On Monday, our land use application was reviewed by the Minneapolis Planning Commission, a body consisting of a 10 member body with Mayor appointees and local government representatives (School, Parks, County, City Council). They are a quasi-judicial body whose aim is to enforce the City's zoning code while also taking into account the goals and aims of the comprehensive plan. We applied for a "cluster development" land use. Although our project feels more like an ADU, because our property is a triplex , we knew right away that our property did not qualify for an ADU land use (only single family and duplex properties can have ADUs in Minneapolis). The cluster development land use interesting turned out to be much more flexible regarding land use (see table below). The only hitch really was on the setbacks. You can see the setbacks for a cluster development are more strict that either an ADU or even for a single family home. For our 24'x28' house (which is 28'x32' exterior dimension due to the thick bale walls), our ~40 ft. lot didn't allow us enough room for the 7 ft. sideyard setbacks on either side. We therefore requested variances of 5 ft. for each the north and south side yards and for the rear yard in order to gain more space between the Strawhouse and the principal structure, the triples. .Having some experience with city policies, we knew a good argument would not be enough. We needed to 1. ground our variance request as much in existing code, ordinances, and goals as possible, and 2. turn out support. The variance request hinged on whether there is a "practical difficulty" that warrants the request. This definition is usually invoked due to weird topography or other things specific to the site. Not being able to find these, staff recommended denial for these variances. So we turned to the Minneapolis 2040 Plan. This plan has strong series of sustainability goals including climate change resilience, energy efficient buildings, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and innovative housing types, among others. We contended we had a practical difficulty because our modest 2-bedroom house of ~1400 sq was out of compliance of the setbacks due to the thick walls (which are designed to be in service of the City's 2040 goals) and that redesigning the interior of the house made certain rooms nonfunctional. Also, a number of neighbors wrote letters in support of the project using these arguments and two even came to testify in person! Having community support added levity to the room and seemed to be helpful to the commissioners in evaluating the variances. In addition, we're thankful that commissioners come from varying backgrounds from architecture to parks to planning, and thus, they could see the value of the need from a variety of perspectives. In the end, the planning commission voted in favor of our variance requests with only one dissenting vote! With the conditional use permit and approved variances, we now move forward with getting a building permit.
0 Comments
|
AuthorKatie Jones and Peter Schmitt chronicle their building adventure. Archives
January 2024
Categories |