Page 2 of 6

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: July 25th, 2012, 4:03 pm
by John
seanrichardryan wrote:No.
Just joking a lttle bit! The Arby's site is my choice for the next big parcel to be developed in Uptown.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: September 28th, 2012, 9:56 pm
by ECtransplant

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: September 29th, 2012, 10:00 am
by min-chi-cbus
Could you please paraphrase the highlights of the article? I don't subscribe!

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 9:56 am
by twincitizen
Passed on consent at the 10/1/12 Planning Commission meeting:
(this means that no one showed up in protest and further discussion was unneccessary so it was moved to the consent calendar, which is usually passed unanimously)

4. 4250 Upton (BZZ-5745, Ward: 13), 4250 and 4264 Upton Ave S (Hilary Dvorak).

A. Variance: Application by Carol Lansing with Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP., on behalf of Mark Dwyer with Linden Hills Redevelopment, LLC, for setback variances along the north and west property lines for decks/balconies that do not meet the dimensional requirements for permitted obstructions of the zoning code for the properties located at 4250 and 4264 Upton Ave S.

Action: The City Planning Commission adopted the findings and approved the variance to reduce the north interior side yard setback from 9 feet to 3 feet for three rooftop terraces and to 6 feet for two balconies with awnings and to reduce the west interior property line from 10 feet to 7 feet for two balconies with awnings and from 9 feet to 5 feet for two rooftop terraces and to 6 feet for two balconies with awnings for the property located at 4250 and 4264 Upton Ave S.

Approved on consent 7-0.

B. Site Plan Review: Application by Carol Lansing with Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP., on behalf of Mark Dwyer with Linden Hills Redevelopment, LLC, for a site plan review for a mixed-use building including 6,052 square feet of commercial space and 18 dwelling units for the properties located at 4250 and 4264 Upton Ave S.

Action: The City Planning Commission adopted the findings and approved the site plan review application for the property located at 4250 and 4264 Upton Ave S subject to the following conditions:

1.Approval of the final site, elevation, landscaping and lighting plans by the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development – Planning Division.

2.All site improvements shall be completed by October 1, 2014, unless extended by the Zoning Administrator, or the permit may be revoked for non-compliance.

3.Landscape materials that reach a minimum height of five feet shall be used to screen the transformer from the public sidewalk along Upton Avenue South.

4.The area between the columns on the northern portion of the first floor west building wall shall be reduced to a length that is less than 25 feet.

Approved on consent 7-0.

Site plan: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 098930.pdf

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 10:12 am
by MNdible
This project is going to look really nice, I think. In the end, maybe this really was the appropriate scale for this development. It's a bummer that the surface parking lot to the north won't get redeveloped, though.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 10:18 am
by PhilmerPhil
I'm gonna miss that Famous Daves... I grew up on that place!

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 10:31 am
by twincitizen
I think it's also pretty likely that it will get built. As an owner-occupied project in a still-recovering housing market, 18 units is pretty realistic. Do owner-occupied projects typically require a certain number of units to be pre-sold before they can get financing?

Even though I typically support just about any proposal for increased density, the original proposal may have been too large for the neighborhood (in footprint only, not height...there are taller buildings nearby).

The real culprit to blame for the demise of the original project was the city's parking requirements. Because the developer wanted to include a restaurant space, the project required a crap-ton of (underground) public parking, which doesn't come cheap. That was the whole reason he was trying to build 5-stories, for the economics to work. Without the restaurant space, the parking demands have come down considerably.

Who knows, this may have been Plan B all along. I hope it gets built. When does that short-sighted NIMBY moratorium expire?

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 10:44 am
by John
This very attractive plan fits the site better than the first proposal. I can't imagine it will not be approved. TEA2 Architects would be a great firm to design more infill projects in downtown and Uptown.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: October 9th, 2012, 11:26 am
by Nathan
I was going to say that I was pleasantly surprised to see TEA2 on the plan! They should totally branch out and do more of these sorts of residential projects!

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 1st, 2012, 11:02 pm
by twincitizen
It's been a month and as far as I can tell, this hasn't gone before the city council.

Which begs the question, when a project only requires minor setback variances like this, does it even need to go before the city council? Or that only when there is a rezoning involved? (Linden Corner 1.0 and Trader Joes come to mind as recent projects that were Planning Comm. approved and City Council denied)

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 7:19 am
by min-chi-cbus
No, it doesn't. I thought I just read an article that touched on the very same point you are making, and for that reason I thought Linden Corner II was a "go" for its 18-unit version.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 11:24 am
by woofner
Any decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed, in which case it will go to the City Council. There doesn't seem to be a standard for the basis of appeal (though the appeal form asks that one be given), but it is expensive - $365 plus cost of postage for notifications to all property owners within 350 feet of the proposal as well as publication in a newspaper.

Linden Corner II seems to not have been appealed, and as mentioned earlier it didn't require rezoning (ROW vacations are the only other thing I can think of that has to go before the council) so it never appeared before the council. Trader Joe's needed rezoning, I don't remember if LC1 did. Both projects would certainly have been appealed regardless.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 11:59 am
by PhilmerPhil
What about the development moratorium here? Does that only apply to projects that require rezoning?

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 12:00 pm
by twincitizen
Thanks. I must've been having a brain fart last night and completely forgot about the appeal process.

I wouldn't take it for granted that LCII wasn't appealed. After reading comments on Southwest Patch articles...I'd say it's actually pretty likely.

There's also the whole developement moratorium thing...I think that goes until March

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 12:34 pm
by MNdible
Depending on the legalese, if LC2 is considered to be a modification to LC1, rather than being an entirely new project, the moratorium wouldn't apply to it since it preceded the moratorium (this would depend on how LC2 sat in the process at the end, and I honestly can't remember how far that went).

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 1:32 pm
by twincitizen
I am almost entirely sure this is a new proposal. Different name and everything. This is actually called 4250 Upton. The Linden Corner name is dead and buried.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 1:52 pm
by woofner
"All appeals shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision." LCII was approved by the PC on Oct 1st, so I think we'd see that in the Z&P agenda by now if it had been appealed.

The moratorium only applies to buildings with an FAR over 1.7 or height greater than the max zoning allows.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 26th, 2012, 3:52 pm
by blobs
I was hoping we'd get a new restaurant in LH. Bummed the original proposal got shut down.

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 27th, 2012, 12:12 pm
by min-chi-cbus
blobs wrote:I was hoping we'd get a new restaurant in LH. Bummed the original proposal got shut down.
Yeah, like an Applebees!

Re: Linden Corner II: The Revenge of Linden Corner

Posted: November 27th, 2012, 1:57 pm
by MNdible
Eatin' good in the neighborhood, my friend.