prices are a deal.) We rent a 1970s triplex, for comparison.