Theater Garage Marquee Apartments - (Franklin & Lyndale)

[twincitizen]

UrbanMSP shout out: It was absolutely fantastic to see David Greene, Wedgeguy, PhilmerPhil, lordmoke, spdcheetah, smorin, Nathan, and Tom (username?) at the meeting tonight.

9 UrbanMSP members at a neighborhood meeting to discuss a development. That is just awesome. As the process moves along and eventually winds up on the Planning Commission agenda, I'd just like to remind everyone to actually email Lisa Bender [email protected] with your comments so that they are in the public record. Showing up (and speaking) is great, but submitting official commentary is even better.

[David Greene]

UrbanMSP shout out: It was absolutely fantastic to see David Greene, Wedgeguy, PhilmerPhil, lordmoke, spdcheetah, smorin, Nathan, and Tom (username?) at the meeting tonight.

Wish I'd had time to say hello to more people. I had a date with a crib.

9 UrbanMSP members at a neighborhood meeting to discuss a development. That is just awesome. As the process moves along and eventually winds up on the Planning Commission agenda, I'd just like to remind everyone to actually email Lisa Bender [email protected] with your comments so that they are in the public record. Showing up (and speaking) is great, but submitting official commentary is even better.

Right on, but I'm not sure such e-mails go into the public record. I think you have to testify at an official public meeting or submit written comments after such a meeting. I'm not familiar with the city process but that's how it works at the state and county levels.

It wouldn't hurt to send a note to the Z&P and/or board members as well if you live in the neighborhood. They do represent us and their input to the process matters.

[Wedgeguy]

I think the drinking remake was made more for the fear of people being able to drink on the roof park, than that there were drunk people at the meeting. I did not know that you could drink alcohol in public parks, if that is true then I learn something new today! My idea on the park thing is to make money for the "EVENTS" that the developer was pushing. I really don't think there will be that many people up using that park besides residences, unless there is an event. Most people will forget that it even exists.

I'll say that next meeting I'd be more for saying why this type of development is good for the city and neighborhood, and not why this particular development is good. We have to help people to remember that they do live in a quarter of a million people city that need to grow so that we reduce external sprawl. As was brought up. This multiuse zoning is for commercial and transit corridors. That zoning is what needed to be brought up and changed at the city level now, more like yesterday.

[FISHMANPET]

So what are the actual problems with this that don't revolve around adding residents? It sounds like there might be some actual potential concerns here.

It'd be nice if this process could just be completely honest. The BANANA crowd can just say their peace and be marginalized, so a developer can have an honest conversation about ways to actually improve the development.

When "concerned" citizens come in with a gigantic laundry lists of broad complains, you can tell they've made up their minds already, and anyone that might have an actually actionable objection just gets lumped into that crowd.

[twincitizen]

When "concerned" citizens come in with a gigantic laundry lists of broad complains, you can tell they've made up their minds already, and anyone that might have an actually actionable objection just gets lumped into that crowd.

I agree with "folks have already made up their minds" and that is probably the most frustrating thing about being an urbanist / person who generally supports development.

I disagree with your second point that the rest of us get lumped into that crowd. There were a number of folks (pretty much every UrbanMSP'er) who began their comments with "I'm generally supportive of this development because of x, but I do have legitimate concerns/suggestions regarding y."

Folks like us showing up does indeed make a difference, especially when it comes to backing our elected officials on this stuff. If you don't think one of the BANANAs is going to challenge Lisa Bender in 2017, well...I'll be damn surprised.

[FISHMANPET]

At this point I don't think I'd know a bad proposal if I saw it, and I'd be afraid to oppose it if I did :/

[Wedgeguy]

One of the biggest complaint is the height and how close the building is to their neighbor. The shadowing thing is always big, the lose of privacy, the BIG BLANK WALL ON THE WEST SIDE was a biggie. Legit concerns, but we can show the same problems living just about anywhere in the city that you will have your house shadowed sometime during the day. One can look at the house next door or across the alley and see people in their houses. The 5 story blank wall is another story that is hard to just shrug off.

[lordmoke]

Some residents also had concerns about the effect of construction on the structural stability of their properties. There were some concerns involving retail tenants as well, but those seemed to stem from a lack of communication with their landlord, Theros (owners of Rudolph's.)

As someone who has never been to something like this before, I have to say it was frighteningly reminiscent of the meetings on Parks and Recreation. Glad to meet several of you there, though.

Also, the guy who made the "Communist" remark was Anders Christensen, the man behind some of the T.P. Healy action.

