On 2018 December 7 councilmembers Cam Gordon, Jeremy Schroeder, and Jeremiah Ellison introduced an ordinance to the Minneapolis City Council to amend regulations related to intentional community cluster developments. The amendment allowed a configuration of small dwelling units or rooming units and a common house on a lot. The noted intent is to provide an affordable housing option for residents who are unhoused or housing unstable.
Department of Community Planning and Economic Development staff prepared a report for the City Planning Commission and presented it on 2019 October 21. The report noted the updated comprehensive plan, Minneapolis 2040, also has a policy and specific action step supporting the implementation of intentional community cluster developments, but the effective date of the amendment was prior to the proposed effective date of the comprehensive plan.
While allowing intentional community cluster developments to be built under Minneapolis' zoning code is compatible with the lawsuit-embroiled 2040 plan, it is independent of and prior to that plan. In short, it is one of Minneapolis' best hopes for providing truly affordable housing now.
More information from the CPED staff report:
- Operator: Intentional community cluster developments should be operated by nonprofit organizations, government agencies, or healthcare agencies.
- Lot size: Intentional community cluster developments have a minimum lot area requirement of 10,000 square feet.
- Districts: Intentional community cluster developments are allowed as a conditional use in any zoning district except the industrial districts.
- Density: Intentional community cluster developments may have units that are either dwelling units, rooming units, or a combination of both types.
- Dwelling units include a sleeping area, kitchen and bathroom.
- Rooming units include a sleeping area and do not have to include a kitchen or bathroom but, as proposed, must have a common building on the same property that includes shared facilities.
- CPED staff determined that the minimum number of housing units per intentional community cluster development should be 2, and that the minimum square footage per bed should be as follows:
- A minimum lot area of 650 square feet per bed should be provided in the R1, R1A, R2, and R2B Districts. With a 10,000 square foot lot, this would equal 15 beds.
- A minimum lot area of 325 square feet per bed should be provided in all other districts where intentional community cluster developments are allowed. With a 10,000 square foot lot, this would equal 31 beds.
- Automobile parking: Intentional community cluster developments would not be required to provide off-street parking for
automobiles. - Bicycle Parking: Intentional community cluster developments would be required to provide one bicycle parking stall per four beds. Ninety percent of the bicycle parking should meet the long-term bicycle parking standards of enclosed or secured areas separate and distinct from the dwelling or rooming units.
- Storage: In order to avoid outdoor storage of personal belongings, there should be there should be sufficient storage provided for each resident. Storage would be required to be separate and distinct from dwelling or rooming units and should provide sufficient storage for site maintenance equipment.
- Safety: There should be safe passage from each dwelling or rooming unit to the common building and throughout the site. Walkways would be a minimum of 4 feet wide, well-lit and would connect building entrances to the adjacent public sidewalk. Designers may also want to consider incorporating fencing or screening to provide a secure space for the residents.
- Common space: Consistent with other types of cluster developments, 40% of the land in an intentional community cluster development would be for common space. This would not include the common house. It would include landscaped yards, recreation areas, wetlands, and waterbodies, and common parking facilities.
- Distance between buildings: Buildings should be no less than 10 feet apart to provide adequate space for passage through the buildings.
- Site Plan Review: All units in an intentional community cluster development would be subject to site plan review standards for multifamily structures with 4 or more units.
- Common building: The common building should be at least 500 square feet and should have a minimum width of 18 feet. It should include shared kitchen, toilets, showers, and gathering space for residents. Designers should adhere to regulations in the Housing Maintenance Code and building code. The common building should be the nearest building to the front lot line of the property and should be no more than 200 feet from the doors of every unit within the development. The intent of this is to provide more eyes on the street as well as a gateway onto the site. Designers may apply for alternative compliance if there is an impractical difficulty with placing the common building at the front of the site.
- Dwellings/Rooming units: The dwellings and rooming units would be subject to the current window requirements for residential structures. If there are difficulties meeting the requirements, designers may apply for alternative compliance.
