Page 4 of 7

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: December 4th, 2015, 9:10 am
by MattW
Tom H. wrote:The Bobby & Steve's in EP is actually pretty good, frontage-wise, just in a suburban setting.

https://goo.gl/maps/GUNCnwMhn172
Probably why when you find gas coupons anywhere they're for a very negligible amount, like $0.03 per gallon and a limit of 20 gallons.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: December 4th, 2015, 11:09 pm
by min-chi-cbus
Didn't know that, but "no/low profit" still implies at/above cost.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: December 5th, 2015, 7:58 am
by Wedgeguy
I'm not sure, but that station maybe owned by BP or one of their subsidiaries. IT might be that it is better to have that station open and selling as to have it sitting empty. I'm sure that property taxes and insurance would still have to be paid whether it is open or closed. I doubt they are losing money and with all of the cars that go thru there they have to be making something on the xtra goodies that can be purchased. Better to have a busy station than a slow one.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: December 5th, 2015, 1:09 pm
by MNdible
min-chi-cbus wrote:Didn't know that, but "no/low profit" still implies at/above cost.
Cost, as defined in the statute, includes at least a little bit to cover the costs of actually selling the gasoline:
(3) for purposes of gasoline offered for sale by way of posted price or indicating meter by a retailer, at a retail location where gasoline is dispensed into passenger automobiles and trucks by the consumer, "cost" means the average terminal price on the day, at the terminal from which the most recent supply of gasoline delivered to the retail location was acquired, plus all applicable state and federal excise taxes and fees, plus the lesser of six percent or eight cents.
Emphasis mine.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: April 20th, 2016, 4:48 pm
by RailBaronYarr
There's a rough plan for 3621 Bryant Ave, which was a dumpy older home (the interior needed a lot of help, I remember looking at the pics) for sale on MLS.

http://www.edinarealty.com/homes-for-sa ... -152700971

Perfect location for something like this IMO, crossroads of the 23 and 4, great little commercial node, and on/near decent bike infra. Also, surrounded by 3 story apartment buildings.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: April 20th, 2016, 7:22 pm
by PhilmerPhil
What's the plan?

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: April 21st, 2016, 7:06 am
by RailBaronYarr
Whoops, pasted the same link twice. Nothing more than a front elevation. It apparently needs side yard variances and that's it.

http://files.ctctcdn.com/5ff808a7001/d2 ... 12b354.pdf

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: April 21st, 2016, 7:17 am
by twincitizen
This vacant lot on Colfax is available as well: http://www.edinarealty.com/landlots-for ... -172894825 Just purchased and demolished last summer, owned by some custom home builder.

Zoned R2B, but the properties just to the north are R5, so a change would not be totally out of line. Strangely the apartment building north of this vacant lot seems to have split zoning - half R5, half R2B. Probably just an error/oversight in the zoning code text, or an error in the map.

You could still build a duplex and ADU by right though, correct? (For cost purposes, I'm thinking like an internal ADU, so basically a triplex with a small 3rd unit)

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 6th, 2016, 2:21 pm
by mattaudio
3621 Bryant Appeal, submitted by David Wheeler (Board of Estimate and Taxation member who owns an upper level condo immediately south of this proposal).
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/l ... MSP-181076
Of note, "Renters create far more garbage than owners."

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 6th, 2016, 3:00 pm
by RailBaronYarr
That was a claim made in the 2008 Bryant appeal as well. One of the more bizarre and disprovable claims I've seen.

People are really appealing a 1 ft side yard variance, huh?

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 6th, 2016, 3:12 pm
by mattaudio
Is there a zoning reason why the half fourth level on this needs to be a separate finish? At least it's better than when the pitched roof with front/back gable ends was planned (2008 Bryant is that design too, right?).

What's so wrong with a simple box, with quality materials on the facade frontage? The old walkup condo buildings on either side of this property are plain bricked boxes with flat roofs, and they look great. This would look so much better if massed slightly differently - and possibly cost less too. That said, yeah let's build this.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 6th, 2016, 3:58 pm
by MNdible
5 bedroom floor plans?!