[RailBaronYarr]

Is a blank wall preferable to a bunch of windows overlooking a back yard? Seems you can't have it both ways on privacy vs. good architecture..

[aeisenberg]

One more note, to echo what others have said, Will Bornstein did a GREAT job handling this meeting. The developer did an awful, no good, very poor job defending himself, and got caught over and over lawyering his responses and exaggerating.

[Wedgeguy]

I guess it is the political world we are in where people feel that they can just throw out insults or insinuations at others. I call it the tea party effect. I felt that one of the board members was having a difficult time containing his frustration, by his face. He was direct to put people on notice to say their names and speak clearly. I'd say he was a veteran of these meeting and has seen much worse.

I'd think a blank wall would be better if privacy is your issue. Shadow issues are always an issue in the city because you are build up next to on another. There are houses in that neighborhood that are separated by a single lane driveway.

[aeisenberg]

We've got our first "Why would we want to have more people in our neighborhood!?"-nimby.

I don't know that I'd call that NIMBY but I get your drift. Some people just don't buy into the Minneapolis 500k thing. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different opinion.

As for everybody drinking, I'm not sure what you meant by that but I don't think the room was anywhere close to of one mind in opposing growing population. BTW, I kicked myself after making my comment that I forgot to mention that I love the development and added population along the Greenway. Oh well.

But some good points so far that should be addressed, such as the proximity to the properties behind the development, and the rooftop space possibly looking onto those yards.

Indeed. Also the noise issue. It's a real concern and I don't know that there's a good way to mitigate it. I'm not saying nix the public "park" but the noise issue at least has to be addressed, even if the answer is, "Sorry, we can't do much about it." The while idea of the rooftop park is just strange to me. I think I might prefer an enclosed space with some balconies. It would be more suitable for communiy meetings and would help reduce the noise. Yep, that would also increase height which would get pushback. As usual, no easy answers.

I also forgot to ask the question about what protection owners have over damage to their buildings during construction. I tried to ask it later but Will cut off the meeting before I had the chance. I did go and ask the developers about it and got the expected answer: litigation. That's really not a very pleasing answer because most people can't afford high-powered lawyers to take on developers when damage happens. To their credit, the developers did explain the different kinds of pile driving techniques, soil evaluation and vibration measurement. They even admitted that while there are engineering standards, "those numbers may not be right." Kudos to them for admitting it.

I tried to be careful about using NIMBY, but that lady was absolutely the epitome. The *definition.* I was stifling laughter. I wish I'd recorded video of her. She deserved the label.

I don't think noise is such a big deal-- it'll be a long way away from houses on Aldrich, not to mention on the other side of a lot of walls.

I'll bet the park goes away.

[Wedgeguy]

I hope that the board members and Lisa Bender has a discussion with the developer/Theros as to what he needs to be bringing to the table next meeting. They were not prepared at all beyond their presentation. You don't get points for dismissing things you don't want to talk about. You have to explain with a smile on your face. By now I'd think this guy would have had some savvy with public speaking in what to say, and how to deliver it. As much as they said there was communication, I had a feeling that the only communication was with city staff and not the community or businesses in the affected area.

I must say that the Chair did a great job at getting to people and their concerns. He did great at keeping it semi respectable. But I wished that when the name calling and such happened he would ask people to refrain, or that they would be asked to leave.

[David Greene]

I think the drinking remake was made more for the fear of people being able to drink on the roof park, than that there were drunk people at the meeting.

Ah. I had interpreted it as, "someone said growth is bad, everyone drinks [the Kool-Aid]."

As someone who has more than his fair share of drunks walking by at 2am carrying on and throwing bottles into his yard, I totally sympathize with fears of alcohol and open spaces near residences. It doesn't bother me *that* much because I live in a city but it is annoying.

[aeisenberg]

I think the drinking remake was made more for the fear of people being able to drink on the roof park, than that there were drunk people at the meeting.

Ah. I had interpreted it as, "someone said growth is bad, everyone drinks [the Kool-Aid]."

As someone who has more than his fair share of drunks walking by at 2am carrying on and throwing bottles into his yard, I totally sympathize with fears of alcohol and open spaces near residences. It doesn't bother me *that* much because I live in a city but it is annoying.

Sorry for the misunderstanding! It was none of those things. I meant that I was watching this meeting and treating it like a drinking game. i.e. Everytime someone makes an argument about traffic, take two drinks.

[David Greene]

Is a blank wall preferable to a bunch of windows overlooking a back yard? Seems you can't have it both ways on privacy vs. good architecture..

