urbanMSP

Soooooo.... funny story. I actually live in one of the units in 2924 Grand and we just came home to an eviction notice due to "illegal building" taped to our front door. Our landlord hasn't contacted us about this yet, but they've never been the proactive type.

There wasn't really any info on the Attorney General's website about getting evicted due to our landlord failing to secure proper zoning (as opposed to us being deadbeat drug dealers who don't pay rent), so I was wondering if any of the resident experts here had any idea of how likely it is we're actually getting kicked to the curb. Are all our appeals exhausted? This place was a pretty good deal and I'm not thrilled about having to go apartment hunting in the middle of winter. If anyone could lend insight I would be very appreciative!

Welcome to the forum. I'll assume you already read our posts pertaining to 2924 Grand on the previous page. Your landlord tried to get a certificate for non-conforming status to operate a triplex on land that was only zoned for a duplex. That effort failed. What they need to do is actually ask for a rezoning of the property, from R2 to R3. Other triplex owners in the area have had (mixed) success at this. Your first step should be to contact Councilmember Lisa Bender's office and bring her up to speed on the situation, regardless of what your landlord decides to do. I hope they do apply for the rezoning. That building is obviously a triplex and has been a triplex for a long time. Myself and others will support the rezoning at the Whittier Alliance.

Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading this forum for a while and was pretty surprised to have our triplex be the topic of discussion. Our landlord emailed us a few hours ago letting us know that they are trying to get the property rezoned.

I would think our landlord has a pretty good case for the rezoning. This building is much more a triplex than some of the places I lived in over by the U, and there are plenty of much larger apartment complexes in the immediate vicinity, but it sounds like the certificate of non-conforming status was denied fairly arbitrarily so it makes me a little nervous.

Perusing yesterday's meeting notes, I came across a gem. There was consent approval of some land sales for construction of single family homes, with this note:

The City Planning Commission also recommends that PPL, GMHC, and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity consider more innovative architectural designs in future rounds.

Perusing yesterday's meeting notes, I came across a gem. There was consent approval of some land sales for construction of single family homes, with this note:

The City Planning Commission also recommends that PPL, GMHC, and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity consider more innovative architectural designs in future rounds.

This sounds like every Jordan housing board meeting verbatim. It's like pulling teeth to get a decent design. PRG on the other hand is awesome.

I thought y'all might find this interesting: 2012 Planning Commission Annual Report

Scan through those projects. Many of them are now complete or nearing completion. Several have still not begun construction (New Xcel HQ, 4250 Upton, Nicollet & 54th mixed use) or have been cancelled outright (3535 Grand)

There's some interesting stats in there with regard to the quantities and types of variances, conditional use permits, etc. Also the percentage of projects that get appealed and the percentage of those that are granted or denied.

Looking forward to the 2013 Annual Report!

P.S.
2011 - http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 091463.pdf
2010 - http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 275126.pdf

Cool. It's was interesting to see project names I didn't recognize, and then realize that they're now complete, but going by a different name. Also, that concept Stadium Village station area plan image is very nice.

2013 Annual Report has been posted: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 122553.pdf (see two posts up for 2010-2012 reports)

A big ol' agenda of stuff passed last night, mostly on consent: http://minneapolismn.gov/meetings/plann ... S1P-128179

Meg Forney (Park Board rep) and Rebecca Gagnon (School Board rep) both voted against the height increase CUP for Linden Crossing. Meg Forney has previously voted against various development proposals. I think Gagnon may have as well. Something to watch in the future, as both will likely continue to serve on the Planning Commission for the next few years.
*EDIT: Oh, I see. Gagnon and Forney both live in Ward 13. Still, I'm fairly sure that Meg Forney is just anti-development.


Anyone know which seat on the Planning Commission is still vacant? I see they are still at 9 (of 10) members. Was Gisselman a Mayoral appointee or did he replace Dan Cohen as Hennepin County's rep?

He was appointed to the at-large county seat by the county board on March 1, 2014. I haven't yet been able to get a read of his view towards development.

so Dan Cohen's term ended with the planning commission? i think that's accurate, not sure. no idea why this trainwreck was the county's representative.

Agenda posted for Monday, August 11: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/meeting ... S1P-129210

Reposting my lil rant from the Theater Garage Marquee Apartments (Frank-Lyn) thread:

Per MRRDC, the two heroes who voted against it were Park Board rep. Meg Forney, who has now solidified her reputation as being against all development, and Ben Gisselman, Hennepin County's rep. My question for him is, was that his personal opinion towards the project, or is he actually representing the county? Lord knows Dan Cohen, his predecessor, was a pure cronyism appointment, and didn't remotely espouse the viewpoint of the county. One would imagine Hennepin County is supportive of development for all the same reasons the city is. If they had serious concerns regarding the ingress/egress onto Lyndale (County Road), that would have been expressed in the staff report.

I really don't think it's right that the Park Board and Hennepin County's reps are up there representing their own personal viewpoints. The whole point of them being there is to represent the bodies they were appointed by. If they're not going to do that, then what's the point of having them on the Planning Commission? Perhaps these appointees should have to be confirmed by the City Council rather than direct appointments by these separate political bodies. These decisions affect the city first and foremost. Look, I'm not mad that someone voted against this particular project. That's fine. It's the reasoning behind it, and generally just how wrong it all feels. If Meg Forney wants to vote against some development, I need to hear exactly how it negatively affects the parks. Same goes for Ben Gisselman and the county and Rebecca Gagnon and the schools.

Agenda for Monday, September 29: http://minneapolismn.gov/meetings/plann ... S1P-131464

Sam Rockwell was appointed to the CPC. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/l ... S1P-147044

So this is a thing

https://twitter.com/nickmagrino/status/ ... 6053541888

Make us proud, Nick!

Huh, seems like he'll do OK, just wish he was a little taller. IMO

Three cheers for Nick!

Who's he representing? City, Residents, County? Inquiring minds want to know.

Looks like he will be the Mayor's representative:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 147773.pdf