urbanMSP

This passed on the consent agenda. Rainville didn't even bother to show up.

Is it legal to approve a single use building on a parcel that the 2040 plan designates as mandatory mixed use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to the analysis in the staff report, yes, because the underlying zoning of the parcel is R5, which does not allow for commercial uses. If the zoning had been updated to match the comp plan to allow for commercial uses, they would be required to have them, and if the applicant asked for a rezoning to match the comp plan, they would be required to grant it, but the city cannot require the applicant to ask for a rezoning and cannot require a use the zoning does not allow.

Basically, it's another casualty of CPED dragging their feet on the actual primary zoning update, 2.5 years after the comp plan took effect.

According to the analysis in the staff report, yes, because the underlying zoning of the parcel is R5, which does not allow for commercial uses. If the zoning had been updated to match the comp plan to allow for commercial uses, they would be required to have them, and if the applicant asked for a rezoning to match the comp plan, they would be required to grant it, but the city cannot require the applicant to ask for a rezoning and cannot require a use the zoning does not allow.

Basically, it's another casualty of CPED dragging their feet on the actual primary zoning update, 2.5 years after the comp plan took effect.

Well that’s frustrating. Dinkytown desperately needs a grocery store and this would have been the perfect place for one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm out of town so I wasn't able to show up. This building is going to suck. Hold developers to higher standards at this point idk.

the city cannot require the applicant to ask for a rezoning and cannot require a use the zoning does not allow.

It's frustrating that this is "sneaking in" under outdated zoning. And this building is... meh.

That said, I'm still happy to see the huge increase in density this will provide on these parcels, so I'm not sure I'd be willing to kill this project over the lack of an active street frontage. (My impression is that this area will require "active" uses, not necessary retail... but certainly correct me if i'm wrong on that.)

That said, I'm still happy to see the huge increase in density this will provide on these parcels, so I'm not sure I'd be willing to kill this project over the lack of an active street frontage.

Agreed, and I don’t think it would set a good precedent to try to kill a project that is perfectly allowed under the current rules. I just wish the zoning would get updated so this won’t keep happening


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk