urbanMSP

If they spent so much on site acquisition that they need to move higher up on the luxury scale, they'll spend "more" but do it as cheaply as possible. If they save a few bucks on site acquisition costs (not enough to move the needle on the luxury scale) they might put that money into better exterior finishes. As an example see the Grand Ave apartment project where the developers, after seeing costs come in a little lower than expected, went back to CPC to upgrade slightly their exterior materials.

Your example only proves that the developers of the Grand Ave apartment project are good-hearted people who care about the built environment and are also terrible at making money.

Shockingly some of them are!

I don't think we can expect every developer to act 100% in the best interest of the community, to the detriment of their own success, nor do I think we should assume that every developer is going to 100% act in their own self serving interest even if it screws the community.

Yet we can only have one set of regulations to govern the actions of both types of developers. We do have variances, which in a world where everybody acted in good faith, would result in better projects that won't adhere to the exact letter of the law, but will adhere to the intent of the law. Instead variances are seen as "evil" by a certain subset of the population, or at the very least as an opportunity to derail a project. Even if attempts at using this tactic have been largely unsuccessful, it still adds cost and time to projects.

I don't really know what I'm arguing for here, or even what I'm responding to, since this is just a tangent you started by cherry picking a single sentence out of Alex's post.

1. (Most) Developers are going to try to get as much rentable SF as possible.
2. (Most) Devs are going to try to get as many units as possible.

The three story, flat roof, with a door in the center is not a building that works with current code/economics. ADA accessibility prevents the garden level apartments of old. Putting a door in the center is going to chew up too much space for circulation (see item 1 above). Elevators are expensive AF.

As I've said in a million threads, the city needs to provide a MODERN list of acceptable materials that includes high quality metal panels and then give percentages of allowable material types. i.e. Buildings may have x% of Type 1 materials (list of top of the line materials), x% of Type 2 materials, etc. St. Louis Park has material guidelines as such and the beauty of it is that the developer's have a hard time going cheap - if they are required to have 50% stone or full wythe brick veneer because those are the Type 1 materials then they are in a box.

Static setback requirements don't care about whether floor plate/unit plans work or not. It *seems* like variances should exist for "common sense" adherence to the spirit of zoning guidelines. I understand that there is opportunity for litigation/precedent setting when one variance is approved and another is denied, slippery slope etc. I'm not a lawyer but there must be some way to control "slippery slope."

Variance requests are ABSOLUTELY used to deny projects that in every other respect meet zoning code.

As for upzoning, pack a lunch because it's going to be a long wait (never).

Per the always excellent website Nextdoor dot com, there is a proposal brewing for this corner. Lot where the Volunteers of America building still stands and the vacant lot/pit just to its south. Neighbor says the developer communicated 3-4 stores, 41 units, 19 parking spaces accessed by the alleyway. Not on any CPC/COW agenda yet, but the OP said public comments are DUE by April 12 (lol) in advance of a public hearing on April 23. So, I dunno.

It's a good project. Trust me.

Public comment to fill the empty lot pit filled with trash with residential housing units is due by midnight.

I lived across the street at 3611 Bryant in 2013-2014 and the garbage/litter filled pit is a gross mosquito breeding ground. The current commercial building is also pretty ugly. This seems like a massive improvement. Here is the contact information if you want to make a stance:

Hilary Dvorak | Principal City Planner| City of Minneapolis | CPED – Land Use, Design and Preservation
250 South 4th Street | Room 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: 612-673-2639 | Fax: 612-673-2526 | [email protected]
The City's website is now: www.minneapolismn.gov

Wait, is this on a meeting agenda somewhere? I'm not seeing it.

From Nextdoor East Harriet resident, Emily (copied and pasted by me):

NEW DEVELOPMENT at Bryant & 36th -- public comments DUE 4/12!
Hi Neighbors!

Wanted to let you know about a proposed residential development at the old Volunteers of America Senior Center building -- 3612 Bryant Ave S. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE DUE NEXT THURSDAY, APRIL 12th. The public hearing is scheduled for April 23rd at 4:30 PM. All property owners within 350 ft of the development will receive official notice from the city, but I do not believe these have been issued yet (!). This is a fairly large building, so I imagine others may have an interest in the proposal.

Below is what I know about the development, from speaking with the developer (who reached out to me, the adjacent property owner) and with the city planning department:

- It is a residential apartment building with 41 units proposed. The units will be smaller, studio to 1-bedroom style, with rents around the $1500 / mo. rate.

- The building will be 3-4 stories high, with a total height of 48'.

- The development is not required to fulfill the 1 parking spot per unit requirement, as it is a transit corridor. Currently, the plan is to include 19 underground spaces that will be accessed from the alley (mid-block between Bryant and Colfax between 36th and 37th Streets).

- My understanding of the code suggests that they may need permits to increase the height of the development to their desired dimensions, as well as projecting into the side years with proposed balconies.

- The developer is planning to build on the two lots where the Volunteers of America building / parking lot sits now. See attached graphic.

- The developer is hoping to break ground mid to late summer 2018.

As the adjacent property owner, I obviously have thoughts, questions, and concerns about this development, but I will save them for them for public comment.

The principal reason for this post to make sure the neighborhood is aware of this proposal and alert you of the comment period that has a fast approaching deadline (next Thursday), as well as the public hearing on the 23rd. This is the community's chance to weigh in on the immediate and long-term future of our neighborhood / city. Please share this info. as desired / to other stakeholders.

I will continue to post any new information to this thread as I receive it.

Thanks!

This is my neighborhood. I'm surprised by the lack of development. In last year, my rent has increased 16%.

Wished it could be pushed up to the sidewalk, it would better fit neighborhood character.

And now there is a lawsuit: https://www.wedgelive.com/2018/08/neigh ... ts-at.html

As pro development as I am...I can't say I wouldn't be a little upset that my home of however many years was suddenly going to have a 4 story apartment building next door? I think most would...it isn't a surprising reaction...and it isn't as if Bryant is the same as Henn, Lyndale or France, where I would say a home owner shouldn't be as surprised something like this would be built. It looks good to me, just sayin' I think most property owners in the situation would have that reaction, even if they are pro development. Most of a lot of peoples net worth is the equity in their home. So I am not going to hate on every NIMBY like this...plenty of situations where they are ridiculous though, like NE Mpls and Alatus! I will hate on those NIMBYs

If I wanted to maintain the view of a vacant lot next to my property I would purchase it. Also, who forms a flippin' non-profit to fight a development?

Yeah. It's understandable to not be happy about change. Forming an nonprofit to sue the city to attempt to prevent the construction of a building very similar in size to several nearby buildings, including one directly across the street is... too much.

If I wanted to maintain the view of a vacant lot next to my property I would purchase it. Also, who forms a flippin' non-profit to fight a development?

Just for arguments sake... Couldn't you say the same of the developer?

If they want to build a 4 story building on a residential district. They should just purchase the lot next to it and make it a park.

The developer isn't the one trying to control what happens on property they don't own.

and it isn't as if Bryant is the same as Henn, Lyndale or France, where I would say a home owner shouldn't be as surprised something like this would be built.

They live next to an empty lot and there are 3.5-4 story apartments across the alley and across Bryant.

I'm not sure the final form this project took. The height and massing always seemed reasonable. There were a few elements (specifically the balconies opening up onto the sideyard very close to the adjacent properties) that seemed actually bad.