Theater Garage Marquee Apartments - (Franklin & Lyndale)

[seanrichardryan]

Or at least not have a parking ramp pressed up against their windows.

[twincitizen]

Along with just about everyone on this forum, I'm strongly in favor of the development. As Sean continues mentioning, that rear setback variance is the only real issue here. Variances are not to be granted "just because". For sure, the developer has done a lot to improve the project since its original iteration, but the more I've had time to think about it, that 3' rear setback is really bad. Yes, this project looks to be moving forward, and I'm grateful for that, but sometimes I do think that we pro-development folks tend to gloss over the actual issues at stake here. Height is one thing. It is completely allowed by CUP. Variances to building setbacks, especially to interior property lines, are a big deal. If the immediate neighbors had focused on that one issue alone, instead of NIMBY whining about things they can't change, I think they might've actually gotten a better result.

It really boils down to "Can this development still work while increasing that rear setback?" If there is anything at all that can be done to move the parking garage wall further away from the property line, and closer to the required setback, then they should do it. Period. I don't think it's entirely out of the question that we could be headed toward a situation where the City Council grants "partial appeal" and increases that setback even further than the Planning Commission did.

[FISHMANPET]

I'll agree with that, twincitizen. I also get upset when neighbors with a legitimate problem, instead of working to improve that particular aspect, just do everything they can to torpedo a project. I realize NIMBY is a bad word, specifically because it marginalizes the real concerns of citizens, but I feel like in a case like this, someone going "full NIMBY" has buried their reasonable objections under a sea of unreasonable ones as well, and it becomes much easier to just throw the baby out with the bath water.

Put another way, at this point, does anyone think Deanna would work with anybody in good faith to change the rear setbacks and ONLY the rear setbacks?

[MNdible]

I've been a champion of maintaining light and air through appropriate interior setbacks, but I wonder if in this case, the topography of the site, and the height of the garage portion of the building relative to it, might render this issue mostly moot? Not sure, as I haven't seen any building sections that would clarify the point.

[TommyT]

From the MRRD facebook page, the appeal has been filed.

STATEMENT OF REASON FOR APPEAL
August 19, 2014

Deanna E. Hagg appeals all final actions taken by the Planning Commission, in regard to Land Use Applications submitted for the proposed Theatre Garage and Marquee Apartments project, BZZ-6675, at its meeting on August 11, 2014, on the basis that the size, scale, and character of the Applicant’s proposal are inconsistent with the traditional urban form, overall building height, and character-defining features of the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood zoning districts and the buildings along Franklin Avenue.

Additionally, the conditional use permit and variances do not protect the character and stability of residential areas. They do not allow for adequate light, air, or privacy. State fire marshal criteria (Section 503.1.1) states that due to the lack of an access road designed for use with fire apparatus – land and aerial – the new construction prevents convenient access to properties and does not secure the safety of neighboring buildings.

No unique circumstances exist and the variances are based on economic considerations alone.

1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to increase the height of the building from 4 stories/56 feet to 73 feet-6 inches.

The Planning Commission erred in its approval of this Conditional Use Permit because the application failed to meet the required criteria of Section 525.340, for the proposed conditional use, and because the Applicant also failed to meet the criteria for a conditional use permit for increased height, as provided in Section 548.110.

2. VARIANCE to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 15 to 3.5 feet and a
VARIANCE to reduce the south interior side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet.

The Planning Commission erred in its approval of both variances because the Applicant failed to meet the requirements of Chapter 525.500.

3. SITE PLAN REVIEW

The Planning Commission erred in its approval of the site plan for this project, because the Applicant’s Site Plan: 1) fails to conform to all applicable standards of Chapter 530, Site Plan Review; and 2) fails to conform to all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and is not consistent with applicable policies of the comprehensive plan.


A. By approving a conditional use permit for increased height, the Planning Commission is:
1. Ignoring the character of the surrounding buildings, allowing for an unknown future.
2. Adding a conditional use permit above C-2 changes this district to a level rarely seen outside of downtown, used exclusively for hi-rise buildings as an OR3 Institutional Office Residence District. 4 Stories are the standard scale of our zoning code and this will be 6 stories backing against residential buildings.

This conditional use permit will also be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity that will be living in its shadow as Minneapolis is a “winter city” where sunrise and solar rights matter. Especially given that several neighbors have east facing front windows, including my property and the adjacent apartment building.

B. By approving the two variances for setbacks, the Planning Commission will:
1. Alter the essential character of the locality.
2. Cause the rear (west) variance to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties due to the lack of an alley.
3. Jeopardize the safety and welfare of the general public and those utilizing this
property and nearby properties, and will cause difficult fire department access.
4. Place the louver ventilation on the west wall of the parking garage which will be detrimental to the health of those utilizing connecting properties.
5. Promote overcrowding of land.
6. Make maintenance of all properties difficult.

