Neighbors protest lack of parking in new townhouses

A rendering of new townhomes slated for 5605 Nicollet Ave. S. Submitted by Wells & Company Architects
A rendering of new townhomes slated for 5605 Nicollet Ave. S. Submitted by Wells & Company Architects

Residents in Windom covered cars with blue tarps in early June to illustrate street parking they anticipate losing to townhomes slated for construction at 5605 Nicollet Ave. S.

Following the community protest, the developer applied for a city variance to approve its design for surface parking.*

Nicollet townhomes 2
Submitted photo

Minneapolis city staff approved plans in March for the Granite Hearth Properties project, which includes six units with two bedrooms per unit.

The approved design has no off-street parking. That complies with new city rules passed last summer that introduced zero minimum parking requirements for new residential projects of 50 units or less located within a quarter-mile of frequent bus service or a half-mile from rail.

City staff said that in this case, the developer’s design for surface parking doesn’t have an adequate drive aisle.

Architect William Wells said he doesn’t agree with that determination. An application for a variance to allow two, three or four parking spaces goes before the city Planning Commission on July 18, he said.

“We’re not looking for an exception to the rule,” he said. “We’re challenging zoning staff’s interpretation of the rule.”

IMG_0044
Submitted photo

Jeff Larson is an attorney who works on immigration law next door to the development. He said street parking is a “finite resource.” Biking isn’t realistic in wintertime, he said, and bus service on Nicollet isn’t adequate to meet the needs of most residents who travel through the metro.

“We’re not that kind of city yet,” he said.

Larson’s office was previously located in Uptown, where he said parking became increasingly difficult. A brochure circulated in the neighborhood said neighbors are not anti-development, but they want to “illustrate the adverse effects of the lopsided use of public space by a single-size residential lot.”

“How many times can you do that in a neighborhood?” Larson said. “…Twelve cars seem to be way over the top.”

Larson said the site previously held a single-family home, which was condemned and leveled.

When Larson bought his office building, 5605 Nicollet came with it. He subdivided the lot and sold 5605 Nicollet last fall under an agreement that new development would consist of no more than 3,500 square feet (approximately a fourplex, he said). But that agreement no longer stands, because the property changed hands again, he said.

Neighbors sent the developer a 90-signature petition, and Larson said he hopes City Hall gets the message about its new parking ordinance.

“What were you thinking?” he said. “Let them respond to the adverse impact this has on this neighborhood.”

Proposed by Council Member Lisa Bender and unanimously approved by the council, the change in parking requirements is designed to make it easier to build more affordable housing, as parking can drive up the cost of construction.

*This story has been updated to note the developer is now applying for a variance to add surface parking.

Browse
  • http://www.wellsandcompanyarchitects.com William Architect

    As the project Architect, I am always interested to hear public opinions. email me at: william@wellsandcompanyarchitects.com

  • mattaudio

    This protest was ridiculous. A group of us have been driving/biking/busing by this intersection at all hours of the day and paying attention to actual parking demand. There’s a surplus of parking here. There is clearly even abundant parking in the photos I’ve seen of the protest.

    What exactly are people against here? It’s certainly not the parking issue.

  • http://thecityspace.wordpress.com/ Rachel Quednau

    An alternative protest idea: Cover several houses and apartment buildings with tarps to symbolize the housing we lose for the sake of building parking lots. What’s more important in this community: Homes for people who need them, or storage for cars? I would hope the former.

  • Minnesota Nice

    I am more concerned by the design of the building. Cookie cutter large box design with way too many different materials on the same facade. The project most likely maxes out the height limitations and dwarfs the single family residence next to it. You see this a lot over by the U of M, but this destroys the fabric of the neighborhood.

  • mattaudio

    There’s actually some work underway to revisit the elements of our zoning code which result in these designs, such as setbacks. Historically, we would have seen walk-up apartment buildings with brick facades, center doorways, flat roofs. But things like Fair Housing Act compliance eliminates the possibility of a split stair to a first floor and a garden level below, and elevators are ridiculously expensive. Another regulation seen on some Turkey Guy developments in Greater Uptown has been the side/rear material demands, which can come at the expense of front facade detail and material choice.

    That said, development has always been a relatively “cookie cutter” affair… The buildings in a particular region in a particular period of time always look a certain way. The secret is to make them improvable over time, so that they get better with age (and investment) rather than worse. The Original Green is a great book by Steve Mouzon that talks about some of these traditions.

  • Alison Perrier

    No kidding. Not only is there plenty of street parking it’s a stone through away from the bus stop and the design has covered gorgeous bike racks that this article left out.

  • JDO1947

    Yea, yea, but think of all that real estate tax the government will get! They can hire more family and friends!

More in Development