- Rooming units would only be allowed as part of an intentional community cluster development. Minneapolis once allowed rooming units under the single room occupancy (SRO) definition, but SROs were eliminated in the Congregate Living Ordinance from 1999. This ordinance only allowed these types of units to be built as part of supportive housing.
- The minimum gross floor area and widths of dwellings and rooming units in intentional community cluster developments could be smaller than currently allowed if approved by the conditional use permit authorizing the use. Designers must adhere to regulations for habitable rooms in the housing maintenance code and the building code.
- Prefabricated and manufactured structures would be allowed in intentional community cluster developments as approved or permitted by the building code.
- Alterations: Except for minimum lot area, the City Planning Commission would be able approve alternatives to requirements for intentional community cluster developments where strict adherence is impractical because of site location or conditions and the proposed alternative meets the intent of the
requirements.
The report noted the reason for intentional community cluster developments to be allowed:
The purpose of the amendment is to allow innovative housing types and housing programs that address Minneapolis’ need for affordable housing. Intentional community cluster developments will allow nonprofit organizations, government agencies, or healthcare agencies to develop tiny home villages for residents who are either housing stable or unstable. The amendment includes development standards to ensure that the communities will be safe environments for their residents and that they will fit in with the character of their neighborhoods to the extent practical.
And the immediate need:
The current housing situation for lower-income individuals is contributing to a sense of urgency to consider alternative housing arrangements, including some housing models that have not been previously developed in Minneapolis. Allowing intentional community cluster development will provide another affordable housing option for low-income and housing unstable residents.
The report also compared the intentional community cluster development amendment to practices in other cities:
There are multiple cities across the country such as, Olympia, WA, Portland, OR, Austin, TX, Dallas, TX, Madison WI, Seattle, WA, Los Angeles, CA, Syracuse, NY, and many more that allow intentional community cluster developments. Research did not find that other cities refer to these developments as intentional community cluster developments. They are referred to in various terms, such as “County Homeless Encampments,” “Transitional Encampments,” or “Residential Cooperative Villages.” The developments vary in their level of permanency. Some are meant to be temporary developments, but others have permanent dwelling units or permanent rooming units with a common house.
Key takeaways from CPED’s review of these case studies include:
- Quixote Village, Olympia, WA
- It is helpful to have residents sign a code of conduct.
- Houses should be oriented towards common spaces to help foster community interaction.
- Second Wind Cottages, Newfield, NY
- Proximity to amenities and access to transit is important.
- OM Village, Olympia, WA
- Interaction between the residents and neighborhood can help the development gain acceptance. The creation of art on site and the organizations openness to accepting visitors has helped this program succeed.
- Licton Springs, Olympia, WA
- Staffing and programming is extremely important to the success of Intentional Community Cluster Developments.
- These types of shelters should not be in close proximity to areas that are already problematic for drug
use.- Front facing entrances and architectural elements are important to activate the public realm. Common houses should be facing the front street.
- Green space makes the villages more welcoming and a nicer place to be in.
- Residents need ample space for storage.
- The Cottages at Hickory Crossing, Dallas, TX
- Providing shared bicycles can help provide residents an inexpensive transportation option.
We present the above summary of this report because it is a key resource for realizing the potential made possible by intentional community cluster development zoning in Minneapolis. While some of the language is patronizing, there is much here that is useful, and reflects our own experience— proximity to amenities and access to transit is why encampments form in the city and not forests on the outskirts of suburbs; Near North camp furnished bicycles for its residents and neighbors too; Near North camp sought to keep and curate green space, etc. What we find it horrifying that members of our community were directly pleading with CPED to help determine what Near North camp could do to be allowed to survive in Minneapolis as CPED was ordering the camp off of their land. Instead of ever mentioning the opportunity of intentional community cluster developments, let alone offering their land for it, CPED oversaw an expensive and violent expulsion and breaking up of the Near North camp community.
Related content
Fundraiser