There are no unique circumstances that support the approval of the requested variances; they are based solely on economic concerns.

In summation, I believe that this corner should be developed, but thoughtfully and sustainably. This conditional use permit and these variances do not address the human need for adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to property. Nor do they secure neighboring properties from fire. They do not protect the stability and safety of all affected properties while negatively impacting the health and well-being of area residents. Due to the above reasons the decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed.


The Appellant reserves the right to raise additional issues on appeal.

[ECtransplant]

"Adding a conditional use permit above C-2 changes this district to a level rarely seen outside of downtown, used exclusively for hi-rise buildings as an OR3 Institutional Office Residence District. 4 Stories are the standard scale of our zoning code and this will be 6 stories backing against residential buildings."

People who think 6 stories is a high rise and want to cap buildings outside of downtown at 4 stories should not be living in a city.

[TommyT]

Not only that, but "Rarely seen outside of downtown", I mean, c'mon? Really? Take a look around you and be present to your surroundings, because that's just silly.

[Anton]

I read that gofundme page and it says that this new development will be "within a car length from my windows!" While I'm not intimately familiar with car lengths as standard measurements, it made me wonder what the setbacks of the existing buildings at Franklin and Lyndale are, and what the setbacks on the Aldrich buildings are...were there also variances on all of those projects?

[FISHMANPET]

Currently the corner (the part that would directly abut her property) is just a parking lot, and her building was built over 100 years ago, before zoning was even a thing.

[Anton]

Yes, I didn't phrase that properly - I realize there wasn't zoning as we know it when those were built. I was just curious about how far off the property line the buildings on Aldrich are, and how far off the property line the current theater garage building is.

[FISHMANPET]

Ah, I gotcha. I think someone here did a little looking into the variances required for the building Deana lives in, maybe Alex?

I'm not sure if there's any contention of any part other than her particular building, even though it looks like the building directly to the south of hers is even closer to the property line than hers is.

[twincitizen]

It looks like the date to save is Thursday, September 11 at 9:30am. The Zoning & Planning Committee will be voting on the rezoning from C1 to C2, as well as the appeals by Deanna Hagg of all decisions of the Planning Commission.

There's no agenda available yet, but it should pop up by late next week or early the week of the meeting. I'll post another reminder then to email your councilors in support. If your councilor sits on Z&P Committee, that would be especially helpful (Bender, Goodman, A. Johnson, B. Johnson, Warsame, Reich) as the Z&P decision will almost assuredly be final and non-controversial at the full council.

[kellonathan]

Seems like the proposal has been withdrawn by the developer.

[bubzki2]

Seems like the proposal has been withdrawn by the developer.

Bummer if true. Amazing how much clout a single person can have. Not Always a bad thing I guess, but in this case...

[TommyT]

That would be a bummer for sure. Something really does need to happen with this corner and soon!

[FISHMANPET]

Any source on this? I don't even see rejoicing on the MRRDC Facebook page.

[David Greene]

If it is withdrawn, I wouldn't assume MRRDC has anything to do with it. Master has seemed like kind of a shaky outfit to me, at least on this project. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have the resources to do it.

[MNdible]

Somewhat related to this project, Don Gerberding is failing to impress City Hall.

To David's point, see the link I posted here a couple of pages back.

[twincitizen]

Hopefully the property owner can line up a new developer soon and move forward.

That said, I don't see how it will be substantially different from what was proposed by Master. The district parking was a good idea. Customers of small businesses in the area (mostly to the south and across the street) are using the surface parking spaces today. By adding the extra 60 spaces or whatever it was, it would have formalized that agreement and moved those customers to paid parking.

Yeah, the blank wall and its reduced setback were far from ideal (and the #1 thing I'd change if possible), but I don't know how else you build that parking. Do you need as much public/shared parking as Master proposed? Probably not exactly that much, but it seems pretty clear that parking could not be built underground at this location. I suppose you could lower the unit count, and/or provide fewer dedicated spaces for residents to shave another level off the parking ramp portion. It doesn't seem possible to make the parking ramp design any narrower, however, necessitating that setback variance.

There was a lot to like about this proposal...basically everything except the rear setback variance.

[nerdljos]

Currently the corner (the part that would directly abut her property) is just a parking lot, and her building was built over 100 years ago, before zoning was even a thing.

I have come to understand that LHENA/Deanna Hagg/MRRDC views newer surface lots as more likely to cause crime, whereas old established surface lots are fine and safe places to be, but covering these old, established surface lots can lead to crime because more people would be at the intersection. It's a thing of beauty.

MRRDC's Facebook page is also now stating that they've received official notice that it was withdrawn.