2725 University Ave - U Garden Site

[gopherfan]

DJR has plans to redevelop the site https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... aff%20Memo

[Silophant]

The CPC should hold them to the 10-story minimum here. If a 17-story student apartment building can pencil across University, a 10- or 11-story building should pencil here.

[MNdible]

What the city should really hold them to is the sideyard setbacks. It's preposterous to build a residential building with tons of windows only two feet back from the property line. Truly bonkers that anybody would think this is acceptable, but inconsistent decisions from the planning commission have allowed developers to think this might get approved. What happens when the properties on either side want to get redeveloped? Are they going to brick in all of those windows?

[seanrichardryan]

The setbacks are determined by the (non-required) parking more than anything else-

[Silophant]

Yikes, I hadn't noticed that. The residental levels should absolutely step back - hard to say what the post office's future is, but I've gotta imagine that the office building to the west, with its giant surface lot, isn't long for this world.

[rhettcarlson]

Does zoning explicitly call for sideyard setbacks on upper floors of multifamily buildings like this? I think I get what you guys are saying here, but there is definitely precedent for building up to the lot line without setbacks. Look at the 3-building 44 North development kitty corner to this - probably 4-6 feet set back with the U of M owning the land on each side. On one hand, I'm of the thought that the developer that comes after to develop to the left/right will have to design their building accordingly to make it marketable (with enough light). This developer got there first and is maximizing FAR. On the other, it does create a game of Tetris that could make future development less feasible.

[Silophant]

Here's what appears to be the relevant text from the zoning code:

b. Where a side lot line abuts a commercial, industrial, or downtown zoning district, no minimum side yard shall apply, except that a structure shall not be constructed within ten (10) feet of a window facing the shared lot line and serving a residential use on the adjacent property. In such instance where the adjacent use includes a residential window within ten (10) feet of the side lot line, the ten-foot clearance shall also be open to the sky without obstruction above.

It doesn't require the first building to have setbacks for the windows, but does require the next buildings to have a 10-foot setback from any residential windows the first building built, regardless of what the normal setback requirements for the district are. Seems like it would be better to just have a hard "no residential windows within 5' of a property line (except for public ROW) rule. To be clear, I only care about this for the apartment levels. Those first two levels of parking, by all means, I'd prefer them to build right up to the lot line than to have a wierd 3' alley between them and the next building.

[MNdible]

I'm not sure where in the zoning code it's coming from, but per the COW document, they're asking for a reduction from 15' to 2' sideyard setback.

Look at the 3-building 44 North development kitty corner to this - probably 4-6 feet set back with the U of M owning the land on each side. On one hand, I'm of the thought that the developer that comes after to develop to the left/right will have to design their building accordingly to make it marketable (with enough light). This developer got there first and is maximizing FAR. On the other, it does create a game of Tetris that could make future development less feasible.

I'd argue that the development kitty-corner is a great example of why the planning commission ought to enforce the requirements on the books and not allow variances like this. It's just bad urban form. [EDIT: I was actually looking at the recent development immediately south of the site at St. Marys and University.]

And the apparent current thinking of "I built first, so my neighbors can just deal with it" is again a terrible way of building a city. By allowing developers to build so close to the lot line with windows like this, you're allowing one developer to steal the air rights and the developable envelope from their neighboring properties.

Either you develop in true party wall style, with buildings right up to the common property line but with no openings (which is terrible for residential development), or you need to accommodate reasonable sideyard setbacks on your own property.

[drgrant]

The plans say the residential upper portion is set further back than the garage--5'6" and 5'8" versus ~2' for the garage walls.

[phop]

This is on the March 6th planning agenda. CPED is recommending denial of all their variances.