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 6th, 2016, 7:55 pm
by seanrichardryan
Right? And the extra sinks are really weird. It seems to assume that 4 other sinks in the unit will be in use at the same time.
And why even include a 1 car garage for a "4-plex" that could theoretically house 8-16 car-owning adults (or up to 32 illegally.) Why not build a great secure bike storage lockers and have a 4 space lot.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 8:44 am
by mattaudio
Back in college, every dorm room had a sink. Seems like this echoes that living arrangement.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 9:05 am
by RailBaronYarr
I don't think the extra sinks are weird at all. It's not unlike Jack and Jill bathrooms where you have 2 sinks outside the toilet/shower-tub room. Whether these 5 BR units house a bunch of bros, an actual family, or a group of related immigrants, people tend to brush their teeth and shower at similar times. Also, I think we should give the architects credit here that they're offering 3BR and 5BR units (something people typically claim they want - larger units that can house actual families not single 20-somethings), with each bedroom having a closet AND at least one window (right beige_box!?!?). Each unit has access to a small deck for enjoying the outdoors, a bathroom on the main living level (with a bonus shower, which seems unnecessary!), an entry closet, and even a "laundry room." Other than a "second living room" and a yard, this thing has almost everything people expect out of a single family home. And the garage will likely act as bicycle storage (why build just one if that's not its purpose?) - I know I'd rather have my bike right off the alley than down in a basement storage locker.

Just like the Perkins/Levins project at 2008 Bryant, I wish the front materials were higher quality, too. I don't know if it's possible, but maybe in the future they can spruce it up a bit. Or maybe we should just regulate brick facing the street and allow crap materials on the sides and rear so everyone who cares so much can be happy. I just really can't understand the arguments against this thing with a 20-unit apartment building (all 1BRs, with 6 parking spaces) to the north and a 5-unit/10BR condo building (4 parking spaces) to the south. Theoretically, the former could have 40 and the latter 20 car-owning adults (legally!), a 6:1 car:parking ratio.

This is what we're going to get from a design perspective (especially when the project is tearing down an existing structure) until we re-tool the zoning requirements. They're already asking for a 1 ft variance on the side-yard setbacks down to 10', something they likely thought would be easy. The building to the north has, what, a 6-7' side yard setback, and a 4' front setback? I'd say that's a good place to start if we want boxier structures on standard 40-42' wide lots. But even still, when these old brick walkups were built on former farmland with cheap labor and fewer fire/safety/ADA requirements on the inside, it was maybe a bit easier to spend on the brick details out front. My hot take is we all should get comfortable with these somewhat-skinny 4 story buildings in place of run-down single family homes.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 9:44 am
by MNdible
I'm not opposed to a 5 bedroom unit, but the floor plans seem a bit half-baked, and they would seem to not have enough living space for the number of people potentially living in the unit. It's as if the developer told the architect to add a fifth story to the plan, and the architect didn't know what else to do with it so they just added more bedrooms.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 9:54 am
by mattaudio
I lived in a similar-style apartment arrangement in college... actually a four-level apartment, 6 BR 7 BA. First floor had entry/kitchen/living/dining, plus a laundry/half bath. Levels 2/3/4 each had two bedrooms with private bathrooms. Six guys sharing one living room, and it was great. Hugely social.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 10:34 am
by MNdible
mattaudio wrote:Six [college-aged] guys sharing one living room, and it was great. Hugely social.
Funny that the developer didn't lead with this when they were presenting to the neighborhood.

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 10:36 am
by FISHMANPET
I don't know where you're going with your stupid concern trolling but I don't think I've ever seen a part of the city code that says that units that have the ability to house a non-nuclear family are banned.

So what is your point?

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Posted: June 7th, 2016, 10:40 am
by mattaudio
I agree with RBY though, we can't have it both ways. We want units that are larger for families. I'd say 5BR units would fit the bill for some large families. After all the "why can't you just add bedrooms" claim was part of the reason why the CPC denied the rezoning request to add 3rd dwelling inside the existing shell of an existing duplex at 32nd and Portland- it wasn't an unreasonable burden, because that unused attic space could be used for expanding the 2nd floor unit to be a larger double-level unit. Because families!

Also, it's just as common as not for people to use bedrooms for non-bed/sleeping purposes. 5 BR does not necessarily mean 5 bros. How many couples own 2, 3, or 4 bedroom houses where we have multiple used as TV room, office, guest room, etc? How many families would find a 5 bedroom apartment appealing, since you could have bedrooms for kids, a nursery, an office, or an upper-level playroom? This seems like a very flexible arrangement. And something that should be built.