This is why I brought up Vancouver (which probably rolled a few eyes). I was really struck when I visted how well buildings of some height integrate into neighborhoods that feel like small communities. These aren't even towers, they're 6-8 story buildings much like the proposed one and they aren't particularly fancy but they way they step back makes them seem fancier than they are. There are absolutely ways to avoid shading and claustrophobia problems. I had no idea before I visted that anything like that was possible. I wish more people enaged in development issues would get around and experience other places and that goes double for developers.

I think it should be a pretty high bar to get a variance to build something like the proposed project three feet from someone's property. If I'm in one of the condo buildings, I can practically touch this thing from my window. That's a little too close for comfort.

EDIT: It's true that some of the existing buildings have small setbacks approaching what the developer wants, but these older buildings are much smaller so they don't create a wall like this project would and being around a century old should be cut some slack and grandfathered.

[twincitizen]

The whole "public" park idea still needs to be addressed (and hopefully abandoned because it's stupid and unworkable). I don't think this is what the City / Park Board had in mind with the newly approved Park Dedication Fee.

For those not up to speed, the developer is proposing a publicly accessible plaza on top of the parking garage (open 7am to 7pm or whatever) in lieu of paying the park dedication fee. Under a very new ordinance, developers must either pay a fee PER UNIT or build a designated amount of open/green space. In what seems to be the first major test of this ordinance, I'm already super skeptical that it is going to have the intended results, or if we'll just get perverse outcomes like this. Personally, if I was living in this apartment building (or owned one of the businesses), I'd be 100% against public access to the rooftop plaza.

Note however, that the rooftop plaza would *not* be used as a rooftop patio for Rudolph's, except for private events. It would not be a Moto-i/Stellas type situation where the rooftop is just an extension of the bar, or so the developer says. I think there would be incredible pressure from Rudolph's in the future to expand it to that use (which is fine with me, but obviously not for the folks living 20 feet away.

And David (and everyone), it's not 3 feet from someone's property, it's 3 feet from their property line. Huge difference, and not that uncommon in urban areas. Of course an ugly blank wall is of concern, but let's make sure we're using the right terminology.

[ECtransplant]

Some still think that the world revolves around cars

In the U.S. the world *does* revolve around cars. People were absolutely correct to point that out. We can't just wish away cars and traffic. I don't know whether this project will make traffic worse, better or be neutral but it's fair to ask the questions and get some studies done. The truth is that Lyndale *is* a nightmare during rush hour and on weekends. The Wedge lot has a lot to do with that so I completely understand people being concerned about another larger parking facility and what it will do to traffic. It's also true that people use Franklin as a reliever for the Hennepin/94 ramp and that it backs up pretty severely at times. Personally I don't really care about traffic but I certainly understand why others are concerned.

This lot is on several major transit routes, within walking distance of downtown in nicer weather, and in one of the State's densest census tracts. People who want cars to be given priority shouldn't be living there

[garfield]

I was not at the meeting, so I'm not sure if he mentioned it (or if it is important), but the developer actually lives in the Wedge. He mentioned that during another meeting when he was proposing the single-story retail project across from the Trader Joe's proposal on 27th and Lyndale.

Master did a lot of stuff during the first construction boom (almost 10 years ago now), but I haven't seen much since then. My surprise about this project is the apartment aspect...he mentioned at that meeting about two years ago that he thought there were too many apartments being built, and thus was not including any residences in that development. Now there are many, many more units that have been built/under construction, but he is proposing a fairly large apartment building.

[twincitizen]

Thanks for bringing that up, I was meaning to mention it. In fact, both employees for Master that presented last night noted that they live in The Wedge.

That's interesting to bring up Gerberding's comments from early 2012, regarding the proposed 1-story retail buildings on the Flanders Bike site (project cancelled when a different buyer emerged for those properties on the east side of Lyndale). I think at that time, the apartment building boom was still just getting started and people weren't sure just how fast these things could fill up. Everything has been trending very positively for Minneapolis (and the broader economy) in the 2 years since, and now it would be foolish to not include apartments. I think everyone can now be happy that neither the suburban-style Trader Joe's or Master Properties retail proposal got built on the 2700 block of Lyndale. What remains unknown is how long the Le family (owner of Lake & Grand Liquors) will hold onto a half-block of blighted/vacant properties just to prevent a competing liquor store from opening (2709-2723 Lyndale, everything between Flanders Bike and Buffalo Exchange).

One final thought about the meeting last night: Boy, that Anders Christensen really thinks he's something special, doesn't he?