Open the City Website in a new tab: https://minneapolis2040.com/implementation/land-use-rezoning-study/
The survey lacks so much. If you looked at the page and just gave up, we don’t blame you. BUT scroll down almost to the bottom and you will see the Section “Feedback & Resources”
Fill out the form. You could say this: The draft recommendations you are proposing do not take into account the holistic view of the future. The zoning changes being considered are experimenting with policy that is untested and lacks evidence it will work. You are not asking the right questions and you are not engaging in good faith.
*Don’t forget to check the box so your responses are saved
If you can bear it, we do invite you to complete the survey about the draft recommendations. There are 15 total questions divided into six parts. We have broken down our suggested response by those six parts providing you with the Question and Question Number. Our suggestions are in bold underneath
Part 1: Urban Neighborhood
Survey question update 2/15/2023.
For properties that have Urban Neighborhood future land use guidance and Built Form Overlay District zoning of Interior 3 or greater, do those properties belong in UN2 or UN3?
You opened this survey on January 12th and already have found confusion. The average person will not be able to consider the differences between Corridor 3 and Interior 3. Do not change, allow more time for engagement.
UN3 should be applied in locations with Urban Neighborhood future land use and non-Interior built form zoning.
Which institutional and civic uses should be allowed in residential areas?
The city quantifies small-scale institutional and semi-public uses. Schools can be large entities. We need more definition of what scale and size really is, so it is clear. It would be useful to have art centers, community gardens, and training centers be added to the list.
Should Transit built form districts allow new dwellings with less than 4 units?
ABSOLUTELY. Transit built form districts are long and vast. This question seems like the City only wants to approve very large developments near transit when in fact there are smaller scaled residential areas already in place near some transit corridors. There needs to be flexibility in building as each area has specific needs and if it is banned unintended consequences are going to arise. Changing everything in a wholesale way invites conflict. Ridership is down, and transit improvements delayed.
What other feedback do you have about Urban Neighborhood zoning?
The urban neighborhood districts should remain as predominantly residential areas. There seems to be a push right now for making everything more efficient and creating “complete neighborhoods” This seems to want to eliminate individual neighborhood appeal. Don’t we want our residents visiting other neighborhoods for their unique resources? Regarding setback, there needs to be setbacks for the comfortability of walkable streets. If the city wants residents to be walking and our streets to be accessible, then large buildings need to be set back along established setbacks. Reducing setbacks to 5-7 feet between buildings and a busy street offer a sense of low security. Setbacks are an important step in making a city livable. One size fits all solutions are problematic.
Part 2: Residential Mixed Use
What types of commercial uses should be allowed in the RM1 Goods and Services District as part of a multi-story mixed use building with residential uses?
There should be limited, low intensity uses allowed in RM1 districts. The entire 2040 plan was predicated on the idea of concentrating commercial uses along corridors. By expanding the range of commercial uses further into residential areas the city is layering different strategies, and this will undermine the corridor strategy. RM1 in a residential goods & services district states “additional commercial uses are allowed when part of a residential mixed use development” However, you are asking residential developers to understand commercial development. There are residential developers and commercial developers, and their expertise is not interchangeable. Even with the use allowed, the goals will not be achieved and ultimately there will be unused commercial spaces in residential buildings because the residential developer will not understand or be able to build the commercial space needed.
What other feedback do you have about Residential Mixed Use zoning?
The city has based a great deal of the 2040 plan on eliminating parking minimums. If the city wants to establish commercial spaces in multi-unit buildings it has to be done in a way the plans for parking and other resources any business will need to thrive and survive. In its current form, the 2040 plan will simply result in lots of 1st floor unused commercial space because local business tenants will not be able to be successful.
Part 3: Commercial Mixed Use
What types of businesses and uses should be allowed in the new commercial mixed use zoning districts?
As stated in your own offered commentary; your goal is to reduce disparities between BIPOC and white residents of Minneapolis but how have you achieved this so far? The City continues to approve cookie cutter buildings with commercial spaces below but these commercial spaces only can be afforded by large corporate chains (think Starbucks, McDonalds). These dynamics do not allow local entrepreneurs the opportunities they need for larger, more unique spaces to create their visions. Look at NE Minneapolis where there are examples of organic business development and affordable housing (1200 artists, up from 30 in 25 years). Newer constructed mixed-use apartments in this neighborhood have only driven the cost of living up.
Which uses will best help to achieve the goal of Complete Neighborhoods while reducing car trips and greenhouse gas emissions?
This is a loaded question and requires an extended amount of time to review the Cities land use plans. Each part of the city and each neighborhood has its own unique assets and challenges. Blanket policies will not help but will only divide. We must accept that not everyone can access their daily needs by walking and biking. We don’t have universal healthcare; we don’t have schools in every neighborhood of our city, we don’t have a strong transit system. We have intense weather at times. 15% of our population is over 60. 24% is under the age of 18. Allowing commercial uses and destinations within Urban Neighborhoods is not necessarily helpful in all neighborhoods. Concentrating large amounts of people on smaller interior zone lots will only increase the amount of gas emissions from delivery vehicles making multiple stops a day to deliver packages and take-out foods.
What types of uses should not be broadly allowed in commercial districts?
Understanding allowed uses in commercial districts would help me answer this question. I believe there needs to be a longer public engagement for this rezoning study.
What other feedback do you have about Commercial Mixed Use zoning?
It will backfire. It is not a diverse plan. Currently 83% of the city is residential and there is less than 3% industrial spaces left in the city, most are in NE Minneapolis Arts District and the proposed zoning changes will be an aggressive attempt by the city to dismantle one of the brightest most positive resource it has to giving the city a sense of place and purpose again. Stop focusing on only residential and be more holistic for the future opportunities.
Part 4: Downtown
Which uses should be considered that address the unique needs of the downtown core, downtown corridors, and downtown neighborhoods?
Corporations have made downtown a soulless place and the North Loop is all about trendy expensive living. There is little evidence that the new zoning is making it an equitable place to live.
What other feedback do you have about Downtown zoning?
Part 5: Production
Which heavy impact (industrial) uses should no longer be allowed in the city?
This should be based on data. What constitutes polluting industries? Asking a citizen to define that is asking us to give the city carte blanche license to do whatever city planners find interesting now. What evidence does the City have today that they are listening to the needs of our BIPOC communities and choosing their human health and environment when making decisions. Give us the list of what are those types of polluting businesses and suggestions of how rezoning would help resolve the issues. What is the city going to do with the buildings they leave behind? Tear them down or reuse them for creative ideas driven by the community.
What other feedback do you have about Production zoning?
There are positive and successful production areas in the City. The northeast Minneapolis Arts District is an example. This area took 18 unused, underutilized or abandoned buildings and over the course of 25 years has created value to the City. The Creative Enterprise zones in St. Paul showcases taking production and old polluting businesses and turning them into productive and positive businesses. The idea of having to rezone are misnomers and are at the heart of the biggest mistake that the city can make in its planning.
The United States is looking to bring home manufacturing from other countries. Work toward preparing and showcasing the opportunities for businesses to relocate to Minneapolis with our assets. By putting housing over opportunities for jobs you are risking the financial wellbeing of the city for the future.
I urge you to extend this review period by at least 6 months to engage and ask better questions.
Comments about specific code sections and chapters are encouraged, we look forward to responding to and incorporating your feedback into the final recommendations.
Zoning Code should be explained from your audience’s perspective, you need to consider ways to make this complex material more accessible and simplistic. This is going to take more time and I urge you to extend this review period by at least 6 months. Do more outreach, explain in simple terms, give examples, bring data to the table and then put out your survey.
